RealGM

This stems from a post in another thread in which a poster said that historically, the #3 draft position doesn't yield great players. The last 11 have been Al Horford (ROY candidate), Adam Morrison (bust, but weak draft), Deron Williams (all-star snub), Ben Gordon (6MOY as a rookie), Carmelo Anthony (all-star starter), Mike Dunleavy (MIP candidate), Pau Gasol (top ten PF/C), Darius Miles (retiring due to injury), Baron Davis (all-star snub), Raef LaFrentz (injuries? stiff?), Chauncey Billups (Finals MVP).
Is this correct? Should it be? What do you expect out of the top three picks? Superstars? Perennial All-stars? All-NBA third-teamers? ROYs?
What about the rest of the lottery? First-rounders? Second-rounders? Where do your expectations change, and to what?

I expect every player selected at #3 to be Michael Jordan. If not better...

You'd expect, and draft, for any slot, that that player is the best player out of the ones that are left on the board.

^False.

Teams don't always take BPA. They usually draft for need. and *best* could mean anything; best fit, highest upside, or lowest bust factor.

If I am the Miami Heat and I get the #1 draft pick, I take Derrick Rose even if Michael Beasley is atop my draft board.

But way to understand the question!

GJense4181 wrote:^False.

Teams don't always take BPA. They usually draft for need. and *best* could mean anything; best fit, highest upside, or lowest bust factor.

If I am the Miami Heat and I get the #1 draft pick, I take Derrick Rose even if Michael Beasley is atop my draft board.

But way to understand the question!

Then you're an idiot. I have no problems with someone taking Rose if they think Rose will be the better player, but what's stopping Miami from picking Beasley? Udonis Haslem? Him and his 12/9? (Please Use More Appropriate Word) thinking like that is what makes teams pass on great players and end up picking guys like Araujo or Diogu or Shelden Williams.

bill curley II wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Then you're an idiot. I have no problems with someone taking Rose if they think Rose will be the better player, but what's stopping Miami from picking Beasley? Udonis Haslem? Him and his 12/9? (Please Use More Appropriate Word) thinking like that is what makes teams pass on great players and end up picking guys like Araujo or Diogu or Shelden Williams.

1) Reported. I can tolerate ine useless, smart-ass reply that doesn't answer my original question, but don't call me an idiot or say that I possess a (Please Use More Appropriate Word) way of thinking.
2) Shawn Marion should not decline his $18 million player option. He's a F. Haslem is a PF. Dorrell Wright should be brought back, and he played SF this season. If Ricky Davis is brought back, he's also a SF. There may not be immediate room for the forward tweener Michael Beasley.
3) Miami has G Dwyane Wade, G Marcus Banks, and SG Daequan Cook coming back. That's it. Only one of these players is starting caliber (guess who). Derrick Rose fits the biggest immediate and long-term need for this team, especially if you consider Wade's injury troubles.

So, like I said, teams usually draft for need ESPECIALLY at the top of the draft. Teams are probably bad because they have glaring holes at a position or two. In the second round and near the end of the first (for solid, established teams without glaring deficiencies) are when you can take BPA or projects.

To answer the OP's question, it obviously varies widely based on drafts. This year, I expect the first two players to be perennial all-stars, the next group (perhaps down to #10) to pan out to one or two good all-stars, one or two busts, and the rest solid players, and down the line from there. In 2003, the number of all-stars would be higher, in 2005, lower.

Generally speaking, past pick #20, I am pleased if the player goes beyond his rookie contract. Between 10-20, I expect at least a role player, with a chance at being good (probably at least one ends up very good). Between 5-10, I expect solid starters, and at least one definite all-star. Between 1-5, I expect one franchise player, 2-3 all-stars, and one disappointment (meaning anything from roleplayer to bust).

GJense4181 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


1) Reported. I can tolerate ine useless, smart-ass reply that doesn't answer my original question, but don't call me an idiot or say that I possess a (Please Use More Appropriate Word) way of thinking.
2) Shawn Marion should not decline his $18 million player option. He's a F. Haslem is a PF. Dorrell Wright should be brought back, and he played SF this season. If Ricky Davis is brought back, he's also a SF. There may not be immediate room for the forward tweener Michael Beasley.
3) Miami has G Dwyane Wade, G Marcus Banks, and SG Daequan Cook coming back. That's it. Only one of these players is starting caliber (guess who). Derrick Rose fits the biggest immediate and long-term need for this team, especially if you consider Wade's injury troubles.

So, like I said, teams usually draft for need ESPECIALLY at the top of the draft. Teams are probably bad because they have glaring holes at a position or two. In the second round and near the end of the first (for solid, established teams without glaring deficiencies) are when you can take BPA or projects.

If Miami thought Beasley was the better player, what's preventing them from picking him? A 12/9 player in Haslem? Marion who's not in their long term plans, and has shown signs of decline? Ricky Davis and Dorrell Wright? Are you kidding me? By your logic, Cleveland shouldn't have picked LeBron b/c they already had Ricky Davis.

And I'd say teams are pretty split, but for the most part, they pick BPA. First off, if you're that bad, you have holes basically everywhere, just like Miami except for at SG obviously. Toronto took Bargs when they had Bosh already. Atlanta picked Marvin with Childress and Smith. Port picked Roy an year after they picked Webster. Mil took Bogut when they had Magloire. Dallas with Devin Harris. Chi with Ben Gordon. So there's been plenty of recent examples of teams picking BPA and not based on need.

GJense4181 wrote:^False.

Teams don't always take BPA. They usually draft for need. and *best* could mean anything; best fit, highest upside, or lowest bust factor.

If I am the Miami Heat and I get the #1 draft pick, I take Derrick Rose even if Michael Beasley is atop my draft board.

But way to understand the question!

False. Most teams draft BPA, and only draft for need if they see it as a very small difference in quality between the "need" player and the "BPA."

For example, look at the top 10 of the last draft:

1. Oden - was seen as the BPA
2. Durant - was seen as the BPA
3. Horford - Horford is a natural PF, where they already have Josh Smith, and Atlanta direly needed a PG, but they took Horford over Conley, cause he was the BPA
4. Conley - they already had Lowry and Navarro at the PG spot, two solid young PGs, but they took Conley because he was the BPA
5. Jeff Green - drafted him despite the fact that he's a natural 3 AND Durant is a natural 3, because he was the BPA
6. Yi - they already had CV as a promising young 4, but again, BPA
7. Corey Brewer - was seen as the BPA, though they were terrible (still are), and had needs at basically every position
8. Brandan Wright - drafted by Charlotte, who would rather have had a C so they could move Emeka to his natural position (PF), and the next 2 picks were centers, but they took Wright, cause he was the BPA
9. Joakim Noah - they needed offense, they had Ben Wallace as a defensive big (he was still seen as very good before this season started), but they draft a defensive big, cause he was definitely the BPA in their mind
10. Spencer Hawes - the only real need was PF (had Brad Miller at C), but again, Hawes was clearly the BPA


Teams occasionally reach to fill a need when a better player is available (especially poor drafting teams, like the Hawks for example), but the vast majority of picks are BPA, with players picked based on needs only when you really don't have a strong feeling about who the BPA is. It is definitely not the case that teams usually draft based on team needs.

I want all stars with the top 3 picks in average drafts (like 2006 for example, at the time I didn't consider that a good draft at all). Then 4-14 I want a solid top 7-8 player right away and can always be used as a decent trade chip. 15-30 I want someone who gives me great value for the 4 year contract. 31+ Is all gravy.

ponder276 wrote:8. Brandan Wright - drafted by Charlotte, who would rather have had a C so they could move Emeka to his natural position (PF), and the next 2 picks were centers, but they took Wright, cause he was the BPA

While I agree with the rest of your post, Emeka is not a natural PF. He has a great deal of trouble guarding anyone with above-average PF speed (Bosh, etc.), and is very strong inside. He also doesn't have a very good jump shot, and mostly scores within 5' of the basket. This season we very rarely played Emeka with Nazr Mohammed, and when we did it was a mess. It's generally agreed on the Bobcats board that we need a PF in this draft, so we never have to switch Emeka out of C.

If we're talking pre-lottery then it's of interest that the 5th position in the lottery has historically been the best position to be in in terms of getting the 1st overall pick.

It only is if you believe the lottery is rigged. Otherwise that's just random chance and it has no bearing on your expectations for the pick, or your expectations of winning the lottery. You would be stupid, in my opinion, to want #5 over #4 because "historically" it has gotten #1 the most.

GJense4181 wrote:Adam Morrison (bust, but weak draft)

How about you give a kid more than just his rookie season before he's labelled as a bust?

8. Brandan Wright - drafted by Charlotte, who would rather have had a C so they could move Emeka to his natural position (PF), and the next 2 picks were centers, but they took Wright, cause he was the BPA

No, he was drafted because we wanted JRich and they wanted Wright.

http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm

http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2.htm

BigSlam wrote:How about you give a kid more than just his rookie season before he's labelled as a bust?

For ****'s sake, cry about it.
Adam Morrison will not pan out while with the Charlotte Bobcats. They drafted him because he was a big name in college and would sell tickets for a fledgling franchise.
He will not start over Jason Richardson or Gerald Wallace, and even if you move Wallace to PF, Jared Dudley would get the nod before Adam Morrison would. If I recall directly, Charlotte *reached* to get Dudley. Why would they do this if SF a.ka. Adam Morrison wasn't a need? Then consider that even Matt Carroll must be a better player at this point than Adam, and the writing's on the wall: B-U-S-T W-I-T-H T-H-E C-H-A-R-L-O-T-T-E B-O-B-C-A-T-S-,-E-S-P-E-C-I-A-L-L-Y F-O-R A T-O-P 3 P-I-C-K.
The writing is red, too.

Which is the whole point of this thread! Imagine that! I expect, out of a top three pick, EVEN IF it's a questionable draft, a starter. Very minimum. Starter. Immediately, if it's a low-upside player like Morrison.

shrink wrote:http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm

http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2.htm

Good links.
If I was going to write a senior thesis, one of my ideas was to do the exact kind of statistical analysis that the guy in the first link did. I would have even used PER.
Consarnit.