2011 was a "weak draft."

[Celtics18]

I've been seeing a lot of speculation that the upcoming draft is supposed to be weak, and that none of the picks outside the top two are going to be worth anything.

I thought it would put things into perspective to compare it to another draft that was considered weak.  In reading back on 2011, I see that a lot of experts considered that draft to be sub par and lacking in star power.  Interestingly, though, there ended up being a lot of good talent taken late lottery and beyond:

Kawhi Leonard: 15th
Jimmy Butler: 30th
Klay Thompson: 11th
Kemba Walker: 9th
Reggie Jackson: 24th
Isaiah Thomas: 60th
Chandler Parsons: 38th
Nikola Vucevic: 16th
Nikola Mirotic: 23rd
Kenneth Faried: 22nd
Tobias Harris: 19th

I won't claim to know which players taken later in the 2016 draft are going to end up being impact players, but I will venture to guess that there will be some. 

The point of this post is to illustrate that the draft experts rarely get it close to 100% right.  The 2011 draft is a glaring example of this, but it's certainly not the only one.

I love how everyone who likes basketball and has access to DraftExpress and YouTube becomes a bona fide draft expert at this time of year and knows for certain who is going to be stars and who is going to be busts.

[SHAQATTACK]

Nice post

TP !

[PhoSita]

I think you more or less proved them right.



What I mean is this:  calling a draft "weak" could mean that it's "bad," i.e. that it doesn't have many good players in it.  Alternatively, it could mean that the draft doesn't have very many strong prospects.

The former is about outcomes -- in five years, how many "good" players will have been selected in this draft?

The latter is about the perspective of draft evaluators looking at the draft for the purposes of making a decision on draft day. 

Who should go 5th?  Who should go 10th?  Who should go 15th?  Who should go 31st?  In a strong draft, it might be easy to answer those questions.  In a weak one, maybe you find yourself wanting to throw up your hands.  Too many guys with major flaws, questionable strengths, slim scouting reports ... a wide range of possible outcomes.


2009 was considered a "weak" draft too, as I recall.   When you look at it now, it was kind of epic.

But the fact that a bunch of guys selected in the 20-40 range in the 2011 draft turned into really good players is small consolation to teams that were picking in the top 10, trying to make a pivotal choice for their franchise, only to come away with Jan Vesely or Bismack Biyombo.


In short, pointing out that many of the best players in a given draft were taken in the second half of the first round or later is pretty much proving that it was a "weak" draft for the purposes of the people making decisions on draft day. 

"You have a better chance of getting somebody good taking a shot in the dark in the second round than making an agonized decision in the top 10" is not exactly a ringing endorsement of a draft class.

[PhoSita]

I won't claim to know which players taken later in the 2016 draft are going to end up being impact players, but I will venture to guess that there will be some. 

Probably will be.  Who cares?  I want 'em to be guys we pick.

The good news is, the Celts have picks absolutely riddled throughout this draft, so Danny's got to hit on somebody, right?  I sure hope so.

[TheTruthFot18]

I love how everyone who likes basketball and has access to DraftExpress and YouTube becomes a bona fide draft expert at this time of year and knows for certain who is going to be stars and who is going to be busts.

When someone has a highlight video with Ying Yang Twins playing, how could not become an expert on judging NBA talent? Boom!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zlB5w08_Es

[Celtics18]

I think you more or less proved them right.



What I mean is this:  calling a draft "weak" could mean that it's "bad," i.e. that it doesn't have many good players in it.  Alternatively, it could mean that the draft doesn't have very many strong prospects.

The former is about outcomes -- in five years, how many "good" players will have been selected in this draft?

The latter is about the perspective of draft evaluators looking at the draft for the purposes of making a decision on draft day. 

Who should go 5th?  Who should go 10th?  Who should go 15th?  Who should go 31st?  In a strong draft, it might be easy to answer those questions.  In a weak one, maybe you find yourself wanting to throw up your hands.  Too many guys with major flaws, questionable strengths, slim scouting reports ... a wide range of possible outcomes.


2009 was considered a "weak" draft too, as I recall.   When you look at it now, it was kind of epic.

But the fact that a bunch of guys selected in the 20-40 range in the 2011 draft turned into really good players is small consolation to teams that were picking in the top 10, trying to make a pivotal choice for their franchise, only to come away with Jan Vesely or Bismack Biyombo.


In short, pointing out that many of the best players in a given draft were taken in the second half of the first round or later is pretty much proving that it was a "weak" draft for the purposes of the people making decisions on draft day. 

"You have a better chance of getting somebody good taking a shot in the dark in the second round than making an agonized decision in the top 10" is not exactly a ringing endorsement of a draft class.

I don't have the energy to delve into The Semantics of Draft Strength right now.  I'll just say that with the Celtics having as many picks as they have in the upcoming draft, I hope it ends up being "weak" in the same way as the 2011 draft.

[acieEarl]

+ the fact that the Cs have picks all over the board, they should be bringing in a lot of guys for work outs. A lot of times guys won't even come in for a work out if they think they'll be picked before.

[loco_91]

The point about draft experts being frequently wrong is a good one. There are sleepers in every draft. That's why it's so exciting that we have so many picks: odds are that at least one of them will be surprisingly good.

[footey]

Good post. a "weak" draft can mean an "unpredictable" draft.  Like in 2011. This one could be like that.  Scouting it right is crucial.  I hope Danny's brain doc is on call. 

[Boris Badenov]

Well on the other hand 2013 was supposed to be terrible and it was. 2003 was supposed to be awesome and it was. I think on average the experts are right.

Saying "sometimes the experts are wrong" about draft strength is a bit like saying "sometimes high-ranked players are busts." We know this. It's an imperfect process.

So if the consensus ends up being that this will be a weak draft, it's more likely than not it will be. Doesn't say a whole lot about whether we will end up with a good or great player.

The best thing we have going for us is a GM with a good track record. I think that is worth more than the consensus about overall draft quality, at least at this point.

Another observation is that "quality" can mean different things - stars at the top vs. depth, for example. For us the question is going to be quality in the 4-7 and 13-20 ranges, most likely.

You can see this last year, where there was a sense that the dropoff after the top 10-12 was substantial. You can see this both by the king's ransom we apparently would've had to surrender to move from 16 to 9, and by the fact that so far no one from outside the top 13 has done anything truly noteworthy.

[GreenFaith1819]

That 60th pick, though...just awesome.

Last guy chosen, with a famous name...friends with KLove....

[BornReady]

No one knows how good any draft prospect will be in the NBA
It's just their opinion
Even if they say they are an NBA or ncca analyst or played in the NBA
Bottom line is it is their opinion so should always be taken with a grain of salt

Their are some trends in skills that usually translate to the NBA
Like defense - good defender in college generally can defend in the NBA level
However there are always exceptions

No one knew how good Thomas would be because of his size
Or else he would have been drafted higher than last

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

I suppose a draft could be weak in the sense the top of it is lacking in All start caliber players, but be very deep in useful 20+ minutes a night plug and play role players. On the other hand a draft could be strong in being top heavy with transcendent franchise players and be shallow in the sense that outside of this top group the rest of the draft is a crap shoot.



An aside. If the 2011 draft is considered weak, what about the 2006 draft? How many players (aside from Rondo) are even still in the league?

[Celtics18]

I suppose a draft could be weak in the sense the top of it is lacking in All start caliber players, but be very deep in useful 20+ minutes a night plug and play role players. On the other hand a draft could be strong in being top heavy with transcendent franchise players and be shallow in the sense that outside of this top group the rest of the draft is a crap shoot.



An aside. If the 2011 draft is considered weak, what about the 2006 draft? How many players (aside from Rondo) are even still in the league?

Lowry, Millsap, Redick, Gay, Aldridge are the other notables from that draft.  Overall, not a great draft, but over the long haul, it's had some solid contributors.