PDA

View Full Version : Drafting best talent available VS Drafting best fit



Gander13SM
06-23-2015, 07:35 AM
I find this can be an interesting debate. So much of how a team drafts depends on the management style but also on what stage the team is at.

A borderline contender is usually looking for best fit, someone who is nba ready and could work within the offense and defense that already exists.

Lotto teams are usually just looking for the best talent available.

Is that really the right idea though? Do lotto teams just want to gather random talent that doesn't fit well together so they can trade them? Or keep firing shots in the dark hoping to hit something? Or do they want to draft smart. Draft young guys that fit well within a system and go from there? Should contenders be content just adding guys that fit the system or should they be looking to draft a more talented player who has more trade value?

Wheres the tipping point? I've read a lot about Willie Cauley-Stein possibly being drafted by Charlotte. He's not the best fit imo but the gap between him and the alternatives in terms of overall talent probably validates that choice.

And then you have to think that a lot of the time these guys end up as busts. So how do you know you're drafting the best talent available? You can never be confident of that.

So what do you think? Should teams be looking for best fits or best talent available? Does it depend on their position and where they are as a team in general? (Contending or not). If you already have a star point guard but the best talent available is another point guard who may also end up as a star do you draft him anyway and hope it doesn't piss off your current star?

IndyRealist
06-23-2015, 10:26 AM
In general, if you are a lottery team, you probably should not have a set plan on how you're building your team seeing as it hasn't been working out so far. Take the best player available and hope he turns into a star. Then you have something to build around. But saying "we're not drafting Okafor because we're a run 'n gun team" seems foolish. If run 'n gun was working for you, you wouldn't be deep in the lottery.

da ThRONe
06-23-2015, 11:01 AM
It's a mixture of both. The way players perform more often than not is based on fit. So player X may be a decent player in one system and a borderline all-star in another system.

Hawkeye15
06-23-2015, 11:04 AM
if you are a high lottery team, it's because you are devoid of talent, so you take BPA 99% of the time.

The one instance I can think you are justified in taking a player for fit is, if you have a guy who you have slightly behind player "A", but that player just happens to be the same type of player as a guy who just won ROY, or is the future (Wiggins for my Wolves for example), then maybe you slide to your 2nd guy.

But typically, you take BPA.

Scoots
06-23-2015, 11:39 AM
I think there is no difference. You define the kind of player you want to fit your team, your coaches, your system, then you take the best player who fits those standards. That said it's a lot easier to do that when you have a stable system/coaching staff to work with.

crewfan13
06-23-2015, 12:00 PM
I agree with most of the sentiments on here. The later you go in the draft, the more beneficial it is to draft for need or fit. For example, a team picking in the 20s may need shooting from the perimeter really bad. From a scout's perspective, Looney may be a better player, but Hunter fills their immediate need and could push them over the hump. But if you're picking 7th, you should probably take BPA.

That being said, what hawkeye said is completely right though too. If you have young talent to build around, the drafting a guy that fits your style makes more sense than just taking BPA. I think it really has to be a formula to an extent. If Okafor were far and away a better player than Towns, Minn should just take Okafor and figure out the fit stylistically. But if the players are close in overall talent or grade, I think its not a bad idea to pick based upon fit, especially if you have a system in place and some other young talent that fits the system.

Gander13SM
06-23-2015, 12:15 PM
if you are a high lottery team, it's because you are devoid of talent, so you take BPA 99% of the time.

The one instance I can think you are justified in taking a player for fit is, if you have a guy who you have slightly behind player "A", but that player just happens to be the same type of player as a guy who just won ROY, or is the future (Wiggins for my Wolves for example), then maybe you slide to your 2nd guy.

But typically, you take BPA.

I see your point.

Im not convinced towns is BPA. But I do think Wolves should take him because he's easily top 3 in this draft but more importantly a great fit (on paper).

I can't wait to watch Minnesota develop over the next 2-3 years.

Do you think they stick with Rubio?

Gander13SM
06-23-2015, 12:16 PM
I think there is no difference. You define the kind of player you want to fit your team, your coaches, your system, then you take the best player who fits those standards. That said it's a lot easier to do that when you have a stable system/coaching staff to work with.

But that is best fit. Best player available would be taking literally the guy you think will be the best player regardless of whether or not he fits on your roster. (Playing behind an established star like Curry or Durant)

D-Leethal
06-23-2015, 12:39 PM
If you have a winning core in place you draft around those guys for fit, if you need to establish that core you do it by drafting BPA.

crewfan13
06-23-2015, 12:54 PM
But that is best fit. Best player available would be taking literally the guy you think will be the best player regardless of whether or not he fits on your roster. (Playing behind an established star like Curry or Durant)

I think its all about semantics and how you truly evaluate players. If you evaluate the player first, then look at how they fit your roster, your BPA and best fit could be different guys. If you rank/grade your players based upon how they fit your system, then your BPA will almost always be best fit. I think there's an argument to be had that teams legitimately do grade players with an eye on fit in their system. If you're a team that values rim protection from a center, you're naturally going to downgrade Okafor and upgrade Towns. Same can be said about running the floor. The opposite could be said if you value throwing it into the post and working your offense through a big. Again, it really is a case of semantics, but I can see the argument both ways. Do you scout based upon overall skillset, then fit it to your team, or do you scout with your team's preferences already built in?

Hawkeye15
06-23-2015, 01:32 PM
But that is best fit. Best player available would be taking literally the guy you think will be the best player regardless of whether or not he fits on your roster. (Playing behind an established star like Curry or Durant)

well, teams who have established stars are rarely in a spot in the draft where there is expected star talent, so of course they pick more for fit.

Hawkeye15
06-23-2015, 01:35 PM
I see your point.

Im not convinced towns is BPA. But I do think Wolves should take him because he's easily top 3 in this draft but more importantly a great fit (on paper).

I can't wait to watch Minnesota develop over the next 2-3 years.

Do you think they stick with Rubio?

I have no idea what we do with Rubio long term. He starts a new deal this season, a 4 year deal, but it's not a bad contract, so it's moveable if needed. If he can stay healthy, I think he is fine for us, he did show improvement on his long 2's, and he is a very good defender/rebounder. But man, he needs to learn how to finish at the rim, it's crazy how bad he is there.

Wrigheyes4MVP
06-23-2015, 01:36 PM
This is not an exact science. But generally, you want the best talent. I mean, more than 2/3 of these players end up being busts or marginal role players at best. So yeah, focus on getting the best talent you can.

The Dubs had Monta Ellis when they picked Curry. Kind of redundant, but you don't see any Dubs fans complaining now.

Scoots
06-23-2015, 01:37 PM
I guess my position that you always draft the best player available who fits your system does have a caveat ... if there is a game bending player available you take him even if he doesn't fit your system.

rapjuicer06
06-23-2015, 05:05 PM
Orlando is a perfect example for this. We have a team full of great athletes, but they do not fit together at all. Everyone in the Magic forum is fine with it, but I personally can not stand it. At some point, you have to become a team and need to start drafting the best player that fits with your team. We have 4 tweeners on the team and a Center who can't play defense...but the players are have potential though, but will still be tweeners.

rapjuicer06
06-23-2015, 05:08 PM
I guess my position that you always draft the best player available who fits your system does have a caveat ... if there is a game bending player available you take him even if he doesn't fit your system.

I agree with that

Cal827
06-23-2015, 05:26 PM
We drafted ****ing Araujo and ****ing Ross over Igoudala and Drummond. You know my answer to this question :laugh2:

Scoots
06-23-2015, 07:28 PM
I think we can all agree that scouting and player evaluation is the most important element of the draft regardless of drafting philosophy.

You can draft a player that measures perfect and ticks all the system boxes for your team perfectly ... but if he's got no heart or no passion he will be a bust every time.

Likewise you can draft the greatest athlete and BBall junkie with a all-time IQ and then force him to play in a system that doesn't fit him and ruin him forever.

In the end it's ALL down to the evaluation.

Who are the best talent evaluating staffs in the NBA? The Spurs have done a tremendous job considering where they draft every year. The Warriors have killed it lately (4 of 5 starters are draft picks).

With players coming out so young you can't really evaluate the talent for 4 or 5 years it seems now. The Wolves, Jazz, Bucks, Magic, and the 76ers all have a lot of young potential.

Ezio
06-23-2015, 07:52 PM
We drafted ****ing Araujo and ****ing Ross over Igoudala and Drummond. You know my answer to this question :laugh2:

Bulls drafted Snell over Dieng and Teague (The bad one) over Draymond

Cal827
06-23-2015, 08:04 PM
Bulls drafted Snell over Dieng and Teague (The bad one) over Draymond

Ouch.... but to be fair, on your latter example, it wasn't directly after, and neither were stretches to go in the mid first round, yet alone top 10 :laugh2:

teddygreen17
06-23-2015, 08:12 PM
Yeah, it really depends on the player and the fit. You just dont know what he will develop into. Every now and then, maybe you draft a player for fit, but he ends up being a much better player than projected because of the hard work and coaching he gets.

KnicksorBust
06-23-2015, 09:42 PM
Orlando is a perfect example for this. We have a team full of great athletes, but they do not fit together at all. Everyone in the Magic forum is fine with it, but I personally can not stand it. At some point, you have to become a team and need to start drafting the best player that fits with your team. We have 4 tweeners on the team and a Center who can't play defense...but the players are have potential though, but will still be tweeners.

So would you take a defensive big like WCS for fit instead of a high upside player like Porzingis?

5ass
06-23-2015, 10:22 PM
So would you take a defensive big like WCS for fit instead of a high upside player like Porzingis?

They're both great fits IMO, so that's not a prime example. Better example would be if Mudiay vs. Zinger/WCS/Winslow/Hezonja. Of course that's assuming Mudiay is clearly a better prospect than the rest, which I'm not sure about because I haven't seen much of him.

We'll find out what Hennigan chooses to do on Thursday. Personally, I'd take Zinger if he's available.

sixer04fan
06-24-2015, 12:01 AM
Obviously there are exceptions, but:

Long term, it's generally better to draft best talent over fit/position of need. Otherwise your limiting the upside and talent on your roster overall.

You win with elite talent in this league, regardless of position. You want to get as much of it on your team as you can when you have the opportunity to, like during the draft.

If you're not building through the draft, have a more complete roster ready to compete with a hole to fill (that's what she said), then it can make sense to draft a position of need. But it depends on the gap in talent between your guy and other available players.

Scoots
06-24-2015, 01:06 AM
Obviously there are exceptions, but:

Long term, it's generally better to draft best talent over fit/position of need. Otherwise your limiting the upside and talent on your roster overall.

You win with elite talent in this league, regardless of position. You want to get as much of it on your team as you can when you have the opportunity to, like during the draft.

If you're not building through the draft, have a more complete roster ready to compete with a hole to fill (that's what she said), then it can make sense to draft a position of need. But it depends on the gap in talent between your guy and other available players.

Okay, so the Warriors clearly didn't follow the "best talent" model.

Curry, too small, too slow, can't play point guard.
Thompson, not athletic enough, limited game.
Green, too small, too slow, can't shoot, no position.

But, all 3 of them are absolutely NUTS for improving and proving everyone wrong and they fit the system perfectly (and the system changed to maximize what they do well).

On one hand you have Iguodala has a very limited scoring game, but he's such a nut for film work he can see the play before it happens on offense and defense and he never forgets anything. He HATES to lose.

On the other hand is Barnes who has an incredibly smooth game and physically and skill wise he could challenge to be the best small forward in the NBA, and he prepares and practices hard and practices extra ... he puts in the work. But on the floor he's just not engaged a lot of the time. He knows it and he doesn't have a solution yet.

This title has made me think it's more about heart and drive than almost everything else. Ideally you get someone like MJ, Kobe, etc ... the greatest ever often have crazy talent AND crazy drive, but not always. Bird was too slow, Jerry Rice was too slow ... and because of their drive they are two of the very best their sports have ever seen.

I don't know how you scout for it but lack of heart and will are probably the main causes of busts in the NBA draft.

Gander13SM
06-24-2015, 02:02 AM
Bulls drafted Snell over Dieng and Teague (The bad one) over Draymond

Wasn't Dray the 30th pick? Everyone drafted someone over him lol

Sanjay
07-03-2015, 03:02 AM
Okay, so the Warriors clearly didn't follow the "best talent" model.

Curry, too small, too slow, can't play point guard.
Thompson, not athletic enough, limited game.
Green, too small, too slow, can't shoot, no position.

But, all 3 of them are absolutely NUTS for improving and proving everyone wrong and they fit the system perfectly (and the system changed to maximize what they do well).

On one hand you have Iguodala has a very limited scoring game, but he's such a nut for film work he can see the play before it happens on offense and defense and he never forgets anything. He HATES to lose.

On the other hand is Barnes who has an incredibly smooth game and physically and skill wise he could challenge to be the best small forward in the NBA, and he prepares and practices hard and practices extra ... he puts in the work. But on the floor he's just not engaged a lot of the time. He knows it and he doesn't have a solution yet.

This title has made me think it's more about heart and drive than almost everything else. Ideally you get someone like MJ, Kobe, etc ... the greatest ever often have crazy talent AND crazy drive, but not always. Bird was too slow, Jerry Rice was too slow ... and because of their drive they are two of the very best their sports have ever seen.

I don't know how you scout for it but lack of heart and will are probably the main causes of busts in the NBA draft.

Exactly. Although, I think even at the time the Warriors made good choices for the pick rankings they had (i.e. They did not have any top 3 selections or anything). Everybody knows the famous story of Michael Jordan being cut from his high school team as a sophomore which then gave him the chip on his shoulder to become arguably the greatest sportsperson of all time. Kobe was motivated by being drafted 13th. Work ethic is definitely difficult to scout, you do not know what players do the 22 hours they are not playing everyday.

ROY 2 MVP Braun
07-03-2015, 04:32 AM
[QUOTE=sixer04fan;30081902]
Okay, so the Warriors clearly didn't follow the "best talent" model.

Curry, too small, too slow, can't play point guard.
Thompson, not athletic enough, limited game.
Green, too small, too slow, can't shoot, no position.

But, all 3 of them are absolutely NUTS for improving and proving everyone wrong and they fit the system perfectly (and the system changed to maximize what they do well).

On one hand you have Iguodala has a very limited scoring game, but he's such a nut for film work he can see the play before it happens on offense and defense and he never forgets anything. He HATES to lose.

On the other hand is Barnes who has an incredibly smooth game and physically and skill wise he could challenge to be the best small forward in the NBA, and he prepares and practices hard and practices extra ... he puts in the work. But on the floor he's just not engaged a lot of the time. He knows it and he doesn't have a solution yet.

This title has made me think it's more about heart and drive than almost everything else. Ideally you get someone like MJ, Kobe, etc ... the greatest ever often have crazy talent AND crazy drive, but not always. Bird was too slow, Jerry Rice was too slow ... and because of their drive they are two of the very best their sports have ever seen.

I don't know how you scout for it but lack of heart and will are probably the main causes of busts in the NBA draft.
Well ideally you have at least 1 year of college tape to watch on the players entering the draft. I mean there's no 1 thing you can look for an be like oh yeah that kids got heart! IMO though if you watch enough and know enough about said player you should get an idea if the kids got heart or not. Also can get a good read on work ethic by watching enough of a player and trying to see if they are adding skills to their game or getting better at certain things. Also being able to talk to said players college and high school coach's as well as teammates you should be able to get an idea on said players work ethic and know if they're a work horse/gym rat.

ROY 2 MVP Braun
07-03-2015, 04:47 AM
Instead of best fit vs best player how does potential play into the decision you make?

Would you rather have a very good well rounded player who will average something like player A
12ppg 5rpg 6.5apg (if they're a guard)
12ppg 6.5rpg 5apg (if they're a big)
and always be right in those numbers throughout their whole career or would you rather have a player that's averages
5ppg 2rpg 4apg(guard)
5ppg 4rpg 2apg(big) player B
for the first year(s) of their career but will reach something like
20ppg 7rpg 8.5apg(guard)
20ppg 8.5rpg 7apg(big)
by year 10 and than decline from their on out until they retire around year 16.

ROY 2 MVP Braun
07-03-2015, 04:51 AM
I forgot to add that player B also has more bust potential and there's a chance they never improve from the first year(s) stats

KnicksorBust
07-03-2015, 09:15 AM
Orlando is a perfect example for this. We have a team full of great athletes, but they do not fit together at all. Everyone in the Magic forum is fine with it, but I personally can not stand it. At some point, you have to become a team and need to start drafting the best player that fits with your team. We have 4 tweeners on the team and a Center who can't play defense...but the players are have potential though, but will still be tweeners.

So would you take a defensive big like WCS for fit instead of a high upside player like Porzingis?

2 days before the draft I am on PSD preaching the high upside of Porzingis. :laugh:

warfelg
07-03-2015, 09:38 AM
Draft for BPA according to your board.

I saw something about who the Warriors took, but what if those were all the BPA according to their board.

So the Sixers took 3 C's in the last 3 drafts because BPA, but even though they are all the same position, if all three turn out good, we have an ability to move one for a good play in the future.

da ThRONe
07-03-2015, 10:37 AM
Draft for BPA according to your board.

I saw something about who the Warriors took, but what if those were all the BPA according to their board.

So the Sixers took 3 C's in the last 3 drafts because BPA, but even though they are all the same position, if all three turn out good, we have an ability to move one for a good play in the future.

The problem the Sixer's face is trying to develop 3 C's whom all play different from one another. And there's no veterans bigs to really show them the ropes. Most coaches are thinking about saving their own jobs so they'll just worry about playing/developing which ever player they feel give them the best chance to be successful the quickest. If Philly can properly develop all 3 than yes the franchise is in a great place.

warfelg
07-03-2015, 10:40 AM
The problem the Sixer's face is trying to develop 3 C's whom all play different from one another. And there's no veterans bigs to really show them the ropes. Most coaches are thinking about saving their own jobs so they'll just worry about playing/developing which ever player they feel give them the best chance to be successful the quickest. If Philly can properly develop all 3 than yes the franchise is in a great place.

Carl Landry and Jason Thompson are Sixers. Not the greatest but two vet bigs to help.

You also aren't aware how the job Brett Brown has done with this team. They are planning Noel at the 4 and Okafor at the 5 as well.