The Imperfect Science of Tankology (split from Bizarro thread)
- Thread starter ockingsfan
- Start date
I recall that somebody looked at all the stats in years past on this. Maybe you can do the historical research. My memory is that there definitely was a much higher probability in the top 5 than below the top 5, and top 10 than below the top 10 of getting an All Star, but I don't recall the specific numbers.
The case for tanking has been made in a great many articles since Josh Cohen's 2015 article that became the base for many arguments based on his stats. The actual article seems lost in the memory hole but the dumbed down version is here: http://www.nba.com/magic/gallery/co...es-drafting-future-nba-all-star-based-history
Essential Cohen gives the odds of drafting an all star with a top 5 pick at 62% He then placed odds for a 6-10 pick yielding an all star at 22% and so on.
The best version of the counter argument can be found at beast line here: https://beastlinesports.wordpress.com/2018/02/19/the-case-against-tanking-in-the-nba/
Using differing criteria of drafting an all star with a top 5 pick at about (probably under) 35% The article then looks at the superstars drafted by year and concludes that 58% were NOT top 5 picks.
it's woth looking at each of these concise posts.
Essential Cohen gives the odds of drafting an all star with a top 5 pick at 62% He then placed odds for a 6-10 pick yielding an all star at 22% and so on.
The best version of the counter argument can be found at beast line here: https://beastlinesports.wordpress.com/2018/02/19/the-case-against-tanking-in-the-nba/
Using differing criteria of drafting an all star with a top 5 pick at about (probably under) 35% The article then looks at the superstars drafted by year and concludes that 58% were NOT top 5 picks.
it's woth looking at each of these concise posts.
So here is the data......
http://www.nba-allstar.com/players/lists/players-by-draft-pick.htm
To answer your question....
http://www.nba-allstar.com/players/lists/players-by-draft-pick.htm
To answer your question....
- If you are drafting 1-5 your chances of drafting a 3 time all star is 24.41%
- If you are drafting 6-10 your chances of drafting a 3 time all star is 10.88%
- If you are drafting 10-15 your chances of drafting a 3 time all star is 1.47%
- If you are drafting 15-20 your chances of drafting a 3 time all star is 1.47%
Last edited:
Of the 98 players who were 3 time or greater NBA all stars and drafted after 5th,
8 of them ( Tony Parker, Shawn Kemp, Peja Stojakovic, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Amare Stoudemire, Detlef Schrempf, and Jermaine O’Neil) were drafted at a time when high school and foreign players were routinely not correctly valued.
Exclude these players and the skewed numbers become even more skewed towards drafting in the top 5.
8 of them ( Tony Parker, Shawn Kemp, Peja Stojakovic, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Amare Stoudemire, Detlef Schrempf, and Jermaine O’Neil) were drafted at a time when high school and foreign players were routinely not correctly valued.
Exclude these players and the skewed numbers become even more skewed towards drafting in the top 5.
Last edited:
These teams in the bottom of the rankings right now are blatantly tanking. They are not even trying to be competitive.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the other team owners have outright told their teams to tank, because most of these teams aren't even trying.
This is horrible for the NBA product as a whole, because fans come to the games and their team just basically throws the game.
The NBA needs to fix it and fast.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the other team owners have outright told their teams to tank, because most of these teams aren't even trying.
This is horrible for the NBA product as a whole, because fans come to the games and their team just basically throws the game.
The NBA needs to fix it and fast.
It's not that the young players on the Mavs and Suns are not playing, but they look like they have no interest in making the game competitive. There is a big difference with what the Kings are doing and what the Mavs are doing.
The Kings are playing their young guys and our guys are going out and competing. The Mavs players look like they are going through the motions and not trying. There is a big difference.
The Kings are playing their young guys and our guys are going out and competing. The Mavs players look like they are going through the motions and not trying. There is a big difference.
I don't think that's a question that data will ever answer as what makes a player an All-Star is not necessarily what makes them a franchise-leading player. There are several players in this data set that have 3+ All-Star appearances that I would not consider Franchise guys, and there are guys with less that I would give that title too. That's a far more qualitative debate than quantitative though.
You make your conclusions based on your data and I'll make mine based on whatever criteria I deem valuable TO ME. If you've noticed, I back out of the stats discussions because 1) I'm not a statistician, 2) I think they're as exciting as watching paint dry, and 3) I played way too much Strat-O-Matic baseball when my brother and I were kids.
Data is data but interpreting the data is NOT an exact science. Have fun but don't act like your interpretation is the ONLY interpretation. And don't drag me into it. Thanks.
Data is data but interpreting the data is NOT an exact science. Have fun but don't act like your interpretation is the ONLY interpretation. And don't drag me into it. Thanks.
So I was playing with the data and my findings were as follows:
I organized the data by number of all-stars drafted per year. I left out the 3 most recent years as many of those players could still develop into All-Stars making the data incomplete.
The data covered 65 drafts and there were a total of 375 All-Stars drafted during that time. The Average number of All-Stars drafted per year was 5.77 and the Median number of All-Stars drafted was 6 and the standard deviation was 2.25. The Mode was 5, which I usually think is useless but, interesting in this particular exercise.
If I was to infer anything about this data it would be that every draft should be expected to produce 3-8 All-Stars and the likelihood of anything within that range is the same and that if you want to guarantee that you have an opportunity to pick one of them you would have to pick 3rd at worst.
Wanting more data I ran a regression on the data set (I'm really rusty in this area but forged ahead anyway) and the results suggest that the probabilities listed above are not statistically significant. I think this data set provides an interesting look into past drafts, I do not trust its ability to predict. I wouldn't balk if someone wanted to check my work or run this themselves, but these were my results.
If a team wants to "tank" I think the most reasonable way to approach it would be to base the tanking strategy (and targeted draft position) on scouting of the upcoming draft class to determine where you need to be to ensure a shot at the best players. I don't think using past drafts to determine a target draft position makes sense, especially when scouting data is available and considers the actual draftees.
I organized the data by number of all-stars drafted per year. I left out the 3 most recent years as many of those players could still develop into All-Stars making the data incomplete.
The data covered 65 drafts and there were a total of 375 All-Stars drafted during that time. The Average number of All-Stars drafted per year was 5.77 and the Median number of All-Stars drafted was 6 and the standard deviation was 2.25. The Mode was 5, which I usually think is useless but, interesting in this particular exercise.
If I was to infer anything about this data it would be that every draft should be expected to produce 3-8 All-Stars and the likelihood of anything within that range is the same and that if you want to guarantee that you have an opportunity to pick one of them you would have to pick 3rd at worst.
Wanting more data I ran a regression on the data set (I'm really rusty in this area but forged ahead anyway) and the results suggest that the probabilities listed above are not statistically significant. I think this data set provides an interesting look into past drafts, I do not trust its ability to predict. I wouldn't balk if someone wanted to check my work or run this themselves, but these were my results.
If a team wants to "tank" I think the most reasonable way to approach it would be to base the tanking strategy (and targeted draft position) on scouting of the upcoming draft class to determine where you need to be to ensure a shot at the best players. I don't think using past drafts to determine a target draft position makes sense, especially when scouting data is available and considers the actual draftees.
Interesting,
For your analysis of looking at all stars per draft class I can see why you would leave out the 3 most recent years. In my case, I have looking at draft position of the all-stars the last three current drafts would be relevant. To leave out one time flukes I think it would be better to see your data with the number of players who achieved 2, 3, 4 time all star status by draft class. I think yours tell how many you might expect where as mine shows the likely distribution of those plays by draft tier.
My numbers were actually 4 not 3 time all stars but the proportions are not far off.
2 Years
4 Years
And I agree that the nature of the draft class is going to play a huge factor in skewing these numbers one way or another. Unfortunately, this class seems to be one where being in the top 5 pick seems more important. In general it would seen that teams largely will get those franchise players in the first 5 picks unless the year is an abnormally strong, deep draft year like last year or you have some paradigm shift that causes players to fall that normally would not.
In either case I think it makes the case pretty clearly that if the Kings want to get a franchise player in this upcoming draft then need to be in the top 5 and ideally in the top 3 of this draft. Even then they could still mess it up.
For your analysis of looking at all stars per draft class I can see why you would leave out the 3 most recent years. In my case, I have looking at draft position of the all-stars the last three current drafts would be relevant. To leave out one time flukes I think it would be better to see your data with the number of players who achieved 2, 3, 4 time all star status by draft class. I think yours tell how many you might expect where as mine shows the likely distribution of those plays by draft tier.
My numbers were actually 4 not 3 time all stars but the proportions are not far off.
2 Years
- Spot 1-5 is a 33.53%
- Spot 6-10 is a 16.76%
- Spot 11-15 is a 9.12%
- Spot 16-20 is a 4.12%
- Spot 21-25 is a 3.53%
- Spot 1-5 is a 28.53%
- Spot 6-10 is a 13.53%
- Spot 11-15 is a 6.18%
- Spot 16-20 is a 2.06%
- Spot 21-25 is a 1.76%
4 Years
- Spot 1-5 is a 24.41%
- Spot 6-10 is a 10.88%
- Spot 11-15 is a 4.71%
- Spot 16-20 is a 1.47%
- Spot 21-25 is a 1.47%
And I agree that the nature of the draft class is going to play a huge factor in skewing these numbers one way or another. Unfortunately, this class seems to be one where being in the top 5 pick seems more important. In general it would seen that teams largely will get those franchise players in the first 5 picks unless the year is an abnormally strong, deep draft year like last year or you have some paradigm shift that causes players to fall that normally would not.
In either case I think it makes the case pretty clearly that if the Kings want to get a franchise player in this upcoming draft then need to be in the top 5 and ideally in the top 3 of this draft. Even then they could still mess it up.