What Does A Draft Pick Get You? Part IV: Validating AdjPR100 and the 5-Star System

As a check on Part I and my rating system, here is a visual look at where the career awards and accolades discussed in Part II are distributed among the 5-Star rating system. Basically, this is just a section that I ended up cutting from Part II that helps show that the system I’ve been using has produced realistic results. I figured I may as well share in case you were questioning the statistics underlying the conclusions.

With a radar or “spider” chart, you can see the relative distribution changes.  The shaded areas indicate the distribution, and the simplest way to think of these is to imagine your reading a clock.  There are six sectors, with the 5-Star rating at 12 o’clock position.  Starting with the MVP Chart, you can see that the shade area is contained almost entirely within the first sector.  As you read through the seven charts above you’ll see the shading (distribution) creep clockwise, encompassing more of the lower ratings.



There are two things that I see in these spiderwebs that give me some comfort.  First is the “rotation of the clock,” as noted above.  The hurdles for the MVP, HOF or All-NBA are higher than All-Star, so if the 5-Star scale is in sync — or at least in general agreement — with the subjective awards, we should see that clockwise spin.  (Note: All-Defense would dip the furthest down the scale, not because the players who make that team are worse, but because there is no statistical system that I’m aware of that accurately, or even adequately, quantifies defensive contribution.)

The second area of comfort is that the award winners are concentrated higher on the scale.  The only award with a significant concentration at 2-Star or below is All-Defense, which can again be rationalized by pointing out the lack of adequate defensive statistics.

All in all, the 5-Star scale, in my opinion, passes the sniff test.

Tags: 2010 NBA Draft NBA Draft What Does A Draft Pick Get You?

  • travis

    I have a few questions about trades in the NBA.

    1) When can teams like the Pacers start trading again?

    2) Can teams trade players whose contracts will expire June 30 of this fiscal year? (eg Watson)

  • http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com Tim Donahue

    1) Teams are free to start trading again on the day after their season ends. Therefore, the Pacers can make a deal with any team in the league today with the exception of the Lakers or the Celtics. However, there’s generally not a lot of trade activity before draft night, because (IMO) the teams want to take a look at the draft class and see what opportunities lie there.

    2) No. A player whose contract expires on June 30th, like Earl Watson, is not eligible to be traded. However, it’s important to note that for any trade to be official before June 30th, the player’s salary from this past year will be used. This is why draft night trades like the Bayless/Rush/Jack deal or the TJ/JO deal are agreed to, but not consummated until July. In those cases, the deals worked with the July (next year) salaries, but not the June figures.

    Even though a trade today would still use 2009-2010 salary figures, the reason that a guy like Earl Watson couldn’t be traded is because it’s one of the loopholes expressly closed by the CBA. Such a trade could be argued to be a circumvention of the salary cap.

  • peter

    I keep hearing about the rumor for Tony Parker and what the Pacers need to give in return. I do not think this is a good trade for two reasons. First, Parker has too many miles in the NBA. Second, it violates the goal of having cap room in 2011. In the interest of creating a debate, I have an idea for a trade. The Pacers send Troy Murphy, Hansbrough, and picks 40 and 57 in the draft to the Thunder for Maynor, Collison, Krstic, and picks 21 and 26 in the draft in return. With a wink and a nod, we could buy out the values minus vet min on the one year remaining on Collison’s and Krstic’s contracts so they could return to the Thunder. I believe this is a win for both teams. The Thunder are set @ the 1 to 3 position, but need to improve the 4 and 5. Murphy and Hansbrough help the now and the future, plus they would also have Krstic and Collison in the rotation. With the style the Thunder play having Krstic and Murphy stretching the floor helps. The Pacers get a PG who is ready to step in and play. Furthermore, the Pacers still will clear 11 million for 2011, and finally the two late 1st round picks add solid backups/role players to the roster. In addition, buying out the two contract less vet min would help pay for the two picks. Also, Collison and Krstic would probably accept this because they get at least vet min from the Thunder, so both receive all of their money plus 2010-2011 is a contract year and what better way to get their values up than playing for a playoff team in which they already know their roles. Moving on, I would look to add a wing and a center with the 21st and 26th picks. Here is what the roster would look like. PG – Maynor, Price, Ford SG – Rush, Jones SF – Granger, #21(James – Texas), Dunleavy PF – Foster, #10(Davis – UNC), McRoberts C – Hibbert, #26(Alabi -FSU), Jones. All in all it would give the Pacers some nice pieces at reasonable contract values in 2011 to work with next year. Anyway, sorry for such a long post. Any comments?

  • http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com Tim Donahue


    Thanks for the comment. Let me address the two parts separately.

    The Parker Trade – First, whether Parker has too many miles is a valid concern. He has played 800 games, including playoffs, and is coming off an injury-riddled year. However, he’s only 28 years, and he is a top talent. Personally, I think it’s worth the risk for the rumored package of Murph/Rush/#10.

    This deal, even assuming we either extend Parker, does not violate the 2011 plan. It merely accelerates it. Parker would be the “big name” acquisition. Even adding a $16mm salary for Parker in 2011 (which I think is way too high, but I’m using it to be conservative), the Pacers are at just below $40 million in Payroll. That leaves them plenty of room to make other moves.

    That’s the important part. A trade like the rumored Parker deal wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) be the only move. It should be the first of three or four different moves using our expiring contracts and our cap space to re-make the team into a contender.

    Of course it all depends on how you view Parker. I see him as a guy who has 3-4 years left of his prime, playing a crucial position, and probably as even better than Danny. Pairing him with Danny and Roy, then bringing in two-or-three more reasonably-priced (preferrably, defensive minded and athletic) young vets to add to the young role players considerably changes this team’s outlook.

    It’s risky, but all avenues have risk.

    Regarding your trade scenario, there are some things that concern me about it. First, I’m not sure what OKC’s incentive is. Even with a “nod & wink” deal, they’re adding payroll with players that don’t really do much for them. Murphy doesn’t fit at all with what they’re doing. Hansbrough will probably hold no value in the league until teams see him play for an extended period of time, just for health concerns. The Second Rounders really are of very little value, particularly if they’re giving up First Rounders.

    Second, if I’m trading for Nick Collison, I’m keeping him. There could be a very strong argument made that he would immediately become our best big. Active and a good defender, he’s a “winning” type of player. For the same reasons, I’d have a hard time believing OKC would risk dangling him in a such a deal.

    Finally, and I apologize if this sounds flip, but it just seems that there are too many moving parts. It seems to me that the deals most likely to be successful are the ones that have relatively obvious and straight forward designs, with relatively clear incentives for both sides. I just think you have to jump through a lot of hoops to make it make sense for OKC.

    You’ve got to remember that trades in the NBA are very hard to execute. There are already a ton of rules and restrictions in place, so it takes very few other obstacles to stop any proposed deal in its tracks. Restated basically as – the simpler, the better.

    Thank you very much for reading and commenting. Keep ‘em coming.

  • peter

    Thank you for your comments. I was basically trying to think of a trade that would involve vets on both teams with 1 year remaining on their contracts. In addition, I was thinking of ways to build with rookie contract players. This is where we probably disagree, but I think we should build through the draft for the next couple of years like we did in the late 80s, early 90s, or like how Portland recently constructed their team. The Spurs and Utah are excellent business models for small market clubs. Last, with the unsettled labor situation, teams outside the Lebron sweepstakes probably and should be timid towards long term contracts until there is a new CBA. Perhaps, the best move for the Pacers is to do nothing this summer except draft and allow the contracts to expire. Gulp!

    You are correct about Hansbrough’s low current trade value. I just thought we could get Maynor for the same reasoning since he is stuck behind Westbrook and was acquired midseason due to Utah’s cap situation. Furthermore, their salaries are similiar. As far as Collison, if it is true he would become our best big then it says a lot about our bigs, since Collison has mostly been a backup. However, I agree that he is a nice blue collar role player that front offices love. A nice question would be where does he fit in with their long term plans. He’s going into a contract year, and I’m sure the Thunder would want to conserve cash after next year to resign Durant. Furthermore, they have a youth movement now, yet he is a good veteren role model for the young players. Basically, I guess they would love to keep him, but only at lower pay. Krstic is a mere cheap option for them at center. However, he does stretch the floor which is something they need with all the cuts they use in their offense.

    To answer your question as what would be the Thunder’s motivation. This trade improves their team in 2011, frees up cash for after to resign Durant, and provides assets and young players to develop for the future. Right now they are under the cap and already set at position 1 through 3 for starters and backups. Their real issues are at PF and C. Green starts, but I feel he is a backup despite his scoring. Collison is a quality backup on this team. At center Krstic starts, but offers little in rebounding. Ibaka was a rookie last year, and was their only true shot blocker. I see him getting expanded minutes next year and perhaps replacing Green at PF. Mullen as a rookie saw little time, but likely a career backup. Murphy is a vast improvement over Krstic. Offensively, Green, Krstic, and Murph stretch the defense, but Murph is the best rebounder of the group. Thus Ibaka and Murph would be a nice 4 – 5 with Green and Collison backing up. Again it would improve their team this year, but allow cap room and assets for the future. Plus having Ibaka, Green, Hansbrough, and Mullens is a nice start in developing young bigs. Giving up late first round picks for second rounds sounds rough, but they would not be giving up any players and adding Murphy, since I see Hansbrough = Maynor in the trade. Furthermore with all of their players under contract, those late 1st rounders wouldn’t see the court and limit roster moves they may need to make during the season in case of injury. Also, the Thunder could use the two picks in round 2 on foreign players who they can bring over later. To summerize, Hansbrough = Maynor, Murphy = 21, 40 & 56 = 26. Collison and Krstic are for trade rules.

    I hope this better explains my logic about the Thunder’s motivation. The data and the insight you provide are great. Thanks.

  • aaronb

    I have to disagree with the Tony Parker “Rental” plan that has been bandied about. For all the 3 year plan(?) talk we hear in the Indy media. I have really yet to see any semblance of a coherent plan from Larry. Aside from using Lotto picks on hustle screen guys, and drastically overpaying 30 year old role players. I can’t find anything Larry has done that screams “Plan”.

    Tony Parker is just a big name that Bird can hang his hat on and give the illusion of effort on his part.

    This team should have been gutted for future picks and young assets in 2005-2006 (The day Artest asked for a trade). That Larry Bird thinks he can reinvent the wheel and rebuild without actually rebuilding angers me as a Pacers fan.

    We should be through this rebuilding phase and have a roster full of exciting young players. Instead we are praying on a White Horse Free Agent to save us in 2011?

    How has Larry Bird kept his job so long? Ray Charles could throw darts at a draft board and hit with more success than Bird.

  • http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com Tim Donahue

    Guys, I apologize for not responding. I actually had a relatively complete response written, but lost my connection. Work’s been a bear, but I will try to respond in the next day or two, because your comments deserve one that is thought through.

  • ct

    Paul George will be the bust of the 2010 draft, so hop[efully they go in another direction.

    he’s the typical athlete everyone loves, and then can’t pick up the NBA game worth a crap.

  • Pingback: What Does a Draft Pick Get You? (Redux) – #26 | Eight Points, Nine Seconds

  • Pingback: What Does a Draft Pick Get You? (Redux) – What Did a Draft Pick Get ‘Em? (Part One of Two 2004 – 2008) | Eight Points, Nine Seconds