HotelVitale wrote:the sea duck wrote:HotelVitale wrote:
Do my usual response here: with late 1sts especially, it makes no sense to think a GM has any deep insight into what’s going to happen with them. Looking at the results of a GM’s picks and saying ‘aha, this GM is bad at drafting and this GM is good’ is one of the weirdest things sports fans do; they’re not doing anything but taking a player who has some level of NBA body and skill set and hoping that they’ll develop really well, either get over obstacles that have made them less-than-elite prospects (mental/focus stuff sometimes, more often skill-related barriers like limited vision or shooting or handle) or more generally that they’ll be one of the few prospects who can master all of the really really difficult little things that a good pro player has to do in real time at full nba speed against full nba athletes, every night. You’re really just taking your best gut guess about which guy has the best shot at doing that, and there’s usually nothing any GM knows that the others don’t. They all get why the top 45 or so players are the top 45 or so players, and they all know the same strengths, weaknesses, bios, mental makeup, etc.
We really really have to start giving successful draft picks their props for having that cool and super unpredictable skill of being able to adapt to the NBA and thrive in that specific setting, rather than expecting every pick to be great and finding fault with those who don’t work out. And we definitely need to stop endlessly crediting (or slamming) GMs for taking one of those guesses over the others. The GMs aren’t doing more than taking some educated guesses, the players are doing all of the actual work and its them who are 100% responsible for the thing that the draft comes down: will a draft pick’s bodies and minds be able to slot in and perform really precise, specific, and split second things on demand every night.
I agree. I think it's also weird when we talk about how good of a job a GM did by drafting a 'steal' when they get a late pick that turns out good. The reality is that a bunch of other options were weeded out for them. It should make drafting one of those guys easier, not harder.
I don’t want to derail this thread too much with this but I don’t get your point here. If other GMs missed a perfectly good prospect for bad reasons, then yeah the GM that did take that guy is better than them. But my point was more that I don’t think that ‘steals’ really exist in that sense, since a steal is generally a player whom everyone knew was facing limitations of obstacles to success at the NBA level and fell to later in the draft for really good reasons. That ‘steal’ player should get a ton of credit for defying the odds by pushing past those things, either developing into his body or getting over maturity etc stuff that usually sinks a player (Gobert or Giannis turning their uncoordinated and under-skilled freak bodies into nba machines on ways that all the other freak bodies drafted in the mid 1st I’ve the decades just don’t), or mastering certain in-game things to a completely amazing degree (like how J Brunson manipulates space and tiny gaps masterfully enough to make up for his size and athleticism challenges, or how jimmy butler somehow trained himself to master angles, body control, and timing to become one of the leagues best half court midrange creators around.) A GM is just taking a gamble there, just saying ‘yeah probably won’t work out but I don’t love anyone else in this range so why not take a swing?’
So it doesn't always work out exactly this way, but a common scenario: There are five guys generally slated to be drafted 26-30. Teams drafting 26-29 pick guys that don't make it in the league. The team drafting 30th picks a borderline all star. This looks really good. However, they also considered drafting one of the other four guys. All four of them were taken, so their choice to take the 'steal' at 30 looks great, but was also easier (in this scenario).
I don't mean that every steal is luck. But too often we credit late picks as picking a diamond out of a sea of duds. The reality is often that a team picks a diamond out of a bunch of options less likely to be diamonds, because those perceived to be better were already picked.
