This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by AvatarAvatar mikeyvthedon 15 years, 3 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #27166
    AvatarAvatar
    mikeyvthedon
    Participant

    I had always wanted to find the stastical averages pick by pick, as I feel some people have much higher expectations of a drafted player in accordance to what a player picked in their position usually produces. People can have really unrealistic expectations of players, and while the draft has shown us most anything can happen, it also has kind of given us a level of what to expect. Basically, while you ideally want to draft a starter with a lottery pick at a position of need, you may not always have that chance and should keep your expectations realistic. Not every player you pick in the first round is going to be the answer you need at a given position and you more than likely are going to get a role player on average later in the draft.

    Here is the link I am talking about that shows averages from the drafts of 1989-2008 drafts, done by 82games.com with help from Basketball-Reference:

    http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

    Their is a lot you can get from this as far as what to expect from certain draft picks. Basically, here are a few things I think it outlines:

    • You have a good chance of drafting a star player in the top 5 picks. Every pick from 1-5 over the last 20 years has a 60% or better of becoming a star, which by their definition is a player who’s statistics measure up to over 20 with points+rebounds+assists. While their could be room for argument in this measuring a players star credentials, it is a pretty good gauge I believe. Even though Marcus Camby, as an example, never was an All-Star, he averaged a double double over his long career and was a defensive player of the year. I would say you are a star if you do indeed average that over your career base. Basically, if you are choosing 1-5, the odds of landing a really good player are high.
    • As of the very next pick, and in the 6-10 range, the odds decrease enormously of finding a star player. However, the odds of that player becoming someone who can stick around and find a role in the NBA are still pretty high. Still, the odds of finding a star player at one of those picks is about 3 in every 10 drafts. But, the odds of drafting a solid player (Their definition: Someone who’s statistics measure up to 15-19.9 in points+rebounds+assists), is slightly better than a coin flip. So, the odds are really good at finding a good player here, but pretty low if you are expecting greatness.
    • Picks 11-14 are when the odds of grabbing a star player become really low. Picks 13 and 14 have defied the odds, with a 20% and 25% star rating respectively, but I think that was due in some small part to the HS players chosen at those slots who were very much underdrafted. However, this is where you can clearly see a drop in average statistical contribution. It drops off to under 10 ppg and the minutes are in the low-mid 20’s. This should usually be a part of the draft where you start going for the best available player ahead of a player who fits your teams need, in my opinion.

     

    You can read a lot more in the side notes, but I completely agree when the author (Roland Beech) says that picks 11-20 are a crap shoot and past that you have very little chance of getting a player that contributes at a star level. Just a side note, I looked up to see all of the active players drafted from 1-14 from every draft since 1992 (The year Shaq was selected, as I do not think their is an older player in the league right now). Their are 157 still playing in the NBA out of those 252 picks (62.3%). In the picks 15-30, their are 124 still active out of a possible 288 (43%). From picks 31-60, their are 103 players out of a possible 540 (19.1%) still active in the league. Just kind of shows you a gauge for player longevity.

    I hope this helps people look at what to expect from draft picks in a slightly different light. Their are exceptions to every rule, but this just gives maybe an expectation of what to expect out of a particular drafted player. If he exceeds it or meets it, you more than likely had a pretty successful pick. Otherwise, you probably had a slight or major bust. The lower your draft pick, it usually means the higher the margin for error. Also, if you get a really good starter out of picks 11-20, you are one of the lucky ones.

    0
  • #512505
    AvatarAvatar
    OhCanada-
    Participant

    Nice job Mike, I find it interesting to clarify the fact that sometimes teams overdevelop and oveplay their draft picks to justify them as well. I think none of the players in this draft are bonifide star player, but a number of them coul be in the right system. There are a good number of solid players in the Top 10 thou, I think Kanter will be an absolute menace, Irving is a bit overrated, Barnes should be a great second option, Williams could be a dominant post presence (who loses games similar to how Bosh did in Toronto), Sullinger could be a really good piece to a team lacking rebounding, and Jones…who knows what happens with him. should be a pretty good draft imo, just dont expect anyone amazing, and expect all of these players to take a long time to develop. No overnight stars.

    0
  • #512520
    AvatarAvatar
    Hale
    Participant

    That was really well done, good job Mike. I just think the definition of a star is used to loosely there. According to that a player can average 13 ppg 4 rpg and 4 apg and be labeled a star.

    0
  • #512566
    AvatarAvatar
    mikeyvthedon
    Participant

    But they would have to average that over their career, which is no small feat. Plus, odds are that their are not many players on the list who had those averages. It does not take into account their best seasons, as I am sure some of the solid players and role players had seasons better than those averages. It is just a sort of gauge, as I said. Odds are that if you have points+rebounds+assists over 20 over your career, you were a solid player. The definition may be star, but their probably could have been more separation.  You can just look at the averages and see that the top 5 picks were well over 20 on average over the time span. But, 20 was probably the cut off point between the good picks and the not so good picks. 

    Basically, those are some nice gauges for who is disappointing or not. The percentages of the players are not as interesting as the average statistical output. Obviously most star players are well above 20 in those three categories, but on average only the top 5 picks are really even close on a whole. From than on, the average turns into the "Solid Player" category, than on to the "Role Player" category soon after. Honestly, a good thing to do would be to look at the players yourself and make your own assumptions. Not everyone in the "Star" category is a superstar, but the odds are they are a really solid player for a majority of their career.

    I urge people to go to basketball-reference.com and see that their is a Draft Tracker app. Type in the dates listed in this statistical study or otherwise and go pick by pick, add it up and so who is who. Their will be superstars, stars who you might say are solid players, solid players who you see as role players, but this is just to show you the averages. Look at it pick by pick rather than just by the categories he has listed as "Stars, Solid Players, Role Players, Busts etc.". It is not predicting the future, but I think it is a good gauge to go by on what to expect. Like I was saying the other day when talking about Nick Collison, who fits almost perfectly into the role player category as a 12th pick, and far exceeds the average production of those statistics for his pick. Is he a star player, or even a solid player, I do not think so in the eyes of many. But, the odds are at that spot that they were going to get a role player, and they got a pretty good one. Not every pick is going to be glamorous, and the odds are against you that you are going to draft a good NBA starter after the 10th pick. You could definitely take things deeper than what he did, but basically he was going by what the odds were that you would get a good NBA starter, a decent NBA starter and a bad NBA starter by his ranking. It can not be all measured in statistics of course, but it is an interesting way to look at it. 

    Go to 82games.com and see what they did on the draft, because it is interesting. They even went over draft performance over the past 20 years and break down the stars amongst the top 10 picks. They break this down to stars and superstars, so it maybe takes out some of the players who are not necessarily All-Star level in the previous study. 

    Also: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/pts_per_g_career.html

    Go through this list of the NBA’s all-time leaders in scoring average. #250 is Rod Strickland at 13.22 and just keep going up. At one point or another, every player on their was probably a star for at least a few seasons. They all average far more than a 20 in points+rebounds+assists, but it is just something to gauge it as I have said.

    0

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login