On First Round Draft Picks
2012-02-29I assume the discussions of “to win or not to win” and “what to do at the trade deadline” have the same effect on me as everyone else…cold sweats, sleepless nights, uncontrollable shaking, blurred vision. In a rarely ending quest to make sense of it all, curiosity struck about the value of first round draft picks. Not curiosity as in “I’m going to spend my free time for a week researching this”, but more like, “I’m going to spend thirty minutes copying and pasting numbers into a spreadsheet and then draw broad conclusions from it.”
Using the Win Shares data at basketball-reference for all players drafted in the 2001 – 2010 drafts, the following table was derived:
| WS | Per Player | Years | Per Year | |
| Picks 1 -5 | 1539.9 | 30.8 | 295 | 5.2 |
| Picks 6 – 10 | 899.4 | 18 | 295 | 3 |
| Picks 11 – 15 | 554.9 | 11.1 | 295 | 1.9 |
| Picks 16 – 20 | 497.3 | 9.9 | 295 | 1.7 |
| Picks 21 – 25 | 548.3 | 11 | 295 | 1.9 |
| Picks 26 – 30 | 521.7 | 11.9 | 239.6 | 2.2 |
Disclaimer: The ideas below are based on minimal data / reflection on the data, and probably include some personal bias. Anyways, I look forward to hearing what conclusions that you derive.
- This was never really in dispute, but picking at the top of the draft is better than everything else.
- That said, as a broad average, picking in the top 5 is worth only 3.5 win shares per year over picking from the worst spot in the first round.
- The real “value” of a top five pick is the chance to select a star, a player that immediately starts paying huge dividends. This is called a lottery for a reason; one or two teams scratch off the $10,000 prize, a few might win $100, some go home empty handed. To hone in on this; if the best player is excluded from the top-five of each draft class, the numbers drop to 23.5 win shares per career and 4 per year for the other forty top-five selections.
- The two bullet points above help to clarify why my “Building a Winner” research did not unveil a massive rising to the top for repeatedly lottery bound teams. If a team can combine great management, lottery luck and extended losing…that’s a potential dynasty like the Thunder. With lesser lottery outcomes though; the 1 to 2 win per season benefit of a top five draft selection cannot save a franchise on its own. (Also most teams that draft a STAR, combine that with some level of regression to the mean the next season, and don’t get three straight top five picks.)
- Picking in the bottom two-thirds of the first round appears to be interchangeable. On average, all draft ranges have been worth two win shares per year. For a re-building team that’s not in win-now mode, this reinforces that gathering first round draft picks, regardless of where, can be beneficial. Kind of a “throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks” approach.
- Surprisingly, selecting at the bottom of the first round has been the third most successful source of players. Tony Parker, David Lee and Kevin Martin headline this group, but eighteen of the forty-five players have accumulated over ten career win shares to date.
- It’s likely that this table tells us something about the teams that pick in these ranges. Squads floundering in “NBA no-man’s land” gain less from their choices than anyone else. Teams picking at the end of the first round have been the third-most successful. This may be indicative of those respective teams general ability to make good decisions, hence why the one group is stuck and the other perpetually contends.
- Arguably, picking 26th to 30th is the second most “valuable” drafting range. Players picked six to ten, cost three times as much as the late picks. Are 0.8 win shares per year worth $2 million annually?
Those are my quick takeaways. What do you think it means, if anything?
It could also be that the picks at the end of the draft have very talented teammates and presumably better coaches to learn from, and aren’t pressured to produce right away so they have time to focus on developing their craft and addressing their weaknesses, as opposed to just producing as much as possibly in the present. It could also be that teams in the 10-15 range and that ilk are still hoping to hit a home run, so they take a player with a “higher ceiling” because they need a lot more talent. But no high ceiling player without… Read more »
Akshai, Yes. Because the team’s at the end of the draft are using the picks better, they end up as a much better value. The team’s higher in the draft, say from 11 – 20, do not appear to be maximizing what’s available to them, hence they’re getting a lot less bang for their buck. Chris, Win shares are a calculation that involves offensive rating, usage, and defensive rating. Defensive rating does tend to reward players on good defensive teams. I would say the answer to your question is yes and no. Players drafted to good team’s probably benefit in… Read more »
Is it possible that picks from the end of the draft aren’t necessarily better value, but that the teams selecting them (the most successful from the previous year) are simply subject of both better talent, talent development, and club management?
It always seems to come back to the same point. Continuity and expertise(player evaluation, player development, and money management) by ownership/management is the bottom line key. That is why my “primary” focus this year is less on the wins and losses but the expertise demonstrated by Grant/Scott in converting the Cavs assests-players and draft picks-into something sustainably competitive.
Kevin,
How is win share calculated? (A dumbed-down version please!) Because I don’t know the calculation, I have to ask if its possible that the 26-30 draft range players have the second-highest win share due to the fact that their teams are better? For example, does George Hill have a higher win share than, say, DJ Augustin? Or Tyler Hansbrough vs. Taj Gibson? Both pairs of players play the same position and have comparable career stats, one drafted in the 26-30 range and one in the 6-10 range of the same draft.
David, I really didn’t dig too deep into this. I could send you the data if you want. It didn’t take that long for me to get together. HoopsDogg, I’m not sure the data shows players are interchangeable, just that your likelihood of hitting and missing is pretty much the same at 12th as 28th (as you noted). David’s request for standard deviations would be informative in this regard. To an extent, I would argue that the benefit of tanking is arguably not worth it. On average, a top 5 pick is worth a player that generates 3 win shares… Read more »
Fascinating study. I think it’s validation of the theory that outside of the top third, most of the players are interchangeable, and not much different than their D-League replacements. I’d be interested in seeing a breakdown of the second round as well. I imagine there’s a big dropoff, but maybe not. 2nd round picks often don’t make the team, so the ones that do might end up with a decent wins share. Most likely, though the guaranteed years give players more time to “stick” though. A followup study correlating how long they stay with the teams that drafted them, and… Read more »
I’m thinking that maybe you’re seeing that the teams with better organizations (that generally scout better and develop players better) are drafting at the end of the first round (they also win more). Can you give the standard deviations? It might be interesting to see how the trend on those goes.
^ I’d add Beal to that list.
Davis, Drummond, Barnes, MKG, Lamb, Rivers or bust