http://origin.sltrib.com/jazz/ci_9663055 The above was Morey commenting on late first round picks. With that in mind I thought the following article would perk some interest. http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Word-on-the-Street-Rounding-Up-2940/ 5-Year Success Rates by Draft Postions (15-30)
From this sample indicates that teams "reach" more on big men than guards and that size is overrated relative to other factors.
i would try to switch picks with the sonics for #24 and double our chances of drafting an all star, and as a backup plan i'd try to switch with the nets and quadruple our chances of drafting a role player.
That annoys me about the way everyone seems to do these stats, calculating a number for each draft slot. Drafting #26 is not worse than drafting at #27; that makes no sense. They should calculate the statistics for guys drafted at #26 or later, than at #27 or later, and so on. Success specific to a draft slot is completely dependent on the scouting abilities of the teams that draft there.
It seems like Dumars has been doing a pretty good job of getting guys later in draft. If u take basketball players, u tend to do ok. When u start taking specialist, that's when u get into trouble. At 25, it will be a good basketball player availible, then the coaches have to nuture that talent and help develop it.
Your method would have a steep dropoff for picks #1-15 with very minor decreases for every pick after that. It would just show that the best talent usually ends up in the lottery. You don't need to calculate a moving average for that, we all know that off the top of our heads. Their chart is not showing probability, only results. It has no bearing on the future. This is just recordkeeping. If teams have historically done better at pick #24 than other spots, then so be it. It's like calculating the results of the draft lottery: you know the worst record has a 25% chance of the top pick, but the results are a different matter.
or basketball players who have no business in the league....I look at some players have no reason why some teams draft them.
Agree with you on Dumars later in the draft, but he's one of the all time worst at the top of it when he drafted Darko Milicic and passed on Dwayne Wade and Carmello Anthony, how the hell does someone blow that one. Overall there should be some talent still on the board at #25.
The representation is finite in that its only in respect to a certain number of years. If you took the average of a five pick span that would give you a representation of possible effectiveness of those picks. It's not an absolute, merely a representation.
I'll give you an example,Francisco Garcia went at 23 and Luther Head at 24,sometimes it can hurt you.On the other hand, Monta Ellis went at 39 in the same draft. The scouting and selection making process is the major determinant when you are picking at any position but generally it gets harder the further you fall in the draft.
I think the draft and fa should be tied in. Like why would I draft green, when I can make a move for Outlaw? Its like if u want a atheletic 3, u probably can get that guy via fa or trade say like Pietrus, Azabuke, Miles, or even G. Green. The same can be done for regarding backup c and other spots. U don't want to overkill the same position. If they don't take that 2/3 spot, that would signal there move into maybe the fa or trade for that spot.
Exactly, the statistics would bear out what we know to be true -- the earlier you pick, the better your chances of getting something good. What would be interesting is seeing the specific degree of drop-off from pick to pick. By #25, what's your chance of getting someone who sticks? If these charts are showing results and not probability, then they are of no use to anyone. We're coming up on a draft and want to know what we might be able to expect in our draft slot. Mere records of past draftees doesn't help answer that question. Moreover, writers use these records as evidence for future expectations -- ready for the next Jake Tsakalidis? -- misleading their readership about the talent still available in the draft. I think two stats would be useful together: (1) What is the chance there is someone left on the board who is worth taking, and (2) What is the chance your franchise can find him. The first one is doable, the second one probably is not.
Those kind of stats dont matter. The stats that matter are the performances of the players we are drafting
In his defense, the Piston's did win a championship. It can be argued that drafting either Wade or Anthony would have eaten the minutes of either Rip or Prince. And if that were to happen, they might not have won the title.
The decision to draft Milicic was similar to Tskitishvili.It was based on their good fundamental skills and upside.Every move doesn't work out.
You're right, these charts are mostly useless. All we can glean from this is that players picked in the 20's and beyond are usually not NBA-calibur players. But you said yourself that draft success depends on the individual players, scouting staffs, and GM's and not past results. There's an amount of uncertainty not matter what chart you use. Anything can happen. Joe Dumars is a historically good drafter. When he had the #2 pick, in one of the most talented drafts ever, he ended up picking Darko Milicic. All signs pointed to success, your suggested calculations and Draftexpress' charts would both agree to that. Darko ended up being a bust. These charts can't predict the future, but they're fun to talk about. It's just entertainment value.
