Draft hype and reality

by jae on Jun 18, 2008 1:13 PM PDT

Reality: 30 picks in the first round are lucky to turn into a couple of stars and a half dozen real difference makers, another handful of eventually acceptable, but never particularly memorable rotation players, and larger collection of young millionaires who seem best suited as gigantic paperweights to keep the bench from flying upwards towards the ceiling. Even "lottery picks" are more likely to be mediocre or worse than to actually benefit the W column in the standings.

Looking back at the 2006 draft (It's a bit too early to judge 2007, and even 06 may be a bit premature for some of the 'potential' picks), roughly a third of the picks seem to be bettering their teams in some way albeit not necessarily as stars. (I'm excluding Morrison from this list, who was more valuable hurt in that he almost imperceptibly less likely to make a basket or grab a rebound when sitting out the year and certainly less likely to toss up bricks or get burned on D. Generally, you look for a player to make you better by playing.) Another 3rd or so are questionable, serving some purpose presently as "role players" but I dare say most people wouldn't really notice if they weren't around. And then there's the busts, guys like our beloved POB who seem to be auditioning for work in a Taiwanese league in the near future.

OK, perhaps 06 was a spectacularly weak draft. 07 and 05 look better in terms of contributors, but all drafts will contain several guys, a few taken in the lottery, who are forgettable, occasionally regrettable, who, at the time, were praised by *someone* for their 'upside.' Mock board evaluations seem to have some assortment of 30 players roaring to come in and improve their clubs at some point. Seldom does a draft bio state "he's a washout waiting to happen" even though applying that tag across the board is likely to have the highest overall success rate in predicting the future. I suspect that at heart, a dart board would perform as well as most draft-nosticators.

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

2 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

yet another reason why...

... we need to trade this pick and some players to get something VALUABLE.

I'm keen on the professional basketball club The Golden State Warriors. I don't fancy other clubs.

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jun 18, 2008 5:40 PM PDT 0 recs

I disagree

The nba draft is not lucky. The lottery is lucky, but 4 times out of 5, it is simply your drafting scouts, and drafting strategy. With that said, certain years seem to have very different results. Last years draft seems to be a strong one, 06 is not good, 02-05 appear very strong, and 00-01 are some of the worst drafts we have seen in a while. So it all depends. Looking at this year, it seems to be last years draft, but with a weaker 1-2. Looking outside of the top 10, you saw very good players like Thadeus Young, Julian Wright, Al Thortan, Nick Young, Sean Williams, and Rodney Stuckey taken in the lottery picks. We saw solid role players like Aaron Affalo, Aaron Brookes, Glen Davis, Javaras Crittenton, and Jared Dudly. And if you include Luis Scola and Jamario Moon part of the draft as well, then them as well. And players like Alando Tucker, Gabe Pruitts, and Dequean Cook have all shown real potential. This draft class appears to have a similar power in depth. A guy who can come off the bench, play a solid 15-20 minutes of good defense and gets 5-7 points and 4-6 rebounds is more than enough to satsify what a #14 pick is expected to do.

According to the comminsioner of the nfl, 104 people retired last year. 7 due to age, and the rest because of Patrick Willis

by montasmob69 on Jun 18, 2008 11:06 PM PDT 0 recs

How exactly can you demonstrate the difference between luck and draft scouting and strategy? I’m not saying that there are some people who are better than others as GMs, scouts, or whomever makes the call, but actually demonstrating this based on one or two picks over a short period is difficult. Random luck will make some GMs look brilliant by getting lucky a few times and distinguishing between this and ‘skill’ is rather difficult to do.

by jae on Jun 18, 2008 11:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

Agree with all of the above

At the same time, for me, as a fan, the NBA draft has inherent value above its realistic potential to improve to the Ws. Who wants realism all the time? Reading Kenntoe Keynote or Chad Ford or Draftexpress’s analyses, fantasizing about all these young players, and who they might develop into, and who would look good alongside Monta/AB/BWright in 2011, is one of the pleasures of being a fan, right up there with watching the games. Trading the #14 pick for an established, unspectacular vet might be the smart move, probability-wise, but it’s no fun at all.

Reminds me a little of the old joke: why can’t Santa Claus and Dolly Parton fit in a phone booth at the same time? Answer: ‘Cos there’s no such thing as Santa Claus. See, reality is no fun. A year without a draft pick is bit like a Christmas without Santa… :-(

Sign ^^^^ !!!

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 19, 2008 3:36 AM PDT 0 recs

argh

spoken like a true long time Warriors fan Sleepy. The draft has been the Warrior’s playoffs for a long time already and it’s unfortunate that it is again this year. I admit that i look forward to the possibility of landing a future superstar out of the draft, but i also understand that we might just get another NBDL roster filler. It’s just a bitter pill of reality sometimes that our Santa rides in on lottery balls so often.

I pray i never have to use a gun again...

...unless i'm at a strip club parking lot...

...and somebody tries to run me over with their car...

...But how often does that happen??

by ssmokinjoe on Jun 19, 2008 6:05 AM PDT up 0 recs

Are you mocking the GSoM Mock Draft?

I’ll ask you a better question: Is it more difficult to predict the future success of draft picks because of the larger number of underclassmen and high-schoolers being taken in the first round?

In the 1999,2000 & 2002 NBA drafts, 1 high-schooler was drafted in the top 20 each time. Zero in 1998.
In 2001, 3 were taken in the top 4. The other was Pau Gasol.

In 2004, there were 7 high-schoolers picked in the top 20.

By 2005 the NBA (aka the owners) decided that their own risky behavior was getting out of hand so they negotiated a rule for 2006 that players had to be 19-years-old and at least 1 year out of high school.

What did they hope to accomplish?

Two things, and the second speaks directly to your post:

1. You get more of the player’s prime years under team control under the1st-round rookie contract. How many players are productive at age 18? So the owners made a rule that ensures they won’t have to pay for a player’s 18-year-old season which is essentially non-productive just to get "dibs" on him and then see him walk right when he becomes really productive. Hell, the NBA originally asked the union for 2-years of college.

2. Every owner and GM gets to see these kids play at least one year against better competition, with much more film and live scouting. This helps mitigate some of the risk that came with drafting high-school kids.

Storage is for business, or for family.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 19, 2008 9:15 AM PDT 0 recs

I don’t think that the draft getting younger has appreciably changed predictability. Anecdotally, looking at drafts from the 80s when early entrants meant “skip Sr. year”, I see a whole lot of names that don’t ring any bells.

I never like to underestimate the power of luck to make someone look briliant. McHale is now regarded poorly by most as a GM, but recall that he was the first to risk a very high pick on a HS player by taking Garnett. Was he brilliant then? Or merely lucky? In hindsight, do any of his picks since appear to have been foolish at the time or was he just on the unlucky side of the curve afterwards. Sure, I believe that the Warriors haven’t had a GM who knew the value of talent, of what to pay and when like Jerry West did, but had the Warriors won the draft lottery when Duncan or Lebron was up rather than when Joe Smith (or received the #3 in the year that Melo, Wade and Bosh were still on the board instead of Dunleavy), we’d look like a much smarter franchise.

by jae on Jun 19, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up 0 recs

more reality

Here’s how I look at the NBA draft:

On any given NBA 15-man roster, on average, you have:

1 All-Star
5 Starters
~10 Rotation Players
5 Bench Warmers

By extrapolating the percentages, in any given 60 player draft, on average, you’ll probably end up with something like :

4 future All-stars
20 future Starters
40 future rotation-worthy players
20 future bench warmers

at #14, we’re probably going to be drafting for a future fringe NBA starter.
at #49, we’re probably going to be drafting a future bench warmer.

And that’s just the reality of it. If we want to drastically improve our roster next year, it’ll need to be through free agency or trades.

by YaHeard on Jun 19, 2008 12:23 PM PDT 0 recs

So if at 14 you’re looking at fringe starter, does this argue targetting someone for their ability to help instead of basing the decision on maximum “upside” or “potential?” You can almost always fill out a lineup and find competent mid rotation guys with the MLE, but hand that out every year in an extended deal and before long much of your cap is tied up in guys who, while they belong in the league, aren’t the sort of difference makers you want taking up half your cap. Targetting a more NBA ready guy and having him locked up for 4 years (with the option to dump after only 2 if he’s a flop) at a lower, set price seems like it might be a better strategy for a team that’s already competitive.

I’m not sure if I believe this or not, but I suspect that errors come because after the first few picks, “potential” and “bust potential” seem to go hand in hand and both probably spring from knowing very little about guys beyond that they’re tall and own hightops.

I actually think a competent backup guard who could really spell Davis might have been the sort of drastic improvement the team needed last year. If he was fresh down the stretch, it could have been a 2 or three game swing upwards which would have meant the playoffs. Hell, given how packed the top 9 in the west were, getting 3 or 4 games from having a real backup point guard for depth could have vaulted us into the 6 or 7 seed without too much of a stretch of logic.

by jae on Jun 19, 2008 2:41 PM PDT up 0 recs

hm

I’m just saying that whoever we draft at #14 probably isn’t going to be our “savior”. We shouldn’t worry too much about duplicating positions. I guess I’m kind of supporting BPA. We shouldn’t discriminate against drafting PG’s or SG’s or PF’s or C’s at #14 just because we have Baron, Monta, Wright, and Biedrins. This is because #14 might not develop into starter material in the first place.

I guess my main point is this: the draft isn’t going to help our team much no matter who we pick and I hope Mullin has a good plan for this hectic upcoming offseason.

by YaHeard on Jun 19, 2008 4:03 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well Said

I suspect that at heart, a dart board would perform as well as most draft-nosticators.

Couldn’t have said it better JAE. Well said. That is the reason that I decided this year I’d throw out all “normalcy” and predict the guy that no one thought would be a good/productive player. It’s a total crap shoot, but I think other than the top 2 players and one or two other guys, this draft class is average at best. #5-#14 basically are all the same to me. I’ll take who we get, but trading a player or two to acquire a talented proven commodity might be a good thing.

by gabezgsw on Jun 19, 2008 12:29 PM PDT 0 recs

warrior should always trade their first round pick...

...unless its a high pick. b/c lets face it the 2 most dominate players to come out of the draft as a warrior pick was gilbert who is a wannabe kobe and suck and monta. both 2nd round picks

by gswLLBatman on Jun 19, 2008 1:22 PM PDT 0 recs

But the veteran we are trading for with the 14th pick can’t be one that gets us over the top if he is only worth a 14th pick. So while it may be a lower chance we get a real contributor, it is a chance that is necessary for us to take if we ever want to be up there. I know Boston got there by trading for veterans, but for one thing, how often has that worked? And for another, a lot of things had to fall in place for them to do so, and a Kevin Garnett type player who affects the entire culture of the organization like he’s been there forever is extremely rare.

I’m all for building from the ground up, I want the Warriors core players to all be hitting their primes at the same times, and maybe have some veteran leaders like Baron or Jackson in there as well. I just don’t think we are at the point where we can add around the edges.

by belilaugh on Jun 20, 2008 2:25 PM PDT 0 recs

trading for vets

Boston’s championship was catalyzed by trading for vets, as was Miami’s when they acquired Shaq. In these cases they paired newcomers with previously held talent, but the trades were key. Rip Hamilton, Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace and Chauncey Billups were all traded to Detroit, so in recent years, it looks liek about half the champions built their team substantially through trades.

by jae on Jun 20, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up 0 recs