2008 NBA Draft Redux
Conventional wisdom says it takes at least three years to properly judge a player in the NBA. Though that may be true, we tossed that idea out the window for a minute as we went back to look at how the lottery portion of the 2008 NBA Draft should have gone.
For this project, we’ve taken several variables, including statistical data and career production, into play in deciding what the lottery teams should have done, based on what we now know about each player. We’ll continue this thread throughout the summer with each draft over the past ten years.
ESPN Insider John Hollinger did a similar series of re-drafts four years ago for the ten-year period of 1995-2005. But since, Hollinger has added the VA (Value Added) and EWA (Estimated Wins Added) statistics to go along with his PER (Player Efficiency Rating), so his methodology is a bit out dated. We’ve basically taken his approach and modified it to come up with our own.
To give you an example, we’ll throw out the one that Hollinger used four years ago.
Take the Golden State Warriors, for instance. In 1995 and 1996 they had consecutive lottery picks and used them on Joe Smith and Todd Fuller. Knowing what they do now, you might suppose they would have gone in a different direction — selecting, say, Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant instead.
But Golden State isn’t the only team that would love to have a do-over on some draft choices. We found that although 2008 ran very similar, every other re-draft was much different than how it played out in reality.
So we went through and re-drafted each of the past ten drafts using Hollinger’s PER, VA and EWA as our primary statistical formula’s. But we also factored in his career minutes played. The idea is that the players who played the best and played the most were probably the most valuable.
Aside from those three statistical formula’s, two other important factors were a players defensive abilities and the likelihood of further development. As Hollinger states in his re-draft, PER doesn’t account for the defensive impact of players like Tayshaun Prince or Ben Wallace, so we have to upgrade them for that. It also doesn’t account for the cancerous impact of a player like Bonzi Wells or Ruben Patterson, so conversely we have to subtract points from those players.
We also had to factor in age and long-term potential. For example, Andrew Bynum was highly regarded in our 2005 re-draft, based partially on his production and partially on his long-term potential.
Based on that explanation, we’ve crunched the numbers, looked at each players value and production, and now a educated guess of what each team would do if they had the chance to do it all over again. Starting with 2008, we’ve re-drafted each of the last ten lotteries based on what we know today. Each year we have to evaluate, the projections become more definitive.
Here we go:
________________________________________________________________________________________________
#1] CHICAGO BULLS -
DERRICK ROSE / MEMPHIS / PG
Size: 6-3 195
’05 team needs: PG, C
Actual selection: Same
Analysis:Though Brook Lopez had the highest EWA (8.59) and the second-highest PER (17.94) in the class as a rookie, Rose showed why he was the top overall selection by winning Rookie of the Year honors and shredding through the Celtics D in the playoffs. With his size and athleticism, he’s a prototypical point guard, and the most likely to be a perennial All-Star over the next decade.
#2] MIAMI HEAT –
BROOK LOPEZ / STANFORD / C
Size: 7-0 260
’05 team needs: C, PF
Actual selection: Michael Beasley, Kansas State, PF
Analysis: Lopez was Rose’s main competition in the Rookie of the Year race and has an incredibly bright future. Like Rose, he plays one of the two most important positions on the floor. Expect his role on offense to increase with the departure of Vince Carter. Add Lopez to D-Wade and a boatload of cap space in the summer of 2010, and the Heat really have something.
#3] MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES –
O.J. MAYO / SOUTHERN CAL / SG
Size: 6-4 205
’05 team needs: PG, C
Actual selection: Same
Analysis: The T’Wolves drafted Mayo, then almost immediately traded him to Minnesota for the rights to Kevin Love. And while Love and Rose had a nearly identical EWA (7.46), he also plays the same position as Minnesota’s best player, Al Jefferson. I like Love as a player, but Mayo is the better fit for the T’Wolves moving forward.
#4] OKLAHOMA CITY THUNDER –
RUSSELL WESTBROOK / UCLA / PG
Size: 6-3 190
’05 team needs: PG, PF
Actual selection: Same
Analysis: After watching Westbrook play alongside Kevin Durant this season, it’s difficult to see anyone else being selected here. He’s still making the transition to the point, but he’s already shown flashes of brilliance and he has the versatility and athleticism to play off the ball from time to time. He’s also still young enough that he’s just beginning to scratch the surface of his vast potential.
#5] MEMPHIS GRIZZLIES –
KEVIN LOVE / UCLA / PF
Size: 6-10 255
’05 team needs: PF, SG
Actual selection: Same
Analysis: Mayo’s the ne in the Grizzlies uniform now, but Love would’ve been a good fit, too. The missing link to the Grizzlies frontcourt is the power forward position and Love is young and talented, and is likely to be a terrific player for the next decade. Regardless of where he plays, he should be a solid player for a long, long time.
#6] NEW YORK KNICKS –
MICHAEL BEASLEY / KANSAS STATE / SF
Size: 6-8 235
’05 team needs: PG, SF
Actual selection: Danilo Gallinari, Italy, SF
Analysis: Beasley didn’t have a poor rookie year, but doesn’t appear to have the same upside as some of the other players in the class. He has the talent to be a serious player in this league, but I can’t help but wonder if he has the drive and determination to become a star. That being said, Knicks coach Mike D’Antoni could probably get the most out of him.
#7] LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS –
ERIC GORDON / INDIANA / SG
Size: 6-3 220
’05 team needs: SG, SF
Actual selection: Same
Analysis: With a desperate need on the wing, Gordon appears to have been the perfect fit in Los Angeles. He started out on the bench, but really blossomed once moved into the starting lineup. With the arrival of Blake Griffin a year after this selection, Gordon’s ability to shoot the ball from deep should keep defenses from crowding the lane.
#8] MILWAUKEE BUCKS –
ANTHONY RANDOLPH / LOUSIANA STATE / SF
Size: 6-10 197
’05 team needs: SF, PF
Actual selection: Joe Alexander, West Virginia, SF
Analysis: Perhaps it’s still too early to call Alexander a “bust,” and he may still be a player down the road, but it’s difficult to imagine him being better than Randolph. I was temped to move him even higher based on his incredible upside, but will refrain until he becomes a rotation regular. That shouldn’t take long if he continues to develop the way he did as a rookie.
#9] CHARLOTTE BOBCATS –
D.J. AUGUSTIN / TEXAS / PG
Size: 5-11 180
’05 team needs: C, SG
Actual selection: Same
Analysis: With Raymond Felton out of favor in Charlotte, Augustin made a lot of sense here. That, along with his solid play as a rookie is why he gets the nod here. He’s certainly one of the top ten players in this class and will eventually replace Felton as the starter at the point.
#10] NEW JERSEY NETS –
MARREESE SPEIGHTS / FLORIDA / PF
Size: 6-10 245
’05 team needs: C, PF
Actual selection: Brook Lopez, Stanford, C
Analysis: Speights didn’t play much in year one, but had the highest PER (18.01) of any rookie. The Nets lucked out and landed Lopez here, but under this scenario they’ll have to end up with either Speights or Jason Thompson. Speights is younger and has more upside.
#11] INDIANA PACERS –
JASON THOMPSON / RIDER / PF
Size: 6-11 240
’05 team needs: PF, SG
Actual selection: Jerryd Bayless, Arizona, SG
Analysis: The Pacers traded Bayless for Brandon Rush on draft night, but under this scenario they end up with a better player in Thompson. Indiana needs size over shooting, which is why selection Thompson here is their best option. He really surprised a lot of people with his performance as a rookie, and has the size to play in the middle if needed.
#12] SACRAMENTO KINGS –
MARIO CHALMERS / KANSAS / PG
Size: 6-2 185
’05 team needs: PG, PF
Actual selection: Jason Thompson, Rider, PF
Analysis: With Thompspn off the board, the Kings would have to seriously consider Chalmers here. Point guard is their biggest weakness and Chalmers proved to be a second round steal for the Heat. Most believed he should’ve landed somewhere in the late lottery instead.
#13] PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS –
DANILO GALLINARI / ITALY / SF
Size: 6-9 215
’05 team needs: SF, PG
Actual selection: Brandon Rush, Kansas, SG
Analysis: The jury is still out on whether or not Gallinari will be a player, but he has a lot of untapped potential that would still land him somewhere in the late lottery or mid first round. Portland has been looking for a young small forward and Gallinari might be worth the wait.
#14] GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS –
JAVALE MCGEE / NEVADA / C
Size: 7-0 235
’05 team needs: C, SF
Actual selection: Anthony Randolph, LSU, SF
Analysis: For the final spot in the lottery, there were multiple big men for the Warriors to choose from . Both DeAndre Jordan J.J. Hickson have shown flashes as rookies, but McGee may be the safest bet. He had good production as a rookie and still has loads of upside.
*Email Andrew at ajohn135@gmail.com
July 7, 2009 at 10:44 AM
This is something I’ve been waiting for since we talked about it in the spring, so I’m glad to see that you finally found the time to put it together.
This re-draft, partially because it is only a year later, is probably much closer to what happened in reality than some of the others you’re working on. Though I do believe Randolph will eventually be considered one of the top five players in this class, I understand that it’s just too early to say that with 100% certainty.
Keep ‘em coming!
July 8, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Ugh, as a Warriors/Kings fan, I usually would welcome a draft redux. But, for 2008, I’m like Randolph and Thompson A LOT better than Chalmers and McGee!
July 8, 2009 at 6:13 PM
I completely agree. Randolph and Thompson are both likely to be better players than most gave them credit for on draft night. Chalmers and McGee don’t have nearly the athletic upside Randolph and Thompson have shown earlier in their careers. Should be interesting to revisit this thread in about five years.
July 9, 2009 at 8:35 AM
There not a whole lot of surprises here. I do wonder, though, if Beasley really lasts until No. 6. Love did have a better rookie year, but his abilities are up there with just anyone in the draft and he’s making the transition to the small forward position. I think he has a brighter future than most are expecting.