[Scott42444Participant]

Hey guys, I’m trying to find a solid system that evaluates an NBA Franchise, and/or more specifically an NBA Front Office, on how well (or how terribly) they utilize the NBA Draft to build their roster.  Is "The Process" truly the best way?  Did Houston do it best by building mid-level assets and striking while the fire was hot for Harden & Paul?  Is Cleveland incompetent in that they had THREE #1’s overall in 4 years and none remain on the team (but they won a title anyway because Lebron was born in Akron)?  Is Sam Presti a better GM or would you vote Danny Ainge?

I was hoping you can help me out.  Maybe there is already an amazing system in place and you can direct me to it?  Maybe there are 100 ways, but nobody has zeroed in on one correct way?

To further zero in on my specific question.  I’m an avid Bulls fan and anyone who follows the team seems to have a very strong opinion of the two-headed monster known as the "GarPax".  For the less informed, that would be Vice President of Basketball Operations John Paxson and General Manager Gar Forman.  The late Jerry Krause was removed from the GM position in 2003, when John Paxson became GM and later was promoted to VP and head scout Gar Forman was later promoted to GM in 2009.  Many, outspoken Bulls fans want them OUT as the guys running the show in Chicago.  However, when I look at the franchise objectively, I see a different result. 

To illustrate my point, I want to try and find some formulaic way to assign a point system to a draft pick.  Possible areas to effect a "score" could be the amount of all-star appearances, the amount of All-NBA appearances, which position in the draft the player was chosen, how many years the player stayed with the team, if they were traded somewhere else what did the team receive in return, etc?  Using outgoing PER and incoming PER doesn’t really work, because…well, take a look at this:

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine  <–  Trading Kawhi for Felicio, Holiday, & Grant apparently HURTS the Bulls using PER as the main differentiator.

A couple of examples I’m trying to wrap my head around (and using the Bulls, who I not only know the best but also have one of the more controversial front offices) to give you an idea of what I’m trying to find:

2003 NBA Draft

1. Lebron James – Cleveland

2. Darko Militic – Detroit

3. Carmelo Anthony – Denver

4. Chris Bosh – Toronto

5. Dwyane Wade – Miami

6. Chris Kaman – LA Clippers

7. Kirk Hinrich – Chicago

8………etc.

 

The top 5 picks saw 4 studs (3 HOFers & 1 Player a Step Below in Bosh?) and 1 bust.  Then came 2 rotation pieces and role players.  The Bulls took Kirk Hinrich.  Well, he’s not going to be a HOF player, but he played for the Bulls for about 13+ seasons and helped them in A LOT of games.  The Bulls had ZERO chance at the 4 studs above them (maybe they could have traded with Miami, there are rumors out there, but in this scenario I would ignore rumored possibilities).  How do I show that Hinrich was a "good" pick when people see that he was only 2 picks below the hometown hero Dwyane Wade and get mad?  Another point from this draft, the LA Lakers drafted Luke Walton in the 2nd Round.  He was a rotation player for them for a couple of title teams during the Kobe & Pau era and is now their head coach.  Does the Walton pick get weighted differently because he meant something extra to the organization? 

Here’s another scenario from only 2 drafts ago (the 2016 NBA Draft):

With the 14th Pick in the 2016 NBA Draft, the Chicago Bulls select Denzel Valentine.  Most Bulls fans laugh at the thought of this being a good pick.  But upon further inspection, lets look at the rest of the 1st Round draft picks:

15. Juan Hernangomez – Denver

16. Guerschon Yabusele – Boston

17. Wade Baldwin – Memphis

18. Henry Ellenson – Detroit

19. Malik Beasley – Denver

20. Caris LeVert – Brooklyn

21. DeAndre Bembry – Atlanta

22. Malachi Richardson – Sacramento

23. Ante Zizic – Boston

24. Timothe Luwawu – Philadelphia

25. Brice Johnson – LA Clippers

26. Furkan Korkmaz – Philadelphia

27. Pascal Siakam – Toronto

28. Skal Labissiere – Sacramento

29. Dejounte Murray – San Antonio

30. Damian Jones – Golden State

 

Now, how many players that the Bulls DIDN’T draft are Bulls fans upset they didn’t take?  Malcolm Brogdon at pick #36 was the ROY, so it was just a crappy draft.  The Bulls took a player that can be in an actual NBA rotation (maybe, I think he will be) but they are ostracized for that pick.  

I personally feel like the front office got hurt more by injuries to key players than any actual mistakes they made.  Even the mistakes they made, such as Tyrus Thomas instead of Lamarcus Aldridge?  Well, they were able to acquire a 1st round pick from Charlotte in exchange for Thomas to offset that mistake.  That doesn’t COMPLETELY make up for the fact that they would have had a lineup of Noah, Aldridge, Deng, Butler, and Rose to trot out there against Miami’s Big 3, but they should be graded on how they were able to recover from an obvious mistake.

Anyway, I know that there are 1000 other reasons for fans and owners to evaluate a front office poorly.  Free agent signing ability, media availability, not punching your coaches, not allowing your players to punch each other, to sell a 2nd Round pick for non-cap related money when you start a rebuild and have VERY LITTLE as far as young assets (damn that Jordan Bell situation).  But the draft is something that seems easier to QUANTIFY and I don’t really know the best approach to do it.  Since we are all crazy draft lovers on this site, I was hoping for some feedback.  Not just for the Bulls, but for all NBA teams.  There are ALWAYS going to be advantages to being a Lakers or Celtics fan.  Those franchises attract the top free agents when others aren’t really TOP destinations (Utah, Memphis, Chicago apparently).  But using the draft to put together a championship roster is an almost foolproof way of putting together a champion.  Remember, prior to the Durant signing, the Warriors put their roster together with ZERO Top 5 picks and 2nd tier (at best) free agent signings.  It CAN be done.  How is it quantified?

 

[Scott42444Participant]

 

For each draft pick: 

1 pt per All-Star Appearance?

5 pts per MVP?

3 pts per DPOY?

3 pts per 1st Team All-NBA?

2 pts per 2nd Team All-NBA?

1 pt per 3rd Team All-NBA?

Double Those for 2nd Rounders?

0.1 pt per PER, contributed to the team?

If traded, incoming PER/5 minus outgoing PER/5 (per spots on the court, to avoid issues with that Kawhi trade showing up as a 3 loss change for the Bulls listed above)?

Do you take into account EACH draft position, like you muliply by 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 for spots 1, 2, & 3?  Do you do 1-5 equals (x1), 6-10 equals (x1.5), etc.?  Do you find a way to compare a draft pick to those after?

Assign those points to every draft pick and show that number in comparison to EVERYONE in the same draft?

Anyway, just some ideas.  Wondering if anyone else has come-up with something.

 

 

  

[The GoatParticipant]

 Its hard because you dont know if the guys making picks were under other instructions by the owner or finance people to make certain picks or trades for particular reasons as well (marketing, reducing cap, etc). There are also things you dont think about where picking a guy for their personality off the court and the way they fit in the ball club may have significantly impacted culture or friendships that generated more success than what a few extra ppg or other output may have. Lebrons buddy James Jones always had a roster spot and so did Rodmans closest friend Jack Haley. Both have multiple rings. The draft isnt always about the best player as it is also about getting the roster set financially and bringing in the right person.

The scoring system you have seems like too much work for me to think about right now, but i agree that you have to find a way to recognise that a player may have actually been the best available choice even when it does not initially appear that way. Also worth considering is the contract each second rounder was put on, or whether a guy was stashed and brought over at the most advantageous time. 

[ndbigdaveParticipant]

I think this is a very interesting assignment and as a fellow Bulls fan I appreciate using them as an example. I think the issue with attempting to quantify the unquantifiable are all the variables attached to such an endeavor and how impossible (or next to impossible) putting a numerical value on a selection is.

As with most things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle or a mix of the examples you went through. I think the first step is acknowledging that you can only look at the player the team took and then compare that player to those that were available. The dilemma with this (and the whole experiment for that matter) is that there are so many factors going into why a player succeeds. It’s the role they are asked to play, opportunity, coaching, development and overall culture. For every positive example of Kawhi Leonard and Draymond Green who turned out to be “steals one must wonder what their careers would be like if put on a different team, with a different role and different teammates – it isn’t like the other NBA teams wanted to miss out on an All-Star type player, there were issues with their game that got worked out/hidden by coaching, scheme, hard work and teammates. Just because a guy “hits” on Team A doesn’t mean he does with Team B and the inverse is true as well, a guy who bombs in one place may have found more immediate success somewhere else.

The best mix that I can think of, which is far from “perfect” but may get close, would be to look at the expected PER/WAR or other such analytical numbers for a given spot and see how the selection does, but then also look at those players below. Looking at player’s efficiency when tied to usage can help weed out certain guys who are only box score all-stars rather than real difference makers. If a team is routinely getting “plus” value out of their selections and not “missing” on what may be better values, then you would feel relatively confident that the team has done well based on each pick’s relative position and value. This still runs into the issues mentioned in the previous paragraph, but it is the start of a way to see if a front office routinely fails to get value out of the picks.

The issue with assigning numerical value to things like MVP, All-NBA, All-Defense and so on (even including All-Rookie or ROY) is that there are hugely subjective elements to these awards and routinely the right player does not win the award, or deserving players miss out on higher achievement because there are legendary level players at their given position – can any of us really criticize a player who has yet to win a first-team All-NBA when the position is blocked by guys like LeBron and Durant? Furthermore, a player’s first year or early success can be routinely attributed to opportunity. It isn’t to say the player isn’t solid or even a good NBA player but there are numerous examples of players who make All-Rookie or even ROY mainly because they were given huge minutes and usage because the team had no other options or was outright tanking (See: Michael Carter Williams, Malcom Brogdon) the other consideration, even in the days of one-and-done (and thus no high school players) is that many of the top talents are those that are based on potential and not Day 1 production. Naturally, there are outliers and there are rookies who can take the league by storm on Day 1, but there are many guys who don’t settle in until a few years down the line meaning “rating a draft” must be done years later.

[Author]

Posts