Top 5 picks over the last decade: an analysis

[RookieOfTheDay]

A lot of people put a ton of importance on a top 5 pick. To the point that they wouldn’t trade a top 5 pick for a good player with experience. So, I thought it would be interesting to see how top 5 picks have panned out over the 10 years spanning 2000 to 2009.

I’ve divided the picks up into 3 categories. Bust/disappointment, good/very good, great. Obviously with some of the more recent picks, it’s a little too soon to tell where they’ll ultimately end up so I categorized them based on their performance thus far.

I didn’t include Griffin or Rubio because neither played last year

Busts or disappointments (a few are due to injuries, obviously)

Darko Milicic
Stromile Swift
Darius Miles
Marcus Fizer
Kwame Brown
Eddy Curry
Jay Williams
Nikoloz Tskitishvili
Shaun Livingston
Marvin Williams
Tyrus Thomas
Adam Morrison
Shelden Williams
Greg Oden
Mike Conley, Jr.
Michael Beasley
Hasheem Thabeet

Good to very good players

Mike Miller
Kenyon Martin
Jason Richardson
Tyson Chandler
Mike Dunleavy, Jr.
Drew Gooden
Emeka Okafor
Ben Gordon
Devin Harris
Raymond Felton
Andrew Bogut
LaMarcus Aldridge
Andrea Bargnani
Jeff Green
Al Horford
Kevin Love
Russell Westbrook
O. J. Mayo
James Harden
Tyreke Evans

Great players

Pau Gasol
Yao Ming
LeBron James
Chris Bosh
Dwane Wade
Carmelo Anthony
Dwight Howard
Chris Paul
Deron Williams
Kevin Durant
Derrick Rose

Out of 48 top 5 picks, that works out to...

17 Busts
21 good players
11 great players

Percentage wise that's 35% busts, 43% good/very good, 22% great.

So basically, your odds of drafting a future HOF franchise caliber player are about 2 in 10. You stand about a 75-80% chance of ending up with a bust or a player who's good but not great.

Not very good odds, are they?

That's why excluding the rare drafts where there's a LeBron, Howard, etc. I'd opt for trading a top 5 pick for a proven good player, thus eliminating the bust possibility. If the draft were a Las Vegas game, that would be the smart way to go.

 

[JJ22L]

Didn't like the averse reaction to the Felton trade idea, eh ?

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Didn't like the averse reaction to the Felton trade idea, eh ?

I'm just providing a little perspective on the matter. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I'd at least like them to understand where I'm coming from.

 

[Asaf]

First of all, I'm not sure your categorizing is quite accurate. For example, when it's all said and done, I'm not sure that Tyreke, Westbrook and Kevin Love are going to be in a lesser category than Bosh.

But even the way you divided it, I would take a 22% chance of getting a future HOF player in the draft than getting a year and a half of Raymond Felton on a decent contract (I'm assuming the Felton debate is the reason you made this list). And I'd take a LOT of the players in you middle category over Felton as well, in a heartbeat. Most of them, actually (Tyreke, Love, Westbrook, Bargs, Bogut, Okafor.. just to name a few). So looking at your list makes it even clearer - no way do you trade a top-5 pick for someone like Felton. The value of the absolute majority of players you get in a top-5 picks is far far more than him. Add to that that drafting is our GM's MO, and it's a no-brainer.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

First of all, I'm not sure your categorizing is quite accurate. For example, when it's all said and done, I'm not sure that Tyreke, Westbrook and Kevin Love are going to be in a lesser category than Bosh.

Yeah, I alluded to that when I said "Obviously with some of the more recent picks, it’s a little too soon to tell where they’ll ultimately end up so I categorized them based on their performance thus far."

(I'm assuming the Felton debate is the reason you made this list)

It's actually something I've thought about breaking down before, the Felton discussion just motivated me to do it. At any rate, i think it's interesting.

The value of the absolute majority of players you get in a top-5 picks is far far more than him

That's just not accurate. Felton is about middle of the pack.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

But even the way you divided it, I would take a 22% chance of getting a future HOF player in the draft than getting a year and a half of Raymond Felton on a decent contract

Don't forget, you're taking the 35% chance at a bust, too.

 

[Spike]

I'd take the 2 in 9 chance over the 0 in 9 chance anyday of the week.

I think Brick did a pretty fair analysis of this over the summer, where the end result was that you HAD to have a top 5 pick in order to change things. The problem with trading a top 5 for a middle of the road good dude is that there are too many variables surrounding his success. Is Felton successful because of the system in which he's playing? Marion hasn't done anything of note since leaving Phoenix. Hedo recently had a triple double since coming BACK to Orlando, not having done much elsewhere.

Then with that 2 of 9 chance, you have a franchise changing player, someone you're NOT going to get with a trade.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I'd take the 2 in 9 chance over the 0 in 9 chance anyday of the week.

So would I if it were that simple. It's not though. You have to include that the 2 in 9 chance also comes with about 3 in 9 chance of ending up with a bust. It also depends on the team and what its needs are. A team that has little of value and is starting from scratch would be better off to take the gamble. But a team that already has two top 5 picks to build around may be better off taking the safe bet.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Well, you have 11 franchise-level players there, with Westbrook, Love, Griffin and Tyreke still having legitimate chances to get there. So when all is said and done, maybe closer to 15.

Now, how about a list of players of the same caliber drafted outside the top five during the same time frame:
Brandon Roy
Amare Stoudemire
Gilbert Arenas

That's really all I see that I can consider calling franchise-level. I'm leaving out Rajon Rondo, Carlos Boozer, Joe Johnson, Gerald Wallace, Tony Parker, Danny Granger, David Lee, Monta Ellis, and eventually Joakim Noah, Brook Lopez, and Stephen Curry as guys that don't/won't make that cut, but others may disagree.

Point being, there appear to be somewhere between 11 and 18 franchise-level players drafted between '00-'09. A maximum of three were available after the top five picks. That means that while there are reasonable odds of getting a franchise player in the top-5 (somewhere between 20-30%), there is almost no chance of getting one in the draft after that.

We're a small-market team with limited resources to pull in a franchise-level player via trade/free agency. Sure, we hope we have two in Evans and Cousins, but that's definitely yet to be determined. As long as we have a chance to take one more shot, we should do it.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I don't think cases of injury or "incomplete" (i.e. too early to judge) should be called busts. They should just be taken out of the equation. Livingston, Oden, Conley, and Beasley should be taken out. Also, disappointment shouldn't have anything to do with it if you're just basing the results on absolute value. It's already assumed expectations are high because of the high pick.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Well, you have 11 franchise-level players there, with Westbrook, Love, Griffin and Tyreke still having legitimate chances to get there. So when all is said and done, maybe closer to 15.

Now, how about a list of players of the same caliber drafted outside the top five during the same time frame:
Brandon Roy
Amare Stoudemire
Gilbert Arenas

That's really all I see that I can consider calling franchise-level. I'm leaving out Rajon Rondo, Carlos Boozer, Joe Johnson, Gerald Wallace, Tony Parker, Danny Granger, David Lee, Monta Ellis, and eventually Joakim Noah, Brook Lopez, and Stephen Curry as guys that don't/won't make that cut, but others may disagree.

Point being, there appear to be somewhere between 11 and 18 franchise-level players drafted between '00-'09. A maximum of three were available after the top five picks. That means that while there are reasonable odds of getting a franchise player in the top-5 (somewhere between 20-30%), there is almost no chance of getting one in the draft after that.

We're a small-market team with limited resources to pull in a franchise-level player via trade/free agency. Sure, we hope we have two in Evans and Cousins, but that's definitely yet to be determined. As long as we have a chance to take one more shot, we should do it.

Very well put. You've intrigued the gambler in me, lol.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I don't think cases of injury or "incomplete" (i.e. too early to judge) should be called busts. They should just be taken out of the equation.

Injury counts as far as risk goes because there's always that chance you draft the great player who turns out to be too injury prone to reach their potential.

Livingston, Oden, Conley, and Beasley should be taken out. .

Conley and Beasley could probably be included in the "good" category but I think it's safe to say that Livingston is a bust.

 

[hrdboild]

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I don't think your conclusion is a fair assessment of the data. You say that there's a 2 in 10 chance of getting a hall of fame player or a 75-80% chance of getting a bust or a player who is merely "good". In that 75-80 percent you're lumping potential franchise building blocks like Tyreke Evans and Russell Westbrook with total washouts like Adam Morrison and Marcus Fizer. Even those teams blessed with Hall of Fame talent early in their career still need other pieces -- another All Star, a very good complimentary player, and some solid starters and rotation guys. So even if a top 5 pick doesn't earn you good odds at acquiring Hall of Fame talent (which nothing short of a crystal ball can grant you), it is still a reliable way to acquire talent.

To further illustrate, let's look more closely at your group of busts. In there you've got career-ending injury guys, you've got vastly overrated college players, you've got career journeymen who've found a role somewhere and are still playing, and you've got some young guys (Beasley, Thabeet) who could still move into the good or very good category in a few years. I'd also put Conley, Marvin Williams, and Tyrus Thomas as solid starters -- not All Stars but valuable pieces nonetheless. Now if you subtract some of the guys who were obvious reaches at the time and shouldn't have been top 5 picks anyway (Tskitishvili, Morrison, Shelden Williams, Darko) -- your 35% bust percentage falls somewhere closer to 16%, most of that attributable to injury.

Between those two polar opposites -- hall of fame franchise cornerstone and NBA washout -- are a lot of valuable players that can still help you build a winning team. And if you're not a complete failure at evaluating talent (cough, Jordan, cough) you're going to end up with a solid player with those picks more often than not. If you can make a trade to acquire the right player at the right time that's clearly a better move than waiting to see what the lottery will grant you. That would theoretically eliminate the possibility of failure as you suggested. But even proven talent doesn't always pan out as expected. You also have to account for the trade/free-agent busts we see every year like Hedo Turkoglu anywhere but Orlando or Ben Wallace in Chicago or Elton Brand in Philadelphia or Baron Davis on the Clippers. Or, for that matter, our own Mitch Richmond on the Wizards.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I don't think your conclusion is a fair assessment of the data. You say that there's a 2 in 10 chance of getting a hall of fame player or a 75-80% chance of getting a bust or a player who is merely "good". In that 75-80 percent you're lumping potential franchise building blocks like Tyreke Evans and Russell Westbrook with total washouts like Adam Morrison and Marcus Fizer. Even those teams blessed with Hall of Fame talent early in their career still need other pieces -- another All Star, a very good complimentary player, and some solid starters and rotation guys. So even if a top 5 pick doesn't earn you good odds at acquiring Hall of Fame talent (which nothing short of a crystal ball can grant you), it is still a reliable way to acquire talent.

To further illustrate, let's look more closely at your group of busts. In there you've got career-ending injury guys, you've got vastly overrated college players, you've got career journeymen who've found a role somewhere and are still playing, and you've got some young guys (Beasley, Thabeet) who could still move into the good or very good category in a few years. I'd also put Conley, Marvin Williams, and Tyrus Thomas as solid starters -- not All Stars but valuable pieces nonetheless. Now if you subtract some of the guys who were obvious reaches at the time and shouldn't have been top 5 picks anyway (Tskitishvili, Morrison, Shelden Williams, Darko) -- your 35% bust percentage falls somewhere closer to 16%, most of that attributable to injury.

Between those two polar opposites -- hall of fame franchise cornerstone and NBA washout -- are a lot of valuable players that can still help you build a winning team. And if you're not a complete failure at evaluating talent (cough, Jordan, cough) you're going to end up with a solid player with those picks more often than not. If you can make a trade to acquire the right player at the right time that's clearly a better move than waiting to see what the lottery will grant you. That would theoretically eliminate the possibility of failure as you suggested. But even proven talent doesn't always pan out as expected. You also have to account for the trade/free-agent busts we see every year like Hedo Turkoglu anywhere but Orlando or Ben Wallace in Chicago or Elton Brand in Philadelphia or Baron Davis on the Clippers. Or, for that matter, our own Mitch Richmond on the Wizards.

Some very good points here. Food for thought. In response to lumping players like Tyreke and Westbrook in with Morrison and Darko, that wasn't my intent. I was just trying to illustrate that the odds of getting a perennial all-star type of player with a top 5 pick are probably considerably less than maybe some folks think.

 

[Asaf]

Also, there are a couple of more things you don't take into account:

1. Your underlying assumption is that Tyreke and Cousins are our two future cornerstones/franchise players. While we are all hoping that will be true, we don't know that yet, and you yourself lumped Tyreke in the same category as Felton, which means you know that he might not be our franchise player of the future. So getting another top-5 draft pick gives us at least 3 potential frachise players, and the odds of 2 out of 3 actually panning out are much better than expecting 2 out of 2 to become franchise players.

2. What you are suggesting might be good for a contender that just needs that final piece that fits the puzzle to win it all, but we are still in rebuild mode and will most likely not make the playoffs before Felton's contract is up, at which point he might choose to walk, leaving us without the high-potential (though possible bust) young player and without the PG we made the deal for anyway, all this while not making any significant progress to making this team a contender again.

 

[upinsmoke]

I feel its best to trade our pick this year as well. There are still many positions/roles that need upgrading sooner rather than later.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

and you yourself lumped Tyreke in the same category as Felton

That category was specified as good to very good range. I could have broken it up ever further but I didn't see the need as I'm certain most of you can separate the good from the very good.

2. What you are suggesting might be good for a contender that just needs that final piece that fits the puzzle to win it all, but we are still in rebuild mode and will most likely not make the playoffs before Felton's contract is up, at which point he might choose to walk, leaving us without the high-potential (though possible bust) young player and without the PG we made the deal for anyway, all this while not making any significant progress to making this team a contender again.

Yeah there's always the risk a player could walk on a short contract. But in that case there's no risk of getting stuck with them long term if they don't work out. It's a pick your poison scenario.

 

[hrdboild]

Some very good points here. Food for thought. In response to lumping players like Tyreke and Westbrook in with Morrison and Darko, that wasn't my intent. I was just trying to illustrate that the odds of getting a perennial all-star type of player with a top 5 pick are probably considerably less than maybe some folks think.

Yeah, I would agree with that. We were lucky to end up with players as talented as Tyreke and Cousins in the last two drafts. Both of them look like they could be very good players and we only had a chance to draft them because other teams misjudged their talent a bit and they slipped down. One important factor which hasn't been mentioned yet here is that it's rare that the best player available is also a perfect fit for your team. And it gets even harder to find the right fit once you've got established stars at one or more positions. That would be a point in favor of trading the pick if there is a comparable talent out there who doesn't fit with their current team for whatever reason but could be a good fit on this team.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Yeah, I would agree with that. We were lucky to end up with players as talented as Tyreke and Cousins in the last two drafts. Both of them look like they could be very good players and we only had a chance to draft them because other teams misjudged their talent a bit and they slipped down. One important factor which hasn't been mentioned yet here is that it's rare that the best player available is also a perfect fit for your team. And it gets even harder to find the right fit once you've got established stars at one or more positions. That would be a point in favor of trading the pick if there is a comparable talent out there who doesn't fit with their current team for whatever reason but could be a good fit on this team.

No, that's a good reason to ignore fit and just take the best player. You can figure out fit later on.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Injury counts as far as risk goes because there's always that chance you draft the great player who turns out to be too injury prone to reach their potential. Conley and Beasley could probably be included in the "good" category but I think it's safe to say that Livingston is a bust.

I was putting Livingston in the injured category.

 

[hrdboild]

No, that's a good reason to ignore fit and just take the best player. You can figure out fit later on.

Beasley would disagree with you. Which is just one example, not enough to disprove your point. But I just think sometimes the fit is so bad that you can't expect talent alone to guarantee you a future asset. Minnesota's Ricky Rubio pick might end up that way too. More often than not though I would admit you're probably right. Historically teams have done well drafting the best player available and then resorting their other pieces accordingly.

 

[Section 101]

Injury counts as far as risk goes because there's always that chance you draft the great player who turns out to be too injury prone to reach their potential. Conley and Beasley could probably be included in the "good" category but I think it's safe to say that Livingston is a bust.

The player you trade for could get hurt too.

Miles, Livingston, Oden, Jay Williams all got hurt so throw those out. You should throw out Sheldon Williams, Marvin Williams and Morrison as WTF were you thinking picks who people said at the time were not top 5 picks. Tyrus Thomas, Beasley and Conley are not busts.

That leaves 7.

Darko Milicic
Stromile Swift
Marcus Fizer
Kwame Brown
Eddy Curry
Nikoloz Tskitishvili
Hasheem Thabeet

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

The player you trade for could get hurt too.

Miles, Livingston, Oden, Jay Williams all got hurt so throw those out. You should throw out Sheldon Williams, Marvin Williams and Morrison as WTF were you thinking picks who people said at the time were not top 5 picks. Tyrus Thomas, Beasley and Conley are not busts.

That leaves 7.

Darko Milicic
Stromile Swift
Marcus Fizer
Kwame Brown
Eddy Curry
Nikoloz Tskitishvili
Hasheem Thabeet

I specifically said bust OR disappointment, meaning some were merely a disappointment rather than a flat out bust. I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone who'd not consider anyone in that first group (and probably even a few in the second group) a disappointment based on top 5 pick expectations.

 

[Section 101]

I specifically said bust OR disappointment, meaning some were merely a disappointment rather than a flat out bust. I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone who'd not consider anyone in that first group (and probably even a few in the second group) a disappointment based on top 5 pick expectations.

Thomas, Beasley and Conley haven't been disappoiments this year either.

 

[CaAllDay]

i get what your saying , i agree for the most part i will take proven against unproven %90 of the time, unless there is a lebron in the draft.

 

[kingsnation]

Tyrus Thomas, Mike Conley and Michael Beasley should be in the good category.

 

[kingsnation]

You should throw out Sheldon Williams, Marvin Williams and Morrison as WTF were you thinking picks who people said at the time were not top 5 picks.

A player projected to go 2nd in a draft but picked 1st is still a number one pick despite pre-draft projection.

I don't think they should be thrown out just because they went higher than projected. They still ended up being top 5 picks.

 

[Asaf]

i get what your saying , i agree for the most part i will take proven against unproven %90 of the time, unless there is a lebron in the draft.

So theoretically, would you have traded Cousins for Felton back in June?

 

[Vlade4GM]

Beasley would disagree with you. Which is just one example, not enough to disprove your point. But I just think sometimes the fit is so bad that you can't expect talent alone to guarantee you a future asset. Minnesota's Ricky Rubio pick might end up that way too. More often than not though I would admit you're probably right. Historically teams have done well drafting the best player available and then resorting their other pieces accordingly.

You bring up an interesting point with Beasley, in that you at least need to be able to put that player in a position to succeed, so at the very least he looks good to other teams. Although, I think the primary issue with Beasley was that he was just overestimated by scouts, I did not think much of him at the time, and I still don't. If the margin of overall ability between the top players on the board isn't significant, then yes, go with fit, but ultimately, the gamble is already pretty high in the draft, you gotta take the player you think has the best odds to succeed in the NBA. Rosters can always change, coaching staffs can always change. When you're a high lotto team, getting a quality young core together is the hardest part, so it should be the top priority. Building around that core is no piece of cake either, but it's much easier to do when you have a basic blue print. Your core franchise players should be the deciding factors of the basic blue print.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

So theoretically, would you have traded Cousins for Felton back in June?

No because at that time Center was probably the biggest need on the team and talented really centers in the draft are pretty rare. Once you have two players to build around, I think it makes more sense to think about trading a high pick if you're getting back a good player that fills a need.