For those who said the Spurs FO sucked

[ambchang]

http://82games.com/bestdraftingteams.htm

Essentially, the Spurs ranked #4 in drafting over the last 20 years. And this is not because of the Spurs drafting #1 twice, it factored in draft positions as well.

While this analysis was stats driven, and I generally think that stats don't tell the whole story, it does provide a decent guideline.

NBA Draft Analysis:
Best/Worst Drafting Teams
by Roland Beech, 82games.com


[Thanks to an assist from the wonderful Basketball-Reference.com web site, I gathered together the last twenty NBA Drafts (1989-2008) with an array of intended analysis in mind.]

In the first part of this series on "NBA Player Development" I studied the average performance of players by their draft pick number. In part two I will take a look at the specific teams and how they have fared!

To recap a few principles, since B-R provides career games, and then per game points, rebounds, assists and minutes, I have gone with an admittedly highly simplistic look on things with: Rating = points/game + rebounds/game + assists/game


Why use this definition? It's the data I have easily on hand, which while not a good player rating system is a decent wag for these purposes. Then I group players as follows:

Star -- 20+ rating
Solid -- 15 to 19.9
Role Player -- 10 to14.9
Deep Bench -- 5 to 9.9
Complete Bust -- less than 5
DNP -- (never played in the NBA)
Keep in mind the stats are career per game averages so lower than the peak performance years of a player. Moreover, there is also some bias in that using recent years some of the current players may well e up their career 'standing' with more years under the belt.
Now to try and gauge drafting performance it is not enough to simply look at average stats, rather we need to adjust by the expected stats for the pick # -- so from our chart in part one, the #1 pick averages 16.6 points, 7.8 rebounds, 2.7 assists, etc and we need to compare that to the actual stats of a team picking at #1 to get a sense of the net...did they over or under-achieve for the pick.

Obviously there are a lot of issues with this approach, such as do you reward San Antonio for taking a consensus #1 in Duncan? The answer to me is yes, because we are talking not only about drafting but about hopefully some measure of player development which is the bigger theme in play.

On account of this, one additional point to mention is in the event of draft day trades, the team winding up with a player after the trade is counted as 'drafting' the player. So for example Dallas gets credit for Nowitzki even though the Bucks actually drafted him (but then moved him on the the Mavericks). It may be I missed some of these transitions as well if they were sometime after the draft, in which case I'll post a corrected version later on.

To calculate value I compare a player's career stats to the average stats for his draft pick number. For example, Kobe Bryant averages 25.0 pts per game for his career, but the average for a #13 pick (including Kobe) is just 9.8 pts per game so his team gets credit for +15.2 points per game for his pick and so on.


Draft picks 1989-2008 Pick Performance vs. Expected Perf.
Team Picks Gms Pts Reb Ast Rtg Gms Pts Reb Ast Rtg Star Solid RoleP DeepB Bust DNP
Milwaukee 40 299 7.1 2.9 1.7 11.7 45 1.1 0.2 0.5 1.8 6 8 7 12 3 4
Phoenix 41 226 5.5 2.4 1.0 8.9 30 1.1 0.3 0.2 1.5 6 4 3 10 13 5
L.A. Lakers 36 341 6.0 2.4 1.5 9.8 110 1.0 0.1 0.4 1.5 5 3 7 12 2 7
San Antonio 30 227 5.5 2.0 1.3 8.8 46 1.0 0.0 0.3 1.2 4 2 6 6 3 9
Cleveland 36 302 6.5 2.7 1.6 10.8 50 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.1 5 4 8 8 7 4
Golden State 47 262 7.2 3.3 1.3 11.8 -9 0.6 0.5 -0.1 1.0 9 5 7 16 6 4
Boston 41 263 6.6 2.7 1.4 10.7 9 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.8 6 6 5 14 4 6
Sacramento 43 309 6.4 2.8 1.4 10.6 50 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.7 5 8 9 11 3 7
Memphis 18 207 8.1 3.7 1.5 13.3 -111 0.3 0.5 -0.2 0.7 4 3 4 5 1 1
Utah 38 253 5.0 2.3 1.3 8.6 44 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 3 3 7 12 8 5
Miami 36 224 6.5 2.4 1.3 10.1 -38 0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 4 5 7 9 7 4
Washington 35 308 6.3 2.9 1.2 10.4 47 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.2 4 2 13 10 2 4
Charlotte Hornets 20 402 7.4 3.2 1.5 12.1 85 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 5 1 5 5 3 1
Seattle 48 260 5.5 2.4 1.1 9.1 17 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 5 7 8 8 7 13
Detroit 37 245 5.0 2.3 1.0 8.4 26 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 3 3 7 9 8 7
Vancouver 14 334 7.9 3.1 1.8 12.7 8 0.1 -0.3 0.1 -0.1 4 0 2 6 0 2
Philadelphia 44 225 5.6 2.6 1.0 9.2 -9 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 5 6 8 9 6 10
Indiana 33 315 5.3 2.7 0.9 8.8 71 -0.2 0.3 -0.3 -0.2 2 4 9 7 3 8
Chicago 51 239 6.0 2.7 1.5 10.2 -33 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 -0.3 7 5 8 17 7 7
Orlando 41 243 6.2 3.1 1.1 10.4 -37 -0.2 0.2 -0.2 -0.3 6 4 5 14 8 4
Dallas 45 236 5.2 2.4 1.1 8.7 -5 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 5 2 9 13 5 11
Houston 45 204 4.7 2.1 0.9 7.7 -9 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.4 5 2 6 11 8 13
New Orleans Hornets 11 129 5.8 2.4 1.4 9.5 -160 -0.4 -0.5 0.2 -0.6 2 1 1 2 3 2
New Jersey 35 255 6.2 3.1 1.3 10.6 -34 -0.6 0.1 -0.2 -0.6 7 3 5 9 7 4
Portland 40 218 5.7 2.4 1.1 9.2 -47 -0.3 -0.3 -0.1 -0.7 5 4 8 8 8 7
Charlotte Bobcats 10 112 7.7 3.4 1.9 13.0 -243 -0.8 -0.1 0.1 -0.8 2 2 1 3 2 0
Minnesota 40 277 6.0 2.6 1.4 10.0 4 -0.7 -0.2 0.0 -0.8 6 3 9 7 7 8
Toronto 24 244 6.8 2.8 1.2 10.8 -69 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -1.1 5 3 0 7 3 6
Denver 42 305 5.9 2.7 1.2 9.9 20 -0.8 -0.1 -0.2 -1.2 6 8 6 9 5 8
L.A. Clippers 44 268 6.0 2.9 1.2 10.1 -27 -1.0 -0.1 -0.3 -1.4 2 14 7 10 4 7
Atlanta 44 176 4.8 2.3 1.1 8.2 -76 -1.0 -0.3 -0.1 -1.5 3 3 8 18 6 6
New York 32 197 4.6 2.2 0.9 7.7 -55 -0.9 -0.3 -0.3 -1.5 0 4 8 9 5 6

I was surpised by how this look came out...Milwaukee as the best drafting team of the past twenty years? In looking over the actual picks though it makes more sense: six "stars" taken -- Glenn Robinson, #1 in '94 and a 29 rating... Ray Allen at #5 in '96, also 29 rating... Redd at #43(!) who has a 27 rating... Vin Baker at #8 in '93 who had a 24 rating (yes he had good years before the problems)... Bogut #1 in '05 and a 23 rating... T.J. Ford at #8 in '03 with a 22 rating. Now Bogut is actually an under-achiever to this point (especially since they could have had Paul, etc) but the Bucks also have scored with lots of other second round picks besides Redd like Sessions, Alston, Phills, Snow, Flip Murray, Bogans...all of whom way surpassed expectations for their lowly pick number.

Then you have the Suns who sparkle with their star picks -- Amare (a #9), Marion (#9), Nash (#15), Finley (#21), Stephen Jackson (#42), and Cedric Ceballos (#48).

The Lakers secured Kobe (#13) by trade, but also had stars in Van Exel (#37), Divac (#26), Eddie Jones (#10), and Marc Gasol (#48 but later traded of course...), as well as a slew of solid players like Elden Campbell (#27), Bynum (#10 and climbing in the career averages), and Fisher (#24).

The Spurs have Duncan (#1) as well as Parker (#28) and Ginobili (#57) as the foundation to their multi- le teams. They also nabbed Scola at #55 who is nearing star territory in the career rating, Barbosa at #28, Salmons #26, Udrih #28...

Cleveland is a much more mixed record. A huge lift up for LeBron (no brainer), but they did also tab Boozer at #34, Andre Miller at #8, Ilgauskas at #20, Brandon at #11 for their other stars. Some top ten misses though in Mihm (#7), Wagner #6), Ferry (#2), and Diop (#8).

And for the bottom of the table New York Knicks? Not a single star among the thirty-two picks made, with David Lee at 19.9 rating pushing the envelope to perhaps become the first one soon. Nene was another good pick for them, taken at #7, but their second round picks with the exception of Ariza have been poor performers, and few players who made much noise whatsoever in the NBA.

Then there's the Clippers of the Korolev (#12), Randy Woods (#16), Kimble (#8), Ely (#12), Dooling (#10), Livingston (#4), Olowokandi (#1) horror show. Elgin may want to rethink his discrimination lawsuit, seems like there was some just cause perhaps at work here. The Clippers had 11 top ten picks in the twenty years, and only one of these top ten guys (Odom taken at #4) became a star. Now of course, you could argue and I might that the bigger issue isn't the drafting but the player development once the player gets to the team...more on this later!

Now due to the recency bias (players drafted this year for example have just over half a season as their 'career' stats and will likely improve in some cases considerably on them with a few more years) we must give some excuses for the new to the party teams like the 'New Orleans' Hornets and the Charlotte Bobcats, but you can get a reasonable sense of the distribution of stars/solids/roleplayers/deep bench/busts and DNP's through the years.

I will be formatting a seperate page for the team by team looks so you can see all the hits and misses of your favorite franchise.

Moving on, next I've looked at the best and worst value picks of the last twenty drafts!

[ShoogarBear]

One problem:

The Spurs have Duncan (#1) as well as Parker (#28) and Ginobili (#57) as the foundation to their multi- le teams. They also nabbed Scola at #55 who is nearing star territory in the career rating, Barbosa at #28, Salmons #26, Udrih #28...

Outside of the Duncan/Parker/Ginobili, 3 out of 4 of their other highly-rated draft picks never played a single game for the team. Two of them were pre-arranged trades.

[FromWayDowntown]

One problem with the rankings is that the Spurs didn't actually choose (apparently) either Barbosa or Salmons. They get a boost from the production that both of those guys have maintained over the years as relatively low picks, but none of it was for the Spurs and neither selection was one that the Spurs decided upon.

edit: I see Shoog beat me to the punch on that one.

[Ariel]

Outside of the Duncan/Parker/Ginobili, 3 out of 4 of their other highly-rated draft picks never played a single game for the team. Two of them were pre-arranged trades.

Yup. Crediting a team on the development of a player picked on behalf of a third party is utterly stupid. If anything, actually, it´s the complete opposite, as it can be argued it shows the team failed to realise the potential value of the player in question. The fact that it went over the writer´s head is all I needed to know not to waste my time reading any further this piece of ... or of a piece, whichever you like better.

[TDMVPDPOY]

chicago fail, they had so many top10 picks in the last 12 years its not even funni...

[rayray2k8]

Ever heard of a man name Luis Scola?
That and the Splitter situation isn't helping, so you can't blame the fans for
criticizing the spurs front office.

[Obstructed_View]

I'd have to say that trading a good player for nothing (Scola), grinding a decent player to nothing and then paying someone else to take him off your hands (Beno), picking an international player in the first round so you are hamstrung by the rookie pay scale (Splitter) and sending a promising front-court prospect to Italy (Gist) doesn't exactly improve a team's standing.

[Johnny RIngo]

The FO deserves all the blame in the world for standing pat after the '07 championship. The rest of the league has since gotten better while the Spurs have gotten noticeably worse.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i wouldnt complain the 2003 disaster, but resigning jackson to what he wanted that year...shouldve given a chance to at least fkn repeat or some .

[CubanMustGo]

I guess it's this analysis that sucks.

[purist]

Don't know how a FO can suck when they build a team around twin towers and win a le; proceed to replace starting pg and sf and win another le; then proceed to replace hall of fame center and win another le.

If the FO sucks then it stands to reason that the coach is outstanding beyond a level that many here would not concur with. If the coach sucks then it stands to reason that the FO is outstanding in stockpiling talent that even a monkey could coach to a championship.

So, which is it, Spurs fans? Does the FO suck or does the coach suck?

IMO, the FO was better when Pop had more control as coach and GM. Buford, Presti, et al, are merely proteges.

[dbestpro]

Front office historically does not suck and has done as well as anyone. But, this is sports and the premiere question in sports is what have you done for me lately? This is the question for every declining star from every FO and the question of every fan for every FO.
So, FO, what have you done for me lately?

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

You know this article is bull because of the top 2 teams.

[Dex]

Ah, what could have been....

C: Splitter, Javtokas, Sandizke
PF: Duncan, Scola
SG: Ginobili, Barbosa
SF: Bowen, Salmons
PG: Parker, Hill, Udrih

Rings plz kthxbye.

[Obstructed_View]

Don't know how a FO can suck when they build a team around twin towers and win a le; proceed to replace starting pg and sf and win another le; then proceed to replace hall of fame center and win another le.

Add Tim Duncan to a 50+ win team that has David Robinson and Sean Elliott and try not to win a le. With the exception of Pop, the current front office had little to do with assembling that pre-Duncan core, and zero to do with David or Sean, who they inherited.

If the FO sucks then it stands to reason that the coach is outstanding beyond a level that many here would not concur with. If the coach sucks then it stands to reason that the FO is outstanding in stockpiling talent that even a monkey could coach to a championship.

If you have the aforementioned Duncan, turn the last pick in the NBA draft into one of the best players in the league, and get a single first round pick that becomes an all-star, you suddenly manage to, with two good choices and no others, contend for a le every year. With that as the foundation, there's plenty of room for coaching and personnel mistakes, and there have been plenty of both to go around.

[TDMVPDPOY]

overpaying malik rose for a start....

[Sean Cagney]

Front office historically does not suck and has done as well as anyone. But, this is sports and the premiere question in sports is what have you done for me lately? This is the question for every declining star from every FO and the question of every fan for every FO.
So, FO, what have you done for me lately?

Yep historically great, but can't live off that name forever... What have you done for me lately type of thing is true. I can see if Hill turns out to be a stud backup here and Gist comes over and does his thing soon. Ian? Does he exist? Splitter not coming soon, so F him. Will one of those guys I mention outta the first three pan out? If so they can redeem themselves, if not? They failed after 03 or so.


Thinks back to 07 summer when my boy at work says Spurs drafted their future big man too last night! Thinking we get him and Scola (Splitter) are coming over and saying everyone is coming back too and repeat is on!!!!!! I thought it was ours for sure then because LA had no Gasol yet nor Ariza (If I am right) and we are returning so many and at the top already! TIME is ours to repeat.......... GUN GOES Off BOOM, the end of this team as we know it and we get rid of Scola and Splitter stays, Manu gets hurt and can't perform against LA and then the rest.


DAMNIT!

[Sean Cagney]

Ah, what could have been....

C: Splitter, Javtokas, Sandizke
PF: Duncan, Scola
SG: Ginobili, Barbosa
SF: Bowen, Salmons
PG: Parker, Hill, Udrih

Rings plz kthxbye.

WALKS INTO a corner and CRIES for hours thinking of that there .

Oh well they got 4 les so far and many teams make similar mistakes and never get a le to even speak of, we are spoiled! Spurs are seriously one of the best teams to do it (4th overall with 4 les), we should not dwell on the have nots.


I will be damned if they could afford all of that too, thats something that would not happen on ANY team, ANY TEAM. LA even traded Butler, can you imagine him there now with that team? WOW! GOOD LORD.

[KSeal]

And the Lakers finish ahead of the Spurs again..

[tlongII]

One problem:



Outside of the Duncan/Parker/Ginobili, 3 out of 4 of their other highly-rated draft picks never played a single game for the team. Two of them were pre-arranged trades.

One of the reasons I say the Spurs FO has sucked donkey balls for the past 7 years.

[ploto]

Spurs have traded away too many first round picks because they did not want to have to pay anyone. Since Parker, they have drafted whom in the first round?

Beno- who's gone
Ian- who's hurt all the time
Splitter- who's still in Europe
Hill- who Pop wouldn't play enough

That's what the Spurs have to show for 7 years of NBA first round draft picks while Duncan has been in his prime. Hill who hopefully gets to play more; Ian who hopefully finds some health; Splitter who hopefully arrives some day

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Spurs have traded away too many first round picks because they did not want to have to pay anyone. Since Parker, they have drafted whom in the first round?

Beno- who's gone
Ian- who's hurt all the time
Splitter- who's still in Europe
Hill- who Pop wouldn't play enough

That's what the Spurs have to show for 7 years of NBA first round draft picks while Duncan has been in his prime. Hill who hopefully gets to play more; Ian who hopefully finds some health; Splitter who hopefully arrives some day

They have 3 les to show for the last 7 years, 2 of which achieved with the significant help of players acquired using the alsmost useless late first round picks. This is better management than any other team has achieved for the past 7 years.

[Extra Stout]

You can't take anybody who criticizes the front office for the Spurs' current roster weakness seriously at all. I mean, after two dozen responses, nobody has even brought up how the Spurs simply fleeced the Virginia Squires to get George Gervin.

[ploto]

They have 3 les to show for the last 7 years, 2 of which achieved with the significant help of players acquired using the alsmost useless late first round picks. This is better management than any other team has achieved for the past 7 years.

That is all based upon what they did BEFORE 2002. It has nothing to do with management for the past 7 years. And only one late first round pick contributed to those championships- Tony- and Holt was ready to lose him over a couple of million dollars before Pop stepped in.

The Spurs have championships for ONE reason- the luck of the draw to get Tim. Without that- they have ZERO les.

Please show which of those players listed that the Spurs drafted in the late first round over the past 7 years in any way contributed to a championship.

[ploto]

Stephen Jackson wasn't drafted but they picked him as a FA, which was a damn good find. It's not all about the draft picks.

The article posted here claims the Spurs FO has drafted well. That is the whole point of the thread- to discuss how they have drafted. It makes ridiculous claims based upon players the Spurs did not even draft for themselves, a player they gave away to a rival to dump salary, one they paid a team to take, and others who never even came. The Spurs record on drafting and developing those young players over the past 7 years has sucked.

Have you watched the playoffs? Have you seen the young athletic players contributing who were given the chance to grow and to mature and to become who they are while the Spurs trotted out NVE and Michael Finley?