Draft picks - first round - top half picks vs bottom half picks

Is the draft really a crap shoot ? The below numbers are based on the draft years of 1979 through 2003 ( 25 yrs ). Used the first round only. Below figures based on only those players with 20,000 or more minutes played.

The top half of the Draft produced ---  152 players with 20,000 plus minutes played in their career.  An ave of 6.08 per yr. The bottom half produced 55 with an average of 2.22
Draft picks 1 through 5 produced   ---  83 players with 20,000 plus minutes played in their careers. An ave of 3.32 per yr . Draft picks 16 through 20 produced 27. an ave of 1.08 per yr.

  Did not use the recent years because most of the players are still active.

  swish

Of course it's a crap shoot.  Simply finishing with a poor record is no guarantee of getting a top pick, as we saw with Tim Duncan and also last year.  That's a crap shoot, especially if you're targeting one of the top three picks.  Certainly not worth tanking for.

The number of drafted players who succeeded to some degree in the NBA doesn't mean they filled a need with the teams that drafted them, as some teams (including Danny on several occasions) try to draft the best player available.  That's a crap shoot, particularly because the drafted player may not show to best advantage on the team that drafted him, without reference to need, and therefore mayfind his trade value diluted.

The draft is a definite crap shoot.  Of course, there's an element of chance involved in trades and free agent signings too, but I believe there's a better likelihood of success in obtaining a known NBA quantity via those means.

Red Auerbach operated primarily when there were fewer teams than is now the case.  And I don't know anyone who is regarded as a better judge of players.  Yet, some time ago, when I posted the results of his #1 draft picks, his batting average for players who made significant contributions in the "bigs" was somewhere around 50%.  That's a crap shoot.  His batting average for trades and free agent signings was dramatically higher.

Sam

Swish,

I think you just defined "crapshoot".

In 25 years:

In the top half of the draft, only 6.08 players per year meet your criteria?  Using the average team count per year (27.04) over that timespan, that 6.08 is less than half of all picks made in the top half of the draft.

Picks 1-5 (125 players total) produced only 83 players (average per year: 3.32) that met your criteria.
That is a lot of top picks (42) that failed to meet your criteria over that timespan.

Picks 16-20 (125 players total) produced only 27 players (average per year: 1.08) that met your criteria.
That is a lot of mid to late 1st round picks (98) that failed to meet your criteria over that timespan.

That's enough math for now.

gyso

Basketball, like baseball and football, has a very low rate of success when it comes to making the big show. But since it is through the drafting process that selections are made I'll stick by my numbers. Since all teams use the draft as a way to improve their teams I'll take the higher pick over a sub 500 team making the playoffs. And remember how much high draft picks are valued in deals where teams are dumping elite players (high salaries) as they seek to down size. Danny's been on both sides of that game.

swish

Merriam Webster defines crapshoot as "something (as a business venture) that has an unpredictable outcome."
In other words, picking early is in the NBA draft doesn't guarantee we'll land a good player.
I know that.
On the other hand, Swish's numbers (thank you!) comparing the top and bottom halves of the draft suggests you're nearly three times as likely to succeed with players from the top half - 152 versus 55, making it - (also nearly the same result in average minutes played, 6.08 versus 2.22).
I have to ask myself if I were about to undertake a business transaction in which I'd be 2.7 times more likely to succeed with one strategy than the other, could I ignore those odds?
Also, if I don't think an advantage of 2.7 to 1 qualifies as a crapshoot, because over the long term, the outcome would be anything but unpredictable. We could predict that we'll be nearly 3 times more likely to succeed with a pick in the top half.
Hawk

So:

If you get a pick in the first half and pick a winner, people are unimpressed;
If you get a pick in the first half and pick a loser, people think you're a loser;
If you get a pick in the second half and pick a winner, people think you're smart;
If you get a pck in the second half and pick a loser, people shrug it off.

That's a 1-in-4 chance of looking good and a 3-in-4 chance of people think you're average at best.

And God Forbid if you (and EVERYBODY ELSE) passes on a second rounder that turns out to be a winner like Tony Parker or DeAndre Jordan.  Then you're a HUGE loser.  The fact that every other GM passed on them in the 1st round, probably including the team that finally did draft them, is irrelevant.  YOU are a loser. Comparisons to peers are not allowed.



bob



.

hawksnestbeach wrote:Merriam Webster defines crapshoot as  "something (as a business venture) that has an unpredictable outcome."
  In other words, picking early is in the NBA draft doesn't guarantee we'll land a good player.
  I know that.
  On the other hand, Swish's numbers (thank you!) comparing the top and bottom halves of the draft suggests you're nearly three times as likely to succeed with players from the top half - 152 versus 55, making it - (also nearly the same result in average minutes played, 6.08 versus 2.22).
  I have to ask myself if I were about to undertake a business transaction in which I'd be 2.7 times more likely to succeed with one strategy than the other, could I ignore those odds?
 Also, if I don't think an advantage of 2.7 to 1 qualifies as a crapshoot, because over the long term, the outcome would be anything but unpredictable. We could predict that we'll be nearly 3 times more likely to succeed with a pick in the top half.
  Hawk
 

Hawk,

So we need to make sure we pick in the top half…

Regards

bobheckler wrote:So:

If you get a pick in the first half and pick a winner, people are unimpressed;
If you get a pick in the first half and pick a loser, people think you're a loser;
If you get a pick in the second half and pick a winner, people think you're smart;
If you get a pck in the second half and pick a loser, people shrug it off.

That's a 1-in-4 chance of looking good and a 3-in-4 chance of people think you're average at best.

And God Forbid if you (and EVERYBODY ELSE) passes on a second rounder that turns out to be a winner like Tony Parker or DeAndre Jordan.  Then you're a HUGE loser.  The fact that every other GM passed on them in the 1st round, probably including the team that finally did draft them, is irrelevant.  YOU are a loser.  Comparisons to peers are not allowed.



bob



.

Interesting perspective and well worded take.

I am glad that the reason or intention of this thread has been actually defined.  So, picking towards the end of the first round is three times worse than picking at the front end of the draft.  Granted, we all know that it was worse, but now it is quantifiable.

The criteria (20k minutes) suggests a player who plays an average of 36 minutes per game for about 7 years or a player who plays an average of 24 minutes per game for about 10 years .  By the time a player reaches 7 years in the league, he is more likely to be on a team other than the one he was drafted by.  How does that help the team that drafted him?

IMO, the criteria sets the bar way too low for judging whether a player is actually a difference maker for the team that drafted him.  More input, Stephanie!!  We need something else that can separate the wheat from the chaff. The criteria as it is set is only for finding a rotation player, not a difference maker. Our team is currently full of rotation players and we are not close to getting a sniff of #18.

gyso

gyso, are you really sure you want to get a sniff of #18?  Loscutoff, Howell and Cowens worked up major sweats, and their uniforms got pretty "ripe."

Sam

Here's a refinement on the minutes played.

    Top half of the draft.  First 5 picks.

  20,000 minutes - 16 players
  25,000 minutes - 25 players
  30,000 minutes - 20 players
  35,000 minutes - 10 players
  40,000 minutes - 11 players

     Bottom half of the draft. First 5 picks.
20,000 minutes - 11 players  
  25,000 minutes - 10 players
  30,000 minutes - 3 players
  35,000 minutes - 2 players
  40,000 minutes - 2 players

  swish