Biggest draft busts :(

[MickZagger]

Was Jay Williams a bust?

 

[barfo]

I don't think it's cold to label someone a bust when they basically took their own life. This guy wasn't killed crossing a street or choking on a piece of steak... the guy died from a drug overdose. I'm sorry if I don't have any sympathy for someone that dumb. I think it's tragic that the guy died so young, and that his family had to endure his death, but people who are too dumb to stay away from dangerous substances deserve to be called a bust. I think the label fits him just fine.

He was just a kid who made a bad decision. Like you never made any errors in judgment when you were 23? Didn't you think you were immortal when you were that age?

How is choking on steak or being killed crossing the street any less self-inflicted than a drug overdose? In all three cases sound judgment would prevent death.

Chew your food, look both ways before you cross the street, and don't snort huge amounts of cocaine.

barfo

 

[Ed O]

Was Jay Williams a bust?

75 games at a 12.2 PER in a single season... for a second overall pick.

I think that the Bulls got precious little for him, and so he could easily be considered a bust, yes.

Ed O.

 

[Natebishop3]

Was Jay Williams a bust?

Huge bust. The guy had a clause in his contract specifically forbidding him from riding a motorcycle, so yes, I'd say he's a bust.

 

[Minstrel]

Williams didn't look like a #2 pick, talent-wise, even before he injured himself, IMO. I think it was a poor selection and the injury simply ensured the Bulls got no value.

 

[MickZagger]

Williams didn't look like a #2 pick, talent-wise, even before he injured himself, IMO. I think it was a poor selection and the injury simply ensured the Bulls got no value.

I dont know about that. Williams was on another level athletically from all the other point guards when he came out of college. People forget how dynamic he was.

 

[Rhal]

I have a few problems with almost every Draft Bust list that comes out and a big one is what Ministral/Ed O/Nate all pretty much pointed out, they seem to have an overall rule on what a bust is but then they stray from it and don't stay true to it. Another is that a player who isn't past his prime and still in the league should not be put on the list due to the fact that they still have a chance to come out and prove people wrong.
The biggest reason is that they never let me forget Bowie! sigh even if he had stayed healthy we still passed on 2 first ballet hall of famers and the GOAT for him and no matter he would have done it was a bad pick.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Calling somebody a bust isn't as complicated as people are making it out.

It's pretty simple actually. Figure out what the expectation level of a player is based on their pre-draft hype plus their actual draft position and subtract their contributions on the floor, then multiply that result by the production of players selected right after them. By that metric Greg is pretty easily one of the biggest busts in the past 20 years ... but like anything in life people are always looking for a great redemption story, meaning Greg still has a chance to buck his fairly awful downward career arc at which point people will happily remove him from the list and write great "out of the ashes" kind of stories about him.

 

[Ed O]

Calling somebody a bust isn't as complicated as people are making it out.

It's pretty simple actually. Figure out what the expectation level of a player is based on their pre-draft hype plus their actual draft position and subtract their contributions on the floor, then multiply that result by the production of players selected right after them. By that metric Greg is pretty easily one of the biggest busts in the past 20 years ... but like anything in life people are always looking for a great redemption story, meaning Greg still has a chance to buck his fairly awful downward career arc at which point people will happily remove him from the list and write great "out of the ashes" kind of stories about him.

Being "one of the biggest busts in the last 20 years" is a far cry from being the biggest bust in NBA history.

Ed O.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Being "one of the biggest busts in the last 20 years" is a far cry from being the biggest bust in NBA history.

Ed O.

He might be the biggest bust in NBA history, but I'm not old enough and didn't watch enough basketball (nor enough old-timey video) from before my teenage years to really know where he stacks up all time.

 

[HailBlazers]

Bust so far yes, but the jury's still out. I try not to judge people based on limited perception.

 

[Ed O]

He might be the biggest bust in NBA history, but I'm not old enough and didn't watch enough basketball (nor enough old-timey video) from before my teenage years to really know where he stacks up all time.

I disagree. There's no way he's the biggest bust in NBA history. Watching video has nothing to do with it, IMO.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

tracy mcgradys 19-22 years > durants 19-22 years

and lets see if durant can put up 32 ppg with a 30.2 PER and lead the league in ws/48 next year in his age 23 season

LOL

Ummmm ... nope

MacGrady's first 5 years (18-22) - 6135 points, and wasn't a full-time starter until he was 21.

Durant's first 4 years (19-22) - 8128 points; franchise player from Day One.

As for him putting up a LeBron James' 23 year-old season, that's likely out of the question with Russell Westbrook hogging the ball. Plus, Durant's game isn't at all like James' game, but that doesn't mean Durant can't be an all-time great, does it?

 

[PapaG]

I think the idea that he would not have come to Portland in his prime, due to some superstition, is just silly. He would have joined the Blazers, promptly shattered his leg in ten places and never recorded a point or block in the NBA. Science.



What do you expect? It's clown town around here.

Gee, you think so? You're a fricking genius!

Mr. Binary has spoken.

http://www.planetminecraft.com/skin/mr-binary/

 

[3RA1N1AC]

LOL

Ummmm ... nope

MacGrady's first 5 years (18-22) - 6135 points, and wasn't a full-time starter until he was 21.

Durant's first 4 years (19-22) - 8128 points; franchise player from Day One.

As for him putting up a LeBron James' 23 year-old season, that's likely out of the question with Russell Westbrook hogging the ball. Plus, Durant's game isn't at all like James' game, but that doesn't mean Durant can't be an all-time great, does it?

fail

so ppg is all we are talking about? i thought you liked those new fangled stats

mcgradys 19-22 seasons > durants 19-22 seasons

mcgrady with the higher per and higher ws/48

and haha, that wasnt lebrons age 23 season IT WAS MCGRADYS! fail

its cool though, i doubt durant will be as good as mcgrady, probably an unfair comparison

 

[Minstrel]

Gee, you think so? You're a fricking genius!

Mr. Binary has spoken.

Hehe, I love how you call me Mr. Binary as the joke sails over your head.

Let me break it down for you, Mr. Binary style! I dismissed the idea that he wouldn't have come over (from a college) due to "superstition" while at the same time claiming he would have immediately shattered his leg and never played a minute. And, you see (here's the thing!) I called that science.

Get it? Don't feel bad. Lots of great jokes can sail by people who aren't reading the posts they respond to.

Also, the "Your argument is invalid" line that seems to have captured your imagination is actually a meme, grandpa, not an attempt to be coldly logical.

Witness:

There. I think I've used my cold, computer-like logic to pretty much destroy your implications that I have no sense of humour. Carry on.

 

[PapaG]

fail

so ppg is all we are talking about? i thought you liked those new fangled stats

mcgradys 19-22 seasons > durants 19-22 seasons

mcgrady with the higher per and higher ws/48

and haha, that wasnt lebrons age 23 season IT WAS MCGRADYS! fail

its cool though, i doubt durant will be as good as mcgrady, probably an unfair comparison

MacGrady played less though, and Durant put up more production. The 23 year-old season for MacGrady is an outlier for him, but you're right, I had forgot about how good he was that season. Of course, his team went 42-40, and lost in the first round of the playoffs while MacGrady struggled compared to his regular season, but it was quite an impressive season.

Using your approach, we could also say that Greg Oden has had a better start to his career than Durant, because he has a higher ws/48, is close in PER, and is a much better rebounder and more efficient scorer.

 

[PapaG]

Hehe, I love how you call me Mr. Binary as the joke sails over your head.

Let me break it down for you, Mr. Binary style! I dismissed the idea that he wouldn't have come over (from a college) due to "superstition" while at the same time claiming he would have immediately shattered his leg and never played a minute. And, you see (here's the thing!) I called that science.

Get it? Don't feel bad. Lots of great jokes can sail by people who aren't reading the posts they respond to.

Also, the "Your argument is invalid" line that seems to have captured your imagination is actually a meme, grandpa, not an attempt to be coldly logical.

Witness:

There. I think I've used my cold, computer-like logic to pretty much destroy your implications that I have no sense of humour. Carry on.

Haha!

Good stuff! You're turning into Mr. DOS right before my eyes!

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Using your approach, we could also say that Greg Oden has had a better start to his career than Durant, because he has a higher ws/48, is close in PER, and is a much better rebounder and more efficient scorer.

no only a complete moron would even suggest such a thing.

simple stats tell the story, if you want to ignore them, thats on you.

and im not bashing on durant, only saying that nothing is certain, when you start going all durant fanboy, you get a little blinded by your hard on

 

[Minstrel]

Haha!

Good stuff! You're turning into Mr. DOS right before my eyes!

Brian Cardinal is unobtainable.

Your argument is invalid.

 

[PapaG]

no only a complete moron would even suggest such a thing.

simple stats tell the story, if you want to ignore them, thats on you.

and im not bashing on durant, only saying that nothing is certain, when you start going all durant fanboy, you get a little blinded by your hard on

I used simple stats. Durant scored 2000 more points in 4 years than MacGrady scored in his first 5 years. He's on pace to be the youngest ever to 10k points. You used advanced stats, which isn't really simple, is it?

Only a moron would call PER and ws/48 simple stats, and total points scored irrelevant.

EDIT - how does pointing out Durant's incredible start to his career make me a "fanboy", and where did I say anything about him is "certain"?

Only a moron would read that in any of my Durant posts.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

so just to be clear your argument is "he haz moar pointz!" ?

its plain to see that mcgrady was the better player through age 22, and is virtually guaranteed to be so through their age 23 season.

if you care to debate im all ears, but i have a feeling you are going to instead try to insult me and make this personal

 

[Minstrel]

Also of bearing on this smaller debate thread, McGrady was considered an excellent defensive player through the early part of his career (though that faded as he took on more and more of the team's offensive load and injuries began to creep in) while Durant is merely passable defensively.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Also of bearing on this smaller debate thread, McGrady was considered an excellent defensive player through the early part of his career (though that faded as he took on more and more of the team's offensive load and injuries began to creep in) while Durant is merely passable defensively.

not to mention having fewer turnovers/game

 

[PapaG]

so just to be clear your argument is "he haz moar pointz!" ?

its plain to see that mcgrady was the better player through age 22, and is virtually guaranteed to be so through their age 23 season.

A guy who came off the bench for three of those years is clearly better than Kevin Durant? Plus, Durant has been All-NBA 2x in his first 4 years; MacGrady was All-NBA 2x in his first five years. Durant also led Team USA to a world championship by averaging a record ppg, and recently scored 40+ points in a Game 7.

Has MacGrady yet even won a playoff series in his career?

Durant also has taken 2nd in MVP voting; the best MacGrady finished was 4th, primarily because his team was basically .500.

you care to debate im all ears, but i have a feeling you are going to instead try to insult me and make this personal

Wasn't it you who started the "only a moron" line of reasoning?

Poor you, always the victim.

Anyhow, what is there to debate? I value points and wins; you value PER from a bench player and ws/48. I think Durant has had a better start to his career than MacGrady. Throw in that MacGrady joined a 41-41 team with Darrell Armstrong and Ron Mercer the two leading scorers, and by age 23 had improved that team to a whopping 42-40.

MacGrady was a stat beast who didn't improve his team. The same can't be said for Durant, can it?

 

[Minstrel]

Throw in that MacGrady joined a 41-41 team with Darrell Armstrong and Ron Mercer the two leading scorers, and by age 23 had improved that team to a whopping 42-40.

MacGrady was a stat beast who didn't improve his team.

That's absurdly silly. Look at the roster of the Magic that year:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ORL/2003.html

And bear in mind that that Grant Hill was in the midst of his career-changing injury woes. Take McGrady off that roster and you have potentially the worst team in NBA history. The fact that he pulled that horrific roster to above .500 shows that he improved the team greatly. Blaming McGrady for Orlando's front office being terrible at putting talent around him isn't a good argument.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

intangables!!

having another all nba player on the team helps win games last i checked

i said

"only a moron would even suggest such a thing".....do you disagree? really?

and i apologize, i didnt think you were one of those "moar pointz!" guys...and winning trumps all? i think mcgrady and durant and lebron all have the same number of rings...

I value points and wins

so you must love westbrook then huh?

 

[PapaG]

That's absurdly silly. Look at the roster of the Magic that year:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ORL/2003.html

And bear in mind that that Grant Hill was in the midst of his career-changing injury woes. Take McGrady off that roster and you have potentially the worst team in NBA history. The fact that he pulled that horrific roster to above .500 shows that he improved the team greatly. Blaming McGrady for Orlando's front office being terrible at putting talent around him isn't a good argument.

A team with Darrell Armstrong, Ron Mercer, Chucky Adkins, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, and John Amechi being the top 5 scorers went 41-41.

MacGrady "improved" that team by 1 win in his 30.2 PER season.

I'm not sure what this debate is about, though, at this point. MacGrady is one of the biggest underachievers in NBA history, based on his start, and I do realize injury was a big part of it. I suppose the point was to show Durant could end up the same way? I've already ceded that point; I just find it more likely, based on other players with similar starts to his career, that Durant will end up an all-time great.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

and yes papag, i always play the victim, in fact ive just called my lawyers and notified ed o's employer

 

[Minstrel]

A team with Darrell Armstrong, Ron Mercer, Chucky Adkins, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, and John Amechi being the top 5 scorers went 41-41.

A team that had only one other player, who played in more than 30 games, with a PER above 15 finished above .500. Pretty amazing that McGrady was able to accomplish that. Imagine if he had had more than one teammate above average.

I'm not sure what this debate is about, though, at this point. MacGrady is one of the biggest underachievers in NBA history, based on his start, and I do realize injury was a big part of it. I suppose the point was to show Durant could end up the same way? I've already ceded that point; I just find it more likely, based on other players with similar starts to his career, that Durant will end up an all-time great.

Just that there are many pitfalls between elite start to a career and an elite overall career. I think very very few players are so talented that they are likely, after only a few years to judge from, to finish as an inner circle Hall of Famer. I do think that, barring injury, Durant will probably be a Hall of Famer. But likely to have a Jordan-like career? No. And I think even a Stockton/Barkley like career is below 50% though definitely a significant possibility.