Thinking Basketball Analysis: 1st round picks are overvalued.

[Pointgod]

One of the guys Thinking Basketball conducted an analysis of the the major trades in the past 15 years that involved multiple picks. The methodology used was to analyze 4 picks over 6 years and look at the average spot in the draft those picks ended up. Here’s the link below. They talk about the results of the analysis in the first 30 minutes.

https://www.stitcher.com/show/thinking-basketball-podcast/episode/176-overvaluing-1st-round-picks-the-best-cutters-screeners-dunkers-and-more-211848672

For those of you who don’t want to listen to the podcast here’s a summary of the results:

Spoiler:

The average pick landing spot was 17. The VORP of the player traded ended up being double the career VORP of all the picks that the team trading the allstar would have generated

This is the most definitive analysis I’ve seen of multi pick trades. Picks seem to be used by teams trading allstars to sell hope in a distant future. Also it seems the downside of trading for an allstar is not as high as people believe. It challenges the conventional thinking of the value of superstar trades for picks

[76ciology]

HODL

[Dr Aki]

Diamond hands

[JujitsuFlip]

It's about losing flexibility once the commitment to trade 6 picks for 1 player takes place.

[Buckeye-NBAFan]

Well, value is subjective. The Lakers won a title with AD, and you still have people talking about how much they gave up, even when we know the actual picks, De'Andre Hunter and Dyson Daniels, who are not going to win you a title.

If someone values lottery picks over a title, you're going to have a hard time making a W/L value argument to them.

[76ciology]

Yes, but eventually those picks gets traded again for a player that is more than worthy than all those picks. And some of the picks received will act as fillers for the trade.

Nets rising like a Phoenix 2.0 is a good example

Most of these trades where the team got those picks aren’t really looking to find a franchise player from those picks. Rather, they are just looking to use those picks for major trades in the future.

[Liam_Gallagher]

They’re a shiny unopened box. Most people prefer that over the sure thing.

[Dr Aki]

Well, value is subjective. The Lakers won a title with AD, and you still have people talking about how much they gave up, even when we know the actual picks, De'Andre Hunter and Dyson Daniels, who are not going to win you a title.

If someone values lottery picks over a title, you're going to have a hard time making a W/L value argument to them.

Could also use the Bucks giving up a ton for Jrue Holiday and winning a ring as a result of that as well.

But on the flip side, you got the Clippers getting bent over for Paul George.

[Buckeye-NBAFan]

Well, value is subjective. The Lakers won a title with AD, and you still have people talking about how much they gave up, even when we know the actual picks, De'Andre Hunter and Dyson Daniels, who are not going to win you a title.

If someone values lottery picks over a title, you're going to have a hard time making a W/L value argument to them.

Could also use the Bucks giving up a ton for Jrue Holiday and winning a ring as a result of that as well.

But on the flip side, you got the Clippers getting bent over for Paul George.

SGA wasn't a pick though

[dockingsched]

Issue I take with this outlook is first and foremost teams aren’t out there wanting to trade their stars for picks. I’d say it’s almost always a trade demand that forces teams to trade stars for picks when they otherwise wouldn’t. With that context, I don’t really see the point in looking at trades where “stars” were traded for picks since these teams are being forced to just take the best deal they can get.

Other issue is that the value of picks is almost never about the mid range first round player you’ll ultimately draft. They’re about being tradable assets that are like deferred compensation, not counting against the cap, able to be added to a deal without it affecting the salary match, their value able to rise based on the nature of their protections and the team how they were taken from.

[Knightfall]

When trapding a star player you're almost always going to lose the trade. When Jason Kidd was traded for Devin Harris fans were happy with Devin Harris for a bit, but after a while that were off.

When trading for picks you're only drafting for a opportunity to hope you make the right pick amd it helps the team and you may hopefully get good players in the draft or possibly even a great one, and not get a bunch of busts.

OKC has 18 more picks in the next 3 years and had quite a few already. They got 1 all star in Shai, one good player on Giddey, and a possible great in Chet. Who knows there but one would call that a pretty good run of picks along with Mann, the William's guys and Dort. They need to hope they can get like 1 more star from that and 2 more decent players and thay would be a great pick run.

Not to mention they would still have enough to trade for someone else. Not every team or gm is OKC though and those same picks could have turned into players that won't be in the NBA in a few years.

[Dr Aki]

Well, value is subjective. The Lakers won a title with AD, and you still have people talking about how much they gave up, even when we know the actual picks, De'Andre Hunter and Dyson Daniels, who are not going to win you a title.

If someone values lottery picks over a title, you're going to have a hard time making a W/L value argument to them.

Could also use the Bucks giving up a ton for Jrue Holiday and winning a ring as a result of that as well.

But on the flip side, you got the Clippers getting bent over for Paul George.

SGA wasn't a pick though

They gave up 5 FRPs (and 2 swaps) in addition to SGA

[baldur]

Fans overvalue the picks, not the teams. The picks of 11 teams out of top 16 teams are going away in this year's draft.

What's valued by the teams are lottery picks which is why top 10 or top 14 protections take place sometimes.

[Pachinko_]

Most of these trades where the team got those picks aren’t really looking to find a franchise player from those picks. Rather, they are just looking to use those picks for major trades in the future.

Exactly, it's like shares. Most people don't even know what the company they're buying actually does, or the company might be total crap, but it doesn't matter, all that matters is if people are willing to buy that share off them.

Are picks overvalued? Cool, as long as they're consistently overvalued by the other teams it's not a problem. Problem is when only *you* overvalued them and nobody else does.

[DCasey91]

And he’s 100% correct. Drafts will never be an exact science. A 1st rnd pick can in many instances act as a commodity/asset rather than a single investment into a player.

Teams give away 1st rounders frequently. The higher lotto picks are worth more but once again Drafts are a crapshoot so it’s always the known vs unknown.

We all know how great KD is we don’t know what is the eventuation of multiple 1st round picks.

[Warriorfan]

Really depends who is doing the picking and developing.

Also depends what you already have. If you have the centerpiece drafting for complementary players us easier. Bad teams gamble more on upside potential.

[Buckeye-NBAFan]

Could also use the Bucks giving up a ton for Jrue Holiday and winning a ring as a result of that as well.

But on the flip side, you got the Clippers getting bent over for Paul George.

SGA wasn't a pick though

They gave up 5 FRPs (and 2 swaps) in addition to SGA

You don't think Paul George is worth Tre Mann, Jalen Williams and 3 1sts?

[Dr Aki]

SGA wasn't a pick though

They gave up 5 FRPs (and 2 swaps) in addition to SGA

You don't think Paul George is worth Tre Mann, Jalen Williams and 3 1sts?

I didn't think Paul George was worth SGA let alone whatever else they gave.

Dude already looked the goods as a Clipper but hey, the PG deal was also to seal the Kawhi signing, so I guess there are extenuating circumstances

[TheLand13]

One of the guys Thinking Basketball conducted an analysis of the the major trades in the past 15 years that involved multiple picks. The methodology used was to analyze 4 picks over 6 years and look at the average spot in the draft those picks ended up. Here’s the link below. They talk about the results of the analysis in the first 30 minutes.

https://www.stitcher.com/show/thinking-basketball-podcast/episode/176-overvaluing-1st-round-picks-the-best-cutters-screeners-dunkers-and-more-211848672

For those of you who don’t want to listen to the podcast here’s a summary of the results:

Spoiler:

The average pick landing spot was 17. The VORP of the player traded ended up being double the career VORP of all the picks that the team trading the allstar would have generated

This is the most definitive analysis I’ve seen of multi pick trades. Picks seem to be used by teams trading allstars to sell hope in a distant future. Also it seems the downside of trading for an allstar is not as high as people believe. It challenges the conventional thinking of the value of superstar trades for picks

I think the biggest problem is that people use the Nets/Celtics trade as the go to comparison. It shouldn’t be that way. That trade was an anomaly, a rarity in NBA history. It’s a home run if it turns out that way, but it’s not what you should hope for.

If one of the picks can turn into an all star caliber player, the trade is ultimately a success. It’s good to have multiple players who can be serviceable or even very good role players come from the picks as well. That’s what you can ultimately build a foundation off of.

It’s for that reason that I think the recent Utah trades are already a huge success. Lauri is an all star and Kessler looks like he has an insanely bright future ahead of him. With all of those picks on the horizon (even though I doubt the ones from Cleveland will be anything worthwhile since they’ll be a consistent playoff team for rest of the decade), they’ll have plenty of talent to build off of and use to develop chemistry and build a system.

[zimpy27]

This analysis was done the wrong way I think.

They should take into account a curve of wins based on pick and added that up to find average wins.
Using a curve like this for example:



Pick 17 as average is actually promising, as the picks above 17 curve up more dramatically than the picks below 17 will taper.

They also need to account for picks having future value. A pick that is 7 years out can be traded for 7 years as an asset, if you choose not to trade it then you select a player and that player can be under team controls for 8 years or more. So you are getting 15 years of asset locked in.

Whereas a player you trade picks for may only have 2-3 years left on their contract locked in.