Weak drafts, good drafts and the best drafts of all time?

[dohboy_24]

Since the Raptors entered the league in 1995, we have had the opportunity to participate in 29 drafts.

Before each draft, some were considered good and others not so much, but after at least five (5) years have passed for each of them we can look back on the draft to grade each of the players drafted in the first round as one of the following:

BUST (-2 points): Less than 5 years of service and/or less than 5,000 minutes of playing time

ROLE PLAYER (+1.5 points): More than 5 years of service and/or between 5k to 10k minutes of playing time

KEY CONTRIBUTOR (+3 points): More than 10 years of service and/or 10k minutes of playing time

After reviewing the first 30 picks for each of the drafts from 1995 to 2018 and scoring each of the players according to the above categories, each of them were graded as follows to determine which were truly good, bad or somewhere in between:

BEST (3): 1996, 2005, 2008

GOOD (9): 1995, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2013, 2018

AVERAGE (4): 1997, 2000, 2009, 2014

WEAK (8): 1999, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017

Which ones do you agree with? Which ones do you disagree with?

[mdenny]

I'm guessing this analysis only applies to the first round?

[kalel123]

Pretty sure 2000 draft is heralded as one of the absolute worst. Then just glancing through the names between 1999 and 2000, your "system" seems flawed to say the least.

[lolwut]

Pretty sure 2000 draft is heralded as one of the absolute worst. Then just glancing through the names between 1999 and 2000, your "system" seems flawed to say the least.

It all depends on how you define "good" and "bad" draft years. If a draft year produces zero stars but 20 role players on the level of say, Gary Trent, then is that a good or bad draft year?

1999 produced a handful of stars, but also a whole lot of nobodies.

"strong" and "weak" are just arbitrary terms depending on what you're looking for in a draft.

[Grew]

I don't think you can stop at key contributor for the highest point total. 2005 had CP3 and Deron Williams with a handful of somewhat memorable players with decent careers. That draft getting more points than 2003 with Lebron/Wade/Melo/Bosh being hall of famers and Lebron being a top 2 candidate for GOAT, just doesn't hit logically. Especially since that draft has the same handful of memorable players with decent careers after the HOFers.

You need to add something like a 5 points for all stars, 7 points for all NBA team players and 10 points for HOF locks. Even that likely isn't nuanced enough. At the end of the day these drafts aren't judged on busts and key contributors, they are judged on all stars and superstars first.

[kalel123]

Pretty sure 2000 draft is heralded as one of the absolute worst. Then just glancing through the names between 1999 and 2000, your "system" seems flawed to say the least.

It all depends on how you define "good" and "bad" draft years. If a draft year produces zero stars but 20 role players on the level of say, Gary Trent, then is that a good or bad draft year?

1999 produced a handful of stars, but also a whole lot of nobodies.

"strong" and "weak" are just arbitrary terms depending on what you're looking for in a draft.

It depends on nothing but feeble attempt (and utter failure) at playing devil's advocate.

2000 NBA draft had Kenyon Martin, Turkoglu, and Jamaal Crawford as its best players. Only one player you could say that was maybe a star is Kenyon Martin. And a handful of middling role players. (Mike Miller, Magloire, MoPete, Q Richardson, Desmond Mason, etc.) And a whole lot of nobodies. Mike Miller won ROY for F's sake.

1999 NBA draft had Elton Brand, Francis, Baron Davis, Lamar Odom, Rip Hamilton, Andre Miller, Shawn Marion as part of top 10. Only Jonathan Bender flopped from top 10. Then there's Artest and Kirilenko. Wally Z, Jason Terry, Corey Maggette, and several others that were decent to ok role players.

If you want to dig deep, there's Michael Redd in 2000 but Ginobili from 1999 easily tops him.

1999 draft easily trumps 2000 draft both in quality and quantity so GTFOH with your weak BS.

[PerfectJab]

What the heck, how is the 2003 only considered good?

Lebron James
Carmelo Anthony
Chris Bosh
Dwyane Wade

Of the top 5, 4 will be in the HOF

[ForeverTFC]

I applaud you on doing this analysis, but ultimately agree with the rest that it falls short. As mentioned, you definitely need at least 2 more categories above key contributor. Additionally, I think you need to score it relative to draft position.

For example, the 2013 draft gave us Giannis and Gobert. But pretty much every other lottery spot under-performed its expected value, outside McCollum and maybe Steven Adams. A draft that gives you 4 good players and a ton of bench players at best can't be considered in the second tier of drafts as it was awful for most even if it was a homerun for a few.

So maybe you create a composite score based on 2 columns:
Column 1: your current scoring system, expanded to Bust, Bench Player, Rotation Player, Starter, Star
Column 2: actual value provided minus the expected value of a player picked in that draft slot, perhaps measured in VORP and/or WS

[dohboy_24]

I'm guessing this analysis only applies to the first round?

Yep.

After reviewing the first 30 picks for each of the drafts from 1995 to 2018 and scoring each of the players according to the above categories

[dohboy_24]

Pretty sure 2000 draft is heralded as one of the absolute worst. Then just glancing through the names between 1999 and 2000, your "system" seems flawed to say the least.

2000 draft:

Key contributors with >10 years of service and/or >10k mins played (14) = Jamal Crawford, Mike Miller, Hedo Turkoglu, Kenyon Martin, Quentin Richardson, Desmond Mason, Morris Peterson, DeShawn Stevenson, Jamaal Magloire, Keyon Dooling, Joel Pryzbilla, Darius Miles, Marko Jaric, Stromile Swift

Role players with >5 years of service and/or between 5k to 10k mins played (7) = Chris Mihm, Speedy Claxton, Etan Thomas, Primoz Brezec, Marcus Fizer, DeMarr Johnson, Mike Madsen

Busts with less than 5 years of service and/or fewer than 5k minutes played (9) = Jake Tsakiladis, Courtney Alexander, Donnell Harvey, Jason Collier, Mateen Cleaves, Jerome Moiso, Dalibor Bragac, Mamadou N'Diaye, Erick Barkley

SCORE = (14x3) + (7×1.5) - (9×2) = 42 + 11.5 - 18 = 34.5 points

Compared to the other drafts, it's just ahead of the 2015 draft (31.5 points), but just behind the 2009 draft (35.5 points) and is the lowest ranked "above average" draft on the list.

[dohboy_24]

It all depends on how you define "good" and "bad" draft years. If a draft year produces zero stars but 20 role players on the level of say, Gary Trent, then is that a good or bad draft year?

1999 produced a handful of stars, but also a whole lot of nobodies.

"strong" and "weak" are just arbitrary terms depending on what you're looking for in a draft.

Key contributors (+3 points) = Players with more than 10 years of service and/or 10,000 minutes of playing time

Role players (+1.5 points) = Players with more than 5 years of service and/or between 5,000 and 10,000 minutes of playing time

Busts (-2 points) = Players with less than 5 years of service and/or fewer than 5,000 minutes playing time

Strong draft = drafts with 40 points or more
Weak draft = drafts with less than 30 points

Highest score (2008) = 58.5 points
Lowest score (2006) = 11 points

[ATLTimekeeper]

I'm not a fan of the scoring system that equates Francisco Garcia with Chris Paul.

[dohboy_24]

I don't think you can stop at key contributor for the highest point total. 2005 had CP3 and Deron Williams with a handful of somewhat memorable players with decent careers. That draft getting more points than 2003 with Lebron/Wade/Melo/Bosh being hall of famers and Lebron being a top 2 candidate for GOAT, just doesn't hit logically. Especially since that draft has the same handful of memorable players with decent careers after the HOFers.

2005 draft = 18 key contributors + 6 role players - 6 busts = 51 points (lowest score among best drafts)

2003 draft = 17 key contributors + 6 role players - 7 busts = 46 points (highest score among good drafts)

You need to add something like a 5 points for all stars, 7 points for all NBA team players and 10 points for HOF locks. Even that likely isn't nuanced enough. At the end of the day these drafts aren't judged on busts and key contributors, they are judged on all stars and superstars first.

While I agree there should be other tiers above that of a key contributor, I'd still be inclined to use the number of minutes played as an indicator the player has reached such a level than something more arbitrary that relies on voting (ROY, DPOY, MIP, 6th man, MVP, All-Star, All-NBA, All-Defensive, etc).

[dohboy_24]

I'm not a fan of the scoring system that equates Francisco Garcia with Chris Paul.

Agreed. Stats and accolodes aside, CP4 has played 2x as many years and 4x as many minutes.

Perhaps another tier for those with more than 20k minutes of playing time and another for those with more than 30k minutes of playing time would help to better separate them?

[ATLTimekeeper]

I think it's more arbitrary to call Gerald Green and Danny Granger "key contributors," though. One was clearly a great draft pick and the other was a guy that played a specific role and was good enough to last. Green was clearly a role player.

This is a really good idea, overall, though. I think if you changed the methodology slightly the draft qualities would roughly be the same. I'm more discriminatory in assessing talent overall coming from drafts, so I tend to only look at anyone over 10,000 and then decide with my own bias whether they were actually good or just close to replacement level role players.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Another way that I have been looking at the draft these days is overall quality of talent, not depth. But I consider both rounds as valid. But it can still be done with the 1st round. So, an easy exercise is to see who you think the 10th best player in every draft is.

So for 1999, which is considered weak, the 10th best player is Andrei Kirilenko for me. That's a good draft in that lens.

In 2005, the 10th best player is closer to Nate Robinson. Not as strong, imo.

[Tofubeque]

I was looking at the tenure of Karnisovas in Chicago recently, starting with the Patrick Williams pick at #4. The funny thing about the 2020 lottery is the only projectable stars have been #1 Edwards, #3 Ball and #12 Haliburton. Swinging for Hali would have been the only way to nail that pick basically. After him it was:

Okoro
Okongwu
Killian Hayes
Deni Avdija
Jalen Smith
Devin Vassell

Some solid rotation players in there, but who's the best player, Okongwu? Vassell? Not really needle movers. Meanwhile you had #21 Maxey, #25 Quickley and #30 Bane.

Sometimes a draft is just weak in the projected lottery. Maybe this year will be one of those.

[DelAbbot]

Jebus you have a lot of free time

[pilkoids]

Weak: Whatever year the ROY came down to Mike Miller and Morris Peterson.

[kalel123]

Pretty sure 2000 draft is heralded as one of the absolute worst. Then just glancing through the names between 1999 and 2000, your "system" seems flawed to say the least.

2000 draft:

Key contributors with >10 years of service and/or >10k mins played (14) = Jamal Crawford, Mike Miller, Hedo Turkoglu, Kenyon Martin, Quentin Richardson, Desmond Mason, Morris Peterson, DeShawn Stevenson, Jamaal Magloire, Keyon Dooling, Joel Pryzbilla, Darius Miles, Marko Jaric, Stromile Swift

Role players with >5 years of service and/or between 5k to 10k mins played (7) = Chris Mihm, Speedy Claxton, Etan Thomas, Primoz Brezec, Marcus Fizer, DeMarr Johnson, Mike Madsen

Busts with less than 5 years of service and/or fewer than 5k minutes played (9) = Jake Tsakiladis, Courtney Alexander, Donnell Harvey, Jason Collier, Mateen Cleaves, Jerome Moiso, Dalibor Bragac, Mamadou N'Diaye, Erick Barkley

SCORE = (14x3) + (7×1.5) - (9×2) = 42 + 11.5 - 18 = 34.5 points

Compared to the other drafts, it's just ahead of the 2015 draft (31.5 points), but just behind the 2009 draft (35.5 points) and is the lowest ranked "above average" draft on the list.

So basically, you have stars and long-term role players grouped into same category. This is some warped logic. Even within the same draft, there's no way in hell you put Kenyon Martin in the same group as Stromile Swift. 2000 draft has way too many mediocre players for this to work. For example, 1999 draft has number of players that are easily levels above guys like Swift, Jaric, Dooling, Stevenson, etc. Too many for that one to be behind 2000.

I repeat, any metric that doesn't have 2000 draft as one of the worst is flawed.