top 5 vs bottom 5. I'll only do 2 years, because I am too lazy to do 10 years.LOL. There is a big difference in talent outside the top 5.
If you think those are busts, then you should compare the other draft ranges. 26-30 and work your way up.
What do you consider a bust ? Most of those players are at minimum starters who are contributing in the league.
Here's an interesting study based on draft picks from 1989-2008(20 years). It uses a raw rating of players based on their combined career avg of rebs+pts+assists/game. 60-85% of 1-5 draft picks averaged at least 20 rebs+pts+asts/game. 25-35% of 6-10 draft picks averaged at least 20 rebs+pts+asts/game. Only half as many players contributed on the same level as 1-5 picks. 5-25% 11-15 draft picks averaged at least 20 rebs+pts+asts/game. Once you get out of the top 10, the % of players putting up numbers drops quickly. Wondering who that lowly outlier star is taken with the #57 pick? That would be Manu Ginobili. He was the only guy drafted in the bottom 10 in the last 20 years to average 20 combined pts+asts+rebs/game. http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm
So the point of the opener is... Zero chance of acquiring a superstar > Solid but not 100% chance of acquiring a superstar. I like your way of thinking... To show just how ridiculously important a top 5 pick is let's assuming you can make a roster from all available Non-top-5 players ever picked and still playing in the NBA. Would that team beat this one? Starters: Dwight Howard Carmelo Anthony Lebron James Dwayne Wade Deron Williams Bench: CP3 Rose Yao Gasol Bosh So IMO, picks #1-5(combined value) >> #6-whatever you want.
What about : Lopez/Bynum/A.Jefferson/M.Gasol Nowitzki/Stoudemire/J.Smith Granger/Pierce/G.Wallace Kobe/J.Johnson/Eliis Nash/Rondo/Parker They could.
2008 Too soon Derick Rose Beasley Mayo Westbrook Love 2007 Durant Horford 2006 LaMarcus Aldridge 2005 Deron Williams Chris Paul 2004 Dwight Howard 2003 LeBron James Carmelo Anthony Chris Bosh Dwyane Wade 2002 Yao Ming 2001 Pau Gasol Jason Richardson 2000 Kenyon Martin In most cases there is maybe 1 or 2 impact players. Maybe that is why some teams suck so long.
Are you talking about right now or in their primes? If you're talking about right now, I can't see how this team is even close to the caliber of the one I put up. If you're talking about in their primes, then you're REALLY reaching back over the years. And I can simply add more top 5 picks from the 90s. Off the top of my head.... there's at least Tim Duncan and KG, and probably several other players. Are you really arguing that there's more superstar talent pick 6 or lower than top 5?
The bottom line is that with a top 5 pick, just about every player on the board is available to you, so whether or not you come away with a star player depends mostly on your scouting and projecting. With a lower pick, its often likely that there aren't any star players left. So yes, it is that great to get a top 5 pick.
your saying that this line up won't beat urs? It's a bunch of ball huggers Nash/joe Johnson Kobe/Gerrard Wallace granger/Pierce nowitsky/j-smooth stoudamire/ al Jefferson
I'd say any pick 15 or higher is good, 10 or higher is really good(save a bad choice like Darko) once you start to get low(19 and lower) it starts to get harder and harder to find good talent. Granted, we've been lcuky because DM is good at that sort of thing. But for most GMs finding solid starters below the 19th pick is like trying to find waldo with a blindfold, you might make a lucky guess and get the right one, but more often then not you'll make the wrong choice.
according to ur theory, ok, then, hey top 5 teams lets all trade down!!! because who cares about top 5 picks when they are not worth it and lets all go to the bottom 1st round!! because apparently they are better for getting good players!!!
Of course you want a top 5 pick! You hold almost all the cards. You have a greater percent chance of drafting the guy YOU WANT, and not just that if you scout and evaluate talent carefully, he'll be a high profile guy from the upper-echelon of players from that class. It's not the player's faults that they get picked in the top 5 and are busts, it's the teams, general managers, coaches fault for misevaluating them. If you have a smart front office, like we do, you want to have a greater range of players to choose from than a smaller one. Also, people behind want to be where your at, and will sometimes pay a premium to get there. If you feel like your guy can be had a few picks down the ladder, trade back and pick up some more pieces. Trading back and still getting your target is much more bountiful to our team, then being on the other end where you have to give up assets to move up just to insure you get your guy
Uh...you're arguing the importance of the top 5 picks right? Excluding LBJ's batch which landed 4 players in your list, Most of the guys you listed represent an entire draft class already. If top 5 picks are really as important as you say they are there should be 50 guys during the past 10 years who are superstar quality players. For example during this draft alone, you only have evans and griffin as star potential guys who were picked in the 1-5 slot. Last year there was only 1 (Rose). Memphis in particular has had the 2nd pick this year and the 3rd pick last year, and the success they are experiencing is more due to a vet acquisition and a 2nd round draftee than their prized lottery picks. Obviously in terms of value the top 1-5 picks outstrip the rest of the draft, that's why they're the top picks lol. However in terms of impact to the franchise they might not be that big a deal which is what the OP is really going on about. You can point at the LBJs and the Rose's, but as far as impact players are concerned there are generally more Beasleys than Horfords in the top 5 picks.
If we had a top5 pick in 06 we would ahve had Roy.. so I'd say yes its worth it having a top5 pick...
Exactly. I think the point is that if we had the 5th pick, Portland wouldnt have him, we would have him.
