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

[tazzmaniac]

If I counted correctly, 5 of the 13 individuals who won MVPs over this time frame are yet to be selected.  Not surprised by any of them but it will be interesting to see how they will be drafted (i.e. talent vs. fit).

To further this point, I can definitely see 1, maybe 2 not being picked in the second round

I see three not getting picked in the second round - they're low portability players who don't give you MVP value even if you build around them.

Oh yeah, missed one who I definitelyyyyy don’t see being picked up

I had trouble figuring out who the 5 MVPs were.

I only had 2 in mind to begin with. Took me a good 30 minutes of doing other things but with this in the back of my head to remember who the heck the other 3 guys were!

That's what google is for.  Found a quiz site that has the top 5 in MVP voting back to 1960. 

[nickagneta]

Looks like I have draftboards from

RodyTur
Somebody
gouki
freshinthehouse

I am working on almost no sleep, so if their turns come up and look to be expiring on time, someone just give a holler and remind me...

Thanks.

[Somebody]

Some very strange selections in the first round.

Such as?

KG at 2 is  too high.  I mean the rationale was basically he would be even better today, yet someone like Durant, who I think the thought is what KG would be today goes 7 (too low).  Remember if KG is a perimeter player today he isn't anywhere near the rebounder, he won't be the same level of interior defender, etc.  You can't just assume he adds the great perimeter skills while not losing the interior ones.  He probably looks like either Giannis or Durant in the modern game, not a combination of all the best skills of those guys.  Leonard was too high.  A poor passer that can't stay healthy and doesn't dominate the way someone like Shaq did (so you can get away with missing a bunch of games).  Pierce isn't a top 14 player in the 20 year period and neither are Chris Paul or McGrady (though they are more defendable than Pierce).  Curry in the top 5 is way too high.  We've seen what physical defenders do to him in the Finals (sans Durant to bail him out).  Incredible shooter, but small and a poor defender.  He is a 1st round pick sure, but no where near as high as he went in this thing (Durant is a way better all around player for example).  People seem to be overthinking this a lot.  Just take the best player and worry about team building later on.

That really makes no sense - KG was doing the exact things I said he'd do in this draft in the 00s with the only difference being his spacing being long twos instead of threes. Standing at the three point line instead of the midrange on offence doesn't affect your interior skills at all except for offensive rebounding (which isn't all that valuable nowadays, I'd rather have the extra spacing and value of the three point shot), and it certainly doesn't turn him into an inferior player like KD or Giannis.

What I said was that the things he was doing in the 2000s are even more valuable in the modern game + he can go all the way with his tendencies that seemed unusual back then, it's not a far-fetched assumption to make.

[Who]

If I counted correctly, 5 of the 13 individuals who won MVPs over this time frame are yet to be selected.  Not surprised by any of them but it will be interesting to see how they will be drafted (i.e. talent vs. fit).

To further this point, I can definitely see 1, maybe 2 not being picked in the second round

I see three not getting picked in the second round - they're low portability players who don't give you MVP value even if you build around them.

Oh yeah, missed one who I definitelyyyyy don’t see being picked up

I had trouble figuring out who the 5 MVPs were.

I only had 2 in mind to begin with. Took me a good 30 minutes of doing other things but with this in the back of my head to remember who the heck the other 3 guys were!

That's what google is for.  Found a quiz site that has the top 5 in MVP voting back to 1960.

Sporcle? I love those quizzes.

[gouki88]

Some very strange selections in the first round.

Such as?

KG at 2 is  too high.  I mean the rationale was basically he would be even better today, yet someone like Durant, who I think the thought is what KG would be today goes 7 (too low).  Remember if KG is a perimeter player today he isn't anywhere near the rebounder, he won't be the same level of interior defender, etc.  You can't just assume he adds the great perimeter skills while not losing the interior ones.  He probably looks like either Giannis or Durant in the modern game, not a combination of all the best skills of those guys.  Leonard was too high.  A poor passer that can't stay healthy and doesn't dominate the way someone like Shaq did (so you can get away with missing a bunch of games).  Pierce isn't a top 14 player in the 20 year period and neither are Chris Paul or McGrady (though they are more defendable than Pierce).  Curry in the top 5 is way too high.  We've seen what physical defenders do to him in the Finals (sans Durant to bail him out).  Incredible shooter, but small and a poor defender.  He is a 1st round pick sure, but no where near as high as he went in this thing (Durant is a way better all around player for example).  People seem to be overthinking this a lot.  Just take the best player and worry about team building later on.

Think I disagree with almost all of this

[Somebody]

Some very strange selections in the first round.

Such as?

KG at 2 is  too high.  I mean the rationale was basically he would be even better today, yet someone like Durant, who I think the thought is what KG would be today goes 7 (too low).  Remember if KG is a perimeter player today he isn't anywhere near the rebounder, he won't be the same level of interior defender, etc.  You can't just assume he adds the great perimeter skills while not losing the interior ones.  He probably looks like either Giannis or Durant in the modern game, not a combination of all the best skills of those guys.  Leonard was too high.  A poor passer that can't stay healthy and doesn't dominate the way someone like Shaq did (so you can get away with missing a bunch of games).  Pierce isn't a top 14 player in the 20 year period and neither are Chris Paul or McGrady (though they are more defendable than Pierce).  Curry in the top 5 is way too high.  We've seen what physical defenders do to him in the Finals (sans Durant to bail him out).  Incredible shooter, but small and a poor defender.  He is a 1st round pick sure, but no where near as high as he went in this thing (Durant is a way better all around player for example).  People seem to be overthinking this a lot.  Just take the best player and worry about team building later on.

Think I disagree with almost all of this

Likewise with the exception of Leonard (I think he's overrated on defence + he has passing woes).

[nickagneta]

Some very strange selections in the first round.

Such as?

KG at 2 is  too high.  I mean the rationale was basically he would be even better today, yet someone like Durant, who I think the thought is what KG would be today goes 7 (too low).  Remember if KG is a perimeter player today he isn't anywhere near the rebounder, he won't be the same level of interior defender, etc.  You can't just assume he adds the great perimeter skills while not losing the interior ones.  He probably looks like either Giannis or Durant in the modern game, not a combination of all the best skills of those guys.  Leonard was too high.  A poor passer that can't stay healthy and doesn't dominate the way someone like Shaq did (so you can get away with missing a bunch of games).  Pierce isn't a top 14 player in the 20 year period and neither are Chris Paul or McGrady (though they are more defendable than Pierce).  Curry in the top 5 is way too high.  We've seen what physical defenders do to him in the Finals (sans Durant to bail him out).  Incredible shooter, but small and a poor defender.  He is a 1st round pick sure, but no where near as high as he went in this thing (Durant is a way better all around player for example).  People seem to be overthinking this a lot.  Just take the best player and worry about team building later on.

Think I disagree with almost all of this

Likewise with the exception of Leonard (I think he's overrated on defence + he has passing woes).

Make it three.

[tazzmaniac]

If I counted correctly, 5 of the 13 individuals who won MVPs over this time frame are yet to be selected.  Not surprised by any of them but it will be interesting to see how they will be drafted (i.e. talent vs. fit).

To further this point, I can definitely see 1, maybe 2 not being picked in the second round

I see three not getting picked in the second round - they're low portability players who don't give you MVP value even if you build around them.

Oh yeah, missed one who I definitelyyyyy don’t see being picked up

I had trouble figuring out who the 5 MVPs were.

I only had 2 in mind to begin with. Took me a good 30 minutes of doing other things but with this in the back of my head to remember who the heck the other 3 guys were!

That's what google is for.  Found a quiz site that has the top 5 in MVP voting back to 1960.

Sporcle? I love those quizzes.

yes

[Moranis]

Some very strange selections in the first round.

Such as?

KG at 2 is  too high.  I mean the rationale was basically he would be even better today, yet someone like Durant, who I think the thought is what KG would be today goes 7 (too low).  Remember if KG is a perimeter player today he isn't anywhere near the rebounder, he won't be the same level of interior defender, etc.  You can't just assume he adds the great perimeter skills while not losing the interior ones.  He probably looks like either Giannis or Durant in the modern game, not a combination of all the best skills of those guys.  Leonard was too high.  A poor passer that can't stay healthy and doesn't dominate the way someone like Shaq did (so you can get away with missing a bunch of games).  Pierce isn't a top 14 player in the 20 year period and neither are Chris Paul or McGrady (though they are more defendable than Pierce).  Curry in the top 5 is way too high.  We've seen what physical defenders do to him in the Finals (sans Durant to bail him out).  Incredible shooter, but small and a poor defender.  He is a 1st round pick sure, but no where near as high as he went in this thing (Durant is a way better all around player for example).  People seem to be overthinking this a lot.  Just take the best player and worry about team building later on.

Think I disagree with almost all of this

That is fair.  Can always disagree, but I firmly maintain that KG at 2 is just wrong.  Lebron and Shaq are BY FAR the top two players in this.  Duncan consistently outperformed Garnett throughout their careers.  It wasn't just about teammates either, Duncan was just a flat out better player than Garnett.  KG was a great player, but he was at best the 4th best player in this thing.  You can't take him at 2.  Worst pick in the entire draft given who was on the board when the selection was made. 

Curry is a great player, but selecting him makes the rest of the draft far more difficult as the entire team has to be crafted around his skill set.  I just think when you set yourself up to take fit, rather than talent later on, you are setting yourself up for failure, especially when players like Durant are still on the board (and to a lesser extent Kobe, Kawhi, Giannis, and Dirk), it makes Curry a bad selection given who was still on the board.  Curry is better, though pretty similar to another 2 time MVP PG that is still available. 

My top 5 would have been LBJ, Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Durant.  I'd probably have Kobe, Dirk, Giannis, and Kawhi as the next 4, though I haven't given it a ton of thought.  Curry would likely round out my top 10, but really after the top 5 I didn't actually put much thought into the actual order, just more or less general tiers and I haven't picked through seasons of players either to come up with an actual ranking either past that point.  I do think there are several players available though that I'd have selected ahead of players that were actually drafted, Pierce being the one that stands out the most.  Pierce is just not a top 14 pick in this thing. 

[Donoghus]

Some very strange selections in the first round.

Such as?

KG at 2 is  too high.  I mean the rationale was basically he would be even better today, yet someone like Durant, who I think the thought is what KG would be today goes 7 (too low).  Remember if KG is a perimeter player today he isn't anywhere near the rebounder, he won't be the same level of interior defender, etc.  You can't just assume he adds the great perimeter skills while not losing the interior ones.  He probably looks like either Giannis or Durant in the modern game, not a combination of all the best skills of those guys.  Leonard was too high.  A poor passer that can't stay healthy and doesn't dominate the way someone like Shaq did (so you can get away with missing a bunch of games).  Pierce isn't a top 14 player in the 20 year period and neither are Chris Paul or McGrady (though they are more defendable than Pierce).  Curry in the top 5 is way too high.  We've seen what physical defenders do to him in the Finals (sans Durant to bail him out).  Incredible shooter, but small and a poor defender.  He is a 1st round pick sure, but no where near as high as he went in this thing (Durant is a way better all around player for example).  People seem to be overthinking this a lot.  Just take the best player and worry about team building later on.

Think I disagree with almost all of this

That is fair.  Can always disagree, but I firmly maintain that KG at 2 is just wrong.  Lebron and Shaq are BY FAR the top two players in this.  Duncan consistently outperformed Garnett throughout their careers.  It wasn't just about teammates either, Duncan was just a flat out better player than Garnett.  KG was a great player, but he was at best the 4th best player in this thing.  You can't take him at 2.  Worst pick in the entire draft given who was on the board when the selection was made. 

Curry is a great player, but selecting him makes the rest of the draft far more difficult as the entire team has to be crafted around his skill set.  I just think when you set yourself up to take fit, rather than talent later on, you are setting yourself up for failure, especially when players like Durant are still on the board (and to a lesser extent Kobe, Kawhi, Giannis, and Dirk), it makes Curry a bad selection given who was still on the board.  Curry is better, though pretty similar to another 2 time MVP PG that is still available. 

My top 5 would have been LBJ, Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Durant.  I'd probably have Kobe, Dirk, Giannis, and Kawhi as the next 4, though I haven't given it a ton of thought.  Curry would likely round out my top 10, but really after the top 5 I didn't actually put much thought into the actual order, just more or less general tiers and I haven't picked through seasons of players either to come up with an actual ranking either past that point.  I do think there are several players available though that I'd have selected ahead of players that were actually drafted, Pierce being the one that stands out the most.  Pierce is just not a top 14 pick in this thing.

You may want to give this some consideration before coming in here all guns blazing.

[Somebody]

Some very strange selections in the first round.

Such as?

KG at 2 is  too high.  I mean the rationale was basically he would be even better today, yet someone like Durant, who I think the thought is what KG would be today goes 7 (too low).  Remember if KG is a perimeter player today he isn't anywhere near the rebounder, he won't be the same level of interior defender, etc.  You can't just assume he adds the great perimeter skills while not losing the interior ones.  He probably looks like either Giannis or Durant in the modern game, not a combination of all the best skills of those guys.  Leonard was too high.  A poor passer that can't stay healthy and doesn't dominate the way someone like Shaq did (so you can get away with missing a bunch of games).  Pierce isn't a top 14 player in the 20 year period and neither are Chris Paul or McGrady (though they are more defendable than Pierce).  Curry in the top 5 is way too high.  We've seen what physical defenders do to him in the Finals (sans Durant to bail him out).  Incredible shooter, but small and a poor defender.  He is a 1st round pick sure, but no where near as high as he went in this thing (Durant is a way better all around player for example).  People seem to be overthinking this a lot.  Just take the best player and worry about team building later on.

Think I disagree with almost all of this

That is fair. Can always disagree, but I firmly maintain that KG at 2 is just wrong. Lebron and Shaq are BY FAR the top two players in this. Duncan consistently outperformed Garnett throughout their careers.  It wasn't just about teammates either, Duncan was just a flat out better player than Garnett. KG was a great player, but he was at best the 4th best player in this thing.  You can't take him at 2.  Worst pick in the entire draft given who was on the board when the selection was made.

Curry is a great player, but selecting him makes the rest of the draft far more difficult as the entire team has to be crafted around his skill set.  I just think when you set yourself up to take fit, rather than talent later on, you are setting yourself up for failure, especially when players like Durant are still on the board (and to a lesser extent Kobe, Kawhi, Giannis, and Dirk), it makes Curry a bad selection given who was still on the board.  Curry is better, though pretty similar to another 2 time MVP PG that is still available. 

My top 5 would have been LBJ, Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Durant.  I'd probably have Kobe, Dirk, Giannis, and Kawhi as the next 4, though I haven't given it a ton of thought.  Curry would likely round out my top 10, but really after the top 5 I didn't actually put much thought into the actual order, just more or less general tiers and I haven't picked through seasons of players either to come up with an actual ranking either past that point.  I do think there are several players available though that I'd have selected ahead of players that were actually drafted, Pierce being the one that stands out the most.  Pierce is just not a top 14 pick in this thing.

This is just so wrong unless you just look at the raw slash line without even trying to understand how those stats come from and how they affect a team lol. All 4 were close with LeBron and Shaq being the better of the four if you go by impact in era, but you're clearly just not willing to listen how Garnett would get a boost in these fantasy drafts.

[Moranis]

Some very strange selections in the first round.

Such as?

KG at 2 is  too high.  I mean the rationale was basically he would be even better today, yet someone like Durant, who I think the thought is what KG would be today goes 7 (too low).  Remember if KG is a perimeter player today he isn't anywhere near the rebounder, he won't be the same level of interior defender, etc.  You can't just assume he adds the great perimeter skills while not losing the interior ones.  He probably looks like either Giannis or Durant in the modern game, not a combination of all the best skills of those guys.  Leonard was too high.  A poor passer that can't stay healthy and doesn't dominate the way someone like Shaq did (so you can get away with missing a bunch of games).  Pierce isn't a top 14 player in the 20 year period and neither are Chris Paul or McGrady (though they are more defendable than Pierce).  Curry in the top 5 is way too high.  We've seen what physical defenders do to him in the Finals (sans Durant to bail him out).  Incredible shooter, but small and a poor defender.  He is a 1st round pick sure, but no where near as high as he went in this thing (Durant is a way better all around player for example).  People seem to be overthinking this a lot.  Just take the best player and worry about team building later on.

Think I disagree with almost all of this

That is fair.  Can always disagree, but I firmly maintain that KG at 2 is just wrong.  Lebron and Shaq are BY FAR the top two players in this.  Duncan consistently outperformed Garnett throughout their careers.  It wasn't just about teammates either, Duncan was just a flat out better player than Garnett.  KG was a great player, but he was at best the 4th best player in this thing.  You can't take him at 2.  Worst pick in the entire draft given who was on the board when the selection was made. 

Curry is a great player, but selecting him makes the rest of the draft far more difficult as the entire team has to be crafted around his skill set.  I just think when you set yourself up to take fit, rather than talent later on, you are setting yourself up for failure, especially when players like Durant are still on the board (and to a lesser extent Kobe, Kawhi, Giannis, and Dirk), it makes Curry a bad selection given who was still on the board.  Curry is better, though pretty similar to another 2 time MVP PG that is still available. 

My top 5 would have been LBJ, Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Durant.  I'd probably have Kobe, Dirk, Giannis, and Kawhi as the next 4, though I haven't given it a ton of thought.  Curry would likely round out my top 10, but really after the top 5 I didn't actually put much thought into the actual order, just more or less general tiers and I haven't picked through seasons of players either to come up with an actual ranking either past that point.  I do think there are several players available though that I'd have selected ahead of players that were actually drafted, Pierce being the one that stands out the most.  Pierce is just not a top 14 pick in this thing.

You may want to give this some consideration before coming in here all guns blazing.

You forgot to highlight some key language i.e. "past that point" and "general tiers".  If you want to argue about the order of Kobe, Dirk, Giannis, and Kawhi that is fine, but I do think they should all be ahead of Curry and I put my top 5 in order.  All of my comments were based on that.

[Donoghus]

Some very strange selections in the first round.

Such as?

KG at 2 is  too high.  I mean the rationale was basically he would be even better today, yet someone like Durant, who I think the thought is what KG would be today goes 7 (too low).  Remember if KG is a perimeter player today he isn't anywhere near the rebounder, he won't be the same level of interior defender, etc.  You can't just assume he adds the great perimeter skills while not losing the interior ones.  He probably looks like either Giannis or Durant in the modern game, not a combination of all the best skills of those guys.  Leonard was too high.  A poor passer that can't stay healthy and doesn't dominate the way someone like Shaq did (so you can get away with missing a bunch of games).  Pierce isn't a top 14 player in the 20 year period and neither are Chris Paul or McGrady (though they are more defendable than Pierce).  Curry in the top 5 is way too high.  We've seen what physical defenders do to him in the Finals (sans Durant to bail him out).  Incredible shooter, but small and a poor defender.  He is a 1st round pick sure, but no where near as high as he went in this thing (Durant is a way better all around player for example).  People seem to be overthinking this a lot.  Just take the best player and worry about team building later on.

Think I disagree with almost all of this

That is fair.  Can always disagree, but I firmly maintain that KG at 2 is just wrong.  Lebron and Shaq are BY FAR the top two players in this.  Duncan consistently outperformed Garnett throughout their careers.  It wasn't just about teammates either, Duncan was just a flat out better player than Garnett.  KG was a great player, but he was at best the 4th best player in this thing.  You can't take him at 2.  Worst pick in the entire draft given who was on the board when the selection was made. 

Curry is a great player, but selecting him makes the rest of the draft far more difficult as the entire team has to be crafted around his skill set.  I just think when you set yourself up to take fit, rather than talent later on, you are setting yourself up for failure, especially when players like Durant are still on the board (and to a lesser extent Kobe, Kawhi, Giannis, and Dirk), it makes Curry a bad selection given who was still on the board.  Curry is better, though pretty similar to another 2 time MVP PG that is still available. 

My top 5 would have been LBJ, Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Durant.  I'd probably have Kobe, Dirk, Giannis, and Kawhi as the next 4, though I haven't given it a ton of thought.  Curry would likely round out my top 10, but really after the top 5 I didn't actually put much thought into the actual order, just more or less general tiers and I haven't picked through seasons of players either to come up with an actual ranking either past that point.  I do think there are several players available though that I'd have selected ahead of players that were actually drafted, Pierce being the one that stands out the most.  Pierce is just not a top 14 pick in this thing.

You may want to give this some consideration before coming in here all guns blazing.

You forgot to highlight some key language i.e. "past that point" and "general tiers".  If you want to argue about the order of Kobe, Dirk, Giannis, and Kawhi that is fine, but I do think they should all be ahead of Curry and I put my top 5 in order.  All of my comments were based on that.

I didn't forget to highlight anything.  Just acknowledging that you haven't put consideration into seasons yet.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Just got out of the house. Did you know you need a quarantine pass in the Philippines to be able to get out doing stuff?

Anyway, DO NOT TAKE MY GUY!

And ignore this post. This is just to know what time it is over there so I don't miss my slot.

[Moranis]

Some very strange selections in the first round.

Such as?

KG at 2 is  too high.  I mean the rationale was basically he would be even better today, yet someone like Durant, who I think the thought is what KG would be today goes 7 (too low).  Remember if KG is a perimeter player today he isn't anywhere near the rebounder, he won't be the same level of interior defender, etc.  You can't just assume he adds the great perimeter skills while not losing the interior ones.  He probably looks like either Giannis or Durant in the modern game, not a combination of all the best skills of those guys.  Leonard was too high.  A poor passer that can't stay healthy and doesn't dominate the way someone like Shaq did (so you can get away with missing a bunch of games).  Pierce isn't a top 14 player in the 20 year period and neither are Chris Paul or McGrady (though they are more defendable than Pierce).  Curry in the top 5 is way too high.  We've seen what physical defenders do to him in the Finals (sans Durant to bail him out).  Incredible shooter, but small and a poor defender.  He is a 1st round pick sure, but no where near as high as he went in this thing (Durant is a way better all around player for example).  People seem to be overthinking this a lot.  Just take the best player and worry about team building later on.

Think I disagree with almost all of this

That is fair. Can always disagree, but I firmly maintain that KG at 2 is just wrong. Lebron and Shaq are BY FAR the top two players in this. Duncan consistently outperformed Garnett throughout their careers.  It wasn't just about teammates either, Duncan was just a flat out better player than Garnett. KG was a great player, but he was at best the 4th best player in this thing.  You can't take him at 2.  Worst pick in the entire draft given who was on the board when the selection was made.

Curry is a great player, but selecting him makes the rest of the draft far more difficult as the entire team has to be crafted around his skill set.  I just think when you set yourself up to take fit, rather than talent later on, you are setting yourself up for failure, especially when players like Durant are still on the board (and to a lesser extent Kobe, Kawhi, Giannis, and Dirk), it makes Curry a bad selection given who was still on the board.  Curry is better, though pretty similar to another 2 time MVP PG that is still available. 

My top 5 would have been LBJ, Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Durant.  I'd probably have Kobe, Dirk, Giannis, and Kawhi as the next 4, though I haven't given it a ton of thought.  Curry would likely round out my top 10, but really after the top 5 I didn't actually put much thought into the actual order, just more or less general tiers and I haven't picked through seasons of players either to come up with an actual ranking either past that point.  I do think there are several players available though that I'd have selected ahead of players that were actually drafted, Pierce being the one that stands out the most.  Pierce is just not a top 14 pick in this thing.

This is just so wrong unless you just look at the raw slash line without even trying to understand how those stats come from and how they affect a team lol. All 4 were close with LeBron and Shaq being the better of the four if you go by impact in era, but you're clearly just not willing to listen how Garnett would get a boost in these fantasy drafts.

I get you are trying to defend your pick, but selecting Garnett ahead of Shaq is basically indefensible in this draft.  Heck I think you could make real arguments Shaq should have been the 1st selection given his dominance in any of the 3 early 00's seasons.  I understand the argument you are making, I just don't buy it.  If you boost some things you take away from others, you can't just claim someone would outperform in the modern game and not account for the negatives that come with different eras.  Part of the reason KG was so successful is he was so unique, but he isn't nearly as unique in the modern game.  Most teams have players that are big enough, fast enough, and versatile enough to guard KG, which just wasn't the case in the early part of the century.  I mean by the same token, what would someone like Giannis have been like in the early 00's.  He would have been even more unique than KG.  That is the problem with trying to take people out of their actual era.  KG would obviously still be really good, but part of what made him so great was his unique skill set for someone his size which just isn't as unique anymore.  And by your own acknowledgement Shaq was better than Garnett.  So you knowingly and intentionally took a worse and less impactful player.  That makes that a bad pick by any metric.