| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mavcarter
#NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5935
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/18/12 10:16 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| mannman wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
The bust of the 2008 draft was Candice Wiggins, who played 140 games (starting 43) as the #3 pick. She was 43.2 points below the average #3 pick and 12th among 2008 draftees in value points. |
How can a 6th woman of the year be a bust. Don't make me roll my eyes. |
Wasn't that like four years ago? |
She also averaged in double figures the next two years. It is only the last couple of years, under Reeve, that she has not averaged in double figures. The Lynx has one of the best rosters in WNBA history, and Candice probably would have had more opportunity on virtually any other team, where she did not have Seimone in front of her. We'll see next year, when she signs with another team. |
Fair enough. But out of the top four players selected, Wiggins has been the worst, IMO. |
Wasn't Hornbuckle #4? You seem to be having difficulty remembering Lynx player ranking from just last year. |
Who actually thought Hornbuckle would be good at the next level? Wiggins college credentials suggested she would be better than she has been._________________
| wrote: |
| Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree? |
|
|
#Occasionalwnbafan
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 1380
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/18/12 11:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| mannman wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
The bust of the 2008 draft was Candice Wiggins, who played 140 games (starting 43) as the #3 pick. She was 43.2 points below the average #3 pick and 12th among 2008 draftees in value points. |
How can a 6th woman of the year be a bust. Don't make me roll my eyes. |
Wasn't that like four years ago? |
She also averaged in double figures the next two years. It is only the last couple of years, under Reeve, that she has not averaged in double figures. The Lynx has one of the best rosters in WNBA history, and Candice probably would have had more opportunity on virtually any other team, where she did not have Seimone in front of her. We'll see next year, when she signs with another team. |
Fair enough. But out of the top four players selected, Wiggins has been the worst, IMO. |
Wasn't Hornbuckle #4? You seem to be having difficulty remembering Lynx player ranking from just last year. |
Who actually thought Hornbuckle would be good at the next level? Wiggins college credentials suggested she would be better than she has been. |
But you still said Top 4, you should change it to top 3 then. |
|
mavcarter
#NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5935
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/18/12 3:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| #Occasionalwnbafan wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| mannman wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
The bust of the 2008 draft was Candice Wiggins, who played 140 games (starting 43) as the #3 pick. She was 43.2 points below the average #3 pick and 12th among 2008 draftees in value points. |
How can a 6th woman of the year be a bust. Don't make me roll my eyes. |
Wasn't that like four years ago? |
She also averaged in double figures the next two years. It is only the last couple of years, under Reeve, that she has not averaged in double figures. The Lynx has one of the best rosters in WNBA history, and Candice probably would have had more opportunity on virtually any other team, where she did not have Seimone in front of her. We'll see next year, when she signs with another team. |
Fair enough. But out of the top four players selected, Wiggins has been the worst, IMO. |
Wasn't Hornbuckle #4? You seem to be having difficulty remembering Lynx player ranking from just last year. |
Who actually thought Hornbuckle would be good at the next level? Wiggins college credentials suggested she would be better than she has been. |
But you still said Top 4, you should change it to top 3 then. |
No I shouldn't._________________
| wrote: |
| Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree? |
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63758
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/18/12 4:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| mannman wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
The bust of the 2008 draft was Candice Wiggins, who played 140 games (starting 43) as the #3 pick. She was 43.2 points below the average #3 pick and 12th among 2008 draftees in value points. |
How can a 6th woman of the year be a bust. Don't make me roll my eyes. |
Wasn't that like four years ago? |
She also averaged in double figures the next two years. It is only the last couple of years, under Reeve, that she has not averaged in double figures. The Lynx has one of the best rosters in WNBA history, and Candice probably would have had more opportunity on virtually any other team, where she did not have Seimone in front of her. We'll see next year, when she signs with another team. |
Fair enough. But out of the top four players selected, Wiggins has been the worst, IMO. |
Wasn't Hornbuckle #4? You seem to be having difficulty remembering Lynx player ranking from just last year. |
Who actually thought Hornbuckle would be good at the next level? |
Laimbeer? But I'm not sure what your point is....is Hornbuckle a better player than Wiggins?
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Wiggins college credentials suggested she would be better than she has been. |
Two NCAA championships is pretty impressive, but I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not talking about expectations, I'm talking about who is the worst player, like you said in your quote.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
mavcarter
#NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5935
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/18/12 4:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Who actually thought Hornbuckle would be good at the next level? |
Laimbeer? But I'm not sure what your point is....is Hornbuckle a better player than Wiggins?
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Wiggins college credentials suggested she would be better than she has been. |
Two NCAA championships is pretty impressive, but I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not talking about expectations, I'm talking about who is the worst player, like you said in your quote. |
I see I have to dumb it down for you. Bust is not necessarily who is the worst player out of the draft class, but a player who was dominate at a major university who has not lived up to those expectations. Wiggins was dominate at Stanford, Hornbuckle wasn't at Tennessee. Do you get it now?_________________
| wrote: |
| Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree? |
|
|
#Occasionalwnbafan
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 1380
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/18/12 5:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Who actually thought Hornbuckle would be good at the next level? |
Laimbeer? But I'm not sure what your point is....is Hornbuckle a better player than Wiggins?
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Wiggins college credentials suggested she would be better than she has been. |
Two NCAA championships is pretty impressive, but I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not talking about expectations, I'm talking about who is the worst player, like you said in your quote. |
I see I have to dumb it down for you. Bust is not necessarily who is the worst player out of the draft class, but a player who was dominate at a major university who has not lived up to those expectations. Wiggins was dominate at Stanford, Hornbuckle wasn't at Tennessee. Do you get it now? |
what is the name calling for? I'm sure your well over 30. |
|
mavcarter
#NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5935
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/18/12 5:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| #Occasionalwnbafan wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Who actually thought Hornbuckle would be good at the next level? |
Laimbeer? But I'm not sure what your point is....is Hornbuckle a better player than Wiggins?
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Wiggins college credentials suggested she would be better than she has been. |
Two NCAA championships is pretty impressive, but I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not talking about expectations, I'm talking about who is the worst player, like you said in your quote. |
I see I have to dumb it down for you. Bust is not necessarily who is the worst player out of the draft class, but a player who was dominate at a major university who has not lived up to those expectations. Wiggins was dominate at Stanford, Hornbuckle wasn't at Tennessee. Do you get it now? |
what is the name calling for? I'm sure your well over 30. |
What are you talking about? And I'm 20.._________________
| wrote: |
| Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree? |
|
|
#Occasionalwnbafan
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 1380
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/18/12 5:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mavcarter wrote: |
| #Occasionalwnbafan wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Who actually thought Hornbuckle would be good at the next level? |
Laimbeer? But I'm not sure what your point is....is Hornbuckle a better player than Wiggins?
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Wiggins college credentials suggested she would be better than she has been. |
Two NCAA championships is pretty impressive, but I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not talking about expectations, I'm talking about who is the worst player, like you said in your quote. |
I see I have to dumb it down for you. Bust is not necessarily who is the worst player out of the draft class, but a player who was dominate at a major university who has not lived up to those expectations. Wiggins was dominate at Stanford, Hornbuckle wasn't at Tennessee. Do you get it now? |
what is the name calling for? I'm sure your well over 30. |
What are you talking about? And I'm 20.. |
O okay well I can see that now. |
|
mavcarter
#NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5935
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/18/12 5:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| #Occasionalwnbafan wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| #Occasionalwnbafan wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Who actually thought Hornbuckle would be good at the next level? |
Laimbeer? But I'm not sure what your point is....is Hornbuckle a better player than Wiggins?
| mavcarter wrote: |
| Wiggins college credentials suggested she would be better than she has been. |
Two NCAA championships is pretty impressive, but I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not talking about expectations, I'm talking about who is the worst player, like you said in your quote. |
I see I have to dumb it down for you. Bust is not necessarily who is the worst player out of the draft class, but a player who was dominate at a major university who has not lived up to those expectations. Wiggins was dominate at Stanford, Hornbuckle wasn't at Tennessee. Do you get it now? |
what is the name calling for? I'm sure your well over 30. |
What are you talking about? And I'm 20.. |
O okay well I can see that now. |
Congratulations.._________________
| wrote: |
| Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree? |
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66880
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/28/13 9:02 am ::: |
Reply |
|
How does the class of 2009 stack up?
As a whole the class produced 1491.5 value points. That ranks #11 of the 13 classes rated. Only 2003 and 2007 ranked worse.
Nobody in the class of 2009 came close to being the best or worst pick ever.
The 2009 draft did not produce the best pick ever at any position.
The steal of the 2009 draft was Shavonte Zellous, who played 158 games with 67 starts and made a memorable All Star appearance as a #11 pick. She was 39 points above average for a #11.
The bust of the 2009 draft was Megan Frazee, who played 39 games with no starts as the #14 pick. She was 49.2 points below average for a #14.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66880
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/17/14 3:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
How does the class of 2010 stack up?
As a whole the class produced 1279.5 value points. That's 13th out of 14 classes. Only 2003 was worse.
Nobody in the class of 2010 came close to being the best pick ever. Jacinta Monroe, the #6 pick, played 21 games (starting none) for a total of 10.5 points. That puts her 105.9 points below the average #6 pick. That would rank her as the second worst pick in WNBA history through 2010.
The 2010 draft did not produce the best pick ever at any position.
The steal of the draft was Kalana Greene, who played 154 games (95 starts) as the #13 pick. Actually, Tina Charles scored the most above average for her draft position, but you can't really call the #1 pick a steal.
The bust of the 2010 draft was Jacinta Monroe, as mentioned above.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
jlight
Joined: 26 Feb 2014
Posts: 2516
Location: minny
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/17/14 4:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
How does the class of 2010 stack up?
As a whole the class produced 1279.5 value points. That's 13th out of 14 classes. Only 2003 was worse.
Nobody in the class of 2010 came close to being the best pick ever. Jacinta Monroe, the #6 pick, played 21 games (starting none) for a total of 10.5 points. That puts her 105.9 points below the average #6 pick. That would rank her as the second worst pick in WNBA history through 2010.
The 2010 draft did not produce the best pick ever at any position.
The steal of the draft was Kalana Greene, who played 154 games (95 starts) as the #13 pick. Actually, Tina Charles scored the most above average for her draft position, but you can't really call the #1 pick a steal.
The bust of the 2010 draft was Jacinta Monroe, as mentioned above. |
i can't wait to see 2011 class..
_________________
#DosLynx
#mayaclinic
"It's not necessarily about out-working the person across from me. It's out-working that voice inside me that says, "I'm too tired. I don't feel like doing it. I can settle." - Maya Moore.
|
|
larmarch5
Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Posts: 424
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/17/14 5:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jlight wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
How does the class of 2010 stack up?
As a whole the class produced 1279.5 value points. That's 13th out of 14 classes. Only 2003 was worse.
Nobody in the class of 2010 came close to being the best pick ever. Jacinta Monroe, the #6 pick, played 21 games (starting none) for a total of 10.5 points. That puts her 105.9 points below the average #6 pick. That would rank her as the second worst pick in WNBA history through 2010.
The 2010 draft did not produce the best pick ever at any position.
The steal of the draft was Kalana Greene, who played 154 games (95 starts) as the #13 pick. Actually, Tina Charles scored the most above average for her draft position, but you can't really call the #1 pick a steal.
The bust of the 2010 draft was Jacinta Monroe, as mentioned above. |
i can't wait to see 2011 class.. |
I assume you are wondering how Maya Moore stacks up? Even if she gets all available points next year, she will fall short of Diana. I believe she would be in second by 7 points. Maya has started 34 games every single year, but was not voted onto the All-WNBA team her rookie year. She was, however, an All-Star. Taurasi started 3 fewer games in her first 5 years, but made All-WNBA every season. So 10-3 = 7.
Again, this is assuming Maya starts every game next year and makes All-WNBA.
I believe Maya would be knocked down to third if Thompson were adjusted for having fewer games available to play.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66880
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/17/14 5:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| jlight wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
How does the class of 2010 stack up?
As a whole the class produced 1279.5 value points. That's 13th out of 14 classes. Only 2003 was worse.
Nobody in the class of 2010 came close to being the best pick ever. Jacinta Monroe, the #6 pick, played 21 games (starting none) for a total of 10.5 points. That puts her 105.9 points below the average #6 pick. That would rank her as the second worst pick in WNBA history through 2010.
The 2010 draft did not produce the best pick ever at any position.
The steal of the draft was Kalana Greene, who played 154 games (95 starts) as the #13 pick. Actually, Tina Charles scored the most above average for her draft position, but you can't really call the #1 pick a steal.
The bust of the 2010 draft was Jacinta Monroe, as mentioned above. |
i can't wait to see 2011 class.. |
I assume you are wondering how Maya Moore stacks up? Even if she gets all available points next year, she will fall short of Diana. I believe she would be in second by 7 points. Maya has started 34 games every single year, but was not voted onto the All-WNBA team her rookie year. She was, however, an All-Star. Taurasi started 3 fewer games in her first 5 years, but made All-WNBA every season. So 10-3 = 7.
Again, this is assuming Maya starts every game next year and makes All-WNBA.
I believe Maya would be knocked down to third if Thompson were adjusted for having fewer games available to play. |
Tina Charles, who has made All WNBA in all five of her seasons, is only three points behind Taurasi.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/17/14 5:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| jlight wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
How does the class of 2010 stack up?
As a whole the class produced 1279.5 value points. That's 13th out of 14 classes. Only 2003 was worse.
Nobody in the class of 2010 came close to being the best pick ever. Jacinta Monroe, the #6 pick, played 21 games (starting none) for a total of 10.5 points. That puts her 105.9 points below the average #6 pick. That would rank her as the second worst pick in WNBA history through 2010.
The 2010 draft did not produce the best pick ever at any position.
The steal of the draft was Kalana Greene, who played 154 games (95 starts) as the #13 pick. Actually, Tina Charles scored the most above average for her draft position, but you can't really call the #1 pick a steal.
The bust of the 2010 draft was Jacinta Monroe, as mentioned above. |
i can't wait to see 2011 class.. |
I assume you are wondering how Maya Moore stacks up? Even if she gets all available points next year, she will fall short of Diana. I believe she would be in second by 7 points. Maya has started 34 games every single year, but was not voted onto the All-WNBA team her rookie year. She was, however, an All-Star. Taurasi started 3 fewer games in her first 5 years, but made All-WNBA every season. So 10-3 = 7.
Again, this is assuming Maya starts every game next year and makes All-WNBA.
I believe Maya would be knocked down to third if Thompson were adjusted for having fewer games available to play. |
Tina Charles, who has made All WNBA in all five of her seasons, is only three points behind Taurasi. |
Ahh. I missed her. For some reason I thought she missed a year. Perhaps I was thinking of 2013 where she made it even though she had no business doing so.
Mea Culpa.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
jlight
Joined: 26 Feb 2014
Posts: 2516
Location: minny
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/17/14 6:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| jlight wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
How does the class of 2010 stack up?
As a whole the class produced 1279.5 value points. That's 13th out of 14 classes. Only 2003 was worse.
Nobody in the class of 2010 came close to being the best pick ever. Jacinta Monroe, the #6 pick, played 21 games (starting none) for a total of 10.5 points. That puts her 105.9 points below the average #6 pick. That would rank her as the second worst pick in WNBA history through 2010.
The 2010 draft did not produce the best pick ever at any position.
The steal of the draft was Kalana Greene, who played 154 games (95 starts) as the #13 pick. Actually, Tina Charles scored the most above average for her draft position, but you can't really call the #1 pick a steal.
The bust of the 2010 draft was Jacinta Monroe, as mentioned above. |
i can't wait to see 2011 class.. |
I assume you are wondering how Maya Moore stacks up? Even if she gets all available points next year, she will fall short of Diana. I believe she would be in second by 7 points. Maya has started 34 games every single year, but was not voted onto the All-WNBA team her rookie year. She was, however, an All-Star. Taurasi started 3 fewer games in her first 5 years, but made All-WNBA every season. So 10-3 = 7.
Again, this is assuming Maya starts every game next year and makes All-WNBA.
I believe Maya would be knocked down to third if Thompson were adjusted for having fewer games available to play. |
basically..
_________________
#DosLynx
#mayaclinic
"It's not necessarily about out-working the person across from me. It's out-working that voice inside me that says, "I'm too tired. I don't feel like doing it. I can settle." - Maya Moore.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66880
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24344
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/15/14 10:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/10/15/6985875/best-and-worst-draft-picks-in-wnba-history
| Quote: |
| the wasted pick of Monroe is going to haunt the Mystics for a long time. |
|
The 'flaw' in the system is that 'best/worst draft pick' kind of implies a judgement on how good the choice was by the team in question. But as 2000 illustrates, sometimes a lot of it comes down to the options available in that year's pool. To judge how good the team's choice was the system would have to introduce an assessment of the alternatives on offer that went later in that draft.
But interesting stuff as always, pilight. |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66880
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/14 7:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/10/15/6985875/best-and-worst-draft-picks-in-wnba-history
| Quote: |
| the wasted pick of Monroe is going to haunt the Mystics for a long time. |
|
The 'flaw' in the system is that 'best/worst draft pick' kind of implies a judgement on how good the choice was by the team in question. But as 2000 illustrates, sometimes a lot of it comes down to the options available in that year's pool. To judge how good the team's choice was the system would have to introduce an assessment of the alternatives on offer that went later in that draft.
But interesting stuff as always, pilight. |
Monroe produced the 17th most points of the 2010 draftees as the #6 pick. It's entirely possible that she got more games than her play deserved because of her draft position. There's no scenario in which it won't grade out as an All Time bad pick.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24344
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/14 7:53 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Richyyy wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/10/15/6985875/best-and-worst-draft-picks-in-wnba-history
| Quote: |
| the wasted pick of Monroe is going to haunt the Mystics for a long time. |
|
The 'flaw' in the system is that 'best/worst draft pick' kind of implies a judgement on how good the choice was by the team in question. But as 2000 illustrates, sometimes a lot of it comes down to the options available in that year's pool. To judge how good the team's choice was the system would have to introduce an assessment of the alternatives on offer that went later in that draft.
But interesting stuff as always, pilight. |
Monroe produced the 17th most points of the 2010 draftees as the #6 pick. It's entirely possible that she got more games than her play deserved because of her draft position. There's no scenario in which it won't grade out as an All Time bad pick. |
Oh absolutely, Monroe was a terrible choice. I probably shouldn't have quoted your post - I meant it more as a general comment. Like with Wauters being the 'worst pick ever'. There were one or two decent options that year, but most of the other options would have been as sucky or even suckier. |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11132
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/14 9:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Great stuff, as usual, from pilight ...
A lot of potential conversations, but this jumped out at me:
The huge dropoff in production from No. 1 (188.6) to No. 5 (111.2) -- that's 69% less. So any discussion of trading a top pick for a lower pick and an older player really doesn't make much sense.
Also note that player value plummets dramatically after No. 6, speaking to the shallowness of most drafts and the lack of value of mid to low first-round picks. So again, trading a No. 9 pick for a proven player is unlikely to be a good deal.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16354
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/14 10:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Great stuff, as usual, from pilight ...
A lot of potential conversations, but this jumped out at me:
The huge dropoff in production from No. 1 (188.6) to No. 5 (111.2) -- that's 69% less. So any discussion of trading a top pick for a lower pick and an older player really doesn't make much sense.
Also note that player value plummets dramatically after No. 6, speaking to the shallowness of most drafts and the lack of value of mid to low first-round picks. So again, trading a No. 9 pick for a proven player is unlikely to be a good deal. |
This also points to the importance of the draft lottery. It is almost impossible to get a superstar player without lottery luck.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24344
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/14 10:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| No. 1 (188.6) to No. 5 (111.2) -- that's 69% less. |
It's really not. |
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16354
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/14 10:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| No. 1 (188.6) to No. 5 (111.2) -- that's 69% less. |
It's really not. |
It's not. But it is 40% less, which is nonetheless pretty significant.
|
|
|
|
