quote:

---

Leonard 15th pick
SJax 42nd pick
Green 46th pick
Manu 56th pick
Diaw 21st pick
Mills 55th pick
Neal undrafted
Splitter 28th pick
Bonner 45th pick
Parker 28th pick
Blair 37th pick

---

Like Judge says, some of those had already shown their talent professionally before the Spurs picked them up. Neal, Splitter, Diaw, Jackson, and Mills all had professional success, while Bonner was what he is.

On the other hand, the following players had not shown their eventual talent when the Spurs acquired them:
Ginobili was drafted in 99, but didn't start racking up Euro championships and MVPs until the next season
Parker was still a year away from recognition as a rising star in the French league.
Green had been cut by the Cavs.
Blair was passed over due to injury concerns
Leonard was the 15th pick, so he wasn't quite as much of an apparent shot in the dark. That said, he was a great value and fit in the Spurs system much better than anyone would have guessed.


Getting 2 of your big 3 as low draft picks before they blew up internationally is impressive. So is getting a day 1 contributor of Leonard's quality at 15, even though that is a fairly high pick. Starting a guy in the conference finals a few months after he was cut by the fkn Cavs is just incredible.

quote:

---

Like Judge says, some of those had already shown their talent professionally before the Spurs picked them up. Neal, Splitter, Diaw, Jackson, and Mills all had professional success, while Bonner was what he is.

---

Mills was playing professionally in Australia when the Spurs signed him.

Neal walked on to Towsen University and was a 26 year old undrafted free agent when the Spurs signed him. He had been playing for FC Barca, where he averaged 2.3ppg. He then played for some Spanish team we haven't heard of an averaged 12ppg. Not really a known commodity.

Splitter was known, but euro players can easily go either way. Pop has developed him a lot since he arrived in SA.

Jackson was **** until the Spurs signed him the first time and even then he didn't play his first year in SA.

Neal and Mills hadn't shown any talent when the Spurs got them.

Jackson had not shown talent when the Spurs got him the first time.

Diaw certainly blossomed in Phoenix, but has been underproducing and overweight for a couple years.

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 5/29/2012 3:01p).]

A better indicator of coach/GM value is the amount of lottery picks that franchise has had. Still not perfect, but better than the amount of lottery picks that are on a current roster. I think the Lakers had one lottery pick in the past twenty years (Bynum).

The Heat have three of the top five picks from the 2003 draft on their team. Doesn't mean their team is any better/worse because of that sole fact.

Jackson averaged over 8 ppg his rookie year, which was the season before the Spurs picked him up.

Mills had pretty good success off the bench in Portland before going to Australia.

Neal was very good in Europe, and at a time when franchises are a lot more aware of Europe than when Ginobili and Parker were drafted.

Splitter was an MVP and champion in his league before the Spurs drafted him.

If I remember right, Diaw had won two most improved player awards and a 6th man of the year award before the Spurs signed him. He was widely regarded as a skilled and versatile NBA player.


I'm not saying those guys were superstars, but they weren't coming out of nowhere either.

EDIT: I doublechecked, Neal didn't have as much success in Europe as I thought, so I'll give you that one.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 5/29/2012 3:07p).]

quote:

---

I think the Lakers had one lottery pick in the past twenty years (Bynum).

---

I'd still consider Kobe a lottery pick even if the pick was traded to the Lakers.

quote:

---

Jackson averaged over 8 ppg his rookie year, which was the season before the Spurs picked him up.

---

8ppg on a 20-game winning team is supposed to be impressive? Derrick Brown averaged 8ppg for the Bobcats this year. Should we sign him? That isn't professional success.

quote:

---

Mills had pretty good success off the bench in Portland before going to Australia

---

Such good success that not one NBA team wanted to sign him this year? 5.5 points and 1.7 assists on .42/.35 shooting. There are dozens and dozens of guys that can do that.

quote:

---

Splitter was an MVP and champion in his league before the Spurs drafted him.

---

He was of a tournament. Most of his awards came between Spurs drafting him and Spurs signing him. Even when he came over, he was pretty raw compared to where Pop has developed him.
Other Euro MVPs include Pablo Prigioni, Dejan Bodiroga, Juan Carlos Navarro, Anthony Parker, Vassilis Spanoulis, Tyus Edney, and Trajan Langdon. Very hit or miss whether that player will be good in the NBA.

quote:

---

If I remember right, Diaw had won two most improved player awards and a 6th man of the year award before the Spurs signed him.

---

I think only a MIP. Out of all the players you listed, he is certainly the most well known commodity.

quote:

---

I'm not saying those guys were superstars, but they weren't coming out of nowhere either.

---

Mills, Neal and Green pretty much came out of no where. Stephen Jackson did the first time around, but obviously not this time. Mainly because his parole officer makes him warn the neighborhood every time he moves, so you know he is coming.

quote:

---

A better indicator of coach/GM value is the amount of lottery picks that franchise has had. Still not perfect, but better than the amount of lottery picks that are on a current roster. I think the Lakers had one lottery pick in the past twenty years (Bynum).

---

Except that your criterion is biased against small market teams. Sure, the Lakers have only had a single lottery pick in twenty years. They are also one of the four historically most highly sought-after destinations for free agents (LA, NY, Boston, Chicago). The biggest FA signing by the Spurs in that time span is, who, Horry? When you are immediately #1 on most FA's list every off season, you get the pick of the litter. ALSO, your criterion disregards whether an ownership group is willing to pay luxury tax penalties. The Spurs have gotten it done with entirely different budgeting constraints than LA or NY, for instance. Your criterion is only valid assuming that everyone is on the same playing field as far as payroll and ability to sign free agents, which is not the case.

quote:

---

The Heat have three of the top five picks from the 2003 draft on their team. Doesn't mean their team is any better/worse because of that sole fact.

---

Sure it does. Two consecutive trips to the finals. You think that would happen if they didn't have those guys??? I don't.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 5/29/2012 3:25p).]

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 5/29/2012 3:27p).]

quote:

---

I think the Lakers had one lottery pick in the past twenty years (Bynum).

---

Lakers got Eddie Jones in the lottery, traded Vlade for Kobe as a lottery pick, and got Bynum in the lottery.

I'm arguing against Guitarsoup's point that the Spurs status of CURRENTLY have only one lottery pick on the team is indicative of a good GM/coach.

It's not.

I'm saying they were lucky in landing Duncan (which is inarguable). Yes, San Antonio has done a terrific job of surrounding Duncan with talent, but as already mentioned, the Spurs were hardly a franchise in disarray before he got there. Some of you are acting like San Antonio's success over the past 15 years has been a miracle that only Pop and the front office could have created.

It's not.

Again, my point is that the number of current lottery picks on a given team is essentially a non-factor when determining how well a franchise is run. The Spurs at one point had Glen Robinson (1st overall pick) on their team. Antonio McDyess (2nd overall pick). Richard Jefferson (13th). Does that change how they're viewed as a franchise historically?

It doesn't.

Look at the Clippers picks since 2000.

2011 -
2010 8 Al-Farouq Aminu
2010 18 Eric Bledsoe
2009 1 Blake Griffin
2008 7 Eric Gordon
2008 35 DeAndre Jordan
2007 14 Al Thornton
2006 -
2005 12 Yaroslav Korolev
2004 4 Shaun Livingston
2003 6 Chris Kaman
2002 8 Chris Wilcox
12 Melvin Ely
2001 2 Tyson Chandler
2000 3 Darius Miles
18 Quentin Richardson
1999 4 Lamar Odom
1998 1 Michael Olowokandi

[This message has been edited by UMichAg (edited 5/29/2012 3:40p).]

quote:

---

I'm arguing against Guitarsoup's point that the Spurs status of CURRENTLY have only one lottery pick on the team is indicative of a good GM/coach.

It's not.

---

Says you. If Gsoup or anyone else wants to add up the total lottery picks that all NBA teams currently have on their roster, I'll be happy to perform a regression on winning % this year. My guess is that (a) there will be a significant relationship, and (b) San Antonio's residual will be very large, almost to the point that it will look like an outlier.

quote:

---

as already mentioned, the Spurs were hardly a franchise in disarray before he got there.

---

The big names on the billboard at that time were Robinson, Elliot, Mario Elie and Avery Johnson. All were at the end of their careers. Robinson was the only one left in 2003. In those 5 years, the Spurs acquired Bowen, Ginobili, and Parker. Those three guys were cornerstones in '03, '05 and '07. To say that "there were pieces in place" when Duncan got there ignores the fact that almost all the pieces were different just a couple of years later.

quote:

---

Again, my point is that the number of current lottery picks on a given team is essentially a non-factor when determining how well a franchise is run.

---

I understood your point. My point is that (a) you are primarily wrong, and (b) your criterion is even worse than G'soups, given the fact that there are TWO ways to acquire talent, and the Lakers rarely do it through the draft. The Lakers and a few other teams have an obvious leg up when it comes to acquiring talent through FA's (Shaq, Artest, Barnes) and trades (Gasol), and your criterion completely discounts this fact.

quote:

---

I'm arguing against Guitarsoup's point that the Spurs status of CURRENTLY have only one lottery pick on the team is indicative of a good GM/coach.

It's not.

I'm saying they were lucky in landing Duncan (which is inarguable). Yes, San Antonio has done a terrific job of surrounding Duncan with talent, but as already mentioned, the Spurs were hardly a franchise in disarray before he got there. Some of you are acting like San Antonio's success over the past 15 years has been a miracle that only Pop and the front office could have created.

It's not.

Again, my point is that the number of current lottery picks on a given team is essentially a non-factor when determining how well a franchise is run. The Spurs at one point had Glen Robinson (1st overall pick) on their team. Antonio McDyess (2nd overall pick). Richard Jefferson (13th). Does that change how they're viewed as a franchise historically?

It doesn't.

---

quote:

---

I'm arguing against Guitarsoup's point that the Spurs status of CURRENTLY have only one lottery pick on the team is indicative of a good GM/coach.

---

I think it is a bizzarre anomaly that an elite team only has one player considered elite for the draft.

I think the fact that the Spurs have been able to not only thrive but be among the best if not the best for 15 years without having the benefit of a single lottery pick or major free agent signing says a lot about the Spurs ability to develop talent and scout talent.

I don't see how anyone can argue against that logic. To do so flies in the face of logic/reason.

If there is a website somewhere that has teams listed with current # of lottery picks, point it out to me. My guess is that there is a statistical relationship between that number and winning %. That being the case, one would wonder why the Spurs have been so successful with minimal contribution from highly recruited players.

The Pacers only have 2 lottery picks (Hansborough, George)

quote:

---

I think it is a bizzarre anomaly that an elite team only has one player considered elite for the draft.

---

It is an anomaly and an interesting stat. But not much more than that. As said above, if Glenn Robinson and McDyess were at the end of the bench would that change anything? They made a great trade for Stephen Jackson, but could have also made a great trade for a veteran player that happened to be an old lottery pick. Leonard was one slot away from a lottery pick.

You could dig further and find # of lottery picks per top 8 rotation players, or win shares per draft slot. Spurs would probably come out ahead there as well.

But it's definitely a talking point, kind of like the Mavs roster last year had 5 players who had been star players in the Conference Finals but had never won the title.

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 5/29/2012 4:52p).]

I heard the stat on the radio, and did the Basketball Reference consulting to double check and list the Texas teams+teams in the NBA conference finals.

For fun, Lakers this year only had:
Kobe 13th
Bynum 10th
Gasol 3rd
Jordan Hill 8th
Wartest and Troy Murphy barely missed out.


Philly had:
Battie 5th
Brand 1st
Hawes 10th
Iggy 9th
Evan Turner 2nd
Thad Young 12th

LA Floppers had:
Billups 3rd
Butler 10th
Foye 7th
Griffin 1st
Kenyon 1st
CP3 4th

Memphis had:
Mike Conley 4th
Rudy Gay 8th
Mayo 3rd

Orlando had:
Earl Clark 14th
Dwight 1st
Larry Hughes 8th
JJ Reddick 11th
Jason Richardson 5th

Hawks had:
Dampier 10th
Heinrich 7th
Hortford 3rd
Johnson 10th
McGrady 9th
VladRad 12th
Stackhouse 3rd
Marv WIlliams 2nd


Bulls have:
Rose 1st
Brewer 14th
Deng 7th
Rip 7th
Noah 9th


Worst teams:
Nets:
Lopez 10th (still on rookie contract)
Deron 3rd
Shelden Williams 5th

Cavs:
Kyrie Irving 1st (rookie)
Jamison 4th
Tristin Thompson 4th (rookie)

Wizards:
Nene 7th
Wall 1st (on rookie contract)
Vesely 6th (rookie)

Bobcats:
DJ Augustin 9th (still on rookie contract)
Biyombo 7th (rookie)
Diop 8th
Gerald Henderson 12th (still on rookie contract)
Maggettee 13th
Tyrus Thomas 4th
Walker 9th (rookie)

Hornets:
Aminu 9th (rookie contract)
Gordon 7th (rookie contract)
Henry 12th (rookie contract)
Kaman 6th
Okefor 2st

quote:

---

I think it is a bizzarre anomaly that an elite team only has one player considered elite for the draft.

---

It is.

But correlation != causation.

Where a player is drafted is a snapshot in time of that player's current skill and potential. A list of players and where they were drafted is only evidence of good scouting and coaching with certain players and in certain instances. For a guy like Leonard, it makes a lot of sense - they scouted him well, Pop has coached him well, all within a small time frame between now and that draft snapshot.

For players like Diaw and SJax, it makes very little sense. Their skill and potential has been variable since that draft snapshot, and the Spurs assessed those players based on their skill and potential at a completely different point in time. In that way, where they were drafted is largely irrelevant.

quote:

---

Signed Patty Mills
Signed Boris Diaw
Traded Dick Jefferson for Stephen Jackson. Saves the Spurs about 12mm (not including lux tax) and the Spurs get a player more suited to their system, a better defender and more swaggar.

---

this spurs team is not great without this trade- it was gold- basically SJax, Patty and Diaw for Walton's bottom

The most interesting part of this thread is it appears 2 Spurs fans who seemed very adamant that Lebron had more than enough help in Cleveland when debating last season seemed to have 180'd on their positions.

I'm not criticizing either... I think they are on the right side of the fence of that now. But interesting how the horrible management across the league seems to get recognized when your own management team has a really positive spotlight on it.

The thing is, I sort of see what HNIC is getting at. Has RC and Pop done a great job in San Antonio? Absolutely... probably the best of any HC/Mgmt team in the league over the last 15 years. That said, even with the job done, you have to at least recognize that the alpha and omega of the success is Tim Duncan. Lottery balls fall a bit of a different way and the Spurs end up with Keith Van Horn, Adonal Foyle, or Tony Battie instead? Smart money is on the Spurs win zero championships and quite possibly are a middling franchise for years. A great player makes an awful management team look a little below average (Cleveland), below average mgmt look average (Orlando), average look good (Lakers), and good look outstanding (Thunder and Spurs).



[This message has been edited by ATM9000 (edited 5/29/2012 8:04p).]

Most of those players are random interchangeable parts. Sure they made a few good picks. That could be random chance. Getting Duncan is the biggest thing. You don't know how TP or Manu develop if they played with a high school bum or high volume shooting.

And the media narrative about the Spurs greatly bothers me too. Implicit in the "Spurs are a great organization, Pop is great coach, TP is an MVP" stories are the argument against the greatest threat to the basketball's favorite high school educated adulterer.

Shaq and Tim are the NBA's best since Jordan retired. Shaq was wrongly marginalized when he went to Phoenix while we watched his coattails won 2 titles. Now how do you marginalize Tim? You make claims about the coaching, GMs, and supporting players being SO GOOD. And since you can't have it both ways (unless you're Tom Brady and the Patriots for some reason), the team and the organization get most of the credit. While their man has 5 rings.

But the truth is, Buford, Pop, and possibly and likely Manu and TP would be little to nothing without Tim. The causal relationship of success goes Tim -> Spurs, and not the other way around. While they're celebrating a streaky high volume shooter who was the best player on two title winning teams (whoop-de-freaking-do!).

This fact:

quote:

---

given the fact that there are TWO ways to acquire talent

---

(except there are actually 3)

makes this exercise:

quote:

---

I'll be happy to perform a regression on winning % this year.

---

completely spurious.

On top of that, I'd be willing to bet that if you are performing it on lottery picks (top 14 in the draft), you'll find that the crappy teams have just as many lottery picks and you'll gain no statistical inferences from the exercise.

Cut it down to top 5 or 6 annually and you might have something there.

Here are the leading scorers over the last 20 years. Every single one of them was a high draft pick. Not a single 2nd round pick anywhere on here. The draft is NOT random luck. (FYI: I'm a Mavs fan.)

Player..........Draft Pick
Kobe Bryant.....13
Karl Malone.....13
Shaq............1
Allen Iverson...1
Kevin Garnett...5
Dirk Nowitzki...9
Reggie Miller...11
Ray Allen.......5
Paul Pierce.....10
Tim Duncan......1

Duncan never led in scoring

career points. not season points.

quote:

---

Kobe Bryant.....13
Karl Malone.....13
Shaq............1
Allen Iverson...1
Kevin Garnett...5
Dirk Nowitzki...9
Reggie Miller...11
Ray Allen.......5
Paul Pierce.....10
Tim Duncan......1

---

Drafted in between Ray Allen and Kobe Bryant: Lorenzen Wright, Kerry Kittles, Samaki Walker, Erick Dampier, Todd Fuller, Vitaly Potapenko

Drafted ahead of Karl Malone: Wayman Tisdale, Benoit Benjamin, Jon Koncak, Joe Kleine, Ed Pinckney, Keith Lee, Kenny Green

Drafted ahead of Kevin Garnett: Joe Smith number one overall

Drafted ahead of Dirk Nowitzki and Paul Pierce: Michael Olowokandi number one overall, Raef LaFrentz, Robert Traylor (R.I.P.)

The lottery, injuries, coach/system, etc. Pretty sure there is some luck involved in the draft. Try again.

Oh now it's "some luck". Yea no **** there is some luck.

^The **** are you talking about.

Earlier it was all luck. Now it's some luck with draft picks.

Sigh. Outta here. L8trz.

quote:

---

Earlier it was all luck

---

Earlier ninja said "it's all luck" discounting pop and the spurs front office. Which is not true. We all know there is some luck in the draft. But it isnt "all luck" like ninja said.

Gotcha. When I read it earlier I assumed he meant a lot of luck, but it does in fact say "all luck". It's pretty safe to assume he didn't mean "100% luck" but you have to be careful with words on Texags, they will always be taken at face value without regard for implication.

An argument could be made that it's mostly luck, based on how the ping-pong balls can decide your fate, but nobody would argue that it's all luck - unless he is - in which case I disagree.

[This message has been edited by Judge (edited 5/29/2012 10:44p).]

The average lottery pick is in the 7,8,9 slot. How many of those would you trade for #1 overall? I'd trade two in a heartbeat and maybe three.

The gap is that big between first overall and other lottery picks. And if there is talented big man, it's even bigger.

The Spurs only had one lottery pick, but it was a no-brainer.

I do agree that the ping pong balls are luck. But what you do with your draft picks that come from the ping pong balls is far from luck.

That's all I'm saying.

quote:

---

The gap is that big between first overall and other lottery picks. And if there is talented big man, it's even bigger.

---

And even then you might get Greg Oden'd.

Shaq's and Fundamentals don't come along too often.

quote:

---

But what you do with your draft picks that come from the ping pong balls is far from luck.

---

Agree.

[This message has been edited by Judge (edited 5/29/2012 10:47p).]