Analysis of the NWSL Draft’s First 14 Picks from 2018 to 2023
I almost always like to use evidence when backing up a claim, but there is a claim that I frequently make that I think requires a little deeper analysis. I am of the opinion that past the first few picks in the NWSL draft each year that the talent dips significantly. That isn’t a claim that you can’t find a hidden gem in a later round, but more of a statement about the value of a top pick over that of a later round pick. I decided to look at the top 14 picks (since there will be 14 first-round picks in the next NWSL draft) and try to determine where the drop in value usually occurs. My analysis led me to some interesting findings, but ultimately made me think that my instincts were right but with new perspective.
First let me start off with the measurement that I used and the methodology that I applied. I am sure there will be some disagreement about the singular measure that I used, and I frankly welcome further research to be done if anyone is interested in a more complicated analysis. However, since I had to construct the data set and parameters of the analysis, I decided to keep things simple as I am not looking to get this published in a scientific journal. I just simply wanted to see if my semi-informed opinion stood up to any numerical scrutiny. Therefore the measure I used was a calculation of % of available (league-only) minutes played by the player selected. For example, let’s take Andi Sullivan who was the first pick in the 2018 draft. Since she was drafted, she has played in 78% of the available minutes for her teams matches from 2018 to 2023. If you exclude Emily Madril (who currently sits at 100% but with only a single year of data), next on the list is Sam Staab, who has played in 97% of the available minutes for the Spirit during her tenure. Immediately you can see some of the limitations of this analysis in that defenders are likely going to skew high. Goalkeepers will too, if they are the first-choice keeper. Ultimately, since I wasn’t trying to discover anything about the difference at the highest levels, I decided that it didn’t matter that much if 90% was that different from 60%. The key data point I was in search of was the dividing line between a player who was at least a “solid” contributor and one who had “underperformed”.
N=84 (First 14 players selected each draft during the 6-year period)
I decided to see if the histogram told the story of where the cut-off point was. In a perfect analysis, if you moved from left to right you could label the bars accordingly:
First Bar-Not NWSL caliber or decided to play in another league (Mia Fishel being an example in this bucket with 0% of available minutes played, but in her case it was her decision, not the team’s)
Second Bar-Squad players (Kiki Pickett and Brianna Pinto are two high-draft pick examples from this bucket)
Third Bar-Key Contributors (Paige Monaghan is probably the prime example of this)
Fourth Bar-Consistent Starters (Savannah McCaskill finds herself here)
Fifth Bar-Iron Women (the aforementioned Sam Staab)
However, I decided that the histogram was a little too strict and that there were plenty of consistent starters who were in the third bucket. The mean and the median of the data were around 40%, but that bar seemed too low. Finally, I checked the data to see if there were any players who hit close to 50%. Quinn has logged almost exactly 50% of their available minutes in their career, so I let them be the deciding factor. I would consider Quinn a valuable member of the Reign squad, so ultimately, I decided that 50% would be the dividing line between a “solid” draft pick and “underperforming” draft pick.
Before I go into the “fun” stuff, I want to include another detail about the data. I only counted minutes in seasons where a player was on the squad and used at least once. There isn’t a good example of a player excelling for a single season then bailing on the league, so this detail is more of a footnote vs. anything else.
Final Note: This analysis isn’t meant to compare a player’s performance to another player’s, but to try to determine which draft picks are most valuable and to determine their relative value to each other.
I will go through each draft, but before I do, I wanted to display a graph of all of the picks from 2018 to 2023.
The thing that stands out to me here is that the first two picks are pretty solidly guaranteed to be valuable with all 12 picks playing more than 50% of the available minutes. Oddly enough the 3rd pick has underperformed (3 picks) with the 4th pick being slightly better (4 picks). After that it is pretty predictable that the “solid” picks alternate between 1 and 2 at each spot with the exceptions being the picks at 7, 12, and 13. I wouldn’t necessarily read anything into that especially at the 7th pick as there isn’t an eye-popping name in that group, but the 12th pick in 2021 yielded Sam Coffey and the 13th pick in 2019 yielded CeCe Kizer. For me the takeaway would be this: I think you can assign a monetary value to each pick based on the probability of getting a good solid contributor. Here is how I would assign value:
Picks 1 and 2 would be valued at some indeterminate figure X
Picks 3 and 4 would be valued at .75 X
Picks 5 through 12 would be valued at .4 X
Anything after that I personally don’t think is worth the paper it is submitted on, but let’s go with .05 X just to give it a value.
In essence, I just set the high value at X and found that picks 3 and 4 play 75% of the minutes that picks 1 and 2 have historically and that picks 5-12 play 40% of the minutes that picks 1 and 2 have.
2018 Draft
The six “solid” picks in this draft are Andi Sullivan (1), Savannah McCaskill (2), Quinn (3), Imani Dorsey (5), Haley (Hanson) McCutcheon (7), and Casey Murphy (13). That is decent rate, but the highs are highs, and the lows are low. The 12th pick was Kimberly Keever who started 9 matches but was out of the league by the start of the next season.
2019 Draft
Eight of the twelve players selected in 2019 turned out to be very good picks. Tierna Davidson (1), Hallie Mace (2), Sam Staab (4), Dorian Bailey (8), Paige Monaghan (10), Ally Prisock (12), CeCe Kizer (13), and Lauren Milliet (14). That is very deep top 14. Jordan (DiBiasi) Baggett (3) is useful when healthy, but that hasn’t happened enough in Washington or Louisville.
2020 Draft
This draft might be the most interesting one. There are plenty of players that are “solid”, but the “underperforming” category includes Ally Watt (6), Tziarra King (8), Natalie Jacobs (13) and Phoebe McClernon (14) who’s percentages range between 23% and 43%. The talent is apparent in these players, they just haven’t been on the pitch enough to warrant a top 14 pick in my opinion. This draft also points out the limitations of my analysis with Sophia Smith (1) logging 67% or her available minutes and in my opinion, she is currently the most valuable player in the league by far. Like I stated earlier, this analysis isn’t meant to compare a player’s performance to another’s, but to try to determine which draft picks are most valuable. The rest of the “solid” picks are Morgan Weaver (2), Taylor Kornieck (3), Ashley Sanchez (4), Courtney Petersen (7), Kaliegh Riehl (11) and Kate Del Fava (12).
2021 Draft
This draft ends the run of 3 in a row that I would consider “above average” return for value. It is highlighted by 3 stars: Emily Fox (1), Trinity Rodman (2), and Sam Coffey (12) but 4 solid contributors round out the successes with Tara McKeown (8), Viviana Villacorta (9), Kirsten Davis (13) and Mikayla Colohan (14). Victoria Pickett is an interesting player at the 15th spot. She would qualify as “solid” based on this criterion but has seen her playing time drop in 2023.
2022 Draft
It might be still too early to fully rate this draft, but Naomi Girma (1), Jaelin Howell (2), Savannah DeMelo (4) and Diana Ordonez (6) are no-doubt solid picks. Elyse Bennett (7) and Julie Doyle (11) could see their minutes increase in the next couple of years.
2023 Draft
The jury could still be out on some of the players in the 20% to 40% range, but this draft already has 5 “solids” in Alyssa Thompson (1), Michelle Cooper (2), Emily Madril (3), Jenna Nighswonger (4) and Penelope Hocking (7). It is encouraging that each of the top four picks have proven themselves to be solid from the start.
On Louisville’s Draft Position
I thought it would be better to post this prior to knowing what Louisville’s draft position will be because I wanted to see if there was any value at 5 or 6 compared to 7 or 8. I think I would say that the probability of getting a “solid” player drops significantly after the fourth pick, but that there really isn’t much difference between 5 and 14. It is possible but unlikely that Louisville will finish with the 4th pick now, so I think I can say pretty firmly that their 2024 first-round pick will be left to chance when it comes to how much of a contributor the player will be. Additionally, I wouldn’t necessarily move up in the draft to take a player unless that player is in the top 4.
