Comments on: The Value of an NBA Draft Pick: Part III http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847 NBA & ABA Basketball Statistics & History Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:56:04 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Jake @ Jump Higher http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847&cpage=1#comment-14064 Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:31:45 +0000 http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847#comment-14064 Why Chris Paul is on the list but no Kobe Bryant and Lebron James?

I think no matter where Jordan ends up, he still gonna win because of his killer instinct, and his character makes everyone around him better. Jordan's competitiveness is unmatched, just like Kobe. Watch the way they play and the intensity of their game.

]]>
By: MCT http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847&cpage=1#comment-10842 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:33:44 +0000 http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847#comment-10842 Interesting series of articles. One minor footnote to add: Larry Bird probably deserves an asterisk because of the unusual circumstances under which he was drafted.

As many people know, the Celtics drafted Bird when he was a junior and had to wait a year to sign him. He was selected under a now-defunct draft rule called the "junior eligible rule". Under this rule, any college player for whom four years had elapsed since his high school class had graduated was eligible to be drafted. This was true even if he still he had college eligibility remaining and had expressed no interest in turning pro at this point (the player was automatically eligible, whether he wanted to be or not). The way the rule worked in 1978, if the player returned to college, the team only had his draft rights until the following year's draft. If the player hadn't signed by then, he would go back into the draft pool and was eligible to be drafted again. Thus, when the Celtics drafted Bird, not only did they have to wait a year for him, they had no guarantee that they would actually get him the following year. If they hadn't been able to sign him before the day of the 1979 draft, they would have lost their rights to him, with absolutely nothing to show for that #6 pick. (An earlier version of the rule had voided the player's draft rights as soon as he returned to college, but by 1978 the rights lasted until the following year's draft).

Because of the risk involved in drafting a junior eligible, teams rarely used a high pick on one unless they were pretty sure the player was going to turn pro right away. Consequently, uncommitted junior eligibles were invariably selected at a lower draft position than they otherwise would have been (often much, much lower). From a talent standpoint, Bird was better than a #6 pick, and probably would have gone #1 or #2 overall had he re-entered the draft in 1979. The Celtics deserve credit for getting a player like Bird with a #6 pick, but the considerations that went into that selection (and to the five teams picking ahead of Boston deciding not to take Bird) were different from any other pick in this survey.

]]>
By: Jason J http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847&cpage=1#comment-10730 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:33:14 +0000 http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847#comment-10730 So wait, Michael Jordan missed practically his entire second season and is still top 4 on the list of players w/ the highest win shares above expectations in their first 4 seasons? Love it. Also that David Robinson, a #1 pick, is so high is really something (though coming into the league at his age and maturity probably helped).

]]>
By: Anon http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847&cpage=1#comment-10721 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:08:48 +0000 http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847#comment-10721 "Was Jordan really better than Olajuwon? Or did he just have a more consistent lineup?"

Yes to both questions.

]]>
By: Mike G http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847&cpage=1#comment-10720 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:35:22 +0000 http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847#comment-10720 Was Jordan really better than Olajuwon? Or did he just have a more consistent lineup? Would Jordan have teamed with Sampson, Reid, Wiggins, et al to reach the Finals in year 2? Would he have won more than 2 titles if he'd then lost his #2 to injury, and 3 of his next 5 to drug suspension?

In the playoff games he got into, Olajuwon was better than anyone else of his generation. He won titles with a lot less help than Jordan had in either the first or 2nd 3-peat. Not to say MJ was just lucky, but he had better luck than Hakeem had.

]]>
By: Dave http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847&cpage=1#comment-10714 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:32:16 +0000 http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847#comment-10714 Yes Dan, you seem to have picked up that those teams were drafting for specific needs, but any way you slice it Jordan was the best player. Essentially by the draft Portland thought Drexler and Bowie would be better than Drexler and Jordan or Jordan and whoever they could've turned Drexler into. And that isn't getting into Houston (who already had a decent young big in Ralph Sampson). My point is that it seems to be a BIG mistake to draft for need over talent at the top of the draft.

I accept Barkley was undersized, but extremely productive, I can't see what stopped him going before Perkins or Bowie ... oh wait, those teams needed a C, not the best players...

Actually part of the point in my last post was the fact that Jordan went 3rd and Barkley went 5th - so near the top of the draft, and personally I would've picked Hakeem over both of them every time - I just would be wrong.

]]>
By: Dan G http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847&cpage=1#comment-10712 Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:27:24 +0000 http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847#comment-10712 "One might ask why Jordan and Barclay weren’t picked higher in their own draft … Stockton I understand he is a short PG, and historically they have always been picked later."

Jordan was picked third due to the Blazers already having Clyde Drexler and being in need of a Centre and Barkley was under-sized for the PF position.

]]>
By: Dave http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847&cpage=1#comment-10700 Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:47:14 +0000 http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847#comment-10700 Justin,
Most of the players on your list have long careers and would've shown up on your list if they had all been #1 picks (hard to do if you are in '84 Draft), I have seen Mike use WS/484 min to get WS as a rate rather than a cumulative total.
Do you have an opinion on that? and if you agree could you consider adding it to your table of advanced stats :)

One might ask why Jordan and Barclay weren't picked higher in their own draft ... Stockton I understand he is a short PG, and historically they have always been picked later.

]]>
By: Gary C http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847&cpage=1#comment-10697 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:25:07 +0000 http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847#comment-10697 Since Shaq is ahead of Robinson in WS and they are both #1's, should he be ahead on this list too?

]]>
By: Johnny Twisto http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847&cpage=1#comment-10695 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:13:42 +0000 http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=2847#comment-10695 Scouting HAS gotten better, if only because more players are scouted more extensively now. There's film of almost every college basketball game now. The draft used to be 8 rounds or whatever because teams didn't know as much about all the players. I'm sure teams drafted some players whom they had never seen play, or had barely seen, but they put up some good numbers for Eastern Washington State so you take a chance and pick them.

That Win Shares leaderboard should have a large disclaimer that it is only calculated since '73-'74.

]]>