How good are Tatum and Brown in perspective?

[nickagneta]

Funny thing about the Russell/Ingram tandem...they only played one year together and didn't become All-Stars until after leaving the Lakers.

Still can not believe that Ingram is an All-Star and Devin Booker isn't? Yeah, yeah, positions matter..but still?

[Sophomore]

They stack up incredibly well. Both players are having all-star caliber seasons, its not common for to draft two such players in a row. The fact that both are doing so on a team that profiles as a contender and is going to win 50+ games is even more impressive.

Only the OKC/PHI examples are similar if you extend the window to a 3 year one instead of a strict back to back.

But Danny Ainge can't draft! This can't be true.

[jambr380]

There isn't really an argument that D'Lo and Ingram are better than Tatum and Brown because of total All-Star selections, is there? D'Lo was just traded for Andrew Wiggins - imagine this place if we just traded Brown for Wiggins.

Also, Ingram is working out well in NO, but Tatum was always the prize for the Pelicans (as evidenced by their desire to wait until the offseason to deal AD). I can't imagine many GMs would choose Ingram over Tatum if given the opportunity.

[MichiganAdam]

Perspective is important.  Tatum and Brown are averaging 20 points/game on a team with another 20 pt scorer and a 4th guy at 17/gm.  ON a bad team each would likely be scoring 30/gm if they were the sole stars.  Much tougher to average 20 on a team that is 1) balanced, 2) has so much talent, and 3) is winning and winning big, minimizing their minutes some in blow outs.  Remember they are 2 or 3rd in pt differential so blowouts are not uncommon.

[Donoghus]

Outside of the "pick your own OKC duo", Tatum/Brown certainly seem up there with the best of them.  And I think the fact they're doing it with the team that actually drafted them should carry more weight than what the Lakers picks are doing elsewhere.

[Roy H.]

It's something I've thought about a lot.  People often comment "Danny's drafting record isn't that impressive outside of the lottery".  First, I disagree.  Second, though, I think that people often don't understand how difficult it is to hit on two players in the lottery in back to back years.

[Moranis]

Lakers are missing. 3 straight years with the 2nd pick - Russell, Ingram, Ball

Bulls are missing.  Brand 1 in 99, then Fizer at 4 in 2000 and Curry at 4 in 2001, then Williams at 2 in 2002. 

Clippers had starting in 98 - 4 straight top 5 picks with Olowokandi, Odom, Miles, Chandler (so last 2 in 2000, 2001).

As for the question, obviously the Thunder have done better with Durant, Westbrook, and Harden.  We can only hope that Tatum and Brown turn into that level of player.  After that though, it doesn't look like there are better consecutive picks, though I think the Lakers with Russell and Ingram is interesting.  Right now I think Boston's players have higher ceilings, but the Lakers players collectively being more experienced have accomplished a bit more.

just curious, what exactly have those Laker players accomplished other than getting used in a trade for AD?

C's team with a very young Brown and Tatum made it to the ECF and if not for an absolutely hideous shooting performance in game 7, would have made the finals.   nothing any of the Laker youth has accomplished comes close.

Russell was an all star last year and Ingram is an all star this year.  Ingram's current season is the best statistical season of any of the 4 players (by a decent margin) and Russell's last year at least compares favorably to Tatum's (and he was the best player on a playoff team that despite adding Irving has collapsed this year).  I really think Ingram has been a bit forgotten in New Orleans, but his season has been absolutely amazing thus far.  Be really interesting to see how he plays with Zion moving forward.

you're talking D'Angelo Russell who made an all-star team playing for the Nets, not Lakers.  ok.  should limber up before stretching like that.

1 all-star appearance per player pales in comparison to actually playoff experience and playoff wins.  Tatum has one himself and Jaylen has had a year where he arguably should have made it as well.  not putting any stock in that.  being primary players on a team that goes deep in the playoffs and doing well in the playoffs matters a lot more.

What does the current team have to do with anything?  That wasn't the question posed.  Brandon Ingram is having a better season than Jayson Tatum is this year by virtually every individual metric, and that includes things like WinShares which have some aspect of team record and that is with Ingram clearly being his teams #1 option for the season.  He is scoring more on better efficiency, he is passing better, he is also defending well.  He has pretty consistently improved every season in the league as well.  He earned that all star spot.  He has been fantastic this season.  Russell, similarly, earned his all star spot last year and has in many ways improved from last year to this year.  He was also the lead dog on a playoff team from start to finish last year, something none of the other 3 players in discussion can say (though I'd argue Tatum should get that credit this year, though most would say Walker is the lead dog, not Tatum). 

note, I said Tatum and Brown had higher ceilings, but to date hadn't done as much as Ingram and Russell.  I'd rather have Tatum and Brown, though that is mostly because I think Tatum can be a special player in the league and I don't think any of the other guys can be.  I do, however, believe Ingram would still go ahead of Brown in a redraft as I think he has more potential and has been absolutely awesome as the lead dog of his team.  Again though right now Ingram has had the best season of the bunch and Russell has had the best back-to-back seasons of the bunch.  In my mind, that makes them more accomplished to this point. 

[Boris Badenov]

It's something I've thought about a lot.  People often comment "Danny's drafting record isn't that impressive outside of the lottery".  First, I disagree.  Second, though, I think that people often don't understand how difficult it is to hit on two players in the lottery in back to back years.

Yes, the first point has been addressed in various places. I was thinking more along the second, because I hadn't seen anyone lay out the data. I suspect that some casual observers would say "oh yeah, two top 3 picks in a row *should* yield a pair of All-Star caliber players," when the truth is very different.

[seancally]

It's something I've thought about a lot.  People often comment "Danny's drafting record isn't that impressive outside of the lottery".  First, I disagree.  Second, though, I think that people often don't understand how difficult it is to hit on two players in the lottery in back to back years.

Yes, the first point has been addressed in various places. I was thinking more along the second, because I hadn't seen anyone lay out the data. I suspect that some casual observers would say "oh yeah, two top 3 picks in a row *should* yield a pair of All-Star caliber players," when the truth is very different.

Not to mention two players that were far from consensus at the picks - if you consider that Danny basically decided to give up the No. 1 pick (Fultz, wide consensus) for Tatum, whom he viewed as a better prospect. Brown was also one of a cluster of guys at that spot and was no sure thing.

Nailing the picks is hard, and doing so when there is plenty of noise about other prospects as better options is especially hard.

[CelticsElite]

There isn't really an argument that D'Lo and Ingram are better than Tatum and Brown because of total All-Star selections, is there? D'Lo was just traded for Andrew Wiggins - imagine this place if we just traded Brown for Wiggins.

Also, Ingram is working out well in NO, but Tatum was always the prize for the Pelicans (as evidenced by their desire to wait until the offseason to deal AD). I can't imagine many GMs would choose Ingram over Tatum if given the opportunity.

dont think ainge ever committed to a tatum trade

The last known rumored trade package for Ad revolves around brown and picks

[nickagneta]

There isn't really an argument that D'Lo and Ingram are better than Tatum and Brown because of total All-Star selections, is there? D'Lo was just traded for Andrew Wiggins - imagine this place if we just traded Brown for Wiggins.

Also, Ingram is working out well in NO, but Tatum was always the prize for the Pelicans (as evidenced by their desire to wait until the offseason to deal AD). I can't imagine many GMs would choose Ingram over Tatum if given the opportunity.

dont think ainge ever committed to a tatum trade

The last known rumored trade package for Ad revolves around brown and picks

That may be but it still doesn't change the fact New Orleans waited on the deal because they wanted Tatum. Tatum was the player the Pels desired most, over Ingram, which is what jamb was getting at.

[mmmmm]

It's something I've thought about a lot.  People often comment "Danny's drafting record isn't that impressive outside of the lottery".  First, I disagree.  Second, though, I think that people often don't understand how difficult it is to hit on two players in the lottery in back to back years.

Yes, the first point has been addressed in various places. I was thinking more along the second, because I hadn't seen anyone lay out the data. I suspect that some casual observers would say "oh yeah, two top 3 picks in a row *should* yield a pair of All-Star caliber players," when the truth is very different.

Not to mention two players that were far from consensus at the picks - if you consider that Danny basically decided to give up the No. 1 pick (Fultz, wide consensus) for Tatum, whom he viewed as a better prospect. Brown was also one of a cluster of guys at that spot and was no sure thing.

Nailing the picks is hard, and doing so when there is plenty of noise about other prospects as better options is especially hard.

Looking back at the old 82games.com analysis for 1989-2008,  here are their results for the top 10 picks:

Code: [Select]

Pick #   Gms  Min   Pts   Reb  Ast  Rtg  Star Solid RoleP DeepB Bust DNP
1    20  555  32.9  16.6  7.8  2.7  27.0  70%  25%  5%     
2    20  583  29.6  12.9  5.9  2.8  21.6  60%  25%  15%     
3    20  535  31.9  15.2  5.1  3.5  23.8  85%  10%  5%     
4    20  585  30.5  13.7  5.5  3.1  22.2  60%  30%  10%     
5    20  552  28.7  13.4  4.9  2.7  21.1  60%  15%  10%  15%   
6    20  406  25.4  10.2  4.6  1.7  16.5  25%  30%  30%  15%   
7    20  483  26.8  10.9  4.3  2.6  17.8  30%  40%  25%  5%   
8    20  397  22.9   9.3  3.9  1.9  15.2  35%  15%  15%  35%   
9    20  460  23.1  10.2  4.9  1.6  16.6  30%  10%  35%  20%  5% 
10   20  497  24.6  10.2  4.4  2.2  16.7  35%  25%  25%  10%  5%
https://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

Oddly, it is indeed the #3 pick that had the greatest frequency (85%!) of all pick slots of turning out to be a "star".   That 20 year sample suggested the odds of getting two "stars" out of consecutive #3 picks to be pretty good -- over 72%.

But given that none of the picks before or after are that high, there is probably quite a bit of noise associated with that.  I suspect a larger sample and a little "smoothing" would put the raw star probability for the #3 pick down closer to ~60% which would suggest nailing it two times in a row to be more on the order of about a ~37% chance.

It's sort of interesting that slots 1-5 are actually pretty close in 'star' frequency and then it drops off significantly after that.

It would be cool if someone had the time to redo this study, adding in more post-2008 data.

[gouki88]

Lakers are missing. 3 straight years with the 2nd pick - Russell, Ingram, Ball

Bulls are missing.  Brand 1 in 99, then Fizer at 4 in 2000 and Curry at 4 in 2001, then Williams at 2 in 2002. 

Clippers had starting in 98 - 4 straight top 5 picks with Olowokandi, Odom, Miles, Chandler (so last 2 in 2000, 2001).

As for the question, obviously the Thunder have done better with Durant, Westbrook, and Harden.  We can only hope that Tatum and Brown turn into that level of player.  After that though, it doesn't look like there are better consecutive picks, though I think the Lakers with Russell and Ingram is interesting.  Right now I think Boston's players have higher ceilings, but the Lakers players collectively being more experienced have accomplished a bit more.

just curious, what exactly have those Laker players accomplished other than getting used in a trade for AD?

C's team with a very young Brown and Tatum made it to the ECF and if not for an absolutely hideous shooting performance in game 7, would have made the finals.   nothing any of the Laker youth has accomplished comes close.

Russell was an all star last year and Ingram is an all star this year.  Ingram's current season is the best statistical season of any of the 4 players (by a decent margin) and Russell's last year at least compares favorably to Tatum's (and he was the best player on a playoff team that despite adding Irving has collapsed this year).  I really think Ingram has been a bit forgotten in New Orleans, but his season has been absolutely amazing thus far.  Be really interesting to see how he plays with Zion moving forward.

you're talking D'Angelo Russell who made an all-star team playing for the Nets, not Lakers.  ok.  should limber up before stretching like that.

1 all-star appearance per player pales in comparison to actually playoff experience and playoff wins.  Tatum has one himself and Jaylen has had a year where he arguably should have made it as well.  not putting any stock in that.  being primary players on a team that goes deep in the playoffs and doing well in the playoffs matters a lot more.

What does the current team have to do with anything?  That wasn't the question posed.  Brandon Ingram is having a better season than Jayson Tatum is this year by virtually every individual metric, and that includes things like WinShares which have some aspect of team record and that is with Ingram clearly being his teams #1 option for the season.  He is scoring more on better efficiency, he is passing better, he is also defending well.  He has pretty consistently improved every season in the league as well.  He earned that all star spot.  He has been fantastic this season.  Russell, similarly, earned his all star spot last year and has in many ways improved from last year to this year.  He was also the lead dog on a playoff team from start to finish last year, something none of the other 3 players in discussion can say (though I'd argue Tatum should get that credit this year, though most would say Walker is the lead dog, not Tatum). 

note, I said Tatum and Brown had higher ceilings, but to date hadn't done as much as Ingram and Russell.  I'd rather have Tatum and Brown, though that is mostly because I think Tatum can be a special player in the league and I don't think any of the other guys can be.  I do, however, believe Ingram would still go ahead of Brown in a redraft as I think he has more potential and has been absolutely awesome as the lead dog of his team.  Again though right now Ingram has had the best season of the bunch and Russell has had the best back-to-back seasons of the bunch.  In my mind, that makes them more accomplished to this point.

The entire point of the OP is about the teams though.

how often does a team draft in the top of the lottery two years in a row and really nail both picks?

LA didn't nail those picks at all, and they certainly didn't because D-Lo and Ingram have improved to All-Star caliber players as soon as they left the Lakers.

[Boris Badenov]

It's something I've thought about a lot.  People often comment "Danny's drafting record isn't that impressive outside of the lottery".  First, I disagree.  Second, though, I think that people often don't understand how difficult it is to hit on two players in the lottery in back to back years.

Yes, the first point has been addressed in various places. I was thinking more along the second, because I hadn't seen anyone lay out the data. I suspect that some casual observers would say "oh yeah, two top 3 picks in a row *should* yield a pair of All-Star caliber players," when the truth is very different.

Not to mention two players that were far from consensus at the picks - if you consider that Danny basically decided to give up the No. 1 pick (Fultz, wide consensus) for Tatum, whom he viewed as a better prospect. Brown was also one of a cluster of guys at that spot and was no sure thing.

Nailing the picks is hard, and doing so when there is plenty of noise about other prospects as better options is especially hard.

Looking back at the old 82games.com analysis for 1989-2008,  here are their results for the top 10 picks:

Code: [Select]

Pick #   Gms  Min   Pts   Reb  Ast  Rtg  Star Solid RoleP DeepB Bust DNP
1    20  555  32.9  16.6  7.8  2.7  27.0  70%  25%  5%     
2    20  583  29.6  12.9  5.9  2.8  21.6  60%  25%  15%     
3    20  535  31.9  15.2  5.1  3.5  23.8  85%  10%  5%     
4    20  585  30.5  13.7  5.5  3.1  22.2  60%  30%  10%     
5    20  552  28.7  13.4  4.9  2.7  21.1  60%  15%  10%  15%   
6    20  406  25.4  10.2  4.6  1.7  16.5  25%  30%  30%  15%   
7    20  483  26.8  10.9  4.3  2.6  17.8  30%  40%  25%  5%   
8    20  397  22.9   9.3  3.9  1.9  15.2  35%  15%  15%  35%   
9    20  460  23.1  10.2  4.9  1.6  16.6  30%  10%  35%  20%  5% 
10   20  497  24.6  10.2  4.4  2.2  16.7  35%  25%  25%  10%  5%
https://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

Oddly, it is indeed the #3 pick that had the greatest frequency (85%!) of all pick slots of turning out to be a "star".   That 20 year sample suggested the odds of getting two "stars" out of consecutive #3 picks to be pretty good -- over 72%.

But given that none of the picks before or after are that high, there is probably quite a bit of noise associated with that.  I suspect a larger sample and a little "smoothing" would put the raw star probability for the #3 pick down closer to ~60% which would suggest nailing it two times in a row to be more on the order of about a ~37% chance.

It's sort of interesting that slots 1-5 are actually pretty close in 'star' frequency and then it drops off significantly after that.

It would be cool if someone had the time to redo this study, adding in more post-2008 data.

That definition of "star" is very arbitrary and loose though - (PTS+REB+AST)>20 per game...

By that definition Terry Rozier, Jabari Parker, Julius Randle, Luke Kennard, Dennis Schroder, Marcus Morris, Davis Bertans and many other guys are "stars" this year, when I would call them solid starters.

If you use "All-Star level" as the benchmark, those percentages go way way down, and getting two AS-caliber guys in a row is very difficult.

[zack33]

Don't reply often, but I think Roy (as usual hit the nail on the head)

They are far better than we could have dreamed of, but as they haven't won a title so far worse too so many.

If they get one that puts them up with the Truth, and KG and well RA. Gotta remember they got us but one. Probably should have got a second til Perk went down but in a 30 team comp it's hard.

So in perspective I'd rate them after their career is done which is ten years away. hey haven't necessarily let you down yet.