DI Review: The 2000 Draft

The following is the first in a ten part series in which we'll review the past 10 NBA drafts, provide the Draftability Index Score for every American college prospect, and analyze the findings. One note before we dive in, all of the data is being pulled from Basketball Reference and the NBA Geek and the win share numbers are the players' career average per 48 minutes to date. If you're new to that measurement, a league average score is .100 and 'star' level production correlates to .200 and above. 

The rating system is as follows: Green level prospects are the strongest and will be notated with an E, Gold level prospects are reasonably desirable prospects and are notated with a G, Red level prospects are suspect prospects and are notated with an R, and Gray level prospects are highly suspect and are notated with a Y.

The first NBA draft of the 21st Century was not a particularly strong one, however we do see productive players appearing at both the top and bottom of both rounds. Will the Index provide the insights needed to pick those prospects out. For the answer we turn to the breakdown...

Round One

                                             DI Score           Rating           WP per 48
1) Kenyon Martin                      1.48                  E                      .071
2) Stromile Swift                       1.07                  E                      .046
4) Marcus Fizer                        0.48                  R                      ,022
5) Mike Miller                             0.76                  G                      .151
6) Dermarr Johnson                 0.61                  G                      .052
7) Chris Mihm                           0.49                  R                      .073
9) Joel Przybilla                        0.04                   Y                      .154
10) Keyon Dooling                    0.33                   R                      .026
11) Jerome Moiso                    0.26                   R                      .074
12) Etan Thomas                     1.06                   E                      .101
13) Courtney Alexander           0.09                    Y                      .048
14) Mateen Cleaves                 0.71                    G                     -.002
15) Jason Collier                      0.08                    Y                      .042
17) Desmond Mason               1.15                    G                      .056
18) Quentin Richardson          0.61                    G                      .106
19) Jamaal Magloire                 0.59                    G                      .080
20) Speedy Claxton                 1.06                     E                      .072
21) Morris Peterson                  0.69                    G                      .085
22) Donnell Harvey                   0.38                    R                      .065
26) Mamadou N'Diaye              1.49                    E                       .101
28) Erick Barkley                       0.84                    G                      .027
29) Mark Madsen                      0.40                     R                      .076

Notes: This wasn't a much of a showing for DI, as right as at the top of the draft we miss on Martin and Swift- a pair of big time college shot blockers who struggled with efficiency and post defense at the NBA level. Even our 'hits' (N'Diaye and Thomas) were limited rotational bigs that able to eek out borderline productive numbers. On the bright side, the majority of the lowest scoring prospects struggled as well. Gold level prospects Miller and Richardson proved to be among the round's best. 

Round Two

                                             DI Score           Rating           WP per 48
31) Dan Langhi                        0.07                    Y                     .012
32) A.J Guyton                         0.14                    Y                     .010
33) Jake Voskuhl                     0.62                    G                     .087
34) Khalid El-Amin                   0.76                    G                     .030
35) Mike Smith                         0.29                    R                    -.003
37) Eddie House                      0.20                    Y                     .077
38) Eduardo Najera                 1.14                     E                     .119
39) Lavor Postell                      0.57                    G                     .106
40) Hanno Mottola                   0.29                     R                     .019
41) Chris Carrawell                 0.67                     G                     .000
43) Michael Redd                    0.31                     R                     .128
44) Brian Cardinal                   0.32                     R                     .111
45) Jabari Smith                      0.22                     Y                     .058
48) Mark Karcher                    0.88                      G                     .000
49) Jason Hart                        0.60                      G                     .080
50) Kaniel Dickens                  0.03                     Y                      .055
53) Dan McClintock                0.06                      Y                      .007
55) Chris Porter                      0.96                      G                     .008
56) Jaquay Walls                    0.40                      R                     .000
57) Scoonie Penn                   1.05                      Y                      .000
58) Pete Mickeal                     0.65                      G                      .000

Notes: A GM armed with the Index would have been targeting Najera- a solid role player for a decade, and Scoonie Penn. I have nightmares about Penn and Redd scorching the Badgers- would he have actually done something in the league if given the chance? He had a nice European career but it's impossible to say. The round's best player, the aforementioned Michael Redd was a Red(d) level prospect, as was the saavy Brian Cardinal. 
All and all, nothing to write home about, but really there wasn't a lot to pick from either. One other thing to bear in mind, we did choose to use average WP per 48, and since these guys have experienced the downside of their career- and might be a little deflated compared to guys from the middle of the decade. This was a methodological choice and I'm happy to look at things from any statistical angle...