Yes the stats say it is. Because while yes picking fift hmight mean half with less than a 0 war, but that means half are better. It also means at pick six, seven, eight, 14 that rate goes up even higher. So its 51 percent (just pulling out of my tail for discussion) at pick six that fail, in the aggregate form.
The stats say pick as high as possible because that is your best chance to get that team controlled superstar. And the best chance is to pick as high as possible. If you get that superstar its improve your odd of winning in year 5 and 10 and not still be stuck in the mud.
And other studies on attendance have show there is really only significant different between massive winning and massive losing. Losing 89 instead of say 96, does almost nothing to improve attendance. The only real attendance swings happen if a team goes from signficant winning to losing in a year or two or visa versa. So its not really losing revenue or interest to say lets lose 106 instead of 99, 91, or 85.
But again its just in theory no team or player is actively gonna go try to lose. For me its just an argument of in a lost year I'd rather have hte best odds to get better in the future than win an extra game or two and miss out on that superstar for just some instant gratification that isn't even that cause its still a bad team.