The need argument when drafting

Arc12345
Registered User
Joined: 07/13/2009
Posts: 632
Points: 2016
Offline
The need argument when drafting

We can argue this until the cows come home, but in my opinion you should almost NEVER draft off of need when you’re drafting in the lottery and really anywhere in the first round.

I think you’re setting yourself up for bias by looking at players in a more favorable way because you’re thinking, “Well he’d fit great in our system,” or “We really need to sure up this spot.” Instead of focusing on who is the best pure basketball player that will help me win games.

If that player also happens to play a position of need, great. If he doesn’t, great. You make trades and move on to get the best PLAYERS. You don’t draft players to fit your system. You make a system to maximize your players strengths.


holefillers1
holefillers1's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/12/2015
Posts: 1342
Points: 2573
Offline
I would subscribe to that

I would subscribe to that philosophy through the first 8-10 picks. After that I start drafting solid 3/D guards and wings over freshman with “potential”. Role players are more important in building a solid team compared to the sixth best eighth or ninth best freshman who has a 30% of becoming an all star and a 40% chance of never contributing to your team in any meaningful way.

Arc12345
Registered User
Joined: 07/13/2009
Posts: 632
Points: 2016
Offline
Agreed

Personally I’m not a fan of drafting for potential. Sure there are examples of it working out (Giannis), but I’d much rather have a player that can come in and give me production right away with room to grow.

Drafting Lillards and Horfords makes way more sense to me than drafting Giannis because in reality, the projects often don’t work out. There’s no way to project what a player will become from a virtually non-existent base. I want a young player than can come in and help me right away but also develop and take steps (Booker and Kuzma are great examples of this). Looking at a players overall productivity and productivity per 40 minutes MATTERS. If the kid didn’t at least put up numbers, that’s a red flag.

There’s too much at stake early in the lottery to draft someone who can’t help you right away in SOME way. That was the anger with initial reports on Porzingis (they were totally wrong). Most players show their true colors by their 3rd or 4th season. This is why I think the Lakers should move on from Ingram and Lonzo - they’re simply not that good IMO. Kuzma is the only future game changer for them.

Cynthia
Cynthia's picture
Registered User
Joined: 07/20/2011
Posts: 1299
Points: 8313
Offline
In my opinion BPA is better

In my opinion BPA is better than need, especially in the lottery. However it's sometimes really hard to predict who's truly BPA, sometimes we have a standout #1-3 and sometimes we don't.

So if you're looking at 2-3 prospects that you deem as relatively equal then I think using need as the deciding factor is a good idea. However if you're going way down the list just cause you need a specific position then you're just asking for trouble.

It's actually a lot easier to pick BPA these days with the "positionless" game we have now. No more are the days where a guy plays his whole career in just one slot, most these guys playing 2 and sometimes 3-4 positions in special cases.

Choppy
Choppy's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/27/2012
Posts: 1253
Points: 3455
Offline
I generally agree with this

I generally agree with this premise, IF there is a clear drop off in talent. After the first 10 or so picks, it becomes less clear cut and system development becomes more important. Case in point is the Spurs, and what the Lakers have done with Kuzma. Spurs often “reach” for players at the back end of the first who often have better careers than others drafted around them. They draft for need and fit and it seems to work out for them more often than not. Lakers needed a stretch 4 (although I think Kuzma is much more than just a stretch 4), so they traded for his draft rights and developed him into the player he is.

I guess what I’m saying is draft BPA in the first 10 or so, then draft for need/fit.

OhCanada-
OhCanada-'s picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/08/2010
Posts: 11133
Points: 15061
Offline
Well I personally think its a

Well I personally think its a combination of both. I believe theres tiers, and you rank your talent based on those tiers. When two players are available and in the same tier you go with the one that can have the largest role on your team within your system and current plan.

For instance the Hawks drafted Young last year and are deeply invested in him. So if it comes between Barrett and Morant who are pretty much in the same tier you go with Barrett because it provides something that Young cannot provide. I personally have Morant ranked higher than Barrett but in that situation I would pick Barrett because he does things that Morant cannot do.

With that being said you never pick in a lower tier because of need. In 2012 the Raptors picked Terrence Ross 8th overall because Dwayne Casey was crying for shooting (which shouldve been addressed in free agency). They left Drummond on the table as not to stunt Valanciunas growth but now look, Valanciunas doesnt even average 20-mpg.

So if its within the same tier and talent level go with need but if your picking a player that clearly has less upside than another player thats available just to fill a role that should instead be addressed in free agency/trades/

Arc12345
Registered User
Joined: 07/13/2009
Posts: 632
Points: 2016
Offline
Hawks

I really disagree with you. I am a die hard Hawks fan, and if we think Morant is the best player, we need to draft him. That is not slighting Trae Young, I just don't think that's wise in the long run.

Worst case scenario you have two elite ball handlers and you could probably play them together like Lillard and McCollum. Morant is definitely athletic and long enough to guard opposing shooting guards.

You could make the same case for not drafting Zion because we already have John Collins. Or not drafting Barrett because we already have Prince and Huerter. Trae Young has shown nothing that makes him untouchable in terms of our future. He's a good young player, but that shouldn't prevent us from drafting someone we deem as the best player because he plays the same position.

OhCanada-
OhCanada-'s picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/08/2010
Posts: 11133
Points: 15061
Offline
Yeah I see what your saying.

Yeah I see what your saying. They could make it work. I just think both players are extremely ball dominant and do alot of the same things. Morant is only 6'3 and weighs less than Young, he's like 180. Barretts around 6'7 210 I'm guessing. That gives you longterm coverage at the wing position and upside they are struggling to get consistently fron Prince and Bembry at the moment and allows Young to flourish in his role as main distributor while giving your team a legit 1st option.

Arc12345
Registered User
Joined: 07/13/2009
Posts: 632
Points: 2016
Offline
I get your point

But if they think Morant is better and he ends up being Damian Lillard, they made the right decision.

For all I know RJ Barrett could be the next Tracy McGrady, but if he ends up being closer to Michael Redd (as the site compares him to which I don't understand) then that was a bad decision.

They need to draft who they deem is the best player. We currently have no stars on the Hawks and perhaps even future stars.

r377
r377's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/28/2010
Posts: 3518
Points: 10128
Offline
If you have

If you have cornerstone/potential all stars players on your team, you are not going to draft BPA.

For example, Phoenix are not going to draft a C or SG as they have Ayton and Booker who are cornerstone players. The Kings love DeAron Fox, they won't draft a PG.

Also going back to drafting BPA. The Wolves drafted both Rubio and Flynn who play the same position. Also the suns drafted Bender and Chriss. Look how both those examples turned out.

OhCanada-
OhCanada-'s picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/08/2010
Posts: 11133
Points: 15061
Offline
Well I think that goes back

Well I think that goes back to my tier theory. Of course if your Phoenix out of Williamson, Morant and Barrett, Barrett is the last option because he is primarily a SG and his role will be volume scorer similar to Booker. But if your picking 3rd and Morant and WIlliamson are not available I think they have to go with Barrett and slide him to SF because nobody else left in the draft has the same projected upside as him without risk. I mean who knows maybe Hachimora or Little ends up being the best player in the draft its really impossible to tell but its clear that Barrett is ranked higher at the moment.

RSS: Syndicate content