(Yesterday, 03:00 AM)meistermatze Wrote: 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.
Agree with nearly all of this! The word "fit" has been thrown around here ad nauseum. I've never talked about fit when talking draft stuff with any sport. I've always used the term need. And I'm a big believer in don't draft for need. Free agency is for need. Draft the best player available on your board at the time and you will be more successful. Trust your scouts. Trust all the work that led to you stacking your board the way you did. Us fans aren't privy to a lot of information. The work done by several to get all the information they can on these kids. Character, intangibles, work ethic, desire, etc.. Just because someone is more talented, doesn't mean he's the best available, if that makes sense. A lot of the 'best talent' prospects were busts for a lot of 'other' reasons.
And one last thing. Example: Just because I think Wilson is a better prospect than Flemings (or others) doesn't mean the Mavs do. So, when I say things like I would take X over Y, it's because I have that person higher. The Mavs may have it differently, and maybe that's when we can all argue they took need over best available, because in the end, we'll never know how their board was stacked...