NBA Draft - A Desultory/Exact Science

[FNQ]

I read an article on DX's site about the draft, pretty indepth and pretty cool...

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Eig ... uide-2934/ (part I)
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Eig ... Two--2937/ (part II)

Some of the better highlights:

- "Nearly half the players drafted in the bottom half of the first round, are out of the league, or barely hanging on, five years after being drafted."

- "Of the 103 players drafted in the latter half of the first round between 2000 and 2006, only one was a solid starter in his rookie season: Jamaal Tinsley"

- "30% of second rounders never played in an NBA game, while 68% are out of the league within five years." (so to the two people who keep saying it, stop saying we should trade out of the 1st for 2nd rounders )

Then some Hawks bashings and graphs... overall a good piece... Its interesting to see that the success of drafting a star at the #14 pick is equal to the #6 and #11 pick, and is actually better than the #7, #8, and #12 picks... however the #14 is also the riskiest by a wide margin, as the "Out of the NBA" % is 42, and the next highest is by #6/#11 with 25% out of the NBA.

[nismolos]

Well we sure hit the jackpot in 01 and 05 (don't think I have to name them) along with a few other players since 00... (Milsap, Dalembert, Tony Parker in the LAAAATE first). But I believe these stats are meaningless considering that every year has a different set of talent spread accross the board. Some years it is drasticlly better in the first 5 picks then the rest of the draft. I think this draft is a toss up all the way up to the mid second round. The "potential" factor seems like it is more abundant in this draft than any other in recent memory. Kevin Love was originally projected 15+! Batum was top 10 and he's fallen. There are just so many questions that in this draft you can score a great player up until the mid 2nd round. But that's just my opinion.

[Twinkie defense]

This is why I don't flip out too much at cutting Lasme or seeing Patrick O'Bryant as a failed experiment - even in the top three the draft can be a crapshoot.

[FNQ]

To be an experiment, technically you have to try something new. So POB / Lasme aren't failed experiments, they are instead testaments to a failed and incompetent (currently along w/historically) front office.

Now the depth of drafts will skew the #s, but breaking down what they said - the 6-11 picks were generally used on the 'second-tier' big men - the long shots, the guys with amazing physicals who you hoped to harness. The 12-14 is usually where youd find #9 seeds who are looking for immediate help or safe picks - thus the higher success rate. To dismiss this based on where the talent goes is to completely miss the point - the point is to see drafting trends that have become apparent in the NBA.

If you look up and down the 2nd graph on that page, you'll see it - its starts at 5 (in decline til 8), shoots back up at 9 (in decline til 12) and then a final spike at 13 with 14 following the same decline. That's no accident, it shows the trends of how players are picked.

I like to generalize it as the C / PG / Wing slide. The C slide starts at 5 and goes down to 8... thats the safer PF/Cs ranging to the more dangerous. PG slide at 9 and down, and wing slide at 13 and down. Of course, its not that black and white, but I've noticed the past few years that positions get drafted in small bunches...

[Twinkie defense]

Every pick is an experiment

My point is not to bring up the great POB/Lasme debates. I know not everyone shares my views on these guys, and I'm okay with that.

Put it this way: after the very first pick, you have a better chance that your pick is not a star (54% chance at #2 overall) than he is a star (46% chance at #2). And generally, it only gets worse as you go down in the draft.

And, as you've noted 510, it gets even worse for bigs than it does for smalls.

That means that, just by the law of averages, you're going to pick guys that don't work out (especially bigs). That's a harsh reality, but one I figure I've got to live with... as long as the law of averages comes down in the Warriors' favor sometimes (Hardaway, Arenas, Ellis, Biedrins).

Later in the draft, there is some logic to trading from the 1st round to the 2nd round, because either way the odds aren't good that you'll get a good player, but 1st rounders have guaranteed contracts, while 2nd rounders do not.

[FNQ]

That brings me to a question someone connected to UC Berkeley asked me last year...

Say you have the 30th (final in the 1st) and 31st pick (first in the 2nd). You have 2 prospects you really like, but you like A much better than B. Both are risks. (BTW - in the actual scenario, A was Tiago Splitter and B was Daquean Cook).

I tend to think that the guaranteed 1st round contracts will hold more value, as you control the players rights for a minimum of 5 years. I believe that the relatively low salary that you can lock them in for, and guarantee they are part of your team, is more crucial than the <30% chance (or if you are looking strictly at the 2nd half of the 1st round, <43% chance) that the player will be out of the league or a IL player.