Draft study: Hawks 22 out of 29

[DrReality]

http://www.nbadraft.net/nichols006.asp

The table didn't come out too good so the link is above.

Recent NBA Draft Success

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jon Nichols

NBADraft.net

9/23/06

NBA drafts can be frustrating times for many fans. Some fans look forward every year to adding a new young talent to their roster, only to see the player fizzle out and not help the team. Even though general managers have their jobs for a reason and can do their jobs better than any of us armchair quarterbacks, sometimes it seems they’re clueless. I did this study to find out which teams have been the most successful in the draft and which haven’t been doing their homework.

The study was done based on drafts from 1990 to 2002. This time period was selected because anything pre-1990 seems outdated and because judging players who’ve been in the league for less than 3 years is unfair. The first statistic I used to measure success was average PER in the first round for each team. PER, or Player Efficiency Rating, was developed by ESPN’s John Hollinger. According to Hollinger, “Player Efficiency Rating is a rating of a player’s per-minute productivity.” The league average is set at 15. More information can be found here:http://www.alleyoop.com/prates.shtm.

The second statistic used was standard deviation of PER in the first round. This is used to determine how unpredictable each team’s picks were. Teams with higher standard deviations had more unpredictable picks and vice versa.

The third statistic used was one I developed. I determine if each player selected was a success based not only on performance but also on draft position. For a #1 pick to be a success, he has to have a career PER of at least 16.8. For a #2 pick, 16.6. I subtracted .2 from each subsequent required PER, all the way down to pick #30 which needs a PER of 11 to be a success.

As you may have noticed, up to this point I have only focused on the first round. But there are two rounds in the draft, and certainly both can produce great players. However, I felt it was unfair to use any of the first three statistics on the 2nd round. Because it is most common for a 2nd rounder to be nothing special, one great player can dramatically affect the overall rating of a team in one of the three categories. Thus, I took a look at each player drafted in the 2nd round to see if he played in at least 100 games in his career. For each team, I calculated the percentage of players that met this criterion.

Where does your team rank?

Draft Success 1990-2002

Rank Team Avg. PER Std. Dev. 1st Round Success 2nd Round 100+

1 Suns 16.1 3.93 80% 38.89%

2 76ers 15.07 3.53 63.64% 35.29%

3 Pacers 13.83 1.19 63.64% 36.36%

4 Cavaliers 14.57 3.31 61.54% 40%

5 Pistons 13.48 4.08 61.54% 44.44%

6 Grizzlies 16.59 2.79 60% 30%

7 Jazz 13.03 4.13 58.33% 45.45%

8 Raptors 14.96 5.26 55.56% 0%

9 SuperSonics 14.53 2.67 54.55% 47.37%

10 Hornets 15.51 4.26 50% 71.43%

11 Timberwolves 15 4.57 50% 35.71%

12 Warriors 14.77 2.96 50% 16.67%

13 Bucks 14.29 4.2 50% 62.50%

14 Spurs 13.99 5.69 50% 41.67%

15 Wizards 13.84 2.66 44.44% 53.33%

16 Celtics 13.13 4.33 42.86% 12.50%

17 Lakers 13.03 3.17 40% 27.27%

18 Nuggets 13.63 3.09 37.50% 35.71%

19 Magic 13.41 5.05 36.84% 57.14%

20 Kings 13.55 2.5 33.33% 44.44%

21 Clippers 13.29 2.4 31.58% 25%

22 Hawks 12.23 2.35 31.25% 25%

23 Trail Blazers 13.12 3.65 30% 20%

24 Mavericks 13.53 2.65 27.27% 57.89%

25 Rockets 12.48 5.15 26.67% 35.29%

26 Nets 13.23 3.45 25% 37.50%

27 Knicks 11.88 1.95 25% 12.50%

28 Bulls 12.6 3.83 20% 36.84%

29 Heat 13.45 1.6 11.11% 35.71%

(Leaders are highlighted in green, last-place finishers in red)

As always, your comments are welcome. I’d love to hear about anything you liked or hated about this study.

Information from www.thedraftreview.com and basketball-reference.com was used in this study.

[GST]

Quote:

---

The study was done based on drafts from 1990 to 2002.

---

That would include the Babcock era, which really hurts us. I would like how BK ranks against his peers at drafting.

[DrReality]

Then the Grizzlies draft numbers would more accurately reflect BK's numbers and they are in the top ten!!!

[KB21]

The Pacers are in the top five, and Billy was one of their top personnel men during the time period this study was taken from.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Then the Grizzlies draft numbers would more accurately reflect BK's numbers and they are in the top ten!!!

---

If only because every one of our better drafted players plays (one of) two positions.

W

[Swatguy]

Interestingly, the bottom ten have 9 championships in those 13 years. The top ten have one.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Interestingly, the bottom ten have 9 championships in those 13 years. The top ten have one.

---

Reads like the analysis is skewed towards teams with high picks!

A .2 dropoff in PER across the board doesn't sound right. The dropoff for a successful pick should be increasingly so as the draft progresses (at least at the top). For example...1 pt between 1 and 2 (23 vs. 22), .8 between 2 and 3 (22 vs 21.2), .65 between 3 and 4, .525 between 5 and 6, .45 between 6 and 7, .4125 between 7-8...and so on. My numbers are just to represent the idea. Simply, the dropoff is generally smaller as the draft progresses and this formula weighs heavily in favor of those selecting high because it doesn't consider this.

W