DraftExpress: Don't Draft 2nd-half 1st-rounders

by tyger1147 on Jun 20, 2008 1:08 PM CDT

So you want to trade back into the draft and take a shooting guard in case Ben Gordon bolts, huh? You think trading Hinrich and/or Nocioni for spot at the 15th, 20th or 25th pick could pay big dividends down the road? Well, DraftExpress.com has a guide to drafting. It's mostly just statistical breakdown w/ little interpretation. Kind of.

The part I'm concerned with, as implied by the title of this post, is trading back into the late-lottery (11-14) and the mid-first round. I was all for using Hinrich or Nocioni to somehow get to these spots (although I'm also for keeping Hinrich around, so go figure), but now I'm a little more skeptical.

Production compared to where the player was drafted:

I. Location, Location, Location: Win the Lottery

Let’s start with the most obvious finding: where you pick matters a lot. Lottery players have better success rates than players in the bottom half of the first round. First rounders do better than second rounders. And players in the top half of the second round have better success rates than those at the end of the draft.

If a player is selected among the top quarter (currently the top 7 picks: we broke the round into “quarters” to control for the growth from 23 picks in 1980 to 30 this year) of first round picks in an average year (See Figure 1), the odds are about 60% he will be a solid starter or better by his fifth year. Those odds drop to 38% by the second quarter of the first round (i.e., picks 8-15 this year), and slip below 20% by the time you reach the bottom of the first round.

The odds of any player drafted between 16 and 30 this year becoming a star player, is about 1 in 13. In fact, you’re doing well if you get a guy who is even a solid bench contributor or a marginal starter once you get beyond the lottery picks. Nearly half the players drafted in the bottom half of the first round, are out of the league, or barely hanging on, five years after being drafted. --emphasis by authors

There's some really great information in there that basically says, "Don't expect anyone to really help this year" and ::gasp:: "PG's and wings have less bust potential than big men".

I invite everyone to read the rest, especially the last part about the big man bust. I have my own opinions on why this is the case (Hint: less PG's are taken for a reason), but I only wanted to address one point. (maybe someone else can address the last part and ignite more debate about Rose and Beasley) I'm already sold on Rose, and I was all about getting Rush or Lee or CDR in the 10-20 spots, but this makes me skeptical. Although, if they get someone in the 10-14 spots, there's a slightly better than 1 in 3 chance that player turns into a "solid starter" (check their definitions), and I wouldn't mind that w/ everything else the Bulls have.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

even if this is historically true

I keep hearing that this draft in particular is strong in terms of finding quality players throughout the first round.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 20, 2008 1:18 PM CDT 0 recs

True. But what is there besides history?

In all honesty, while it seems like there are a lot of good players throughout the Top 20, should I trust the general consensus on that from guys who probably don’t remember what they thought pre-draft in 2000, or the more objective evaluation?

As w/ any draft, though, it comes down to individual players. They shouldn’t trade into the spot to just get any player, but only trade into it if they think someone falls to them that they really want.

Have we heard about the Bulls working any of these guys out? Or attending work outs at other places?

by tyger1147 on Jun 20, 2008 1:22 PM CDT up 0 recs

RUSH, GORDON, WALKER

In that order

by Belize on Jun 20, 2008 1:19 PM CDT 0 recs

Another thing....

....what are people’s ideas on drafting Chris Douglas-Roberts if they draft Derrick Rose #1 overall? Should them being teammates be a factor? Would it enhance Rose’s immediate leaderishness by having someone that’s already spent a year w/ him?

What say you psychologists?

by tyger1147 on Jun 20, 2008 1:24 PM CDT 0 recs

that's cool

I hoped that if we got beasley, we could steal walker in the later picks…esp with his knee injury. Worst case scenario, they would be a ill trade package

by Belize on Jun 20, 2008 1:43 PM CDT up 0 recs

Not sure if it's been posted elsewhere, but CDR

claims to have never lost at a game of 1-on-1.

Right here. I’m thinking, this guy cannot be serious…

Anyway, the relevance here is that when the wheels fall off of the offense and the sets are just not producing, who better to manufacture his own shot than a guy with crazy one-on-one skills?

On the other hand, manufacturing your own shot can be overrated, too, as Dajuan Wagner, the only guy to score 100 points in a high school game, is no longer in the league.

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Jun 20, 2008 5:12 PM CDT up 0 recs

That video actually ...

got me thinking that maybe taking a low pick would be OK … as long as CDR was still on the board. Something like Hinrich for the pick that would turn into CDR or something could be good [though I’d really like to get something more out of it too …].
As for Dajuan Wagner: he had a really bad health problem [according to wikipedia, he had to have his colon removed] and is coming back on a Turkish team. That’s just one of those freak things, really.

by Prevenge on Jun 21, 2008 11:29 PM CDT up 0 recs

Yeah, true, he did have

a string of unfortunate health incidents, but nevertheless, I’m guessing that if he was that great a talent, he’d find a place in the NBA. And he may yet (who knows). It’s tough to say, but other than, say, Allen Iverson, and maybe Ben Gordon, the league is down on natural scorers who are about 6 feet tall. Which is another way of saying that being able to manufacture your own shot can only get you so far, if other traits (like height) or components to your game (like playing defense or being able to come off screens and hit jumpers) are not there.

by bullhockey on Jun 24, 2008 1:05 PM CDT up 0 recs

It seems to me that

whenever there are really talented, superstar potential players in the top two or three picks, people just automatically assume the draft is deep. Like last year you had Oden and Durant and people were saying, it’s a real deep draft. Whereas in 2006 when Bargnani was the top pick most people said the draft was not deep at all. I’m not sure why that happens. But sure enough whenever there’s good players at the top the rest of the draft is overvalued and vice versa. Just seems to me that no matter what the “experts” say, this article is dead on, and superstars are found at the very top of the draft. And no matter how deep the draft is supposed to be, it is very rare to find star talent later in the draft.

by Juiceboxjerry on Jun 20, 2008 1:37 PM CDT 0 recs

Thorpe liked Courtney Lee

as a potential mid-late lottery pick. (Lee’s been on the BaB radar screen for a while, too.)

With the hints Gordon’s been dropping about getting out of town, I wouldn’t mind it if we found a way to exchange Hinrich for Lee.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jun 20, 2008 2:14 PM CDT 0 recs

Hmmmm...(sorry for this long..long post)

:::does that two fingers to eye thing thing::::

Hey man…thinking bout i.., a while back I was going to write a little post kinda on this on DS, but I completetly forgot about this..so bear with me…cuz this was before our #1 pick and when I was getting pissed about the Wallace trade….

In 98’ we drafted Cory Benjamin in the 2nd round. instead we should have got Rashard Lewis

In 99’ we got Elton…but we eventually traded him (dumb move)..nevertheless, if we decided to skip on him we could have got any of these: Steve Francis, Baron davis, Andre Miller, Shaun Marion, Jason Terry, Correy maggete, Ron (Mr. I broke MJ ribs and he still likes me) Artest , Ak-47 …and the worse? How bout Manu Ginobi > Michael Ruffin?.

(anybody wanna break your laptop right now..go head..lol)

In, 00’ we decided on….MARCUS FIZER !!!! and Jamal Crawford (who I miss)...we could have got Desmond Mason, Q-Rich, Speeedy Claxton, Desawn Stevenson (who was really really good HS player and just needed to fit in a squad – nocoughutah…and thinking about it….Mark Madsen (29) > Fizer. All day. Everyday.
In the second round? Lets See, we got some dude named after the Gyver movie. How bout Eddie (ASU’s pride and joy!!!) House, Michael Redd – all the way at friggin’ 43th!

(Im a Eddie House fan btw…sigh)

In 01’, we did the Tuson Chandler/ Eddy Curry thing-thing..how bout Paul Gasol over Eddy Curry? Imagine paul’s offense with Chandler’s energy late game blocks?
If your not a fan of Big Bird fan..how bout Jason Richardson, Shane battier, Geral Wallace-all the way at 25!
What’s that? Point guards you say? How bout Jamal Tinsley, Tony Parker (28th!), Okur, Bobby Simmons…and the heartbreak of heartbreaks (IMO)...

Gilbert Arenas getting missed TWICE! We missed him in Round 1 and the 1st pick in round 2!

(mumbles in creole…mada rass!)

Ok…well at least we didn’t at least we didn’t get Zach Randolph huh?

by Belize on Jun 20, 2008 2:18 PM CDT 0 recs

Did you really say you miss Jamal Crawford?

........

by Mattchoo on Jun 22, 2008 1:04 PM CDT up 0 recs

Yup

by Belize on Jun 22, 2008 2:01 PM CDT up 0 recs

in 2000

We could have gotten Tony Parker who went 28th to SA.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Jun 22, 2008 1:48 PM CDT up 0 recs

^
Sorry for bad grammer btw

by Belize on Jun 20, 2008 2:20 PM CDT 0 recs

I posted this in the comments ages ago...

....that I think the NBA (in the aggregate) is better at evaluating ‘shorter’ guys (6’6” and under) than big men. There’ve only been maybe 2 dozen players under 6’6” drafted in the top six spots in the last 18 years. Other than a few notable headcases (Isaiah Rider and Dujuan Wagner, for example), there’s about an 85-90% chance that a player under 6’6” drafted in the top quarter will play in the NBA for 10+ years.

There are ‘big man busts’ almost every year, like a Darko or a Fizer. But there’s hardly ever a true bust in taking a player under 6’6” – they may not be Hall of Famers, but they’re usually at least in the Kenny Anderson – Ray Allen stratosphere.

I don’t believe that Beasley will be a bust – I think he’ll be quite good. But if one of the two – Rose or Beasley – is a bust, it likely won’t be Rose.

by BullsFanInSeattle on Jun 20, 2008 4:41 PM CDT 0 recs

I'd agree - people can never stop drooling over the height of (really) big men

Especially when combined with athleticism, it seems like a lot of people don’t take too hard of a look at their game. The whole “can’t teach heighth” cliche and all, but you can’t always teach skills either.

I remember reading a quote from someone somewhere a while back theorizing that more really tall guys get pushed into basketball but don’t have the love for it, while shorter guys have to work their butts off to stand out. Makes sense to me.

If nothing else, taking Rose will at least piss off Pat Riley.

by wjb1492 on Jun 20, 2008 5:21 PM CDT up 0 recs

by BNeL21 on Jun 21, 2008 8:41 AM CDT 0 recs

Ryan Anderson

That’s who Chad Ford has us taking with our 2nd round pick.

I actually don’t mind it – he’s a PF who can score the ball….we don’t have too many of those. Not saying he’ll do anything next year…but I wouldn’t mind it.

by swede2287 on Jun 23, 2008 5:24 PM CDT 0 recs