The average expectation of each draft position

[DelAbbot]

I swear mdenny made this exact thread not long ago

[YogurtProducer]

When I look at investment decisions, I don't include crappy investor's records in my calculations.

Reality is even the best drafters miss.

Masai picked Poeltl at 9 and Siakam at 27 and found FVV undrafted. If he was so confident in those players he would have found a way to trade up or grab FVV with a 2nd rounder - but he didn't. Hell - if he was as great as he appears he wouldn't have taken Poeltl > Siakam.

The best drafter of the last 10 years took Flynn and Bruno in the 1st round.

[PushDaRock]

When I look at investment decisions, I don't include crappy investor's records in my calculations.

Why not? As the disclaimer always says, "Past results do not guarantee future performance"

[sidsid]

You'd probably be better off if you traded your non elite 1st every year for a redraft player 1-3 years into his career who might not have emerged as a star but who at least displayed rotation ability. Most players lose their shine the moment they step on the court, while a future draft pick remains strong in value because of the mystery box premium.

I know teams want all the cheap years and they want to get these guys in their system ASAP, but that doesn't prevent a lot of them from disappointing or not getting a 2nd contract anyways. The hit rate isn't great in most drafts.

That's the type of move where it makes sense for a contender to do. A team that's just looking to fill out some rotation spots on the cheaper end. The KO/Ochai trade would have made a ton of sense for a team like Denver if they had the contract/pick. Because once the players hit the floor, most of the time you end up seeing the ceiling real quick.

But most teams, especially in the lottery, are not looking for a solid 15 minute guy in playoff rotations. They are looking for a guy who will change the future of their team. That's why you reach for Bruno after hitting on Siakam, who was pivotal in your chip run in his 3rd year. It's the cheapest way to make an enormous difference for your franchise.

That's why the Thunder traded 3 1st round picks to move up and get "their guy" Ousmane Dieng, one of their 3 picks in the lotto, and right before they picked Jdub at 12, who just dropped 40 in his 3rd year to potentially end the Pacers... They weren't looking for Ochais.

I think looking for those rotation players is important for everyone though.

The Raps don't land guys like Kawhi, Gasol without the Poeltl's, Wright's, Val's of the world. Enough of these players packaged together, along with other picks/players can you land you big upgrades.

If the Raps believed Siakam would be a future multiple time all-star, they would've selected him 9th not 27th. That's the issue, you just don't know most of the time.

Pure "upside" isn't always the right marker either. The Ace Bailey question marks are there and a good reason to pass on him for a guy perceived to have a lesser ceiling. Doesn't mean they can't surprise.

The most egregious example of this was the Kuminga/Franz discussion right when GSW was picking. Yeah, Kuminga is the traditional high end mystery box, but you have Steph Curry and the other guy was projected to be ready to play earlier with a good amount of buzz as well. You are contending! Just pick that guy!

[OakleyDokely]

When I look at investment decisions, I don't include crappy investor's records in my calculations.

Reality is even the best drafters miss.

Masai picked Poeltl at 9 and Siakam at 27 and found FVV undrafted. If he was so confident in those players he would have found a way to trade up or grab FVV with a 2nd rounder - but he didn't. Hell - if he was as great as he appears he wouldn't have taken Poeltl > Siakam.

The best drafter of the last 10 years took Flynn and Bruno in the 1st round.

The best drafting teams have typically been teams like TOR, MEM, OKC, SA, MIA. But even when you just look at them, there are very big gaps with those teams as well. I don't want to say it's a crapshoot, but you're betting on a teenagers growth and there are so many variables that you can't control.

The draft is a very important part of team building, but it's just one of the ways to add talent.

[YogurtProducer]

When I look at investment decisions, I don't include crappy investor's records in my calculations.

Why not? As the disclaimer always says, "Past results do not guarantee future performance"

And we are looking at such SMALL samples of most these guys.

Like in reality lets say there is a 50/50 chance a guy is a star or a bust and there is nothing else in the teams control. It is not some mathematical improbability for a "crappy investor" (as Danger says) to flip the coin on the "bust" side 3 straight times.

IMO - great drafters show their chops more outside the lottery anyways. The top 5 (and lesser extent, the top 10) is so chalky that an average RealGMer could make the picks and have a similar hit rate to NBA franchises.

[wegotthabeet]

https://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

82games did research on this exact topic. Unless you get a top 5 pick your chances of getting a star dramatically plummet.

At #9 I would expect a solid starter, which history has shown is a reasonable expectation for a top 10 pick. After the top 10 you're moreso looking at roleplayers/bench players.

I've seen this source several times and it's a great breakdown but fatally flawed.

The draft was WAYYYYY more accurate in the 80s and 90s.

It has become increasingly less accurate since approx 2000 to 2005. The main reason for this is that prospects stopped playing multiple years on college.

Compare how many one and done draft picks were selected in 1995 compared to 2005.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong....but something like 95% of first round draft picks are now one and done.

And everyone in the top 20 is one and done.

So what's creating the increased variance in draft selection with outcome is that it's obviously harder to predict anything at younger ages and with less exposure to evaluation time.

If you could take this calculation and limit it to anything past 2005.....the results would be drastically different. And as time passes.....the variance is increasing.

That is to say.....the NBA draft is progressively getting less and less accurate to outcomes that can be assessed 5 to 10 years after the draft.

If you simply look at the top picks between the years 1985 and 1990....you will notice that almost every player selected had decent to great careers.

If you look at the top picks between the years 2015 to 2020.....you will notice there are WAY more outright busts and guys who barely had careers.

Here's another way of putting it to hammer home: in 1985 the average draft age was between 22 and 23 years old. In 2024 the average draft age is between 19 and 20.

So imagine if the cade/Mobley draft was last year instead of 4 years ago. And imagine how much more accurate the draft selection would've been to where those players are ranked today.

So should they raise the draft age to decrease variance?

[OakleyDokely]

When I look at investment decisions, I don't include crappy investor's records in my calculations.

Why not? As the disclaimer always says, "Past results do not guarantee future performance"

And we are looking at such SMALL samples of most these guys.

Like in reality lets say there is a 50/50 chance a guy is a star or a bust and there is nothing else in the teams control. It is not some mathematical improbability for a "crappy investor" (as Danger says) to flip the coin on the "bust" side 3 straight times.

IMO - great drafters show their chops more outside the lottery anyways. The top 5 (and lesser extent, the top 10) is so chalky that an average RealGMer could make the picks and have a similar hit rate to NBA franchises.

I think it was Bobby Marks who was on Zach's Lowe podcast and he said that a lot of management teams when picking high in the draft are scared to go off board with their pick. They believe if they go with consensus or the safe pick, ownership can't question the pick later. But if they swing on the guy they want and that guy fails, they're going to get fired. Generally the first few picks end up being very similar to the mocks you see. In the end, this isn't fantasy basketball, this is a business and guys want to keep their job.

[YogurtProducer]

Why not? As the disclaimer always says, "Past results do not guarantee future performance"

And we are looking at such SMALL samples of most these guys.

Like in reality lets say there is a 50/50 chance a guy is a star or a bust and there is nothing else in the teams control. It is not some mathematical improbability for a "crappy investor" (as Danger says) to flip the coin on the "bust" side 3 straight times.

IMO - great drafters show their chops more outside the lottery anyways. The top 5 (and lesser extent, the top 10) is so chalky that an average RealGMer could make the picks and have a similar hit rate to NBA franchises.

I think it was Bobby Marks who was on Zach's Lowe podcast and he said that a lot of management teams when picking high in the draft are scared to go off board with their pick. They believe if they go with consensus or the safe pick, ownership can't question the pick later. But if they swing on the guy they want and that guy fails, they're going to get fired. Generally the first few picks end up being very similar to the mocks you see. In the end, this isn't fantasy basketball, this is a business and guys want to keep their job.

It makes sense.

Look how fans reacted on us going Barnes > Suggs. Imagine a team taking Giannis in the top 5 and it didnt work out.

[OakleyDokely]

And we are looking at such SMALL samples of most these guys.

Like in reality lets say there is a 50/50 chance a guy is a star or a bust and there is nothing else in the teams control. It is not some mathematical improbability for a "crappy investor" (as Danger says) to flip the coin on the "bust" side 3 straight times.

IMO - great drafters show their chops more outside the lottery anyways. The top 5 (and lesser extent, the top 10) is so chalky that an average RealGMer could make the picks and have a similar hit rate to NBA franchises.

I think it was Bobby Marks who was on Zach's Lowe podcast and he said that a lot of management teams when picking high in the draft are scared to go off board with their pick. They believe if they go with consensus or the safe pick, ownership can't question the pick later. But if they swing on the guy they want and that guy fails, they're going to get fired. Generally the first few picks end up being very similar to the mocks you see. In the end, this isn't fantasy basketball, this is a business and guys want to keep their job.

It makes sense.

Look how fans reacted on us going Barnes > Suggs. Imagine a team taking Giannis in the top 5 and it didnt work out.

The GM's safe in their role like Masai, can take greater risks because their job is secure. That's actually a big factor.

[vini_vidi_vici]

Spoiler:

I've done several different crude exercises like this and noticed that the 1980s and early 90s.....the draft was FAR MORE linear. I figured this had to be because of the whole one and done college thing that ended up taking shape.

But a couple things:

In the stuff I've looked at...it appears the draft is becoming even less accurate now than it was in 2000s and early 2010s. Interested if you have a theory on that.

My gut tells me that the increased inaccuracy is due to the business strategies of agents hired by players before they go pro. There is now incentive to limit the exposure that players have to scouting after they are ranked high. So it's become a sort of games manship....get the rank high....then limit the exposure of the prospect. Essentially producing less and less evaluation time.

Also...if the college financial stuff finally gains footing and they start getting paid....it might increase the average number of years that players stay in college.....which based on the above deduction....would make the draft shift back to becoming more accurate. Which would increase the relative value of future draft picks

I think it was easier due to age, role development, lack of all around skills, I could go on. Its just a different league now vs then, and I think given the tools we have (SportsVu to Spectrum) at even the college level, it makes it infinitely harder to pinpoint the skills needed to be successful.

Youre not drafting a 3+D ceiling in the lottery, but many come from it. Youre not drafting a one skill player anymore, or a plodding big who does plodding big things. Youre drafting players with skills in hopes you can develop them into elite skills.

I dont think we will ever get accuracy, given alot of teams dont run pro systems, and the ones that do dont usually have the talent to develop the all around skills needed.

[vini_vidi_vici]

Look how many players just busted because of injury risk. Youre not going to be able to predict that.

I think GMs are risk adverse in some structures, but I believe the draft on a whole, isnt just about securing the pick. You need to develop, they need opportunity, they need a structure to succeed, etc.. before anyone calls it a home run pick, or a value pick.

Taking flyers on guys in the late first/second round, wont produce results unless they get opportunity.

In the end, much like coaching, its tough to evaluate GMs, because we just see end results. Maybe a coach wont play _____ draft pick because they felt he wasnt ready. Maybe an owner/board/president would prefer the less volatility of vet end of bench guys. Maybe the offensive structure didnt benefit _____ draft pick. Theres plenty of reasons outside the player himself.

Sacramento had Haliburton (a 12th pick), but also paired him with a non-shooter who also needed the ball to be successful, they traded him to IND and he developed/appreciated as an asset in a different offense with different structure. I dont think anyone had a Hali led offense going to the finals, when he was playing there, or hell even this yr. Here we are. Now everyone says, well I would have drafted him over _____ for social credit. Look how bad GM _____ is because they took ____ over Hali.

Its a dart board, the way you mitigate that bust potential is by opportunity/development/structure, but thats alot to do for a draft pick, if they cant integrate in the current structure (esp with the turnover present in the NBA FO/coaching tier). Being a fan is easy, because no one is held accountable for their evaluations, there is no pressure on their picks, there is no consequence, no meddling, etc..

Lastly re: investing. Warren Buffet said..

Spoiler:

The earlier part about — you know, I’ve said about learning from your mistakes, the best thing to do is learn from other guys’ mistakes, I mean, you know —

It’s like, you know, [U.S. General George] Patton used to say, you know, “It’s an honor to die for your country. Make sure the other guy gets the honor,” you know and — (Laughter)

Its always important to inform yourself with as much information as possible, than to focus on just the successes.

[ontnut]

I think it was Bobby Marks who was on Zach's Lowe podcast and he said that a lot of management teams when picking high in the draft are scared to go off board with their pick. They believe if they go with consensus or the safe pick, ownership can't question the pick later. But if they swing on the guy they want and that guy fails, they're going to get fired. Generally the first few picks end up being very similar to the mocks you see. In the end, this isn't fantasy basketball, this is a business and guys want to keep their job.

It makes sense.

Look how fans reacted on us going Barnes > Suggs. Imagine a team taking Giannis in the top 5 and it didnt work out.

The GM's safe in their role like Masai, can take greater risks because their job is secure. That's actually a big factor.

Or just let the owner make the pick and end up with Bagley instead of Doncic.

[OakleyDokely]

It makes sense.

Look how fans reacted on us going Barnes > Suggs. Imagine a team taking Giannis in the top 5 and it didnt work out.

The GM's safe in their role like Masai, can take greater risks because their job is secure. That's actually a big factor.

Or just let the owner make the pick and end up with Bagley instead of Doncic.

Watch on YouTube

[ontnut]

The GM's safe in their role like Masai, can take greater risks because their job is secure. That's actually a big factor.

Or just let the owner make the pick and end up with Bagley instead of Doncic.

Watch on YouTube

He's got such a punchable face. I dno what it is. I get the heebie jeebies when I look at him.

[PushDaRock]

The GM's safe in their role like Masai, can take greater risks because their job is secure. That's actually a big factor.

Or just let the owner make the pick and end up with Bagley instead of Doncic.

Watch on YouTube

I don't care what anyone says, Nik still rocks!!!

[XTC]

While flawed, the average PER of the last 10 #9 picks is 13.4, their BPM is -1.4, and their average VORP is 1.2... there have been a total of 0 allstars.

Anyone expecting a star with the #9 pick is seriously hoping for a miracle. The chances are so slim.

[StopitLeo]

1st overall—I expect this pick to be an MVP level player (happens around 50% of the time). Anything less is a disappointment because the likelihood of finding an MVP elsewhere in the draft is closer to random.

Between picks 2-5ish—I would be pleasantly surprised with an All-Star level talent but satisfied with a starter level player.

Pick 6 and later—I think that finding a rotation player in the second half of the lottery or later is a success.

I'm sure some people think these are low expectations from 2 onward but history shows that the probability of drafting even a rotation player is quite low, let alone someone more talented.

Toronto has grossly out performed reasonable expectations in the draft with Masai and Bobby at the helm. After Bruno they have had 8 first round picks and the only bust was Malachi Flynn, who we shouldn't have expected much from being the 29th pick. It remains to be seen what Gradey and Ja'Kobe become but I think at minimum they are rotation players in the league.

[ConSarnit]

So instead of letting everyone's 'hope springs eternal' biases run away from them....

Let's make another attempt at finding objective valuations of top picks.

The exercise:

Ten year sample from 2010 to 2019. List the top 5 selected at each draft position. Then valuate them in order to identify the 5th best player from each list. The 5th best player representing a crude, yet vastly superior valuation of the draft slot compared to everyone running around and pretending that they are high school and college scouts.

First Overall:

John Wall
Kyrie Irving
AD
Anthony Bennet
Wiggins
KAT
Ben Simmons
Fultz
Ayton
Zion

5th best player (reasonable expectation of first overall) = I got John Wall.


Second overall:

Evan Turner
Derrick Williams
Kidd-Gilchrist
Oladipo
Jabari Parker
d'angelo Russell
Ingram
Lonzo
Bagley III
Ja Morant

5th best player (reasonable expectation of second overall) = tuff but I gotta say Victor Oladipo?


Third Overall:

Favors
Enes K-F
Beal
Otto Porter
Embiid
Okafor
J Brown
Tatum
Doncic
RJ Barrett

5th best player (reasonable expectation of third overall) = Gonna go with Beal


Fourth Overall

Wesley Johnson
Tristan Thompson
Cody Zeller
Aaron Gordon
Kristap
Dragan Bender
Josh Jackson
JJJ
Deandre Hunter

5th best player (reasonable expectation of fourth overall) = gotta go with Dion Waiters (unless I'm missing something)


5th overall pick

Cousins
Jonas V
Thomas Robinson
Alex Len
Dante Exum
Mario Hezonja
Kris Dunn
D'aaron Fox
Trae
Garland

5th best player (reasonable expectation of fifth overall) = gotta go with Jonas V

We could keep going with this (and there are further reasons to do that) but for now I will stop.

1 john wall
2 victor oladipo
3 Beal
4 Dion Waiters
5 Jonas V

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that 90% of the posters on this board think that these outcomes are disappointing for these draft positions (with perhaps the exception of beal....but even then too in some cases).

And that perception is demonstrably WRONG.

THE REAL LOTTERY IS THE DRAFT ITSELF. The perceptive value of top 5 picks have become insanely delusional amongst basketball fans.

You cannot claim to make an objective analysis on the value of draft picks when the very nature of the draft itself is subjective.

Let’s say for some reason a GM gets the 5th pick 5 years in a row. Who do you think will perform better? Masai Ujiri or David Kahn?

For instance, every single GM who drafted what you consider the average outcome from 2010-2019 no longer has a job as a GM.

The value of draft picks increases based on the skill level of your front office (and in some part development system). These picks don’t take place in a vacuum.

[ConSarnit]

Spoiler:

I've done several different crude exercises like this and noticed that the 1980s and early 90s.....the draft was FAR MORE linear. I figured this had to be because of the whole one and done college thing that ended up taking shape.

But a couple things:

In the stuff I've looked at...it appears the draft is becoming even less accurate now than it was in 2000s and early 2010s. Interested if you have a theory on that.

My gut tells me that the increased inaccuracy is due to the business strategies of agents hired by players before they go pro. There is now incentive to limit the exposure that players have to scouting after they are ranked high. So it's become a sort of games manship....get the rank high....then limit the exposure of the prospect. Essentially producing less and less evaluation time.

Also...if the college financial stuff finally gains footing and they start getting paid....it might increase the average number of years that players stay in college.....which based on the above deduction....would make the draft shift back to becoming more accurate. Which would increase the relative value of future draft picks

I think it was easier due to age, role development, lack of all around skills, I could go on. Its just a different league now vs then, and I think given the tools we have (SportsVu to Spectrum) at even the college level, it makes it infinitely harder to pinpoint the skills needed to be successful.

Youre not drafting a 3+D ceiling in the lottery, but many come from it. Youre not drafting a one skill player anymore, or a plodding big who does plodding big things. Youre drafting players with skills in hopes you can develop them into elite skills.

I dont think we will ever get accuracy, given alot of teams dont run pro systems, and the ones that do dont usually have the talent to develop the all around skills needed.

In no particular order I would say:

Age: has made it tougher to extrapolate future roles. Some like SGA was a second option on Kentucky in his freshman year. If he stays another year he’s almost assuredly their #1 option and moves up the draft board.

Europe: how do you evaluate the competition level of an 18 year old playing in some 2nd tier pro league? These are the leagues where Giannis and Jokic came from. I remember hearing a scout mention on a podcast that they are just now figuring out how to adjust for these leagues when scouting a player.

Skill: mostly shooting. If you drafted a wing in 1987 and they never learned to shoot they could still contribute at a high level. That’s nearly impossible now. The margin for error is much smaller if a player can’t develop shooting.

These draft process used to be much more controlled environment. Almost all of the top prospects played in the NCAA and they all played 3+ years. I would wager it was much easier to see who was better.