Can we get a quality player in the 2023 draft?

[Capt. Factorial]

I looked into this a bit yesterday, and didn't really want to post it in one of the draft threads because

Spoiler: obvious reason

it's kinda wet blankety.

But I thought it was at least worth a discussion.

First off, in order to ask this question I'm going to have to define what a "quality player" from the draft is. Obviously this is a pretty subjective measure. Some might think a quality player means an All-Star, some might think think it means a starter, some might think it means a 7-year rotation player, and some might think it means nothing more than a guy who can give you needed spot minutes for a few years at the league minimum rather than using part of the MLE to sign a free agent who's going to spend most of his time on the bench. That's a wide range.

But given the excitement that we usually see around draft season in the fanbase, I think that we should at least have a moderately high bar - it should really be a guy that the entire fanbase can look back on in 10 years and say, "yeah, that was a pretty good pick". Not to get technical about it (because I didn't) I decided to take a look at a criterion of 10,000 career minutes. Pretty much, if a guy plays 10K minutes in the NBA, he earned them. And, of course, it's a really, really simple criterion for doing an analysis.

To hopefully convince you that 10,000 minutes isn't completely half-baked as a criterion of quality, I'm going to list all of the players the Kings have drafted between 1988 and 2017 (30 years) who either hit the 10K minutes criterion, or who missed it but did beat 4000 minutes (I'd have used 5000, but there were just too many guys between 4000 and 5000 to leave out). Less than 4000 minutes, you don't even get considered.

10,000 minutes ("Quality Player"): De'Aaron Fox, Ben McLemore, Isaiah Thomas, DeMarcus Cousins, Hassan Whiteside, Tyreke Evans, Omri Casspi, Jason Thompson, Spencer Hawes, Francisco Garcia, Kevin Martin, Gerald Wallace, Hedo Turkoglu, Jason Williams, Anthony Johnson, Peja Stojakovic, Corliss Williamson, Brian Grant, Michael Smith, Walt Williams, Randy Brown, Lionel Simmons, Pervis Ellison, Vinny Del Negro (24 players)

4,000-9,999 minutes ("Sorry"): Justin Jackson, Willie Cauley-Stein, Nik Stauskas, Thomas Robinson, Jerome James, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, Tyus Edney, Lawrence Funderburke, Bobby Hurley, Pete Chilcutt, Duane Causwell, Anthony Bonner (12 players)

While there are a few players in the 10,000 minute club that don't exactly roll off the tongue when talking about players we can look back on and say we were happy to draft, for the most part these guys are solid NBA players with at least decent careers. The next list, not so much. WCS was recent so we still might think about him, and Funderburke was there in the early years of the Glory Days, so I'll always have a soft spot for him. To me, this looks like just about as natural of a cutoff as you could find with a nice round number.

So what did I do then? First, I picked the latest draft where basically everybody has sorted into "Made 10K minutes" or "Not gonna make 10K minutes" categories. I chose 2013, a draft whose players have ten years in the league. Technically Michael Carter-Williams is 58 minutes away and could make it, but he only played 44 minutes last season so he's not on pace and he's not under contract, so we'll just call him a no. Then I went back through 20 years worth of draft data from there and sorted players into the following categories: (A) Selected 1-5, (B) Selected 6-10, (C) Selected 11-20, (D) Selected 21-30, (E) Selected 31-45, (F) Selected 46-60. (In a few earlier drafts when there were fewer than 30 NBA teams I adjusted the C/D and E/F midpoints accordingly but kept the first round/second round distinction between D and E because I think the guaranteed first round contract could play a role in minutes allocations.) I also determined whether they were members of the 10,000 Minute Club, AKA "Quality Players". The breakdown of how likely all NBA teams were to draft a Quality Player in the various draft ranges (finally, the meat!) went as follows:

(A) 1-5: 87%
(B) 6-10: 72%
(C) 11-20: 50%
(D) 21-30: 37%
(E) 31-45: 19%
(F) 46-60: 8%

As you can see, the odds of picking up a quality player at any given draft pick are already against you by the time you get to the 20s - a pick just outside of the lottery is already a coin flip. But the Kings aren't even picking that high - in fact we're basically smack-dab in the middle of tiers D, E, and F with our three picks. I know we'd all love to "hit" on all three of our picks, but the raw probability of doing that looks to be between 5 and 6 percent. Not too likely. In fact, we're at about 47% odds (so basically a coin flip) of getting NO quality players assuming we stand pat and draft at #24, #38, and #54.

So, hope for the best, but if things don't turn out in our favor on this one, well, we shouldn't be too surprised.

 

[QWERTYLICIOUS]

I looked into this a bit yesterday, and didn't really want to post it in one of the draft threads because

Spoiler: obvious reason

it's kinda wet blankety.

But I thought it was at least worth a discussion.

First off, in order to ask this question I'm going to have to define what a "quality player" from the draft is. Obviously this is a pretty subjective measure. Some might think a quality player means an All-Star, some might think think it means a starter, some might think it means a 7-year rotation player, and some might think it means nothing more than a guy who can give you needed spot minutes for a few years at the league minimum rather than using part of the MLE to sign a free agent who's going to spend most of his time on the bench. That's a wide range.

But given the excitement that we usually see around draft season in the fanbase, I think that we should at least have a moderately high bar - it should really be a guy that the entire fanbase can look back on in 10 years and say, "yeah, that was a pretty good pick". Not to get technical about it (because I didn't) I decided to take a look at a criterion of 10,000 career minutes. Pretty much, if a guy plays 10K minutes in the NBA, he earned them. And, of course, it's a really, really simple criterion for doing an analysis.

To hopefully convince you that 10,000 minutes isn't completely half-baked as a criterion of quality, I'm going to list all of the players the Kings have drafted between 1988 and 2017 (30 years) who either hit the 10K minutes criterion, or who missed it but did beat 4000 minutes (I'd have used 5000, but there were just too many guys between 4000 and 5000 to leave out). Less than 4000 minutes, you don't even get considered.

10,000 minutes ("Quality Player"): De'Aaron Fox, Ben McLemore, Isaiah Thomas, DeMarcus Cousins, Hassan Whiteside, Tyreke Evans, Omri Casspi, Jason Thompson, Spencer Hawes, Francisco Garcia, Kevin Martin, Gerald Wallace, Hedo Turkoglu, Jason Williams, Anthony Johnson, Peja Stojakovic, Corliss Williamson, Brian Grant, Michael Smith, Walt Williams, Randy Brown, Lionel Simmons, Pervis Ellison, Vinny Del Negro (24 players)

4,000-9,999 minutes ("Sorry"): Justin Jackson, Willie Cauley-Stein, Nik Stauskas, Thomas Robinson, Jerome James, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, Tyus Edney, Lawrence Funderburke, Bobby Hurley, Pete Chilcutt, Duane Causwell, Anthony Bonner (12 players)

While there are a few players in the 10,000 minute club that don't exactly roll off the tongue when talking about players we can look back on and say we were happy to draft, for the most part these guys are solid NBA players with at least decent careers. The next list, not so much. WCS was recent so we still might think about him, and Funderburke was there in the early years of the Glory Days, so I'll always have a soft spot for him. To me, this looks like just about as natural of a cutoff as you could find with a nice round number.

So what did I do then? First, I picked the latest draft where basically everybody has sorted into "Made 10K minutes" or "Not gonna make 10K minutes" categories. I chose 2013, a draft whose players have ten years in the league. Technically Michael Carter-Williams is 58 minutes away and could make it, but he only played 44 minutes last season so he's not on pace and he's not under contract, so we'll just call him a no. Then I went back through 20 years worth of draft data from there and sorted players into the following categories: (A) Selected 1-5, (B) Selected 6-10, (C) Selected 11-20, (D) Selected 21-30, (E) Selected 31-45, (F) Selected 46-60. (In a few earlier drafts when there were fewer than 30 NBA teams I adjusted the C/D and E/F midpoints accordingly but kept the first round/second round distinction between D and E because I think the guaranteed first round contract could play a role in minutes allocations.) I also determined whether they were members of the 10,000 Minute Club, AKA "Quality Players". The breakdown of how likely all NBA teams were to draft a Quality Player in the various draft ranges (finally, the meat!) went as follows:

(A) 1-5: 87%
(B) 6-10: 72%
(C) 11-20: 50%
(D) 21-30: 37%
(E) 31-45: 19%
(F) 46-60: 8%

As you can see, the odds of picking up a quality player at any given draft pick are already against you by the time you get to the 20s - a pick just outside of the lottery is already a coin flip. But the Kings aren't even picking that high - in fact we're basically smack-dab in the middle of tiers D, E, and F with our three picks. I know we'd all love to "hit" on all three of our picks, but the raw probability of doing that looks to be between 5 and 6 percent. Not too likely. In fact, we're at about 47% odds (so basically a coin flip) of getting NO quality players assuming we stand pat and draft at #24, #38, and #54.

So, hope for the best, but if things don't turn out in our favor on this one, well, we shouldn't be too surprised.

Can we get a quality player? Yes

Will we get a quality player? TBD, and for the reasons outlined by you.

Also, great analysis!!!

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

I think McNair is going to move this 1st round pick as a part of a trade for a known NBA player who fits a need for this roster. I'd like to see him take a swing with the 38th pick.

 

[kingsboi]

I'd like to see Monte keep the pick and just continue adding to the young core of players. Will it be a quality player? I don't think we will know for a couple of seasons but if the player shows flashes and that he's earned minutes then the trajectory is positive. Monte has yet to hit on his 2nd round picks so I'm still waiting to see when that time may come, unless he decides to sell them off.

 

[206Fan]

This isn't a typical draft. I think the #24 pick nets a more talented player than it would've compared to most years. Going off the prospects available, I do think it's important for us to "hit" and find a quality player at #24. There are some players at #24 who would be fringe lotto talents in most years. A couple that come to mind are Dariq Whitehead, Maxwell Lewis, and Leonard Miller. Due to the influx of talent in this draft, I think that expectation of hitting the pick also extends to the #38th pick.

Pick #54? It would've been valuable had half of the 2nd round prospects not return back to school (last week). I'm fine trading this pick away.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

This isn't a typical draft. I think the #24 pick nets a more talented player than it would've compared to most years.

I feel like this is said every year, in the same way that every October coming out of the off season every single NBA player is in the "best shape of his life". In early June, this year's draft is always better than the typical draft.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If we came away with a Kevin Martin or even a Francisco Garcia while keeping an upwards playoff trajectory we'll be in great shape.

Hedo was picked 16th overall in 2000 and Gerald Wallace 25 in 2001 which are probably best case. We just hope to avoid a Quincy Douby (19, 2006).

I won't be surprised if we trade the pick - historically there is good value here. But there's also guys we could just say hey - we'll own them for the next ~7 years so let's get a 6-9 rotation guy and call it a day.

I'm really excited about the options. But at the end of the day I see us either trading the pick to land an impact guy or drafting a rotation piece who may take a few years to see return on.

 

[coolhandluke]

I looked into this a bit yesterday, and didn't really want to post it in one of the draft threads because

Spoiler: obvious reason

it's kinda wet blankety.

But I thought it was at least worth a discussion.

First off, in order to ask this question I'm going to have to define what a "quality player" from the draft is. Obviously this is a pretty subjective measure. Some might think a quality player means an All-Star, some might think think it means a starter, some might think it means a 7-year rotation player, and some might think it means nothing more than a guy who can give you needed spot minutes for a few years at the league minimum rather than using part of the MLE to sign a free agent who's going to spend most of his time on the bench. That's a wide range.

But given the excitement that we usually see around draft season in the fanbase, I think that we should at least have a moderately high bar - it should really be a guy that the entire fanbase can look back on in 10 years and say, "yeah, that was a pretty good pick". Not to get technical about it (because I didn't) I decided to take a look at a criterion of 10,000 career minutes. Pretty much, if a guy plays 10K minutes in the NBA, he earned them. And, of course, it's a really, really simple criterion for doing an analysis.

To hopefully convince you that 10,000 minutes isn't completely half-baked as a criterion of quality, I'm going to list all of the players the Kings have drafted between 1988 and 2017 (30 years) who either hit the 10K minutes criterion, or who missed it but did beat 4000 minutes (I'd have used 5000, but there were just too many guys between 4000 and 5000 to leave out). Less than 4000 minutes, you don't even get considered.

10,000 minutes ("Quality Player"): De'Aaron Fox, Ben McLemore, Isaiah Thomas, DeMarcus Cousins, Hassan Whiteside, Tyreke Evans, Omri Casspi, Jason Thompson, Spencer Hawes, Francisco Garcia, Kevin Martin, Gerald Wallace, Hedo Turkoglu, Jason Williams, Anthony Johnson, Peja Stojakovic, Corliss Williamson, Brian Grant, Michael Smith, Walt Williams, Randy Brown, Lionel Simmons, Pervis Ellison, Vinny Del Negro (24 players)

4,000-9,999 minutes ("Sorry"): Justin Jackson, Willie Cauley-Stein, Nik Stauskas, Thomas Robinson, Jerome James, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, Tyus Edney, Lawrence Funderburke, Bobby Hurley, Pete Chilcutt, Duane Causwell, Anthony Bonner (12 players)

While there are a few players in the 10,000 minute club that don't exactly roll off the tongue when talking about players we can look back on and say we were happy to draft, for the most part these guys are solid NBA players with at least decent careers. The next list, not so much. WCS was recent so we still might think about him, and Funderburke was there in the early years of the Glory Days, so I'll always have a soft spot for him. To me, this looks like just about as natural of a cutoff as you could find with a nice round number.

So what did I do then? First, I picked the latest draft where basically everybody has sorted into "Made 10K minutes" or "Not gonna make 10K minutes" categories. I chose 2013, a draft whose players have ten years in the league. Technically Michael Carter-Williams is 58 minutes away and could make it, but he only played 44 minutes last season so he's not on pace and he's not under contract, so we'll just call him a no. Then I went back through 20 years worth of draft data from there and sorted players into the following categories: (A) Selected 1-5, (B) Selected 6-10, (C) Selected 11-20, (D) Selected 21-30, (E) Selected 31-45, (F) Selected 46-60. (In a few earlier drafts when there were fewer than 30 NBA teams I adjusted the C/D and E/F midpoints accordingly but kept the first round/second round distinction between D and E because I think the guaranteed first round contract could play a role in minutes allocations.) I also determined whether they were members of the 10,000 Minute Club, AKA "Quality Players". The breakdown of how likely all NBA teams were to draft a Quality Player in the various draft ranges (finally, the meat!) went as follows:

(A) 1-5: 87%
(B) 6-10: 72%
(C) 11-20: 50%
(D) 21-30: 37%
(E) 31-45: 19%
(F) 46-60: 8%

As you can see, the odds of picking up a quality player at any given draft pick are already against you by the time you get to the 20s - a pick just outside of the lottery is already a coin flip. But the Kings aren't even picking that high - in fact we're basically smack-dab in the middle of tiers D, E, and F with our three picks. I know we'd all love to "hit" on all three of our picks, but the raw probability of doing that looks to be between 5 and 6 percent. Not too likely. In fact, we're at about 47% odds (so basically a coin flip) of getting NO quality players assuming we stand pat and draft at #24, #38, and #54.

So, hope for the best, but if things don't turn out in our favor on this one, well, we shouldn't be too surprised.

Bravo. This is the type of content that makes me visit this forum. Once again, Captain comes through and answers the question that's on everyone's mind.

If we get a rotational player at #24, it is a good outcome. Anything more is a bonus. Looking at the Kings draft history was depressing. Thankfully, we have a competent GM now.

 

[mrlaze]

Yeah im not expecting much from our picks. If they end up on the bench and not the g league I'll call that a win.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I feel like this is said every year, in the same way that every October coming out of the off season every single NBA player is in the "best shape of his life". In early June, this year's draft is always better than the typical draft.

It’s a 23 player draft this year, though!

 

[Telemachus]

I feel like this is said every year, in the same way that every October coming out of the off season every single NBA player is in the "best shape of his life". In early June, this year's draft is always better than the typical draft.

I understand what you are saying, but this is the deepest draft I can remember. It is also deep in tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 players. That is also unusual.

 

[Tetsujin]

I understand what you are saying, but this is the deepest draft I can remember. It is also deep in tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 players. That is also unusual.

There is a whole glut of wing prospects in the late first/second round this season that probably would have gotten picked in the teens two seasons ago. Part of that is that the league has sorta indulged in wing gluttony to the point that there’s not much room for them on rosters so teams are turning to their guard/forward slots instead but I agree that this is a really deep draft class. Still probably means 30-40 of these guys flame out of the league after a summer or two.

 

[Dongoodboy]

I prefer we make the pick. We will probably give away the pick to ATL next year, meaning we won't have 1st round rookie contract on the team for 2 years. I do think we have some pressure after Sabonis and possibly Monk's renewal. And you would want to have rookie contract to balance it out.

Secondly there is quite a number of wing prospect around our position that would worth gambling.

 

[dude12]

If Monte can acquire a player who he believes can make a difference using the pick, he will pull the trigger. If not, he will make the pick. I think Monte has been good about making deals when it’s going to be a win.

 

[gunks]

Personally, I can get used to not giving a **** about whether or not we hit on a late first rounder.

Beats the pre-Monte years of pinning all my hopes on one top 10 bust after another!

 

[SacTownKid]

Another question isn't whether someone will be a quality player, it's whether or not they will be a quality player FOR YOU. The odds that a player finds better footing with another team is the only thing that matters if you're looking at things through the benefit of your own franchise. I mean, do we really care if the GM hits on a pick but you don't actually benefit from it?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Another question isn't whether someone will be a quality player, it's whether or not they will be a quality player FOR YOU. The odds that a player finds better footing with another team is the only thing that matters if you're looking at things through the benefit of your own franchise. I mean, do we really care if the GM hits on a pick but you don't actually benefit from it?

That certainly happens from time to time (Hassan Whiteside, Vinny Del Negro, and Anthony Johnson stick out to me on our list above). Hopefully we don't have too many of those developmental failures going forward with the front office and coaching staff seemingly solidified.

 

[funkykingston]

I feel like this is said every year, in the same way that every October coming out of the off season every single NBA player is in the "best shape of his life". In early June, this year's draft is always better than the typical draft.

I don't know about that. 2024 is being looked at already as one of the weaker drafts in recent memory.

And most of us thought the 2013 draft was going to be craptacular months in advance. If not for Giannis developing into a superstar and Gobert adding some late 1st value, it would be in the conversation for one of the worst ever.

 

[HndsmCelt]

To make explicit what you have artfully implied here there's a huge opportunity cost with these middling picks, you're giving up valuable cap space to a player that may or may not produce. That's why I've always felt that unless you were looking at a top it was a better idea to try to trade them for a player that needs a current need it has some kind of track record to look at. This is exactly one of those moments where I think if at all possible Monte should trade the pic if he can package it with some valuable but little used asset like Holmes all the better.

 

[funkykingston]

Personally, I can get used to not giving a **** about whether or not we hit on a late first rounder.

Beats the pre-Monte years of pinning all my hopes on one top 10 bust after another!

To a certain extent sure. But when you look at how Petrie sustained the success of the 1999 to early 2000's Kings, a big part of it was mining talent out of later first round picks.

Same with a team like Toronto that added guys like Anunoby and Siakam in the teens and late 20's (respectively) to continue to build their roster.

So definitely great to not be looking to the draft lottery for salvation, but especially for a small market team, McNair needs to hit on late 1sts pretty regularly to move things forward.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I don't know about that. 2024 is being looked at already as one of the weaker drafts in recent memory.

Wait 12 months and get back to me on that one

And most of us thought the 2013 draft was going to be craptacular months in advance. If not for Giannis developing into a superstar and Gobert adding some late 1st value, it would be in the conversation for one of the worst ever.

Yet that 2013 draft has produced 19 "Quality Players" by the above metric. Looking back only to 2000 (14 total drafts), 2000 and 2002 produced only 17. 2012 and 2010 only 16. 2006 only 12. The average over that time was 20.6. In terms of depth the 2013 draft was nearly average when all is said and done. It didn't have that star value at the top, but that isn't going to have a lot to say when looking at whether a team is likely to find value in the late first round.

But perhaps that was an example of a year when people weren't excited about the depth of a draft. In general my memory says the opposite holds.

 

[funkykingston]

Wait 12 months and get back to me on that one



Yet that 2013 draft has produced 19 "Quality Players" by the above metric. Looking back only to 2000 (14 total drafts), 2000 and 2002 produced only 17. 2012 and 2010 only 16. 2006 only 12. The average over that time was 20.6. In terms of depth the 2013 draft was nearly average when all is said and done. It didn't have that star value at the top, but that isn't going to have a lot to say when looking at whether a team is likely to find value in the late first round.

But perhaps that was an example of a year when people weren't excited about the depth of a draft. In general my memory says the opposite holds.

I remember not being excited about that draft. CJ McCollum was my pick, largely for the fit I saw with our "core" of Tyreke and Boogie.

2014 was a better draft up top, but I was less enthused with the options for the Kings than in 2013. Elfrid Payton was my horse that year.

I'm surprised by the number of "quality players" from the 2000 draft. I have that as the worst draft I can remember

 

[gunks]

To a certain extent sure. But when you look at how Petrie sustained the success of the 1999 to early 2000's Kings, a big part of it was mining talent out of later first round picks.

Same with a team like Toronto that added guys like Anunoby and Siakam in the teens and late 20's (respectively) to continue to build their roster.

So definitely great to not be looking to the draft lottery for salvation, but especially for a small market team, McNair needs to hit on late 1sts pretty regularly to move things forward.

Totally agree.

And I definitely hope McNair takes it much more serious than I do come draft day!

I'll still be enjoying the low stakes.

 

[Ozymandias]

I'm glad to see the 2013 draft mentioned. Ya never really know with these things, even in that draft the Jazz from what I recall, they had Gobert on a list of bigs and he was one that fell, don't think they ever envisioned him having such a massive impact defesnively as he did when they switched to him more as the fulltime C that first season.

But as for the thread title I think we can get a quality player in the undrafted fa market (like Alex Fudge) so I damn sure believe we can get quality players at 24 and 38 and then we should have a chance at either a multi year investment like Zvonimir Ivisic or maybe an older player we think is underrated and set to work his way up thru the g-league quickly at 54, Hunter Tyson or Jordan Miller seem like decent candidates for that.

 

[Ozymandias]

22 year old Christian Braun the 21st pick of the 2022 draft just dropped an impressive 15 points in game 3 of the finals tonight

Jamal Murray after the game said he plays like a 5-year vet

 

[sactowndog]

I looked into this a bit yesterday, and didn't really want to post it in one of the draft threads because

Spoiler: obvious reason

it's kinda wet blankety.

But I thought it was at least worth a discussion.

First off, in order to ask this question I'm going to have to define what a "quality player" from the draft is. Obviously this is a pretty subjective measure. Some might think a quality player means an All-Star, some might think think it means a starter, some might think it means a 7-year rotation player, and some might think it means nothing more than a guy who can give you needed spot minutes for a few years at the league minimum rather than using part of the MLE to sign a free agent who's going to spend most of his time on the bench. That's a wide range.

But given the excitement that we usually see around draft season in the fanbase, I think that we should at least have a moderately high bar - it should really be a guy that the entire fanbase can look back on in 10 years and say, "yeah, that was a pretty good pick". Not to get technical about it (because I didn't) I decided to take a look at a criterion of 10,000 career minutes. Pretty much, if a guy plays 10K minutes in the NBA, he earned them. And, of course, it's a really, really simple criterion for doing an analysis.

To hopefully convince you that 10,000 minutes isn't completely half-baked as a criterion of quality, I'm going to list all of the players the Kings have drafted between 1988 and 2017 (30 years) who either hit the 10K minutes criterion, or who missed it but did beat 4000 minutes (I'd have used 5000, but there were just too many guys between 4000 and 5000 to leave out). Less than 4000 minutes, you don't even get considered.

10,000 minutes ("Quality Player"): De'Aaron Fox, Ben McLemore, Isaiah Thomas, DeMarcus Cousins, Hassan Whiteside, Tyreke Evans, Omri Casspi, Jason Thompson, Spencer Hawes, Francisco Garcia, Kevin Martin, Gerald Wallace, Hedo Turkoglu, Jason Williams, Anthony Johnson, Peja Stojakovic, Corliss Williamson, Brian Grant, Michael Smith, Walt Williams, Randy Brown, Lionel Simmons, Pervis Ellison, Vinny Del Negro (24 players)

4,000-9,999 minutes ("Sorry"): Justin Jackson, Willie Cauley-Stein, Nik Stauskas, Thomas Robinson, Jerome James, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, Tyus Edney, Lawrence Funderburke, Bobby Hurley, Pete Chilcutt, Duane Causwell, Anthony Bonner (12 players)

While there are a few players in the 10,000 minute club that don't exactly roll off the tongue when talking about players we can look back on and say we were happy to draft, for the most part these guys are solid NBA players with at least decent careers. The next list, not so much. WCS was recent so we still might think about him, and Funderburke was there in the early years of the Glory Days, so I'll always have a soft spot for him. To me, this looks like just about as natural of a cutoff as you could find with a nice round number.

So what did I do then? First, I picked the latest draft where basically everybody has sorted into "Made 10K minutes" or "Not gonna make 10K minutes" categories. I chose 2013, a draft whose players have ten years in the league. Technically Michael Carter-Williams is 58 minutes away and could make it, but he only played 44 minutes last season so he's not on pace and he's not under contract, so we'll just call him a no. Then I went back through 20 years worth of draft data from there and sorted players into the following categories: (A) Selected 1-5, (B) Selected 6-10, (C) Selected 11-20, (D) Selected 21-30, (E) Selected 31-45, (F) Selected 46-60. (In a few earlier drafts when there were fewer than 30 NBA teams I adjusted the C/D and E/F midpoints accordingly but kept the first round/second round distinction between D and E because I think the guaranteed first round contract could play a role in minutes allocations.) I also determined whether they were members of the 10,000 Minute Club, AKA "Quality Players". The breakdown of how likely all NBA teams were to draft a Quality Player in the various draft ranges (finally, the meat!) went as follows:

(A) 1-5: 87%
(B) 6-10: 72%
(C) 11-20: 50%
(D) 21-30: 37%
(E) 31-45: 19%
(F) 46-60: 8%

As you can see, the odds of picking up a quality player at any given draft pick are already against you by the time you get to the 20s - a pick just outside of the lottery is already a coin flip. But the Kings aren't even picking that high - in fact we're basically smack-dab in the middle of tiers D, E, and F with our three picks. I know we'd all love to "hit" on all three of our picks, but the raw probability of doing that looks to be between 5 and 6 percent. Not too likely. In fact, we're at about 47% odds (so basically a coin flip) of getting NO quality players assuming we stand pat and draft at #24, #38, and #54.

So, hope for the best, but if things don't turn out in our favor on this one, well, we shouldn't be too surprised.

The only problem with this analysis is that it doesn’t account for variability between drafts. Some drafts are like the 2016 draft and some drafts are like 2019 draft.

this draft from 14-30 is a similar type of player so the odds for us at 24 is likely closer to ~45% than 37%.

 

[The_Jamal]

22 year old Christian Braun the 21st pick of the 2022 draft just dropped an impressive 15 points in game 3 of the finals tonight

Jamal Murray after the game said he plays like a 5-year vet

Really are seeing first hand how important continuing to hit on FRP's are to extend a title window. Nuggets are 100% going to lose Bruce Brown this off-season and pretty much 100% going to lose KCP after next season. And it very much looks like they found a super nice find in Braun who very likely takes a big minute role for them off the bench next season.

The Warriors this season were another perfect example. Steph absolutely is still good enough to lead a title team and was playing like it... but he finally ran out of support from the ancillary guys. No Otto Porter, no Andre Iggy, No Shaun Livingston. They've always had a big 3/4, but a somewhat underrated aspect of the Warriors dynasty is how good they've been from 5-9 in their rotation. Just role players you absolutely need to step up to win a title.

Their youth failing cost them a chance at another title. Poole forgot how to play basketball, Kuminga couldn't get on the floor, Moody was ok-ish, but not a serious role player for them.

For the Kings, we're a few years off from having to make those sort of cap moves, but it's certainly excellent process to start stacking good, cheap young talent that can be in a playoff rotation. We're already going to start seeing it a bit next season with Monk as a UFA and Davion in the last year of his rookie deal.

 

[Ozymandias]

Really are seeing first hand how important continuing to hit on FRP's are to extend a title window. Nuggets are 100% going to lose Bruce Brown this off-season and pretty much 100% going to lose KCP after next season. And it very much looks like they found a super nice find in Braun who very likely takes a big minute role for them off the bench next season.

The Warriors this season were another perfect example. Steph absolutely is still good enough to lead a title team and was playing like it... but he finally ran out of support from the ancillary guys. No Otto Porter, no Andre Iggy, No Shaun Livingston. They've always had a big 3/4, but a somewhat underrated aspect of the Warriors dynasty is how good they've been from 5-9 in their rotation. Just role players you absolutely need to step up to win a title.

Their youth failing cost them a chance at another title. Poole forgot how to play basketball, Kuminga couldn't get on the floor, Moody was ok-ish, but not a serious role player for them.

For the Kings, we're a few years off from having to make those sort of cap moves, but it's certainly excellent process to start stacking good, cheap young talent that can be in a playoff rotation. We're already going to start seeing it a bit next season with Monk as a UFA and Davion in the last year of his rookie deal.

and you unintentionally circle back to the 2013 draft by bringing up KCP, If the Nuggets pull the championship off I'll be glad to see KCP get his 2nd ring, he was a player I thought was obviously better than Ben McLemore in that draft, I would have ben (see what I did there) so angry that summer If I was a Kings fan.. would've went to sleep and had nightmares about how Marcus Smart completely shut down McLemore on his homecourt.

I actually thought Moses Moody was excellent for the Warriors in the playoffs, he shot like over 50% from 3 in the 2 series, he was even better vs the Lakers than he was vs us. He JUST turned 21 too, didnt look like a pushover out there and actually showed a good nose for the ball and had some sneaky orebs.

Kuminga is in a less than ideal situation to shine, lets put it that way, situations like his occur when really good teams keep getting lotto picks. Not saying he deserved more minutes but on a lesser talented team surely he'd see consistent time and have a longer leash. He was very good for them down the final stretch of the season so he'll look to regain that form. Its interesting that Myers is no longer running the show for them, I'm guessing one of his acolytes like Mike Dunleavy Jr will get the job, but i do wonder what a new GM is gonna do with their cap and young player situation, theres a lot to unpack.

I also think Davion seems like he's gonna be retainable at a pretty reasonable price. The price on Monk is much more of a concern.

 

[kingsfan101]

To a certain extent sure. But when you look at how Petrie sustained the success of the 1999 to early 2000's Kings, a big part of it was mining talent out of later first round picks.

Same with a team like Toronto that added guys like Anunoby and Siakam in the teens and late 20's (respectively) to continue to build their roster.

So definitely great to not be looking to the draft lottery for salvation, but especially for a small market team, McNair needs to hit on late 1sts pretty regularly to move things forward.

Petrie made some great picks in the late first round (and the coaching staff developed them too), but I don't think they were critical to our continued success.

To some extent, Hedo was. He didn't get as much of a chance with us as he deserved, since he was playing behind Peja, but he played well. Plus, sad as I was to see him go, we did get an All-Star in return for him.

GW was a great pick, and someone most fans loved. He never got a fair shake here though, and we lost him for nothing in the expansion draft. That one hurts.

Martin was a great pick at that position and Cisco too had a reasonable career for where he was picked. Their major minutes came during our years of irrelevance though. So, good as the picks were, they were not really instrumental in our success (though Kevin will be remembered for the game winning shot in the playoffs against the Spurs, that helped turn that into a series. That was Bonzi's show though).

 

[Ozymandias]

So, hope for the best, but if things don't turn out in our favor on this one, well, we shouldn't be too surprised.

So I'd argue against this outlook, I say there's plenty of reason to be optimistic we'll get a quality player -- For arguments sake lets say the Kings do in fact have a 37% chance at a quality player with the 1rp.

Does that mean we have a 37% chance at a quality PG, SG, SF, PF, C? of course not, surely there will be variance in not only opportunity at different spots on different teams, but there will also be variance in system and personnel fit.

To try to keep it short, there are ways we could increase that 37% to over 50%, there's a matter of process of elimination, sort of like what the childrens board game Guess Who? teaches. 37% is just the opening round. Now what are the next steps to narrow down to the best candidates ready to outperform?

So for the Kings, I would say we have a very clear and healthy hierarchy established at multiple positions - PG Fox and Mitchell, plus Monk is also reliable as a 3rd string. SG with Huerter and Monk as the clearcut 6th man, I'd say TD seems like a likely resigning too. C with Sabonis as the starter and Lyles as the smallback 5 backup more important half of the platoon, where we'd have an athletic tall long shotblocker ideally as the 3rd string.

So long story short the real spots we can upgrade are the largest greyer areas - the backup forward spots and on the wing, which also will allow us to groom players to take over for HB after we re-sign him later this summer --- SO I'd say if we're isolating down to just those bigger areas that are a match, thats when the %'s start to sway above 37%, n to me the % rises further when your talking guys with skillsets who also address areas of need, or players who'd seem to have synergy with our stars (either their strengths or weakenesses). Overall the team areas of need are clearly rebounding and defense, so your looking to sort of meet all these conditions that would seemingly alone increase the chance of a quality selection.

So thats my case on how to expect a b over 50% chance at a quality 1rp from the 37% number given in the OP.

But hey thats just my 2cents, I try to have a methodical approach n keep my ear to the ground during the offseaosn, n tuned in during the season, I know theres more thrill seeking types who want to picture sort of coinflip scenarios, but I like to believe we pay all these scouts n front office people to be above the coin-flip, n we've been doing a good job addressing needs with the draft assets recently so I dont know why that'd stop now.

TL: DR if we get a 1rp who can positively upgrade our defense and rebounding without costing us offense, that 37% is gonna look like a layup..