2020 Historical Draft Thread: Draft over. Playoffs coming soon!

[Moranis]

Very few players in this game will be called upon to score more than 19.6ppg while surrounded by so many other stars.

Young Pierce gives you positional versatility.  Don't think you can play older Pierce at SG. 

Your point is a good one.  Scorers, even great ones, are much less valuable because every team should have plenty of scoring.

I think that's why we've seen a few inefficient scorers drop / not be picked at all, even though they have more raw talent than a few guys taken.

To be frank I'm not sure if those inefficient scorers are more talented than the guys picked ahead of them. I think everyone picked so far had an All-NBA peak at the very least, which is what I'd use to describe the peaks of those low efficiency ball dominant guys.

That's fair. I think in terms of raw skill there are guys ahead of players like Klay, but I still don't think any of them should have been taken ahead of him.

If that makes an sense at all

It does, but I think you've fallen into the trap of only looking at on ball skills (which to be fair is useful in its own right, especially when evaluating on ball engines). Raw skill doesn't only equate to being able to do stuff with the ball, there are skills such as off ball movement, finishing ability after receiving a pass, offensive positioning (eg. sealing off your man for an entry pass/offensive rebound). I think Klay's more skilled than the guys you're thinking of in this sense.

Maybe he is, or maybe it is just the fact that he has never had to be the guy and has always had to play in that type of role that his ability to do that is more easily identifiable.  The known quantity with Klay on that makes him more valuable, but it doesn't mean others also wouldn't be able to perform even better in the #2 or #3 role.  I mean look at the Celtics Big 3, you took 3 guys that had been #1's their entire career and they came together and made it work almost instantly.  Other teams have done that as well and made it work also. 

[Somebody]

Very few players in this game will be called upon to score more than 19.6ppg while surrounded by so many other stars.

Young Pierce gives you positional versatility.  Don't think you can play older Pierce at SG. 

Your point is a good one.  Scorers, even great ones, are much less valuable because every team should have plenty of scoring.

I think that's why we've seen a few inefficient scorers drop / not be picked at all, even though they have more raw talent than a few guys taken.

To be frank I'm not sure if those inefficient scorers are more talented than the guys picked ahead of them. I think everyone picked so far had an All-NBA peak at the very least, which is what I'd use to describe the peaks of those low efficiency ball dominant guys.

That's fair. I think in terms of raw skill there are guys ahead of players like Klay, but I still don't think any of them should have been taken ahead of him.

If that makes an sense at all

It does, but I think you've fallen into the trap of only looking at on ball skills (which to be fair is useful in its own right, especially when evaluating on ball engines). Raw skill doesn't only equate to being able to do stuff with the ball, there are skills such as off ball movement, finishing ability after receiving a pass, offensive positioning (eg. sealing off your man for an entry pass/offensive rebound). I think Klay's more skilled than the guys you're thinking of in this sense.

Maybe he is, or maybe it is just the fact that he has never had to be the guy and has always had to play in that type of role that his ability to do that is more easily identifiable.  The known quantity with Klay on that makes him more valuable, but it doesn't mean others also wouldn't be able to perform even better in the #2 or #3 role.  I mean look at the Celtics Big 3, you took 3 guys that had been #1's their entire career and they came together and made it work almost instantly.  Other teams have done that as well and made it work also.

I mean those players all had excellent skillsets that were highly portable even as lone stars. The players I was talking about had low portability skillsets that ended up not meshing well with star talent that needed the ball later on during their careers. It's not that difficult to identify a skillset and make an educated guess on how portable it is in the rare case that player has never played alongside players who need the ball to maximise their offensive value.

[Roy H.]

Feel free to get things started.

[nickagneta]

The 3rd Round is now open!

[gouki88]

Awesome!

With the first pick of the 3rd round... the Los Angeles Clippers stay close to home and select...

Elton Brand!

[Roy H.]

Another favorite gone.  People forget what an absolute beast Brand was.

[nickagneta]

Thought I would bring this up since Somebody and I discussed this before this game even started and it is similar to the Pierce debate.

Somebody talked of choosing a Minnesota year for KG, like I think he mention either 2003 or 2004.

I think the choice for best KG year is 2008 as I think in 2008, regardless of stats, especially since his stats were held down playing with that starting five, KG affected his team in a winning way more than any other season of his career.

I think playing winning basketball is more important than the stats. Watched Garnett since he was a Minnesota pup. The year he played his best ball was his first in Boston.

And I think the same argument can be made for Pierce. He played some great ball and hung stats in earlier campaigns, but the year he played his best ball, the year he affected winning the most, was 2007-08.

[action781]

Thought I would bring this up since Somebody and I discussed this before this game even started and it is similar to the Pierce debate.

Somebody talked of choosing a Minnesota year for KG, like I think he mention either 2003 or 2004.

I think the choice for best KG year is 2008 as I think in 2008, regardless of stats, especially since his stats were held down playing with that starting five, KG affected his team in a winning way more than any other season of his career.

I think playing winning basketball is more important than the stats. Watched Garnett since he was a Minnesota pup. The year he played his best ball was his first in Boston.

And I think the same argument can be made for Pierce. He played some great ball and hung stats in earlier campaigns, but the year he played his best ball, the year he affected winning the most, was 2007-08.

Right.  I don't think the 2008 Celtics team becomes any better if you implant 24-year-old 2002 Paul Pierce onto that team instead of the 2008 Paul Pierce.  Those are the kinds of questions I look at when considering what year to pick a player.

[gouki88]

Another favorite gone.  People forget what an absolute beast Brand was.

Yeah, in '05-'06, when he got a strong PG, he was amazing. Great low-post scorer who could shoot the mid-range, pass, rebound on both ends, and was an amazing defender. I loved watching him cook the Suns in that 2006 series. They lost, because they were the obviously inferior team at almost every spot, but Brand took that Suns team to 7 games

[Somebody]

Thought I would bring this up since Somebody and I discussed this before this game even started and it is similar to the Pierce debate.

Somebody talked of choosing a Minnesota year for KG, like I think he mention either 2003 or 2004.

I think the choice for best KG year is 2008 as I think in 2008, regardless of stats, especially since his stats were held down playing with that starting five, KG affected his team in a winning way more than any other season of his career.

I think playing winning basketball is more important than the stats. Watched Garnett since he was a Minnesota pup. The year he played his best ball was his first in Boston.

And I think the same argument can be made for Pierce. He played some great ball and hung stats in earlier campaigns, but the year he played his best ball, the year he affected winning the most, was 2007-08.

I mentioned 2004. I think Garnett played winning basketball throughout his prime, Minnesota performed like a lottery team without him even in those 50 win years, and he supercharged the offensively slanted pieces around him while lifting the defence or offence whenever necessary.

[Donoghus]

Like the Brand pick.    Thought he might fly under the radar on here for a bit.  Apparently, not!

[Somebody]

With the 2nd pick in the 3rd round, the Toronto Raptors select

Vince Carter

[RPGenerate]

Dang it, so close to my grasp 

[nickagneta]

Like the Brand pick.    Thought he might fly under the radar on here for a bit.  Apparently, not!

I too thought he would be there later, but a solid pick for that Clippers team.

Luckily gouki is running the team and not Brand. gouki, no matter how much Brand whispers in your ear, DO NOT LISTEN TO HIM.

[Who]

I am shocked Vince took this long to go. He is just as good as Pierce and T-Mac who went late 1st. To get Vince with an early 3rd is exceptional value.