With all the recent focus on tanking for a high lottery pick, I was curious to see, historically, how helpful such picks are in changing a team's performance. Its easy to take for granted that if you get a #1 pick all your problems are solved and its an easy road to becoming a contender. I wanted to see how close or far from the truth that view is. So, I looked at all the number 1 draft picks since the lottery began in 1985 (starting with Patrick Ewing). I jotted down the team's record prior to that player joining his team, and then the 6 years after the player joined that team. Note that in several cases a player did not stick around for all 6 years or may have been injured for significant period of time. Also, I didn't want to draw too strong a conclusion that the record perfectly reflects the player's contribution to his team. For instance, Kenyon Martin might appear to have been a real difference maker for the Nets if we look at their rise after he was drafted, but we all know that Jason Kidd was the star addition. Also, in a few cases I adjusted the team or years I wanted to look at. David Robinson was drafted in 1987, but only joined the Spurs two years later (along with their 1989 draft choice Sean Elliot). So I only considered the Spurs record in 1989 and then in Robinson's first 6 years. And, while Chris Webber was technically drafted by the Magic, he never played for them. So, for him I looked instead at how he changed the Warrior's fortune. One more thing. I adjusted the win total for the 98-99 season so it would be on an 82 game scale. Alright, so here is a table with the results: Code: [B]Year Team Player Y0 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 50+ 55+[/B] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 NYK P Ewing 24 23 24 38 52 45 39 1 0 1986 CLE B Daugherty 29 31 42 57 42 33 57 2 2 1989 SAS D Robinson 21 56 55 47 49 55 62 4 4 1988 LAC D Manning 17 21 30 31 45 41 27 0 0 1989 SAC P Ellison 27 23 25 29 25 28 39 0 0 1990 NJN D Coleman 17 26 40 43 45 30 30 0 0 1991 CHA L Johnson 26 31 44 41 50 41 54 2 0 1992 ORL S O'Neal 21 41 50 57 60 45 41 3 2 1993 GSW C Webber 34 50 26 36 30 19 34 1 0 1994 MIL G Robinson 20 34 25 33 36 46 42 0 0 1995 GSW J Smith 26 36 30 19 34 19 17 0 0 1996 PHI A Iverson 18 22 31 46 49 56 43 1 1 1997 SAS T Duncan 20 56 59 53 58 58 60 6 5 1998 LAC M Olowakandi 17 15 15 31 39 27 28 0 0 1999 CHI E Brand 21 17 15 21 30 23 47 0 0 2000 NJN K Martin 31 26 52 49 47 42 49 1 0 2001 WAS K Brown 19 37 37 25 45 42 41 0 0 2002 HOU Yao M 28 43 45 51 34 52 55 3 1 2003 CLE L James 17 35 42 50 50 45 66 3 1 2004 ORL D Howard 21 36 36 40 52 59 59 3 2 2005 MIL A Bogut 30 40 28 26 34 46 45 0 0 [I] Statistics 23 33 36 39 43 41 45 57% 38%[/I] The Y0 column represents the win total for the team prior to the player joining them, and Y1-Y6 are the win totals for the team after the player joined them. The last row shows the averages over all these years. Since 41 would be the expected win total for a .500 team (like us!), we see that a team that gets a number 1 pick, on average, takes about 3 years to cross that threshold. The last two columns just count how many seasons out of Y1-Y6 the team got at least 50 wins and 55 wins, respectively. We can say, generally, that a 50 win team will be a solid playoff team with a decent shot of winning a round if not outright favored. A 55 win team, typically, will be considered a championship contender. From the 21 team sample above, 57% were able to reach 50 wins at least once in 6 years, and 38% were able to reach 55 wins at least once. So, returning to the Rockets -- would it be wise for us to start afresh and deplete out entire team if we would could get a number 1 pick out of it? Suppose the Rockets instead stay on their current track of trying to rebuild without being "terrible". What are the chances that they would become at least a solid 50 win playoff team in the next 6 years? I'm thinking its very good (definitely better than 57%), but of course that's not the ultimate goal. More importantly, what are the chances that they could break into contender status in the next 6 years? Would you put the chances at less than or greater than 38%, for example?
We don't have Adelman and his players......We probably are not terrible right now but we are closer than I would have it. PS A lot of busts Forgot about Kenyon Martin the first pick.......got cut from a Chinese team....
A number one pick is worth a lot. You can luck out with a franchise player like Hakeem, O'Neal, Duncan that will set your franchise for another 7 to 10 years, or get a Kwame Brown or Greg Oden etc that will set you back a couple of years. The most important thing about a #1 pick is the opportunity of picking the best of the litter- simple If you had to select from a litter of puppies, you wanna be first in line, so you can get the pick of the litter after observing their eating, sleeping and playing habits. Now if you're very experienced with dogs, and have done you research properly- you are likely to pick the best puppy as opposed to the runt which is left for whoever goes last.
Yeah, lot of pressure. You gotta rise above it. You gotta harness in the good energy, block out the bad. Harness. Energy. Block. Bad. Feel the flow, RedStaag. Feel it. It’s circular. It’s like a carousel. You pay the quarter, you get on the horse. It goes up and down and around. Circular. Circle. With the music. The flow… all good things.
It is not just about drafting first overall. It is about drafting in the top of the lottery. It is about picks 1-7. Anyway, your analysis reminded me of this article on payroll, drafting, and wins: http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32841/the-payroll-and-competitive-balance-myth.
I don't think a top 1 pick is a sure thing these days ...........they are about 70 percent to pan out really well well in the 4 years after Duncan and till Yao probably 20 percent With that being said a top 4 pick is sometimes better because you don't have the pressure to choose and there is more time to evaluate talent level and potential. Sort out the overhyped players and get players with decent to good talent level with work ethic. Kobe good level of talent Tracy excellent level of talent ....little work ethic
What's a number 1 pick worth in the hands of Daryl Morey? Even more relevant- what's a number 1 pick from the draft pool in the next few seasons worth in the hands of Daryl Morey?
To expound on my last post, those number 1 picks you analyzed were not all picked by GMs as capable as Daryl Morey. What would have been their impact if they had been?
Mo Williams and taking back Baron Davis for 35 games...sheesh. And Dan Gilbert is crying about fairness. The CBA screwed the Clippers Hardest. Imagine the pieces bringing in Dwight instead of CP3, to add to Irving. I guess then Jordan would take a seat but these are good problems to have.
This is a good article with all the data. http://82games.com/nbadraft2.htm But in essence high picks are REALLY, REALLY good. Especially top 5, assuming you don't get the rare Kenyon Martin draft. It's not so much that they're sure things. But rather they are so much surer things than later draft picks. If the #1 pick hypothetically has a 20% chance of being a superstar and the 15th pick has 1% chance of being a superstar, the #1 pick is still really awesome by comparison. Of course, the worth of a #1 pick has recently been mitigated by the fact that superstars actually have started changing address via FA due to the "max salary" rule. But if you can't snag a star via FA, then the pick is still very valuable.
It’s not that simple to just say let’s suck for a #1 pick; the worst record in the league still only has a 1 in 4 shot. I’m sure our owner would be all for tanking if he was guaranteed a #1 pick after one miserable season, but who knows how long it takes. There is the chance of still getting a franchise talent with a high, yet not #1 pick (KD, Wade, Paul), but it still depends on quite a bit of luck as well. The draft is just such a crapshoot and Leslie is very old and doesn’t want to spend the last phase of his life with the Rockets sucking and waiting for ping pong balls to bounce our way. I do think Morey can build a 50 win team under Leslie’s current mandate, but I don’t know about a serious contender. You need a superstar to have a real shot at contending and let’s face it, we will never acquire a bona fide superstar with the cashing in assets strategy.
Thanks for the link. That article is looking at the question at little differently. He's asking what's the likelihood that the player selected will be a star versus a starter versus a rotation player, etc. I'm asking what's the chances that a top pick will turn a bad team into a great team within a particular window of time. Clearly, if you're already a team that's mired in awfulness for some time, a top draft pick is a great way to get back to respectability. And if you have the 1st overall pick, you have also have a pretty decent shot building up a potential contender within 5 years or so. Its not a given, but even if its around 40% those are good odds. Our situation is a little different. We're already a decent team. Without the benefit of a top lottery pick, I imagine we could sustain a middling level of play for a good number of years. Personally, I don't think it would be a stretch for us to reach 50 wins even. But to become a contender (lets say, reach 55 wins), that will take a lot more. Can the Rockets get there within 6 years without tanking for a top lottery pick? Would anyone put their odds at achieving this at greater than 40%?
I think its more important to be in range of the franchise changing players. In most drafts, up to about 10 is where the talent is thinning out. If you are 6th, its easier to get to say 4th or 3rd vs being 13th trying to get to 4. If u were to look at 1st and 2nd team all nba, almost all of those guys were drafted top 10. Rose,lebron,wade,durant,and howard were all top 4. If a team wants a game changing, franchise type of guy, he's going to be drafted top 10 minimum.
Good OP and analysis. Well worth to discuss over. Another thing is, tanking/being bad for one year to get a really high draft pick for that one year is usually not enough. You suck long enough, and eventually you accumulate enough young talent through years of high draft picks. OKC is the best scenario for this model, but others haven't been so lucky.
Durvasa you have to differ here. Knowing that a 55 team, a regular season juggernaut is not getting it done in the playoffs. Take a look at the Mavericks and what it took them to get a ring, how much time it is to get it done, and they are not the best team among contenders these days. Nowadays you gotta have two Top 3 picks and a star joining you to actually climb the mountain and be a lock to be in the Conference finals or Finals.
Really, this is a great analysis. It is what I imagine Morey has done when he says that the most efficient way to contention is to rebuild through the draft. I really hope Les gets it in his head let the GM do his job and not be so intent on trying to do the unprecedented. The Rockets are fortunate enough to have Lowry on board already. Take the lumps now and get the dude a running mate for the rebuild.
This is another reason why nobody, except the Rockets to my knowledge, has ever traded a top 10 pick for a role player.
The article does suggest you rerun your analysis to include the top 5 picks so as to capture the range in which most superstars/all NBA type players are drafted.
