前3順位選控衛絕不會錯！？1980年以來前3順位從沒出過水貨控衛

美國JRS之聲

前3順位選控衛絕不會錯！？1980年以來前3順位從沒出過水貨控衛

Since 1980, there has not been a point guard selected in the top 3 who was a bust (self.nba)

從1980年之後，在前三順位被選中的控衛沒有水貨

因為今年的選秀前三順位很有可能都是控球後衛。所以我決定回顧一下過去這些年的選秀，看一下過去選秀時候差不多的情況。有點奇怪的是，縱觀歷史，控衛打出來的概率好像是最高的，咱們來回顧一下從1980年之後在前三順位選中的控衛們，1980年大概就是三分線被投入使用的年份。

2015年

拉塞爾-還太早，現在看起來還可以

2011年

歐文-4屆全明星，NBA第三最佳陣容，NBA總冠軍

2010年：

沃爾-四屆NBA全明星，NBA第三最佳陣容，NBA第二最佳陣容

2009年

哈登-5屆全明星，4次NBA最佳陣容，最佳第六人，聯盟助攻王

2008年：

羅斯：3屆全明星，NBA最佳陣容，2011年NBA常規賽MVP

2005年

德隆威廉姆斯-3屆全明星，2屆NBA最佳陣容

2002年：
傑威廉姆斯-在一個看起來還不錯的新秀賽季之後，立刻遭遇了幾乎致命同時也終結了他職業生涯的摩托車事故。不是傳統意義上的水貨

1999年：

弗朗西斯-最佳新秀，3屆全明星

巴朗戴維斯-2屆全明星，NBA第三最佳陣容，兩屆NBA搶斷王

1998年：

畢比：沒有什麼特別顯眼的個人榮譽，但是是為當時那隻非常優秀的國王效力的，NBA全明星邊緣球員，有多個場均20+的賽季

1997年

比盧普斯-5屆全明星，3屆NBA最佳陣容，2屆最佳防守陣容，NBA冠軍

1996年

阿倫艾弗森-11屆全明星，7屆NBA最佳陣容，2001年NBA常規賽MVP，4屆得分王，年度最佳新秀，名人堂成員

1994年

基德-10屆NBA全明星，6屆NBA最佳陣容，9屆最佳防守陣容，5次助攻王，NBA總冠軍

1993年

哈達威-4屆NBA全明星，3屆NBA最佳陣容

1991年

肯尼安德森-全明星

1990年

加里佩頓-9屆全明星，9屆最佳陣容，9屆最佳防守陣容，年度最佳防守球員，NBA冠軍，搶斷王，和名人堂成員。

拉烏夫-最快進步球員，2次NBA單賽季罰球命中率最高，巔峰打出過19+7的表現

1981年

以賽亞托馬斯-12屆全明星，5屆最佳陣容，2個總冠軍，總決賽MVP，常規賽助攻王，名人堂成員

今年選秀控衛這麼多，而且控衛還不怎麼容易出現水貨，想想就覺得很有意思。其他的每個位置，基本都有一些讓人印象深刻的被前三位選中的水貨。

Since it"s entirely possible that the top three picks in this year"s draft are all point guards, I decided to go back through drafts of years past to take a look at their historical counterparts. Oddly enough, throughout history, it appears that point guards have the highest rate of panning out. Let"s take a look at all the point guards drafted top 3 since 1980, around the addition of the three-point line.

2015:

D"Angelo Russell - too early to tell, looks pretty good so far

2011:

Kyrie Irving - 4x All-Star, All-NBA Third Team, NBA Champion

2010:

John Wall - 4x All-Star, All-NBA Third Team, All-Defense Second Team

2009:

James Harden - 5x All-Star, 4x All-NBA, 6MOTY, League Assist Leader

2008:

Derrick Rose - 3x All-Star, All-NBA First Team, 2011 NBA MVP

2005:

Deron Williams - 3x All-Star, 2x All-NBA

2002:

Jay Williams - career-ending near-fatal motorcycle accident immediately following a promising rookie year. Not a "bust" in the traditional sense.

1999:

Steve Francis - Rookie of the Year, 3x All-Star

Baron Davis - 2x All-Star, All-NBA Third Team, 2x NBA Steals Leader

1998:

Mike Bibby - No notable accolades, but was a borderline All-Star on a very good Kings team and averaged over 20 ppg for multiple seasons

1997:

Chauncey Billups - 5x All-Star, 3x All-NBA, 2x All-Defense, NBA Champion

1996:

Allen Iverson - 11x All-Star, 7x All-NBA, 2001 NBA MVP, 4x Scoring Champ, Rookie of the Year, Hall of Famer

1994:

Jason Kidd - 10x All-Star, 6x All-NBA, 9x All-Defense, 5x Assists Leader, NBA Champion

1993:

Penny Hardaway - 4x All-Star, 3x All-NBA

1991:

Kenny Anderson - All-Star

1990:

Gary Payton - 9x All-Star, 9x All-NBA, 9x All-Defense, DPOY, NBA Champion, steals leader, Hall of Fame

Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf - Most Improved Player, 2x Free-Throw % Leader, put up 19/7 in his prime

1981:

Isiah Thomas - 12x All-Star, 5x All-NBA, 2x NBA Champion, Finals MVP, Assists Leader, Hall of Fame

Just thought it was interesting with such a point-guard heavy draft coming up that there have been no notable busts at the position. Every other position has had some memorable flame-outs in the top 3.

[–]Bullsnowandlater 919 points 1 day ago

That"s actually crazy.

這還挺瘋狂的。

[–]76ersbarry_jive 234 points 1 day ago

not that crazy when you consider how valuable size is. someone like Anthony Davis has guard-level skills but the size of a center. so if you"re taking a guard top 3, they better be really freaking good. Steve Francis, for example, isn"t a "bust" per se, but his career is a bit underwhelming comparatively.

考慮到身材有多麼重要實際上就還沒那麼瘋狂。有像安東尼戴維斯這樣的有控衛技術和中鋒身材的人存在，所以如果你在前三選中一名後衛，他們最好是真的很厲害。弗朗西斯，舉個例子，就不是一個傳統意義上的水貨，但是他的生涯相比較起來就不是那麼讓人印象深刻了。

[–][HOU] Steve Francisjg1026 293 points 1 day ago

Steve Francis may have had a short prime, but in no way at his best was he underwhelming. He was traded for T-Mac for a reason because they seemed like equal assets

弗朗西斯可能巔峰很短，但是他最強的時候，絕對不是讓人失望的。他能被拿去交易麥迪是因為他們兩個的價值在當時被視作是等價的。

[–]Lakers Bandwagon_chadwell_ 154 points 1 day ago

He was on the cover of NBA Live 2002!

他是NBA live 2002的封面人物！

[–][GSW] Carl LandryMichael_Scott_Paper 74 points 1 day ago

Seriously. I"ll always remember behind all the hype of Shaq and Yao"s first matchup, Francis had something like 44p and 11a.

講真，我總是記得姚鯊第一次對決大家都在大力吹捧，然後弗朗西斯砍下了大概44分和11個助攻

[–]thejunesun 71 points 1 day ago

I never liked Francis"s game, but he wasn"t a bust at all and wasn"t "underwhelming".

If you are comparing him to AI, IT the 1st, and Gary Payton sure... 99% of NBA players are underwhelming compared to obvious HOF talent.

我從來都不喜歡弗朗西斯，但是他絕對不是水貨，而且也不至於說給人一點印象也留不下。

如果你把他拿來和艾弗森，老托馬斯，以及加里佩頓來比，那行吧……99%的NBA球員跟這三個很明顯的名人堂級球員比起來，都不怎麼讓人印象深刻。

[–]CelticsIfuckinglovebball[S] 591 points 1 day ago

Just as a summary, of the 17 top-3 picked point guards from before 2015:

-14/17 have been All-Stars

-12/17 have made All-NBA Teams

總結一下，2015年之前的17個在前三位被選中的控球後衛里：

-17個裡有14個入選過全明星

-17個裡有12個進入過NBA最佳陣容

[–]Cavaliers BandwagonTmwill87 138 points 1 day ago

Do you know the numbers for the non-pgs taken top 3? I"m curious to see their numbers compared to point guards

那你有前三順位里選中的非控衛的數據么？我很好奇這個數據跟控衛的數據比起來會是什麼樣子

[–]Sunsscooper1030 97 points 1 day ago*

Not related to this specific study but I remember a bunch of years back I looked at the drafts from 1989-2008 because I was curious. At that time it was like 2012 or 2013 or something, I didn"t study any past 2008 because I was looking at how often players become All-Stars based on draft slot and didn"t want to include any players still on rookie contracts so that they had more time to grow into themselves.

Based on drafts 1989-2008:

57% of top three picks make at least one All-Star appearance

51% of top five picks make at least one All-Star appearance

20% of picks 6-10 become All-Stars

10% of picks 11-14 become All-stars

Total success rate for lottery picks: 79/280, or 28%

Again we"re not dealing with the same sample size as OP so the dataset is flawed, but based on just the years 1989-2008 it looks like 10/13 PGs became All-Stars (77%), which is better than our overall rate of 57%. And just doing a little math and deducting those PGs from the pool, that would make our non-PG All-Star rate for top three picks during that interval 51% (24-47).

並不是跟主樓的研究有什麼關係，但我記得不少年前，回看1989-2008年選秀的時候我就很好奇。當時好像是2012年還是2013年，我沒有研究2008年之後的年份因為我在看球員成為全明星的概率，不太想包含進那些還處在新秀合同的球員，這樣他們還有更多的時間最終成型。

基於1989-2008年的數據：

前三順位里有57%最少入選過一次全明星，

前五順位里有51%最少入選過一次全明星

6-10順位里有20%成為了全明星

11-14順位里有10%成為了全明星

樂透秀整體來看成為全明星的概率是：79/280，或者說28%

再重申一遍，我的樣本數量跟樓主的不一樣，所以數據會有一點缺陷，但是基於1989-2008年的數據，前三順位的13個控衛里有10個成為了全明星（77%），這比整體的概率要高。再減去這些控衛，我們可以得到前三順位非控衛位置的球員成為全明星的概率為51%（24/47）

[–][OKC] Steven Adamsskratsda 49 points 1 day ago

I"m imagine this discrepancy has mostly to do with production vs. potential. When you"re drafting a point guard, you"re drafting a player who is already a rough version of the player they"re always going to be. They"ve probably been at least relatively close to the same height for a few years, and have a fairly refined skillset; you don"t draft a point guard hoping to teach them how to shoot or pass.

When you"re drafting a big man, often they"re only been at that height for a couple years and you"re hoping they can develop into a certain player. Wings fall somewhere in the middle between the two.

我覺得這個差距跟產出潛力之間的關係有關。當你選擇控衛的時候，你選到的球員已經是他們未來樣子的粗糙版了。他們可能處於同一個身高有幾年的時間了，技術也相對成熟。你不會選擇一個控衛然後再教他們如何去投籃，如何去傳球吧。

當你選擇一個大個子球員的時候，他們可能才剛達到自己現在的身高沒幾年，然後你會希望他們發展成為某個特定的形態。而側翼球員有點像是這二者之間。

[–][BOS] Marcus Smarthenryisyourboss 454 points 1 day ago

It"s because guard play is generally based around skill more then other positions

因為控衛這個位置比起其他的位置要更忠於技術一些。

[–]msixtwofive 225 points 1 day ago

PGs are also not given the "has a high growth ceiling" nonsense other positions get. They"ll take a guy thats huge and feel like they can teach him to not have a terrible shot and bad decision making. They would never say that about a PG.

控衛沒有得到其他位置會得到諸如「上限很高」這種沒有道理的話。有的球隊會選一個大個子，然後覺得可以教會他不要有糟糕的投籃選擇，和糟糕的球場判斷。但是從來不會有人對控衛這樣。

[–]JustAddZebras 70 points 1 day ago

then eventually the big unskilled guy get so good they can run point... Antetokounmpo, Kawhi, maybe more...

最終，大隻但是技術不行的球員會變得非常優秀，可以承擔起打組織的重任…… 比如阿德托昆博和倫納德，將來可能還有更多這樣的球員

[–]msixtwofive 165 points 1 day ago

for every one of those there"s been tons of failures.

每一個倫納德這樣的成功者背後，都有無窮無盡失敗了的例子。

[–]cuteshyguy 86 points 1 day ago

Big men had more value back then

大個子在過去更有價值

[–]NBAyosisoy 58 points 1 day ago

Exactly. Top draft picks were typically big men, so if a PG was drafted above bigs they probably were considered really good prospects.

是的，高順位一般都是大個子球員，如果有控衛先於大個子被選中，那他們估計被視作是前景非常優秀的球員了。

[–]Trail Blazersjohnsom3 171 points 1 day ago*

It"s virtually impossible to get the NBA as a guard not being thoroughly battled tested. Players like Russel and Ball have been known quantities ever since they were freshman in high school. There isn"t a scenario that scouts havent seen them perform in. So the chances of a guard getting all the way to the draft and "fooling" scouts is virtually impossible.

Bigs and late blooming wings will always be a massive gamble coupled with massive reward. You have to speculate on them more than guards because chances are they never played in a system that was built around their strengths, or they are still extremely raw.

作為後衛，想要不經受殘酷的競爭進入NBA？不存在的。像拉塞爾和鮑爾（Ball）這樣的球員從高中一年級開始就受到了非常大量的關注。球探幾乎看遍了他們在每種場合下的應變方式。所以控衛想要進入選秀然後「矇騙過」球探的可能性幾乎是不存在的。

但大個子球員和大器晚成的側翼球員，就是風險和回報都會很高的賭博。較之於控衛，你需要更多的推測他們將來的表現，因為很有可能他們從來沒有在一個圍繞他們強項打造的體系里打過球，或者說他們的技術還非常粗糙。

[–][CHI] Doug McDermottDontreachyoungbloods 78 points 1 day ago

Not only that, but nobody is going to "take a chance" on a small guard with a top 3 pick unless they have proven themselves time and time and time again.

Because the NBA"s version of "potential" usually has to do with speed, length, size, and athleticism, point guards are much less likely to be high picks based on their "potential." That means the top picked point guards are almost always close to sure things.

不光這些，而且沒有人會拿前三順位去賭一個小後衛，除非他們已經一次又一次的證明了自己。

因為NBA眼中的「潛力」一般都會和速度，長度，體格以及運動能力有關。而控衛如果在高順位被選中很少會是因為他們的潛力。這就意味著，拿高順位選控球後衛的時候，基本就是已經板上釘釘了。

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！

本站內容充實豐富，博大精深，小編精選每日熱門資訊，隨時更新，點擊「搶先收到最新資訊」瀏覽吧！

請您繼續閱讀更多來自 美國JRS之聲 的精彩文章: