Dr Mufasa wrote:Severn Hoos, as someone who agrees with the BPA strategy...
It seems like your examples do support BPA over need. Jordan was the right pick over Bowie because he ended up being the BPA (by a LOL amount). Jordan would've been the right pick over Hakeem because he was BPA
First, thanks for the response. I can respect your position, but like DCZards, I think you're making the opposite point in the end. Take the bolded statement above. It's useless to say Player X was the BPA a decade or two after the fact. That kind of 20/20 vision is only good in hindsight, is no help for, say, the 2012 Draft.
Think of it this way: Go hop in your DeLorean and punch in May 1984. Then, go survey the 23 GMs in the NBA (I think there were 23 teams back then). Ask them who will be the BPA with the #1 pick in the 1984 Draft. You know what you'd get? 23 guys would say..... Olajuwon. And 23 guys would be wrong.
There is simply no way to know for certain that any given player will be the BPA - not even with Anthony Davis this year. So you have to be really sure that the guy you want is that much better than the alternative (especially if it's in a position of need) to take the "BPA."
Dr Mufasa wrote:A better example maybe is Rose vs Beasley. In 08 the Bulls had a solid PG in Hinrich and their biggest need was some extra scoring. So Beasley fit more. They took the better prospect in Rose and it set up a decade for them
An example people sometimes use to support need over BPA is Atlanta taking Marvin Williams even though they had SFs, and how he's been a 4th option he's whole career. To me that bust pick has nothing to do with picking BPA over need. Marvin would have limited talent no matter where he played. They tried to pick BPA but in reality the guy they took was nowhere near BPA
I think the downside of getting the best player at a spot when another good player is starting is very little. Having 2 of a good thing isn't a problem. It's a much bigger issue IMO to eg. end up with Araujo instead of Andre Iguodala just cause the team had Vince Carter and wanted a center. A bust <<<<<<<<<<< having 2 starting caliber guys at the same position
As for Robinson/MKG/Beal, they're ranked similar now but there's a good chance the best of that group and the worst will have a large gap between them 3 years from now. In the same way Greg Monroe and Demarcus Cousins separated themselves from similarly ranked Wes Johnson, Stephen Curry separated himself from Jordan Hill and Jonny Flynn, etc. So when someone says BPA it's saying "Let's try as hard as we can to land on the Curry/Monroe side instead of the Johnson/Hill one"
So, the examples you use (Rose, Paul, Deron Williams) are an MVP and 1st-3rd team All-NBA guys. Pretty high bar there.
And yes, I do think that Marvin Williams is an example of a team taking the supposed "Best Player Available" when if they had been "shortsighted" and "drafted for need" they'd have wound up with Chris Paul. Sometimes you make the right decision and it doesn't work out, other times you make a bonehead decision and come up smelling like roses. But saying, in effect, "well those examples don't count because of course the other guy was the BPA" is a form of revisionist history. Just because a team was wrong in determining who they thought was the BPA (and in most cases, they were not alone) does not excuse the strategy. It just means that.... you never really know for sure who the BPA is until years later.Now - I'm not advocating a straight need-based drafting. I agree that Araujo was a ridiculous pick, and was a confluence of drafting for need (pick a C) and the international feel that Toronto was trying to build at that time. So there we're on the same page - just a stupid decision.
The approach I prefer is one that we see a lot on this board, thanks to Dat and others. Group guys into tiers. Never drop a tier to reach for a guy based on need. But within the tier, you should absolutely consider "Fit" - mental approach, team needs, type of system, etc.
I think most of us have Davis all alone in the top tier. Take him #1 and don't look back.
I actually skip a tier in this draft, because I don't see any sure-fire multiple All-Star guys out there. So in my ranking, we drop to tier 3, where I have Beal, MKG, Robinson, and maybe Sullinger (emotional tie, perhaps, but still waiting on the combine results).
Within that tier, I absolutely take Beal and MKG before Robinson & Sullinger, based on the current roster. Might Robinson be a shade higher in some absolute metric of "BPA"? Sure, it's possible. But unless you think he'll have an MJ/CP3/DRose type impact, then I don't see how those other examples come into play. So take the guy who is really the "Best" for your team - Best Fit, Best chance to move the team to the next level, etc. Right now, I lean towards Beal with MKG second.
[Coda: I understand that rebounding is a need, and so can see how some would say that drafting Robinson is in fact good from a Fit/Need point of view. I just think that the incremental benefit you'd get from drafting him will be offset by reduced PT from Seraphin/Nene/Vesely/Booker/J. Singleton. You'd lose some of the benefit those guys bring to get PT for Robinson. OTOH, bringing in a Beal could add a great benefit, with the only diminished benefit/PT coming from Crawford going to the bench. Which might not be a bad thing at all.]
