2023 offseason CelticStrong fantasy draft - LOTTERY DONE: Order in OP

[Moranis]

9th for me. Still haven't done any real prep, just thinking about a fee snubs and players I know didn't make the top 75, but no idea if they are top 10 worthy

[theswitch]

Exciting just catching up now. First overall pick...interesting! I'm not sure there's a clear-cut answer. I'm actually more excited for the 2nd and 3rd round picks than this one but we'll make it work.

Question for the group as a rookie to these drafts (I've just done the current players one which is more straightforward). How strongly is the single season emphasized? There's a cohort of eligible players who had high peaks but didn't benefit from longevity for one reason or another. Are you assuming you are getting that single season's player or are they dinged for the lack of longevity?

Maybe Zion is a good example because he's not eligible. You could imagine picking him since he was a 27PPG player on 61% shooting, 7+ rebounds, great advanced stats, etc. in 2020-21. Not much of an argument there. But if he never really comes back from these injuries, do people generally ignore that in the context of that season? Or is the mental association there regardless?

[Who]

Exciting just catching up now. First overall pick...interesting! I'm not sure there's a clear-cut answer. I'm actually more excited for the 2nd and 3rd round picks than this one but we'll make it work.

Question for the group as a rookie to these drafts (I've just done the current players one which is more straightforward). How strongly is the single season emphasized? There's a cohort of eligible players who had high peaks but didn't benefit from longevity for one reason or another. Are you assuming you are getting that single season's player or are they dinged for the lack of longevity?

Maybe Zion is a good example because he's not eligible. You could imagine picking him since he was a 27PPG player on 61% shooting, 7+ rebounds, great advanced stats, etc. in 2020-21. Not much of an argument there. But if he never really comes back from these injuries, do people generally ignore that in the context of that season? Or is the mental association there regardless?

Very strongly. It is either all that matters or almost all that matters. This allows you to select those injury guys who had a short peak. You get them at their peak. Or those players who had a major breakout year but then fell off. You get them at their peak.

So say you pick Kobe Bryant. If you go with a young Kobe next to Shaq, you get the more athletic more defensively active Kobe. If you with the older Kobe, you get the more skilled offensive Kobe.

Similar with Magic or Bird. They had their best defensive seasons young but their best offensive seasons later in their careers when they won their MVPs. So do you want Magic with the better D or Magic with the outside shot? You want the shot, you take the older Magic.

People do like players selected to be healthy in the year selected (70-80 games + playoffs). Bill Walton is one of the few people who gets a bit of a pass because he won a title that one year and the MVP the next year despite missing significant time in both. So Walton is deemed healthy enough by most. But generally people do like the player to be mostly healthy in the season selected. No half a season type seasons selected. Usually you only get credit for half a season's play for a player that only plays half a season. So you want a healthy year for whatever player is selected. 

So nobody gets dinged for longevity. Peak season only.

[Moranis]

And I will say as a guy that has been dinged by it, that people do still think of the whole career even if a season was great. I used Magic as an example, he had that season late in his career where he was bombing 3's and hitting at a high rate, but I think most people would consider that season a fluke rather than a trend.  So just be wary of taking an abnormal season.  You can be convincing as to why it wasn't a fluke or that would replicate on your team, but you may not convince everyone. 

The best usage is for guys that get hurt after that season and are never the same.  Walton is a pretty classic example of that (from ineligible players).  You will generally get the benefit of that player being healthy if he was healthy that season. Zion has never been healthy, you won't get the benefit on him.

Also, if you do take an older player you will have to do some convincing on the outside shot.  Take Karl Malone, I think if he was a modern player he'd have been an excellent 3 point shooter, but not everyone may feel that way.  So that can be tricky.  The more traditional centers under modern rules may not be convincing either.  Sure if you are talking about a guy like Shaq, no one would question whether he could succeed, but there are very few Shaq's.

But this is what makes this both so fun and frustrating at the same time.  Everyone sees things differently.  The exercise itself is a blast though and you do really learn a lot about the history of the sport doing these things.

[gouki88]

Exciting just catching up now. First overall pick...interesting! I'm not sure there's a clear-cut answer. I'm actually more excited for the 2nd and 3rd round picks than this one but we'll make it work.

Question for the group as a rookie to these drafts (I've just done the current players one which is more straightforward). How strongly is the single season emphasized? There's a cohort of eligible players who had high peaks but didn't benefit from longevity for one reason or another. Are you assuming you are getting that single season's player or are they dinged for the lack of longevity?

Maybe Zion is a good example because he's not eligible. You could imagine picking him since he was a 27PPG player on 61% shooting, 7+ rebounds, great advanced stats, etc. in 2020-21. Not much of an argument there. But if he never really comes back from these injuries, do people generally ignore that in the context of that season? Or is the mental association there regardless?

Very strongly. It is either all that matters or almost all that matters. This allows you to select those injury guys who had a short peak. You get them at their peak. Or those players who had a major breakout year but then fell off. You get them at their peak.

So say you pick Kobe Bryant. If you go with a young Kobe next to Shaq, you get the more athletic more defensively active Kobe. If you with the older Kobe, you get the more skilled offensive Kobe.

Similar with Magic or Bird. They had their best defensive seasons young but their best offensive seasons later in their careers when they won their MVPs. So do you want Magic with the better D or Magic with the outside shot? You want the shot, you take the older Magic.

People do like players selected to be healthy in the year selected (70-80 games + playoffs). Bill Walton is one of the few people who gets a bit of a pass because he won a title that one year and the MVP the next year despite missing significant time in both. So Walton is deemed healthy enough by most. But generally people do like the player to be mostly healthy in the season selected. No half a season type seasons selected. Usually you only get credit for half a season's play for a player that only plays half a season. So you want a healthy year for whatever player is selected. 

So nobody gets dinged for longevity. Peak season only.

Who summed it up pretty well, as did Moranis. Single seasons are given lots of weight in these things. But the extent to which others look at it that way is flexible

[Roy H.]

With the 10th pick, the Cleveland Cavaliers select Jrue Holiday.

Lol.

[gouki88]

With the 10th pick, the Cleveland Cavaliers select Jrue Holiday.

Lol.

There are a couple of Hobbs binkies I see on the horizon..

[Who]

With the 10th pick, the Cleveland Cavaliers select Jrue Holiday.

Lol.

There are a couple of Hobbs binkies I see on the horizon..

I am picturing two players. Be interesting to see if either one of them ends up there in the 1st or 2nd round.

[Who]

I have a couple of players here too that are binkies of mine. They have been on 1-2 past teams. One guy maybe 3 teams. I'd kinda like to draft someone new and try something different though.

We'll see.

I don't have much willpower when it comes to drafting some of these guys. Loved watching them play too much.

[Donoghus]

Feel like the tiers are gonna range much more greatly in this draft than others. Very contingent on drafters’ tastes and the parity here.

[Moranis]

Feel like the tiers are gonna range much more greatly in this draft than others. Very contingent on drafters’ tastes and the parity here.

I started looking the other day and determined that I could make an argument for about 20 different people to be the 1st pick.  Certainly a lot more variance at the top than any prior draft.

[gouki88]

Feel like the tiers are gonna range much more greatly in this draft than others. Very contingent on drafters’ tastes and the parity here.

I started looking the other day and determined that I could make an argument for about 20 different people to be the 1st pick.  Certainly a lot more variance at the top than any prior draft.

I have no clue who will be taken #1. Super intriguing - no pressure on theswitch!

[Moranis]

Feel like the tiers are gonna range much more greatly in this draft than others. Very contingent on drafters’ tastes and the parity here.

I started looking the other day and determined that I could make an argument for about 20 different people to be the 1st pick.  Certainly a lot more variance at the top than any prior draft.

I have no clue who will be taken #1. Super intriguing - no pressure on theswitch!

I have a guy I like a lot, but I have no idea how he'd be received so am hesitant to take him at 9 (if he is still there).  And that is just the first round.  This thing is going to be crazy I think.  Just so much variance without any of the special room players or active guys.

[theswitch]

Feel like the tiers are gonna range much more greatly in this draft than others. Very contingent on drafters’ tastes and the parity here.

I started looking the other day and determined that I could make an argument for about 20 different people to be the 1st pick.  Certainly a lot more variance at the top than any prior draft.

I have no clue who will be taken #1. Super intriguing - no pressure on theswitch!

I have a guy I like a lot, but I have no idea how he'd be received so am hesitant to take him at 9 (if he is still there).  And that is just the first round.  This thing is going to be crazy I think.  Just so much variance without any of the special room players or active guys.

That's why I'm more excited about the 2nd and 3rd rounds. I think I have my guy for #1 but maybe I'm missing someone, and there aren't really any players that don't have some flawed characteristics. The spread between #1 and #20 is fairly thin for me compared to any other draft. Which makes this one fun!

[Roy H.]

Feel like the tiers are gonna range much more greatly in this draft than others. Very contingent on drafters’ tastes and the parity here.

I started looking the other day and determined that I could make an argument for about 20 different people to be the 1st pick.  Certainly a lot more variance at the top than any prior draft.

I have no clue who will be taken #1. Super intriguing - no pressure on theswitch!

I have a guy I like a lot, but I have no idea how he'd be received so am hesitant to take him at 9 (if he is still there).  And that is just the first round.  This thing is going to be crazy I think.  Just so much variance without any of the special room players or active guys.

That's why I'm more excited about the 2nd and 3rd rounds. I think I have my guy for #1 but maybe I'm missing someone, and there aren't really any players that don't have some flawed characteristics. The spread between #1 and #20 is fairly thin for me compared to any other draft. Which makes this one fun!

Yeah, there's no clear #1 here, or top-5, or any of that.  And, even if somebody "reaches", they'll be able to recover.