An NBA Draft Lottery analysis: Is getting worse than we are really necessary?

[nickagneta]

But how do you explain Cleveland's fantastic odds of landing several number 1 picks in the past decade?

Fantastic luck.

How do you explain them still sucking?

True true. But Landing three number one picks (Lebron, Irving and now Bennett) smells something fishy in my books;

Are there other teams who have had this kind of luck?

And what was Cleveland's record prior to these picks - 2nd, 8th (but this was LAC's pick), and 3rd;

IMHO better not to tank as this may setback the team for many years (think bobcats, cleveland, wizards, pistons)

Agree completely

[Surferdad]

Nice work, TP. Really sheds some light on how tough it is to implement the "draft a franchise guy" strategy over the last 20 years.

That said, your choice of time period influences the results.

If you go back to the period starting in 1980, over the next 20 years almost every championship was won by a team who drafted a top 3 guy and kept the player: Jordan, Olajuwon, Magic, Bird and Thomas. I count 19 out of 20 with the exception being the 1983 76ers.

(I'm counting Bird as top 3 because if he were not picked under that odd rule in 1978 he would have been top 2 in 1979).

The time period coincides with the new weighted ping pong lottery system used today. It really is the only relevant time period for these percentages.

For instance, it wouldn't be relevant to compare true shooting percentages of players pre and post three point line as they are two completely different systems. Pre-ping pong lottery first pick analysis just wouldn't be relevant in comparing the chances of landing a top 3 pick in today's ping pong lottery system as the chances of getting the first pick were entirely different or predicated upon solely having a worse record.

I fully agree that you have to compare apples to apples so the last 20 years is the only relevant timeframe in terms of the lottery rules. However, it occurs to me that the previous time period with Bird, Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon, Thomas may have been an unusually bountiful period so that it appeared that the number one pick would always represent a distinct advantage.  But perhaps, the elite lottery talent went down in the next 20 years, in relative terms to the overall draft, coincidentally with the rule change.  If this is true then this would explain why the odds of winning an NBA tile with the #1 pick went down after the rule change.  Just a theory among many without anything to back it up. 

[oldmanspeaks]

The real problem is that there are so many bad teams it is difficult to get one of the 6 worst records where you have a realistic chance of getting one of the top 3 picks. It seems to me that the Celtics are more likely to have pick 8-16 which is kind of the worst of both worlds.

[hwangjini_1]

great job nick. well written and well researched. thanks for all the hard work. it really helped explain the draft lottery and the celtics chances very well.

next, this also gives me hope the celtics can land a very good pick new year based the calculations i have seen tied to offense and defenses changes for the celtics next year. (basically, replace KG and pierce stats with lesser players and then fudge their stats to reflect playing against starters, etc.)

the projections mostly ranged from 20 to 29 wins for the celtics (.244 and .354 winning percentages) depending upon a range of scenarios. that places them firmly in the bottom feeder category and well within the ranges you marked in your analysis.

all stevens has to do is play developmental basketball for a season and put the rookies on the floor. after that, we can enjoy watching the kids play hard and then a good shot at a top draft pick.

[LooseCannon]

But how do you explain Cleveland's fantastic odds of landing several number 1 picks in the past decade?

Normal variance.  It is statistically unlikely that no team will be incredibly lucky over that time period.

[slamtheking]

But how do you explain Cleveland's fantastic odds of landing several number 1 picks in the past decade?

Fantastic luck.

How do you explain them still sucking?

True true. But Landing three number one picks (Lebron, Irving and now Bennett) smells something fishy in my books;

Are there other teams who have had this kind of luck?

And what was Cleveland's record prior to these picks - 2nd, 8th (but this was LAC's pick), and 3rd;

IMHO better not to tank as this may setback the team for many years (think bobcats, cleveland, wizards, pistons)

Orlando is a good example of another team winning 3 times and they won during prime years: They got Shaq, Webber (flipped for Penny) and Dwight. 

[slamtheking]

I have seen a lot of talk on this site regarding tanking and how the Celtics have to get worse than they are to win the lottery. Opinions have varied regarding just how bad the current roster construction is and how it will translate into wins and losses. For people who desperately want to draft Andrew Wiggins, this team just isn't bad enough and they want change so that this team gets even worse.

But just how bad does this team need to be to win the NBA Lottery? How many wins and losses is it going to take? Well, let's take a look at history because, as the saying goes "Those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it."

Since 1994, when the NBA went to the new weighted system for the NBA Lottery, there have been 20 drafts. Let’s look at the results of the top three winners of the drafts.

Teams will be followed by their finish in relation to worse to best record, their win-loss record, and winning percentage. Know that there were years that teams such as Vancouver, Toronto and Charlotte were not eligible to get the first pick and that if 2 teams were tied for a spot the lottery averages their ping pong balls out and then adds one ping pong ball for the tiebreaker but I took the placements directly from basketball-reference.com and so did not figure in ties for placement in regarding to 1st to 14th placement in the lottery. This would, of course, slightly skew the numbers.

1994
1. Milwaukee - 3rd 20-62   0.244
2. Dallas - 1st 13-69   0.159
3. Detroit - 4th 20-62   0.244

1995
1. Golden State - 5th 26-56   0.317
2. LA Clippers(traded to Denver) - 1st 17-65    0.207
3. Philadelphia - 4th 24-58    0.293

1996
1. Philadelphia - 2nd 18-64   0.220
2. Toronto - 3rd - 21-61   0.228
3. Vancouver - 1st 15-67   0.183
 
1997
1. San Antonio - 3rd 20-62   0.244
2. Philadelphia - 5th 22-60   0.268
3. Boston - 2nd 15-67   0.183

1998
1. LA Clippers - 3rd 17-65    0.207
2. Vancouver - 4th 19-63   0.232
3. Denver - 1st 11-71   0.134

1999
1. Chicago - 3rd 13-37   0.260
2. Vancouver(traded to Houston)  -  1st 8-42   0.160
3. Charlotte - 14th 26-24   0.520

2000
1. New Jersey - 7th 31-51   0.378
2. Vancouver - 4th 22-60   0.268
3. LA Clippers - 1st 15-67   0.183

2001
1. Washington - 3rd 19-63   0.232
2. LA Clippers(traded to Chicago) - 8th 31-51   0.378
3. Atlanta(traded to Vancouver) - 5th 25-57   0.305

2002
1. Houston - 5th 28-54   0.341
2. Chicago - 2nd 21-61   0.288
3. Golden State 1st 21-61   0.288

2003
1. Cleveland - 2nd 17-65   0.207
2. Memphis(traded to Detroit) 6th 28-54   0.341
3. Denver - 1st 17-65   0.207

2004
1. Orlando 1st 21-61   0.288
2. LA Clippers(traded to Charlotte) -4th 28-54   0.341
3. Chicago - 2nd 23-59   0.281

2005
1. Milwaukee - 6th 30-52   0.365
2. Atlanta - 1st 13-69   0.159
3. Portland(traded to Utah) 5th 27-55   0.330

2006
1. Toronto - 5th 27-55   0.330
2. New York(traded twice to Portland) - 2nd 23-59   0.281
3. Charlotte - 3rd 26-56   0.317

2007
1. Portland - 6th 32-50   0.390
2. Seattle - 5th 31-51   0.378
3. Atlanta - 4th 30-52   0.365

2008
1. Chicago - 9th 33-49   0.402
2. Miami - 1st 15-67   0.183
3. Minnesota(traded to Memphis) - 3rd 22-60   0.268

2009
1. LA Clippers - 3rd 19-63   0.232
2. Memphis - 6th 24-58   0.293
3. Oklahoma City - 4th 23-59   0.281

2010
1. Washington - 4th 26-56   0.317
2. Philadelphia - 6th 27-55   0.330
3. New Jersey - 1st 12-70   0.146

2011
1. LA Clippers(traded to Cleveland) - 8th 32-50   0.390
2. Minnesota - 1st 17-65   0.207
3. New Jersey(traded to Utah) - 6th 24-58   0.293

2012
1. New Orleans - 3rd 21-45   0.318
2. Charlotte - 1st 7-59   0.106
3. Washington - 2nd 20-46   0.303

2013
1. Cleveland - 3rd 24-58   0.293
2. Orlando - 1st 20-62   0.244
3. Washington - 7th 29-53   0.354

So let’s crunch some numbers and see what we get. I didn’t figure averages based on wins and losses as there were 2 draft lotteries (10% of the sample) that came after lockout years and had either 50 or 66 game seasons instead of the regular 82 game season.  I based the averages on winning percentages and then translated the winning percentages into wins and losses for better translation.

The average NBA Draft Lottery winner won 24.5 games and finished with the 4th worst record in the league. The most common placement for a team winning the Lottery was 3rd with 8 wins out of 20 lotteries. Strangely enough, having the absolute worst record in the league has netted only 1 Lottery win. Here is the placement of winners:

1st = 1
2nd = 2
3rd = 8
4th = 1
5th = 3
6th = 2
7th = 1
8th = 1
9th = 1

The average NBA Draft Lottery runner up won 20.6 games and finished with the 3rd worst record in the league. The most common placement for a team finishing second in the Lottery was 1st with 8 wins out of 20 lotteries.  Here is the placement of runner ups in the Lottery:

1st =8
2nd = 2
3rd = 1
4th = 3
5th = 2
6th = 3
8th = 1

The average NBA Draft Lottery 3rd place finisher won 23.1 games and finished with the 3rd and a half place finish in the league. The most common placement for a team finishing third in the Lottery was 1st with 6 wins out of 20 lotteries.  Here is the placement of runner ups in the Lottery:

1st = 6
2nd =3
3rd = 2
4th = 4
5th = 2
6th = 1
7th = 1
14th = 1

Some lottery facts:

- Teams with the worst record did not win any Lottery placement whatsoever 5 times (25% of the time).
- Teams with the 2nd worst record did not win any Lottery placement whatsoever 13 times (65% of the time).
- Teams with the 3rd worst record did not win any Lottery placement whatsoever 9 times (45% of the time).
- Teams finishing in the bottom three in the league did not win any Lottery placement whatsoever 45% of the time.
- Teams with a winning percentage above 30% (or 25 wins or more) have placed in the Lottery 20 times or 33% of the time or an average of once per year.
- Teams with a winning percentage above 34% (or 28 or more wins) have placed in the Lottery 12 times or 20% of the time or 3 out of every 5 years.

So do the Celtics really have to get as bad as possible to get their chance at Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker? No, not really. It might help incrementally but in the long run it’s like buying 1000 Powerball tickets instead of 100 Powerball tickets. It helps your chances of landing the jackpot ever, ever so slightly but really has little effect. About the only thing that really helps is finishing in the bottom 6 for win loss record as compared to the rest of the league. Finishing in the bottom 6 in the league, accounts for 70% of all NBA Draft Lottery position winners (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). To give you an idea, the most wins any 6th place team had during the last 20 years was 33 wins.

So judge for yourself how useful it would be to tank but also know this, only one NBA Draft Lottery winner has won a title in the last 20 years with the player they draft at #1, that being San Antonio and Tim Duncan. Yes, San Antonio won 20% of the last 20 titles but the winner of the Lottery winning with the player selected is rare. So even winning the Draft Lottery means very little in regards to winning a title with the player you select at number one because it only happened 5% of the time and that percentage is more than likely only going to drop in the future.

TP Nick.

This analysis has backed up what I've been saying it other threads -- having the worst record in the league does not guarantee the top pick.  based on past drafts we're just as likely to get the top pick if we're the 4th-6th worst record.

[ManUp]

TP Nick.

As others have said front page material.

My problem with tanking is putting all our eggs in that one basket. Teaching players to lose will only leave them with a bad taste in their mouth about the team and organization. It doesn't help that the whole league is waiting for us to do it so they can point and laugh. I understand the need to take advantage of a great draft, but I don't do it by intentionally losing games.

[McNoob]

To go along with this, the success of the players in the draft is also random and not always a lock. Even if the C's tank and miraculously land the #1 overall pick, there's no guarantee Wiggins, Parker, or whoever pan out. I know that's a negative way of looking at things, but we really don't know how their games will translate to college and the NBA. Flushing the roster for a chance just seems excessive.

I like this chart which shows the success of first round picks the past 30 years - http://i.imgur.com/Pg5szdQ.png

Obviously most MVPs have come from the 1st overall selection, but you still have duds like Kwame, Bargnani, and Olowakandi. Then the 2nd overall picks just fall off the map.  None of the other rounds produce consistent all-stars with the possible exception of the 3rd round. You're just as likely to score an all-star with the 10th overall pick as you are with the 2nd pick.

So really, it comes down to talent evaluation. The Pacers have had good success evaluating talent lately. They got Paul George 10th overall (max player), Roy Hibbert 17th overall (max player), Danny Granger 17th overall (was pretty good), some other role players in the 10s, and now have arguably a championship contending team in a small market, with absolutely no draft picks above the top 10 since 1989.

Whereas on the flipside, you have teams like the Bobcats and Kings who have been fighting for top selections for years now, and have nothing to show for it except a character-plagued DeMarcus Cousins.

But Wiggins, right? Ok, ok. Even if he is the next Lebron/Jordan/Kobe, here's the problem - you still need a supporting cast. Like the OP brought up, Tim Duncan is the only #1 overall pick to win a championship with the team that drafted him (past 20 years). Duncan was dominant back in his day, but he had the likes of David Robinson, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and a very complimentary cast of role players with him. Not to mention a HOF coach.

The other #1 overalls had nothing like that. Lebron's best teammate was Mo Williams. Dwight's was Jameer Nelson. Iverson had... Eric Snow? At least Blake Griffin has Chris Paul, but it remains to be seen whether Griffin is truly a difference maker.

Then there are others who get injured before their potential is fully tapped: Bogut, Yao, Oden, Larry Johnson, and who's really sure about Derrick Rose now?

Basically, you can tank all you want, score the #1 overall pick, select a superstar, and still have no championships. Just like the Magic, Cavs, Raptors, Bucks, Wizards, etc. The whole process is a total crapshoot.

As this thread suggests though, the C's can still field the team they have now, not finish last, and win a top 3 pick. At least then that player will be landing on a team with a good foundation consisting of Rondo, Green, and Bradley, as opposed to a team without them, and having to build from the ground up.

Or they could end up with the 10th overall pick and draft a Paul George or Paul Pierce caliber player. Who knows.

I know I kinda went off-topic, but I'm tired of the tanking talk. I understand why people like the idea, but I feel this thread is a good counter-argument. We're more likely to get a Chauncy Billups and Ron Mercer than we are a Tim Duncan. That's just how the lottery balls work.

[nickagneta]

To go along with this, the success of the players in the draft is also random and not always a lock. Even if the C's tank and miraculously land the #1 overall pick, there's no guarantee Wiggins, Parker, or whoever pan out. I know that's a negative way of looking at things, but we really don't know how their games will translate to college and the NBA. Flushing the roster for a chance just seems excessive.

I like this chart which shows the success of first round picks the past 30 years - http://i.imgur.com/Pg5szdQ.png

Obviously most MVPs have come from the 1st overall selection, but you still have duds like Kwame, Bargnani, and Olowakandi. Then the 2nd overall picks just fall off the map.  None of the other rounds produce consistent all-stars with the possible exception of the 3rd round. You're just as likely to score an all-star with the 10th overall pick as you are with the 2nd pick.

So really, it comes down to talent evaluation. The Pacers have had good success evaluating talent lately. They got Paul George 10th overall (max player), Roy Hibbert 17th overall (max player), Danny Granger 17th overall (was pretty good), some other role players in the 10s, and now have arguably a championship contending team in a small market, with absolutely no draft picks above the top 10 since 1989.

Whereas on the flipside, you have teams like the Bobcats and Kings who have been fighting for top selections for years now, and have nothing to show for it except a character-plagued DeMarcus Cousins.

But Wiggins, right? Ok, ok. Even if he is the next Lebron/Jordan/Kobe, here's the problem - you still need a supporting cast. Like the OP brought up, Tim Duncan is the only #1 overall pick to win a championship with the team that drafted him (past 20 years). Duncan was dominant back in his day, but he had the likes of David Robinson, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and a very complimentary cast of role players with him. Not to mention a HOF coach.

The other #1 overalls had nothing like that. Lebron's best teammate was Mo Williams. Dwight's was Jameer Nelson. Iverson had... Eric Snow? At least Blake Griffin has Chris Paul, but it remains to be seen whether Griffin is truly a difference maker.

Then there are others who get injured before their potential is fully tapped: Bogut, Yao, Oden, Larry Johnson, and who's really sure about Derrick Rose now?

Basically, you can tank all you want, score the #1 overall pick, select a superstar, and still have no championships. Just like the Magic, Cavs, Raptors, Bucks, Wizards, etc. The whole process is a total crapshoot.

As this thread suggests though, the C's can still field the team they have now, not finish last, and win a top 3 pick. At least then that player will be landing on a team with a good foundation consisting of Rondo, Green, and Bradley, as opposed to a team without them, and having to build from the ground up.

Or they could end up with the 10th overall pick and draft a Paul George or Paul Pierce caliber player. Who knows.

I know I kinda went off-topic, but I'm tired of the tanking talk. I understand why people like the idea, but I feel this thread is a good counter-argument. We're more likely to get a Chauncy Billups and Ron Mercer than we are a Tim Duncan. That's just how the lottery balls work.

Welcome to the blog and here's your first, very well deserved Tommy Point. Dude, you didn't go off subject at all. Actually everything you said is exactly the point I was attempting to make with the post.

[lightspeed5]

lottery is a game of chance. the past has no relevance to what may happen.

[chambers]

Great post Nickagenta.

As a pro tanking advocate I'd say that you have to remember that either way, via draft or trade, your odds of winning a championship are tiny,.

I'll also remind people that there are potentially 3-6 usual 'Number one picks' in the 2014 draft.

The media/scouting consensus is that the top 6 in 2014 could've all gone number one in 2013.
Very top heavy but to fair, heavy through the entire first round. Athletic, skilled and crazy length and size for their positions.

Why is this? Seems that we are seeing the first generation of players who grew up learning from Lebron and Durant and size stereotypes at each position are defunct when looking at the best players in the world. Point guards at 6'4" -6'6" are at a much higher rate than we've seen before.

Kids who are getting bone scans at 6 foot 3 when they're 14 with projections of being 6 foot 7 to 6 foot 11 are seeeing Lebron, Carmelo and Durant on TV and understanding that they don't have to play power forward or Center, but can play point forward.
It's an evolution of the game and more hormones and growth additives are like natural steroids for today's generation with hands and feet that are naturally enormous growing even larger.

Anyway enough rambling, please remember how many 'number one' picks there could be in 2014.
If you had another 2 or 3 chances at a franchise player just by being in the top 6 of the lottery you'd place your bets much heaver because your odds on return are much higher than 20%.

[Boris Badenov]

Nice work, TP. Really sheds some light on how tough it is to implement the "draft a franchise guy" strategy over the last 20 years.

That said, your choice of time period influences the results.

If you go back to the period starting in 1980, over the next 20 years almost every championship was won by a team who drafted a top 3 guy and kept the player: Jordan, Olajuwon, Magic, Bird and Thomas. I count 19 out of 20 with the exception being the 1983 76ers.

(I'm counting Bird as top 3 because if he were not picked under that odd rule in 1978 he would have been top 2 in 1979).

The time period coincides with the new weighted ping pong lottery system used today. It really is the only relevant time period for these percentages.

For instance, it wouldn't be relevant to compare true shooting percentages of players pre and post three point line as they are two completely different systems. Pre-ping pong lottery first pick analysis just wouldn't be relevant in comparing the chances of landing a top 3 pick in today's ping pong lottery system as the chances of getting the first pick were entirely different or predicated upon solely having a worse record.

I agree that it's not an apples to apples comparison, but I'd say it makes the information less relevant - not irrelevant.

For example, the 1980-2000 data are relevant if the question is "is having a high draft pick in a good draft a key part of building a championship team"? Looking at 1980-2000 would tell you yes, whereas the more recent data would tell you no.

Again, it's not apples-to-apples if you believe that free agency or the cap or other things have changed how likely it is that a great player stays with his original team. But, it's still useful information.

[PhoSita]

The OP makes some good points.

But I guess my reaction to this is . . . so?  Of course the lottery is not a sure thing.  It's not supposed to be a sure thing that getting a top pick will bring you a championship, or even that all-out tanking will win the lottery.

That doesn't change the fact that the players most likely to help a team to multiple 50+ win seasons and a chance at a title are taken in the top 5 of the draft, and by far the easiest way to get such players is to get a top 5 draft pick, and by far the most likely way to get a top 5 draft pick is to be one of the 5 worst teams for at least one season.

Bottom Line: It's a crappy system.  Unfortunely, we've got to work within it.

[EDWARDO]

This reminds me of this recent article:

"Via Andrew Sullivan, Chris Dillow points us toward a weird experiment in a fourth-year finance class at the Autonomous University of Barcelona. One student flipped a coin five times and a group of 20 students predicted heads or tails for each toss. Then a second group of students was told that there would be another set of five coin tosses. The best and worst guessers from the first group would try their luck again, and everyone in the second group would earn money for each coin flip that the worst guesser got right.

But there's more! If students in the second group were willing to pay for the privilege, they could instead earn money for each coin flip that the best guesser got right. There's no reason to do this, of course, since guessing is just guessing. Nonetheless, 82 percent of the students paid to switch to the better guesser."


Please take a statistics class.


250 combinations, 25.0% chance of receiving the #1 pick
199 combinations, 19.9% chance
156 combinations, 15.6% chance
119 combinations, 11.9% chance
88 combinations, 8.8% chance
63 combinations, 6.3% chance
43 combinations, 4.3% chance
28 combinations, 2.8% chance
17 combinations, 1.7% chance
11 combinations, 1.1% chance
8 combinations, 0.8% chance
7 combinations, 0.7% chance
6 combinations, 0.6% chance
5 combinations, 0.5% chance
Here are the odds for each seed to get specific picks if there were no ties (rounded to 3 decimal places):
Seed   Chances   1st   2nd   3rd   4th   5th   6th   7th   8th   9th   10th   11th   12th   13th   14th
1   250   .250   .215   .178   .357                              
2   199   .199   .188   .171   .319   .123                           
3   156   .156   .157   .156   .226   .265   .040                        
4   119   .119   .126   .133   .099   .351   .160   .012                     
5   88   .088   .097   .107      .261   .360   .084   .004                  
6   63   .063   .071   .081         .439   .305   .040   .001               
7   43   .043   .049   .058            .599   .232   .018   .000            
8   28   .028   .033   .039               .724   .168   .008   .000         
9   17   .017   .020   .024                  .813   .122   .004   .000      
10   11   .011   .013   .016                     .870   .089   .002   .000   
11   8   .008   .009   .012                        .907   .063   .001   .000
12   7   .007   .008   .010                           .935   .039   .000
13   6   .006   .007   .009                              .960   .018
14   5   .005   .006   .007                                 .982

Every ounce of information you need is right here. Combing through the past data is ridiculous. Like breaking down the data in the first 20 coin flips out of a million.

That goes for the conspiracy theories as well. Unless you think Stern really wants great players to end up in Orlando and Cleveland - 2 of the 4 or 5 worst markets in the league.  Don't get fooled by the randomness.