Re: Draft and stats (long reply)
- Before we call all these high school picks wasted let look at some
more of the data.
O'Neal was not a bust in Portland . .he was traded from a all-star
center who had just battled Shaq in the previous years final.
Second, he was the 17th pick in the draft and players picked before
him included successful college players Todd Fuller and Erik Dampier
and the next two players were John Wallace and Walter McCarty. I
think it's fair to say Portland got better value than other those
T-Mac was not wasted pick either, but chose to leave the Raptors for
to play with Grant Hill instead of Carter and leave the cold for
Orlando. The pick wasn't bad even though management was unable to
keep him in Toronto. At nine, T-Mac was pretty good performance in
his first three years compared to those chosen around him as well -
Billups #3, Daniels #4, Battie #5, and Mercer #6 - all accomplished
college players ('cept maybe Battie, I don't remember). Granted Bobby
Jackson and Brevin Knight were late first round steals, but then Paul
Grant (Wisconsin) and Jacque Vaugnh (Kansas) weren't so great.
The same could be argued with D Miles who was traded from All-Star
PG. Picked ahead of Miles was Swift (coming off a NCAA final four),
and right after him was Marcus Fizer (dominant college player), Mark
Miller (So @ Florida) and Chirh Mihm (successful junior @ competitive
Texas team). It hard to ferret out why Redd was good second round
pick and Al-Amin (PG for National Champion CONN) was not.
With the exception of the of the 2001 draft, I think the NBA GMs have
been pretty darn good at choosing which high school players are worth
a top draft pick (James, KG, Kobe, Amare, T Mac). Compared to the
misses (Brown, Bender, Diop, Curry, Chandler - all of whom 'cept Diop
could still pan out), the successful college players probably don't
represent as good a risk-reward (see Calbert Chaney @ 6; Donyell
Marshall @ 4; Sharon Wright @ 6; Shawn Respert @ 8, Ed O'Bannon @ 9;
Samakia Walker @ 9, Dampier @ 10; Antonio Daniel @ 4, Danny Fortson
@ 10; Tractor Traylor @ 6; etc.)
The high school picks are not really the problem. Draft gambles
sometimes pan-out (SA - Tony Parker @ 29 and sometimes don't SA -
Leon Smith @ 29, traded to Dallas).
As of yet, the NBA has not demonstrated that is poorer at picking
high schooler than college players (unlike baseball). Maybe if the
trend to picking more HS continues it will.
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "dktomar" <dktomar@y...> wrote:
> I'm sure this has been looked at before, but it's intersting
> nonetheless. This started due to my frustration at teams selecting
> high school superstars as "answers" to the teams problems (i.e., the
> team isn't winning). My theory is that these are wasted picks
> these players either don't develop or develop to help another team
> (e.g., McGrady, J. O'Neal). I began by looking at the 1994 through
> 2002 drafts (2003 is too fresh to judge). Anyway, I haven't got to
> the point of going piece by piece through the high school players
> but thought I'd share the previous 9 years of the draft with you,
> through my eyes.
> I rated drafts by how many good picks or bad picks (I used a very
> simple and biased plus, plus/minus, and minus rating system; plus
> good pick, plus/minus is an unknown or so-so pick, and minus is a
> pick). I tried to adjust for where the player was taken in the
> (i.e., Olowokandi is a minus at No.1, but may have been a plus or
> plus/minus at No. 50). For an example, I rated Tayshaun Prince at
> 23 a plus and Jay Williams a minus at No. 2 (due to injury) from the
> 2001 drafts. As an aside, every No. 1 pick is still producing in
> NBA (some more than others obviously, see Duncan and Iverson v.
> What I've found is that there are usually around 22 to 23 plus and
> plus/minus players in the draft, which roughly translates into teams
> being able to find serviceable players from picks 1-23. The odds
> obviously are better the higher you pick, but after No. 20, the odds
> become long to find a contributor, let alone an all-star. Very few
> second round picks become serviceable NBA players and the
> from the second round may be Rashard Lewis, Michael Redd, Gilbert
> Arenas and Ginobli. Okur and Boozer are on their way to joining
> Lewis, Redd, Arenas and Ginobli. Even so, that's 6 players out of
> about 250 that became "stars," or about 2%. Even expanding the
> to include serviceable players, the list includes only 42 players,
> about 17%. Second round picks do not appear to be a valuable
> commodity in the NBA and thus trading a serviceable player for a
> second round picks appears foolish, everything else being equal.
> First round picks pan out at a much higher percentage, over 60% of
> time. The majority of the success is found in the first 20-some
> picks. Very few stars are drafted after No. 23 (see paragraph about
> 2nd round picks above). Bobby Jackson was selected No. 23 by
> in 1997 (if he is a "star"), Al Harrington was drafted in the No. 25
> slot by Indiana in 1998 (again, if he is a "star"), Andrei Kirilenko
> was No. 24 in the 1999 Draft, Samuel Dalembert (we'll see if he
> continues his improved play) was No. 26, Jamaal Tinsely No. 27, and
> Tony Parker No. 28 in the 2001 draft. The 2002 and 2003 drafts
> produce a few stars, but it is too soon to tell. That's 6 in 8
> (about 40 picks, or 15%). All of this makes Minnesota's job very
> tough, as they will have had 1 first round pick in 5 years (due to
> penalty associate with Joe Smith debacle), plus they are drafting
> in the second round. A look at the Minnesota team shows they have
> built around Garnett via the draft (Szcerbiak is the only other
> draftee; Sprewell, Cassell, Ervin Johnson, Trent Hassell, Madsen,
> Hoiberg and Gary Trent are all signees or trade acquirees).
> Draft Plus (1st Round, 2nd Round) Plus/Minus Minus
> 1994 14 (11, 3) 3 (3, 0) 37 (13, 24)
> 1995 20 (17, 3) 2 (2, 0) 36 (10, 26)
> 1996 22 (18, 4) 3 (2, 1) 33 (9, 24)
> 1997 15 (12, 3) 6 (5, 1) 36 (11, 25)
> 1998 20 (15, 5) 6 (5, 1) 32 (9, 23)
> 1999 18 (16, 2) 6 (2, 4) 34 (11, 23)
> 2000 14 (10, 4) 5 (4, 1) 39 (15, 24)
> 2001 20 (16, 4) 4 (3, 1) 33 (9, 24)
> 2002 13 (12, 1) 11 (7, 4) 33 (9, 24)
> A sample of the best and the worst draft picks.
> Best (No.) Worst (No.)
> Draft Player Team Player Team
> 1994 J. Kidd (2) Dallas S. Wright (6) Philly
> 1995 K. Garnett (5) Minn. B. Reeves (6) Vancouver
> 1996 K. Bryant (13) LALak. T. Fuller (11) GS
> 1997 T. Duncan (1) SA O. St.-Jean (11) Sacramento
> 1998 D. Nowitzki (9) Milw M. Olowonkandi (1) LAClippers
> 1999 E. Ginobli (57) SA T. Langdon (11) Cleveland
> 2000 M. Redd (43) Milwa J. Pryzbilla (9) Milw
> 2001 T. Parker (28) SA D. Diop (8) Cleveland
> 2002 A. Stoudamaire Phoenix Tskitziuli (sp?) (5) Denver
> These are judgment calls. In 1995, McDyess went No. 2, Rasheed
> Wallace went No. 4, Brent Barry went No. 15, Finley went No. 21, and
> Eric Snow went No. 43. Respert was No. 8 and Ed O'Bannon was No.
> In 1996, Peja was drafted No. 14, Nash No. 15, and Jermaine O'Neal
> went No. 17. Samaki Walker was No. 9. In 1997, McGrady was No. 9
> (taken by Toronto out of HS which goes back to my original reason
> the research). In 1998, Bibby went No. 2, Carter No. 5, and Pierce
> No. 10. Traylor went No. 6. In 1999, Brand was No. 1, Francis No.
> Baron Davis No. 3, Odom No. 4, Rip Hamilton No. 7, Andre Miller No.
> and Kirilenko No. 24. Redogievic was No. 12, William Avery No. 14,
> Frederic Weis No. 15 and Cal Bowdler No. 17. Kenyon Martin was the
> No. 1 pick in 2000, with Mike Miller going No. 5, Turkoglu going No.
> 16 and Magloire No. 19. Darius Miles went No. 3, Fizer No. 4,
> Johnson No. 6, Moiso No. 11. Courtney Alexander No. 13, Mateen
> No. 14, and Jason Collier No. 15. A terrible draft, talent-wise.
> 2001, Gasol went No. 3, Jefferson No. 13, Randolph No. 19, Arenas
> 31, Okur No. 38. Rodney White went No. 9, Hunter No. 15, Haaston
> 16 and Bradley No. 17. In 2002, Yao Ming was No. 1, Nene was No. 7,
> Tayshaun Prince was No. 23, and Carlos Boozer was No. 35. Dujuan
> Wagner was No. 6, Borchardt No. 18.
- --- <danthestatman@h...> wrote:
> >From: "John Hollinger" <alleyoop2@y...>The
> >One other thing: High assist guys almost never succeed as pros.
> >reason is that to be good enough to be in the NBA, you almosthave to
> >be the best player on your college team. And if you're the bestmuch all top
> >player, you're probably leading the team in points rather than
> I assume you mean high assist, lower scoring guys. Pretty
> tier PGs were high assist guys in college - but very few weremediocre
> scorers in college ...Take it further and just state that the vast majority of college
stars do not succeed at the NBA level -- be they assist guys,
scorers, or whatever.
Is the best player on a bad team more likely to succeed in the NBA
than the sidekick on a championship team? I doubt it.
Bobby Hurley was often likened to Bob Cousy. I imagined we might
find out how Cousy would do in the '90s NBA. Did we ?