Here is an interesting factoid about the NBA Finals. Since 1978 (the first year we can calculate Wins Produced) no team has won an NBA title without one regular player (minimum 41 games played, 24.0 minutes per game) posting at least a 0.200 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]. Only one team – the 1978-79 Seattle Super Sonics [led by Gus Williams with a 0.208 WP48] – managed to win a title without a regular player crossing the 0.250 threshold. And only four other champions didn’t have at least one player surpass the 0.300 mark. This tells us – and hopefully this is not a surprise – that to be an elite team you must have at least one elite player.
Okay, now let’s connect this factoid to the draft. Since 1995, no player who posted a below average college PAWS40 [Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes] his last year in college managed to post a career WP48 above the 0.200 mark (after five seasons, minimum 5,000 minutes played). So although college numbers are not a crystal ball (and really, college numbers are not perfect predictors of what a player will do in the NBA), it does seem like players who don’t play relatively well in college are not likely to become superstars in the NBA.
Now let’s apply these two pieces of information to the upcoming NBA draft. What do Jrue Holiday, Jonny Flynn, DeMar DeRozan, and Jordan Hill have in common?
1. These four players represent picks 7 through 10 in Chad Ford’s current mock draft.
2. All four players posted below average PAWS40 numbers last season.
An average player drafted since 1995 posted a PAWS40 of 10.13. Here is what this quartet offered last year:
Jrue Holiday: 9.17
Jonny Flynn: 8.64
DeMar DeRozan: 7.76
Jordan Hill: 9.95
And when we look at picks 11-20 we see the following names and numbers:
Gerald Henderson: 9.70
Austin Daye: 9.23
Earl Clark: 8.53
B.J. Mullens: 7.74
Jeff Teague: 9.97
Sam Young: 8.33
These players were also below average with respect to PAWS40 last season. And given what we have seen in the past, none of these players are likely to become superstars in the NBA. So if Chad Ford’s latest mock draft is accurate, we have some evidence – before any of these players start playing in the NBA – that half of the first 20 players selected will not become NBA superstars. And it is likely – before we ever see the broadcast on draft night – that at least some of these players will be touted as potential superstars when they are drafted.
One last note on the subject of superstars: Since 1977-78 there have been 848 teams. Of these, only 216 – or about 25% — had a regular player with a WP48 beyond the 0.300 mark. Another 183 teams – or another 22% — had a player with a 0.250 WP48. So this means over half of all teams did not have one player that seems a prerequisite to win a title. And it tells us that New York, Toronto, Utah, Phoenix, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, Washington, Denver, New Jersey, Memphis, and Sacramento have at least one move to make if they wish to contend for the 2010 title.
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
Wages of Wins Journal 
JAW
June 14, 2009
DB, how many elite players does the average draft have in it? One problem that I sometimes have with your writing is you impliedly critique Chad Ford here because of his rankings, but…maybe the players just aren’t there. You did this with the Celtics in the playoffs too, “if they keep playing Glen Davis.” Well, they had to, Garnett and Powe were hurt…
Anyway, I think Dejuan Blair should clearly be higher up for just the reasons you cite, but it would be nice if you acknowledged that sometimes it’s just impossible for the things you think should happen, to happen, and not the result of team/media stupidity.
Marcus
June 14, 2009
I think this post is more about the fact that all of these players will be billed as future stars than their draft position. At least, I don’t see anything about other players with higher PAWS40 who should be taken first. Regardless if any of these players do manage .200 WP48 careers, most of them will be touted as superstars in the making on draft day. This post just says that is not likely.
chan man
June 14, 2009
DB,
congrats on your winning the Truehoop Statgeek Smackdown! You’re THE geek of all geeks!
Zach
June 15, 2009
DB:
Reading the Boston Globe this morning, I read the following from Doc Rivers on Glen Davis: “We need him to become a better rebounder.” Perhaps the Celtics will not fall for the hype/ppg increase and will let him walk!
Italian Stallion
June 15, 2009
Have you adjusted this kind of draft projection for age?
It seems to me that on average players get drafted younger these days than they did years ago. So some of these very young prospects may not have statistics that are perfectly comparable to the 21 and 22 year olds that used to get drafted.
Peter
June 15, 2009
Dave:
By my count, the NBA champion Lakers are led (according to Wins Produced) by Pau Gasol, who posted a .272 WP48.
Would that make it the sixth champion to not have a .300-caliber player? And would you write something about this?
Tball
June 15, 2009
The discussion of draft numbers started with a ‘since 1995’. Was there a player in 1994 that was subpart in his last year in college before lighting it up in the pros or were the numbers not available/crunched before 1995?
mrparker
June 15, 2009
fwiw,
This is my list of future above average nba players according to how their stats project from college. This only includes projected 1st rounders except for Brackins
.3 players griffin
.2 players harden,maynor, blair, brackins, calathes
.1 players curry flynn t williams lawson holiday
JoeM
June 15, 2009
Is Eric Doerr doing a preview here or on Draft Express or somewhere else?
Last year, he had his preview out before the end of the playoffs I am pretty sure.
Erich
June 15, 2009
JoeM,
You have a keen memory. Unfortunately, my day job has swallowed May & June, so while I have collected the data, I will not be able to write about it much at all.
I have provided DB with my data and may be able to come up with a big board filled with numbers, but lacking the text commentary I have done in the past.
DSM, I saw your comments in the Jordan Hill post. Please drop me an email at xlssports@gmail.com .
Peter
June 15, 2009
On second thought, I’m thinking twice about asking for a post.
But L.A.’s productivity stats are interesting.
romalley
June 15, 2009
I believe Ariza might have been +.300.
And why would you believe Lawson and Curry to be .100+ level and Maynor to be .200? I don’t see it. Lawsons WS stats are ridic.
Tom Mandel
June 15, 2009
So are Terrence Williams WS stats — outstanding.
Tom Mandel
June 15, 2009
For that matter, Blair’s WS40 is a bit higher than Blake Griffin’s, I think.
mrparker
June 15, 2009
Tom Mandel,
I have a system which projects college players according to wp48. Its been pretty accurate thus far but only goes back as far as 2005. I’m just going off what the system spits out. All projections are for level of play by year 3.
John Giagnorio
June 15, 2009
Hopefully Lawson outdoes that projection. I’d love to see him become a star player just to stick it to the Bulls and Derrick Rose (I’m a Bulls fan, I guess self-hating at this point?).
Tom Mandel, this is off topic, but your website is amazing. Looking forward to reading some of the stuff you’ve written on the blogs.
JoeM
June 16, 2009
Erich,
Anything would be better than nothing. Without that info, I’ll essentially be left to go off ridiculously small sample sizes of NCAA games to decide whether I hate my GM’s choice or love it.
mrparker
June 16, 2009
John G,
I’m a Carolina fan so Lawson is one of my all time favorites. That being said what concerns me about him is that he didn’t really start jumping off the screen until he was more experienced college wise than his opponents. Rose on the other hand figured out how to get it done in year 1. In my experience when a guy outplays his competition although he lacked experience that is a sign of a player who can be great.
romalley
June 16, 2009
I think Lawson is the best pg in this draft, except maybe Rubio. Whoever gets him in the 20s will have a steal. There’s no way I’d take flynn, jennings, maynor, and especially not teague over him.
mrparker
June 17, 2009
I’m definitely not suggesting that some team draft Maynor over Lawson as Maynor will probably take a little longer to develop(little experience vs. great competition). I’m suggesting that he might(might being the key word) be better by the middle of his career.
Tom Mandel
June 17, 2009
John G. — thanks! :)
mrparker — so when you rank Lawson as a .1 player, that indicates he’ll be average or above by his third year?
mrparker
June 17, 2009
Tom Mandel,
I actually have his peak rating somewhere around the same rating I had for Deron Williams or Dj Augustin. I have him as a .18. By .1, I mean not .2.
Andres
June 18, 2009
Have any below avg college players drafted become successful NBAers, in productivity?
mason
June 18, 2009
mrparker, its hard to take all your projections seriously when all you do is say you a system. while i am sure there is reason for your system, why is anyone on this site supposed to take your word and trust your system when you offer NOTHING about how your system works or how it was created. while your input is appreciated, it really does not provide any information to anyone besides yourself other than arbitrary numbers that nobody knows how you calculated.
either share the formula or give some good description of your system, or keep it yourself
Palamida
June 18, 2009
Hi.
DB, I seem to recall a post regarding the fact that in the past (20+, i think?) some years, no team has taken a championship without a player whose career WP48 is above 0.300.
If we assume Bynum (either because of the injuries and\or the fact that last season’s production was an aberration) isn’t such a player and that Ariza wouldn’t make a step further towards stardom, the Lakers are evidently such a team. Naturally, If i remember correctly you stated that this was just an observation, not an actual issue, and that it’s not like we can deduce that a team MUST have such a player in order to become a champion, only that it hadn’t happened in quite some time.
Common sense leads me to believe that since such players are so productive it’s relatively easy to “build” around them and since the salary cap is what it is, in order to get that extra production from several players to replace the production of such a superstar, a team must have at least a couple “underrated” players market value wise, or else it wouldn’t be able to afford them. Max contracts being what they are it’s one thing to pay max salari to an A.I or even A Kobe but quite another to pay similar wage to a Howard, or Paul. The lakers although they are in fact paying Max money to Bryant who has value, no doubt ,but is certainly overpaid, still managed to Pull off winning a championship without a career 0.300+ player by gathering a group of players in the 0.200-0.250 range, some of whom are naturally grossly underpaid. HoopsHype numbers in 08/09: Kobe- 21M ; Gasol – 15M ; Odom – 11.5M ;
Bynum – 3M (extension will earn him 12M next season) ; Ariza – 3M and lastly paying Farmar 1M
That’s that, this Post reminded me of that career 0.300+ Post, and that in fact the Lakers has performed a feat that hasn’t been accomplished in a while.
Good day, Keep up the good work.
mrparker
June 18, 2009
Mason,
I’m simply stating my findings so to put them in writing. I would be more than happy to state how the system works if it weren’t for the likes of David Lewin having his work stolen and published by another writer as their own work. This discussion is fun for me. I have had two solid years of predicting who the best rookies are coming out of college and I hope that the numbers that I use don’t stop telling the story. Eventually, I hope to figure out how to do a smaller version of what Berri has done. I’m not trying to offend anyone. I was hoping Erich would have time to write more about the draft but it looks like thats not going to happen. This is what my “system” spit out and only time will tell if my findings come true.
mrparker
June 19, 2009
Palamida,
To add on to your point: What if Orlando had put a lineup on the floor of Howard, Gortat, Lewis, Turkeglu, and Nelson/Alsten for 1o minutes a night. Wouldn’t that lineup have had enough guys to keep the .3 producer of champions streak going. I am not allowed to talk about Bball in my bar because I said I wouldn’t talk if the Lakers won the championship(citing the .3 producer theory). It turns out that the theory wasn’t entirely true.
Palamida
June 20, 2009
Mr. Parker,
Well, I think that’s a bit easy to assume.
Naturally by playing Lewis as a PF Orl may think it’s gaining but is obviously wrong. However, while Gortat has been extremely productive as a backup in limited mins. one cannot really say without actual data how he would fair as a starter. Will he be above avg? surely he will, but I doubt he’ll be this productive: Amir johnson is a similar case – When you’re a backup playing against inferior competition and can go play hard 100% of the time without worrying about fatigue and\or foul trouble things get a lot easier for you. Moreover, just by watching him play subjectively I doubt he has the lateral quickness to guard most NBA PF’s, which would mean plenty of added fouls per min and many high %’ shots for his opponents. Less misses = Less Rebounds and therefore less production. The same can be argued about Hedo guarding the SG (even though I Think he would be able to keep up pace with most of them, because of his length). Besides if we are playing that guessing game, why not ask what the Lakers could have accomplished by sliding Fisher over to a reserve role and let Farmar (who has a history of proven production) run the point?
If Bynum had played even somewhat similarly to the way he had played last season before the injury, I don’t think Orlando would have much going it’s way either… In summation we can always speculate, but the truth of the matter is The lakers didn’t need an 0.3 career player because they have gotten production a plenty from their army of 0.250’s.
Have a nice day, all.
mrparker
June 20, 2009
Palamida,
I’ve been doing a small sample exercise. I took some previous champions and added their 3 most productive players wp48s together. I took the liberty of rounding down to .3 or .2 or .1 and kept all .4 players as .3. What I found(again small sample) was that most champions had a .7 or above. I think that Orlando could have had that had they used Gortat primarily at PF(.2) and Lewis at SF(.2) along with Howard at C(.3). I think that could have been there only chance. Accoring to 82 games.com Gortat is a .2 as a PF and I think Lewis rated pretty highly as a SF in Seattle. I understand the small sample argument against Gortat but Amir Johnson was the exception and not the rule according to Berri’s work(I think…I’m too lazy to go back to old posts). Anyway I don’t think Cleveland could have pulled off the win either with their assortment of Lebron and mostly .1 complimentary players. Hated to see the Lakers win, but I feel like I learned something.
NBA
November 7, 2010
Less and less superstars around? No, just more and still coming!