APBRmetrics

Based on this Nylon Calculus article by Seth: http://nyloncalculus.com/2016/04/02/fro ... nowflakes/

I agree that draft picks are overvalued and most teams would be better off by trading their pick.

However, even if the expected value of a draft pick is lower than the expected value of what it could return via trade, teams might still be interested in using their pick. This stems from the fact that teams value variance a lot. The uncertainty of the draft is one of the only opportunities that allows many teams to potentially get a star player.

Based on this, when do you think it makes sense for a team to trade their pick. If the team is middle of the pack/elite - already has a franchise player - located in a big/small market????

This also raises the question; if team's value variance through the draft so much, why aren't teams engaging in more high variance activities such as signing more unknown players and making more trades.

Some factors to consider are that certain teams might be better at drafting than others (I have no idea if this is actually true, but if a team really believed that, then it would make sense why they would be more willing to keep their pick). Additionally, rookies come on really cheap contracts which might prove to be extremely valuable to certain organizations. Lastly, the NBA trade mark is highly illiquid, so good trades might not always be available.

I guess a lot of the answer depends on what type of team building model you subscribe to. If you believe that superstars are necessary components to winning, you might want to keep drafting until you obtain the necessary level of stardom. In that case, once your team has enough starpower, draft picks should be traded. My favoured team building model is to try and consistently improve assets (until they can be used to obtain max contract players worth substantially more than the max), which in this case would mean trading draft picks.

Based on this, when do you think it makes sense for a team to trade their pick. If the team is middle of the pack/elite - already has a franchise player - located in a big/small market?

This is a tautological answer, but it "makes sense" when the expected value of the thing they're getting in exchange for the pick is larger than the value of the pick. The question is (1) are NBA teams approximately rational actors and (2) do we have any practical insight into what their value model ls? I don't think we have a good idea about the answers to either of those questions.

ampersand5 wrote: This also raises the question; if team's value variance through the draft so much, why aren't teams engaging in more high variance activities such as signing more unknown players and making more trades..

This has been my big question for quite a while. Most teams still seem willing to commit guaranteed $ to a replacement level vet who is certain will not become an impact player (past their prime). There are plenty of 20 to 26 year old players out there in D leagues & international who still have potential to be better or much better than replacement level. The Spurs come up with them seemingly "out of the blue" (which, obviously, is just good scouting &/or analytics). I'm not saying there are a ton of Hassan Whitesides out there - but there's value if teams would be more open to it & not tie down the bottom half of their roster with guarantees to replacement level "old" guys.

Of course, this again leads me into talking about teams making much more effective use of D-League rosters as a true minor league for player development - but that's a rant for another time.

It's an interesting idea, although the long term control and cheapness of picks is very important.

At the end of the day I think the best thing a team can do is have a good GM. The Pelicans drafted Austin Rivers one year and another year took the "shorting the draft" route of trading a 1st and traded it for Omer Asik. Neither route turned out better than the other, because whether drafting or picking a player already in the NBA, valuing the right player was the most important choice in each case

The Player development infrastructure of teams is a big part of how a player is going to turn out. I just get the feeling sometimes (based on nothing but my own assumptions) that teams draft a player and just expect a natural progression without having the right coaches/development coaches in place to help nurture and teach draft picks how to play.

I wonder how many "busts" are due to poor player development in the first 2-3 years of a player coming into the NBA and basically seeing if they sink or swim. So many of these guys are coming out of high school and playing for 3-4 months in 1 college season and then they are in the NBA at 19-20 years of age. They have gotten to the NBA on pure talent but now they need to learn how to play the game and progress into a "pro".

Taking the Spurs as an example, I have no doubt they have a great recruiting team to identify talent but they also must have an excellent player development infrastructure to turn talent into a professional.

Dr Positivity wrote:It's an interesting idea, although the long term control and cheapness of picks is very important.

At the end of the day I think the best thing a team can do is have a good GM. The Pelicans drafted Austin Rivers one year and another year took the "shorting the draft" route of trading a 1st and traded it for Omer Asik. Neither route turned out better than the other, because whether drafting or picking a player already in the NBA, valuing the right player was the most important choice in each case

It's irrelevant if one of these appeared to turn out better than the other because aside from being different situations, they are probabilistic events with a sample size of one.

Your last sentence is sort of the whole point though - how can an NBA know that the player they are going to draft will be more valuable than who they trade for. Ofcourse, every nba team thinks they are great at drafting and going to get a better player, but statistically, we believe they are wrong.

watto84 wrote:The Player development infrastructure of teams is a big part of how a player is going to turn out. I just get the feeling sometimes (based on nothing but my own assumptions) that teams draft a player and just expect a natural progression without having the right coaches/development coaches in place to help nurture and teach draft picks how to play.

I wonder how many "busts" are due to poor player development in the first 2-3 years of a player coming into the NBA and basically seeing if they sink or swim. So many of these guys are coming out of high school and playing for 3-4 months in 1 college season and then they are in the NBA at 19-20 years of age. They have gotten to the NBA on pure talent but now they need to learn how to play the game and progress into a "pro".

Taking the Spurs as an example, I have no doubt they have a great recruiting team to identify talent but they also must have an excellent player development infrastructure to turn talent into a professional.

Player development capabilities + team fit/context definitely seem like they matter. I'd be curious to hear the perspective of those with first hand experience with the NBA to give their perspective because I think it is outside of the scope of analytics. If anyone knows of any good articles on the subject, I would love to read them.

Nate wrote:

Based on this, when do you think it makes sense for a team to trade their pick. If the team is middle of the pack/elite - already has a franchise player - located in a big/small market?

This is a tautological answer, but it "makes sense" when the expected value of the thing they're getting in exchange for the pick is larger than the value of the pick. The question is (1) are NBA teams approximately rational actors and (2) do we have any practical insight into what their value model ls? I don't think we have a good idea about the answers to either of those questions.

Ok - but in your opinion Nate, for what types of teams do you think it makes sense?

Tangentially, we know that hyperbolic discounting occurs to a huge extent in the NBA, and that Hinkie is systemically taking advantage of this.

watto84 wrote: Taking the Spurs as an example, I have no doubt they have a great recruiting team to identify talent but they also must have an excellent player development infrastructure to turn talent into a professional.

True, one thing important about the Spurs, is they are huge on valuing personality and character in prospects it would appear. So while the Spurs may be the best at developing players once they join the team, there's another hypothesis that could be true, that the Spurs do a psychological analysis that predicts which players will develop the best. Therefore instead of developing the draft picks, they are drafting the developers

ampersand5 wrote:...

Ok - but in your opinion Nate, for what types of teams do you think it makes sense?

Tangentially, we know that hyperbolic discounting occurs to a huge extent in the NBA, and that Hinkie is systemically taking advantage of this.

As with any trade, it's important to consider what you're getting in exchange. For example, trading a pick this year away for a pick next year in addition to other stuff can be a very good deal. You'd be silly to take the first pick over Steph Curry.

In the abstract proposition of trading a pick for a journeyman player, 1-for-1. It can make sense for strong teams that are looking for a reliable role player to fill a hole in the roster.

... This also raises the question; if teams value variance through the draft so much, why aren't teams engaging in more high variance activities such as signing more unknown players and making more trades. ...

There's a conflict of interest in play - fans are generally long-term committed and can tolerate ups and downs pretty well. Coaches and GMs, on the other hand, are under pressure to produce immediately and consistently. As the stakes get larger, people get more variance averse (as they should.)

Nate wrote:

ampersand5 wrote:...

Ok - but in your opinion Nate, for what types of teams do you think it makes sense?

Tangentially, we know that hyperbolic discounting occurs to a huge extent in the NBA, and that Hinkie is systemically taking advantage of this.

As with any trade, it's important to consider what you're getting in exchange. For example, trading a pick this year away for a pick next year in addition to other stuff can be a very good deal. You'd be silly to take the first pick over Steph Curry.

In the abstract proposition of trading a pick for a journeyman player, 1-for-1. It can make sense for strong teams that are looking for a reliable role player to fill a hole in the roster.

... This also raises the question; if teams value variance through the draft so much, why aren't teams engaging in more high variance activities such as signing more unknown players and making more trades. ...

There's a conflict of interest in play - fans are generally long-term committed and can tolerate ups and downs pretty well. Coaches and GMs, on the other hand, are under pressure to produce immediately and consistently. As the stakes get larger, people get more variance averse (as they should.)

It doesn't have to be a 1-for-1 trade as you put it. It's just the idea of a draft pick (something with an inflated value) vs other assets; could be a journeyman, but it could also be young players or anything else). And to answer my own question, I think if its a team that is willing to be bad in return for potentially getting a superstar, then it makes sense to hoard draft picks. For teams in other positions, I'd be inclined to try and trade the pick.

On a somewhat related to note, does anyone else think the NBA should increase the max roster size to 15. If the NBA wants to promote the D-League, and the D-league has such a low salary cap, teams are severely limited in the amount of players they can have in their D league system (max 2-3).

ampersand5 wrote: On a somewhat related to note, does anyone else think the NBA should increase the max roster size to 15. If the NBA wants to promote the D-League, and the D-league has such a low salary cap, teams are severely limited in the amount of players they can have in their D league system (max 2-3).

As far as I'm concerned, they should allow teams to "lock" as many players they want under contract as long as they abide by salary cap rules. Where they send those players to play shouldn't matter.

Baseball can have I believe 5 full minor league levels for every team. The NBA could EASILY hand one minor league level with significantly better pay.

But, I think teams historically have done such a poor job of drafting & player evaluation & development than many teams now think there's little value in attempting to develop young players who weren't high draft picks because so few break through that wall. Of course, this is a self fulfilling prophecy - if you don't develop "lesser" young players and allow the more talented ones to all go overseas for better paychecks, & then ignore them later because they are older (less "potential") & weren't an elite prospect a few years earlier (assuming once not a prospect, always not a prospect) - then obviously you will come to the conclusion that it's not worth time/resources to take a longer look at evaluation & development of lesser prospects.

Hell, an entire D League roster could be paid with one mid level exemption salary - and it would be a huge increase in that D League roster salary scale. That's crazy to me.

Statman wrote:

ampersand5 wrote: ...
Hell, an entire D League roster could be paid with one mid level exemption salary - and it would be a huge increase in that D League roster salary scale. That's crazy to me.

The "Wins Produced" guys like to talk about how the NBA is particularly efficient or sophisticated at paying the players less than they're worth. I don't think it's so crazy to suppose that those miserly practices extend down into the more minor leagues the same way that they apply to the NCAA.