RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Lottery Picks last 9 years

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/31/18 2:36 pm    ::: Lottery Picks last 9 years Reply Reply with quote

Lottery Draft picks 2010-2018

Dallas 7  [#2-2011 Liz Cambage, #4-2012 Glory Johnson, #3-2013 Skylar Diggins ,#2-2014 Odyssey Sims, #2-2015 Amanda Zahui B, #3-2017 Evelyn Akhator, #4-2017 Alisha Gray]

Chicago 6 [#4-2010 Epiphanny Prince, #3-2011 Courtney Vandersloot, #2-2013 Elena Delle Donne, #2-2017  Alaina Coates, #3-2018 Diamond DeShields, #4-2018 Gabby Williams]

Conn 6 [#1-2010 Tina Charles, #1-2014 Chiney Ogwumike, #4-2014 Alyssa Thomas, #4-2015 Elizabeth Williams, #3-2016 Morgan Tuck, #4-2016 Rachel Banham]

Minn 5 [#2-2010 Monica Wright, #3-2010 Kelsey Griffin, #1-2011  Maya Moore, #4-2011 Amber Harris,  #3-2012 Devereaux Peters]

Las Vegas 4 [#3-2014 Kayla McBride, #2-2016 Moriah Jefferson, #1-2017 Kelsey Plum, #1-2018 A’ja Wilson]

Seattle 4 [#2-2012 Shekinna Stricklen, #1-2015 Jewell Loyd, #3-2015 Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis, #1-2016 Breanna Stewart]

LA 1 [#1-2012 Nneka Ogwumike]

Pho 1 [#1-2013 Brittney Griner]

Wash 1 [#4-2013 Taylor Hill]

Ind 1 [#2-2018 Kelsey Mitchell]

Atl 0

NY 0


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/01/18 9:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I did not realize Minnesota had the third-most lottery picks over that span ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/01/18 11:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
I did not realize Minnesota had the third-most lottery picks over that span ...


And 4 of the 5 were not very good.


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16346
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/01/18 11:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
ClayK wrote:
I did not realize Minnesota had the third-most lottery picks over that span ...


And 4 of the 5 were not very good.


The whole list really points to how important it is to get No. 1 picks.


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/01/18 11:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Not sure Griffin counts, since she was traded. They could have had Lavender instead of Harris, or Glory Johnson, Shenise Johnson, or Hayes instead of Peters, and Prince instead of Wright. Of course, had they done better with some of the picks they might not have Moore.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 10:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
Randy wrote:
ClayK wrote:
I did not realize Minnesota had the third-most lottery picks over that span ...


And 4 of the 5 were not very good.


The whole list really points to how important it is to get No. 1 picks.


And how relatively worthless lower picks are. There are very, very few elite players, and seldom are there more than one in a given draft.

That said, there are always some good players in the top ten, but it's never a sure thing picking out which ones they are in advance.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63713



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 10:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
I did not realize Minnesota had the third-most lottery picks over that span ...


Probably because it’s not true. They have 4th-most as listed, and then when you consider that Kelsey Griffin belongs on Connecticut’s list since that was a pre-arranged trade for her, it puts them farther back of the pack.

In the past, Minnesota has done well to trade into the lottery, and they didn’t need to trade especially good players to do it. I suppose Reeve wanted to recreate some of that Griffith magic.

I’m not sure why 2008 and 2009 were left out of the party. Those were certainly transformative drafts for the teams involved, with players who are still very prominent (Parker, Fowles, McCoughtry).



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 11:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
And how relatively worthless lower picks are. There are very, very few elite players, and seldom are there more than one in a given draft.

That said, there are always some good players in the top ten, but it's never a sure thing picking out which ones they are in advance.


That's not much different from the NBA. Rare is the draft with more than one elite player. More common are drafts with none.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 12:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
And how relatively worthless lower picks are. There are very, very few elite players, and seldom are there more than one in a given draft.

That said, there are always some good players in the top ten, but it's never a sure thing picking out which ones they are in advance.


That's not much different from the NBA. Rare is the draft with more than one elite player. More common are drafts with none.


Very true. The dropoff in all sports is pretty dramatic, even baseball, when there is much less relevant data to draw on.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
chapulana



Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 55



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 2:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
Randy wrote:
ClayK wrote:
I did not realize Minnesota had the third-most lottery picks over that span ...


And 4 of the 5 were not very good.


The whole list really points to how important it is to get No. 1 picks.


And how relatively worthless lower picks are. There are very, very few elite players, and seldom are there more than one in a given draft.

That said, there are always some good players in the top ten, but it's never a sure thing picking out which ones they are in advance.


Actually, I think this league must be one of the most reliable in terms of good players being selected in the 1-5 range. There is almost no randomness and most of the players turn to be good ones (I have not made any calculation but I'm sure like 80% end being All-Stars), while in the NBA that is not the case by far.




Last edited by chapulana on 06/02/18 2:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63713



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 2:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hmm... not sure why you gave that response to that post. Must have hit the wrong post quote.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned


Last edited by Shades on 06/02/18 2:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
chapulana



Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 55



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 2:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
Hmm... not sure why you gave that response to that post. Most have hit the wrong post quote.


My bad Embarassed I'm accustomed to forums where the Quote button is at the bottom of the post so yep, you're right I hit the wrong one!


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16346
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 3:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
And how relatively worthless lower picks are. There are very, very few elite players, and seldom are there more than one in a given draft.

That said, there are always some good players in the top ten, but it's never a sure thing picking out which ones they are in advance.


That's not much different from the NBA. Rare is the draft with more than one elite player. More common are drafts with none.


Very true. The dropoff in all sports is pretty dramatic, even baseball, when there is much less relevant data to draw on.


But in the NBA, it isn't nearly as often the No. 1 picks that you have to have. The top of the draft is a little more variable. This year, only 2 of the of the 10 members of the First and Second All NBA teams were former No. 1 draft picks. Last year for the WNBA, it was 6 out of 10 (and, remember, two of the active No. 1 picks sat out the season).

In the WNBA, the premium for the No. 1 pick is huge.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 3:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
And how relatively worthless lower picks are. There are very, very few elite players, and seldom are there more than one in a given draft.

That said, there are always some good players in the top ten, but it's never a sure thing picking out which ones they are in advance.


That's not much different from the NBA. Rare is the draft with more than one elite player. More common are drafts with none.


Very true. The dropoff in all sports is pretty dramatic, even baseball, when there is much less relevant data to draw on.


But in the NBA, it isn't nearly as often the No. 1 picks that you have to have. The top of the draft is a little more variable. This year, only 2 of the of the 10 members of the First and Second All NBA teams were former No. 1 draft picks. Last year for the WNBA, it was 6 out of 10 (and, remember, two of the active No. 1 picks sat out the season).

In the WNBA, the premium for the No. 1 pick is huge.


Scouting is easier in the W because you've got years of data on the players. The top men's players rarely play more than one year of college ball and it may soon be less than that again. It's not that the NBA drafts are any deeper, lack of data just makes the NBA GMs get it wrong more often than WNBA GMs do.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
chapulana



Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 55



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 4:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
And how relatively worthless lower picks are. There are very, very few elite players, and seldom are there more than one in a given draft.

That said, there are always some good players in the top ten, but it's never a sure thing picking out which ones they are in advance.


That's not much different from the NBA. Rare is the draft with more than one elite player. More common are drafts with none.


Very true. The dropoff in all sports is pretty dramatic, even baseball, when there is much less relevant data to draw on.


But in the NBA, it isn't nearly as often the No. 1 picks that you have to have. The top of the draft is a little more variable. This year, only 2 of the of the 10 members of the First and Second All NBA teams were former No. 1 draft picks. Last year for the WNBA, it was 6 out of 10 (and, remember, two of the active No. 1 picks sat out the season).

In the WNBA, the premium for the No. 1 pick is huge.


That made me think how a team going through a tanking "76ers Process" in the W would fare in relatively short time. The idea of picking three or four years in the lottery would stack the roster incredibly in this league, although given that it is only composed of 12 teams and maybe one or two rookies in consecutive years may make a team already a good one (ex: Seattle this year led by Breanna and Loyd), I don't know how other teams/GMs/League Board would see it.

Obviously as a strategy sounds like the best, but I don't know if it would be that doable as per the W structure as is now.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 4:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think picking the top females in basketball is easier than most sports. Seems to be common for the superstar female basketball players to be identified as #1 out of high school and then be identified four years later as #1 coming into the pros. Parker, Charles, Moore, Stewart, Griner, Chiney Ogwumike (Nneka was #6), Wilson. Mosqueda-Lewis also came in #1 and went out #1 among her class.

Plum was #26. #1 that year was Mercedes Russell, followed by Kaela Davis and Diamond DeShields.


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24327
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 6:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
And how relatively worthless lower picks are. There are very, very few elite players, and seldom are there more than one in a given draft.

That said, there are always some good players in the top ten, but it's never a sure thing picking out which ones they are in advance.


That's not much different from the NBA. Rare is the draft with more than one elite player. More common are drafts with none.


Very true. The dropoff in all sports is pretty dramatic, even baseball, when there is much less relevant data to draw on.


But in the NBA, it isn't nearly as often the No. 1 picks that you have to have. The top of the draft is a little more variable. This year, only 2 of the of the 10 members of the First and Second All NBA teams were former No. 1 draft picks. Last year for the WNBA, it was 6 out of 10 (and, remember, two of the active No. 1 picks sat out the season).

In the WNBA, the premium for the No. 1 pick is huge.


Scouting is easier in the W because you've got years of data on the players. The top men's players rarely play more than one year of college ball and it may soon be less than that again. It's not that the NBA drafts are any deeper, lack of data just makes the NBA GMs get it wrong more often than WNBA GMs do.

Players are also much closer to the finished article of what they're going to be at 22 than at 19, even if you had the same amount of data - less projection involved. Those are key development years for athletes, and they've already happened before the draft in the WNBA, whereas you're still hoping they're going to go well in the NBA.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16346
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/02/18 7:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
pilight wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
And how relatively worthless lower picks are. There are very, very few elite players, and seldom are there more than one in a given draft.

That said, there are always some good players in the top ten, but it's never a sure thing picking out which ones they are in advance.


That's not much different from the NBA. Rare is the draft with more than one elite player. More common are drafts with none.


Very true. The dropoff in all sports is pretty dramatic, even baseball, when there is much less relevant data to draw on.


But in the NBA, it isn't nearly as often the No. 1 picks that you have to have. The top of the draft is a little more variable. This year, only 2 of the of the 10 members of the First and Second All NBA teams were former No. 1 draft picks. Last year for the WNBA, it was 6 out of 10 (and, remember, two of the active No. 1 picks sat out the season).

In the WNBA, the premium for the No. 1 pick is huge.


Scouting is easier in the W because you've got years of data on the players. The top men's players rarely play more than one year of college ball and it may soon be less than that again. It's not that the NBA drafts are any deeper, lack of data just makes the NBA GMs get it wrong more often than WNBA GMs do.

Players are also much closer to the finished article of what they're going to be at 22 than at 19, even if you had the same amount of data - less projection involved. Those are key development years for athletes, and they've already happened before the draft in the WNBA, whereas you're still hoping they're going to go well in the NBA.


But all of this is the point. It's not the lottery - it is the No. 1 pick. The league needs to take steps to ensure that those No. 1 picks are spread around.


Luuuc
#NATC


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21903



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/03/18 1:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

chapulana wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
And how relatively worthless lower picks are. There are very, very few elite players, and seldom are there more than one in a given draft.

That said, there are always some good players in the top ten, but it's never a sure thing picking out which ones they are in advance.


That's not much different from the NBA. Rare is the draft with more than one elite player. More common are drafts with none.


Very true. The dropoff in all sports is pretty dramatic, even baseball, when there is much less relevant data to draw on.


But in the NBA, it isn't nearly as often the No. 1 picks that you have to have. The top of the draft is a little more variable. This year, only 2 of the of the 10 members of the First and Second All NBA teams were former No. 1 draft picks. Last year for the WNBA, it was 6 out of 10 (and, remember, two of the active No. 1 picks sat out the season).

In the WNBA, the premium for the No. 1 pick is huge.


That made me think how a team going through a tanking "76ers Process" in the W would fare in relatively short time. The idea of picking three or four years in the lottery would stack the roster incredibly in this league, although given that it is only composed of 12 teams and maybe one or two rookies in consecutive years may make a team already a good one (ex: Seattle this year led by Breanna and Loyd), I don't know how other teams/GMs/League Board would see it.

Obviously as a strategy sounds like the best, but I don't know if it would be that doable as per the W structure as is now.


Thanks to the lottery, you could finish dead last for 4 years in a row and still not stack your roster though. Some years you get a serious star going at #1, but some years you also get some players getting drafted at 3 & 4 who aren't exactly franchise-changing.



_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/03/18 2:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Luuuc wrote:
chapulana wrote:
That made me think how a team going through a tanking "76ers Process" in the W would fare in relatively short time. The idea of picking three or four years in the lottery would stack the roster incredibly in this league, although given that it is only composed of 12 teams and maybe one or two rookies in consecutive years may make a team already a good one (ex: Seattle this year led by Breanna and Loyd), I don't know how other teams/GMs/League Board would see it.

Obviously as a strategy sounds like the best, but I don't know if it would be that doable as per the W structure as is now.


Thanks to the lottery, you could finish dead last for 4 years in a row and still not stack your roster though. Some years you get a serious star going at #1, but some years you also get some players getting drafted at 3 & 4 who aren't exactly franchise-changing.


Yes, and don't forget the 76ers made some bust picks (Jahlil Okafor), but made up for it because Embiid & Simmons are future superstars.
I actually think the Indiana Fever are going through "The Process" right now, considering they basically got rid of every vet on their team (except Dupree) in favor of rookies/young players. I have no problem with slash & burn rebuilding, which isn't what the 2012 Mercury tank was.


chapulana



Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 55



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/03/18 3:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Luuuc wrote:
chapulana wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
And how relatively worthless lower picks are. There are very, very few elite players, and seldom are there more than one in a given draft.

That said, there are always some good players in the top ten, but it's never a sure thing picking out which ones they are in advance.


That's not much different from the NBA. Rare is the draft with more than one elite player. More common are drafts with none.


Very true. The dropoff in all sports is pretty dramatic, even baseball, when there is much less relevant data to draw on.


But in the NBA, it isn't nearly as often the No. 1 picks that you have to have. The top of the draft is a little more variable. This year, only 2 of the of the 10 members of the First and Second All NBA teams were former No. 1 draft picks. Last year for the WNBA, it was 6 out of 10 (and, remember, two of the active No. 1 picks sat out the season).

In the WNBA, the premium for the No. 1 pick is huge.


That made me think how a team going through a tanking "76ers Process" in the W would fare in relatively short time. The idea of picking three or four years in the lottery would stack the roster incredibly in this league, although given that it is only composed of 12 teams and maybe one or two rookies in consecutive years may make a team already a good one (ex: Seattle this year led by Breanna and Loyd), I don't know how other teams/GMs/League Board would see it.

Obviously as a strategy sounds like the best, but I don't know if it would be that doable as per the W structure as is now.


Thanks to the lottery, you could finish dead last for 4 years in a row and still not stack your roster though. Some years you get a serious star going at #1, but some years you also get some players getting drafted at 3 & 4 who aren't exactly franchise-changing.


Yeah, I know the reasons behind the lottery, but even with that a 1-4 pick in the WNBA is much more closer to turn into a star than not. In the past 10 years, only 18/40 players are not All-Stars and that is counting 2016/17/18 classes, which are still way early in their careers.

If we just take the drafts from 2008 to 2015, only 9 of 28 players are not All-Stars. That is an All-Star bound pick is guaranteed if you get in the lottery 68% of the times. Considering there are 4 picks in the lottery, it's (almost) just 1 out of the 4 that would miss. Of course your team can be the one dropping the ball, but the numbers speak for themselves.


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24327
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/03/18 7:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Bear in mind that over 15% of the league makes the all-star game in the WNBA. It's not quite the same accolade that it is in most other US leagues. And while having lots of 'good' players is nice, it often doesn't add up to that much without at least one player who's significantly better than 'good'.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin