How good are Tatum and Brown in perspective?

[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.

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.

Then why give the Thunder credit for Harden?  The Lakers did very well with the picks.  Sure they got traded, but it still doesn't change the fact they were very good picks.  Just like Harden was even though he was still coming off the bench when he was traded to Houston and thereafter became the MVP talent he ended up. 

[Moranis]

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.

LA didn't have great draft capital until after the season though.  It would have been interesting to see what the Pelicans might have done when staring at 4, Ingram, Ball, Hart, filler, and 2 future 1st's (plus swapping rights) vs. Tatum, Smart, filler, 14, 20/22, future 1st's.  I don't know that that is as clean.  Tatum is the best prospect, but having a top 5 pick alters that equation some.   

[nickagneta]

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.

Is this you adding to what Roy said or is this what you think Roy said?

Because Roy mentioned nothing about winning a title or that people thought Tatum and Brown was worse than they expected because of no titles.

Actually, I think you are the only one mentioning possible disappointment regarding Brown and Tatum over not winning a title yet....at 23 and 21.

[slamtheking]

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.

LA didn't have great draft capital until after the season though.  It would have been interesting to see what the Pelicans might have done when staring at 4, Ingram, Ball, Hart, filler, and 2 future 1st's (plus swapping rights) vs. Tatum, Smart, filler, 14, 20/22, future 1st's.  I don't know that that is as clean.  Tatum is the best prospect, but having a top 5 pick alters that equation some.   

Tatum or D'Andre Hunter?   yeah, it's Tatum.

C's package would have been Tatum (all-star with a lot more upside to be realized), Smart (perennial DPOY  candidate with improved shooting), Langford (rookie that's shown he can play good D and has skills with scoring so far), Grant Williams (a very solid do-everything rookie) with some filler and possibly future firsts.  that would surpass what the Lakers offered.

[Moranis]

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.

LA didn't have great draft capital until after the season though.  It would have been interesting to see what the Pelicans might have done when staring at 4, Ingram, Ball, Hart, filler, and 2 future 1st's (plus swapping rights) vs. Tatum, Smart, filler, 14, 20/22, future 1st's.  I don't know that that is as clean.  Tatum is the best prospect, but having a top 5 pick alters that equation some.   

Tatum or D'Andre Hunter?   yeah, it's Tatum.

C's package would have been Tatum (all-star with a lot more upside to be realized), Smart (perennial DPOY  candidate with improved shooting), Langford (rookie that's shown he can play good D and has skills with scoring so far), Grant Williams (a very solid do-everything rookie) with some filler and possibly future firsts.  that would surpass what the Lakers offered.

Pelicans ended up trading 4, 57, 2023 2nd, and dumping Hill's contract for 8, 17, 35, 2020 1st

And I doubt they take either Langford or Williams (they actually probably would have taken NAW at 14 since they took him at 17). 

If you are rating assets (I didn't rate the future 1st's since those are difficult to value)

Tatum
Ingram
4
Smart/Ball
Hart
14
22

So yeah Tatum was the best asset, but the Lakers would have provided 4 of the next 5 best assets.  Now they ended up translating 4 into a salary dump, 3 1st round picks, and a large move in the 2nd round.  It can be argued if that was a good move, but having a pick that high allows that sort of thing. 

[celticsclay]

This thread is kind of a mess. They were both great picks, but really weird and difficult to compare them at their ages to draft picks the other teams didn't even keep. Just looking at what the suns did with similar picks should make us all feel great though.

[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.

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.

Well, certainly that definition is arbitrary - though don't overlook that those are averages over much longer periods than say, Rozier's current season.

That the threshold is arbitrary just means you need to assume some large error bars around the conclusions.   It is only really meant to provide a rough sketch of the differences in likely outcome between picks at different parts of the draft and it succeeds in that.

I.E., you can probably safely assume that a pick 1-5 is roughly twice as likely to produce a star as a pick 6-10.   

[slamtheking]

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.

LA didn't have great draft capital until after the season though.  It would have been interesting to see what the Pelicans might have done when staring at 4, Ingram, Ball, Hart, filler, and 2 future 1st's (plus swapping rights) vs. Tatum, Smart, filler, 14, 20/22, future 1st's.  I don't know that that is as clean.  Tatum is the best prospect, but having a top 5 pick alters that equation some.   

Tatum or D'Andre Hunter?   yeah, it's Tatum.

C's package would have been Tatum (all-star with a lot more upside to be realized), Smart (perennial DPOY  candidate with improved shooting), Langford (rookie that's shown he can play good D and has skills with scoring so far), Grant Williams (a very solid do-everything rookie) with some filler and possibly future firsts.  that would surpass what the Lakers offered.

Pelicans ended up trading 4, 57, 2023 2nd, and dumping Hill's contract for 8, 17, 35, 2020 1st

And I doubt they take either Langford or Williams (they actually probably would have taken NAW at 14 since they took him at 17). 

If you are rating assets (I didn't rate the future 1st's since those are difficult to value)

Tatum
Ingram
4
Smart/Ball
Hart
14
22

So yeah Tatum was the best asset, but the Lakers would have provided 4 of the next 5 best assets.  Now they ended up translating 4 into a salary dump, 3 1st round picks, and a large move in the 2nd round.  It can be argued if that was a good move, but having a pick that high allows that sort of thing. 

you and I value Ingram, Hart, Ball and the result of that #4 pick much differently.

[Moranis]

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.

LA didn't have great draft capital until after the season though.  It would have been interesting to see what the Pelicans might have done when staring at 4, Ingram, Ball, Hart, filler, and 2 future 1st's (plus swapping rights) vs. Tatum, Smart, filler, 14, 20/22, future 1st's.  I don't know that that is as clean.  Tatum is the best prospect, but having a top 5 pick alters that equation some.   

Tatum or D'Andre Hunter?   yeah, it's Tatum.

C's package would have been Tatum (all-star with a lot more upside to be realized), Smart (perennial DPOY  candidate with improved shooting), Langford (rookie that's shown he can play good D and has skills with scoring so far), Grant Williams (a very solid do-everything rookie) with some filler and possibly future firsts.  that would surpass what the Lakers offered.

Pelicans ended up trading 4, 57, 2023 2nd, and dumping Hill's contract for 8, 17, 35, 2020 1st

And I doubt they take either Langford or Williams (they actually probably would have taken NAW at 14 since they took him at 17). 

If you are rating assets (I didn't rate the future 1st's since those are difficult to value)

Tatum
Ingram
4
Smart/Ball
Hart
14
22

So yeah Tatum was the best asset, but the Lakers would have provided 4 of the next 5 best assets.  Now they ended up translating 4 into a salary dump, 3 1st round picks, and a large move in the 2nd round.  It can be argued if that was a good move, but having a pick that high allows that sort of thing. 

you and I value Ingram, Hart, Ball and the result of that #4 pick much differently.

I do know Ingram had some concerns last summer given his blood clot issue, which probably lowered his value overall (moreso than his talent would otherwise indicate).  That said I probably underrated Ball's value around the league.  Reading reports from before Davis was traded, Ball seemed to have a pretty high value.  And top 5 picks, even in perceived 2 person drafts always have a lot of value.  It is a known commodity that just provides so many potential options.  The real question is how confident would you be in Tatum reaching his potential and how much higher is his ceiling than the other assets.  that really is what the trade would have come down to. 

It also might be possible that Ainge heard that the Pelicans wanted both Tatum and Brown.  If that was the case and Ainge knew he wasn't going to trade both he then could have put reports out there that they weren't going to trade Tatum from a PR standpoint, when he absolutely might have.  You never know how these things actually shake out when the chips are on the table.