Draft Philosophy¶
I rely heavily on stats, but there’s some nuance to that position. I generally use stat rankings strictly as a threshold criterion. In effect, what this means is that players who rank high stats-wise go on my “prospect radar.” It’s these players that I scrutinize a lot more, try to watch more film (“eye test” them) and generally try to project them as NBA players. Among this group of high-ranking players, there are always “false positives” that I’ll try to weed out, ie guys with great stats that probably won’t translate to the NBA for one reason or another. For example, lack of athleticism or size can be a deal-breaker on even the seemingly most productive prospects. On the other hand, if a player is just really unproductive or uninteresting (nothing stands out) stats-wise, they usually just aren’t great NBA prospects. And if such a player does get hyped (often because they entered college as a top recruit), I generally try to push back a bit or play the role of skeptic. There are some players like that every year and certainly in this class. On occasion, there are also likely to be “false negatives,” guys that don’t have great stats but still go on to become good or even great NBA players. Pascal Siakam is a good recent example of a guy who didn’t have an amazing statistical profile and yet has become a star. Then again, it’s possible Toronto had a really good stats model!
I’ve done some “meta” Draft analysis, looking back at previous Drafts, and found that there are generally around 20-25 guys in each class that make a lasting impact in the NBA and roughly half that amount that stay in the league 10+ years. Therefore, I really subscribe to the “tier system” trying to identify these top guys realizing that most guys in any Draft really won’t matter in the long run. My “Draft Philosophy” in a nutshell focuses more on trying to identify the stars and difference makers, rather than the “backup point guards” or “rotation bigs” that litter every Draft. I tend to value offensive skill, basketball IQ, and youth, as I believe there is generally more upside to prospects with these attributes. Size and athleticism at every position is always a positive, that is a given, as is the ability to dribble, pass, and shoot; although, the smaller the player, the more important these skills become. I also value players more that will succeed in a variety of team contexts (“synergy”). You can never have too many good shooters or passers or defenders. Some skills like rebounding are overrated from a value standpoint, and I tend to stay away from bigs who derive most of their value from it. Likewise, players who derive most of their value from inefficient mid-range scoring don’t appeal to me. Finally, players that bring “unique” or “outlier” skill sets tend to intrigue me because they can potentially contribute unconventional or novel team-building strategies. It’s really all about team building!