Recent draft success: Trends look bad

by Docile Ocelot on Jan 11, 2012 10:09 AM PST

With yet another ineffective coach replaced by a question mark in a suit, I thought it was a good time to turn the microscope to another professed deficiency ailing the Kings: personnel decisions.

In other words, how Geoff Petrie has performed recently. Considering trades and free agency both have too many unknown factors involved for an outsider to accurately gauge his success rate (owner/budget constraints, negotiations with other teams, Sacramento's perception as a destination, etc), I decided to focus purely on the draft and tried to be as objective as possible.

What follows is my best effort to analyze the raw data available.

Basically, here's what you're looking at:

I took a look (with the help of basketball-reference.com) at the Kings top draft pick since the team picked Kmart in 2004. I figured the best way to evaluate the decision is to look at the player's WS/48 (which is an estimated percentage of how many wins they contributed to per 48 minutes). To my knowledge, this is built on a list of stats, not just shooting percentage or A/TO ratio.

I noted the first Kings player drafted, his draft number, his WS/48, and then compared it with the three best players based on WE/48 taken after him. Since the stat is based purely on contributions on the court, and since several of these players have already become journeymen, the strength of their respective teams and the systems they play in are rendered insignificant.

Now admittedly, this is just an exercise in number-crunching and doesn't tell hte whole story. Also, there are anomalies - for instance, Ian Mahinmi, taken by the Spurs at No. 28 in 2005 has posted a .186 for his career, while Monta Ellis, taken by the Warrior at 40 that year is at .075 (league average is .100). I have disregarded many guys who, like Mahinmi, have played in significantly fewer games than the rest of the draft class (Mahinmi is at 98 games played while Eliis is at 384).

The numbers show a consistent slide in both draft position and the contributions of players the Kings draft (and keep - see Jon Brockman). Not all these guys are stars. In fact, given their draft position, the majority show to very valuable role players and mid-level starters, suggesting a pattern of missing on available talent that continues through last year.

This is not to heap all the blame for the current play of this team on its GM, a lot of other teams missed on most of these guys too and the draft will never be a purely scientific endevour. But I think this is a fairly eye-opening account of raw data. The talent was obviously out there. I don't think he should be fired, but sometimes you have to acknowledge a pattern of failure and correct it.

Ingest and react...

2004 draft - Kevin Martin (No. 26, WS/48 = .149). Best available: Anderson Varejao (30, .151), Trevor Ariza (43, .088), Chris Duhon (38, .081).

2005 draft - Fracisco Garcia (23, .079). Best available: David Lee (30, .147), Marcin Gortat (57, .165), Amir Johnson (56, .153).

2006 draft - Quincy Douby (19, .000). Best available: Leon Powe (49, .174), Paul Milsap (47, .152), Rajon Rondo (21, .140).

2007 draft - Spencer Hawes (10, .050). Best available: Carl Landry (31, .154), Marc Gasol (48, .144), Josh McRoberts (37, .135).

2008 draft - Jason Thompson (12, .073). Best available: Ryan Anderson (21, .167), Serge Ibaka (24, .152), Nicolas Batum (25, .135).

2009 draft - Tyreke Evans (4, .070). Best available: Ty Lawson (18, .151), DeJuan Blair (37, .141), Jon Brockman (38, .127).

2010 draft - Demarcus Cousins (5, .028). Best available: Jeremy Evans (55, .172), Greg Monroe (7, .146), Trevor Booker (23, .129).

I didn't feel there was enough data this season to warrant an evaluation, but just so you know, Jimmer is at -.031 thus far. Just the messenger.

(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I appreciate the effort. Numbers are interesting.

However, here are my issues:

1 – Not a fan of win score. Tends to favor players on good teams, whether or not they are the cause. As you point out, Mahinmi has great win score despite being mostly terrible, because he’s played on the Spurs and Mavs. Ellis has a terrible win score, because he’s been stuck on some bad teams. But Ellis is >>>>>>> than Mahinmi. The Kings have been bad, so win score will make the players look worse than someone on winning team. I would take Martin over Varejao for example, but those LeBron teams have inflated AV’s score. While I don’t love PER, I think it works a bit better here.

2 – I have never liked judging a GM based on every player he didn’t draft. This would literally make every GM in the league look bad. Respected GMs like Buford and Presti have passed on talent. I think you can look at players taken close to a team’s pick and make some conclusions about whether a team made the right decision. However, any notion that the Kings should have drafted Marc Gasol at #10 is pretty absurd. 0 teams would have done that. He was passed on by pretty much every team.

I am all for acknowledging there is talent in every draft, but if you can find a better system than 30 NBA GMs for never missing on a player you will be a very rich man.

by SPTSJUNKIE on Jan 11, 2012 10:48 AM PST reply actions

I think the one thing it could tell you

Is that Petrie’s ability to find that “diamond in the rough” – especially internationally – (Stojakovic, Hedo, etc.) may be a thing of the past.

He’s been in an unusual position the last few years, drafting at a higher spot than the norm. Perhaps he also struggles separating high end young players?

The book is still open on Reke and DMC (and of course Jimmer), in my opinion, so it’s hard to state with any certainty if he’s “lost it” on the draft. But if that is the case, we’re really screwed – as he’s done little else the last few years to instill confidence in his decision making.

"I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!" - Michael Scott

by otis29 on Jan 11, 2012 10:59 AM PST up reply actions

I think Gasol is an interesting case for this reason

Pau had already established himself in the league, and Marc’s ability was on display oversees.

There’s no reason (if we had evaluated him as talented) that we couldn’t have traded down to get Gasol and perhaps another pick or player thrown in.

Sure it’s speculation about the past, but then the real exercise here is to recognize a possible pattern.

Nothing is always anything.

by Docile Ocelot on Jan 11, 2012 11:01 AM PST up reply actions

Considering how seemingly easy it is to gather second round picks these days

I tend to agree.

"I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!" - Michael Scott

by otis29 on Jan 11, 2012 11:19 AM PST up reply actions

Kind of responding to both Otis and you

Yes, I think Petrie’s competitive advantage of being one of the first GMs to explore overseas is gone. Every team does it now.

Petrie was on the international bandwagon (Sabonis, Petrovic, Peja, Hedo, etc.) early. Same can be said for the Spurs. Once upon a time they got Parker, Ginobili, Barbosa and Scola when international scouting was fairly new. Now, pretty much every team is in the same boat. The good international players tend to be drafted early on. However, just like college players, there are always surprises.

Gasol is a prime example. He was an underskilled bruiser overseas. He was drafted in the mid-second round. He was a throw in on a trade by his original team. It’s a credit to Gasol that he worked his tail off and got in shape. And now in the NBA he has seemingly practiced very hard and increased his skill level and surpassed more physically gifted athletes.

I am fine blaming Petrie when it is warranted. Passing on Rondo for Douby was boneheaded. Rondo was a realistic pick. He made a bad choice. However, to suggest that Petrie is losing it because he didn’t trade a top 10 pick to acquire an out of shape, overseas bruiser who was drafted at 48 and then traded is patently unfair.

by SPTSJUNKIE on Jan 11, 2012 11:36 AM PST up reply actions

No, I agree with that

But you’re also talking about it in a vacuum – if you’re trading a top-10 pick, you’re getting something else back besides the chance to draft Marc Gasol in the second round.

"I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!" - Michael Scott

by otis29 on Jan 11, 2012 11:53 AM PST up reply actions

But what? I think gambling on a center who can pass, shoot and has post moves was better

Overall it was a poor draft.

But looking at every player from a given year a GM didn’t take is futile. It literally makes every NBA GM look bad. It’s not a good measuring stick.

by SPTSJUNKIE on Jan 11, 2012 12:06 PM PST up reply actions

Come on, you have to really look hard to see Hawes as anything as a busted draft pick for this franchise

This isn’t Monday Morning Quarterbacking either. That pick was panned around here from the second it was made.

In general, I agree with you. But I’m also not willing to still assume Petrie is some kind of drafting guru based on his older picks. In his recent history, there have been (and are) more question marks.

"I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!" - Michael Scott

by otis29 on Jan 11, 2012 12:40 PM PST up reply actions

I think if you have any qualms regarding Hawes...

they should be about Petrie turning down a swap for Noah during/after their rookie years.

At USC we're not snobs, we're just better than you.

by TrojanCBB on Jan 12, 2012 7:47 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah, I would agree`

The stat is a little shaky, but I found it interesting especially with some of the players that have been in the league and bounced around so much.

It was meant more as support of an overall downward trend regarding the draft, which includes draft position (which obviously is influenced by overall talent on the roster).

And while Tyreke and Cousins may round into great picks, they are projects currently and it’s been a long time since this team had a clear win in the draft.

Nothing is always anything.

by Docile Ocelot on Jan 11, 2012 10:57 AM PST reply actions

I mean the downward trend is the team's rebuilding

Garcia and Martin have higher numbers from having played on the Artest/Bibby and then Adelman Rockets (for Martin).

Evans and Cousins are pretty clear wins. Evans at least may have some competition from Rubio and Curry.

Cousins has far more talent than anyone drafted after him. Monroe is a nice player, but Cousins can be a superstar. We all knew about the red flags, but with a small market team, you have to take those risks. We can’t take a solid player and plan on signing a superstar via free agency. Regardless of what happens with Cousins career, I would make that pick 10 times out of 10 for this franchise.

by SPTSJUNKIE on Jan 11, 2012 11:40 AM PST up reply actions

Cousins caaan be a superstar...

But will he become one? To me, that’s a big question and one only he can answer. You seem to feel it’s a foregone conclusion, and I envy your optimism but mine has diminished. I dreamt about the Kings being in a position to draft him 8 games in at Kentucky. He has a lot of tools, but I wonder if he can improve on his game between the ears. He’ll always be his own toughest opponent. Is he willing/able to grow mentally? We’ll see. I truly hope so, it seems the future of the team rests squarely on the answer to that question.

Tyreke has proven to be a force of nature slashing to the hole, but not much beyond that. He gets decent assist games here and there, but is it good enough for him to walk the ball up, pound it for 15 seconds, drive and dish to a guy (who isn’t always uncovered) with 3 seconds left to shoot? For now, but not forever. Three years in and he still doesn’t even find the pick-setter on a pick-and-roll – doesn’t even look for him. If his shot keeps improving, he’ll be a natural 2, which is great and still a matchup problem. But his play now, while at times prolific, doesn’t help those he’s playing with.

Neither to me, at this early stage in their careers and given their draft positions, can be considered clear draft wins.

Nothing is always anything.

by Docile Ocelot on Jan 11, 2012 3:21 PM PST up reply actions

Never said Cousins was a guaranteed superstar

I said

Cousins has far more talent than anyone drafted after him. Monroe is a nice player, but Cousins can be a superstar. We all knew about the red flags, but with a small market team, you have to take those risks. We can’t take a solid player and plan on signing a superstar via free agency. Regardless of what happens with Cousins career, I would make that pick 10 times out of 10 for this franchise.

Evans, I think you undersell, but time will tell. Given your standards though, I don’t think there’s a player selected in that draft who could be considered a win. Griffin was a consensus pick. No matter who the Griz could have selected at #2 (Evans, Rubio, Curry, etc.) none would be considered a win today. So we’ll see. That whole draft is up in the air.

by SPTSJUNKIE on Jan 11, 2012 4:32 PM PST up reply actions

I too find the stat misleading because latter players in the draft went to better teams

If I were to use that stat, I probably would have averaged the numbers of the players who went before our pick in the draft. It wouldn’t tell you that GP missed anyone since he didn’t have the chance to draft any of them. But, it would tell you if the player he did draft was as good as the average of the players who when before and to worse teams.

Still not the best way because of all the variables related to coaching and whether to pick was that teams or a pick from another team acquired in a trade. How are John Walls numbers looking right now.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy

by HighTops on Jan 11, 2012 11:11 AM PST reply actions

Interesting thought

Here’s another. It might be worthwhile to track changes in the teams’ progress after taking the picks – variances in win %, point differential, etc. with the thought that valuable players increase the team’s overall ability.

You would expect the good teams to remain somewhat constant and the bad teams to improve with better players.

Having said that, it would still be difficult to account for other variables and to track the players who bounce around.

Nothing is always anything.

by Docile Ocelot on Jan 11, 2012 11:33 AM PST up reply actions

No stat is perfect. However, PER here would probably be better.

You will still have instances where it’s imperfect because it doesn’t measure defense well and different players are asked to take on different roles, but at least you are measuring efficiency.

by SPTSJUNKIE on Jan 11, 2012 11:42 AM PST up reply actions

I think that the way to more accurately rank Petrie's draft acumen

is to re-rack every draft and then see whether the player the Kings would have gotten via the re-rack is better or worse than the actual player drafted. My bet is that under that criteria, Petrie probably did well in 2004 and 2005, not so well in 2006, and probably fair-valued to slightly under-delivered in 2007 and 2008, with 2009 and up still too early to call.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jan 11, 2012 2:11 PM PST reply actions

Yeah.

Thanks for the effort, but WS favors players on teams that win way too much for it to have any meaning.

For reference: The worst player on the Bulls last year who played more than 40 games by WS/48 was CJ Watson with .093, 11th on the team.

That would have put him at number 5 on NJ, just behind Devin Harris who was at .096.

Watson had a 12.8 PER and put up 4.9 points 1.1 rebounds and 2.3 assists a game.
Harris had a 17.6 PER and put up 15.0 points, 2.4 rebounds and 7.6 assists a game.

Would find it hard to argue that Watson was basically equal to Harris last season, but using WS/48, that’s the conclusion you come to.

by Kfan in Korea on Jan 12, 2012 3:01 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

This is a perfect example to show the pitfalls of using that stat

Nicely done, Kfan.

"I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!" - Michael Scott

by otis29 on Jan 12, 2012 6:52 AM PST up reply actions

This isn't really a comparison

of Geoff Petrie to other GMs. If you want to make it valid, choose a couple of good/excellent GMs and see the three best players they passed up on in every draft. Then compare those results to GP. I’m not saying that GP is a great drafter, but until you really compare him to others using the same metrics, this study stands in a vacuum. This may actually be the norm for all we know. (essentially the same as SPTSJUNKIEs very first post, point #2, but it bears repeating since it hasn’t been discussed)

by kinglet on Jan 12, 2012 7:31 AM PST reply actions