While listening to a Baseball Today podcast– probably about a week ago – I learned that Japanese baseball has a really weird setup for its player draft. The full details, even on the interwebs, are a bit sketchy, but the basic concept is this: all of the teams submit their chosen first-round picks at once. As you might imagine, this would likely lead to more than one team choosing the same player, since all players are ostensibly available. So, at that point, lotteries are held for individual players.
Let’s use an example from the NFL: if eight of the 32 teams requested Cam Newton with their first-round pick, the NFL would hold a lottery between those eight teams to determine who would actually have the right to draft him. The other seven teams would retain their first-round pick and would be allowed to enter another name – maybe Jake Locker. The NFL would hold another lottery to determine who would win the rights to draft Jake Locker; the other six teams would pick again, and so forth until 32 players were eventually drafted.
On the podcast, a reader mentioned this drafting system and asked the hosts (Eric Karabell and Keith Law) if it would work for any American sports leagues. In some uncertain terms, the answer was no, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good question for debate, so I’m going to see how this system might work in this year’s NBA draft, which is a little less than a week away.
One of the benefits of this exercise is that examining the current NBA under a different drafting system can lead to some interesting insight about the NBA, NBA teams, and draft-eligible players, so along with a list of draft picks for each team, I’m going to include some notes, basically what that pick suggests about the team(s) and player involved.
(By the way, I’m going to rely heavily on ESPN’s draft coverage since my closest thing to an NBA contact is that girl Byron met at a Bobcats game.)
I’m segmenting this blog first on the number of picks used and then on individual player names, since listing by teams would be inefficient. After each player name, I’ll list the teams that I think would select that player during that selection round. I’ll also list the pick number behind the team name. For reasons I’ll explain later, I’ve reset the pick ordering to the pre-draft-lottery order. Also, note that any team that picks a player but doesn’t win that player retains their pick for the next series of picking.
Pick 1
Kyrie Irving: PG, Duke
Teams: Cleveland (2), Detroit (7), Cleveland (8 from LA Clippers), Phoenix (13), New York (17), Portland (21)
Winner: Cleveland (2)
- One of the biggest questions that I have about the Japanese baseball drafting system (that I wasn’t able to answer online) is whether each team has the same percentage chance of winning a claimed player, i.e. is the Bulls 30th pick as likely to win a player as Minnesota’s 1st pick? My guess would be no because most leagues want to encourage their worse teams to improve through drafting. Based on that, I’m assuming (in theory) that teams with worse regular season records are more likely to win any particular player; however, in practice I’m assuming that teams with worse regular season records will actually win any particular player (for simplicity and a number of other reasons).
- That being said, this weighted lottery system would be a major determining factor in who individual teams attempt to draft. In a non-weighted system, every team might attempt to draft an Irving or a LeBron James because they would be equally likely to get him. But in a weighted system, teams would ideally be more calculated with their selections because the Bulls, for example, would be incredibly unlikely to get a #1 prospect with their best record in the league. However, they might be very likely to get a #14 prospect with their best record in the league if a number of worse teams swung for the fences, so to speak, with an Irving selection. And this is where the beauty of this draft system really exists: in the gambling.
- This first pick stuff probably should have just been one note, but whatever. So here’s why Cleveland shows up twice for Kyrie Irving: they’re statistically more likely to win Irving if they add the value of their two picks together (more on trading picks later). There are two strategies with two same-round picks: select the same player twice, thereby increasing the likelihood of winning that player while reclaiming one of the two picks, or select two players (more on that later as well). In my mind, Cleveland swings for the fences in round one, especially considering the 2nd pick is especially valuable and Minnesota (with #1 in this scenario) is unlikely to pick Irving (also more on this later).
- Even though they would be unlikely to win Irving in the first round of picks, some teams later in the draft might take a run at him anyway because (at least theoretically) they do have a chance to win his rights. Teams with successful, established starting lineups might be willing to take a chance on landing a premiere talent. Oddly enough, in this year’s draft, a lot of the later picks in the first round belong to bad teams, so that didn’t apply to anybody here but Portland and New York (I guess they’re a good team).
Derrick Williams: SF, Arizona
Teams: Minnesota (1), Milwaukee (10), Houston (14), Washington (18 from Atlanta), Houston (23 from Orlando via Phoenix), Dallas (26)
Winner: Minnesota (1)
- Even though Minnesota – in this hypothetical draft – has the #1 pick, I don’t have them selecting the best overall player because they (might) have a point guard in Ricky Rubio. With a drafting system like this, team needs should receive more focus since teams would, at least at first, be able to select from all available players. Some might still select the best available player, but in this drafting system, the best available player would probably be the same player to all of the teams (depending on teams’ scouting), whereas in a classic draft format, each team would have a different best available player based on where they draft. So, a lot of the picks I’m pretend making for these teams are based first and foremost on need.
- Speaking of need, according to Chad Ford, Houston’s biggest need is SF, so they go all in for Derrick Williams here, using their 14th and 23rd picks.
- Your world champion Dallas Mavericks have a pretty old roster, but not many players who seem destined to leave immediately. In other words, their roster is pretty well set, and anybody they get in this year’s draft is essentially a bonus. Considering that, they’re going to take a risk with their first selection because the potential reward is great while the risk is relatively small (no team is likely to select the 26th best player with their first pick). Ordinarily, I would expect a number of good teams to use this strategy with their later-in-the-round picks, but as I mentioned earlier, there aren’t many good teams with later-in-the-round picks this year.
Brandon Knight: PG, Kentucky
Teams: Toronto (3), Utah (6 from New Jersey)
Winner: Toronto (3)
- With this draft, the consensus seems to be that Irving and Williams are a fairly significant step above everybody else, so a number of teams will gravitate towards those two, which means most players from this point on will have fewer teams selecting them. It also means that those teams would (theoretically) have a greater chance of winning the following players.
- Toronto needs help at pretty much every position, but they have more youth in the front court. Either way, they want to make sure they get somebody with their third pick, so they don’t gamble on Irving or Williams.
Jan Vesely: F, Czech Republic
Teams: Washington (4)
Winner: Washington (4)
- Washington spent their 18th pick on a chance at Derrick Williams. Williams and Vesely could both end up playing similar roles in the NBA: 4s who score most of their points facing the basket, but they could also potentially play together, since either could move to the 3. So, assuming an athletic scorer and 3/4 hybrid is Washington’s greatest need, their strategy here is similar to using two picks on the same player: they’re increasing the likelihood that this particular need is met. But this strategy wouldn’t necessarily work if the two players selected are too similar, which is why Williams’ and Vesely’s flexibility comes into play. They use the higher of their two picks on Vesely because they want a higher chance that they get at least one of these two players.
Kemba Walker: PG, Connecticut
Teams: Sacramento (5), New Jersey (27 from LA Lakers)
Winner: Sacramento (5)
- One of my favorite things about this draft setup is that it can really expose the personality and character of different teams and their management. So, for example, I know that San Antonio is more willing to wait on foreign players than some other teams, which suggests that they are a patient organization and that the higher-ups have faith and confidence in their personnel. But I only know that from reading about and following the draft for years, during which San Antonio has had very little turnover near the top. One single traditional draft might not reveal much about a team’s personality because they might be fairly limited in their options at, say, pick 16. Under this drafting system, teams can select whomever they want with these first selections, so they can really let their freak flags fly, so to speak, and do what feels natural or right. That’s the case with both teams that pick Walker – more or less.
- According to Ford, Sacramento’s GM Geoff Petrie needs players who can make a difference immediately (or else he gets fired). Walker can definitely shoot but would have trouble guarding most NBA 2s, making him a good fit with the awful shooting but good defending Tyreke Evans.
- New Jersey would also need to ask their point guard Deron Williams to guard 2s if Walker came into the fold, but their main interest here is drafting a name. New Jersey is trying to become relevant quickly in the New York sports scene, and they’re not going to do that with a Jan Vesely or a Jonas Valanciunas. Walker is a nationally recognized player who grew up in New York and played college in the Northeast. New Jersey takes a reasonable risk here, but the payout could be huge.
Kawhi Leonard: SF, San Diego State
Teams: Charlotte (9), Golden State (11)
Winner: Charlotte (9)
- At this point, the top ten picks have been used, even though only six players are off the board. Eventually, these numbers will even out, of course, but this system provides opportunity for some smart teams to take talent that wouldn’t necessarily be available to them in a traditional draft.
- According to Ford, the Mikecats are planning to play it safe in this year’s draft, but “safe” has a different definition in this make-believe formatting than it would in the traditional formatting. Traditionally, “safe” means picking guys who are proven and can make an immediate impact, as opposed to say a Ricky Rubio or Derrick Favors who were drafted mostly on potential. In this drafting format, “safe” might still imply that, but it would also entail using earlier selections on players who are less likely to be selected by other teams. That might require lowering standards a bit, but Charlotte actually gets pretty good value here.
Chris Singleton: SF, Florida State
Teams: Utah (12), Denver (22)
Winner: Utah (12)
- Utah took a slight risk using their 6th pick on Brandon Knight (though they would theoretically have a reasonable chance of winning him), so they play it safe with the 12th pick and draft AK-47’s replacement.
- Denver has a lot of lineup flexibility, and they want to add to that with Singleton, who they think should be available. But they should have done their homework because Utah played it conservative here. Imagine the type of scouting of other teams (and backroom deals) that would go on if this draft format was implemented. It would be more important than ever to know your competition and try to gauge every other team’s intentions. Not only would wink-and-nod agreements be more valuable, but so would public lies and deception. The NBA could turn into a reality show with handshake alliances and vitriolic confession-room tirades.
- Speaking of the potential for drama, could you imagine how exciting it could be to watch this draft. Not only are the lives of young players and the future of NBA franchises at stake, but now there would be Stu Scott-hosted lotteries to make those decisions. Every group of picks would be followed by consequential ping pong ball grabs and tense shots of players hoping not to end up in Toronto. In the traditional format, each of those things only happens once per draft lottery.
- One more note on the player lottery system: this drafting system tends to favor teams with picks later in the draft because they have great potential to draft out of their price range, so to speak. Teams higher in the draft, however, can only move down in the talent hierarchy since their high picks are no longer guaranteed to win high-talent players. This head-to-head instance, however, provides an example in which the lower pick would be very unlikely to win a mid-range player. Utah would theoretically have a very large portion of the ping pong balls compared to Denver.
Jimmer Fredette: PG, BYU
Teams: Indiana Pacers (15)
Winner: Indiana Pacers (15)
- I just want this to happen. I’m making all these picks up anyway, so let’s pretend nobody else picks Jimmer for the first selection.
Enes Kanter: C, Kentucky (sort of)/Turkey
Teams: Philadelphia (16), Minnesota (20 from Memphis via Utah)
Winner: Philadelphia (16)
- Philadelphia is likely the winner, so to speak, of this first round so far. They took a gamble on Kanter, who is often seen as the third best prospect available, being overlooked by a lot of teams at the top, and it paid off. One of the drawbacks/incredibly awesome benefits of this drafting system would be that good teams could possibly come away with very good players. The NBA might consider that a problem; I don’t know that it is, especially considering how difficult and inconsistent scouting can be: see Ryan Leaf and Darius Miles. (Also, Philadelphia’s not that good anyway.)
Marcus Morris: PF, Kansas
Teams: Charlotte (19 from New Orleans via Portland), Boston (25)
Winner: Charlotte (19 from New Orleans via Portland)
- Charlotte may be the other winner of this first round. By playing it fairly safe, they’ve come away with two potential top-10 talents who are ready to make a difference immediately.
Jonas Valanciunas: C, Lithuania
Teams: Oklahoma City (24)
Winner: Oklahoma City (24)
- Like Dallas, Oklahoma City is a team that doesn’t have any glaring needs, so they can afford to make a riskier pick with their first selection. Unlike Dallas, OKC actually wins. Ford currently has Valanciunas at 6 in his mock draft (largely – ha! – because of his size), so this is a big steal for the Thunder.
- A note on foreign players (especially Ricky Rubios): foreign players with other options or obligations would be much less appealing early on under this draft format. When the Timberwolves drafted Rubio a few years ago, they were essentially drafting the chance that he might immediately or even eventually play in the NBA. Under this draft system, teams would have to compare selecting a chance on a foreign player moving to the NBA vs. selecting a chance of winning a greater talent in the player lotteries. I’d guess first selections trend towards the latter.
Alec Burks: SG, Colorado
Teams: Chicago Bulls (28 from Miami via Toronto)
Winner: Chicago Bulls (28 from Miami via Toronto)
- The Bulls are pretty well setup at the point and down low. They have some serviceable options at 2/3, but nothing that really stands out other than Luol Deng, so they’re going to try to get some wing players here with their two late first-round picks. Burks, widely thought to be the best SG in the draft would probably compete and maybe even win a starting position for Chicago.
- About trading: obviously, the 28th pick in any draft will never be as valuable as the 1st or really any higher pick. However, the 28th pick in this drafting format is potentially as valuable as the 1st pick, since the 28th pick is worth a few ping pong balls, and the rest is up to chance. Perhaps more importantly, the 28th pick in this drafting format is almost certainly more valuable than the 28th pick in a traditional drafting format. That’s because of the ping pong balls, but it’s also because of the top-heavy selecting that is likely to happen by higher picking teams. Let’s say the top five teams all go after one LeBron James; even if every other selection falls into a traditional order, the 28th pick has become four spots more valuable. So this is about trading, right? Under this drafting format, any pick would become a particularly valuable trade asset because any pick can turn into a top player. In fact, I’ve wondered if trading picks ought to be illegal if this drafting format were enacted. All hypothetical, of course.
Nikola Mirotic: SF, Serbia
Teams: San Antonio (29)
Winner: San Antonio (29)
- As mentioned earlier, San Antonio can and will be patient with players. Mirotic is likely to stay in Europe for a while, so they’ll need patience. They’ll also need a SF sometime soon, since Richard Jefferson isn’t really a long-term option.
Jordan Hamilton: SF, Texas
Teams: Chicago (30)
Winner: Chicago (30)
- First selection – not round – recap: after 30 first picks, only 14 players are off the board – oddly enough, the number that would come off the board in the lottery portion of a traditional draft (not on purpose). As you might expect, a lot of good players went to good teams, and good for them. Again, the NBA might not like that because it might upset the parity that the draft is meant to implement, and which clearly exists, by the way. But there are still a lot of good players left on the board (and coming soon).
- And – perhaps the best argument for a drafting system like this – to call any of these players “good” is a tricky proposition. These players are evaluated on a number of different and often incompatible factors, especially when comparing American to foreign players, and those evaluations are then turned into projections about how they will perform in the NBA. Those projections are – more often than not – wrong. Just as an example, here is an incomplete list of players selected before Rajon Rondo, one of the two best players (with 2nd pick LaMarcus Alridge) in the 2006 draft: Andrea Bargnani (1), Adam Morrison (3), Tyrus Thomas (4), Shelden Williams (5), Randy Foye (7), Patrick O’Bryant (9), Mouhamed Sene (10), Cedric Simmons (15), Rodney Carney (16), Oleksiy Pecherov (18), Quincy Douby (19), and Renaldo Balkman (20). Most of those players aren’t even in the league, which suggests all of those teams’ projections were just wrong.
Pick 2
Klay Thompson: G, Washington State
Teams: Utah (6 from New Jersey), Detroit (7), Phoenix (13), Portland (21)
Winner: Utah (6 from New Jersey)
- With the highest remaining pick, Utah is in the driver’s seat for this second round of picks, but I want to stress that this is only because I didn’t actually simulate any of the player lotteries. Chances are some of those wouldn’t have gone to the highest pick.
- Regardless, Utah gets the best remaining player, according to Ford. In fact, Ford has Thompson ranked at 10, right behind Utah’s other first-round pick, Chris Singleton, so Utah actually makes out pretty well here. Needs-wise, they also win with Thompson who is a big (6’7”) combo guard who can play with Devin Harris as he prepares to replace him.
- Detroit picks Thompson for a similar reason, except replace Devin Harris with Rip Hamilton. Detroit may be the hard-luck loser so far, as their 7th pick has yet to net them a player.
- Phoenix: same thing, Steve Nash. Man, Thompson is starting to look like a really great piece.
- Portland: same thing, Andre Miller. I’m telling you GMs, draft Thompson.
Marshon Brooks: SG, Providence
Teams: Cleveland (8 from LA Clippers), Milwaukee (10), New Jersey (27 from LA Lakers)
Winner: Cleveland (8)
- One of the trends from my fake first selection was the gobbling up of wing players, which was already a fairly shallow pool, which means the options are even fewer for this second selection. One theory on this: the best wings in the draft this year are mostly college players, which – as mentioned earlier – are more likely to be selected in this formatting. (It didn’t help that the final three picks were two SFs and a SG.)
- Either way, Cleveland needs a wing, and while they’d probably be happier with somebody who can guard small forwards, they don’t want to reach too far, and get the best available SG in Brooks.
- New Jersey is still trying to make a splash with their New York audience by selecting a Big East scorer with some national recognition but a lot of Northeastern recognition.
Bismack Biyombo: PF, Congo
Teams: Golden State (11), Minnesota (20), Denver (22)
Winner: Golden State (11)
- At this point, Biyombo would be tempting to a number of teams because he has had some good buzz and shown some potential. Minnesota and Denver jump in with Golden State with the hope that the earlier picking teams were scared away by some of his inconsistent play.
Tyler Honeycutt: SG/SF, UCLA
Teams: Houston (14)
Winner: Houston (14)
- As mentioned earlier, Houston wants a 3, so they’re going to reach a little bit here and grab the best available SF, knowing that they have another first-round pick that didn’t hit in the first series of selections. They’re using their better pick on Honeycutt to ensure the greatest chance of filling this need before it’s too late.
Josh Selby: PG, Kansas
Teams: New York (17)
Winner: New York (17)
- New York tried for a PG in the first selection but didn’t get him because I’m summarily allowing the best pick to win every lottery. Instead they get Selby.
Tristan Thompson: PF, Texas
Teams: Washington (18 from Atlanta)
Winner: Washington (18 from Atlanta)
- Washington has a lot of moving parts right now, outside of John Wall who is stationary (metaphorically, not physically). So they’re looking for the best available talent, expecting Thompson and other first-round pick Vesely to come in and compete for playing time with a number of other players who could typically be described as spotty at best (and Andray Blatche).
Nikola Vucevic: C, USC
Teams: Houston (23 from Orlando via Phoenix)
Winner: Houston (23 from Orlando via Phoenix)
- Is Yao Ming ever going to play again? I sure don’t know, and I don’t think Houston does either, so they add some size at number 23.
Markieff Morris: PF/C, Kansas
Teams: Boston (25)
Winner: Boston (25)
- Boston missed out on the other Morris brother with their first selection, but they win the other twin here. Markieff is poised to be a Kendrick Perkins-type player. Wait, didn’t Boston already have a Kendrick Perkins-type player?
Donatos Motiejunas: PF, Lithuania
Teams: Dallas (26)
Winner: Dallas (26)
- With the ability to rest on their proverbial laurels a bit, Dallas is taking some risks in this draft. With this selection, they’re picking a foreign player with about as much uncertainty as he has promise. That’s worked fairly well for them in the past.
- Selection two recap: nine more players are now paired with teams, leaving seven teams with no luck yet. Much like selection one, there was a good amount of grouping near the top as the best available players shifted from the Irvings and Williamses to the Thompsons and Biyombos.
Pick 3
Kenneth Faried: PF, Morehead State
Teams: Detroit (7), Phoenix (13)
Winner: Detroit (7)
- It’s easy to see Detroit as a loser here, considering they got a player ranked 18 on Ford’s big board with what would be the 7th overall pick, but I want to reiterate that many of these picks are gambles anyway – especially at the top, since estimating player progression is by no means an exact science. Despite that, Faried is one player whose move to the NBA seems relatively easy to predict. He’s a rebounder and he’s a motor, two things that likely won’t stop in NBA arenas. His skills may not change a franchise, but he does have the sort of talent that can last (and even start) for most teams for years. If there wasn’t so much pressure to find the breakout star with lottery picks, a lot of GMs would probably be more than happy to get a Kenneth Faried in the first round most years.
Tobias Harris: PF, Tennessee
Teams: Milwaukee (10)
Winner: Milwaukee (10)
- Harris, who can play SF and PF, fits well with a Bucks team that could have a lot of minutes available at both of those positions.
Jeremy Tyler: C, Tokyo Apache
Teams: Minnesota (20), New Jersey (27 from LA Lakers)
Winner: Minnesota (20)
- I don’t want Minnesota to pick Tyler, but at some point, they need to pick a center since Darko Milicic is currently #1 on their center depth chart. I’m personally pulling for Tyler because he decided to forgo the NBA/NCAA mill to avoid (and maybe even in spite of) the one-and-done rule, which is one of my least favorite things in sports. He even left high school early to play pro overseas, so take that NCAA. I’ve also seen Tyler speak a couple of times, and he doesn’t seem to be the kind to skip college because he can’t hack it there, so it seems that he made a conscious decision against the one-and-done machinery. If that’s not the case, and he’s just an immature kid, then I’m sorry Minnesota.
- Since he’s got a story, New Jersey lusts after Tyler here as well.
Charles Jenkins: PG, Hofstra
Teams: Portland (21)
Winner: Portland (21)
- After two swings and misses, Portland is still looking for an Andre Miller apprentice/replacement. Fortunately for them, there are more than a few second-tier PGs in this year’s draft class. They’ll take Jenkins, who actually has a similar build as Miller.
Justin Harper: PF/SF, Richmond
Teams: Denver (22)
Winner: Denver (22)
- Denver gets a player who can spell Danilo Gallinari with very similar talents, replicating the situation they have with Ty Lawson and Raymond Felton.
- Pick 3 recap: still some bunching at the top, only two teams left to pick.
Pick 4
JaJuan Johnson: PF, Purdue
Teams: Phoenix (13), New Jersey (27 from LA Lakers)
Winner: Phoenix (13)
- Johnson has some questions surrounding his game, but he’s been producing in an elite conference for the past three years. Those sorts of players are pretty valuable come late first round.
Pick 5
Reggie Jackson: PG, Boston College
Teams: New Jersey (27 from LA Lakers)
Winner: New Jersey (27 from LA Lakers)
- Ford has the Nets drafting Jackson as a backup plan in case Deron Williams leaves, so I’m basically deferring here, but more importantly, I wanted to create a scenario in which one team picked alone to make this final point:
- This drafting format can be brutal. Specifically, the addition of player lotteries adds a lot of chance to the process. Statistically speaking, some teams will get screwed, but some teams will get lucky. But, then, that’s exactly how the NBA draft works now.
Tweet of the Week:
@BISdom22 Just finished my most taxing but probably most rewarding blog ever: .
Posts
