The First Round: Why It Matters
Think getting into the first round doesn't matter? Think again.
There are some common misconceptions regarding early entries into the NBA Draft. A new "wisdom" seems to have sprung up among fans: sooner is always better, the key is starting your career earnings clock, there's still more money than joe fan will ever see in getting on a roster - or even in Europe - heck, add in that the streets of Europe's major cities are paved in gold.
There are significant problems with these new orthodoxies - career longevity is where the real money is at (even for guys who are never more than bench players), an early start date on a career earnings clock doesn't mean much if the clock never gets past year 2, $1.2 million pre-taxes, agent cut, and expenses, is far from life changing money, some European teams can't even meet their payrolls due to cratering economies*, and most of the stories about huge Euro contracts seem to be apocryphal and possibly the work of a small handful of crazed European fans who plant these stories on various forums.
The facts very clearly display that it is far, far better to land in the first round of the NBA Draft - both for the guaranteed contract and the higher likelihood of establishing yourself in a league where it pays to play many years rather than a few - they print funny money for just about everyone besides first, second, and third year players in the NBA, stars or not. Willie Green, who in a 12 year career has averaged 10 points per game twice, had banked more than $22 million at the end of 2014. I studied draft years 2003-2013, and as the tables and charts show above and below** (props to our own LSAClassOf2000 for turning my sleep addled tables into these graphical displays), there is a distinct difference between length of the careers that start in the first round and those that start in the 2nd.
Lest anyone protest that, of course, first round careers are longer, as the top half of the round is all lottery players, note that isolating the non-lottery first rounders yields largely the same results.
Two articles ran last year on cbssports (HERE and HERE) that had truly dubious conclusions: the first suggested that early declarants fare better than their senior peers (this one is simply not true - it's mathematically wrong), the second suggested that the idea of bumping up one's prospects by returning for a senior year was outdated and fanciful. It is accurate that NBA teams (foolishly, I think, judging from the stats I've poured over these last weeks) tend to shy away from seniors in the lottery, but as the tables and charts show below, the value of turning yourself into a first round lock - even near the bottom of the first round - is significant.
So what if you don't get into the first round? I'm not finished with my research, but a general hypothesis is emerging. If you're stuck in the 2nd round, you better be ready to play right away or have freakish talent that teams will be willing to take multiple runs at. Essentially, if you're a 2nd rounder, you want to be either a guy who has spent 4 years in college (RS Jr or a SR) or a former top 30 recruit.*** Looking at second round seniors who are non-top 30 guys vs. early entries into the NBA Draft who are also non-top 30 HS recruits, the former have logged 37.63% of all possible years of service while the early entrants**** have accounted for 24.92% of all possible years of service. That's a pretty significant difference. It suggests that you don't want to be a second rounder or an undrafted guy (the cbssports article's point was that you make a roster generally as an early entry, drafted or not) whose game or body is not ready for NBA competition. If you are in that pool, it's good to still have the buzz (and the inherent talent) of being a former top 30 high school recruit.
To bring this part of the research to a close, I think people focus too much on the first contract (even though it is valuable for *future* contracts to be a first rounder). We hear too much about the "stigma" of being a junior and not a sophomore and the "super stigma" of being a senior (gasp) and not a junior with more upside. You know what's much more important than any of that? Being ready to play on day one of your entry into the NBA. Being ready to play on that first day in summer league.
Here is a partial list of guys who have had solid, lengthy NBA careers (or look to be on their way to such careers) after being drafted in the second round as seniors, without a former top 30 status to fall back on:
Luke Walton
Willie Green
Matt Bonner
James Jones
Kyle Korver
Royal Ivey
Ronny Turiaf
Ryan Gomes
Steve Novak
Solomon Jones
Ryan Hollins
Carl Landry
Dominic McGuire (RS Jr)
Aaron Gray
Jeff Pendergraph
Dante Cunningham
Marcus Thornton
Dexter Pittman
Landry Fields
Jeremy Evans
Jon Leuer
Lavoy Allen
Draymond Green
and a whole slew of guys still in the league who were drafted in 2012 and are looking very strong (Acy, Hamilton, Scott, Sacre, etc.)
I certainly understand the allure of the NBA Draft. For so many kids, the league is the dream. And why delay getting started with one's career? But is the dream a two to three year run (or, even worse, never seeing an NBA court)? I have to think it's a 10-12 year career, with some playoffs thrown in for good measure. My research suggests it can be a very bad thing to leave a a year before you're ready for the league if you have a lengthy career in mind. In fact, even relative to athletes who perhaps stay a year too long, it is a worse road to travel, to a significant statistical degree.
I believe people can improve their games at the league level - many do. But to get the attention and the support and the patience of an NBA team to allow for your development, they have to make an investment in you. And there's nothing wrong with spending four years in a college program to make sure that you are an investment that starts paying dividends on day one.
First off, kudos for running the numbers on this. This is one of my favorite topics to discuss and it's nice to be able to move past anecdotes.
However, I think you're confusing correlation with causation. A first rounder isn't better than a second rounder because he is drafted in the first round, he is drafted in the first round because he is better. Mateen Cleeves wasn't going to be a better player if he was draft #1 overall and Chris Webber wasn't booking a flight to Spain if he fell to the 2nd round. The same applies for recruiting star rankings (which is why I always SMDH when people get excited when Rivals bumps a committed recruit down or up -- he was already that guy and their report doesn't change anything other removing a possible chip from that recruit's shoulder).
Looking just at draft location is no more valuable than looking just at early entry status. If you did, you'd find HS players and now freshman dominating these kind of stats and you could just as spuriously conclude that what it took to succeed in the NBA was to declare as young as possible. Of course that is silly. Age/class and draft position are irrelevant compared to what really matters -- talent.
One thing your analysis could do to try to mitigate for this is by focusing on the closest grop of similar talent players - the bottom 5 of the 1st round and the top 5 of the 2nd round.
Your assertion that being the last pick of round 1 is far better than the first pick of round 2 is not backed up by any facts that I'm aware of. Many 2nd rounders get guaranteed contracts (just like 1st rounders) e.g, Draymond Green. If not, they get a lot more flexibility and the potential to reach free agency. Either you can play or you can't and if you can, you can argue it's better to be a second rounder (see: Gilbert Arenas, who would have lost 10s of millions had he been drafted in round 1. The rules have changed but there's still a benefit to not being locked into a fix-wage multi-year deal.
The argument of the go-when-you-can side hinges on the argument that you are who you are. Darius Morris and Manny Harris were never going to be NBA all-stars, even if they came back to college and were magically awarded 4 more years of eligibility. For some guys, clearly, college helped them develop. The GS Warriors have a bunch of these guys leading their team right now. For others, they hit a ceiling and it's time to move on. NCAA basketball is a very low level of competion compared to the NBDL and many foreign leagues that pay reasonable money. It's just common sense that many people (especially complementary players who don't need to dominate the ball) are better off developing against better competition.
I do agree that too much emphasis is placed on rookie contracts. Not enough is placed on the entering free agency one year earlier. That's where a decision like Mitch McGarys ends up costing you many millions of dollars. Not because he happened to fall from a top 10 pick to much lower, but because he (as a guy who looks like he's headed for a 10 year NBA career) lost a year of free agency money in his earning prime.
The bottom line is if you are going to be a 12 year NBA vet the best thing you can do financially is go pro right away and get paid to develop in the NBA. T dehe reason to stay is development (if you think you can't do that in the NBA as well) or insurance (if you think there's a good chance the NBA won't work out for you.) Of course there are other personal reasons, but looking purely at financial consequences and being a professional basketball player strictly - the right decision is that - if you can do it, you probably should.
Of course, a lot of guys who can't do it overestimate their talents. This is an indisputable point. But some of these guys who never see a minute of NBA time also weren't meant to get a college degree and settle into a 9-to-5 either. So what did they really lose? Maybe they get to play for 2 years in the NBA and hang that picture on their wall for life, whereas if they stuck around in college they might not have seen a second of NBA time. You think Darius Morris regrets being a Laker? I kind of doubt it, even if he's out of the league for good after next week.
Again, thanks for the post. I'd be interested to read those CBS articles you referenced. Out of context, your arguments against them don't make much sense.
You make a lovely meal and you forget... salt. We will fix, sorry about that.
Going to get to your whole post later, and like your idea about looking at the two groups you asked to have compared.
Do keep in mind, though, if you would, that I isolated the non-lottery first round to run a comparison. And I was surprised and intrigued to find that - in length of service, at least - the numbers were almost identical to the lottery first rounders (in one case or two, even better!).
This is responsive to the idea that the non-lottery first round is nothing to be excited about - and I read comments denigrating the non-lottery first round all the time.
Also, if it's agreed that a positive goal is playing yourself squarely into the first round - even if making the lottery *has* been hard for a senior (I think that won't last forever) - then the success of the bottom half of the first round seems relevant.
Going to get on adding those links. Apologies again.
* a note - I will run the bottom 5/top 5 suggestion you made, but my "top 5" will have to be "top 5 non-euros" to avoid the stash pick issue. Or at least top 5 non-euro stashes.
April 11th, 2015 at 10:54 AM ^
Really that's the most compelling finding of your post, IMO.
If your results are correct - that there's little to no difference in career longevity between lotto and non-lottery 1st rounders that is a real surprise. I have seen analysis of career earnings by draft position before and there's definitly a correlation between draft position and production (as measured by the contract $ proxy.)
Perhaps the explanation is that lottery picks tend to include higher risk and therefore more likely to boom or bust. Since the NBA puts a premium on finding the next superstar, teams are willing to take bigger chances with high picks even though they know the chances of finding a productive player are low. (i.e., they'd rather have a 10% chance of a superstar than a 50% chance at a rotation backup.)
April 11th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^
but not longevity (as was shown). And yes, I was surprised by my results, as well.
Did you see that I ran the calculations you asked for?
(see a post a few below this one)
April 11th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^
but not longevity (as was shown). And yes, I was surprised by my results, as well.
Did you see that I ran the calculations you asked for?
(see a post a few below this one)
think you underrate teaching at a good college program, and how it's available deep into the team - not just for stars.
Whatever you think of the level of comp - and I think the actual games themselves are a problem in the NBDL, not the level of comp which is pretty good - at a well run college program, the ability to develop without the pressure of being cut is significant/substantial. Does not apply to Spring House Creaning, of course.
Missing link issue fixed, btw.
Btw, Darius is on the high end of outcomes for the group you describe.
April 11th, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^
I might be underrating coaching development, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence that it is better than College than in the NBA. Kentucky and Duke and Kansas get elite talent -- surprise, they consistently produce NBA players. Tom Crean got credit for developing Dwyane Wade...and hasn't done anything since. etc.
NBA coaches are generally better than college coaches. And it's true that they have more focus on production than development (though the gap is increasingly narrowing IMO), but that's limiting the conversation to head coaches. And I'll put Popovich over Krzyszewski any day.
The big thing about coaching in NCAA is that it is constrained. You have X number of assistants and Y number of hours of permitted contact. A lot of work (maybe most of it) is happening by the players on their own setting up shooting drills etc. In the NBA, teams like the Mavs have a coach hired specifically for each player, focused exclusively on their development, plus a staff larger than NCAA teams. You have no limit on contact, you do it almost year round, and your distractions are travel related instead of class/homework.
I'm sure we could debatte the pressure of getting cut (which does exist in college too, just not for the future NBA players usually) and it's impact on elite players. It seems like it would drive people to me.
there are some coaches where I don't think you benefit.
But so many of these guys (and way more than a Pop or two here and there) are phenomenal teachers of not just the physical fundamentals, but also the fundamental mental game.
I had a HS coach who was basically a college coach who chose to coach HS and own a summer camp. He was close to Dean Smith and all those guys. I can't tell you how much I learned from him. Most everything I know about the game comes from my years with him and I really like to think I understand the game pretty darn well.
We were a private school, but a top 10 team in NYC - part of this was having 4 D1 guys (although only one was even middle D1 (other 3 were Ivies)) - but a large part was that this guy was one hell of a coach.
I think, is one of them. And we can't underestimate the role of a guy like that in bringing many players to prominence in the first place, so that they can become fodder for your stats. (I also don't know, in this same regard, if you can control for the emergence of players late in the game. Surely, many elite players are on the scouting radar from their freshman years on; but were some of these guys who "stayed" actually players who emerged late?)
In the end, though, I don't think you can possibly compare playing around the clock, working to improve your game with elite players and coaching, with what these guys are doing in college. . . even as they risk injury, are distracted by school, etc. And while the numbers carry lessons, I think that irrespective of maximizing long-term earning potential maximizing your qualities as a player short-term is going to win out in the calculus of many players and their families.
Despite your impressive take, I still think it is likely to come down to a whole lot of additional, highly idiosyncratic variables for any guy, including Caris: will I be featured strongly in the offense next year? Who's coming in? Who else is going into the draft? So--yes--if you are falling into the second round then career potential earnings MIGHT help sway the decision, but. . . is my family poor now? Am I hating school? (Etc.)
And there is absolutely no reason why a player can't finish up the degree later.
and it may be right, but every instinct I have pushes me the other way.
I don't think there's like a few great coaches in terms of fundamentals at the college level - I think there are a lot of them. I'm a huge admirer of Coach B, and I put him up there with any of them. But the pool extends way beyond a Coach B, a Coach K, the angry little man, etc.
There's a reason that a guy like Clyde Frazier, who I randomly ran into and chatted with for about fifteen minutes the other day, wishes kids stayed in school. He knows what you should learn at the college level and he can see that the kids coming into the league haven't learned these things. Of course, he watches the Knicks for 70-80 games, so there's that, but I know he means there are skills lacking across the league.
You talk about the around the clock stuff, etc., but while I'm convinced the NBA is a great place for a *superstar* like Anthony Davis to develop game we never knew he had, I just am not convinced that a guy at the end of the bench who is a take it or leave it investment for a team is in the ideal growth environment. As high stakes as college basketball is, there is nothing that compares to a nearly pure dollars and cents environment, where you are an interchangeable commodity from day one. And I really question how much personal attention the guys who can't produce right away get unless they are seen as huge untapped talents.
The injury risk is real, but again, how many guys can you name with solid NBA prospects who lost their careers in college? I think that list exists, but it's short. And try being injured at the pro level, where, again, you're just a commodity and there are medical staffs that have a scary devotion to team, not patient (some of them, far from all of them, but some of them).
Fyi, there are a slew of guys who were on the radar early who stay - a guy like Chandler Parsons is a great example of that. I have many of them.
As to the degree thing, the biggest thing they lose is the opportunity to finish or make significant progress toward finishing the darn thing. Forget the question of whether they can come back for free or can easily afford it or whatever - it's nice that schools often allow kids to come back for free - but that's not the stumbling block. It's the fact that there is no easier time in your life than when you're 18-22 (and have zero responsibilities) to get your college degree.
As someone who went back later in life for my law degree, I can state that it isn't that easy to do that far down the road.
And I don't have kids (or a wife, for that matter).
April 12th, 2015 at 12:32 PM ^
In the NBA, teams like the Mavs have a coach hired specifically for each player...
There was an interesting article in the print SI a few weeks ago on Jeff Teague, how the basketball his father taught him when he was young got transformed in AAU ball, where he learned the importance of showcasing his own talents and "consciously morphed into an Iversonian gunner." When the new staff took over in Atlanta, Teague would get pissed when teammates made cuts or set screens because it was just somebody in his way. You can see the results after they finally got through to him.
http://www.si.com/nba/2015/03/10/atlanta-hawks-jeff-teague-kyle-korver-…
I think the primary need of a lot of NBA prospects these days isn't personal skill development, it's learning to play with the other four guys on the floor. Teague was unusual because he'd learned it the other way first, but some of these guys have spent their entire careers in environments where the only expectation is that they'll show off their stuff.
You can't learn that riding the pines in the NBA no matter how much attention you get from your individual coach. The only way to learn it is to play, for coaches and with teammates that demand that you play as a team.
(And in passing it occurs to me that maybe this is one of the drawbacks of being a one-sport athlete; maybe it's an advantage to have spent some time playing a sport that wasn't quite as perfect a match to your abilities, to not be the star three months of the year?)
April 12th, 2015 at 12:39 PM ^
I confess that I don't have the clearest picture of development at the NBA level, but yes, remember when I said the development of the mental game? That is all about understanding where you fit in on offense, and how the bedrock principles of defense and trapping work on the other end. So I think you're on to something, and yes, the d league serves a real purpose, and some of the guys in my study get where they are going after a year down there first. But as another commenter pointed out, there's a reason the college coach is making a much better salary than the d league coach and why coaches will choose the former every time. Higher quality of coaching on the left side of that divide.
...the point of the D-league is personal development and showcasing. The goal isn't winning a championship, it's landing a ten-day contract. A demanding coach can make some progress with the teamplay aspects, just like a good AAU coach can, but the environment doesn't foster it.
people trying to tell me how competitive the d league games are in quality?
Well, there's something really meaningful about the fact that those games are played in an environment where the underlying point really isn't winning (as you put quite well).
It makes all the difference in the world to play in games where millions of people care about the outcome.
The D-league is a 100% developmental league (by definition!). You make it sound like street ball with guys playing selfishly to get that 10-day contract. It's exactly the other way around. The guys in the D-leaugue have a singlular focus to be a role player in the NBA. The parent team is telling each guy what he needs to do to be able to play a role in the league and they're coached to play that role regardless of winning or losing. They are able to work on exactly what they need to work on to be a contributor in the NBA (unless they play for Sacto's team, but even then you could argue that they're working on a style for which they'd have a better chance to make money than a more standard style which clearly no team thought they were good enough for).
The pressure on college teams to win often leads to players playing in roles that they'll never use in the NBA, but will help their college teams win. Take Branden Dawson for example. He's never going to be a post player in the NBA but Izzo had him playing in power forward doing everything within 15 feet of the basket. His only chance of having a long term NBA career was to develop some sort of jumper, but because it would have been bad for MSU to let him try to develop that in college, he's going to have to try it overseas or in the D-league and he's already a couple years behind where he could be. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure MSU worked on his shot plenty, and he likely would have never would have developed it anyway, but this argument is completely backwards. Similar story to GR3 playing the 4 and Irvin playing the 4. It's crazy (for his development) that Zach Irvin is being asked to gaurd post players when he could and should be honing his perimeter defense.
Because the d-league doesn't worry about wins and losses, it can worry about developing players in the roles best suited for them, whereas the pressure to win in college can and often does cause players to play roles that best serve the team but not the players professional future.
the role specific stuff is intriguing - and the d league does have a role even with the guys highlighted in my study. Many, if not most, of my 2nd round seniors spent at least some time in the d league. It was still better that they had that good 4 under their belt, and they outperformed their d league peers.
I hear you about guys being out of position, at times, but my instinct still tells me that as long as it's a good coach - that solid 4 years of physical and mental (both on and off court) development - it's hard to replace unless you have off the charts talent.
I know how much I learned in 4 years of HS ball, and just the act of grasping *one* intricate system thoroughly puts you in so much better stead to learn future languages.
I really think it's like how learning one language puts you in a better place to learn a second and third. Of course, what would I know, as I speak one pretty darn well, but am useless in the three others I took a poke at.
The Rocket's NBDL team is not only a talent incubator for them, but an extension/laboratory of their team's 3's and layups strategy.
The Vipers push those ideas to their logical extremes. The team exists, essentially, as a Daryl Morey experiment in applied basketball analytics. “If we don’t score 120,” Morey says, “we don’t win.” They average 123.6 points per game, and their offense, at 113 points per 100 possessions, is the most efficient of any NBA or D-League team this season.
Smith is fond of saying that the Vipers’ style of play is “just basketball.” But nowhere outside the Valley does basketball look like this. At least for now. At 24-10, Daryl Morey’s fever dream has the best record in the D-League, and the NBA is watching.
http://grantland.com/features/nba-dleague-rgv-vipers-houston-rockets-fu…
Furthermore, I think players and teams are smarter than they are being given credit for these days. Most teams/players know that the league has evolved from focusing on who can win one-on-one matchups to well-rounded players who can shoot, pass, defend.
and it's an interesting perspective - but it's notable, no, that a lot of people who matter are frustrated with some of the skills that aren't being developed enough by the time kids reach the NBA?
Some of that, I imagine, is just grousing, but I have to think that some of it reflects legitimate problems with player development.
April 11th, 2015 at 10:35 AM ^
Numbers pretty strongly support my contention, although, tbh, I ended up very not crazy about the tiny nature of my data sets.
Just fyi, 3 eurostash picks were excepted from the calculations, as they artificially throw off results.
So, here were the results (listed as average YoS):
2003 8.8 to 4.6
2004 9.0 to 3.4
2005 7.2 to 5.0
2006 5.8 to 5.6
2007 5.2 to 4.2
2008 5.0 to 4.8
2009 5.8 to 4.2
2010 4.0 to 2.2
2011 3.4 to 2.2
To go past that (2012 and beyond), with such small groups, guys are still on their rookie contracts and it's silly/not-useful.
Hope these results are interesting to you, if a little limited by the size of the data sets.
April 11th, 2015 at 11:56 AM ^
Yeah, there's really not much value in the year by year when your sample size is so small but if you add it up you're talking about 40 plus guys on each side (though that might overstate it given euros). Kudos for excluding them BTW, that was the right move.
Interesting stuff, thanks for posting.
Just checking your data now and it says that the last 5 in 2010 average 4 YOS. I see that Pondexter, Vazquez, Crawford have been NBA players each year (5 YOS) -- pretty good for the end of the draft. Hayward played his first year and then was waived his second. He's mostly been a D-leaguer, but it seems as though you are counting this as 2 years or 3? Orton played 500 minutes total over three years and is now in the Phillipines. Looks like you counted him for 2 or 3 as well.
Meanwhile, the 2nd rounders (2 were Euros) where Whiteside, Pittman, and Amon Johnson. Johnson has bounced around the NBDL and Europe and never played in the NBA (though he did sign a contract.) Whiteside has bounced around but now looks like the best player from this group, by far. He is about to be a very rich man. Pittman has played in the NBA only a little less than Orton. He has played all 5 years but only in limited doses, while mostly being in the NBDL. But by math you have 3 guys and a total of 8 years of service.
Anyway, I think this little check of mine reflects some possible flaws in the methodology related to YOS being a coarse meausre. If you have the ability to pull minutes played that might be more telling...
But pulling back to the big picture, now 5 years later....
Whiteside is the best player of the group, an NBA starter. Vazquez and Pondexter look like a long-term backups who will have significant careers as rotation players/contributers. Crawford and Johnson are in the NBDL (though Crawford has played a lot his best moments appear behind him). Orton and Hayward and Pittman have bounced between NBDL and NBA but are probably headed abroad imminently.
These are basically equivalent outcomes (granted for a small sample size) and you could argue the three 2nd rounders are better overall (given Whiteside's eruption) than the 5 1st rounders. Yet, your results show this as 4 to 2.2 -- a blowout loss for the 2nd rounders.
I think what I'm reading into this is that the 1st rounders get a bigger guarantee of seeing NBA time. But it doesn't automatically make them better players than they guys floating around the NBDL.
An alternative methodology would be to drop the first 3 years from the YOS (when 1st rounders get some level of guarantee and 2nd rounders don't) and then compare what happens for the rest of their careers.
You'd still expect 1st rounders to come out ahead (just as you would guys drafted 20-25 to come out ahead of guys drafted 25-30) but I imagine it would be extremely close.
Again, thanks for your analysis.
just saying!
More comments on the qualitative stuff later, but wanted to give you one more stats look.
I don't think these numbers add much to the convo, but if you want to see 1st Round, non-lottery vs. top half of second round (cleaned for euro stashes), here it is:
(listed as average YoS):
2003 8.2 to 6.1
2004 7.9 to 3.9
2005 7.5 to 4.9
2006 5.3 to 3.9
2007 5.9 to 2.9
2008 6.2 to 4.0
2009 5.3 to 4.3
2010 4.1 to 1.9
2011 3.3 to 2.4
(they are identical, iirc) (I sugest checking those sites to see how their methodology on that works).
Yeah, there are some minor questionable ones like this, but trust me, by and large, this stuff is correct. I'm aware of what you're referring to, and it's just not significant overall (a little blip on either side just doesn't change these numbers).
I actually could swap out some guys from that list for better guys - that was just a quick first pass, in terms of that.
Yes, I do have the ability to run minutes and stuff, and probably will down the road. Just please keep in mind that pulling together these numbers has been grueling. Lot of fine tooth combing for things like euros, redshirt years, etc.
edit: saw that other idea of yours cutting out first years of service. I might cut out 2 and try that, although I think part of the point is that building those 1st two years (your league min goes up with every YoS) is a very good thing, indeed. But I get your thinking on this one and could see poking around on that down the road. Believe me, I've been thinking about how to reflect what a "solid career" looks like a lot, and it's hard to nail down a good defn.
edit 2: why am I so confident that YoS minor questionables aren't significant? Because I'm also working on a salary based component of all this - and by and large the realgm/basketball ref YoS numbers make sense when you look at the salary numbers behind them.
from the start of this project. It takes time, but they must be ID'd and excluded.
the correct adjustment would be to give every second rounder in the analysis at least 3 YoS, since each first rounder was arbitrarily gauranteed that many. You'd be taking too much away from the first rounders if you dropped the first three from theirs, since some of them would have at least earned some of those first three years.
they made it into the first round!
It's part of the point.
Not every first rounder lasts 3, btw.
(there's real value in 3 years in the league, fwiw. That gets toward cash no one can argue with as a good decision. And it's really relevant that the 1-2 year run some of these 2nd round early entries get (or zero) are specifically bad trades when placed up against the possibility of a real run in the league.)
(adding on - part of the point is that no, you don't get those years back if you're in the 2nd round - so, no - unlike some suggest, it's not "hey, 2nd round no big deal." It also - even if it went 1 for 1 - which I'm sure you know it will not - still wouldn't cover the differences in median YoS. And I think the median chart is the most relevant. That's what I'd be looking to if I were trying to make a decision.)
April 11th, 2015 at 11:44 AM ^
thanks!
2010 should read:
2010 4.0 to 2.0
I had a hard time keeping up.
Thanks for a fantastic post and bringing value investing to the NBA.
thanks for enjoying it.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
and that doesn't include future earnings.
That goes way past just Korver and Green.
That's a lot of money earned by ho-hum senior second rounders.
There's just so much money in the NBA - for everybody - as long as guys stay on one roster or another.
who is currently on a max contract. He stayed all four years and was picked 38th. I don't know if the extra year or two helped but Parsons certainly thinks so. This si what he said about it:
“Learning all of these things, how hard to compete, what it takes to win, gave me an advantage over these guys that stayed only one or two years,” Parsons said. “I was mature, ready to play right away and I think that showed because I was able to contribute right away.”
(stat sheet's average recruiting ranking), but one major service had him at #19.
Regardless, really good to see the thoughts that emerged from my study of this stuff reflected nearly word for word in a real quotation.
April 11th, 2015 at 10:16 AM ^
Thanks for the post. In this case, the numbers don't lie. There are always outliers, but the numbers definitely support what common sense dictates. Players with mandated two-year guaranteed contracts are more likely to "stick" on their teams than second-rounders whose contracts don't have to be guaranteed.
This year, pick #30 would receive a guaranteed contract worth $911,400 the first year and $952,400 the second year. Pick #14, the last lottery pick, would receive $1,627,600 this year and $1,700,900 next year.
Pick #31 has no guaranteed money.
In other words: Caris needs to come back and play himself into the lottery, as we all thought he would this year.
http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nba-salaries/nba-rookie-salary-scale-…
April 11th, 2015 at 10:41 AM ^
my point is kind of more that perhaps Caris should come back and solidify lock 1st round status, but otherwise I generally agree. If he's at all in danger of being on that end of 1st/top of 2nd divide, which I think he may be, at this point, with the declarations and guys showing out through tourney runs or in the pre-drafts.
April 11th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^
But not for the reasons you state. Caris is the kind of kid that could play his way into the lottery. If he comes back and goes 28 (vs going 32 this year) I don't buy the argument at all. If he comes back and goes #12, he is probably better than going 28 this year. That's not necessarily a huge difference (as your analysis has shown) and offset by the loss of a year of free agency, but there's also a chance Caris goes toward the top 5 where the $ are significant enough to offset the loss of free agency.
More importantly, he's hurt, and he does need time to develop still (physically and skills wise). As a skinny and versatile play (good at everything great at nothing) he's the kind of kid who could get lost in the shuffle if he isn't developed the right way.
April 11th, 2015 at 12:09 PM ^
"if you're a projected second-round pick after three years of college, you'll more than likely be a projected second-round pick after four years of college."
In Caris' case (because of the injury) he's a strong candidate to be an exception to this. Morris, Harris, GR3 were not (though GR3 left after just 2).
it's the avoiding the lost in the shuffle point you make, which I agree with wholheartedly, that made me upvote your post
April 11th, 2015 at 11:47 AM ^
It could be true, but to test the idea that guys with 2year guarantees stick you'd have to exclude those 2 years from the data. Group A - gets a guarantee 2 or 3 years. Group B - doesn't. The difference would come in what happens after. This data sets includes the before, so that's a methodology flaw - at least for drawing the conclusion you want to draw.
April 11th, 2015 at 12:04 PM ^
So, why is the CBS article mathematically wrong? I get that you don't view 2nd round draft status as meaningful, but if you consider the 2nd round a success (as the article does) it seems to be valid.
Getting drafted buys you a shot. 2nd round means less commitment from the team, but really it's a drop in the bucket. If you can't play they'll drop your ass after a year or two, and, increasingly often you'll be playing in the NBDL either way.
April 11th, 2015 at 12:27 PM ^
if you have the right preconditions to being a 2nd round success.
The cbs sports article cites *all* early entrants (and see my mathematical response in the initial post).
$1.2 million pre-taxes, agent cut, and expenses, is far from life changing money
In a comfortable middle-class household that's true. For a child of a single parent making, say, $15/hr., $1.2 million is pretty close to the parent's lifetime income. Even after taxes and agent cut we're still talking about a couple of decades of income at least. If your family's barely treading water, or worse, that can be life-changing.
do you honestly think $350k (that's the end point of those calculations) lasts very long for most of these guys, particularly when they rarely see the end coming (once they sign, I suspect they're even more convinced they will make it big)?
Put another way - how many of these guys do you think really do make a go of it on that $350k? Maybe some do. If they save some of that, bank the 50-80k you can probably sock away every year in Europe, you may be on to something (I'm typing out loud).
But my point is also that they are not optimizing their chances at the $10, $12, $28 million careers. Those can change everything for a guy who manages his money at least a bit wisely.
April 12th, 2015 at 12:44 PM ^
You're probably right, and that's sad.
But to me the real chasm in life is between having a net under you, vs. always being a crisis away from catastrophe. Knowing you can fix your car if it breaks down, knowing you'll be able to make your rent/mortgage at the end of the month and that the food money won't run out--that's the truly life-changing experience, no matter how much money you make the rest of your life.
It makes complete sense to me that someone that's been on the wrong side of that line would want to optimize the chance at the first million or two, instead of the $30 million. These long-term rational-choice exercises are a luxury that comes with comfort. Most of us here are pretty comfortable; it's easy to forget that some of the players we're talking about aren't.
April 12th, 2015 at 12:55 PM ^
it pains me the opportunity that is being compromised and I really do worry that they can run through that money very quickly, but the perspective you're suggesting is appreciated. Totally get what you're saying.
Many have always said that if you can get drafted now, go. As if just getting to the NBA is the objective. I have always been of the opinion that the goal should be to not just get to the NBA, but be good enough to last long enough for a decent career. Stay another year in college, if needed, not to improve your draft number but to improve your longevity.
To each his own.
Given that the average salary for NBADL coaches is only $75,000 (according to quick Google search), you'd think that those at the D1 level making 5-50x as much provide, by and large, better coaching and development. Something could also probably be said about the benefit from playing under the large spotlight of major college basketball, which is virtually nonexistent in D-League games.
Obviously, though, college limits the amount of time that can be spent on basketball, which is a major tradeoff. And few games at the NCAA level can match the competition in the D-League.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Former top 30 guys who left early only to be drafted in the second round. I'm not that far into pulling salary numbers, and the numbers are already getting staggering. For these special talents, getting drafted into the 2nd round seems to be only a blip - a momentary stumble on the way to mega-riches.
Perhaps teams shouldn't so casually dimiss the value of these 2nd round picks (I think this may have changed in recent years, to where they are valued a little more highly?).
So I ran all the top 30 underclassmen in the draft.
They clock in at the highest number yet - collectively, they've logged 42.47% of all potential years of service.
So I do think I'm on to something by guessing that they are a bit immune to the problems of declaring as an underclassmen.
I find that number very interesting, not sure if others will. But it's what I was anticipating and it's a little exciting to see that it is, indeed, the result.
* note: my top 30 guys means anyone ranked in a final top 30 by any of the major recruiting services (I think stat sheet uses 5 services)
April 14th, 2015 at 10:23 PM ^
they clock in right under 42% of potential years of service.
Comments