I really enjoyed this article, and found it a different take on Count55's work, as it focused on the growing popularity of "win averages".
Many of you might not have access to insider, so here goes:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ory?id=4222914
When the NBA draft started more than 50 years ago, it was like a bare-knuckles fight -- there was no limit on the number of rounds, allowing teams to draft players for as long as they could stand, including a record 21 rounds in 1960.
Times change. Since then, the draft has been shrunk (to 10 rounds by the mid-1970s) and downsized (to seven in 1985) and desiccated (to the current two rounds in 1989). Obviously, drafts can change the course of league history (see: Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan), and every year on draft night, we like to point and stare at the big suits and the Big Suit.
But Insider's D.R.A.F.T. Initiative (Data-Related Analysis For Truth) crew has been poring over draft data for months, analyzing draft picks and their subsequent careers, and we've arrived at a surprising conclusion: The NBA draft isn't that big a deal. That's because, in any given year, there isn't enough talent to give many teams any hope of landing a star, let alone a reliable backup.
To get deeper into the ideas of the D.R.A.F.T Initiative (educating yourself on value and methodology in the process), please sign up for ESPN Insider. There isn't a Mike Piazza or a Tom Brady lurking in the late rounds, because there are no late rounds. Crunch some numbers, as ESPN researcher Tom Haberstroh did, and the draft could easily do with more downsizing. Beyond the first five picks, the quality falls off rapidly. Beyond the first 10, the selection process is a proverbial crapshoot. Actually, it's not that proverbial; teams drafting after the fifth pick are quite likely to pick a crap player and look back on it while using closely related linguistic variants of the word "shoot."
Check out this graph from our pick-based analysis page:
The squiggly blue line plots EWA, John Hollinger's estimated wins added stat, for each draft slot, averaged over the past 20 years of draft picks. EWA is a VORP-like metric that measures a player's contributions to his team compared to those of a baseline replacement player. Built off Hollinger's player efficiency rating, EWA considers not only the player's efficiency but also how many minutes that player spends on the court. The red line is the best-fit curve that predicts a given slot's value based on the downward-trending distribution of the data.
So what does the picture show? Draft early, and don't draft often. Maybe, if you're the Clippers, don't draft at all.
And yet ...
There are exceptions, anomalies, funky trends. The draft is cruel to most GMs, but it's been kind to a few smart clubs. The Spurs have mined diamonds both early (Tim Duncan) and late (Tony Parker). In general, picks six through eight have been awful, yet No. 9 has been revolutionary. While there's a strong case to eliminate the second round altogether -- hey, it would be in keeping with the NBA's history -- there's also the lure of a Rashard Lewis or a Gilbert Arenas still on the board while the janitors are vacuuming Cheez Doodles off the green room floor.
In other words, since the draft as a whole isn't the talent show it's made out to be, it's even more important for teams to match up their roster needs with the players who are available -- and to realize when those needs simply can't be met. Or, they need to recalibrate their expectations. Instead of hoping the supposed "best player available" will max out all his skills, when a team is drafting at a point likely to generate a role player, it would be wise to target a prospect with one clear, NBA-ready ability.
Rocky Widner/NBAE/Getty ImagesIt's more likely that your team will wind up drafting someone like Cabarkapa than you'd realize.
How to do that? Glad you asked. Over the next month, we'll explain our method in more detail and analyze expected value in a potential draftee. We'll comb through our research to identify and explain trends in the draft, show the difference between teams that succeeded and those that failed, and the success rates of players taken in different draft slots.
We'll also analyze players who worked out well for their teams, well beyond their predraft workouts, compare them with players who went bust, and compare both groups with the current crop of draft candidates. We'll talk about high-school players versus internationals versus collegians, and show that while a little knowledge (a year of college) may be a dangerous thing, it's a lot more dangerous to draft a guy with more knowledge (three or more years in school).
We'll explore the past two decades' sleepers and busts, and why some clubs wind up with Darkos (Milicic), Zarkos (Cabarkapa) and Markos (Jaric), while others manufacture Manus (Ginobili).
We fervently hope, too, to explain the statistical insignificance of first-round draft choices whose last names end in "I."
Mostly, we'll give you an idea of what to expect from the draft, given your team's slot. More important, we'll let you know when, and why, you shouldn't expect too much.
Luke Cyphers is a senior writer for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN Insider.
Many of you might not have access to insider, so here goes:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ory?id=4222914
When the NBA draft started more than 50 years ago, it was like a bare-knuckles fight -- there was no limit on the number of rounds, allowing teams to draft players for as long as they could stand, including a record 21 rounds in 1960.
Times change. Since then, the draft has been shrunk (to 10 rounds by the mid-1970s) and downsized (to seven in 1985) and desiccated (to the current two rounds in 1989). Obviously, drafts can change the course of league history (see: Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan), and every year on draft night, we like to point and stare at the big suits and the Big Suit.
But Insider's D.R.A.F.T. Initiative (Data-Related Analysis For Truth) crew has been poring over draft data for months, analyzing draft picks and their subsequent careers, and we've arrived at a surprising conclusion: The NBA draft isn't that big a deal. That's because, in any given year, there isn't enough talent to give many teams any hope of landing a star, let alone a reliable backup.
To get deeper into the ideas of the D.R.A.F.T Initiative (educating yourself on value and methodology in the process), please sign up for ESPN Insider. There isn't a Mike Piazza or a Tom Brady lurking in the late rounds, because there are no late rounds. Crunch some numbers, as ESPN researcher Tom Haberstroh did, and the draft could easily do with more downsizing. Beyond the first five picks, the quality falls off rapidly. Beyond the first 10, the selection process is a proverbial crapshoot. Actually, it's not that proverbial; teams drafting after the fifth pick are quite likely to pick a crap player and look back on it while using closely related linguistic variants of the word "shoot."
Check out this graph from our pick-based analysis page:
The squiggly blue line plots EWA, John Hollinger's estimated wins added stat, for each draft slot, averaged over the past 20 years of draft picks. EWA is a VORP-like metric that measures a player's contributions to his team compared to those of a baseline replacement player. Built off Hollinger's player efficiency rating, EWA considers not only the player's efficiency but also how many minutes that player spends on the court. The red line is the best-fit curve that predicts a given slot's value based on the downward-trending distribution of the data.
So what does the picture show? Draft early, and don't draft often. Maybe, if you're the Clippers, don't draft at all.
And yet ...
There are exceptions, anomalies, funky trends. The draft is cruel to most GMs, but it's been kind to a few smart clubs. The Spurs have mined diamonds both early (Tim Duncan) and late (Tony Parker). In general, picks six through eight have been awful, yet No. 9 has been revolutionary. While there's a strong case to eliminate the second round altogether -- hey, it would be in keeping with the NBA's history -- there's also the lure of a Rashard Lewis or a Gilbert Arenas still on the board while the janitors are vacuuming Cheez Doodles off the green room floor.
In other words, since the draft as a whole isn't the talent show it's made out to be, it's even more important for teams to match up their roster needs with the players who are available -- and to realize when those needs simply can't be met. Or, they need to recalibrate their expectations. Instead of hoping the supposed "best player available" will max out all his skills, when a team is drafting at a point likely to generate a role player, it would be wise to target a prospect with one clear, NBA-ready ability.
Rocky Widner/NBAE/Getty ImagesIt's more likely that your team will wind up drafting someone like Cabarkapa than you'd realize.
How to do that? Glad you asked. Over the next month, we'll explain our method in more detail and analyze expected value in a potential draftee. We'll comb through our research to identify and explain trends in the draft, show the difference between teams that succeeded and those that failed, and the success rates of players taken in different draft slots.
We'll also analyze players who worked out well for their teams, well beyond their predraft workouts, compare them with players who went bust, and compare both groups with the current crop of draft candidates. We'll talk about high-school players versus internationals versus collegians, and show that while a little knowledge (a year of college) may be a dangerous thing, it's a lot more dangerous to draft a guy with more knowledge (three or more years in school).
We'll explore the past two decades' sleepers and busts, and why some clubs wind up with Darkos (Milicic), Zarkos (Cabarkapa) and Markos (Jaric), while others manufacture Manus (Ginobili).
We fervently hope, too, to explain the statistical insignificance of first-round draft choices whose last names end in "I."
Mostly, we'll give you an idea of what to expect from the draft, given your team's slot. More important, we'll let you know when, and why, you shouldn't expect too much.
Luke Cyphers is a senior writer for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN Insider.
Comment