"You Gotta Love It Baby" Official Jazz thread

[Blueintheface]

Tomorrow can't come fast enough.

[wapiti]

I'm not even sure of a good comparison in terms of a guy 6'9" 220-230 who can jump like AG.

Blake Griffin

[Jacob]

Blake Griffin

6'10" 248, dissimilar game/stats

[Jacob]

Since I'm n France and May not be paying attention tomorrow, I'm going on record. Top 5, in order:

1. Parker
2. Exum
3. Wiggins
4.Smart
5. Embiid

I wouldn't be upset if Jazz drafted Randle. Anyone else is a poor pick. Preference is to move up to top 3 pick and get Parker or Exum. I nearly talked myself into Embiid at 3. Jazz can't draft him without knowledge of medical records. In no case move down. Pick up 2nd lottery pick if possible. Anyone on team is tradeable.

[Sizzle]

Blake Griffin

Wrong

[Sizzle]

I think the best we can expect from Wiggins is Paul George, which yes, makes him a top 10 player. But I can also see Gordon being a top 10 player. I'm not even sure of a good comparison in terms of a guy 6'9" 220-230 who can jump like AG. His 35% 3pt from last year is encouraging in terms of his ability to improve the FT shooting.

Seriously? He feels like Andre Kirilenko to me, though maybe less of a head case. I don't think he's the shooter that AK was, which is somewhat scary.

[Jacob]

I'm fairly certain that Gordon will have a better career than Parker. I'm not too concerned about the free throw percentage. There is plenty of precedent for improvement there. Karl Malone was under 50% his rookie year and shot 74% for his career.

As for Wiggins, I'm going to assume that all of these teams trying to trade into the #1 spot know what they are doing. It would be one thing if just one team was offering crazy assets. But there are three or four really good trade options for the Cavs.

Your reasoning in the 2nd paragraph leads to the opposite conclusion you reached in the first...and second.

@chadfordinsider: Sources: If Bucks, Magic, Jazz or Celtics move up to No. 1 — Jabari is their man. If Sixers move up it’s for Wiggins.

[Applejack]

Since I'm n France and May not be paying attention tomorrow, I'm going on record. Top 5, in order:

1. Parker
2. Exum
3. Wiggins
4.Smart
5. Embiid

I wouldn't be upset if Jazz drafted Randle. Anyone else is a poor pick. Preference is to move up to top 3 pick and get Parker or Exum. I nearly talked myself into Embiid at 3. Jazz can't draft him without knowledge of medical records. In no case move down. Pick up 2nd lottery pick if possible. Anyone on team is tradeable.

I would actually be quite happy if the Jazz trade down (assuming they get a valuable asset for their troubles). I'd especially love to trade #5 for #8 or 9 and a later pick. I think this draft's real appeal is the depth - there will be some players taken late first round that turn out to be very good. I think the all non-Jabari/Wiggens picks are just good lottery tickets. I can't tell whether Embiid will be healthy or Vonleh has real stretch 4 potential or Gordon is going to develop a shot or if Randle's foot is OK or if Smart is going to go Artest on everyone. Basically, I think you're just as likely to get an all star at 9 as you are at 5 (or 3 or 4 for that matter).

[Jacob]

I would actually be quite happy if the Jazz trade down (assuming they get a valuable asset for their troubles). I'd especially love to trade #5 for #8 or 9 and a later pick. I think this draft's real appeal is the depth - there will be some players taken late first round that turn out to be very good. I think the all non-Jabari/Wiggens picks are just good lottery tickets. I can't tell whether Embiid will be healthy or Vonleh has real stretch 4 potential or Gordon is going to develop a shot or if Randle's foot is OK or if Smart is going to go Artest on everyone. Basically, I think you're just as likely to get an all star at 9 as you are at 5 (or 3 or 4 for that matter).

Agreeing that the draft is deep, that's just silly. There is no historical precedent. You won't get equal value trading down, unless you just get really, really lucky. That's what you call outsmarting yourself.

[smokymountainrain]

Seriously? He feels like Andre Kirilenko to me, though maybe less of a head case. I don't think he's the shooter that AK was, which is somewhat scary.

I don't disagree with the AK comparison, but he did hit the three at a decent clip last season. His stroke looks okay. Having said that, I can't believe I'm defending Gordon - I don't really even like him a ton. I just think he's the best guy to compare to Wiggins in terms of NBA position, size, length, athleticism and upside.

Also, I agree he's not Griffin. Griffin was a big, strong, low post scorer who owned the glass and scored often in the post. Gordon has the size and game of a SF.

[Jacob]

I would actually be quite happy if the Jazz trade down (assuming they get a valuable asset for their troubles). I'd especially love to trade #5 for #8 or 9 and a later pick. I think this draft's real appeal is the depth - there will be some players taken late first round that turn out to be very good. I think the all non-Jabari/Wiggens picks are just good lottery tickets. I can't tell whether Embiid will be healthy or Vonleh has real stretch 4 potential or Gordon is going to develop a shot or if Randle's foot is OK or if Smart is going to go Artest on everyone. Basically, I think you're just as likely to get an all star at 9 as you are at 5 (or 3 or 4 for that matter).

Agreeing that the draft is deep, that's just silly. There is no historical precedent. You won't get equal value trading down, unless you just get really, really lucky. That's what you call outsmarting yourself.

[wapiti]

Your reasoning in the 2nd paragraph leads to the opposite conclusion you reached in the first...and second.

Chad Ford is a great place to leak misdirection.

[smokymountainrain]

Chad Ford is a great place to leak misdirection.

Yes he his.

[Sizzle]

Agreeing that the draft is deep, that's just silly. There is no historical precedent. You won't get equal value trading down, unless you just get really, really lucky. That's what you call outsmarting yourself.

I'm not going to say "totally wrong" but this article from Grantland today was very interesting, and provides a fair amount of historical context to why trading down may not be a bad move.

http://grantland.com/features/nba-dr...t-repick-1995/

The whole article is worth a read, but the meat of his point is here:

Yup … three of the 2013 draft’s four best assets weren’t top-10 picks. What if I told you this wasn’t an aberration? What if I told you that, other than the no. 1 overall spot, your draft position matters less than we thought? What if I told you that tanking was overrated, and that Philly’s 2014 tanknado masterpiece might have been a waste of time?1 I never fully comprehended this until I combed through every NBA draft since 1995, the first year that high schoolers and one-and-doners started hijacking the process. (Eventually, hard-to-evaulate foreign players would join them.) Then, I re-ranked everyone from those 19 drafts, placing them in the following categories:

• Superduperstar (*****)
• All-Timer (****)
• Franchise Guy (***)
• All-Star (**)
• Quality Starter (*)
• Starter
• Lottery Rotation Guy
• Rotation Guy
• Lottery Whiff (or Possible Lottery Whiff)
• Not Good Enough to Be Mentioned
• Hasheem Thabeet

From there, I tried to answer the following questions …

Question 1: How important was it to get the first overall pick?

That spot yielded two superduperstars (LeBron and Duncan), two all-timers (Howard and Iverson), three franchise guys (Davis, Rose and Griffin) and five All-Stars (Irving, Wall, Yao, Brand and Martin). Three others (Joe Smith, Andrea Bargnani and Andrew Bogut) became quality starters for a few years. Three crapped out: Greg Oden, Kwame Brown and Michael Olowokandi. And it’s too soon to decide on Anthony Bennett, especially if you have a soft spot for undersized, poorly conditioned forwards who suffer from sleep apnea. (I’m a sap, but I still think he’ll be a top-five player from that draft.) The final numbers: In six of the last 19 drafts, the first pick became the best player in his draft. Twelve of 19 times, he became one of the three best picks.

(My conclusion: It’s good to get the no. 1 overall pick. Wow, aren’t you glad I’m here! Hold on, this is about to get more interesting.)

Question 2: Were the no. 2 and no. 3 overall picks sure things?

No! No!!!!!!! Only three no. 2s and three no. 3s became top-three players from their drafts, only 19 percent in all (7-for-38). Our only All-Timer? Durant in 2007. Our only franchise player? Carmelo in 2003. That’s it. For 19 drafts. You had a better chance of drafting a punch line, as the gentlemen who selected Michael Beasley (second), Derrick Williams (second), Thabeet (second), Adam Morrison (third) and Darko Milicic (second) would tell you.

Question 3: Is there any rhyme or reason to landing a superduperstar, franchise player or even an all-timer?

A top-five pick gives you a better chance, just not an overwhelmingly better chance. There were 23 “special” rookies in the past 19 drafts. I put their draft spots in parentheses.

Superduperstars: Duncan (1), LeBron (1), Kobe (13)

All-Timers: Iverson (1), Howard (1), Durant (2), Garnett (5), Wade (5), Nowitzki (9), Nash (15)

Franchise Guys: Griffin (1), A. Davis (1), D. Rose (1), Carmelo (3), C. Paul (4), Westbrook (4), Harden (3), R. Allen (5), Love (5), Curry (7), McGrady (9), P. George (10), Pierce (10)

Good luck finding a pattern: seven of 23 were picked first, nine of 23 were picked 2-through-5, and seven of 23 were picked 6-through-16. Durant and Carmelo were the only sure things. Multiple teams blew it with Paul, Curry, Pierce, Wade and Love.2 Nowitzki and George were high-ceiling prospects who panned out and then some. Kobe, Garnett and T-Mac were undervalued high schoolers. Harden and Allen went in the right spots to the right teams. And Nash … who the heck can figure out what happened with Nash??? He’s probably the one mega-outlier — well, until Tyler Ennis becomes the next post-lottery Canadian point guard to win two MVPs and get his own Grantland series.

Question 4: Is there any rhyme or reason to snaring one of the best three picks in an NBA draft, period?

I know, I know … we’re dealing with a fairly small sample size, and I’m definitely not trying to out-FiveThirtyEight anyone over at FiveThirtyEight. This column is for entertainment purposes only, and really, just a convoluted excuse for me to redraft everyone from 1995 through 2013. But here’s where the best, second-best and third-best players were drafted over the past 19 years.

Best picks: nos. 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 5, 9, 9, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 28
Second-best picks: nos. 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 9, 9, 9, 11, 15, 21, 43, 57
Third-best picks: nos. 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 30, 34, 47, 48

That’s 57 picks in all. Twelve of 57 were drafted first overall; 18 of 57 were drafted 2-through-5; 16 of 57 were drafted 6-through-14; and 10 of 57 were drafted 15th or later. Even if you don’t land a top-five pick, there remains a 40 percent chance of drafting a top-three player. If you don’t get a top-three pick, you maintain about a SIXTY percent chance of landing one of the best three players. But hey, keep tanking your buns off, everybody.

Question 5: What’s the single weirdest anomaly you discovered during this admittedly primitive process that’s bound to enrage people who despise small sample sizes?

The no. 9 pick yielded two “best” picks (Marion and Nowitzki) and three “second-best” picks (Noah, Iguodala and McGrady), a higher final number than the no. 2 and no. 3 overall picks combined. I mean … we’re supposed to make sense of that?

Let’s say you’re running the Jazz, picking fifth on Thursday and feeling confident that Wiggins, Parker, Embiid and Exum won’t be there. You’re looking at Vonleh, Smart, Gordon, Randle and Doug McDermott, who should never go fifth, but you’re the Jazz and you love white guys more than Justin Bieber loves hooking up with backup dancers. Recent history suggests that you have only a 20 percent chance of picking the right guy EVEN WITH THE FIRST CHOICE OF THOSE FIVE GUYS. Actually, it’s just as likely that one of the next three guys (Elfrid Payton, Gary Harris, Nik Stauskas) will become better pros than everyone you’ve been studying so painstakingly.

So, what do you do? As always with these things, I turn to my trusty acronym, WWBBD? And here’s what Bill Belichick would do — he’d play the percentages and trade down. That might not be his strategy every June, but for a loaded draft? He’d try to flip picks with Sacramento (no. 8) or Charlotte (no. 9) for an extra asset, and if that didn’t work, he might even target teams picking in the 10-to-13 range. Then he’d somehow take an incompetent cornerback with the extra draft pick. (Sorry, I had to.) And he would do that because he had studied every draft since 1995 and reacted accordingly.

Having said and posted all of that, I feel that basketball is fundamentally very different than the NFL draft, and that moving down 3 slots in the NBA draft, especially the lottery, is akin to moving down between a half round and a full round in the NFL draft. I also believe the Jazz best bet is to try and move up, especially if they're sold on someone being in the perennial All-Star or greater category. If not, I think picking the player they feel will make the biggest impact at 5 is the best bet, instead of trading down.

[smokymountainrain]

I'm not going to say "totally wrong" but this article from Grantland today was very interesting, and provides a fair amount of historical context to why trading down may not be a bad move.

http://grantland.com/features/nba-dr...t-repick-1995/

The whole article is worth a read, but the meat of his point is here:



Having said and posted all of that, I feel that basketball is fundamentally very different than the NFL draft, and that moving down 3 slots in the NBA draft, especially the lottery, is akin to moving down between a half round and a full round in the NFL draft. I also believe the Jazz best bet is to try and move up, especially if they're sold on someone being in the perennial All-Star or greater category. If not, I think picking the player they feel will make the biggest impact at 5 is the best bet, instead of trading down.

I basically said the same thing earlier in the thread in less words. This is why I wouldn't trade up. Now, I wouldn't trade down, but your post explains why I wouldn't trade up. There isn't a #1 pick in this draft. Parker and Wiggins were supposed to go 2 and 3. This draft's #1 has serious foot and back injuries.