What is draft skill? (Vs draft luck)

[HotelVitale]

With the draft coming up tomorrow, thought it'd be good timing to talk about ‘draft skill.’ From what I can tell most people on these boards think there are 'good' and 'bad drafters and that it's kind of an inherent thing. Good scouting teams put in work to identify real talent and then good GMs just have the ability to select good guys, and most of everyone else lacks the scouting or GM ‘skill.’ I’ve always been confused about what this means, and skeptical that it’s anything like a straightforward ‘some guys just know who’s going to be good.’ Gonna lay out a few points about that and see what you all think--I’ll defend my perspective some in the comments since it’s come from a long time of thinking about the topic, but I'm happy to be wrong or challenged. Also note I’m going to keep this OP much shorter than it should be but can develop any of the points or give (many) examples supporting them.

-#1 basically no one (successfully) breaks general draft consensus, and nearly every big-time draft steal has been taken about where they were expected to go. Even the guys we think of as brilliant drafters just took guys in their general draft range (like Masai or Presti), within about 5 draft slots of where everyone had them (e.g. guys like Jokic, Siakam, Gobert, etc). As a corollary, when they’ve taken wilder swings it hasn’t worked out (e.g. Poku or Caboclo). If draft ‘skill’ were a pretty tangible ability to see good/bad players, we’d see the good drafters being able to consistently break with consensus and find gems far earlier than expected
-#2 every decent scout knows more or less why every NBA prospect could fail or succeed, but none of them know which guys will get there–FO people + scouts ALWAYS talk about the draft exactly in those terms. Also everyone already factors in obvious things that could suggest greater odds of improvement into draft rankings–mental approach and attitude, pre-college track record of improvement, etc. So we’re starting to get into kind of ‘gut’ territory here, i.e. a theory that good GMs just have a guy about which guys are for real that bad GMs don’t have
-#3 cont’d: fans often think that most GMs and scouts are stupid and lazy, in reality they more or less all do the basic homework. Gotta reject the simple idea that bad drafters don’t actually look at the relevant info or are skipping huge steps
#4 on that note: basically every GM would’ve screwed up most great picks if they had the chance to: e.g. the Clippers would’ve taken Wendell Carter Jr over SGA, the Jazz Collin Sexton over D Mitchell, the Raptors Taurean Prince over Siakam, etc. Danny Ainge tried frantically to trade the pick that became J Brown as ⅓ of the price for Justise Winslow, if the Hornets had agreed (look up who they took instead if you don’t know). Those GMs weren’t stupid though, they were generally right to think that Prince was a much easier bet than Siakam, etc.
#5 role players but stars? One legit skill IMO is that some teams seem to be consistently good at picking guys that they can turn into solid contributors; SA and MIA are the most obvious examples, and both teams are famous for intense cultures that require players to conform to roles; I do believe that these teams select players with mental makeups and skillsets they know they can work with, and that + culture gives them a better-than-average chance of making them solid role players. That’s mostly limited to role players, though, and both of those teams have floundered when they didn’t have stars who came from high in the draft or from outside the team; I also think you have to give the credit more to culture and development than pure draft ‘skill,’ at least to what most fans are thinking about
#6: I know sports fans hate attributing things to luck and they’re also often bad at probability–but even if the draft was all luck, we’d expect to have some guys look like ‘good’ drafters and some look really really bad. That’s how probability works: if you flipped a coin 10 times, it’s just as likely that it’ll be heads 9 times and tails 1 time as it is 5 heads and 5 tails. Especially since the sample sizes are almost always quite small–most GMs make like 5-10 1st rd picks, and that’s nowhere close to enough to weed out luck or chance as the primary factor determining outcomes (an example is when people saw Danny Ainge as a ‘draft wizard’ in like 2020--Zach Lowe used that exact phrase then–and then we saw like 8 straight mediocre picks from him and how his team ends up blah as a result, and balance has been restored to his rep)
#7: I’ll make this really short, but my position is that all scouts and GMs know WAY less about how a player will translate than is generally assumed. No one really even knows how good a player will be at his strengths--elite shooter/slasher/passer prospects often aren't that great at that stuff for a while in the NBA--and then they'll be randomly quite good or bad at other things that will come to define their careers. And that's before we factor in development over 2-5 years--that's all pretty random guesses.

Leaving it there since that's already way too long. What you all think?

[SkyBill40]

Might need a little formatting to break up that wall, HV.

Some GM's seem to have a better knack for talent evaluation even if they weren't players in the league. There are also some that have high quality scouting teams and trust in their knowledge in order to make an educated guess (seeing that's all the draft is - little to nothing is guaranteed). Then there are others who don't have any talent evaluation skills but still think themselves to be smarter than those getting paid to evaluate said talent or, even worse still, believe as stated and refuse to rely on scouts. Yeah, James Jones, that is a not so subtle dig at your dumb ass.

Workouts might give a good idea as to just how well a prospective player might handle situations, but that only goes so far. So do measurements at combines and the like. The numbers might be off the charts but once that player hits the floor with the other four members of the lineup, do they show out and look just as good or do they show poorly?

Your last point is probably the best one. A team isn't going to know just how well that player fits until they're fully immersed and running on the regular with that team's guys. You just have to hope that your homework was solid and that the player taken checks more positive boxes come season's start than they do negatives that failed to surface until it's too late. And even with those negatives, a GM has to have faith in their training staff to grow that player. That player needs to be fully receptive to the intentions of those trainers, too.

[whitehops]

drafting is based so much on projection and that's not an exact science. beyond skill and physical traits you have to trust the player is going to be fully committed in their development instead of just going through the motions, they are willing to take on any role within their skill set and excel in that role, they have confidence but not arrogance/ego, etc.

and that's all besides trying to project the future of the league. example: masai envisioned the league being purely switch-everything and having an all 6'9 lineup would be optimal. he didn't foresee how valuable point of attack defenders would be in the league today and nembhard put on a clinic all playoffs why that is. scottie barnes was earmarked to be their #1 option without having the requisite skill to be one. he won ROY by being a great role player but whenever called upon to be a lead creator he struggled. the "draft skill" is getting players you trust will be able to pivot to become a star in their role.

i think pretty much every team now values high-character guys for a good locker room, dedication so they'll maximize their development and buy-in to play team basketball. how they value that vs. straight talent might differ.

[Texas Chuck]

I think like just about every aspect of life there are people better at it than others. Maybe that's as simple as letting everyone in the organization weigh in and really listening, whether that's simply not having preconceived ideas about European players, or not getting suckered into drafting for need or whatever.

And certainly there are organizations that invest more in scouting both domestically and internationally, that aren't run dictator style so its less the whim of one guy. Then you have team governors who overrule what their basketball people tell them. Most famously would be the Suns hiring Luka's coach because their basketball people said this guy has stat written all over him and Sarver being nah I want the Arizona kid. Or same draft the Kings drafting Bagley simply because he publicly asked them to while all the better prospects' agents were trying to steer them away from Sacramento.

I don't think it can all be dismissed as variance. Though it goes without saying nobody knows for sure who won't get injured or lost in the lifestyle, who develops further and who has already peaked. Other than your Lebron/Duncan drafts where you know barring injury you have a superstar there is always some mystery.

But I don't believe that means some people/organizations aren't still better at it.

[morosis]

low key ive always believed its less about draft skill and more about the development environment that rookies experience after they are drafted.

the difference in facilities, organization, behind the scenes personnel, development/training programs, and structure varies widely from team to team. all of that stuff takes a certain level of investment and organizational design. generally the teams that care more about that stuff seem to have better luck turning draftees into contributors than the teams that don't.

not saying a guy like wemby wouldnt be wemby if he went somewhere else. moreso that the non-homerun guys have a better chance to develop into better players in the right environments, where they get good advice and feel cared for. which seems kinda "duh" when i type it out.

[SA37]

Draft skill is when you consistently (define consistent at 50% or better) draft NBA quality guys or even develop undrafted guys. Probably this has as much to do with having system/coaching stability as anything else. Otherwise it's a guessing game to trying to figure out a system for wildly different players.

Draft luck is when teams make bad picks and you end up with a guy who likely should have gone higher or you simply make a big jump into top-3/4 and get a guy you had no business getting, like what happened with Duncan/Spurs or what is likely to happen here with Flagg/Mavs.

[scrabbarista]

Projecting a player's development arc and projecting how he'll fit into a different environment.

It's the same as evaluating players of any age (e.g., for trades or contract negotiations), you just have less history/information in the past and more in the future.

[Lalouie]

draft SKILL lies in who you get in the later picks, ie 20 > 60

because ALL TEAMS draft the same way in the lottery. the lottery is written in stone because scouts can always use the excuse of drafting "correctly". no one really thinks outside the box drafting in the lottery. it's always about who falls into your lap or you you missed.

[Wallace_Wallace]

For teams, you need to have the personnel to develop a player. Can’t expect prospects to grow into their fullest potential without proper coaching and veterans. It’s nice to have a someone like Jrue Holiday, Boston or SA’s coaching staff. Structure is very underrated.

Prospects, need to have a good head on your shoulders. I go for guys with either an obsession with basketball, OR a technician who understands the situation and not make the same mistakes twice.

If a GM can have proper coaching staff, and be able to draft prospect with that mental make up, they’ll usually hit more times they bust.

[Kent]

With the draft coming up tomorrow, thought it'd be good timing to talk about ‘draft skill.’

...

ChatGPT summary:

The post challenges the idea that drafting well is a special skill, arguing instead that most GMs follow consensus and rarely identify stars far outside expected ranges.

It claims nearly all teams do their homework, and even so-called “draft steals” usually happen where players were projected.

Success is often more about team culture and development than talent evaluation.

The author also emphasizes how much randomness and luck shape outcomes, making it hard to tell who’s actually good at drafting.

Ultimately, they argue that scouts and GMs know far less about how players will turn out than fans assume.

[HotelVitale]

I think like just about every aspect of life there are people better at it than others. Maybe that's as simple as letting everyone in the organization weigh in and really listening, whether that's simply not having preconceived ideas about European players, or not getting suckered into drafting for need or whatever. And certainly there are organizations that invest more in scouting both domestically and internationally...Then you have team governors who overrule what their basketball people tell them.

I'm sympathetic but I think you're skipping too much between your first pt--which seems reasonable and a good assumption--and what would actually explain or account for that. Nothing about what I've read or heard about scouting teams suggests that drafting well is as simple as letting multiple competent people have their say. That is simply not going to tell you if VJ Edgecombe, Kon Knueppel, or Tre Johnson will be a better NBA player in 4 years. I also don't think that the teams who are currently actively making their guesses on that lack for solid and competent scouting staffs--which means that's not going to determine who's right or wrong in this draft.

I don't think it can all be dismissed as variance.

So I want to agree, but I don't know what the thing that good drafters do is still, even after 20 years following it. I tend to think the advantages gained by good staff and FO are more on the margins, and that this still leaves the fate of a prospect overwhelmingly to the mysteries of translation and development.

[Special_Puppy]

In general the idea that GMs can consistently and reliably beat the draft is pretty weak. You are basically saying that You can reliably beat the consensus which is a very hard thing to do. It’s like why fund managers struggle to beat the market https://neilpaine.substack.com/p/nfl-teams-still-cant-beat-the-draft

[HotelVitale]

For teams, you need to have the personnel to develop a player. Can’t expect prospects to grow into their fullest potential without proper coaching and veterans. It’s nice to have a someone like Jrue Holiday, Boston or SA’s coaching staff. Structure is very underrated.
Prospects, need to have a good head on your shoulders. I go for guys with either an obsession with basketball, OR a technician who understands the situation and not make the same mistakes twice. If a GM can have proper coaching staff, and be able to draft prospect with that mental make up, they’ll usually hit more times they bust.

I don't think this is inaccurate but it's not an explanation of which draft picks succeed or don't. There have been many many players who translated and then developed well on crappy teams with shoddy structures. And many many players who busted despite being in solid structures. Some players simply come in and can play right away, and some players can't quite keep up with the pacing and athleticism and timing of the NBA. That's the great mystery of 'translation' and it's responsible for a big big portion of draft success. 'Development' might have more to do with culture but even then players with great heads of shoulders aren't necessarily great at that--the NBA is really intense and the margins for success on any given play are really tiny, and that's what success ultimately comes down to. People who aren't super smart or don't have the best team mindset still sometimes win that while the opposiute type guys don't.

Also this is a separate rant but the big majority of draft prospects has a very good professional attitude and work ridiculously hard, I tihnk we really get this wrong as fans. I played AAU-equivalent ball as a teenager, and I worked a lot with D1 athletes for a while at U Michigan, and those guys worked crazy hard because that was the culture and expectation. There were a couple exceptions i saw but really even the knuckleheads and legit loose cannons (including some dudes who got kicked off the team at UM) did that, it comes with competing.

[HotelVitale]

Projecting a player's development arc and projecting how he'll fit into a different environment.

This is exactly what an ideal super-drafter could do and it sounds simple enough, and yes every team understands this is their task. It's just incredibly difficult to even begin to do it in any reliable way, and it's a little insane when you start breaking down how some GMs could do this well. Happy to say more but trying not to keep turning this thread into my personal little epic.

In general, I think most GMs are taking pretty wild guesses about a development arc--you have how a player has improved from like age 14 on, and then you have their attitude and general approach to improvement. But that's really really not going to tell you if Ace Bailey will shoot 32% or 42% from 3 by year 3, or if his athleticism and hustle (which are good) will translate into production in NBA games against full NBA competition at full NBA speed. And those are just the most basic questions about a player, bunch more will factor into if he succeeds or fails.

[scrabbarista]

Projecting a player's development arc and projecting how he'll fit into a different environment.

This is exactly what an ideal super-drafter could do and it sounds simple enough, and yes every team understands this is their task. It's just incredibly difficult to even begin to do it in any reliable way, and it's a little insane when you start breaking down how some GMs could do this well. Happy to say more but trying not to keep turning this thread into my personal little epic.

In general, I think most GMs are taking pretty wild guesses about a development arc--you have how a player has improved from like age 14 on, and then you have their attitude and general approach to improvement. But that's really really not going to tell you if Ace Bailey will shoot 32% or 42% from 3 by year 3, or if his athleticism and hustle (which are good) will translate into production in NBA games against full NBA competition at full NBA speed. And those are just the most basic questions about a player, bunch more will factor into if he succeeds or fails.

Feel free to expound. I'll read it.

[JonFromVA]

We'd have a much better idea if anyone in the industry bothered to grade themselves. Short of that, unless a team feels like fessing up, how do we even know who was the person who picked the hits or the misses on each team? Who did the scouting? Who did the analysis? Who decided on the selection criteria?

And just because a scout nails a few picks, unless his sources, interviews, information, and attention span is just as good on the next few who's to say he can keep it up?

The one time I can recall a member of the media bothering to grade themselves, it was John Hollinger and his draft rater ... and he cheated to make himself look better ...

[f4p]

While there are probably people who are better than others because they just understand basketball better or just plain work harder, I'm of the opinion that it's weighted rather massively in the direction of luck. Just like any moron can pick a few stocks right or call a boom or bust, they tend to not follow it up with more right calls. The warriors were supposedly great at drafts, now everyone says they aren't good any more. And does anyone really think they drafted Draymond with the plan being that he would initially struggle so much he would think about playing overseas but then the league environment would change and they would get a new coach and suddenly Draymond would become his generations best defender?

To the point that people rarely draft outside of ranges, you could possibly argue that there's no reason to draft way above the range since you know you can just wait. But then if there truly were a pool of "good GM's", they would all know they would have to beat out the other good GM's for the gems. If there were 5 guys who knew jokic would.become one of the best players ever, they wouldn't all just sit around until the middle of the second round and hope they were the ones who got a 3 time MVP in the 40s. And they wouldn't be able to trade for him because whoever got him would know they got a treasure. So they would be forced to move up and draft jokic much, much higher to beat out the better GM's. Except they don't, indicating no one thinks there are a bunch of draft experts they have to outcompete and that instead they really are just all following consensus.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

After following the draft process very closely for three decades, this is what I think:
1) the importance of putting players in the right position to develop and succeed is incredibly underrated by the general public and the media in general. Those few formative years, at a young age, can completely change the trajectory of a player's career
2) getting an all NBA level player is always primarily luck. You can have better odds if you can identify and develop talent at elite level, but it will always be more likely for you to fail on a given pick (unless there are Wemby like prospects, but then you need the luck of landing the #1 pick the right year)
3) for role players you can probably have more control, but once again you must know how to put each of them in the best possible situation. On and off the court. The "sink or swim" approach might sound cool and old school, but you're going to waste a lot of assets this way. There were many reasons guys like Kwame or Darko busted out, but sure the situation the landed on, at 18, didn't help.

[flow]

All I know is, scouting matters. Probably the most underrated ingredient to a successful organization.

My Pistons have pick #37 this year, so I went back and looked at players drafted at #37 or lower over the last 10 or so years. There are impressive names on the list. More than a few. Folks like to scoff at 2nd round picks, but if you have great scouting, there are quality players there to be fleeced.

.

[Saints14]

One of the few real picks that went way above consensus that worked out was the Suns taking Cam Johnson at 11 when he was projected as a late first/early second round pick. People were very surprised, gave them an F grade and then Johnson was immediately a very solid role player and a key piece to their finals run in 2021. And then the next year, they similarly overdrafted Jalen Smith at 10 when Tyrese Haliburton would have been the consensus pick at the time