Using History to Gauge Expectations for the Draft

Note: This article isn't meant as a way to help scout players. It is more meant to show what to expect from certain draft ranges. Don't take it as me saying that numbers don't fluctuate or history can't be rewritten.

The draft can almost be looked at as a science. There are years of data from previous drafts that can show teams what they can expect from picks from their slot, and unlike what many think, the lottery is not an automatic ticket for an all-star. In fact, using data from 1997-2007 (found here), only 25% of top ten picks reach all-star status.

That is not to say the draft is overrated. The draft can turn a franchise around if they land a gold medal superstar type player (defined as a top 5 player in the NBA). For small market teams, it is almost impossible to acquire a player of this caliber unless they are drafted. You saw what LeBron James did for Cleveland and what Kevin Durant is doing now in Oklahoma City. Both of these franchises struck gold through the draft. Unfortunately for Cleveland, they lost LeBron to a more appealing city, which makes the reason for small market teams drafting well that much more important. The Thunder on the other hand have managed to gather complementary players through the draft to help Durant. With their strategy of targeting athletic, long, and defensive-minded player with high character, the Thunder are now in the second round in the playoffs and have an extremely bright future.

The only problem is there are only so many franchise changing players. Not every draft has one. This draft is arguably one of the weakest all time, mainly for the reason that there is no huge superstar. Irving and Williams are nice, but could they turn around a franchise? A great deal of luck is required to end up in position to draft LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan, Derrick Rose, and Kevin Durant. For other franchise level players like Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Tracy McGrady and Dirk Nowitzki it also takes some risks and good scouting.

The draft is a little different now that high school kids can't declare, but taking a chance on a high upside guy in the 5-15 range were the ways some teams got competitive. It may take a teams a few tries before finding their man, but once they hit a home run, they were set for a decade (see Mavs, Lakers, Wolves). In this year's draft, Perry Jones could have been that big lottery ticket that could be had after the the first few players were off the board. There is still some hope for a gold medal superstar in this draft, though, for teams outside the top 5. The hope is through the international players.

The international phase has slowed down since its peak about 6 years ago, but with a weak NCAA crop, there are quite a few internationals in the lottery discussions. Motiejunas, Valanciunas, Kanter, Vesely, and Biyombo all offer that sort of mysterious upside that NBA teams are intrigued by. Without high school players, international players are the great hope for "getting out of the hood" (aka the lottery). Dirk managed to do it, so for over a decade, everyone has been searching for the next Dirk. Maybe this draft has it, maybe not. But there will be plenty of teams willing to take a shot at one of these guys in the lottery.

Why?

Besides the fact that some of the NCAA guys have lower ceilings (no Gold Medal Superstar potential), but also because the lottery is a lot more of a hit and miss than what is perceived. When only 25% of the players in the top 10 become all-stars, why not swing for the best chance of turning your entire team around. Often times, teams find solid starters in the NBA by selecting sure things in the lottery (see Timberwolves by taking Wes Johnson over Cousins), but it does nothing to help them in the win column. Golden State may find an above average player like Curry, but all it does it take them farther away from their chance to strike gold in the following draft.

It is all very much a guessing game and weighing your options. Many scouts opinions on actual players aren't far off from one another, the main difference I see is the way they approach the draft. Do you want a high risk/high reward player or a player you know will end up being a solid starter, but nothing else?

Answering that question really all depends on the situation and how you feel about certain players. You don't take Perry Jones if you have a bad feeling about him just because of the notion that he has high upside. Talent evaluators should trust their instincts, but also be sure to look at the bigger picture. It also depends on your current roster. When the Thunder had another top 5 pick in 2008 after drafting Durant in 2007, they didn't need to find another superstar. They needed to find a player that could fit in with him. And they did by taking Russell Westbrook. To read more about finding players that fit your team, check out this article.

Anyway, to examine realistic expectations for this draft, I will use the chart posted at the beginning of this article as a basis and apply it to my current mock draft. Keep in mind that this draft is a little weaker than normal so it may be necessary to round down the numbers.

Current Top 5
1. Kyrie Irving
2. Derrick Williams
3. Bismack Biyombo
4. Jan Vesely
5. Brandon Knight

On average, one or two players from the top 5 turn out to be all stars (one and a half to be exact). Since players can't be split into two and this is a weak draft, I'll choose Derrick Williams as the only all-star. Another one or two players from this group should become starters (again, one and a half to be exact). I'll go ahead and choose two to bring us up to a total of three players. Kyrie Irving and Jan Vesely will be my choices, with Irving being closer to landing an all-star bid.

There is still hope for the other two guys. If you are picked in the top 5, it is almost a guarantee that you become a rotational player. Only 10% (one every other draft) have failed to contribute at least in that way. It would make sense for both Biyombo and Knight. Knight has the making of a solid 6th man off the bench while it isn't hard to see Biyombo not living up to the hype but still contributing on defense.

Part of the reason I like Biyombo so much is because of the realities of the draft. He offers that mystery and upside, but also should be a positive addition even if he doesn't develop because of his defense and character. He is the kind of guy the Thunder would have looked for in 2008 to help out Durant. It is hard to go wrong with a hard working, defensive-mind, player with great length and athleticism. Plus, centers are expensive. You can find cheap backups for any position except center. There are too many backup centers out there making the full mid-level exception. That is one of the reason centers are always drafted higher than their talent may suggest - they are cheaper than finding one in free agency.

Moving on to picks 6-10...

6. Kawhi Leonard
7. Enes Kanter
8. Kemba Walker
9. Jonas Valanciunas
10. Donatas Motiejunas

The international players hold a strong presence in this draft. If you are looking for the next big thing, go ahead and take one in this weak draft. A guy like Motiejunas has a high bust rate, but some scouts have likened him to the next Dirk. Think he will slip past the top 10? Doubt it.

Out of this block of players, one of them should make become an all-star. If I had to guess, it would be Enes Kanter. I love Kawhi Leonard more than most, but he doesn't offer that kind of upside. Neither does Walker. Motiejunas is more of a gamble, even though he has actually played competitive basketball recently. I don't see the intrigue in Valanciunas as much as others, at least not as an all-star.

At least one more guy figures to be a starter based on draft history. I have to stick to my guns here with Kawhi Leonard. He doesn't have the upside, but he has the makings of a very solid player, which is why I rank him so high despite of his ceiling.

The numbers get foggy from here between a rotational player and a bust, but there is usually at least one of each. With Kemba's scoring ability, he looks like a great bet for a role player. It would be tough for Valanciunas to not be a role player wither if he decides to come over. Motiejunas is the wildcard of this group. He defines high risk/high reward. He could end up being the best or worst of this array of players. Most teams would agree with that, but different teams would have different ideas of what it means his worth is.

This is where it can get depressing for teams with a lottery pick. Since the 1997 draft, there have been no all-stars draft in the 11-15 range (Kobe, Peja, and Steve Nash were all picked in this range in the 1996, however). Once every two years a team can find a player worthy of starting. Half end up having no real impact while the rest find spots in the rotation.

11. Terrence Jones
12. Alec Burks
13. Tristan Thompson
14. Jimmer Fredette
15. Marcus Morris

In this case, the above statistics really make a lot of sense to me. I see Jimmer as a likely bust. I haven't been a fan of Terrence Jones all year. Marcus Morris is an underwhelming pro prospect. Tristan Thompson has some upside, but isn't ready to contribute. Even my favorite player of the group, Alec Burks, is far from a sure thing. Rather than picking a player to end up being a successful starter from this group, I'd rather place my money on whoever the Houston Rockets pick. The later in the draft you go, the more important it is that the guy goes to a team with a good coaching staff and player development team. The Rockets always put their players in good situations to succeed (Landry, Patterson, Brooks, Lowry, Hayes to name a few).

Remember at the beginning of the article how I noted that this isn't a way to scout players. See the next draft range (16-20) as a reason why. This range has actually produced a few all-stars in the past ten years - Ron Artest, Jamaal Magloire, Zach Randolph, David West, Jameer Nelson, and Danny Granger. Its very weird indeed how the previous range was unable to produce all-stars, but you would be foolish to believe that picking in this range is somehow better. Talent evaluation is more important than draft position. In the end, you have to have trust your drafting abilities over a ten year snippet of history.

16. Kenneth Faried
17. Klay Thompson
18. Nikola Mirotic
19. Nolan Smith
20. Jordan Hamilton

One of these guys likely becomes a starter. Nolan Smith and Kenneth Faried are both viewed as solid backup types. Mirotic may not ever come over to the NBA. I'd say this would be between Hamilton and Thompson and I like Thompson better. At least one other should become a rotational player. This is tough because I see role playing abilities in all of these guys. As other people have said, this draft is weak up top, but around this area, there are some solid players to be had. If I had to choose one, it would be Nolan Smith I guess. The only reason I wouldn't take Mirotic, even though I like him more than any other player in this group, is become his interest in the NBA seems very low. He just signed a big contract with Real Madrid to enforce this belief.

21. Josh Selby
22. Markieff Morris
23. Tyler Honeycutt
24. Justin Harper
25. Travis Leslie
26. Tobias Harris
27. Chris Singleton
28. Jereme Richmond
29. Reggie Jackson
30. Iman Shumpert

By now, you get the point. We are grasping for straws here. A lot of these guys I believe can contribute in the NBA, but the situation they are placed in will play a big part in their career path. There have been some all-star caliber players, but not every year. In this group, Richmond and Honeycutt have the best chance of making that happen in my opinion. Selby offers some upside too, but as more of a 6th man scorer.

As you can see from the success rate of previous drafts, these players often just fade out of the league. Teams picking in this range are likely playoff teams, so they have to fight hard to get playing time. If I had a pick in this range, I'd prefer to swing for Honeycutt or Richmond in most situations (some reservations though with Richmond if the lockerroom isn't perfect. Cant have him being a distraction for a contending team...but there is always the D-League). For other contenders, they might be looking for something specific. Some teams might need a stretch four to play ten minutes a game. Justin Harper is your guy. Others need a lock down defender - consider Shumpert or Singleton. A big body? Markieff Morris. Scorer? Josh Selby. You get the point. Rankings can go out the window here unless there is a guy you really think is underrated. Here, it is all about putting your player in the best position to succeed.

In the second round, without guaranteed contracts, you just want to pick a guy that has a chance of sticking on your roster. International players or guys with passports are pluses because you can hold onto their rights while they play overseas. The second round has had some gems like Michael Redd, Gilbert Arenas, Carlos Boozer, Manu Ginobili, and Marc Gasol. There is hope, but be happy if you ever see the guy logging minutes for your team

Fit versus Need - Whats the difference?

One thing that irks me when discussing mock drafts is when people talk about what their team needs. They justify taking player X over another player because they already have a quality player at the potential draftees position. Looking back through these types of talk provides high comedy, as often times it leads teams to picking the worse player. The NBA draft is enough of a guessing game - get a guy you feel has the best chance to become a solid player.

Discussing needs at the top of the draft is especially cringe-worthy. We are talking about teams that failed to make the playoffs. They could use help anywhere. Seriously, should the Bobcats refrain from taking a power forward because they have Tyrus Thomas? Or DJ Augustin? Or with Cleveland, do they also ignore all power forwards since they house JJ Hickson on their roster? Seems like a great way to eliminate a good amount of the player pool to me.

For anyone making those arguments, do yourself a favor and go back a few years a look at rosters. Decent/solid starter types get worse, or leave for a new team often. Unless Blake Griffin is your PF, dont count out drafting a PF in the lottery.

People fail to realize that there are 48 minutes in a basketball game. Plenty of wings are interchangeable, along with bigs, so there can be 96 minutes at each. Its not hard to find starter minutes for three wings if they are all good - its not a bad problem to have. The NBA also allows trades which is a novel concept. Bottom feeder teams need to concentrate on getting quality pieces for their team, whether they need them or not. Trade chips are always useful and they can hold onto them for a couple of years until they are ready to make a run.

Because of that wall of text, you may believe that I think that every team's draft board should look the same then. Actually, quite the opposite. Style of play is a lot more important than need. Countless times a player has failed on one team and then bloomed on another. Coaching, teammates, minutes (which can be called need, but its a small part of a bigger equation), tempo, scheme are all factors. I'll break them down one by one.

Coaching - Coaches change as much as players, so some teams that go through coaches like underwear should disregard this. But you don't draft a player with a weak mental make-up to play with Jerry Sloan. Also, some teams have great big men coaches that have had success at developing raw big men. If you have on, you can pull the trigger on Keith Benson - maybe even in the 1st round. If not, let him go. He'll flop in your organization.

Teammates - If Im the Kings, I want to avoid drafting a kid with character issues. They have enough problems and dont have the kind of players to help someone out like that. Teams with strong locker rooms, like the Spurs, can afford to take a problem child. He'll learn quickly to either "put up" or "shut up". In addition, if you lack an energy/locker room guy, take one in the second round. If you have too many players that are selfish, dont add to the fire.

Minutes - Minutes are necessary for players to develop, some more so than others. Its a nice bonus to be able to give a player some playing time. For some guys, too much may break their confidence if they arent ready to be thrown into the fire. Others will lose confidence and/or interest if they are forced to ride the bench all year.

Tempo - This is pretty easy to explain and understand. There are halfcourt guys and fullcourt guys. If you are the Suns, Knicks, or Warriors look for a guy who can get up and down the court as opposed to a slow plodder. The Blazers shouldn't be drafting anyone who only scores in transition.

Scheme - This goes along with tempo and coaching, just more specific to individual teams. A popular example this year would be how Jordan Hamilton would transfer to Utah's flex offense. Hamilton plays in the same offense at Texas and his shooting makes him a good fit there.

There are other factors to look at, but dont make and break anything. All these are simply part of an equation that should effect each team's draft board. Like for the Raptors, they have a young wing that is more of a slasher. To complement him, they could look for another wing who can shoot. This becomes more of a factor if we are talking about complementing a star player. In Philly, Turner and Iguodala dont complement each other. Its up in the air whether it was a bad pick, although rumor has it that the 76ers might trade Iguodala in the offseason. With a high pick like that, its understandable to take the player everyone had pegged as the second best in the draft. My beliefs become more true the farther you go down the draft board. Top 5 should mainly be best player available.

Another thing to focus on is defense. Using the 76ers as an example, they have great perimeter defenders. Some may think that it would give them leeway in drafting a perimeter defender who cant defend. Quite the contrary, because a poor defender would render the rest of the strong defenders useless in the land of the NBA, where one-on-one matchups are exploited.

With great defensive bigs, though, you can lean on them to erase bad guard defense. And then there are the teams that are so bad defensively, that they seem to have lost interest in even trying to fix the problem. Teams like the Warriors are where you send the Jimmers of the world to have a good career of losing basketball.

One final thought is the change of pace pick. Using the 76ers again, all their bigs are the same. Brand, Hawes, Young, Speights, Songaila, Brackins, and Battie are all jump shooters who fail to provide a defensive presence. Adding a guy like John Henson would really change the feel to that group.

The right situation can make or break a player. Pre-draft rankings are only good for a general idea. Once players find their team, one can make a better guess at how the players career with play out.

Now go ahead and check out your favorite team's roster from a few years ago and tell me what you think.