Are Top 5 picks that much better? (split)
- Thread starter KingsFanSince85
- Start date
While the premise is correct, these numbers are quite badly off.
Considering that no players from the 2016 or 2017 drafts have yet been selected as All-Stars, we can for now ignore these drafts. For the 16 drafts between 2000-2015, the numbers are as follows:
Picks 1-5: 29 of 80 (36.3%)
Picks 6-10: 17 of 80 (21.3%)
Picks 11-20: 10 of 160 (6.3%)
Picks 21-60: 20 of 629 (3.2%)
These numbers are obviously subject to change as players from recent drafts begin to be selected for All-Star games.
The number of total picks 21+ is a bit funky because Minnesota had several picks forfeited due to the Joe Smith situation, and because there were only 28 teams in the league until 2004. It appears that no player who was not selected in the draft has ever been selected as an All-Star.
Considering that no players from the 2016 or 2017 drafts have yet been selected as All-Stars, we can for now ignore these drafts. For the 16 drafts between 2000-2015, the numbers are as follows:
Picks 1-5: 29 of 80 (36.3%)
Kenyon Martin, Tyson Chandler, Pau Gasol, Yao Ming, LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard, Devin Harris, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Durant, Al Horford, Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love, Blake Griffin, James Harden, John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Bradley Beal, Victor Oladipo, Joel Embiid, Karl-Anthony Towns, Kristaps Porzingis
Picks 6-10: 17 of 80 (21.3%)
Joe Johnson, Amare Stoudemire, Caron Butler, Chris Kaman, Luol Deng, Andre Iguodala, Andrew Bynum, Brandon Roy, Joakim Noah, Brook Lopez, Stephen Curry, DeMar DeRozan, Gordon Hayward, Paul George, Kemba Walker, Damian Lillard, Andre Drummond
Picks 11-20: 10 of 160 (6.3%)
Jamaal Magloire, Zach Randolph, David West, Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert, Jrue Holiday, Jeff Teague, Klay Thompson, Kawhi Leonard, Giannis Antetokounmpo
Picks 21-60: 20 of 629 (3.2%)
Michael Redd, Gerald Wallace, Tony Parker, Gilbert Arenas, Mehmet Okur, Carlos Boozer, Josh Howard, Mo Williams, Kyle Korver, Jameer Nelson, David Lee, Rajon Rondo, Kyle Lowry, Paul Millsap, Marc Gasol, DeAndre Jordan, Goran Dragic, Jimmy Butler, Isaiah Thomas, Draymond Green
These numbers are obviously subject to change as players from recent drafts begin to be selected for All-Star games.
The number of total picks 21+ is a bit funky because Minnesota had several picks forfeited due to the Joe Smith situation, and because there were only 28 teams in the league until 2004. It appears that no player who was not selected in the draft has ever been selected as an All-Star.
Interesting. So how do we combine these odds with lottery odds of ending up in one of these buckets to assign true value/cost to tanking/not-tanking? That is, how much more likely is Atlanta (3rd in lins) to draft an all-star than Kings are (7th in lins). It must be less then just the difference between drafting 1-5 and drafting 6-10...
The draft is looking like it has the top tier of Ayton, Bagley, Doncic, and then it gets a bit more muddy from picks 4-10, so I can kinda see where this question is coming from.
But the stats don't lie. Top 5 is way more valuable. I'd much rather choose between Bamba and JJJ than pick whichever Bridges is left to us at 10.
But whatever. As the kids continue to win games for us, I find my dedication to the tank waning. It was easier to flip out on Joerger when Temple and Z-bo were getting those Ws. Plus Miles is supposed to be the next Kawhi! Or was that Mikal.....
But the stats don't lie. Top 5 is way more valuable. I'd much rather choose between Bamba and JJJ than pick whichever Bridges is left to us at 10.
But whatever. As the kids continue to win games for us, I find my dedication to the tank waning. It was easier to flip out on Joerger when Temple and Z-bo were getting those Ws. Plus Miles is supposed to be the next Kawhi! Or was that Mikal.....
The problem isn't that stats lie. The problem is that some people seem to think that "rational" or objective discussion means, "The best chance of getting a superstar is with a Top 3 pick... and therefore, you all need to agree with me that the Kings should tank!"
... But that trick never works!
Every team in the top 4 in both conferences except Toronto has a top 3 draft pick on their roster.
So if you want to be a contender for a championship you either:
1) better be significantly superior to your peers in drafting. Top 10%
2) better tank when possible to get a top 3 pick
3) sign one via free agency
4) accept your ceiling will be making the playoff
The Kings have lost position in the second half of the season after the not having a shot.
At the half this year we were in 3rd draft position, now we are 7th
At the half last year we were in 8th, we traded an all star and finished 7th
Kings aren’t signing a top 3 free agent.
Since the Kings appear no where close to 1, are unwilling to do 2, can’t do 3, 4 seems to be the reality. It’s a reality those in the Lin crowd would rather not accept when other teams take path 2.
Last edited:
I legitimately don't think that the issue is whether or not people agree that that is factually correct. I think that the issue is that there some people (we'll call them Group A) who object to other fans (Group B) not considering that fact as being as important to their fan experience as Group A thinks they ought to.
I think everyone agrees that the best chance of finding all-star players is picking in the top 5. As Captain Factorial posted 36% of those picks are all-stars. 21.3 % of picks 6-10 are all stars as well though. That means that if you are picking 1-5 your chance of finding an all-start is about 15 percentage points higher than if you are picking 6-10. So far so good.
The next question is what is your chance of getting into the 1-5 bracket based on your win/loss record. Yes, the more you lose the higher your chance but I'm wondering what the actual numbers are. If you go all out sit healthy players, pull players on fire, play your G leaugers and end up in top 2 linners, then your chance of top 5 pick is 100% and your chance of drafting an all-star is higher by 15 percentage points then the other guys.
I have not done the math, but it seems that the actual increase in odds of finding an all-star by extreme tanking as opposed to just being bad (like the kings) is pretty low, at most 15%. Is my thinking about this incorrect?
The next question is what is your chance of getting into the 1-5 bracket based on your win/loss record. Yes, the more you lose the higher your chance but I'm wondering what the actual numbers are. If you go all out sit healthy players, pull players on fire, play your G leaugers and end up in top 2 linners, then your chance of top 5 pick is 100% and your chance of drafting an all-star is higher by 15 percentage points then the other guys.
I have not done the math, but it seems that the actual increase in odds of finding an all-star by extreme tanking as opposed to just being bad (like the kings) is pretty low, at most 15%. Is my thinking about this incorrect?
Many people across the internet have asked this question many times. Often they will use a cumulative stat like Career Win Shares to evaluate a player's total value. The result usually looks something like this:
(Link to source)
(Link to source)
Sure a top 5 pick is better. But maybe we should be asking another question. Do you have a better chance at winning in future seasons when you end the previous season on a winning streak, or at least on an upswing. We wanted them to play the youth. The youth are learning to compete with very good teams. It is hurting our up.coming draft. What are we supposed to do? Force them to lose?
Many people across the internet have asked this question many times. Often they will use a cumulative stat like Career Win Shares to evaluate a player's total value. The result usually looks something like this:
(Link to source)
(Link to source)
Where are you getting your data? If you use all-time the numbers are different. Using all time numbers:
1st 16.80%
2nd 10.17%
3rd. 9.61%
4th. 6.85%
5th. 8.02%
Total 51.45% of all all star appearances
6th 5.05%
7th 2.56%
8th 4.15%
9th 4.98%
10th 3.87%
Total 20.61% of all star appearances
Even if you look at players
152 players were drafted 1-5
78 players were drafted 6-10
Meaning you are almost twice as likely
If you look at percent of total 3 time all stars which is probably the best judge of impactful players:
97 players were drafted 1-5
46 players were drafted 6-10
Those numbers are more than twice as likely 110% to be exact.
1st 16.80%
2nd 10.17%
3rd. 9.61%
4th. 6.85%
5th. 8.02%
Total 51.45% of all all star appearances
6th 5.05%
7th 2.56%
8th 4.15%
9th 4.98%
10th 3.87%
Total 20.61% of all star appearances
Even if you look at players
152 players were drafted 1-5
78 players were drafted 6-10
Meaning you are almost twice as likely
If you look at percent of total 3 time all stars which is probably the best judge of impactful players:
97 players were drafted 1-5
46 players were drafted 6-10
Those numbers are more than twice as likely 110% to be exact.
Many people across the internet have asked this question many times. Often they will use a cumulative stat like Career Win Shares to evaluate a player's total value. The result usually looks something like this:
(Link to source)
(Link to source)
