From a top-5 pick to perennial all-star

Griffin

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Posts
3,726
Reaction score
1
Location
EU
When a player is drafted in the top-5, there is an immediate assumption that this player will become a major superstar and a cornerstone for the team that drafts him. But how often does it actually happen?

Repeat all-stars drafted in top-5 between 2000 and 2009 (50 picks total):

2000: none

2001: #3 Pau Gasol (4)

2002: #1 Yao Ming (8)

2003: #1 LeBron James (8)
2003: #3 Carmelo Anthony (5)
2003: #4 Chris Bosh (7)
2003: #5 Dwyane Wade (8)

2004: #1 Dwight Howard (6)

2005: #3 Deron Williams (3)
2005: #4 Chris Paul (5)

2006: none

2007: #2 Kevin Durant (3)
2007: #3 Al Horford (2)

2008: #1 Derrick Rose (3)
2008: #4 Russell Westbrook (2)
2008: #5 Kevin Love (2)

2009: #1 Blake Griffin (2)

Btw, there were only three one-time all-stars: Kenyon Martin, Devin Harris and LeMarcus Aldridge, but only one of them (Aldridge) is likely to repeat.

So of the 50 players selected in top 5, only 15 have gone on to become repeat all-stars. That gives a team 30% chance to land a perennial all-star with a top-5 pick (and therefore is more than twice as likely to draft someone who won't meet those expectations), all things being equal. At least that was the case over those 10 years.

Breakdown by draft position:

#1 (5 out of 10)
#2 (1 out of 10)
#3 (4 out of 10)
#4 (3 out of 10)
$5 (2 out of 10)
 
Last edited:

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
20,396
Reaction score
11,518
And their total combined all-star appearances probably are considerably more than the other 6th-30th picks combined over that time frame.

Its not a sure thing, but its a better bet than you have as you dip further down the draft order.
 
OP
OP
Griffin

Griffin

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Posts
3,726
Reaction score
1
Location
EU
And their total combined all-star appearances probably are considerably more than the other 6th-30th picks combined over that time frame.

Its not a sure thing, but its a better bet than you have as you dip further down the draft order.
That's not the point really. Obviously the higher the pick, the better the odds. The better question is whether a team is more likely to land a perennial all-star via draft or via other means (trade, free agency)? With a draft pick, even a very high draft pick, you are mostly just gambling, and the odds are against you. With players already in the league, the uncertainty is lower and your odds improve (while the price goes up). Does a player like Harden have a higher probability to become a perennial all-star than a future top-5 pick (30%)? Would you trade a top-5 pick to acquire him? Those are more relevant questions, imo.
 

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
20,396
Reaction score
11,518
That's not the point really. Obviously the higher the pick, the better the odds. The better question is whether a team is more likely to land a perennial all-star via draft or via other means (trade, free agency)? With a draft pick, even a very high draft pick, you are mostly just gambling, and the odds are against you. With players already in the league, the uncertainty is lower and your odds improve (while the price goes up). Does a player like Harden have a higher probability to become a perennial all-star than a future top-5 pick (30%)? Would you trade a top-5 pick to acquire him? Those are more relevant questions, imo.

What team has successfully built primarily through free agency? Miami... and thats basically it. And I dont anticipate the reigning MVP switching teams happening very often. Building through the draft has a far greater likelihood of success than building through free agency, which basically has a 100% failure rate.

Trades are fine, but we dont have the trade assets to build through trade... largely because we have drafted poorly and the rest of our roster are on bad contracts... because they were free agent signings.
 

JCSunsfan

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 24, 2002
Posts
22,115
Reaction score
6,551
That's not the point really. Obviously the higher the pick, the better the odds. The better question is whether a team is more likely to land a perennial all-star via draft or via other means (trade, free agency)? With a draft pick, even a very high draft pick, you are mostly just gambling, and the odds are against you. With players already in the league, the uncertainty is lower and your odds improve (while the price goes up). Does a player like Harden have a higher probability to become a perennial all-star than a future top-5 pick (30%)? Would you trade a top-5 pick to acquire him? Those are more relevant questions, imo.

Looks like trading picks for all-stars is a smart move. Maybe this is why the Lakers always seem to be contenders. They haven't drafted a core player in years. An no, I am not counting Kobe. They traded for a specific player rather than tanking for a lotto shot.
 
OP
OP
Griffin

Griffin

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Posts
3,726
Reaction score
1
Location
EU
What team has successfully built primarily through free agency? Miami... and thats basically it.
The point is not that successful teams are built primarily via one method or another, but that one method involves a lot more luck and uncertainty than the other. Teams that did successfully built via draft were successful not because they chose to build via draft but because they were lucky enough that the players they drafted fell to them and turned into superstars.

Obviously good scouting is key (a department the Suns have been lacking in over the last 8 years), but if luck wasn't such a big factor, then you would think those teams that have been in the lottery virtually every year for the past decade would all be title contenders now, and yet most are still lottery bound. Quite a number of teams had multiple top-5 picks in that span with nothing to show for it.
And I dont anticipate the reigning MVP switching teams happening very often.
And yet, half the players on that list have already switched teams. It appears that with a drafted player who goes on to become a perennial all-star there is about a 3-4 year window in which to win a title, depending on how quickly he can mature enough and how quickly the team can become competitive. But many of those players end up leaving the teams that drafted them after they've signed their first extension, either by forcing a trade or via free agency, without ever winning a title for the team that drafted them. Can you think of a top-5 drafted player other than Wade or Duncan who ended up winning a title with the team that drafted him in the last 20 years or so?
 

slinslin

Welcome to Amareca
Joined
Jun 28, 2002
Posts
16,855
Reaction score
562
Location
Hannover - Germany
Can you think of a top-5 drafted player other than Wade or Duncan who ended up winning a title with the team that drafted him in the last 20 years or so?.

lol

Wade
Jordan
Hakeem
Duncan
Dirk
Kobe
Pierce
Bird
Magic
Billups

when was a team not lead by their franchise draft pick to win a title.. really what an odd question. Kobe, Dirk and Pierce were only technically not top 5 picks. Dirk was a foreigner who started everything else he would have been top 5. Kobe the same, highschooler and Pierce was expected to go much higher and slipped on draft night. Plus Garnett and Allen were both acquired for top picks.

The only exceptions might have been Shaq and Lebron over Kobe and Wade.

But those kind of players leaving their teams is much rarer than drafting such a player.
 
Last edited:

DWKB

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
18,224
Reaction score
7,491
Location
Annapolis, MD
Can you think of a top-5 drafted player other than Wade or Duncan who ended up winning a title with the team that drafted him in the last 20 years or so?

You know, since 1980 only nine teams have won titles.
 

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
119,576
Reaction score
60,071
It's the NBA way, entertainment over parity, never trusting the NBA and the fans would evolve if left to it's own devices.
 
OP
OP
Griffin

Griffin

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Posts
3,726
Reaction score
1
Location
EU
lol

Wade
Jordan
Hakeem
Duncan
Dirk
Kobe
Pierce
Bird
Magic
Billups

when was a team not lead by their franchise draft pick to win a title.. really what an odd question. Kobe, Dirk and Pierce were only technically not top 5 picks. Dirk was a foreigner who started everything else he would have been top 5. Kobe the same, highschooler and Pierce was expected to go much higher and slipped on draft night. Plus Garnett and Allen were both acquired for top picks.
Huh? I said in the last 20 years and you list most players drafted in the 70's and 80's. Things have changed since then. The other players you list weren't drafted in top 5. Only Wade and Duncan qualifies.

And there's no such thing as "only technically not top 5". In retrospect you can always rearrange the draft order, but at the time it was a gamble, especially with high schoolers or freshmen. And btw, Billups never won a title with the Celtics who drafted him. In fact, he was on his fifth team before winning a title.
 
OP
OP
Griffin

Griffin

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Posts
3,726
Reaction score
1
Location
EU
You know, since 1980 only nine teams have won titles.
Yes, which is rather sad. So that would imply that not many players even get a chance to win a title in their careers, which is true.

Of the 100 players drafted in top 5 over the last 20 years, I counted 15 who won NBA rings. I might have missed someone, but those are:

Player | started NBA career with | won NBA title with

Shaquille O'Neal | Magic | Lakers
Alonzo Mourning | Hornets | Heat
Kevin Garnett | T'Wolves | Celtics
Rasheed Wallace | Bullets | Pistons
Ray Allen | Bucks | Celtics
Tim Duncan | Spurs | Spurs
Chauncey Billups | Celtics | Pistons
Lamar Odom | Clippers | Lakers
Mike Miller | Magic | Heat
Pau Gasol | Grizzlies | Lakers
Tyson Chandler | Bulls | Mavericks
Jason Kidd | Mavericks | Mavericks (second stint)
LeBron James | Cavs | Heat
Chris Bosh | Raptors | Heat
Dwyane Wade | Heat | Heat

A few of these players weren't key contributors when they won their title (Miller, Mourning) but most were.

All but Ducan, Wade and Kidd won it with a team other than the one drafting them, and Kidd is a special case since it was his second stint with Dallas.

So even with a limited number of top-5 players winning titles, the majority of those drafted in the last 20 years who had won a ring did so with a different team. This wasn't always the case, but it seems to be now.
 

Errntknght

Registered User
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
6,342
Reaction score
319
Location
Phoenix
I don't understand why the top 5 draft picks is such a big deal - drafting well is drafting well whatever the location of the pick. Heck, evaluating talent is the key whether its drafting, trading or signing free agents - I'm considering evaluating talent to include figuring out how well a particular player will fit into the teams plan. Teams that do it best are the ones that win titles, (Not that deep pockets doesn't help a good bit.) If you look through Griffen's list you will note that the title winners don't trade away the good players they drafted very often. The fact that Kobe, Dirk, Pierce were not drafted in the top five - and you can include Parker and Ginobilli - makes them all the more brilliant picks.

The Suns suck at evaluating talent and have ever since Dick Percudani died. Whats worse the FO doesn't even have a clue how bad they are at it. Since they don't have a basketball plan (though I imagine they have financial plans) there's no way they can evaluate how well a player would fit with it. They (and we along with them) are screwed twice over.
 

DWKB

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
18,224
Reaction score
7,491
Location
Annapolis, MD
Yes, which is rather sad. So that would imply that not many players even get a chance to win a title in their careers, which is true.

Of the 100 players drafted in top 5 over the last 20 years, I counted 15 who won NBA rings. I might have missed someone, but those are:

Player | started NBA career with | won NBA title with

Shaquille O'Neal | Magic | Lakers
Alonzo Mourning | Hornets | Heat
Kevin Garnett | T'Wolves | Celtics
Rasheed Wallace | Bullets | Pistons
Ray Allen | Bucks | Celtics
Tim Duncan | Spurs | Spurs
Chauncey Billups | Celtics | Pistons
Lamar Odom | Clippers | Lakers
Mike Miller | Magic | Heat
Pau Gasol | Grizzlies | Lakers
Tyson Chandler | Bulls | Mavericks
Jason Kidd | Mavericks | Mavericks (second stint)
LeBron James | Cavs | Heat
Chris Bosh | Raptors | Heat
Dwyane Wade | Heat | Heat

A few of these players weren't key contributors when they won their title (Miller, Mourning) but most were.

All but Ducan, Wade and Kidd won it with a team other than the one drafting them, and Kidd is a special case since it was his second stint with Dallas.

So even with a limited number of top-5 players winning titles, the majority of those drafted in the last 20 years who had won a ring did so with a different team. This wasn't always the case, but it seems to be now.

Right, I think you should look at top 5 draft picks that made the playoffs with their draft teams. I think a top 5 pick will get you a playoff birth, but you've got to build around them in order to be a title contender. Maybe a compromise would be making the title series.
 

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
20,396
Reaction score
11,518
You're putting too many qualifications on your scenario. Saying, titles in the last 20 years with top 5 picks who stayed with their teams... because a TON of titles won in the last 20 years were achieved with home drafted guys, just guys that were drafted outside of your time frame.

Between the Bulls, Rockets, Spurs and Heat 14 of the last 20 titles were won with home grown top 5 picks as the primary talent (13 if you dont count last year's Heat team). And most of the outstanding titles were won by the Lakers, who for all intents and purposes drafted Kobe, same with Mavs with Dirk and Celtics with Rondo and Pierce.

If you dont draft well you cannot succeed... period. It is the single most important aspect of acquiring talent. And its not just about "luck", its about scouting, trading for picks and trading for players during the draft.

While free agency is the least reliable way to build a team. Unless you're lucky enough to have a superstar try to force his way onto your team (which they typically wont do unless you're already successful because you do other parts of team building well).
 
Last edited:

asudevil83

Registered User
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Posts
2,061
Reaction score
1
You're putting too many qualifications on your scenario. Saying, titles in the last 20 years with top 5 picks who stayed with their teams... because a TON of titles won in the last 20 years were achieved with home drafted guys, just guys that were drafted outside of your time frame.

Between the Bulls, Rockets, Spurs and Heat 14 of the last 20 titles were won with home grown top 5 picks as the primary talent (13 if you dont count last year's Heat team). And most of the outstanding titles were won by the Lakers, who for all intents and purposes drafted Kobe, same with Mavs with Dirk and Celtics with Rondo and Pierce.

If you dont draft well you cannot succeed... period. It is the single most important aspect of acquiring talent. And its not just about "luck", its about scouting, trading for picks and trading for players during the draft.

While free agency is the least reliable way to build a team. Unless you're lucky enough to have a superstar try to force his way onto your team (which they typically wont do unless you're already successful because you do other parts of team building well).

agreed completely. Griffin your logic is flawed.

the fact that you eliminate an almost entire decade's worth of champions because of a technicality that would completely negate your argument is hilarious. its fudging numbers for your own benefit.

one COULD also say that over 90% of the teams who won a championship in the past 20 years did so with a HOF player they drafted in the lottery, it completely changes the perspective of how MANDATORY the draft itself is.

lastly, when each year there are 5 player drafted in the top 5 and only one NBA champion, your numbers automatically go in your favor. with a MAXIMUM success rate of 20% and a 0% success rate when a champion repeats, the numbers work for you amazingly well.
 
Last edited:

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
20,396
Reaction score
11,518
agreed completely. Griffin your logic is flawed.

the fact that you eliminate an almost entire decade's worth of champions because of a technicality that would completely negate your argument is hilarious. its fudging numbers for your own benefit.

one COULD also say that over 90% of the teams who won a championship in the past 20 years did so with a HOF player they drafted in the lottery, it completely changes the perspective of how MANDATORY the draft itself is.

lastly, when each year there are 5 player drafted in the top 5 and only one NBA champion, your numbers automatically go in your favor. with a MAXIMUM success rate of 20% and a 0% success rate when a champion repeats, the numbers work for you amazingly well.

Exactly.

A more accurate way of phrasing it; since the lotto started (1985) 26 of the 27 titles have been won by teams with a home grown top 14 pick as one of their primary players, most with a top 5 pick as their best player.

The only team to not fall under than umbrella is Detroit. And of their starters (Billups, Hamilton, Prince, Wallace, Wallace) only Billups was a free agent signing. The rest were acquired through draft or trade.

The moral is that is is impossible to build through free agency and the draft is the single most important aspect to building a team, because even Detroit with their trades had to ship some of their draft successes to build that roster.
 
OP
OP
Griffin

Griffin

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Posts
3,726
Reaction score
1
Location
EU
agreed completely. Griffin your logic is flawed.

the fact that you eliminate an almost entire decade's worth of champions because of a technicality that would completely negate your argument is hilarious. its fudging numbers for your own benefit.

To summarize, the points I was trying to make are:
  1. The probability of drafting a perennial all-star, even with a very high draft pick, is still relatively low (even with a top-5 pick, a team is more than twice as likely to draft someone who won't become a perennial all-star)
  2. The likelihood that such player, when drafted, will end up winning a title nowadays with the team that drafted him is also very low as compared with the chances of that player winning a title with another team

I have offered evidence to support both claims. The reason I focused on the last 20 years of draftees is because prior to that most of drafted players were either college seniors or juniors. There were no high school players, hardly any freshmen, and few international players. Players who were drafted in top 5 were older, more experienced, and therefore less risky, so a team was more likely (although not by much) to draft a perennial all-star with a top-5 pick than it is now.

As for the second claim, yes if you include all the titles won by Jordan, Bird, Magic and Hakeem among others you can make a case that many top-5 drafted players ended up winning titles with the team that drafted them over the course of NBA history. That is not in dispute. But then you fail to see a trend. There is more player movement in today's league than it was 25 years ago, before unrestricted free agency was implemented. Many more superstars are changing teams these days. Teams like the Lakers or Celtics no longer have to draft their future stars, they can simply use small market teams as a makeshift farm system.

I would also argue that there are more teams that elite players don't want to play for, and more elite players who want to only play for a select number of teams (just making it in the NBA is no longer enough for today's breed of NBA superstars). Of course there are exceptions, but the trend it there.

one COULD also say that over 90% of the teams who won a championship in the past 20 years did so with a HOF player they drafted in the lottery, it completely changes the perspective of how MANDATORY the draft itself is.
There's another point that needs to be made. It's a lot easier for teams like the Lakers, Celtics or Bulls to keep their homegrown superstars than for teams like Cleveland or New Orleans. It is not surprising then that almost all those HOF players who won titles with the teams that drafted them were drafted by historically highly successful large market teams that everyone wants to play for.
lastly, when each year there are 5 player drafted in the top 5 and only one NBA champion, your numbers automatically go in your favor. with a MAXIMUM success rate of 20% and a 0% success rate when a champion repeats, the numbers work for you amazingly well.
You are ignoring the list of 15 players drafted in top 5 who did win a title, 13 of whom with another team. The ratio in favor of my argument is not 2/100 but rather 2/15. Only 2 of 15 top-5 drafted players in the last 20 years who won a title did so with the team that drafted them. Now I'll bet that if you did the same exercise for players drafted in the 70's and 80's, that ratio would be higher. But that is the point. This is not the same league anymore.
 
Last edited:

MaoTosiFanClub

The problem
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Posts
12,862
Reaction score
7,024
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
Looks like trading picks for all-stars is a smart move. Maybe this is why the Lakers always seem to be contenders. They haven't drafted a core player in years. An no, I am not counting Kobe. They traded for a specific player rather than tanking for a lotto shot.
Unfortunately the Lakers did hit on Bynum with their only foray into the lottery in who knows how long so they did it right. We have drafted Earl Clark and Robin Lopez in similar spots in recent years. When we did get the back end of the lottery right (Marion, Amare) we were a perennial contender.

High draft picks are a must but so is getting on them right.
 

Shane

Comin for you!
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
69,523
Reaction score
40,207
Location
Las Vegas
What team has successfully built primarily through free agency? Miami... and thats basically it. And I dont anticipate the reigning MVP switching teams happening very often. Building through the draft has a far greater likelihood of success than building through free agency, which basically has a 100% failure rate.

Trades are fine, but we dont have the trade assets to build through trade... largely because we have drafted poorly and the rest of our roster are on bad contracts... because they were free agent signings.

Celtics
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
36,919
Reaction score
16,749
So is it better to sell the draft picks?

I think the jury is still out on that tactic. Assuming we win it all this year and rack up a half dozen more titles over the next several years, I'm quite sure the rest of the league will follow our blueprint.

Steve
 
OP
OP
Griffin

Griffin

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Posts
3,726
Reaction score
1
Location
EU
I've now looked at 40 years of drafts (1970 through 2009) and there were 73 players who were repeat all-stars among 200 players drafted in the top 5 (36.5%). It's important to point out that among those 73 players were quite a few two-time-and-done all-stars, especially in the 90's, who would not be considered superstars by any stretch of the definition, but they are included here nonetheless for lack of a better metric.

Now, to be clear, I am not arguing that you shouldn't draft and develop young players. Trading away high picks is dumb unless you can get an established and relatively young star or someone on the cusp of stardom in return. But, given those odds, any team that tanks on purpose to secure high draft picks will probably not be rewarded much for their efforts.

Now entertain this scenario. The Suns end up with say #4 overall and use it to draft someone. That player will likely be better than a Wes Johnson (#4 pick two years ago) but probably won't become a repeat all-star. This will undoubtedly be seen as failure to meet expectations and the Suns organization and scouting department will be heavily criticized by many, especially if a player drafted a few spots later by another team ends up becoming a superstar. But, in fact, this scenario is very much to be expected, given the history of hit and miss, mostly miss, when it comes to the NBA draft. In fact to expect that player to become a perennial all-star would be ignorant of the fact that the vast majority of players, even those drafted in top-5, never become one. And getting it right, especially in the lottery, has a lot more to do with luck than scouting ability, imo.
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
36,919
Reaction score
16,749
I've now looked at 40 years of drafts (1970 through 2009) and there were 73 players who were repeat all-stars among 200 players drafted in the top 5 (36.5%). It's important to point out that among those 73 players were quite a few two-time-and-done all-stars, especially in the 90's, who would not be considered superstars by any stretch of the definition, but they are included here nonetheless for lack of a better metric.

Now, to be clear, I am not arguing that you shouldn't draft and develop young players. Trading away high picks is dumb unless you can get an established and relatively young star or someone on the cusp of stardom in return. But, given those odds, any team that tanks on purpose to secure high draft picks will probably not be rewarded much for their efforts.

Now entertain this scenario. The Suns end up with say #4 overall and use it to draft someone. That player will likely be better than a Wes Johnson (#4 pick two years ago) but probably won't become a repeat all-star. This will undoubtedly be seen as failure to meet expectations and the Suns organization and scouting department will be heavily criticized by many, especially if a player drafted a few spots later by another team ends up becoming a superstar. But, in fact, this scenario is very much to be expected, given the history of hit and miss, mostly miss, when it comes to the NBA draft. In fact to expect that player to become a perennial all-star would be ignorant of the fact that the vast majority of players, even those drafted in top-5, never become one. And getting it right, especially in the lottery, has a lot more to do with luck than scouting ability, imo.

Agreed.

Steve
 
Top