Today I am going to look back at the 1993 NBA draft. You might ask why I am doing this. Or you might not. Regardless, here is the reason. My research this summer is focused on the NBA Draft. I have a few other projects, but my study of the NBA Draft is the one project I really, really want to finish (to my co-authors on other subjects: this doesn’t mean our work is not important to me. Our research is still extremely important to me. Really, I mean that).
Yesterday I was playing around with the data and managed to replicate what we did in The Wages of Wins for the 1996 draft for the draft in 1993. Basically, I looked at how many career wins each player produced from the 93 draft and compared this to where the player was selected. I am not sure of the value in such analysis, but it seems kind of interesting. At the very least, it’s worth a Friday post.
Let me start this story by noting that summer in the world of NBA basketball is a time of optimism. Teams have just drafted the next set of future stars. The free agent season has now opened and teams are now adding the pieces that are going to turn last year’s failures into next year’s contenders. Or so the story is told.
Of course it takes years for us to learn that we may have over-estimated a player’s abilities. And by then, we tend to forget how excited we initially were about a player’s talents.
To see this point, let’s consider the 1993 draft. Fourteen years have now passed and most of these players have completed their NBA careers. So we now can fully assess how this draft has turned out.
Table One reports the career wins of each player chosen in the first round of this draft.
Table One: Re-Visiting the 1993 NBA Draft
As we can see, this draft had some hits and misses. The two top talents from this draft were Chris Webber and Anfernee (Penny) Hardaway. On draft night the Warriors and Magic traded these two players. The Warriors got the services of Webber (for only one season) while the Magic acquired Hardaway. Fourteen years later we see that C-Webb leads this draft class with 112.2 Wins Produced. Penny has a career mark of 84.2. When we turn to Wins Produced per 48 minutes [WP48], though, we see that each player was about equal. Webber’s career WP48 is 0.175 while Hardaway’s mark stands at 0.173.
The player chosen in between Webber and Hardaway was Bradley. Bradley has generally been though of as a bust. But in 12 seasons he managed to produce 50.9 wins, which is the 5th best mark in this draft class. His WP48 of 0.125 ranks 6th, which tells us that had decision-makers had a crystal ball in 1993 (and used Wins Produced to evaluate talent), Bradley would have still been a lottery pick.
A crystal ball would have also placed Sam Cassell and Ervin Johnson (not Magic, the other Ervin Johnson) higher in the draft. Cassell was the third most productive player taken in 1993, producing 81.4 wins across his first fourteen seasons. It’s entirely possible that Cassell will pass Penny in career wins and take the second spot in this draft class.
One interesting feature of this draft is how few players have posted an above average WP48. The average NBA player has a WP48 of 0.100. This first round draft class, though, has an average mark of 0.084. Of the 27 players taken in the first round, only seven had a career WP48 above 0.100. Three of these were chosen in the lottery (first 11 picks). But three others – Cassell, Johnson, and Scott Burrell – were chosen in the 20s.
Okay, what lesson (if any) do we learn from this exercise? As noted, in The Wages of Wins we offered similar analysis of the 1996 draft. Both studies demonstrate that many players who were once thought of as “great” players did not produce much in the NBA. From the 1993 draft every lottery pick after pick #3 finished their career with a below average WP48. It’s important to remember that on draft night in 1993, all of these lottery picks were described as future stars. But most of these players did not end up performing like stars.
When we look at the 2007 draft we should learn the basic lesson this exercise teaches. Most lottery picks do not become “stars.” Most first round picks do not become extremely productive players. In fact, few players are productive during their rookie season, and now we see many never become very good.
So before we get too excited about the players selected this year, imagine how these players will look in 2021. I suspect many players – and I am not just talking about Spencer Hawes – will not be thought of as very productive NBA players. And I also suspect that on draft night in 2021, every lottery pick from that night will still be described as a future “star.”
- DJ
15 responses so far ↓
TK // July 13, 2007 at 4:03 pm
After the last two draft posts, everyone is probably hoping for the same thing that I am…
How well did the college stats of Webber, Hardaway, Cassell, etc. predict their NBA productivity? And how well did they predict disappointments like J.R. Rider and Calbert Cheaney. I think Bobby Hurley, given his catastrophic injuries from a crash, should probably get a pass…
dberri // July 13, 2007 at 4:50 pm
TK,
I am wondering the same thing. All part of the summer research program. Someone else noted elsewhere that the last two posts only considered performance in college last season. No effort was made to consider strenght of schedule, age of player, etc… That is all part of this research also.
Basically the posts this summer on the draft are all going to look just a bit incomplete. Hopefully when the research is done we will have some answers.
Owen // July 13, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Very interesting post. Count me among those hopefuls. This seems like a great avenue for research. Perhaps you will even be able to harness your army of grad students to produce a complete record of Wins Produced for the last 30 years. NBA Babble is great enough as is, but a database with year by year WP data, as well as career data, that would be awesome…
Then I can finally find out just how good my childhood heros, Charles Oakley and Patrick Ewing, were.
Great great stuff…
dberri // July 13, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Owen,
If I have an army of grad students, they are in hiding. Unfortunately, everyone has to wait for this “army of one” to everything done.
Owen // July 13, 2007 at 5:39 pm
You should outsource it to China
It’s a long offseason, good to have something to look forward to…
Tom // July 14, 2007 at 1:11 am
I am surprised at how few draft picks from
1993 are above average. Was this a typical
draft year, or was it weaker than usual?
Also, were there any other rookies that
entered the NBA that year who were not drafted?
(Or does that never happen?)
dberri // July 14, 2007 at 8:15 am
Tom,
It had to be a weaker than usual draft. The average player has a WP48 of 0.100. So other drafts had to be better than this one. I should note that Vin Baker would have been above average for his career had he stopped playing in 1999. After the lockout he was a very bad player.
Also, I only looked at the first round. The second round and undrafted players might be a different story.
Charles Follymacher // July 14, 2007 at 10:05 am
Great post as usual however I think what this research shows more than anything is that it’s difficult to become what ESPN sportswriter Bill Simmons calls a “Pantheon Level” star; a player who excelled over the course of a long career. Fair enough.
But I do see a few guys on the list — say, Mashburn, Houston and Baker — who, for a few short years anyway, gave All-Star or near-All-Star level performances. Injuries can really cut into star projections but as far as fantasy/pool value, a good number of these guys do burn brightly for a time.
TK // July 14, 2007 at 11:02 am
Regarding the “weakness” of this draft, I wonder whether this is really as true as it seems. After all, it’s not really the average player that has a WP48 of .100, it’s the average player per minute that has that average.
Given the long careers and heavy minutes played by Webber, Hardaway, Cassell, and Johnson, and how little action everybody below Lindsay Hunter on that list got in their careers, maybe the overall per minute average is closer to .100 than we think.
(And as always, I’m too lazy to dig… sorry.)
Matthew // July 14, 2007 at 11:34 am
I’ve enjoyed your post on the draft, but what about second year players? Which sophomores are most likely to make a David Lee -like leap in their second full season? Rondo? Craig Smith?
TK // July 14, 2007 at 12:12 pm
OK. I lied. I got unlazy and dug out all of the player minutes from basketball-reference.com to see if my theory held any water.
The answer? It held quite a bit of water. If you just did a straight average of the WP48 stats for the players in the draft, the average is an abysmal 0.025778 — WAY below an average player. It looks like a truly awful draft.
But if you use the career minutes to weight the averages (30,721 minutes for Webber, 2512 minutes for Acie Earl, and so forth), you come up with a weighted WP48 average of 0.08187. So that’s still below average, but not nearly as bad as it looks.
This brings up another question: given the distribution of minutes, how many above-average players will there be from any given draft? This draft only had 7. But it looks like only about three more above-average players would be enough to get to 0.100. Who knows if this would hold up for the other drafts, but it looks like finding any productivity after the first half of the draft is really quite a coup.
Anyway, just needed to satisfy my curiosity. Keep up the great posts, dberri!
MT // July 16, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I think Shawn Bradley benefited from the “short supply of tall people” factor and thus got drafted ahead of perhaps where he should have been. I do wonder if anyone can identify any of the wins he produced.
Looking over your table, the one thing that caught my eye is that this was one of the drafts where I think you can say the GM’s did a pretty good job. There were a few stretches where for several slots in a row the position drafted and the class rank wound up being pretty close to each other. Considering all the factors that cannot possibly be predicted upfront, like injury, they did certainly better than a crapshoot.
Looking Back at the 1994 Draft « The Wages of Wins Journal // July 18, 2007 at 1:12 pm
[...] on July 18th, 2007. Last week I looked back at the 1993 NBA Draft. Today I thought I would discuss the 1994 [...]
Rasta // July 19, 2007 at 6:31 am
Just to be clear, you’re saying that Ervin Johnson (WP=58.1) was more than twice as effective as Jamal Mashburn (WP=25.3) or Allan Houston (WP=21.1).
Career averages:
Johnson 4.1 pts and 6.1 rbs
Mashburn 19.1 pts and 5.4 rbs
Houston 17.3 pts and 2.9 rbs
Owen // July 19, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Rasta – Jamal Mashburn had a career TS% of 50.4, which is pretty abysmal.