Rating the Draft

by baduk on Jun 17, 2008 4:04 PM PDT

The trick to the NBA Draft is that it's very difficult to say how strong they really are until years later. We all think the 1984 draft was one of the strongest of all time. Many people think the 2003 draft was just as strong. It's been five years, has enough time passed to judge the 2003 draft? I think so. For the purposes of this evaluation, I'm using six categories, ranking zero to five. At the top - Super-Star, then All-Star player, Starter, Rotation (>12 minutes a game), Bench (in league for at least 5 years), and Washout. Players with chronic injury issues are numerically knocked down one level.

LeBron James - Super-Star (5)
Darko Milicic - Starter, injury issues (2)
Carmelo Anthony - All-Star (4)
Chris Bosh - All-Star (4)
Dwyane Wade - Super-Star, injury issues (4)
Chris Kaman - Starter (3)
Kirk Hinrich - Starter (3)
T.J. Ford - Starter, injury issues (2)
Mike Sweetney - Washout (0)
Jarvis Hayes - Rotation (2)
Mickael Pietrus - Rotation (2)
Nick Collison - Starter (3)
Marcus Banks - Bench (1)
Luke Ridnour - Rotation (2)
Reece Gaines - Washout (0)
Troy Bell - Washout (0)
Zarko Cabarkapa - Washout (0)
David West - All-Star (4)
Aleksander Pavlovic - Rotation (2)
Dahntay Jones - Washout (0)
Boris Diaw - Rotation (2)
Zoran Planinic - Washout (0)
Travis Outlaw - Rotation (2)
Brian Cook - Bench (1)
Carlos Delfino - Rotation (2)
Ndudi Ebi - Washout (0)
Kendrick Perkins - Starter (3)
Leandro Barbosa - Rotation (2)
Josh Howard - All-Star (4)

Second round notables (non-washouts) are Kapono (2), Luke Walton (2), Steve Blake (3), Willie Green (3), Pachulia (2), Bogans (2), Bonner (1), Mo Williams (3), James Jones (2), and Korver (2).

Overall, while the total first round score is a 59, six points better than the 53 of the 1984 draft (which, it should be pointed out, had only 24 picks), the depth of the draft was extraordinary, as a stunning 10 players are still in the league from the second round, all but one of them as starters or rotation players, adding 22 more points for a total of 81.

In comparison, the draft of 1984 had only a few later round players of note - Jerome Kersey, Ron Anderson, and Rick Carlisle.

Surprisingly, the 2004 draft first round was on paper a little stronger than the 2003 draft, at 60:

Dwight Howard - All-Star (4)
Emeka Okafor - Starter, injury issues (2)
Ben Gordon - Rotation (2)
Shaun Livingston - Starter, injury issues (2)
Devin Harris - Starter (3)
Josh Childress - Rotation (2)
Luol Deng - Starter (3)
Rafael Arujo - Washout (0)
Andre Iguodala - Starter (3)
Luke Jackson - Bench, injury issues (0)
Andris Biedrins - Rotation (2)
Robert Swift - Starter, injury issues (2)
Sebastian Telfair - Rotation (2)
Kris Humphries - Rotation (2)
Al Jefferson - Starter (3)
Kirk Synder - Rotation (2)
Josh Smith - Starter (3)
J.R. Smith - Rotation (2)
Dorell Wright - Starter (3)
Jameer Nelson - Starter (3)
Pavel Podkolzine - Washout (0)
Viktor Khryapa - Washout (0)
Sergei Monia - Washout (0)
Delonte West - Starter (3)
Tony Allen - Rotation (2)
Kevin Martin - Starter (3)
Sasha Vujacic - Rotation (2)
Beno Udrih - Starter (3)
David Harrison - Rotation (2)

One difference is, this draft had a more typical 7 additional points in the second round via four players, Anderson Varejao, Royal Ivey, Chris Duhon, and Trevor Ariza, for a total of 67. As you've probably read elsewhere, the thing that made the 2003 draft amazing was the sheer number of good players available.

Still, I think it's too early to evaluate the 2004 draft. Not only are there players there who look like possible to likely future All-Stars (Deng, Iguodala, Jefferson, Josh Smith, Kevin Martin), there are others who are probably going to wash out of the league and whose present value may be inflated versus an analysis done at the end of their careers. That said, another difference between the 2003 and 2004 drafts, and the reason for the higher score is that there were fewer busts in the latter. Still not a sterling testimonial for Nash, the 2004 draft.

Speaking of which, all of this is a separate question from the draft value of players to the teams that actually held their draft rights when draft night was over, which is a better measure of the performance of drafting team GMs. Of course, the real measure of a GM is does he bring home a championship trophy. Say what you want about Danny Ainge, such as, that he's a no talent hack who happens to have a good friend who was willing to give him KG for Jefferson, some draft picks, and filler. But the Celtics are poised to win a title. The same argument could be made about Kupchak regarding the Gasol trade.

What about this draft? I guess we'll have to check in five years.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Notice all the shooters from the LBJ draft still near the top

Kapono, Jones, Korver. Interesting. Good year for shooters I guess…

by Montavilla Steve on Jun 17, 2008 5:26 PM PDT reply actions

Who does

Dorell Wright start for?

"My, that is a handsome fella. He must be the offspring of a Greek God!" - Bill Walton calling a Clipper's-Laker's game as Luke Walton checks in.

by JTDuck22 on Jun 17, 2008 7:42 PM PDT reply actions

He was starting for Miami

for a bit. He might best be labeled as rotation

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 17, 2008 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Telfair started most of the year too

But, like you said, rotation works as a description just as good.

I liked this post, it was interesting to my brain. I like comparing draft years. I think Oden’s draft class will be one of the best ever, up there with ‘84 and ‘03.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jun 17, 2008 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions

He actually started over 30 games this season

But he’s about as borderline a starter as one can be – starting less than half the games for the worst team in the league.

by baduk on Jun 18, 2008 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions

It does raise an issue, also, with odd team choices

Prime example: the Bulls have opted to bring Ben Gordon off the bench and start Chris Duhon to “balance” the offense, but it would be tough to find a Bulls fan that looks at Du as more valuable than BG. Here it evens out since they were from the same draft.

But it’s tough to come up with a rating scale where there aren’t exceptions here and there. Interesting post!

Here's to what was suppose to be the most exciting offseason in years, but has instead spiraled downward into pitiful morass of indecision. Cheers!

by wjb1492 on Jun 19, 2008 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Mind if I go off topic?

I by no means, mean this to be offensive, but KU fans seem to be the most cult-like of all American sports team fans. Do you see that as well?

by tominhawaii on Jun 20, 2008 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions

I can't swear that no other team's fans are equal,

but based on the teams I am a fan of and my interaction with other fans of those teams, KU fans (as a whole) are pretty extreme in their devotion. I’m not positive why, but it definitely sucks you in. KU was the second of three universities I have attended/am attending, that degree took the shortest amount of time to complete, yet if you asked me what college team I cheer for the Jayhawks would still top the list. (It gets uncomfortable at times since I’m now at Big 12 rival Oklahoma State)

Sorry for the dissertation there – I suppose a simple yes would have done!

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

by wjb1492 on Jun 20, 2008 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Sweet Thanks

PTLAPTA

by tominhawaii on Jun 20, 2008 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions

That's why you love Kevin Pritchard so much

His Jayhawk allure brought ya to Blazers Edge to bask in his alumni greatness!

I never even HEARD of Kansas before Pritchard, but it’s my favorite college team now just because of him.

Ok, I don’t have a favorite college team but if I did it would be Kansas, because KP built that program up with his two bare hands out of corn and spit. He is a man’s man, a visionary, plus straight street.

And best, he has a raging Jayhawk for anyone from Kansas, so he loves you too. He didn’t even think of Raef’s expiring deal when we traded for him in the Roy deal. He would trade for Danny Manning if possible.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jun 21, 2008 1:43 AM PDT up reply actions

Making Kirk Hinrich a perfect fit...

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

by wjb1492 on Jun 21, 2008 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions

Why does Luke Jackson get the benefit of "injury issues"?

The flat truth is that he can’t stick with a team while healthy. Cleveland, Miami, Clippers and Toronto have all cut him loose during the past 4 years. Unless he’s a chronic cripple, I’d say there might be something else going on.

by fat27 on Jun 17, 2008 9:11 PM PDT reply actions

Yeah, valid point

On the other hand, he’s zero points, either way.

And the injury he had was so bad it really threw off his career, it’s not clear what kind of player he might have been if he hadn’t had it. But again, he’s a zero in the calculations.

by baduk on Jun 18, 2008 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions

Severe injury?

He missed 52 games with knee tendinitis and back spasms during his rookie year (2004), and 35 games with a wrist injury the next year (2005). The only other game he missed because of injuries was Feb 2008 with the flu.

Since 2006 he’s been traded from the Cavs, waived by the Celts, waived by the Raptors and waived by the Clippers.

The guy just isn’t strong enough to play the 3, or quick enough to play the 2 in the NBA and he’s not been a good enough shooter for teams to overlook his physical limitations, ie Kyle Korver .

by fat27 on Jun 29, 2008 4:03 AM PDT up reply actions

A title should count for something if the player was a starter / rotation player

So for example:
Bump up Wade again
Perkins +1

Also it doesn’t seem right seeing Jarvis Hayes and Milicic in the same group with guys like Barbosa, Ford and Outlaw.

Coach, I promise I wasn't running hard ...

by Norsktroll on Jun 17, 2008 10:08 PM PDT reply actions

Robert Horry fan, are we?

It’s not an exact system, that’s for sure. But I think there’s still a chance for Barbosa and Outlaw to end up as starters or even All-Stars, while the long term for Hayes and Milicic is probably not quite as good.

by baduk on Jun 18, 2008 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions

The problem is

a starter on a bad team might be a bench player on a good team and vice-versa. That should figure into your calculation. For instance, Jameer Nelson playing behind Steve Nash in Phoenix or Jason Kidd in NJ/Dallas would be a 2. But on Orlando he’s a 3.

Blazermania - It's not just for die-hards anymore.

by Blazerholic on Jun 17, 2008 10:45 PM PDT reply actions

There's no doubt location matters

But I’d argue it makes more sense to rate players based on the career they’re having/had, not the one they could have had on another team. Yes, Jameer Nelson wouldn’t be a starter for some teams, but he does, in fact, start. Beno Udrih is a classic example and beneficiary of this – he warmed the bench for years in San Antonio, but started last year for Sacramento.

by baduk on Jun 18, 2008 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions

No system is perfect.

Baduk has come up with one that’s simple yet fairly useful. The fact there are a few players one might quibble about as to rating, over all I like it.

by timg56 on Jun 18, 2008 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions

I like your idea

and to to nitpick, but you should really wieght superstars heavier relative to the others. Jordan is no mere 5. You can’t give him the same number as Kobe, or anyone else.

One way to solve this would be to give superstars 10s (that’s what really makes the draft. Let Kobe and Jordan get the same number. Add a 5 when any player gets a championship so long as that player was at least a rotation player(Norskoll proposed a +1, but I think it’s worth five times that much, but very good idea Norsk). Then multiply that number by the number of championships they had. Jordan’s would be (10+5)6= 90 while Kobe’s would be (10+5)3= 45. That’ll give you a filter for winning and for greatness. Also, let’s give all-stars some credit by making them more than one step above a starter, give them 7s, and a starter is a 4. Your other numbers are fine. This gives more wieght to true talent and winning relative to merely hanging around the league. THere’s probably a bigger difference that these numbers would even show.

So 2003 looks like this (you numbers are left in):

LeBron James – Super-Star (5) 10

Darko Milicic – Starter, injury issues (2) 4

Carmelo Anthony – All-Star (4) 7
Chris Bosh – All-Star (4) 7
Dwyane Wade – Super-Star, injury issues (4) 15 (he’s still sooooo good. I don’t think you can knock him down on injuries yet. If he turns into Vince Carter, then he’ll need it, but he’s only 25, so no knocking him down)
Chris Kaman – Starter (3) 4
Kirk Hinrich – Starter (3) 4
T.J. Ford – Starter, injury issues (2) 3 (he’s good, but those ARE SERIOUS issues)
Mike Sweetney – Washout (0)
Jarvis Hayes – Rotation (2) 2
Mickael Pietrus – Rotation (2) 2
Nick Collison – Starter (3) 4
Marcus Banks – Bench (1) 1
Luke Ridnour – Rotation (2) 2
Reece Gaines – Washout (0)
Troy Bell – Washout (0)
Zarko Cabarkapa – Washout (0)
David West – All-Star (4) 7
Aleksander Pavlovic – Rotation (2) 2
Dahntay Jones – Washout (0)
Boris Diaw – Rotation (2) 2
Zoran Planinic – Washout (0)
Travis Outlaw – Rotation (2) 2 (although I think he’s specialer than that, Ginobli wouldn’t be a 2 and not just because of the Rings)
Brian Cook – Bench (1) 1
Carlos Delfino – Rotation (2) 2
Ndudi Ebi – Washout (0)
Kendrick Perkins – Starter (3) 8
Leandro Barbosa – Rotation (2) 2
Josh Howard – All-Star (4) 7

So the total here would be 98. Of course, Jordan was 90 all by himself. That makes it impossible to compare drafts until careers are done. That makes quite a bit of sense if you think about it. If you want to compare, you should compare years since teh draft points, where Jordan would still only be a 7, but probably not a 10 yet. That makes a case for how special Lebron might become, and how the draft class evolves over history.

At this point the 84 draft was hundreds of points above the 03 draft. How many championships can testify to this? Lots and lots. To compare the careers of a draft class only 5 years old to those of a retired class while throwing out accomplishments indicates a severe lack of meritorial perspective. We simply have to account for those things. Lebron is nothing compared to Jordan, Russell, Bird and others that HAVE ACTUALLY BEAT the best in the league. Until he can do that, he’s WAY below those that have. Give those guys their due. They won and should be separated from those that don’t in any rating schema we come up with.

I really liked your post, but I just want to make sure we don’t get ahead of ourselves in thinking that the guys we have today are anything compared to the legends of the NBA.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Jun 18, 2008 9:58 AM PDT reply actions

Excellent post

While not perfect, I see what you did there and I appreciate it. Good forum banter at least. Would you throw 1984 up there for us to compare?

by RememberRastaMonsta! on Jun 18, 2008 11:14 AM PDT reply actions

this draft = BORING!!!

Man, after last years amazing ride, this year doesn’t hold a candle. It’s nearly unbearable for me at this point. I’m excited to see what KP and his magic wand pull off this year, but my excitement for gameplay is overwhelming.

I want the draft over with, I want the summer over with, I want the summer league over with, and I want training camp over with.

I’m all for good things happening to those that wait… but we’ve waited for LONG ENOUGH!!!

BRING ON THE 08-09 SEASON!!!

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jun 18, 2008 3:31 PM PDT reply actions

Word

All the pundits say this is a good draft and deep and long and strong, and I find it to be utterly boring unless you love undersized shooting guards with either reputations for a bad attitude or have holes in their game.

I’ll love to watch the draft like I always do, and I think KP can make sumthin’ good happen, but I also realize it will probably pale in comparison to the last two drafts—how could it not? Those two drafts completely changed the face and direction of our franchise, turned us from a joke to the team of the future. This draft will hopefully just get guys to help the previous players get over the top. Obviously, that isn’t as exciting.

AND, since we got so many guys we wanna keep, it’s not as if we got a lot of moveable pieces (even if they have value and are indeed moveable on talent and contract alone) that we’ll wanna trade.

If people are expecting big things this draft, I hope they aren’t disappointed. We’re in such a good position, as long as we don’t trade away people foolishly we can’t help but get a lot better. We don’t NEED the draft.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jun 18, 2008 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions