Who’s Number 1?
The NFL draft is tomorrow and the hype is at an all time high. I don’t get the number 1 fantasy. How many number 1 picks win their teams championships? Peyton won last year…after how many years was he in the league before winning (i.e., how many roster changes occurred after he was drafted)? Yet ESPN and every other announcer/commentator makes the number 1 pick the most important pick of the draft. I’m not convinced.
But my evidence will come from the NBA where I know the game better. Since the lottery began in 1985, how many number 1 picks won championships for the team that picked them? Two. David Robinson and Tim Duncan (both for San Antonio). How many won championships in general? Three. Shaq is the third and he won for the Lakers and Heat, not the Magic, the team who drafted him. Three out of 21. Not good odds. 7 percent (You can’t count Glen Robinson - who did win with the Spurs in 04-05 - because he didn’t play).
So who cares about number 1? Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but since 1985, only two NFL number 1 picks have won championships for the teams that picked them: Aikman and Manning. I believe Keyshawn won with Tampa Bay in 2002, not the Jets who drafted him. Similar stats.
So again I ask: who cares about number 1? With such stats, number 1 picks guarantee very little. Solid picks overall over a number of years, coaching, chemistry - these are better indicators of winning than the number 1 overall. Here we have a metaphor regarding star chasing. Lots of hype. Little pay-off.
There’s a great piece over at ESPN’s Page 2 that looks at the 1st round picks from the last 15 years at each position, and makes claims as to how many QBs, RBs, WRs, etc. have been busts. QB is of course highest, at about 50% busts, with linebackers and D-backfield among the safest. QBs, RBs, and WRs are all pretty close to a first-round coin flip.
Teams with the most “busts” in the last 15? Bears, Lions, and Eagles with 8, Broncos and 49ers with 7.
Interesting stuff…
Comment by collin — April 27, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
The spurs would’ve exited in the first round of the playoffs were it not for Big Dog’s emotional maturity and leadership in 04-05.
Comment by Fans of Glen R. — April 28, 2007 @ 6:41 am
If you decide to make the cut at 1985 here is what you miss . . . a lot of players who won championships and several in the lottery era. Not challenging the odds, but this evens things out a bit.
(1984) Akeem Olajuwon aka Hakeem the Dream. Won back-to-back.
(1982) James Worthy. multiple w/Lakers.
(1981) Marc Aguirre. back-to-back with Detroit.
(1979) Ervin Magic Johnson. multiple w/ Lakers.
(1974) Bill Walton. Blazers & Celtics.
(1969) Lew Alcindor. Bucks and Lakers.
(1968) Elvin Hayes
(1960) Oscar Robertson
Nevermind the Hall of Famers: Patrick Ewing, David Thompson, Elgin Baylor, Bob Lanier
Plus there are a handful of #1s that took their teams to the finals. For example, Allen Iverson, Patrick Ewing, Ralph Sampson . . .
In the contemporary period . . . I suppose if it was about winning games, then the fetish over the number one pick would be as silly as you have described it. Still, the #1 pick has high revenue potential. Think about Lebron James (who will win a championship before he retires), Yao Ming, Dwight Howard, Allen Iverson, Larry Johnson (who even heard of the Hornets before Grandmama?) and especially next year’s #1 Greg Oden.
KJ
Comment by Kyle — April 28, 2007 @ 8:10 am
I focused on the lottery because of the role it currently plays and the controversy over losing games on purpose in order to grab the top spot. The lottery fetishizes the number 1 in ways the coin toss didn’t.
So I want to limit the analysis to just the lottery. But even with the others you name:
Comment by jrice — April 28, 2007 @ 9:15 am
Point taken, the tanking is a problem and you are right, there is something about the lottery that has changed the landscape of the game.
My point in naming the players you commented on was not that they could or would win championships, but that they were huge sources of revenue, which may indicate why teams want to acquire them. Whether they are players that lead teams to championships is not the point. Chances are that even with the number one pick, the team won’t improve drastically in one year without acquiring a key free agent- teams know that. So even though Yao will never win a championship, he will, until he retires, be among the top selling jerseys and among the top vote getters for the all-star game. Same with Lebron, same with how Iverson was before the Philly fallout, even the same with Larry Johnson when he was selling Cons and moonlighting as an old woman. Its not about winning, its about revenue, or maybe the promise of winning and the guarantee of revenue. You don’t really think that I know that little about basketball to suggest that Larry Johnson was a potential finals MVP do you?
Do you know if there is any correlation between the free agent market boom and the draft lottery? That might tell you something about tanking and fetishizing.
KJ
Comment by k.jensen — April 28, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Point taken. Money is important and LeBron and especially Yao bring in the bucks. Still, winning is used as reason for a pick, not marketing (though Yao’s pick brought on rhetorical pleas for marketing b/c of the lucrative China connection). Calvin Johnson is the best athlete, thus Detroit should take him at 2, not because he will bring in ticket sales. Etc.
Of course, how much money did the Clippers make with Olowokandi as their number 1?
There is a paper here on the rhetoric of drafts waiting to be written, no?
Comment by jrice — April 28, 2007 @ 10:53 am
I thought you might bring in Olowokandi, and this is the real anomaly-especially because the Clips are notorious for attempting to maximize revenue while remaining mediocre. Darius Miles and Quentin Richardson are the poster boys for this philosophy. Let’s not forget though that Olowakandi did have a cameo roll in National Lampoon’s Van Wilder, and I want to say that he was drafted around the time Shaq made his move to the west. I even want to say that Olowokandi was touted as the NEXT Shaq? Anyway. I wonder if the fetishization over the #1 has to do with the myth of the pre-lottery success. That list of guys that I posted earlier, and the possibility of landing an icon.
Who would publish an essay on the rhetoric of drafts? Maybe more intersting would be the rhetoric of potential as it relates to the microphysical assessment of physical ability. Calvin Johnson/Jamarcus Russell would be cases in point, kind of like the stats available about Vernon Davis last year. What could be really interesting is the rhetoric of the “can’t miss” or the “ten year prospect”. . . .
KJ
Comment by K.Jensen — April 29, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
[…] I missed some good buddies’ draft party this year hosted by my very good buddy, so I’m still thinking draft - and baby, of course. While I wait for a baby, some draft thoughts about the NBA draft which isn’t too far off: […]
Pingback by Yellow Dog — May 12, 2007 @ 4:51 pm