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

  • #31
    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

    (That doesn't mean guaranteed success, but it certainly becomes a rational move.)
    This is what I hate about the hindsight people. It's one thing when tons of people are calling it at the time and a team ignores them, but the idea that we know that an 11 pick will work or not, or even that a specific player will work or not is simply ridiculous. Teams have to GAMBLE, they play odds and hope the occasional good hunch works out for them.

    There is no "obviously you take him", not even BEasy, Oden or James.


    The funny thing about top picks is this, they aren't actually measured before being picked. It's not like Oden is a "top 5 pick" in the sense of a measure or absolute label. It's paramutual betting basically. Everyone sees a value per their opinion, the group forms the opinion and that becomes his ranking.

    So all it takes to ruin these stats is for the top 5 teams to intentionally pick people not "ranked" in the top 5 by the overall group. Suddenly top 5 picks are busts.

    Of course that's not the case.

    I forget who turned me onto the book, but The Wisdom of Crowds is an investigation into this phenomenon. Basically it shows that while individuals can be experts, the averaging affect of a group opinion ends up being right more often.

    What Count's and other studies do here is prove that out. The collection of draft experts do miss, but overall their accuracy is pretty darn good. The top players do get ranked the highest and therefore do get drafted sooner.

    If you go pull an individual GM you'll see plenty of hits (good GMs that is) but not too many that go blatently against the grain. And for each of those you'll see more misses that went against the grain.

    So genius renegade GM John Doe defies the experts, but more often that not he comes up more empty than if he'd played it safe.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-10-2008, 05:24 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

      One more thing of interest in that Barzilai article is that he does this:
      In addition to exploring different statistics, the cumulative value of each statistic was assessed for multiple time periods. The three time periods were:
        • Career
        • First 4 Years
        • Years with Rookie Team

      This looks at what YOUR TEAM gets with that pick. Sure you draft him, but what if he ends up going to another team and makes them great instead? Do you get good value from that pick or is his value still low when the rookie deal runs out? Even if you can't keep him does he gain value enough to bring something nice in a trade.

      The article is very extensive in applying value metrics to each pick in the first round.
      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-10-2008, 05:31 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

        Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
        How would it skew your statistics if you made the first three sets of draft picks each contain 4 picks? You have 1-4. 5-7, 8-11 and 12-17. From a general, macro-view, what would it do to the percentages to add that 8th pick to pick set two, make pick set three include picks 9-12, and then make that fourth pick set something along the lines of 13-18 (or 20 say). I think the fact that there are only three picks in your second sample might cause a large change in your group %'s. I notice that your "Group 1" for picks 5-7 are only 2.6% while your "Group 1" for picks 8-11 are 2.9%. My thought would be that including the same number of selections over your first three pick sets would allow for your sample sizes to remain constant and possibly streamline your percentages. I am NOT by any means discounting anything you have done. I am just making an observation that you might find useful in furthering your research (being a nerdy accounting that deals with formulas and percentages all day). Much applauded and much appreciated.
        I admit the groupings are kind of odd. To be honest, they were taken because I was trying to look at something another poster, DrFife (IIRC), was positing. He used these groupings. I'm not sure of the reasoning of his groups, but if I were to guess it was because something in his analysis had created those buckets.

        I could look at spinning with more even buckets (1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, etc), but I'm not sure if it would materially change the results. To be honest, the more practical next step would probably be to break it down by individual pick, then look for natural breaking points in the results. Edit: Regarding your specific comment about the percentages: Changing it from 5-7 and 8-11 to 5-8 and 9-12, actually makes the Group 1 percentages look more skewed, with 5-8 having 1.9% and 9-12 having 2.9%.

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        I'll be the jerk here only because I do get annoyed that this stuff gets overlooked, but 82Games basically did this exact same analysis with almost the same results. And Draft Express had one tabulated by player position and your odds of getting a great, good, blah or bust player.

        Let's take time to give props to Ryan Reed from 2006 while we are at this at the very least...
        http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2.htm
        I certainly wasn't pretending that this was groundbreaking stuff. If that came across, then I apologize. This was primarily for my own edification. The other stuff is very good, but some of it is over my head. I am not overly concerned about the payroll aspect of this, at this point. Also, I kind of rejected Ryan Reed's article at the point he said:

        The rankings compiled are purely subjective!
        All statistical analysis has already been done by someone.

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        One more thing of interest in that Barzilai article is that he does this:

        This looks at what YOUR TEAM gets with that pick. Sure you draft him, but what if he ends up going to another team and makes them great instead? Do you get good value from that pick or is his value still low when the rookie deal runs out? Even if you can't keep him does he gain value enough to bring something nice in a trade.

        The article is very extensive in applying value metrics to each pick in the first round.
        I have a number of additional things that I'm looking at from this analysis. I'm assuming that you'll have no overall objections to me wandering down trails for myself that others may have already blazed.

        (In other words, I still want to find out for myself, even if someone else has already done the same or similar work.)
        Last edited by count55; 12-10-2008, 06:35 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          I admit the groupings are kind of odd. To be honest, they were taken because I was trying to look at something another poster, DrFife (IIRC), was positing. He used these groupings. I'm not sure of the reasoning of his groups, but if I were to guess it was because something in his analysis had created those buckets.

          I could look at spinning with more even buckets (1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, etc), but I'm not sure if it would materially change the results. To be honest, the more practical next step would probably be to break it down by individual pick, then look for natural breaking points in the results. Edit: Regarding your specific comment about the percentages: Changing it from 5-7 and 8-11 to 5-8 and 9-12, actually makes the Group 1 percentages look more skewed, with 5-8 having 1.9% and 9-12 having 2.9%.

          Wonderful effort, Count! I don't recall a "Top Ten Posts of the Year" thread, but if one exists (or is started ... hint hint!), I'll vote for this as one of them.

          Thank you, too, Seth, for the extra links in your "Don't forget!" reminder. (The Indiana-Toronto game is just starting and tonight I'm able to watch it on a normal TV. I'll examine them more closely soon.)

          (Ah ha! O'Neal just got his 2nd foul ... 65 seconds into the game! )

          I agree that an even grouping (e.g., 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, etc.) is preferred for analysis; I phrased my groupings as such only in reference to "starting" (or top 8, which is Obie's often-referenced cut-off):

          http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...2&postcount=55

          I'll respond to this thread in full around the holidays, when I run a report on player values to date, and will include my findings on values by draft position.


          One other thought -- fellow analytical types may appreciate tabulated values:

          1-4 5-7 8-11 12-17 18-30 2nd rd
          Cream 7.8% 2.6% 2.9% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%
          Hi-prod 20.4% 12.8% 6.8% 3.2% 0.3% 0.6%
          Hi-ave 35.0% 24.4% 21.4% 11.0% 8.8% 2.3%
          Ave 28.2% 35.9% 29.1% 27.1% 22.8% 9.1%
          Fringe 5.8% 17.9% 26.2% 31.6% 25.9% 22.4%
          DNP 2.9% 6.4% 13.6% 25.8% 42.2% 65.6%

          EDIT: Darn, the tabulated values aren't being displayed in column form. How do we insert (Excel) tables?
          Last edited by DrFife; 12-10-2008, 07:28 PM. Reason: table format


          "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

          - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

            http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...t=39639&page=2

            and Jose already nominated it.
            Play Mafia!
            Twitter

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

              Originally posted by DrFife View Post
              Code:
              	1-4	5-7	8-11	12-17	18-30	2nd rd
              Cream	7.8%	2.6%	2.9%	1.3%	0.0%	0.0%
              Hi-prod	20.4%	12.8%	6.8%	3.2%	0.3%	0.6%
              Hi-ave	35.0%	24.4%	21.4%	11.0%	8.8%	2.3%
              Ave	28.2%	35.9%	29.1%	27.1%	22.8%	9.1%
              Fringe	5.8%	17.9%	26.2%	31.6%	25.9%	22.4%
              DNP	2.9%	6.4%	13.6%	25.8%	42.2%	65.6%
              EDIT: Darn, the tabulated values aren't being displayed in column form. How do we insert (Excel) tables?
              Use Code [CODE][/CO DE]

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                Good effort, but I've known all of this for a while now.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                  1. Seth's comments validate, rather than diminish, what Count has done. Research and analysis is not like fiction or any creative art. Coldplay copying Joe Satriani is a bad thing, but when one researcher finds the same result as another they can both be pleased. Scientists seldom think a thing is proved unless it can be replicated.

                  2. Count, I put your data to a Chi-squared test and it works out to be statistically valid. Picking in the top 4 does give a team a better chance of getting a level 1 or 2 player. This was obvious just from looking at the data, but the statistical check confirms that the difference isn't just sampling. However, I also note the long probabilities of getting a level 1 or 2 player. Your data gives us outcomes of 780 picks, and only 8 of those were a top 4 pick resulting in a superstar pick. With draft picks being doled out by a lottery (involving chilled envelopes with bent corners, some say) there are long odds on even a bad team getting a top 4 pick. And the odds that a level 1 player is going to be there for a particular pick in a particular draft are long, long long. It is no surprise to us that superstar players have been drafted among to top four picks by some of the championship-winning teams. But remember just how few championship winning teams there have been. We mustn't suppose that if we get a top 4 pick, there will be a superstar waiting there for us and a championship on the horizon.

                  3. Can anyone tell how to put an Excel chart into a post here?
                  Last edited by Putnam; 12-11-2008, 08:25 AM.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                    3. Can anyone tell how to put an Excel chart into a post here?
                    The only thing I've ever been able to do is copy it into Paint, make it a bmp, and upload as a picture...it's not a great solution.


                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                      Originally posted by count55 View Post
                      I certainly wasn't pretending that this was groundbreaking stuff. If that came across, then I apologize. This was primarily for my own edification. The other stuff is very good, but some of it is over my head. I am not overly concerned about the payroll aspect of this, at this point. Also, I kind of rejected Ryan Reed's article at the point he said:

                      All statistical analysis has already been done by someone.


                      I have a number of additional things that I'm looking at from this analysis. I'm assuming that you'll have no overall objections to me wandering down trails for myself that others may have already blazed.

                      (In other words, I still want to find out for myself, even if someone else has already done the same or similar work.)
                      Like I said, it's not directed at you doing the work or posting it here. It's directed at the OMG, I can't believe all this, it's very informative after the links I just posted have been posted and referenced many times over.

                      You aren't pretending to be breaking ground and acknowledged that others had already gone down these roads. The guy that reinvents the wheel just for the joy of it knows he's not getting a patent on it and doesn't care, but it's funny when the townsfolk come out and say "what's this amazing new round thing, do others know about this?"

                      My post is saying "yes they do actually".

                      Typically I haven't gone down this analysis path simply because I fall back on the studies I cited. But as a stat hobbiest myself I did enjoy going through your work too. Please don't confuse my point with a lack of respect or interest, and certainly anything you tweek on your study, or theirs for that matter, would interest me.



                      Back to an idea, that whole "go against the grain" thing. If a person could find several mock drafts/rankings from the last 20 years it would be interesting to grade each time a GM went against the grain, picking a guy X spots early and aggregating them into similar ranking categories. The point being to look at how often going against the grain actually panned out for the better.

                      The tough thing is getting those pre-draft rankings/mocks beyond the last 5-10 years.

                      Originally posted by Putty
                      1. Seth's comments validate, rather than diminish, what Count has done. Research and analysis is not like fiction or any creative art. Coldplay copying Joe Satriani is a bad thing, but when one researcher finds the same result as another they can both be pleased. Scientists seldom think a thing is proved unless it can be replicated.
                      Definitely. I mean the problem with the lottery isn't the methodology itself. The plan does ensure that tanking doesn't really mean you will be saved by an all-star, at least the odds aren't in your favor.

                      The problem is too many GMs simply don't recognize that fact and continue to pursue unrealistic dreams just because sometimes someone lucks into something.

                      You might as well go play the hard 8 all day long because you saw a guy put down 10K and hit it one time.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                        It is no surprise to us that superstar players have been drafted among to top four picks by some of the championship-winning teams. But remember just how few championship winning teams there have been. We mustn't suppose that if we get a top 4 pick, there will be a superstar waiting there for us and a championship on the horizon.
                        This is exactly the issue. I've made a similar point in the past when posters have put up the point that "all title teams have a top 5 pick on their roster leading the way".

                        The statistical problem is that ALL TEAMS have top 5 picks on their roster usually, including the Pacers (Dunleavy). It's the nature of the pick that the NBA will contain a lot more top 5 picks than anything else, simply because the tend to be long term starters (just look at Count's study). So it's the fact that a championship team ALSO IS AN NBA TEAM that creates the "has a top 5 pick on the roster" situation.

                        As you say Putty, the problem is that getting the grade A top 5 guy is still really hard, and when people say you have to have a top 5 pick they really mean only the star top 5 picks, and that puts you right back into long odds even with those top picks.

                        There is something to be said for savvy trading for players after they've shown something rather than the lotto crapshoot or the overpriced free agency market.

                        How many of the top Pacers were drafted top 10 or signed as free agents? Rik, Chuck, Byron Scott, Perkins IIRC.

                        Reggie, Jax, Dale, Tony, Detlef, McKey, Rose, JO, Brad, Ron, Harrington, Jackson...

                        You can build some damn good teams without chasing the dream. And the one time they really tried it in recent years you got Bender.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                          As an update:

                          Here are some numbers I pulled tangentially to Part 4 of my series. These are based on Averages, so they don't tell the whole story, but it's an interesting look.

                          The Methodology: This takes the career average AdjPR for the players at each pick (or each draft class), and averages them.

                          First, here are the Averages for the 1st Round (Top 30 picks) for the Draft Classes of 1982-2008.



                          This is the same data, but ranked in descending order of PR...(the number at the bottom reflects the pick position.)



                          The next two are for the "Second Round" picks, 31-60.





                          Here are a couple of spins on draft classes:

                          First, the 1st round, in descending order of average Adj PR



                          Now the second round:



                          Please note a couple of things. First, when going from 1st Round graphs to 2nd Round graphs, please be aware of the scale. Visually, they look similar, but the vertical numbers on first rounds are much higher.

                          Also, since these are averages, each individual pick position is subject to be swayed by outliers. For example, Len Bias hurts the #2 pick. However, that is more of a subject for another time, as I address the individual picks.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            This is exactly the issue. I've made a similar point in the past when posters have put up the point that "all title teams have a top 5 pick on their roster leading the way".

                            The statistical problem is that ALL TEAMS have top 5 picks on their roster usually, including the Pacers (Dunleavy). It's the nature of the pick that the NBA will contain a lot more top 5 picks than anything else, simply because the tend to be long term starters (just look at Count's study). So it's the fact that a championship team ALSO IS AN NBA TEAM that creates the "has a top 5 pick on the roster" situation.

                            As you say Putty, the problem is that getting the grade A top 5 guy is still really hard, and when people say you have to have a top 5 pick they really mean only the star top 5 picks, and that puts you right back into long odds even with those top picks.

                            There is something to be said for savvy trading for players after they've shown something rather than the lotto crapshoot or the overpriced free agency market.

                            How many of the top Pacers were drafted top 10 or signed as free agents? Rik, Chuck, Byron Scott, Perkins IIRC.

                            Reggie, Jax, Dale, Tony, Detlef, McKey, Rose, JO, Brad, Ron, Harrington, Jackson...

                            You can build some damn good teams without chasing the dream. And the one time they really tried it in recent years you got Bender.
                            and said posters have acknowledged such. what players come out has a lot to do with it, but nobody can argue that the vast majority of nba superstars were high draft picks. a top pick doesn't guarantee you'll get a hofer. but without a top pick your chances aren't nearly as good. it all comes down to good scouting/gming. i'm not sure why you bring up bender as there is no question bender had the talent to become great. he suffered an unfortunate career ending injury. don't fault the pacers, bender, or the philosophy of top picks for that.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                              Hi, Guys. I'm bumping this on the eve of the draft just for informational purposes. I've updated the analysis will full year numbers, but I haven't gotten a chance to re-do this post.

                              I'm just going to quote the OP, and insert some updated numbers, just so it's handy.

                              Thanks for your patience.


                              [QUOTE]
                              The Population & Sourcing

                              Please see Original Post

                              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

                              Please see OP

                              PR = (Pts + Reb + Ast + Stls + Blk - TO's - Missed 2pt FGs - Missed FT's)/Games Played
                              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.[quote]

                              Update:

                              Exhibit A



                              Production Groups

                              Exhibit B




                              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.
                              Update:

                              Exhibit C



                              Production Groups

                              Exhibit D



                              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.
                              Update:

                              Exhibit E



                              Production Groups

                              Exhibit F



                              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.
                              Update:

                              Exhibit G



                              Production Groups

                              Exhibit H



                              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.
                              Update:

                              Exhibit I



                              Production Groups

                              Exhibit J



                              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.
                              Update:

                              Exhibit K



                              Production Groups

                              Exhibit L



                              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.
                              I've done a couple of other slices. Exhibits M & N below aggregate all of the First Round picks (Reminder: This is the top 30 picks, so a guy like Arenas, who was technically drafted in the Second Round, is included. The reason for this is that when we talk about "First Round Picks" today, we are talking about the first 30 players drafted. The consistency of the pick number is more important than the consistency of the round.)

                              Exhibit M



                              Exhibit N



                              Exhibits O & P represent the total sample. In this case, all players drafted in the first two rounds since 1982. (Reminder: For drafts that included more than two rounds, I took the top 60 players...all two round drafts prior to 2005 included fewer than 60 players, so I took all players selected in those drafts.)

                              Exhibit O



                              Exhibit P



                              Some mildly interesting numbers: Exhibits Q & R show the players who played in 2009 (actually saw game action), broken down by their draft grouping.

                              Exhibit Q - Pie Chart by Draft Position



                              Exhibit R - Players by Draft Position and Draft Class



                              Some notes:

                              Dikembe Mutombo is the player from 1991, and Shaq is the guy from 1992. Deke was taken 4th, while Shaq was #1. The lone player remaining from the 1993 Draft was the 10th selection: Lindsay Hunter.

                              Every player taken in the top four since 2001 played last season, with the exception of Jay Williams. The #2 pick in 2002 had his career cut short by a motorcycle accident after his rookie season.

                              Every draft class from 1994 through 2000 had at least one player from the Top 4 who did not appear in any games last year, except for 1995. Joe Smith, Antonio McDyess, Jerry Stackhouse, and Rasheed Wallace all played. The players who are out of the league (or simply did not play games) from the Top 4's are as follows:

                              1994 - Glenn Robinson (1)
                              1996 - Shareef Abdur-Raheem (3)
                              1997 - Keith Van Horn (2)
                              1998 - Michael Olawakandi (1)
                              Raef LaFrentz (4)*
                              1999 - Steve Francis (2)
                              2000 - Marcus Fizer (4)

                              Hope this is of some use. Sorry I had to half-*** it.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                                You fargin' knock my socks off with this stuff.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X