would you be satisfied with a 2014 top 5 pick

[mmmmm]

The original statement you made was:
3) Only a couple of top-5-drafted players in recent decades have managed to contribute to winning the title on the team that drafted them.

I disagreed with this, saying you need a top 10 draft pick (who eventually beats the odds and does turn into a top 10 player).
I'm saying that a top 5 pick gives you a better shot of getting one of the 10 best players in the draft.(Obviously)

Here is your problem:  You aren't disagreeing with me at all.  You don't get to disagree with that statement of mine anyway because it is not an arguable point.  It is a simple fact.   

You are disagreeing with a completely different contention that nobody made (that you "don't need a top 10 draft pick ... that turns into a top 10 player").

That's the problem, I'm disagreeing with you because it's not true. It couldn't be further from the truth, and you don't understand the correlation between top 5 picks and championships for the teams that pick them.

No, the statement is exactly true.

Duncan & Wade.  Before that you have to go back to pre-weighted lottery days.

Darko was 'on' the team that drafted him, but did not contribute at all to its winning a title - not even by being traded away.

The fact that Duncan & Wade went on to win multiple titles doesn't change the number of picks they represent.  Two.

We can look at most recent decades if you want. The last 3 decades? 2000's, 1990's and 1980's?

Q: NBA championships won with top 5 draft picks that drafted their best or 2nd best player from 1980 to 2013 (33 years)..


A:25 championships out of 33 seasons.

Q:From 1992 to 2013(See graphic), How many NBA finals appearances have been made by teams with their own top 5 pick as a top 2 player?

A: 33 appearances in 44 finals match ups. That's just back to 1992.

Just from 2013 to the year 2000, there were 6 championships won by teams with their own top 5 pick. If we expanded the filter to top 10 picks, it would be 10 out of 13 years in which the NBA championship winner had their own top 5 or top 10 pick as a top 2 player.

You are counting championships.  I am counting the number of players out of the top-5-draft-picks that helped the team that drafted them to win a title.

The latter is a far more relevant number because it is a necessary prequel before you can get to what YOU are counting.

Also, another relevant number that is far more important is (b) the number of teams that drafted in the top 5 (with their OWN pick not one they got via trade) that were helped by that pick to win a title.   That number is also small (it would include Boston, btw, since trading the #5 pick helped us win.).

Here's a great chart/list. Kobe and Dirk being picked overseas is not really accounted for other than Kobe being out of top 10.
I think if Kobe and Dirk were in the USA they would have easily gone top 5 (Kobe's draft was probably the greatest of all time but Kobe being in a different draft after the US college system would have been top 5 easily) Dirk's draft was above average but in the US system he would have killed it.

Uh?  What are you talking about with Kobe there?

Sorry I meant if Dirk was in the USA, and Kobe was in the US college system they would probably have gone top 5. Doesn't matter either way though because I don't count them as top 5 picks in my argument.
The graph says something about international heritage but the '*' is on Bryant's name, not Nowitzki's. Not sure why.

So you were not aware that Kobe was a US kid, who was drafted out of a US H.S. ....

He was also picked via a traded pick.   Not by a team that 'got bad in order to get good'.

[PhoSita]

Here's what I see as the essence of this debate about high picks:



Q: Is having a star player (i.e. top 10-20 in the league) NECESSARY to win a championship?

A: Basically.  Occasionally a team wins without a top player, but it's exceedingly rare.


Q: Is getting a top 5-10 pick SUFFICIENT to guarantee that you will acquire a star player?

A: Emphatically no.  Plenty of high picks never become more than solid starters or role players, and some are simply busts.


Q: Is getting a top 5-10 pick the only way to acquire a star player?

A: Obviously not.  Sometimes a star player can be found outside of the top 10.  Star players also sometimes enter unrestricted free agency and switch teams.  Stars on the verge of free agency are sometimes traded to teams they want to play for, too.


Q: Is getting a top 5-10 pick the easiest (i.e. lowest cost) way of acquiring a star player?

A: Yes. 

Trades for such players require a confluence of the right circumstances and often the willingness of the player to re-sign with you, not to mention a treasure chest of assets.  A top 5-10 pick at the least can be used as the centerpiece of a trade for a star player.

Signing such players in free agency is very costly, and typically you're getting a player already in the midst of his prime.  Plus, you have to have a situation that player wants to join; creating such a situation typically requires additional moves beforehand.

Drafting a star player means that player is under your control for a long, long time, with a cost-controlled rookie scale contract for the first 4 years.  Having that much time means you can grow the team organically around the player rather than going for it all right away.  You have lots of time to convince the player that your organization is the right one for him. 

Draft picks technically cost nothing, although often the losing season (and the moves necessary to create it) is a cost in itself.


Q: Does acquiring a star player guarantee that you'll win a championship?

A: Definitely not.  Typically you need more than one.  However, now more than ever star players have shown a desire to join up with other star players.  Having one makes getting additional stars easier.  In any case, winning a championship requires a great deal of luck and more often than not you need a generational talent to be more than a dark horse contender.  Still, simply being one of the teams competitive enough to have a chance is pretty satisfying.  That's the goal.