Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

    Note: From the top, this will be long-winded even for me. You may or may not find it worth the time, but I believe the preamble necessary to establish the context and the (potential) credibility of the analysis involved. I can understand that some (many) may not consider it worth their time. If that's the case, I simply ask that you ignore it as you see fit.

    On what seems like a weekly basis, the topic of the draft and draft picks come up around the board. The subject matter ranges from trades and trade value to expectations and quality of the pick. These discussions will always be highly subjective. Whether you're happy (satisfied) with a player or not is a highly emotional and personal decision. However, sometimes it helps to put some numbers to the equation. So, I set out to do some analysis to get an idea of what kind of production comes out of the various levels of the draft. This is not, nor is it meant to be, a precise or perfect exercise. Though numbers are used to group and rank players, they are not meant to specifically determine that Player A is "better" than Player B. They are only mean to capture the broad groupings based on production only, as is explained later.

    The Population & Sourcing

    The statistical sample includes every draft class from 1982 through 2008 and the performance of all players who played from the 1983 (82-83) season through the 2008 (07-08) season. The draft is limited to what I'll refer to as "the first two rounds". For the years of 1988 through 2007, this means the complete, two-round draft. For all drafts prior, it would only include their top 60 picks.

    During this time frame, there were 2,016 individual players who played at least one game in the NBA. There were 1,500 draft picks in this sample, and 1,241 of these picks played at least one game.

    For the first round of this analysis, the draft picks were broken into the following groups:

    Top 4
    5 to 7
    8 to 11
    12 to 17
    18 to 30
    "Second Round" (31-60 or end of draft)
    The source of this was Basketball-Reference.com, and the reason for this sample was that it was complete and consistent in regard to the statistics available.

    The Metrics

    First, let me say that I believe that there is no true statistical analysis that can perfectly distill the quality and the value of a player. There are far too many factors that are not easily quantifiable, not the least of which are his teammates and opponents, and the player's character qualities. It's always been my experience that if you can't be perfect in an analysis, then arbitrary is the next best thing. Clearly define the rules, acknowledge any holes, and let the chips fall where they may. The reason I believe this is that any attempt to "shape" the results and remove "error" carries far too much opportunity for bias. In other words, the analysis ends up being a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    For this reason, I'm using two separate sets of metrics.

    The first is the accolades that a player earns. These range from All-Rookie honors to All-Star appearances to All-NBA, etc., etc. These will give a broad sense of how the player was viewed by fans, peers, coaches, and the media. These are subjective, but, in most cases, are generally accepted benchmarks of a player's contribution.

    For the second set of metrics, I wanted something that would reflect production. In this context, this will be almost pure production by the player. This will ignore team accomplishments entirely. I lacked the easy access to the data, and a strong sense of how to properly factor them into the equation. I also didn't have complete data to use some of the more advanced analyses used by 82games or Hollinger. (Plus, as noted earlier, they imply a level of perfection and precision that I consider misleading.) The metric I chose was an old program created in the '80's by Martin Manley called "Player Rater".

    PR = (Pts + Reb + Ast + Stls + Blk - TO's - Missed 2pt FGs - Missed FT's)/Games Played
    This, like most "combined" numbers has some flaws to it. However, after looking at the data, I believe this is directionally correct. In other words, while you could take issue with how it may rate one specific player, a higher level look passes the "smell test".

    The only adaptation I made to this analysis was to try to apply a reliability factor. Put simply, for most players, this is the number of games played divided by the number of games their teams played. This has the effect of making each game missed a 0 value game. I did the analysis both ways. Of the 1,241 player group, it changed the "ranking" of 253 players. Of these, 109 players improved (including players like Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Reggie Miller, Dwight Howard), and 144 went down (including players like Chris Webber, Ralph Sampson, Penny Hardaway, and Jamaal Tinsley).

    This was difficult to properly judge. I am open to ideas on the best way to reward reliability without over-rewarding.

    The Groupings

    In order to aggregate the players, I broke the results down into like segments based on their Adjusted Average PR. These are (relatively) evenly distributed based on the average, not the population. Here is a summary of the classes:

    Group 1 - AdjPR of 22 & above (15 players, 1.2% of population). This would be the creme de la creme of these draft picks (from a production perspective). They are:

    LeBron James
    Michael Jordan
    Kevin Garnett
    Karl Malone
    Dirk Nowitzki
    Tim Duncan
    Charles Barkley
    David Robinson
    Hakeem Olajuwon
    Chris Paul
    Shawn Marion
    Dwight Howard
    Kobe Bryant
    Paul Pierce
    Shaquille O'Neal

    Group 2 - AdjPR of 17 to 22 (47 players, 3.8% of sample). These players would be high production players, bona fide starters, some All-Stars and some good possibility HOFer's. Examples include Clyde Drexler, Patrick Ewing, James Worthy, Scottie Pippen, and the like. Also, the occasional stat whore lands in this group.

    Group 3 - AdjPR of 12 to 17 (133 players, 10.7% of sample). These are well above average producers. They would almost all be considered starting quality players. In some cases, there are some high quality players with low reliability factors. Examples include: Chris Webber, Hersey Hawkins, Detlef Schrempf, Richard Hamilton.

    Group 4 - Adj PR of 7 to 12 (246 players, 19.8% of sample). These are slightly above average producers. Some are starters, some injury prone all-star talent, some just good solid players. Examples include: Leandro Barbosa, Toni Kukoc, Paul Pressey, Kurt Thomas.

    Group 5 - AdjPR of 3 to 7 (287 players, 23.1% of sample). These are disappointments and busts. They give below average production and tend to have shorter than average careers. The best of these are players like Chris Mihm, Freddie Jones, and Luc Longley.

    Group 6 - AdjPR of less than 3 (513 players, 41.3% of the sample). It'd be easy to call these busts, but they're really just the fringe players. There are a few out-and-out disasters (Chris Washburn leaps to mind), but most of these guys are folks like Brooke Steppe, Scott Hastings, and Josh McRoberts, who either never got or haven't gotten a real look at playing time.

    The final group largely not included are those who did not play. Of the 1,500 players drafted (and included) in this analysis, 259 of them never played a game in the NBA. Of this 259, 238 were "Second Rounders" (31-60, about 1/3 of those drafted), and 18 were 18-30 picks. There were three players drafted in the top 17 picks who never played: Fran Vasquez (11th Orlando), Frederic Weis (15th Knicks), and, of course, Len Bias (2nd Celtics).
    The Limitations and Outliers

    When looking at a players' stats by themselves, the implication is that they played in a vacuum. They were solely responsible for their numbers, unaffected by the players around them, both teammates and foes. This, of course, is the biggest limitation in any such analysis. That, and the fact that you cannot quantify leadership (or lack thereof).

    Different career lengths. Some players are aided by the scope of the analysis (LBJ, Iguodala, etc), because they're basically judged only on their early peak years. Some of the vets are downgraded by the lower years at the end of their career. Some young guys, like Andrew Bynum, as an example, are clearly not finished products. In these case, it's important to remember that I'm not trying to say that any particular player was a great pick or a bad pick. I'm only trying to give a picture of what kind of production has come out of various spots in the draft, and allow you to decide whether you want to use this information to judge current and future draft picks. Or, more accurately, line up your (broad) expectations.

    Every analysis has some outliers. Some guys that don't fit where you would intuitively expect them. This is no exception. Since I can't think of a good way to get you the complete data, I'm going to list some of the players that raised my eyebrows as a way to help you assign credibility (or lack thereof) to my buckets.

    In most cases, these reflect the naked nature of the stats. In other words, somebody like Stephon Marbury put up huge numbers but is largely diminished by locker room and off court issues. Some reflect players who had short, productive careers. Since the average NBA career lasts less than four years, I did not penalize anyone who played at least 5 years. Former Pacers Clark Kellogg and Steve Stipanovich benefited from this. Some cases, like Andrew Bynum and Greg Oden, are simply unfinished products.

    Group 1: Shawn Marion

    Group 2: Clark Kellogg, Antoine Walker, Steve Stipanovich, Stephon Marbury

    Group 4: Andrew Bynum

    Group 6: Rudy Fernandez, Greg Oden
    At this point, I think I've both explained the basis of the analysis enough for you to judge the numbers, and likely caused a fair number of nose bleeds. (Sorry). Now, let's look at some results (finally).

    The Top 4 Picks - (104 picks since 1982, 103 played)

    The Accolades

    Rookie Awards - Players taken in the top 4 of the draft accounted for 21 of the 28 (75%) of the Rookie of the Year awards. This represents just over 20% of the players taken in this group. Over 72% of the players taken in the top 4 were named to either the 1st or 2nd rookie team.

    All Star Appearances - 48 Top 4 draftees, or about 46%, have been named to at least one All-Star Game. 37 (36%) have made multiple appearances.

    All NBA Teams - This is a somewhat more exclusive award than the All Star game. Just under 35% (35) of this group have been named to at least one All NBA Team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Twenty five of these (24%) have earned this honor multiple times.

    All Defense Teams - Thirteen players in this group (13%) have been named to All Defense team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd) more than once, while two more (2%) earned one mention each.

    Individual Awards - Though this is clearly an incomplete sample, there are four players (Worthy, Ewing, Olajuwon, Dominique Wilkins) that have already been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

    Six players (6%) have earned MVP's, most of them multiple times. This group has produced 7 Defensive Players of the Year, three Sixth Man of the Years (Manning, Jamison, Ben Gordon), and two Most Improved Players (Ellison, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf). Six of these players have earned Finals MVP's.

    Production Groups

    Code:
    1. Group 1	7.8%
    2. Grp 2	20.4%
    3. Grp 3	35.0%
    4. Grp 4	28.2%
    5. Grp 5	5.8%
    6. Grp 6	2.9%
    FYI, Here are the Group 5 & Group 6 players...(the busts):

    Group 5: Kwame Brown, Bill Garnett, Marcus Fizer, Darko Milicic, Shaun Livingston, Adam Morrison

    Group 6: Jay Williams, Chris Washburn
    Conclusion on Top 4

    While this may not come as a surprise to many, it did surprise me how high the success rate was. I was well aware that the majority of the "star" level players were drafted this high, but I had always had the sneaking suspicion that there was a realy high miss rate.

    Yes, it is true that the odds are that you won't be drafting a future Hall of Famer or Superstar (only about 28% in Group 1 or Group 2), the difference between drafting in this group and just one group below is far starker than I'd expected. The Top 4 accounted for 8 of the 15 Group 1 players and 21 of the 47 Group 2 players. You're three times as likely to get at Group 1 player from the Top 4 than from the "5 to 7" group, and a stunning 7.5 times more likely than getting a Group one pick from the rest of the Top 30.

    Given the Rookie awards, you should also expect contributions almost from the get-go.

    That's not to say that you won't end up disappointed. If you are hoping for a savior, as noted above, it's still a long shot. However, you'd basically have to completely screw up (Bill Garnett, Darko Milicic, Kwame Brown, Chris Washburn) or have horrible luck (Jay Williams, Len Bias) to not at least get a functional player out of one of these picks.

    Picks 5 to 7 - (78 picks since 1982, 78 played)

    The Accolades

    Rookie Awards - Players taken in this group accounted for 5 of the 28 (18%) of the Rookie of the Year awards. This represents just over 6% of the players taken in this group. About 54% of the players taken between 5 and 7 were named to either the 1st or 2nd rookie team.

    All Star Appearances - 18 draftees in this group, or about 23%, have been named to at least one All-Star Game. 12 (15%) have made multiple appearances.

    All NBA Teams - Only about 14% (11) of this group have been named to at least one All NBA Team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Nine of these (12%) have earned this honor multiple times.

    All Defense Teams - Just three players in this group (4%) have been named to All Defense team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd) more than once, while three more (4%) earned one mention each.

    Individual Awards - Though this is clearly an incomplete sample, there is one player (Charles Barkley) that has already been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

    Two players (3%) have earned MVP's, Barkley and Kevin Garnett. This group has produced 2 Defensive Players of the Year (Garnett and Alvin Robertson), two Sixth Man of the Years (Roy Tarpley and Mike Miller), and two Most Improved Players (Robertson and Kevin Johnson). Dwyane Wade is the lone Finals MVP.

    Production Groups

    Code:
    1. Group 1	2.6%
    2. Grp 2	12.8%
    3. Grp 3	24.4%
    4. Grp 4	35.9%
    5. Grp 5	17.9%
    6. Grp 6	6.4%
    FYI, Here are the Group 6 players...(the busts):

    Jonathan Bender, William Bedford, Dajuan Wagner, Nikoloz Tskitishvili, Russell Cross
    Conclusion on 5 to 7

    This is where you begin to see the "crap shoot" quality of the draft. What you'll see as we walk through the analysis, the chance of landing a really top player (Group 1 or 2) declines rapidly. From the 28% hit rate in the top four, we drop to just over 15% in this group. The bust factor (Groups 5 & 6) triples to about 24%. In other words, you're statistically more likely to get a bust in this group than a top player. While it is not surprise to see this occur in the first round, it is surprising (to me) to happen so early.

    If you're looking for what to "expect", it would probably be a solid-to-good player. Probably a starter, but not a difference maker.

    Picks 8 to 11 - (104 picks since 1982, 103 played)

    The Accolades

    Rookie Awards - Amare Stoudemire is the lone Rookie of the Year in this grouping. This represents just under 1% of the players taken in this group. About 30% of the players taken between 8 and 11 were named to either the 1st or 2nd rookie team.

    All Star Appearances - 22 draftees in this group, or about 21%, have been named to at least one All-Star Game. 15 (14%) have made multiple appearances.

    All NBA Teams - Only about 12% (12) of this group have been named to at least one All NBA Team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Seven of these (7%) have earned this honor multiple times.

    All Defense Teams - Just five players in this group (5%) have been named to All Defense team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd) more than once, while two more (2%) earned one mention each.

    Individual Awards - Though this is clearly an incomplete sample, there are no players that have already been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

    Dirk Nowitzki is the lone MVP drafted in this section. This group has produced no Defensive Players of the Year, two Sixth Man of the Years (Detlef Schrempf and Rodney Rogers), and three Most Improved Players (Dale Ellis, Rony Seikaly, and Tracy McGrady). Paul Pierce is the lone Finals MVP.

    Production Groups

    Code:
    1. Group 1	2.9%
    2. Grp 2	6.8%
    3. Grp 3	21.4%
    4. Grp 4	29.1%
    5. Grp 5	26.2%
    6. Grp 6	13.6%
    FYI, Here are the Group 6 players...(the busts):

    Todd Fuller, Shawn Respert, J.J. Redick, Lancaster Gordon, Trajan Langdon, Kedrick Brown, Ed O'Bannon, Rafael Araujo, Jerome Moiso, Bo Kimble, Keith Edmonson, Luke Jackson, Mouhamed Sene, Patrick O'Bryant
    Conclusion on 8 to 11

    The steep decline in "stars" continues, with Group 1 and Group 2 players dropping by 1/3 to just under 10%, while the "bust factor" (Groups 5 & 6) jumps to almost 40%. In other words, history says you're four times more likely to end up with a "bust" than a "star" drafting in this range. You're fifty/fifty on getting a solid-to-good player.

    The expectation in this range is that you should think it's slightly more possible that you'll end up with a starter/rotational player, but historical results should make you less than comfortable.

    Picks 12 to 17 - (156 picks since 1982, 155 played)

    The Accolades

    Rookie Awards - There have been no Rookies of the Year during this time frame. About 15% of the players taken between 12 and 17 were named to either the 1st or 2nd rookie team.

    All Star Appearances - 16 draftees in this group, or about 10%, have been named to at least one All-Star Game. 10 (6%) have made multiple appearances.

    All NBA Teams - Only about 6% (10) of this group have been named to at least one All NBA Team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Eight of these (5%) have earned this honor multiple times.

    All Defense Teams - Just seven players in this group (5%) have been named to All Defense team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd), all of them earning multiple mentions.

    Individual Awards - Though this is clearly an incomplete sample, Clyde Drexler is the only player that has already been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

    Surprisingly, three players (Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, and Karl Malone) have been named league MVP. Our beloved Ron-Ron is the lone Defensive Player of the Year. There have been three Sixth Man of the Years (Dell Curry, Aaron McKie, and Corliss Williamson), and five Most Improved Players (Dana Barros, Jalen Rose, Alan Henderson, Jermaine O'Neal, and Hedo Turkoglu). There have been no Finals MVP.

    Production Groups

    Code:
    1. Group 1	1.3%
    2. Grp 2	3.2%
    3. Grp 3	11.0%
    4. Grp 4	27.1%
    5. Grp 5	31.6%
    6. Grp 6	25.8%
    Going the other way, here are the Group 1 and Group 2 players...(the stars):

    Group 1: Karl Malone, Kobe Bryant

    Group 2: Clyde Drexler, John Stockton, Tim Hardaway, Steve Nash, Josh Smith
    Conclusion on 12 to 17

    We've now reaching the tipping point where, historically, more players have busted out of this draft group than have been average, above average, or star type players. Groups 5 & 6 account for over 57% of the players here. Busts have occurred almost 13 times more often than stars (<5%). Less than 16% are Group 3 or better.

    This group is of interest to us, as both of our rooks (Brandon & Roy) fall into this group. I'm working on another analysis to look at the production by year (i.e. - what to expect in the rookie year, 2nd year, etc.), we can take something from these numbers. To this point, Brandon has been slightly above average for this group, while Roy has been slightly below average. This makes some sense, since Brandon was drafted near the top of the range (13), and Roy at the bottom (17).

    So, what does it mean? Depends on whether you're a glass half empty or a glass half full kind of guy. Essentially, they're performing as to be expected for their draft range. Unfortunately, this draft range regularly produces busts.

    Picks 18 to 30 - (338 picks since 1982, 320 played)

    The Accolades

    Rookie Awards - Mark Jackson is the only Rookie of the Year during this timeframe that was taken this late. About 8% (26) of the players taken between 18 and 30 were named to either the 1st or 2nd rookie team.

    All Star Appearances - 22 draftees in this group, or about 7%, have been named to at least one All-Star Game. 10 (3%) have made multiple appearances.

    All NBA Teams - Only about 2% (7) of this group have been named to at least one All NBA Team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Four of these (1%) have earned this honor multiple times.

    All Defense Teams - Just 10 players in this group (3%) have been named to All Defense team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd), eight of them earning multiple mentions.

    Individual Awards - Though this is clearly an incomplete sample, Joe Dumars is the only player that has already been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

    No players have been named league MVP. Dennis Rodman is the lone Defensive Player of the Year. There have been four Sixth Man of the Years (Ricky Pierce, Toni Kukoc, Bobby Jackson, and Leandro Barbosa), and six Most Improved Players (Scott Skiles, Don MacLean, Gheorghe Muresan, Zach Randolph, Gilbert Arenas, Boris Diaw). There have been two Finals MVP's: Joe Dumars and Tony Parker.

    Production Groups

    Code:
    1. Group 1	0.0%
    2. Grp 2	0.3%
    3. Grp 3	8.8%
    4. Grp 4	22.8%
    5. Grp 5	25.9%
    6. Grp 6	42.2%
    Going the other way, here are the Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 players...(the stars):

    Group 1: None

    Group 2: Gilbert Arenas

    Group 3: Michael Finley, Vlade Divac, Latrell Sprewell, Andrei Kirilenko, Reggie Lewis, Tony Parker, Mark Jackson, Terry Porter, Dennis Rodman, Josh Howard, Sam Cassell, Joe Dumars, Mark Price, A.C. Green, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Zach Randolph, Tayshaun Prince, Rod Strickland, P.J. Brown, Kevin Martin, David Lee, Morris Peterson, Vern Fleming, James Posey, Roy Hinson, Jameer Nelson, Ricky Davis, Rajon Rondo
    Conclusion on 18 to 30

    Here, we see examples of players whose production doesn't match their actual quality. Included in Group 3 are players like Joe Dumars, Tony Parker, Mark Price, and Mark Jackson. These are great or borderline great players. I'll take this time to remind you of two things: (1) the bucketing is not perfect and based purely on production, but directionally correct, and (2) Groups 1, 2, & 3 represent only the top 16 percent of the league. Most can be considered elite players, though in Group 3, you begin to see merely solid players.

    As to expectations, essentially two in three players drafted in this area of the draft fall into the "bust" categories of Groups 1 & 2. There were no Group 1's and only one Group 2 (Gilbert Arenas). If you're picking here, you are basically hoping for a solid rotational player, but you should expect the player not to make it.

    The "Second Round" (31 to 60) - (720 picks since 1982, 482 played)

    The Accolades

    Rookie Awards - No Rookies of the Year during this timeframe were taken this late. About 2% (17) of the players taken between 31 and 60 were named to either the 1st or 2nd rookie team.

    All Star Appearances - 13 draftees in this group, or about 2%, have been named to at least one All-Star Game. Two have made multiple appearances.

    All NBA Teams - Only about 1% (5) of this group have been named to at least one All NBA Team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). None of these have earned this honor multiple times.

    All Defense Teams - Just 5 players in this group (1%) have been named to All Defense team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd), one of them earning multiple mentions.

    Individual Awards - Though this is clearly an incomplete sample, Drazen Petrovic is the only player that has already been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

    No players have been named league MVP or Defensive Player of the Year. There have been three Sixth Man of the Years (Anthony Mason, Clifford Robinson), and four Most Improved Players (Kevin Duckworth, Isaac Austin, Bobby Simmons, Monta Ellis). There have been no Finals MVP's.

    Production Groups

    Code:
    1. Group 1	0.0%
    2. Grp 2	0.6%
    3. Grp 3	2.3%
    4. Grp 4	9.1%
    5. Grp 5	22.4%
    6. Grp 6	65.6%
    Going the other way, here are the Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 players...(the stars):

    Group 1: None

    Group 2: Carlos Boozer, Jeff Hornacek, Rashard Lewis


    Group 3: Mehmet Okur, Manu Ginobili, Michael Redd, Cuttino Mobley, Nick Van Exel, Anthony Mason, Clifford Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Monta Ellis, Hot Rod Williams, Doc Rivers
    Conclusion on "Second Round"

    There's no question that the two lists above have some very productive players, but you shouldn't let that fool you for expectations. The numbers say that a full 1/3 of all the second round picks taken over the last 26 years have never played a game in the NBA. If you add that to the Group 5 and Group 6 players, almost 92% of the players taken in this range have not given meaningful production (or even minimal) production to the team that drafted them.

    Anything better than a fringe role player, deep bench guy could be considered between very and wildly optimistic for this range.

    Final Comments

    From before this analysis, I think I've grown to value 1st round picks a little bit more overall. I had always assumed that the hit rate (Group 4 and above) on 1st round picks was about 1 in 3. These numbers indicate that it's closer to about 50/50.

    Also, the quality of return on the top 4 picks is much higher than I thought. They aren't guaranteed stars, by any stretch of the imagination, but if you don't get a good starter out of one of those picks, you've really hurt yourself.

    However, it did not change my mind about mid-to-late first round picks, or about second round picks. I would not trade a player that I considered a solid starter for any pick really after about 12. Though I'll need to look at each individual pick to see if there's a different breaking point, the numbers certainly indicate that, if you trade a starter for any pick in or after this range, you're more likely to end up with a worse player.

    Also, there's really no evidence to support putting much stock in second round picks. Therefore, the idea of taking a flyer on a Euro that you can park overseas for awhile seems to have some merit. It's basically a no risk way to try to develop a player.

    To those who made it all the way through this, I offer you both my thanks and my apologies.
    Last edited by count55; 12-10-2008, 01:36 PM.

  • #2
    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

    This is amazing work, thank you.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

      Super. Thanks for taking the time to go through all of this, very informative.

      PR seems to be a great way to group/categorize players; I'm glad you revived it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

        Holy Moly. You can't get this kind of contribution from NBA staff writers.

        We are truly blessed.
        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

          brilliant analysis.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

            Dirk and Marion being rated higher than Pippen and Clyde in your metric seems wrong, but I don't think the overall message is dampened at all. Good stuff here.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

              You could have at least invoked Reggie's name in the 8 to 11 category.

              “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

              “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                I'll have to work my way through it again but this is pretty special.

                It should be submitted somewhere for publication. For remuneration. Of course since its here, the rights are gone. I expect it to be a Kravitz article in the Star before long though.
                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                  Actually, DK, the rights are not gone. This represents the "tangible copy" that is a very important step in ENFORCING your copyright.

                  I agree that this kind of work could get ducketts.
                  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                  “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                    Originally posted by Dece View Post
                    Dirk and Marion being rated higher than Pippen and Clyde in your metric seems wrong, but I don't think the overall message is dampened at all. Good stuff here.
                    I agree. Dirk and Marion have the advantage of basically still playing in their prime, while Pippen had a couple of "tail" years that reduced his Rating. Again, it's purely based on numbers, so I definitely wouldn't pick every Group 1 over all Group 2's, etc.

                    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                    You could have at least invoked Reggie's name in the 8 to 11 category.

                    Two things...It's easy to forget things you wanted to put in when you're re-writing War and Peace.

                    Second, I'm going to do a specific post on the Pacers, but Reggie, FYI, was a career Group 2 player with an 18.6 adjPR average. In the GrossPR (unadjusted for missed games), Reggie had a 19.3, but was listed as a Group 3 Player. However, his 96% reliability helped push him into Group 2.

                    Also, I wanted to soften something I said in the original post. I mentioned that I wouldn't trade a "solid starter" for a mid-to-late 1st round pick. I still think this would be true, generally, but you'd have to look at each situation differently. The statistics are not the sole answer, and you have to take calculated risks from time to time.
                    Last edited by count55; 12-10-2008, 09:55 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                      Oh, and thanks, guys.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                        That is great, although I only skimmed through majority of it - but read every word of your final comments. Thankfully most of the analysis backs up for the most part what I thought about the draft.

                        Good work - I'll read more later. I must admit my interest in the draft is very little except for the last week of June - so I hope we can keep this thread around for next summer when it will be more relevant to me at least

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)



                          Considering some of those successful late-first-round players are once-in-a-lifetime situations (Kobe fell not because he wasn't talented but because of both the newness of the high school issue and the threat not to play for anyone but a marquee team), this is an excellent analysis method.

                          Not to ask you for even more work, but it would be very interesting to now determine the impact of those Group 1 and maybe Group 2 players on their teams, both playoff-wise and attendance-wise.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post


                            Considering some of those successful late-first-round players are once-in-a-lifetime situations (Kobe fell not because he wasn't talented but because of both the newness of the high school issue and the threat not to play for anyone but a marquee team), this is an excellent analysis method.

                            Not to ask you for even more work, but it would be very interesting to now determine the impact of those Group 1 and maybe Group 2 players on their teams, both playoff-wise and attendance-wise.
                            I'll put that on the list. I'd have to bring more data to do that, so I'm not sure how quickly I'll get back to you on this.

                            If the interest holds, I could literally spend months data mining this stuff.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                              Delightful stuff, count. Your methodology warms my heart.

                              Here's what I see:

                              1. Far too many players get drafted into the league who are never going to make it. Only half of the players drafted in the first round become 4s or better. The number of 5s and 6s is crazy high.

                              2. There just shouldn't be a second round. Marginal players have adequate chance of getting noticed through walk-on trials, Euro ball and the D league.

                              3. The outcomes of the 5-7 picks overlaps the top 4 very closely. The curve of Top 4 picks is more favorable, but only marginally. The number of observations in the 5-7 group is smaller by a third (78 cases to 104 cases), too.

                              4. The probability of getting a level 4 player or worse is greater than the probability of getting a level 1 or 2 player, even in the top 4. Too many years, there just aren't any 1s or 2s to be had.

                              4. Those who would have us trade Granger for a top 4 pick are suggesting that we give up a certain level 3 player for about a 1-in-4 chance of getting a level 2 player. Even with a top 4 pick, there's a greater chance of drafting a 4, 5 or 6 level player than of getting a 1 or 2.

                              Thanks again for the good work.
                              And I won't be here to see the day
                              It all dries up and blows away
                              I'd hang around just to see
                              But they never had much use for me
                              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X