The average expectation of each draft position

[mdenny]

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.

[OakleyDokely]

There was nothing like a Dion Waiters heat check. Bench skill, hall of fame confidence.

[mdenny]

There was nothing like a Dion Waiters heat check. Bench skill, hall of fame confidence.

The raptor franchise will be lost beyond all hope if we trade the #9 pick for one of the top 3 offensive players in nba history.

In fact....now that I'm reading up on this draft....we should consider trading Etobicoke for a late first rounder.

[Grew]

Don't care about the average, draft me a superstar.

[ishoy123]

There was nothing like a Dion Waiters heat check. Bench skill, hall of fame confidence.

The raptor franchise will be lost beyond all hope if we trade the #9 pick for one of the top 3 offensive players in nba history.

In fact....now that I'm reading up on this draft....we should consider trading Etobicoke for a late first rounder.

I'm down for that

[vini_vidi_vici]

Draft expectation is an interesting thing, with alot of variables.

Ive read alot about this since the original tWo days, and posted alot of it, but I had this bookmarked and just revisited it because of this thread and thought it might be noteworthy.

First I hate PER, but as a catchall stat for comparison its okay (not great). Here we go, per this article **please read the article, because im just clipping without context. Its also not mine and there are issues with the methodology but whatever. Hes using yrs 4-6 because "which gives them enough time in the league to reach their potential while giving us enough years of data (2001-2015)".

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

The following visualization takes the tiers we created and identifies how many of each tier each pick had.


To further investigate this trend, we created the same visualization but with each player’s best three seasons. This would allow us to see if it was maybe just specifically years 4-6 where picks 6-10 had similar All-star hit rate as picks 26-30.

Spoiler:

The reality is, while fans seem to place premiums of drafts, its more often than not, going to not meet expectations. Even looking at the 9 pick, while it has a higher AllStar/HoF player than 6-7-8, its still unlikely (75%).

Its among many reasons ive softened on the tWo stance as I read more and more studies. Its just not as viable as it used to be IMO, and even when you do tank, in order to get to the bottom you have to hollow out all assets like a WAS/etc.. and hope to hit not just lottery balls but also on picking/developing/finding a pairing star/etc.. I just think its another tool, like anything else, and to be used if necessary.

[vini_vidi_vici]

Heres another.

Spoiler:

Figure 9 shows the average EPM Units generated by the 11 players drafted in each draft slot from the 2013 to 2023 drafts as though they were drafted in their actual draft position. In other words, the actual eleven players drafted with #1 picks in the eleven drafts from 2013 to 2023 are all averaged, the actual eleven #2 picks are all averaged, the actual eleven #3 picks are all averaged, etc.

You can see the trend here is quite lumpy and hard to predict. On top of that, some immediate absurdities leap off the screen.

The average #3 pick is about 75% more valuable than the average #1 pick and more than three times as valuable as the average #2 pick. The average #41 pick also appears to be insanely valuable—it’s the third highest pick in terms of average value overall, and over 10 times more valuable than the average pick on either side of it (#40 and #42).

If that seems wild to you, it’s because it probably is.

The chart below of top 3 picks over the last 11 years. Green is the best pick of the three draft slots, yellow is the second best, and red is the worst.

Spoiler:

***We can also easily explain the apparently absurd value of the average #41 pick—it’s basically driven by one guy. Nikola Jokic has generated a staggering 2,840 EPM Units per season since he was drafted with the 41st pick in 2014, despite missing a full year playing overseas. The only other players who even clear 1,000 EPM Units per season are regularly All-NBA contenders like Joel Embiid (~2,129), Giannis Antetokounmpo (~2,098), Luka Doncic (~1,855), Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (~1,590), Rudy Gobert (~1,238), and Jayson Tatum (~1,107).

[mdenny]

Draft expectation is an interesting thing, with alot of variables.

Ive read alot about this since the original tWo days, and posted alot of it, but I had this bookmarked and just revisited it because of this thread and thought it might be noteworthy.

First I hate PER, but as a catchall stat for comparison its okay (not great). Here we go, per this article **please read the article, because im just clipping without context. Its also not mine and there are issues with the methodology but whatever. Hes using yrs 4-6 because "which gives them enough time in the league to reach their potential while giving us enough years of data (2001-2015)".

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

The following visualization takes the tiers we created and identifies how many of each tier each pick had.


To further investigate this trend, we created the same visualization but with each player’s best three seasons. This would allow us to see if it was maybe just specifically years 4-6 where picks 6-10 had similar All-star hit rate as picks 26-30.

Spoiler:

The reality is, while fans seem to place premiums of drafts, its more often than not, going to not meet expectations. Even looking at the 9 pick, while it has a higher AllStar/HoF player than 6-7-8, its still unlikely (75%).

Its among many reasons ive softened on the tWo stance as I read more and more studies. Its just not as viable as it used to be IMO, and even when you do tank, in order to get to the bottom you have to hollow out all assets like a WAS/etc.. and hope to hit not just lottery balls but also on picking/developing/finding a pairing star/etc.. I just think its another tool, like anything else, and to be used if necessary.

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.

[OakleyDokely]

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.

[XTC]

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.

[mdenny]

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.

In addition....due to the basketball fan hype surrounding draft picks....one would think that trading down could derive real value based on the perceptive error.

Ie. Trade your 4th overall for the 11th and 13th.

I'm also convinced that GMs with good analytical staff WISH they could make such a move....but know from a PR standpoint that they can't. If it works out....the public praise they get is not equal to the public condemnation if it doesn't work out.

In the book "moneyball"....Billy beane told the author that most baseball managers KNEW that traditional bunting strategies were not optimal but they reluctantly bunted regardless. The reason: if you bunted when the public thought you should and the outcome was bad....ppl left you alone. In contrast...if you went against the public perception in following the mathematically optimal tactic and the outcome was bad....jobs were jeopardized.

So pragmatically, it was better to employ the LESSER of the optimal tactics because of the business side of the ramifications.

I'm probably getting wau too deep into the weeds here....but there's reference to this theme in plato's The Republic in context of human governance.

Returning to solid ground....there's a rational explanation for WHY there is an overhyped perception of top pick value amongst fans. There is an entire, for-profit, media industry based on interest in the draft. Everyone who works and profits from that industry has a profit motive for inflated perceptions of top draft picks.

In short....you don't get clicks or generate revenue by being a skeptical observer of prospects. But all good wall street analysts would immediately identify value in such a circumstance. Every draft is kinda like a mini-bubble. And you can bet against the mini-bubble by trading your draft picks.

Now of course....trades aren't conducted by public perception. They are conducted by GMs. But if you identified a GM that was particularly swayed by public opinion (more than others)....that's the guy you would trade your draft picks to.

[RoteSchroder]

Likely goes out the window if you factor out poor drafting ability and factor in good drafting ability.

Question is if we can find the pre-draft rankings of a good scout and end up with a much more linear outcome.

[mdenny]

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.

[ItsDanger]

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

[OakleyDokely]

Drafting is like baseball. Even the very best miss more often than they hit.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Likely goes out the window if you factor out poor drafting ability and factor in good drafting ability.

Question is if we can find the pre-draft rankings of a good scout and end up with a much more linear outcome.

Unfortunately I think poor drafting ability is even harder to analyze. There are too many examples of the same exec drafting a superstar and bust in high pick areas, sometimes in the same draft.

I can think of at least two examples where GMs recently took players back to back in the lottery, the first one selected in each draft was a total bust, the next two are currently neck and neck to take home the Finals MVP trophy.

Good drafting ability is a marathon, where you might never win but have to be content with being better than average. This is how you strengthen your team.

[OakleyDokely]

Finding a superstar is heavily luck based. Either you get luck in the lottery and get a top pick in a year that happens to have an obvious generational talent or you draft a top 20 player all-time during a Taco Bell commercial after passing on him with your 1st pick.

I find the teams that are most successful are the teams that hit singles and doubles consistently. They aren't finding stars, they're finding rotation players and solid starters. Guys who are contributors on their team who also could be packaged later in a larger deal for a star. The key is building up your talent base and depth because that flexibility gives you a lot more options later.

[WuTang_CMB]

crap shoot
but the teams who normally draft towards the top, don't know what they are doing anyway

[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.

[OakleyDokely]

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.