The (way too early) 2024 Draft thread. Woo! Tanking!

[DCZards]

Thanks for responding to PIF, Nate. I was going to make almost exactly the same points. You saved me the trouble.

Dame over AD? I’m surprised to see PIF, of all people, prioritizing scoring. Certainly he knows that AD is a dominant rebounder and shotblocker…in addition to averaging just 1 pt. less than Dame over the course of his career.

I was also going to make a similar point regarding teams' ability to evaluate talent. FO's have almost certainly gotten better at judging top talent than they were 15-20 yrs ago…given the amount of stats, film, measurements, and other info that’s now available.

Drafting is still clearly an imperfect science. GM's may not always get the top pick right but typically the best player in the last 6-7 drafts has been among the top 3 picks.

[daSwami]

BTW - Topic is back from injury, it'll be interesting to see how his season plays out. If his jumper is falling he might go #1.

[payitforward]

...Could just say that, by and large, the best player in the draft isn't usually among the first 3 picks. Or, for that matter, in the first 5.

I gotta disagree with a bunch of these, or at least provide some context.

2023 - We do know that Wemby will be the best, barring a major injury. You may not know, but the rest of us do.
2022 - Banchero (#1) or Chet (#2)
2021 - Mobely (#3) or Barnes (#4) or Cade (#1) with a small chance that Green (#2) or Suggs (#5) or Trey Murphy III (#17) move up the ranks.
2020 - Edwards (#1) or Haliburton (#12) Every GM in the league takes Edwards over Maxey right now because of his two-way play. It's not even arguable.
2019 - Morant (#2) or Zion (#1). And even if you want to say Zion hasn't lived up to the hype, it's because of injuries.
2018 - Doncic (#3) or SGA (#11)
2017 - Tatum (#3)

So that's a 7 year run where the top 3 pick was the best, or at least arguably the best player in the draft. 7 straight years! So let's not act like the draft is a random crapshoot. High picks matter....

Of course high picks matter, nate!
& of course there is every reason to predict that Wemby will be a generational player. All the same, let's work with a history of established facts not expectations!

Nor have I ever said that the pick process is a crapshoot -- or, obviously, that it's random. It is, however, imperfect -- & inherently so:

1) the ability to pick is imperfect, obviously, although everyone does their best;
2) the future of any given prospect is uncertain.

Neither of those factors can be eliminated. Period. Nor are they about "basketball" in any particular way. They're true about all examples of taking action in conditions of uncertainty.

That's why, looking at a single well-remembered draft...

Darko Miličić is taken at #2,
Mike Sweetney goes 10 picks before David West.
Reece Gaines goes in the lottery while Boris Diaw, Kendrick Perkins & Josh Howard wait.
Jarvis Hayes goes at 10, while Kyle Korver is picked at 51.
Troy Bell goes mid R1 while Mo Williams is picked in the 2d half of R2
Ndudi Edi hears his name in R1 yet plays only 81 minutes, & R1 pick Žarko Čabarkapa logs a total of 1550 minutes in the league -- while, R2 picks Luke Walton, Steve Blake, Willie Green, Zaza Pachulia, James Jones, Keith Bogans & Matt Bonner combined to play 88 NBA seasons.

All in one draft!

A number of your other points also argue with positions I don't hold. I.e. I agree that jaylen Brown is very good, & Embiid would have been the best player in many many drafts, & Harden is a first ballot HOF player, Rose was terrific, etc.

But nothing eliminates the limitations that are inherent in "knowledge in advance." & nothing eliminates uncertainty on the players' sides as well -- whether of health, character, development, etc. Hence...

...So this idea that the best player in the draft isn't usually in the top 3 is pretty conclusively disproven.
In the last 20 drafts, the top 3 pick was best or at least arguably the best in 12 out of 20 drafts:
2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2012, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2004.

Lets leave out the last 3 drafts as too early to call. But go back 3 further to keep the same number. No in '01, No in '02, yes in '03. Hence, even if your claim were true, it would be 10 out of 20 -- flipping a coin.

But, your claim is not credible:
1. Tyrese is the best player out of the '20 draft.
2. Russ is the best player out of the '08 draft.
3. Dame is clearly better than AD (no shame in that!).

All human actions are taken by imperfect minds in conditions subject to uncertainty. That's why only a few Nobel Prize winners were Harvard undergraduates.

For similar reasons, not many of the best NBA players were picked in the top 3.

Giannis, Jokic, SG-A, Luka, Haliburton, Kawhi, Embiid & Jimmy Butler would be 8 of the names on anyone's list of the 10 best players in the NBA today. A pair of #3 picks. The others taken at 12, 12, 15, 15, 30 & 41.

... there are really only 3 out of 20 drafts where all 3 of the top 3 picks would be considered disappointing....

Fair enough, but you are disproving a claim I would never have made!

Drop it, nate -- -- there's nothing to argue about here, & you know that I have a high regard for your basketball commentary!

[DCZards]

PIF, Dame “clearly better” than AD? Please explain. Because when I read what I consider a wholly misinformed declaration like that I’m inclined to disregard the rest of your claims.

And, please, no more 20 plus year history lessons to prove your point. Those players aren’t even in the NBA any longer. And, as even you acknowledge, a LOT has changed in the evaluation and drafting of players since then.

[payitforward]

Zards -- you make a good point: technology alone has made scouting prospects a far for extensive & granular process. Maybe we really have seen improvements in accuracy the last few years, & if so then maybe that'll continue.

Still, it'll never be possible to remove base-line human uncertainty from the process. & even in the last few years we do see good players picked way too late or even going undrafted.

To take the most obvious examples w/ which you will be familiar -- you in particular -- look at Trayce Jackson-Davis's rookie year! But equally worthy of mention is Keon Ellis, who went undrafted in '22 & played 1000 minutes this year, posting a .63 TS% while showing himself to be an excellent defender.

Obviously there are & always will be tremendous players at the top of the draft -- how not? But it was never my point to deny that fact.

[payitforward]

PIF, Dame “clearly better” than AD? Please explain.....

Truth is... I'm surprised by your skepticism. But it's not worth a debate -- they are obviously both outstanding players.

[DCZards]

PIF, Dame “clearly better” than AD? Please explain.....

Truth is... I'm surprised by your skepticism. But it's not worth a debate -- they are obviously both outstanding players.

I’m REAL skeptical when you claim a 6-2 guard (who is an excellent player) is “clearly better” than a 7 footer who can have a playoff game with 25pts, 23rebs and 6 assists against the reigning NBA champs like AD did last night.

That’s a highly questionable claim you need to back up…if you can.

[payitforward]

Of course you could put it the other way too, couldn't you? It's amazing that a 6'2" guard can have a career with the achievements that Dame has amassed?

In any case, AD is certainly an example of a tremendous basketball player who was taken #1 & proved he was worth the pick -- & more.

edit: OTOH, you're right that "clearly better" was an overstatement on my part.

Meanwhile, Zards, have you seen this: https://www.amazon.com/Notebooks-Sonny-Rollins/dp/1681378264/

Highly recommended!

[doclinkin]

Nor have I ever said that the pick process is a crapshoot -- or, obviously, that it's random. It is, however, imperfect -- & inherently so:

...

...So this idea that the best player in the draft isn't usually in the top 3 is pretty conclusively disproven..

Lets leave out the last 3 drafts as too early to call. But go back 3 further to keep the same number. No in '01, No in '02, yes in '03.

Made the point in another thread but. The argument isn't that the best player is always in the top 3. Yes you will often find exceptions. The thing is for any single pick in the draft, 1-60, the hit rate on successful players is higher towards the top. Successful in terms of production, length of career, etc. Whatever measure of 'success' that you use.

You don't get a choice between 'One Top 3 pick' vs 'The Rest of the Field'. Even trading down for extra picks only nets you a small % chance of grabbing a useful guy with the extra pick. The majority of all 60 picks will fail to stick in the league. Given how rare the resource of a roster spot is, you have to take calculated risks. The best bets are that higher picks will be more likely to produce for you. The exceptions don't negate the statistics. You only get one pick. Not the sum of all guys after that pick. That exercise is only useful for finding something to kick yourself about.

What team do you want: Every player picked at #5 or every player ever picked at #25?

Me I'm taking 5th picks: Vince Carter, Dwayne Wade, Kevin Garnett, Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, Kevin Love, Steve SMith, Mitch Richmond, Trae Young, Moses Malone, Walt Frazier... and many other HOFers

Over the 25th: Quickley, Mo Wagner, Clint Capela, Nico Batum, Tony Allen, Mark Price, and Al Harrington...

(Or even the fluke 15th pick which is better than some picks ahead of it: Giannis, Kawaii, Steve Nash, um... Dell Curry, Al Jefferson, Steven Hunter? But I'm scratching for others.)

Studies show that statistically there is a drop off in overall production the further down the draft you go. Even when they correct for the bias that teams will be more likely to invest in their lottery pick and not quit on them after the 1st contract. The guys at the top tend to produce at a higher level. TEND to. You have to shave the %'s in your favor.

Jokic was the 41st pick in the draft. If you had to field team of every 41st pick ever selected, you'd get Jokic, Cuttino Mobley, and who. Bobby Simmons? Popeye Jones? Otis Smith?

Try that exercise up and down the draft and you will notice that your hit rate increases significantly the closer you get to the top of the draft. Thats where the HOF guys tend to cluster.

It's why my argument is always for trading out more than back. If a team is offering me an asset to move up and take my spot, if I don't see a guy I like at that spot, I'm happy to take their future pick and hope they slip. Teams tend to devalue their future.

Likewise I recognize the strategy in trading up. Nowadays I think I'd prefer to package multiple picks in the same draft to climb up for a guy I know I want. It's a change from how I used to think, since as draftniks we invest time and pixels in trying to find late surprises. It's great when you get a guy. But most surprises don't pan out. I liked Trayce Jackson-Davis. I'll count him as a success. I also really liked Dominic McGuire, and he was never even mediocre in his 5 year career. I'd've done better with my next choice of Marc Gasol.

It won't stop me from looking at the back end of the draft and trying to outsmart the experts. Frankly it is the only thing that can keep me engaged some years when our team is miserable. Still, other than the obvious #1 generational players, landing an MVP player is a fluke. A freak accident. Yes it is the only way to win the whole thing, it seems, but the odds are stacked against it no matter where you pick. So you might as well select from the pool of players who is most likely to produce an all-star. And collect as many chances to land in that group as you can.

[payitforward]

The argument isn't that the best player is always in the top 3. Yes you will often find exceptions. The thing is for any single pick in the draft, 1-60, the hit rate on successful players is higher towards the top...

Sure! That is, if you look at the overall curve you will see that it has a shape which is all that's needed to make the above statement correct.

But... past the #3 pick, the shape of the curve is pretty flat. I.e. look at the history of, say, #14 picks vs. #16 picks vs. #19 picks -- try, using only that data, to draw any meaningful conclusions.

OTOH, as the top 3 overall, for sure, there's a bump -- as I've written many times. Obviously, this doesn't guarantee you get someone good up there, but overall the advantage is present.

...Even trading down for extra picks only nets you a small % chance of grabbing a useful guy with the extra pick. ...

Absolutely correct. & vice versa is true as well. The guy w/ whom you made that trade isn't likely to do any better either!

Yet, virtually every player in the NBA has come into the league via the draft. Even those who don't, guys who were undrafted, we reference w/ respect to the draft. It's a surprise that they make it despite not being drafted.

Moreover, the reason for the limitation you note is not that those better players aren't available; it's that knowing who they are is impossible in advance. Which introduces chance as a factor.

...Given how rare the resource of a roster spot is, you have to take calculated risks. The best bets are that higher picks will be more likely to produce for you. The exceptions don't negate the statistics....

Come on Doc... no one trades 1 higher pick for 1 lower pick!

There is some significant factor of chance involved in every single draft pick. In any such activity, multiple chances improves results.

What team do you want: Every player picked at #5 or every player ever picked at #25?...

Whoa there! Unfair! Let's suppose that the #5 will get you the #10, the #29 & the #58.

Now let's make a team. &, since a team is 15 guys, let's do it out of the last 5 drafts -- say 2018-2022. & we can put off the question of where you get your other 10 guys. & leave position out of it as well

2018 -- you'd get SG-A & so would I. But, I'd also get Jalen Brunson. &... how about Shake Milton for my 3d guy?
2019 -- you'd likely take Darius Garland. I'd take Brandon Clarke & Keldon Johnson. Not sure about #58
2020 -- who would you take at #5, doc? Okongwu? I'd take Tyrese Haliburton, Desmond Bane & Paul Reed.
2021 -- Let's say you'd take Jalen Suggs at #5, which is where he went -- or Giddey, or Franz Wagner. Good pull any of them! In my case, I'm not sure who I'd have grabbed at 10 -- maybe 1 of Sengun, Murphy or Johnson...? Let's say Jalen Johnson. Then Robinson-Earl. & Jericho Sims at 58.
2022 -- Not sure who you grab at 5: maybe Bennedict Mathurin? I take Tari Eason, Andrew Nembhard, & Keon Ellis.

You: SG-A, Darius Garland, Okongwu, Suggs. & Mathurin.
Me: SG-A, Jalen Brunson, Shake Milton, Branden Clarke, Keldon Johnson, Tyrese Haliburton, Desmond Bane, Paul Reed, Jalen Johnson, Jeremiah Robinson-Earl, Jericho Sims, Tari Eason, Andrew Nembhard & Keon Ellis.

QED

[dckingsfan]

I hope these same debates are happening in our FO...

[Kanyewest]

The argument isn't that the best player is always in the top 3. Yes you will often find exceptions. The thing is for any single pick in the draft, 1-60, the hit rate on successful players is higher towards the top...

Sure! That is, if you look at the overall curve you will see that it has a shape which is all that's needed to make the above statement correct.

But... past the #3 pick, the shape of the curve is pretty flat. I.e. look at the history of, say, #14 picks vs. #16 picks vs. #19 picks -- try, using only that data, to draw any meaningful conclusions.

OTOH, as the top 3 overall, for sure, there's a bump -- as I've written many times. Obviously, this doesn't guarantee you get someone good up there, but overall the advantage is present.

...Even trading down for extra picks only nets you a small % chance of grabbing a useful guy with the extra pick. ...

Absolutely correct. & vice versa is true as well. The guy w/ whom you made that trade isn't likely to do any better either!

Yet, virtually every player in the NBA has come into the league via the draft. Even those who don't, guys who were undrafted, we reference w/ respect to the draft. It's a surprise that they make it despite not being drafted.

Moreover, the reason for the limitation you note is not that those better players aren't available; it's that knowing who they are is impossible in advance. Which introduces chance as a factor.

...Given how rare the resource of a roster spot is, you have to take calculated risks. The best bets are that higher picks will be more likely to produce for you. The exceptions don't negate the statistics....

Come on Doc... no one trades 1 higher pick for 1 lower pick!

There is some significant factor of chance involved in every single draft pick. In any such activity, multiple chances improves results.

What team do you want: Every player picked at #5 or every player ever picked at #25?...

Whoa there! Unfair! Let's suppose that the #5 will get you the #10, the #29 & the #58.

Now let's make a team. &, since a team is 15 guys, let's do it out of the last 5 drafts -- say 2018-2022. & we can put off the question of where you get your other 10 guys. & leave position out of it as well

2018 -- you'd get SG-A & so would I. But, I'd also get Jalen Brunson. &... how about Shake Milton for my 3d guy?
2019 -- you'd likely take Darius Garland. I'd take Brandon Clarke & Keldon Johnson. Not sure about #58
2020 -- who would you take at #5, doc? Okongwu? I'd take Tyrese Haliburton, Desmond Bane & Paul Reed.
2021 -- Let's say you'd take Jalen Suggs at #5, which is where he went -- or Giddey, or Franz Wagner. Good pull any of them! In my case, I'm not sure who I'd have grabbed at 10 -- maybe 1 of Sengun, Murphy or Johnson...? Let's say Jalen Johnson. Then Robinson-Earl. & Jericho Sims at 58.
2022 -- Not sure who you grab at 5: maybe Bennedict Mathurin? I take Tari Eason, Andrew Nembhard, & Keon Ellis.

You: SG-A, Darius Garland, Okongwu, Suggs. & Mathurin.
Me: SG-A, Jalen Brunson, Shake Milton, Branden Clarke, Keldon Johnson, Tyrese Haliburton, Desmond Bane, Paul Reed, Jalen Johnson, Jeremiah Robinson-Earl, Jericho Sims, Tari Eason, Andrew Nembhard & Keon Ellis.

QED

Yes there are gems to be had in the 2nd round but it still feels like it is unlikely to find your gem there (at least compared on average to a top 10 pick). Yes there are guys like Jalen Brunson but on average the 33rd pick isn't all that in the NBA Draft https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/33rd-nba-overall-draft-picks. IE just look at the Wizards draft history in the last 25 years, even if you include the guys the Wizards traded away (Jordan Clarkson/Trayce Jackson-Davis), the majority of the Wizards players are found in the first round (Hamilton, Wall, Beal, Porter, Deni). Yeah 2nd rounders outperform some the players like Rui but on average it feels like the 1st round picks do better.

That being said there are instances where I would rather have multiple shots in the draft but that's not always the case.

For instance, the Hawk thought they would be better off with Trae Young and another first instead of just taking Luka and that didn't work out. Interestingly enough there are trades where the opposite is true. It would be curious to see which trades work out better for teams, in recent history.

[doclinkin]

But... past the #3 pick, the shape of the curve is pretty flat. I.e. look at the history of, say, #14 picks vs. #16 picks vs. #19 picks -- try, using only that data, to draw any meaningful conclusions.

The chart that B-ref used to have showed the 2nd steepest drop was after the lotto. And then again in the 2nd round. But that the peak performers in terms of the highest of the high were still generally clustered top 5. That is, in hindsight you can find useful players all throughout the draft, but your better chance of getting an all-star was grouped upwards. If you have a more recent chart I'd love to see it. Link?

The cliffs in the chart (lottery, 2nd round) may be explained by the fact that teams tend to invest more heavily in the improvement of high picks. In terms of game minutes or in patience with their mistakes. Or it could be structural based on contracts. Or even that fan expectations influence roster and play time decisions. But that points to another reason why not to overload a team with too many developmental picks in a given year. You want them to have all the opportunity and not have to decide between a Deni vs Rui situation where neither player gets enough shine to truly grow. But instead the established guy can mentor the newbie coming in. I like a bit of churn at the back end of the roster, but everybody would rather have those no-question hypertalents that show up at the top. Give me an extra chance at that guy in the future years, instead of four more of the maybe's lower down, scrapping for relevance.

The thing that stuns me is how many quality players really do not rise at the next level. Players that are clearly more talented than many of the guys who filled out rosters I watched over the years. The popularity of NBA ball around the world has deepened the talent pool. Improved skill levels. Players like Curry and Jokic have encouraged the growth of skillsets that were rarely seen before (ridiculous outside range, or multi-tooled Big man play). And frankly simply having more human beings on Earth means the best of the best have grown beyond what was possible before.

Its why it galls me that the G-League is as generally bad as it is. I wish we could have a true minor league system, where every team had depth out to the last man on the G-bench. Guys like Robbie Avila are fun as anything to watch at the college level, and I'd love to be able to follow them after graduation, but instead they try Europe or China and then get real jobs somewhere. The old CBA basketball league used to have some 10 year lifers grinding away, and built some teams with veterans etc.

I'm happy the NCAA is now becoming an incubator for actual basketball skills. Especially with Bigs. The fact that guys can season a bit before coming to the league means we may get fewer flame-outs of hypertalents who never learn how to actually play. It should also mean that the league gets even tougher to carve a role for yourself.

Us draft addicts naturally would love to see the players we like get a real chance to make an impact, if the GLeague didn't have selfish play and poor pay and short careers maybe there would be less of a stigma, and less of a culture where players gun for flashy stats hoping to get noticed, but put in AAU level effort on defense. There's too much money coming in for the NBA to really neglect their feeder league. Seems to me there's an opportunity there if the NBA and the Union could agree on a way to make it generally better and not seen as a demotion if a veteran took a few rehab games at the lower level, to pass on their wisdom to the cats on the bench.

[doclinkin]

Oh and:

Come on Doc... no one trades 1 higher pick for 1 lower pick!

Not my argument. Mine is okay trade back in this draft, but instead of a haul of many lower picks in this draft, pick up one plus future picks in a future draft. Trade fewer picks for lighter protection. And pick swaps. Because those lower picks now are guaranteed to be lower, duh, but future picks have a chance to be higher up in the cluster of sweetest grapes. Play the long game instead of gimmegimme right now! Spread out your chances to drafts that may have greater talent. Then yeah, hope to live long enough to see it all pan out

Oh and this is the search tool I've used for finding picks by draft position if anyone wants to grind through it.

https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/draft/search

Seems to me if you could get the 5th and 15th pick in every draft, you'd be doing great. Many of the best the flukes and anomalies seem to cluster there.

[payitforward]

Yes there are gems to be had in the 2nd round but it still feels like it is unlikely to find your gem there (at least compared on average to a top 10 pick)....

Of course! You are 100% correct -- how could it be otherwise?

But, that's not the question.

In general, would you rather have the #6 pick, or would you rather have the #7 pick? Well, obviously, you'd rather have the #6 pick -- duh!

OTOH, would you rather have the #6 pick, or would you rather have the #7 pick & the #8 pick? Well, in general you'd be delighted to have 7 & 8 rather than just have 6 alone.

The point is simple: there is some irreducible element of chance in any situation like the NBA draft (& a zillion other situations). A higher pick may be more likely to get you a good player, but it's no guarantee!

The best weapon against chance is to have an extra try: I'm a lot more likely to flip heads if you give me 3 tries than if you give me only a single one!

So the question of multiple lower picks vs. a single higher pick comes down to the question of what the deal is that's on offer. & every such situation requires thought & a decision one way or the other.

Yet, despite that fact, over time the market determines rough valuations -- which is why Kevin Pelton's breakdown is of some use in thinking about a particular situation: not to say that it's the automatic decision-making matrix -- hell no.

...there are instances where I would rather have multiple shots in the draft but that's not always the case....

Suppose a team came to you & said, "listen, we just don't want to use our #27 pick this year: we'll sell it to you for $100."
Please describe the occasion on which you respond by saying, "nah... we'll just keep the hundred bucks." You always want more picks!

...For instance, the Hawk thought they would be better off with Trae Young and another first instead of just taking Luka and that didn't work out. Interestingly enough there are trades where the opposite is true. It would be curious to see which trades work out better for teams, in recent history.

Correct. Some trades work better for one team; some work better for the other team. But, for every trade down that didn't work well, there's another trade down that worked great. & for every trade up that worked well there's another trade up that didn't work well at all.

We had the #19 pick in 2015; we swapped it (along with a R2 pick in the same draft) for the #15 pick, which we used to take Kelly Oubre. Later we traded Oubre for, in effect, nothing whatever (the expiring contract of Trevor Ariza).

If we'd kept that # 19 pick, we could have used it to take Delon Wright, or Bobby Portis, or RH-J, or Tyus Jones, or Larry Nance Jr., or Kevon Looney -- all of whom have had way better careers than Oubre. Not to mention that we'd have had another pick to use (the R2 pick we also gave) or to trade in a different deal.

Really, this whole subject is kind of silly. There's a market price for every pick, just as there is for anything else that can be bought or sold.

[payitforward]

Oh and:

Come on Doc... no one trades 1 higher pick for 1 lower pick!

Not my argument. Mine is okay trade back in this draft, but instead of a haul of many lower picks in this draft, pick up one plus future picks in a future draft. Trade fewer picks for lighter protection. And pick swaps. Because those lower picks now are guaranteed to be lower, duh, but future picks have a chance to be higher up in the cluster of sweetest grapes. Play the long game instead of gimmegimme right now! Spread out your chances to drafts that may have greater talent. Then yeah, hope to live long enough to see it all pan out

Sure. Why not.

Seems to me if you could get the 5th and 15th pick in every draft, you'd be doing great. Many of the best the flukes and anomalies seem to cluster there.

If you believe Pelton's chart, you might get 5, 15, & 29 for 1.

[Dat2U]

Its not a perfect exercise but I figured a layout of where high quality starters were drafted would provide some additional insight to an old discussion. I only looked at active players. A mix of the best current players in high leverage roles and guys that have had long successful career as a starter. I'm sure low minute role players and 7th/8th men in the rotation are important but weren't relevant to deternining where difference makers can be found in the draft.

28 out of 80 players are found in the first 4th picks of the draft.

Half (40 out of 80) are in the first 7 picks.

6 guys in the 2nd rd and one undrafted.

1st (pick)
2003 F LeBron James
2011 G Kyrie Irving
2012 C Anthony Davis
2015 F Karl-Anthony Towns
2019 F Zion Williamson
2020 G Anthony Edwards
2022 F Paolo Banchero
2023 C Victor Wembanyama

2nd
2007 F Kevin Durant
2016 F Brandon Ingram
2019 G Ja Morant
2020 C Chet Holmgren

3rd
2007 C Al Horford
2009 G James Harden
2012 G Bradley Beal
2014 C Joel Embiid
2016 F Jaylen Brown
2017 F Jayson Tatum
2018 G Luka Doncic
2020 G LaMelo Ball
2021 F Evan Mobley

4th
2005 G Chris Paul
2007 G Mike Conley Jr
2008 G Russell Westbrook
2014 F Aaron Gordon
2015 C Kristaps Porzingis
2018 F Jaren Jackson Jr
2021 F Scottie Barnes
2022 F Keegan Murray

5th
2008 F Kevin Love
2017 G De'Aaron Fox
2018 G Trae Young
2019 G Darius Garland

6th
2012 G Damian Lillard
2014 G Marcus Smart

7th
2009 G Stephen Curry
2014 F Julius Randle
2016 G Jamal Murray
2017 F Lauri Markkanen
2018 C Wendell Carter Jr

8th
2021 F Franz Wagner

9th
2009 F DeMar DeRozan

10th
2008 C Brook Lopez
2010 F Paul George
2013 G C.J. McCollum
2018 F Mikal Bridges

11th
2011 G Klay Thompson
2015 C Myles Turner
2016 C Domantas Sabonis
2018 G Shai Gilgeous-Alexander

12th
2020 G Tyrese Haliburton
2022 G Jalen Williams

13th
2014 G Zach LaVine
2015 G Devin Booker
2017 G Donovan Mitchell

14th
2017 C Bam Adebayo

15th
2011 F Kawhi Leonard
2013 F Giannis Antetokounmpo

16th
2021 C Alperen Sengun

17th
2009 G Jrue Holiday
2021 F Trey Murphy III

21st
2020 G Tyrese Maxey

22nd
2017 C Jarrett Allen

23rd
2017 F O.G. Anunoby

24th
2006 G Kyle Lowry

25th
2014 C Clint Capela
2020 G Immanuel Quickley

27th
2013 C Rudy Gobert
2017 F Pascal Siakam

29th
2016 G Dejounte Murray
2017 G Derrick White

30th
2011 F Jimmy Butler
2020 G Desmond Bane

33rd
2018 G Jalen Brunson

35th
2012 F Draymond Green
2021 G Hebert Jones

36th
2016 G Malcolm Brogdon

39th
2012 F Khris Middleton

41st
2014 C Nikola Jokic

Undrafted
2016 G Fred VanVleet

[penbeast0]

No one at the 18-20, 26, 28 spots, only 1 late 2nd, only 1 undrafted player. So, higher draft pick are much better (even though not a guarantee) assuming your player evaluation is reasonable.

[doclinkin]

Oh and:

Come on Doc... no one trades 1 higher pick for 1 lower pick!

Not my argument. Mine is okay trade back in this draft, but instead of a haul of many lower picks in this draft, pick up one plus future picks in a future draft. Trade fewer picks for lighter protection. And pick swaps. Because those lower picks now are guaranteed to be lower, duh, but future picks have a chance to be higher up in the cluster of sweetest grapes. Play the long game instead of gimmegimme right now! Spread out your chances to drafts that may have greater talent. Then yeah, hope to live long enough to see it all pan out

Sure. Why not.

Seems to me if you could get the 5th and 15th pick in every draft, you'd be doing great. Many of the best the flukes and anomalies seem to cluster there.

If you believe Pelton's chart, you might get 5, 15, & 29 for 1.

Depending on the year, I'd rather get 5, 15 and a chance at a future 15.

IIRC Pelton's chart was based on the value of the expected production from that position though. Ultimately if you can get the production of 5+15+29 from a single guy, you'd rather have that, since you can only play 5 guys at a time.

[The Consiglieri]

More and more I think Holland is the pick for us. Quick first step, good lateral quickness, high motor on D, strong leaper, very young. He’s a developmental pick for sure, which may scare some teams away, but we have time. I’m actually surprised people are so down on him as a prospect in a weak draft class. He also seems like a Dawkins/Winger guy combining a strong work ethic with a impressive physical profile

Seems unlikely unless we get totally hosed in the lottery, which does happen a lot. Just strolling through mocks aggregator style, he's always going either at slot in our worst case lottery scenario or later. Just doesn't seem a guy likely to go at the top of the draft, more in the 5-12 zone.