View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9544
Back to top |
Posted: 05/31/18 2:36 pm ::: Lottery Picks last 9 years |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/01/18 9:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/01/18 11:15 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/01/18 11:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/01/18 11:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/02/18 10:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/02/18 10:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/02/18 11:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/02/18 12:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/02/18 2:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/02/18 2:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16346 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 06/02/18 3:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/02/18 3:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/02/18 4:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/02/18 4:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/02/18 6:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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. |
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16346 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 06/02/18 7:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/03/18 1:38 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/03/18 2:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/03/18 3:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 06/03/18 7:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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'. |
|
|
|