Hoopsvibe has written a piece that evaluates the GM's on their drafts.
I think a much larger analysis needs to go into this. For example, he gives Atlanta's Billy Knight a b+ and Danny Ferry a C+ and Donnie Nelson a C. Also, too many picks are made by one team officially, but really are coming from another and the author doesn't differentiate. (Example: Seattle not Boston took Jeff Green)
The problem is that Knight has been drafting every year in a position to make a difference to his team whereas Ferry and Nelson have been drafting in the 20's and most of those players are non-impact players.
When scouting college players you need to break them into 5 categories: Franchise Changer, All-Star, Starter, Rotation, Roster.
The last draft was one of the best we have had in a long time and I would argue that it had the following breakdown. (Note the this means 14 starters).
2- Franchise Changers
2 - All-Stars
10 - starters (which is incredibly high for a draft)
8 to 10 - rotation (again very high)
? - roster
The point is this is one of the best and deepest drafts because of all the kids that had to go to college for a year and this is how the draft projected. Therefore, if you are picking in the 20's and get a player who plays you should be getting an A. If you are drafting in the high impact zone and you get a starter or a rotation player instead of an all-star you should get a C.
Any player who is taken in the second round and becomes a rotation player should be huge bonus points.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Seed Newsvine
2 comments:
It is tough to be exact what is good value for a certain level pick (though there are other studies out there at 82games and draft express , etc.) but getting a starter or rotation player in itself isnt a fully satisfying measure of success. I think you'd have to look at rank as a starter or quality of rotation player as well. Ridnour, Collison have been starters but starters who rank 20-30th best at their positions. That is on the low end of picking a starter success. Starting your picks is somewhat self-fulfilling and covering your work in some cases. I am tempted to give them a B- but there is room for variation and I havent gone back to study all the rports and alternatives and their rates of success.
As you stated, it's not necessarily right to judge a GM by what player he picked, but by what expected vs. actual.
In essence, Billy Knight should be judged not by the fact that he picked Marvin Williams in 2005, but that pick should be a failure as he passed on Chris Paul and Deron Williams, 2 difference makers.
In the Sonics situation, I have a hard time judging the 2003 draft as a success because the Sonics should have traded up (packaging both picks and Radman, a trade I was calling for at the time) or traded down to get Barbosa.
Hindsight is very useful for evaluating drafts to learn from previous drafts and becoming more adept at the art of the draft.
Post a Comment