Wednesday, June 10th, 2009...10:54 am
How Well Do the Spurs Draft?
82games.com has an interesting study that ranks how well teams have drafted over the last 20 years. According to their calculations, the Spurs rank fourth. The system they use is simple (and therefore, problematic), but it isn’t terrible. (Ed. Note: OK, so it’s kind of terrible. But it makes a decent jumping-off point for a discussion.) Basically they add a player’s career PPG, RPG, and APG, and organize the sum into 1 of 5 categories:
- Star: 20+ rating
- Solid: 15 to 19.9
- Role Player: 10 to 14.9
- Deep Bench: 5 to 9.9
- Complete Bust: Less than 5
- DNP: Never played in the NBA
Each player is also compared to the average performance by a player drafted at the same spot. So, as Roland notes, the Spurs are actually rewarded for picking Duncan at #1 (even though he was a consensus pick) because #1 picks average 16.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and 2.7 apg. Those comparisons are then compiled to form a general rating for the team. It is from that rating that our rank of fourth derives.
As I’m sure some commenters will note, the Spurs ranking is improved by certain players who do not actually play for the Spurs. Players like Luis Scola, who were not immediately traded but never played for the Spurs, contribute to our ranking, not their eventual team’s. If we made a draft day trade, the player we traded for contributes to our ranking, not the player we initially drafted. (For instance, the Spurs drafted Goran Dragic, but immediately traded him to the Suns for Malik Hairston. Subsequently, Hairston’s performance this past season is included in the Spurs’ ranking, not Dragic’s.) I believe the author made a mistake by including Leandro Barbosa in our ranking; I believe we traded him on draft day in 2003.
You’ll also notice that an abnormally high number of our picks receive DNPs (9 out of 30). For a lot of teams, that would be a sign of poor scouting, but for the Spurs it reflects our draft-and-dash strategy: Many players remain abroad or are assigned to Austin or a foreign team until they are ready to contribute. In some instances (such as with Robertas Javtokas and Tiago Splitter) this strategy can frustrating. But it certainly isn’t accurate to look at that number and assume 1/3 of the Spurs draft picks do not have the talent to play in the NBA.
According to the study, the Spurs have drafted 4 “stars” in the past 20 years: Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Sean Elliott. Obviously David Robinson is also a star, but his draft class of 1987 puts him just outside the study’s purview. The Spurs ranking is wildly improved by the selections of Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, and especially Manu. A quick look at 82games.com’s breakdown of expected performance shows that Manu is the only 57th pick of the last 20 years who has been anything more than a member of the deep bench.
This is a good oppportunity to reinitiate a conversation we began earlier this year: The Spurs draft well, but how well do we develop talent? While Parker is held up as the crowning achievement of our player development abilities, many of our picks have fallen flat. But as several commenters have noted, when you maintain a high level of play for an entire decade, you are not in a position to draft high-caliber prospects that often. Maybe more importantly, several of our more talented picks (John Salmons, Leandro Barbosa, Luis Scola) no longer or never did play for the Spurs. So, take a look back at the players the Spurs have drafted, and tell me, how do you think we’ve done?
16 Comments
June 10th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I just checked out the link for 82games.com.
lol, knicks.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Interesting. ESPN’s Insider section is running a section called the “D.R.A.F.T. Initiative” that did a similar study, but they based their analysis on John Hollinger’s EWA (Estimated Wins Added) stat.
They put the Spurs on top by a significant margin, but the overall analysis is that the draft is a HUGE crapshoot once you get past the first couple of players. So the fact that the Spurs succeed is great, but it also is really just saying that they aren’t as bad at it as everybody else.
They averaged less than a win added per player drafted (0.84), but were still 11% better than the next best franchise (Lakers at 0.76). Suns were in third at 0.67 which I find rather interesting. I wonder how they’re counting all the picks they sold.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
“The system they use is simple (and therefore, problematic), but it isn’t terrible.”
Its very terrible.
APG, PPG, and RPG added up?
At least factor in minutes and team pace…..and adding them like some PF who gets 10 rebounds, 2 assists and 2 pts is the same as a 7 pt/6 ast, 1 reb PG.
Also what about average number of players returning to team, average age of players added to a teams roster, and team success?
4th doesn’t mean anything in these simple of terms…
Ex. Durant gets drafted and goes to a team where he is the clear scoring leader and has free reign to shoot and is scoring really well so ranks really high on this chart. What if San Antonio had drafted him and got 10 minutes off the bench? He would still be an amazing player but this ranking system would have him as a “role player” just because of the team dynamic.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
BlaseE,
Agreed. So, you only draft well if you get offensive-minded players? Hollinger’s PER isn’t perfect, but it does a better job than just “APG, PPG, and RPG” (PER is the basis for EWA).
I’d call this system terrible, too. It ignores pace, minutes, steals, blocks and shooting percentage, just to name a few.
It is interesting, though, that we rank so highly, considering they’re really only looking at offensive players. That definitely goes against the stereotype of how we draft.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Rick,
I meant to link to that, but you need ESPN Insider to access it. If any of you do subscribe to Insider, I suggest you check it out.
BlasE,
Yes, “not terrible” was being a bit kind. But that being said, if you quickly scan the rankings, they don’t seem that off base. I think it makes a good jumping off point for a discussion.
And I definitely see your point regarding the variety of variables that affect the situation. But I think Durant is example is problematic: For the most part, the more talented a player is, the more time on the court he receives.
Although I completely agree that per-minute statistics are superior to per-game statistics, I think it is unrealistic to say someone as talented as Durant would receive only 10 mpg on any NBA team. Per-game statistics are limited, but not so radically.
I guess my point is this: 82games attempted to do an analysis of every player drafted by every team in the last 20 years. It’s a lot of data to digest. I am not going to be too hard on them for cutting a few corners.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
The Spurs draft well. But developing talent still, question marks loom. Since the Spurs drafted Duncan and getting Manu and Tony. The Spurs haven’t picked an impact player for the team.
Perhaps the good record the Spurs is to blame. For not drafting a impact player. But now is the time for the Spurs to be active and get a small forward and a some front line help.
I may sound like a broken record. But Duncan is no spring chicken. Parker is entering his prime and Ginobili future is in the air.
The Spurs need to pull the strings together and find a player who can help right away. Get younger!
It should be interesting to see what R.C. and Pop are brewing up for draft day.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Rick and BlasE,
At this point I’m tired of railing on the traditional box score and it’s limitations. I definitely agree with both of you. I guess I was just picking my battles.
I do think Rick makes a great point about the offensive focus of the study. I don’t think blocks and steals are a good way to judge defensive ability (Bruce Bowen is the ultimate counter-example to that line of thinking) but their inclusion would have at least signaled some commitment to recognizing the importance of contributions made on the defensive end of the floor.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Not a criticism of this study, but I would be very curious to see average lottery position versus position in lottery by record vs EWA. Maybe that isn’t entirely clear but some way of evaluating what teams have best benefited from “lucking out” in the lottery. IE. Spurs with Duncan over Boston. Of course the number one stat issue comes into play which is injuries. We only get Duncan because Robinson is hurt but when he gets healthy again, the wins are not all because of Duncan….
Sorry Graydon, but I use extreme examples because they are the easiest to come up with and are great general points of reference for everyone. While Durant is an extreme example, Scola was good enough to get minutes from us but didn’t. Theoretically, he could still be a Spur holding down the end of the bench and not in Houston earning stat points. I get your point though and it definitely is a starting point for a conversation/subjective analysis.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
BlasE,
No need to apologize. I should have addressed the study’s limitations more directly. I’m glad you brought it up and we had a chance to.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
First off I wanna apologize for this post not addressing anything even remotely related to the topic. But I just wanna say I freakin’ love this blog. You guys do an awesome job and I especially love the continued posts in the off-season. This is what truly sets you guys apart. Keep up the good work!
June 11th, 2009 at 7:51 am
This is an issue I’ve thought about for the last few years. I came to the conclusion that the Spurs draft well in regards to talent but struggle with incorporating that talent into the team not with development. The draft-and-stash strategy might be frustrating at times but I understand the rationale behind it. However, the only player they have truly succeeded with is Ginobili. Yes, Mahinmi is playing in Austin, but I don’t count him as integrated until he is a fixture in San Antonio.
This, however, is an inherent problem with draft-and-stash. You take the risk that you won’t be able to bring a player over, a la Scola and potentially Splitter. I don’t necessarily fault the Spurs for this problem because sometimes it’s often out of their hands.
Of their recent draft picks, I think they are doing a good job developing Marcus Williams and Malik Hairston with the Toros. The difference is that other teams would have developed them before our eyes while the Spurs do it with the Toros.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
With our late round picks, we are also drafting for the Toros directly. The FO has a commitment to that organization as well in terms of winning and being profitable. Even by their “terrible” ranking system, they show Manu as an exception to the level of talent truly available once you get that deep in the draft. So if Malik Hairston is an awesome Toros player for but never makes it in the NBA, he could still be a worthwhile draft pick and far better than another franchise’s DNP’s drafted in the same spots.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Great point, BlaseE.
June 13th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I wasn’t necessarily railing on the traditional box score. It has its place, and is useful for casual fans that want to take a quick glance to see who contributed.
I just get a little frustrated when I see an analyst (TV, print, etc) who is supposedly trying to add non-obvious insight relying solely on that limited data set. (*Warning: nerd alert*) That would be like an astronomer refusing to use Einsteinian physics because it’s just so much easier to use Newtonian. You get bad analysis when you use bad methods.
I absolutely agree that steals and blocks do not mean you are a good defender. They do, however, indicate that you’re willing to expend energy on the defensive end of the floor, which is nice to know.
I also agree with the worries expressed about the Spurs’ ability to develop talent. The good news is, I think the front office has the same concern. Hence their increasing focus on leveraging the Toros organization. Mahinmi is a great case-in-point.
He started out as a “draft & stash” player, but once they started getting the Toros up to speed, they brought him over to develop him with their coaches & system.
The experiments with Gist, I believe are a case of them trying to get the best of both worlds. They sent him over with a trainer and instructions to allow him to develop in Europe under their tutelage, but also out of the prying eyes of the rest of the league who have scouts glued to watching the Toros players.
They’d like to get players enough experience to be useful, but the D-League system is risky in that someone else can then sign Toros players to NBA contracts and take advantage of the Spurs’ hard work (read: Pops Mensah-Bonsu).
I think they’ll figure it out, it just may take a little bit of time. It’ll accelerate once Tim & Manu are retired, since we’ll have higher draft picks and can focus on development instead of “must contribute now” veterans.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
The Spurs haven’t gotten much from the draft the last 6-7 years. Didn’t need to / want to but could have done a lot better if you look at who they left on the boards.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:06 am
Clarification: I should have said hadn’t got / kept much 2002-7 (post Presti, coincidence or not).
Last 2 years, seem ok or better considering draft position.
Leave a Reply