Is there a scale of how much picks are worth?

[zimpy27]

It's be interesting to see a chart based on pick trades rather than player outcomes.

Like 15+20 for 10 seems to be the value set by Kings and Blazers. Other pick trades could fill out a model.

The Bulls traded 16 & 19 for 11 one year, so mid-10s plus late 10s equals 9-12ish is probably right. I doubt a package like that gets you into what's usually the 2nd tier 4-7 range, though this chart seems to make the case that 3 is not much better than 4.

FWIW, using the same heuristic for pick consolidation ..

Barzilai. #16 (42%) + #19 (36/2) = 60%, which comes down between the #9 and #10 pick

Pelton. #16 (1350) + #19 (1210/2) = 1955, which comes down between the #9 and #10 pick

.. so there is consistency between both valuations, and I’d say that’s pretty close to what came down that year (#11).

Why are you dividing second pick by half?

[HartfordWhalers]

To incorporate the value of consolidation in pick trading, I give half value the second pick in a deal, and a third of the value for a third pick.

Some fix of this kind has always been needed. As I said Pelton first came out with it

Teams have unanimously paid a premium to move up.

Guess what? If you chart undervalues in practice moving up in every single trade (it does), it is your chart that is wrong.

I've suggested previously using an exponential correction; i.e.


11 = 1750 = 44% of 4000 and corrected by squaring = 19%
16 = 1350 = 34% and squared = 11%
19 = 1210 = 30% and squared = 9%

It makes the true values much more top heavy, and closer to real trades.

The reasons why those values might be used in practice is another topic.

[zimpy27]

To incorporate the value of consolidation in pick trading, I give half value the second pick in a deal, and a third of the value for a third pick.

Some fix of this kind has always been needed. As I said Pelton first came out with it

Teams have unanimously paid a premium to move up.

Guess what? If you chart undervalues in practice moving up in every single trade (it does), it is your chart that is wrong.

I've suggested previously using an exponential correction; i.e.


11 = 1750 = 44% of 4000 and corrected by squaring = 19%
16 = 1350 = 34% and squared = 11%
19 = 1210 = 30% and squared = 9%

It makes the true values much more top heavy, and closer to real trades.

The reasons why those values might be used in practice is another topic.

Using shrinks correction a combination of pick 27,28,29,30 is worth pick 13.

What would it be with your correction?

[HartfordWhalers]

To incorporate the value of consolidation in pick trading, I give half value the second pick in a deal, and a third of the value for a third pick.

Some fix of this kind has always been needed. As I said Pelton first came out with it

Guess what? If you chart undervalues in practice moving up in every single trade (it does), it is your chart that is wrong.

I've suggested previously using an exponential correction; i.e.


11 = 1750 = 44% of 4000 and corrected by squaring = 19%
16 = 1350 = 34% and squared = 11%
19 = 1210 = 30% and squared = 9%

It makes the true values much more top heavy, and closer to real trades.

The reasons why those values might be used in practice is another topic.

Using shrinks correction a combination of pick 27,28,29,30 is worth pick 13.

What would it be with your correction?

Halfway between 14 and 15.

I think the point is to get some correction, not for an exact one. I.e. trading 56 and 58 for 52, what works there?

[Scoot McGroot]

Agreed, something doesn't have to be everything for it not to be 'trash.' Especially since this is basketball so no data is going to be everything. It's useful for what it is, fault of the people who don't know how to use it if they let it be the whole story. Trading picks is always very much about eye of the beholder in a given draft, but it's good to see a general sort of baseline to go off of.

The scale purports to measure the effectiveness of the players picked at those positions for their "worth", right? That doesn't in any way translate to the real world value of these picks in any trade. So what is it good for relative to valuing draft picks? Also, does the value of two mediocre players actually match the value of one truly transcendent player?

Pelton's chart tells me that the #1 pick is worth the 8th and 9th picks. The median 2nd is worth 420 points. So OKC's 10 seconds yield a first? These are extreme examples but the premise bares out in less extreme examples as well.

So what is the utility of the chart?

I think 2nds are valuable. More valuable than it may seem.

You get a low salary player, with non-guaranteed salary, still some cost control and they have little ego. Pretty ideal for a contending team. Seems like a great farming resource until you can attract an FA.

I believe talent of a top pick comes with ego and higher salary expectations. The talent of the player isn't absurdly higher than an SRP, the main difference over career likely comes from development time and team investment because they were a top pick.

Regarding 2nds, none of those are technically true, though. A 2nd isn’t necessarily going to agree to a non-guaranteed deal, though yes, there is no guaranteed contract, which could be good or bad. The salary could be higher than 1st round picks, too, as there’s no salary slot. Also, with no contract slot like for 1st rounders, teams are limited in having to offer either a vet minimum (limited to 1 or 2 years), or carving out cap space, or part of the MLE in order to give a long-term contract. Also, players are unrestricted after 3 years, as opposed to 1st round picks getting 4 years before restricted free agency.

2nds are nice, and can be useful, but there are major downsides, too.

[zimpy27]

The scale purports to measure the effectiveness of the players picked at those positions for their "worth", right? That doesn't in any way translate to the real world value of these picks in any trade. So what is it good for relative to valuing draft picks? Also, does the value of two mediocre players actually match the value of one truly transcendent player?

Pelton's chart tells me that the #1 pick is worth the 8th and 9th picks. The median 2nd is worth 420 points. So OKC's 10 seconds yield a first? These are extreme examples but the premise bares out in less extreme examples as well.

So what is the utility of the chart?

I think 2nds are valuable. More valuable than it may seem.

You get a low salary player, with non-guaranteed salary, still some cost control and they have little ego. Pretty ideal for a contending team. Seems like a great farming resource until you can attract an FA.

I believe talent of a top pick comes with ego and higher salary expectations. The talent of the player isn't absurdly higher than an SRP, the main difference over career likely comes from development time and team investment because they were a top pick.

Regarding 2nds, none of those are technically true, though. A 2nd isn’t necessarily going to agree to a non-guaranteed deal, though yes, there is no guaranteed contract, which could be good or bad. The salary could be higher than 1st round picks, too, as there’s no salary slot. Also, with no contract slot like for 1st rounders, teams are limited in having to offer either a vet minimum (limited to 1 or 2 years), or carving out cap space, or part of the MLE in order to give a long-term contract. Also, players are unrestricted after 3 years, as opposed to 1st round picks getting 4 years before restricted free agency.

2nds are nice, and can be useful, but there are major downsides, too.

Yeah some downsides but still underrated IMO. Late firsts are also valuable as well for the 4 years. Not sure about RFA value, players are given often contracts for potential as well which means they still get overpaid initially.