Tankers Rejoice

[D.o.s.]

That was me, and it's top five, not top six.  The sixth pick has actually historically yielded surprisingly mediocre results compared to many of the picks later in the draft.

The sixth pick is worse than the top 5 but better than most of the picks after it (predictably) but the dropoff from 5 to 6 is worth remembering.

Basically if you want more than 50% chance of a star, you need a top 5 pick.

If you want at-worst a solid player, you're best off taking 12 or higher, but you've got a decent chance of landing one in the picks 13-20 although there are some outliers (picks that for whatever reason are usually bad..like 11, 15, 12).

As always there are no guarantees, but I stand by my statement, if you want a good player, the earlier the pick the better. SCIENCE!

That's not science, that's probability.



... I think?

[indeedproceed]

I found a few things before I started burning away my Sunday.

This one seems the most in line with the question being raised (what is the value of a pick by number?)

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

This one is a little harder to read but is more raw:

http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/ranking-thirty-years-of-draft-picks/

I did the same things as the guy from 82games.  My twenty year span was from 1991 to 2010.  Instead of taking averages, I simply added up the total winshares for each draft position over that time span. 

Here are my results:

Total Winshares   Draft Position

1,354.1                   1st
1,056.8                   5th
1,055.1                   3rd
1,030.8                   4th
987.8                      2nd
837.9                      9th
815.4                     10th
658.4                     13th
596.5                      7th
499.6                      8th
484.1                     24th
460.2                     15th
457.0                     21st
418.5                     17th
413.2                       6th
368.1                     11th
353.5                     23rd
343.6                     18th
334.2                     16th
320.4                     14th
315.5                     26th
296.9                     12th
293.3                     20th
258.6                     25th
246.2                     19th
203.3                     27th
203.1                     28th
202.2                     22nd

Note:  I stopped at the 28th pick.  Partially because for many of those years, there were only 28 first round picks, and partially because I simply ran out of gas. 

I realize that total Winshares is far from a perfect measurement of a given player's NBA contributions, but I like it better than the method used by 82games, because it seems to me that the averages of players taken early in the draft could very well be inflated by high draft picks playing for lousy teams getting big minutes early in their careers, and therefore putting up decent numbers.  While, on the other hand, ultimately better players, drafted later by better teams, aren't getting those kinds of minutes from the start, but ultimately end up having much better careers.

I think the biggest problem with using total winshares is that it inflates the value of role players or solid players who play long careers.

For instance, Shawn Marion has a better total winshares than Scottie Pippen. Stuff like that. Derek Harper over James Worthy.

[indeedproceed]

That was me, and it's top five, not top six.  The sixth pick has actually historically yielded surprisingly mediocre results compared to many of the picks later in the draft.

The sixth pick is worse than the top 5 but better than most of the picks after it (predictably) but the dropoff from 5 to 6 is worth remembering.

Basically if you want more than 50% chance of a star, you need a top 5 pick.

If you want at-worst a solid player, you're best off taking 12 or higher, but you've got a decent chance of landing one in the picks 13-20 although there are some outliers (picks that for whatever reason are usually bad..like 11, 15, 12).

As always there are no guarantees, but I stand by my statement, if you want a good player, the earlier the pick the better. SCIENCE!

That's not science, that's probability.



... I think?

Look if you're not gonna use exclamation points to make your argument I'm not hearin you. I'm on a science high right now and can't nothin bring me down. I'M GONNA LIVE FOREVER!!

[Celtics18]

I found a few things before I started burning away my Sunday.

This one seems the most in line with the question being raised (what is the value of a pick by number?)

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

This one is a little harder to read but is more raw:

http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/ranking-thirty-years-of-draft-picks/

I did the same things as the guy from 82games.  My twenty year span was from 1991 to 2010.  Instead of taking averages, I simply added up the total winshares for each draft position over that time span. 

Here are my results:

Total Winshares   Draft Position

1,354.1                   1st
1,056.8                   5th
1,055.1                   3rd
1,030.8                   4th
987.8                      2nd
837.9                      9th
815.4                     10th
658.4                     13th
596.5                      7th
499.6                      8th
484.1                     24th
460.2                     15th
457.0                     21st
418.5                     17th
413.2                       6th
368.1                     11th
353.5                     23rd
343.6                     18th
334.2                     16th
320.4                     14th
315.5                     26th
296.9                     12th
293.3                     20th
258.6                     25th
246.2                     19th
203.3                     27th
203.1                     28th
202.2                     22nd

Note:  I stopped at the 28th pick.  Partially because for many of those years, there were only 28 first round picks, and partially because I simply ran out of gas. 

I realize that total Winshares is far from a perfect measurement of a given player's NBA contributions, but I like it better than the method used by 82games, because it seems to me that the averages of players taken early in the draft could very well be inflated by high draft picks playing for lousy teams getting big minutes early in their careers, and therefore putting up decent numbers.  While, on the other hand, ultimately better players, drafted later by better teams, aren't getting those kinds of minutes from the start, but ultimately end up having much better careers.

I think the biggest problem with using total winshares is that it inflates the value of role players or solid players who play long careers.

For instance, Shawn Marion has a better total winshares than Scottie Pippen. Stuff like that. Derek Harper over James Worthy.

Yeah, unfortunately, there's no perfect system for deciding which players are better than others.  That said, I don't have a problem putting Shawn Marion--in my opinion, probably the most underrated player of the last decade and a half--in a conversation with Scottie Pippen. 

[indeedproceed]

That said, I don't have a problem putting Shawn Marion--in my opinion, probably the most underrated player of the last decade and a half--in a conversation with Scottie Pippen.

What the...but he...and the..I just...Well what I'm saying is tha....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ

[BballTim]

That said, I don't have a problem putting Shawn Marion--in my opinion, probably the most underrated player of the last decade and a half--in a conversation with Scottie Pippen.

What the...but he...and the..I just...Well what I'm saying is tha....

  While I don't think that Marion's on Pippen's level, it's interesting to consider how many more accolades Marion would have received if he had the same career but MJ for a teammate.

[indeedproceed]

That said, I don't have a problem putting Shawn Marion--in my opinion, probably the most underrated player of the last decade and a half--in a conversation with Scottie Pippen.

What the...but he...and the..I just...Well what I'm saying is tha....

  While I don't think that Marion's on Pippen's level, it's interesting to consider how many more accolades Marion would have received if he had the same career but MJ for a teammate.

That's true, but that's true for anyone. Imagine if Steve Kerr labored all his days next to Keith Van Horn and Sharif Abdur Rahim.

[BudweiserCeltic]

That said, I don't have a problem putting Shawn Marion--in my opinion, probably the most underrated player of the last decade and a half--in a conversation with Scottie Pippen.

What the...but he...and the..I just...Well what I'm saying is tha....

  While I don't think that Marion's on Pippen's level, it's interesting to consider how many more accolades Marion would have received if he had the same career but MJ for a teammate.

Meh, Shawn Marion played next to a lot of talented dominant players...

[Celtics18]

Like I said; The Matrix is vastly underrated. 

[BballTim]

That said, I don't have a problem putting Shawn Marion--in my opinion, probably the most underrated player of the last decade and a half--in a conversation with Scottie Pippen.

What the...but he...and the..I just...Well what I'm saying is tha....

  While I don't think that Marion's on Pippen's level, it's interesting to consider how many more accolades Marion would have received if he had the same career but MJ for a teammate.

Meh, Shawn Marion played next to a lot of talented dominant players...

  I'll go out on a limb and guess you don't consider any of them to be close to as dominant as MJ. If Marion had won multiple titles he'd be seen as a much better player by many people.

[JSD]

I along with the majority of "tankers" share the opinion of LarBrd33. Tanking is done at the exuctive level, not those on the line. I want these Celtics to play their heart out and just not be good enough.

Meaning: Ainge should trade say, Bass, for a 2nd rounder just to get one of the few rotation worthy players off the roster in order to increase the chances of a bottom-6 finish?

That I do not agree with.

Trading Bass for a 2nd rounder frees up an additional $6 M to use in free agency this upcoming summer.

I think having enough cap space to offer a max deal, along with improving the chances of landing a top pick, is a worthwhile goal and a good approach to building a contender in the near future. I make that trade all day long given our current situation.

Yeah... trading Bass for a 2nd rounder would be a heist.

What if it were Bass and Lee?

15 million for a veteran to come off your bench for the next 3 years is the luxury of contenders.  I'm pretty sure a 34 win team (whether playoff-bound or lotto bound) would be happy to rid themselves of Lee's contract.

No team GM in the NBA will give up an expiring for Lee.

Ouch, Lucky17.

So how do you feel today? Would you agree to moving to Bass for a 2nd rounder. We are, today, a major step closer to getting max contract money freed up for next offseason's use.

[Lucky17]

Never been happier to be so wrong on Lee.

My joy is tempered by the fact that dumping Bass for a 2nd seems that much more possible. I still think it's a bad move, and a fool's errand to pursue. Not to mention, counter to Ainge's philosophy about spending cap space on free agents.

Also, if the goal is to free up the space for a max free agent, nick did a nice breakdown on how much work still needs to be done to make that happen.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=68895.msg1598751#msg1598751

[JSD]

Never been happier to be so wrong on Lee.

My joy is tempered by the fact that dumping Bass for a 2nd seems that much more possible. I still think it's a bad move, and a fool's errand to pursue. Not to mention, counter to Ainge's philosophy about spending cap space on free agents.

Utah had a ton of cap space last offseason too. So there are creative ways to utilize cap space that don't involve overspending for free agents.

For the record, I agreed with you yesterday, that nobody would give an expiring for Lee. I'm delighted to be wrong as well.

[Lucky17]

Never been happier to be so wrong on Lee.

My joy is tempered by the fact that dumping Bass for a 2nd seems that much more possible. I still think it's a bad move, and a fool's errand to pursue. Not to mention, counter to Ainge's philosophy about spending cap space on free agents.

Utah had a ton of cap space last offseason too. So there are creative ways to utilize cap space that don't involve overspending for free agents.

For the record, I agreed with you yesterday, that nobody would give an expiring for Lee. I'm delighted to be wrong as well.

This is true, and it's the smarter way to use cap space.

But the Celtics already have that large TE from the Nets megadeal, which acts the same way, but doesn't require any additional dumping of salary.

Whatever Ainge does between now and the deadline, I hope he gets the best return possible on any and every deal.

[painter33]

The idea that a team could or should be dismantled to qualify for a high pick to lead it toward championships is absurd. The Cavs drafted #1, got the Flopping Crybaby for the prize and were still awful before just being mediocre because the rest of the roster couldn't play up to the requisite level.  Parenthetically, the Cavs other #1 picks since then haven't brought much either.  Teams generally win championships, not single players, as we all know, and I believe that DA wants to retain a solid core upon which to build.  If the Celtics finish as the last team into the playoffs, they'll still have a relatively high pick (single number - 9) that can be packaged with other picks and a player/players to trade up.  That scenario will not likely play out, but there may be a GM willing to stock up with sterling silver players rather than go for a gold(en boy) in the hope that his best players and the picks/players received in return can get them over the top.