Building Around Cooper: A Backward-Looking Thought Experiment

[meistermatze]

This is a good example of why I don't think "best player available" is always the best policy. I'd rather have Dylan Harper than Kon Knueppel in a vaccum (I think), but on a team that already has Fox AND Castle...not so much. And now, folks are probably questioning which was actually the better player, Kneuppel or Harper, when in reality one of them just had a clearer path to providing an impact.

Well, I would say this is kind of a truism, isn’t it? Of course a rule of thumb is the right way to go - until it isn’t. So I’m not even sure you would disagree with what I’m about to say (but then again, what exactly is your point?).

Picking the best player available in the draft is the most logical course of action in almost all circumstances because the volatility in selecting and projecting young players is extremely high. If you always pick the best player, he might not immediately fill the role you need in order to be successful right away. However, until a rookie is ready to contribute in a meaningful way, years could pass. By then, the specific skill set you originally needed might no longer be relevant. And if you misjudge their development, they might end up having no value whatsoever.

If you always pick “the best player,” your chance of getting some value at some point is significantly higher. It’s essentially an expected value (EV) argument.
Of course, you can point to specific examples where this doesn’t apply. But on the other hand, there are hundreds of examples where it turned out the other way.

I also don’t think anybody would disagree with that - and neither would you. But your argument was based on the premise that we’ve already seen more than half a season of Knueppel, Harper, and their respective teams. Sure, now things are different. But without that knowledge, you still make the same decision ten times out of ten and end up being right maybe seven out of ten times. So it’s still the right move.