Belichick, Ainge and draft strategy in the NBA vs NFL

[Boris Badenov]

After reading this great article on Belichick's draft meta-strategy, I've started to wonder about parallels with the NBA, and what Ainge seems to be doing.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/bill-belichick-nfl-draft-new-england-patriots/

If you don't want to read the article, here's the essence of BB's strategy:
1. Trade one higher pick for multiple lower picks;
2. Trade an inferior current pick for a superior later-year pick.

The argument for why this is successful is that:
 - the draft is random
 - but people under-estimate that, consequently over-valuing high picks because they think such picks assure better talent;
 - so, having more picks (even later in the draft) is a winner simply because you "roll the dice" more times.

Ainge now has accumulated a similarly rich stockpile of future picks - most of which are, unfortunately, likely to be mid-first round or lower.

The question is, can Ainge have similar success? Two things worry me about this strategy. First, the NBA is a league where you need stars to win. The Hawks' success aside, nearly every NBA champion has had a top 3-5 player, and such players are almost never drafted outside the top 5.

Second, BB pursued this strategy while already having a top 5 guy in Brady. So, he really just needed roster depth, even in the less star-dependent NFL.

So is Danny doing the right thing here? Is he better off hanging on to these picks and drafting guys, hoping for the next Ginobili, or Tony Parker, maybe? Or matching the Hawks strategy?

Or should he try to package all the picks either for something in the top 3, or an All-NBA talent?

I know it's not quite as simple as that. Just trying to get a discussion going.

[JBcat]

Well I think it's very hard to trade into the top 3 of the draft if you see a franchise player we want.  I think our future Nets picks in 2016, right to swap in 2017, and the pick in 2018 gives us the best chance of high lottery picks.  I think our pick this year, and going forward we probably won't be bad enough for a top 5 pick.  We have so many picks that maybe we can trade some for a potentially better pick in the future (the Patriots way) which I could see happening in 2016.  That's if we don't package some of them for a star.

The bottom line is Ainge is creating lots of flexibility to go in different directions.  I like having at least 2 first round picks a year as you can really take gambles on a player, flexibility of trading up a little bit, trading out for a better future pick, or packaging  them for a proven player.

[Donoghus]

NFL Draft is a totally different animal from the NBA draft.

Basketball is a much more individual oriented sport.  Hence, you see the top talent rise to the top more clearly for the most part.   Its much, much, much more difficult to see difference makers fall.  Those guys are gonna be nabbed near the top &, for the most part, be the difference makers out there on the court on the professional level.  I feel like its a lot easier to "miss" near the top of the draft in football.

Football has a ton of moving parts and various offensive/defensive systems.  A guy might excel in a system that isn't designed for the pro level or his flaws might be masked because he's playing for a top tier program with 4 & 5 star guys. 

If you're near the top of the NBA draft, its more likely you're staying put because of the subsequent talent gap you might see even between a top 5 pick and a top 10 pick, nevermind the difference between a 1st rounder & 2nd rounder. 

In the NFL, that talent gap isn't nearly as great.  Look how many first rounders might miss while mid draft guys make it.  Heck, Julian Edelman was a 7th rounder.   With much bigger rosters than NBA rosters, it makes more sense to trade down in the NFL draft to build depth and perhaps hit on a mid to late draft pick.   I feel like that "hit" rate in the NBA draft is much lower.

Certainly, what I wrote above isn't fool proof and there are examples of late 1st round & 2nd round guys hitting but I think you're much more apt to trade down in the NFL because of depth concerns and less of a talent gap.

[Nerf DPOY]

In regards to your last couple sentences, it's probably more of a case by case basis with every draft and every player possibly available. For instance, Turner and Porzingis strike me as polarizing guys. Turner's current lack of mobility and Porzingis current lack of strength leave me feeling like both are boom or bust players. Maybe Ainge has stronger convictions than I regarding one or both of them and will either move up to grab one or pass on both. My guess is he and his staff scrutinize and target players rather than just hedge their bets by throwing many picks at the wall and seeing who sticks. I guess I could be wrong though.

Along these lines, Tankathon has us 4th in the draft rankings because of our 4 picks in the top 41, despite sitting at pick 11.

http://www.tankathon.com/power_rankings

Of course, it's just a generic valuation based off of prior drafts, but maybe lends some comfort to those that feel like the sky is falling with every win we get.

[ghu55]

I think the biggest thing for the celtics moving forward is flexibility, which we have in spades right now.

As far as the Belichick comparison, the article skips over trades up in the first round.  Off the top of my head I know we traded up to get Donta Hightower and Chandler Jones who were key players for this years team.  Drafting is about targeting players and making sure that never overdraft them, not just creating value on top of value.

[Boris Badenov]

NFL Draft is a totally different animal from the NBA draft.

Basketball is a much more individual oriented sport.  Hence, you see the top talent rise to the top more clearly for the most part.   Its much, much, much more difficult to see difference makers fall.  Those guys are gonna be nabbed near the top &, for the most part, be the difference makers out there on the court on the professional level.  I feel like its a lot easier to "miss" near the top of the draft in football.

Football has a ton of moving parts and various offensive/defensive systems.  A guy might excel in a system that isn't designed for the pro level or his flaws might be masked because he's playing for a top tier program with 4 & 5 star guys. 

If you're near the top of the NBA draft, its more likely you're staying put because of the subsequent talent gap you might see even between a top 5 pick and a top 10 pick, nevermind the difference between a 1st rounder & 2nd rounder. 

In the NFL, that talent gap isn't nearly as great.  Look how many first rounders might miss while mid draft guys make it.  Heck, Julian Edelman was a 7th rounder.   With much bigger rosters than NBA rosters, it makes more sense to trade down in the NFL draft to build depth and perhaps hit on a mid to late draft pick.   I feel like that "hit" rate in the NBA draft is much lower.

Certainly, what I wrote above isn't fool proof and there are examples of late 1st round & 2nd round guys hitting but I think you're much more apt to trade down in the NFL because of depth concerns and less of a talent gap.

This is pretty much my view too. I suppose Ainge could counter that by really gambling (more Giannis type picks, fewer KO type picks). But even there it's just so rare for someone outside the top 5 to develop into a superstar.

[Boris Badenov]

In regards to your last couple sentences, it's probably more of a case by case basis with every draft and every player possibly available. For instance, Turner and Porzingis strike me as polarizing guys. Turner's current lack of mobility and Porzingis current lack of strength leave me feeling like both are boom or bust players. Maybe Ainge has stronger convictions than I regarding one or both of them and will either move up to grab one or pass on both. My guess is he and his staff scrutinize and target players rather than just hedge their bets by throwing many picks at the wall and seeing who sticks. I guess I could be wrong though.

Along these lines, Tankathon has us 4th in the draft rankings because of our 4 picks in the top 41, despite sitting at pick 11.

http://www.tankathon.com/power_rankings

Of course, it's just a generic valuation based off of prior drafts, but maybe lends some comfort to those that feel like the sky is falling with every win we get.

Those power rankings are an interesting idea, but the weights that tankathon is using are crazy, they completely over-value later picks. There's just no way that our picks collectively are worth more than the #1 pick.

The logical mistake they're making is only using average player value at each draft slot. It makes much more sense to incorporate the *maximum* value, or the chances you get a superstar. That's what drives the #1 pick to have so much more value than the #11 pick.

[PhoSita]

This is pretty much my view too. I suppose Ainge could counter that by really gambling (more Giannis type picks, fewer KO type picks). But even there it's just so rare for someone outside the top 5 to develop into a superstar.

Minor counterpoint here --

Players who have a much higher perceived ceiling due to physical gifts (i.e. "raw ability / talent") tend to carry far greater trade value than players who are closer to "what you see is what you get," even if the current basketball value is more or less the same.

Giannis is a much better trade chip than Kelly right now, for example.

So, insofar as Ainge plans to try and trade for elite talent, looking to draft guys with high potential may make a significant difference versus going with safe picks that yield "contributors."


I think this goes to the heart of what was mentioned above re: Belichick -- BB could draft for the purpose of developing contributors to a team that already had the core talent in place.

Ainge, on the other hand, needs to draft with a mind to not just find contributors, but strike big on some prospects that will either turn into stars, or serve as valuable trade chips to acquire one.

[SHAQATTACK]

Wrong post

[mmmmm]

This doesn't change your query or your point (in fact maybe it reinforces it) but for clarification, Al Horford was a #3 overall pick.

So Atlanta isn't really an exception from your point.

[mmmmm]

In regards to your last couple sentences, it's probably more of a case by case basis with every draft and every player possibly available. For instance, Turner and Porzingis strike me as polarizing guys. Turner's current lack of mobility and Porzingis current lack of strength leave me feeling like both are boom or bust players. Maybe Ainge has stronger convictions than I regarding one or both of them and will either move up to grab one or pass on both. My guess is he and his staff scrutinize and target players rather than just hedge their bets by throwing many picks at the wall and seeing who sticks. I guess I could be wrong though.

Along these lines, Tankathon has us 4th in the draft rankings because of our 4 picks in the top 41, despite sitting at pick 11.

http://www.tankathon.com/power_rankings

Of course, it's just a generic valuation based off of prior drafts, but maybe lends some comfort to those that feel like the sky is falling with every win we get.

Those power rankings are an interesting idea, but the weights that tankathon is using are crazy, they completely over-value later picks. There's just no way that our picks collectively are worth more than the #1 pick.

The logical mistake they're making is only using average player value at each draft slot. It makes much more sense to incorporate the *maximum* value, or the chances you get a superstar. That's what drives the #1 pick to have so much more value than the #11 pick.

Yes, I have to agree with Boris here because of the roster effect. Only 5 starters and a tiny (13-man 'active') roster means that the 'true value' of most late picks is essentially zero, even if the 'average' value for that late pick is above zero (because one or two sleepers out of 20-30 guys picked at that slot).  Another way of saying that is that your are far more likely to get _nothing_ out of those late picks than _something_, even if 'something' is actually better than 'average' for that pick.

[The Rondo Show]

You really can't compare NFL draft strategy to NBA. There are seven rounds in the NFL draft, and you can generally get an NFL quality guy, even if he's a career depth guy, through the early 6th round. NBA you may not end up with an NBA quality guy in the top 10 sometimes, let alone in the second round where you're lucky to find someone who can contribute. The only consistency in those two is the more draft picks the better, which applies to every sport I guess.

[Csfan1984]

I believe (could be wrong) that every team that has won a title has a starting player who was drafted top 7. NFL is another animal a 53 man roster. That roster can also be broken down to offense, defense and special teams. In the NBA a player has to be as little flawed as possible that takes high picks and luck.

[nickagneta]

Three of the most important players on the Patriots during their Superbowl was Tom Brady, Julian Edelman and Malcolm Butler, a 6th round pick, a 7th round pick and an undrafted free agent.

That would never happen in the NBA. That alone should illustrate the differences that are the two completely different animals that are the NFL and NBA draft and why comparisons in strategy are thrown out the window. There just is nothing to compare.

[Nerf DPOY]

In regards to your last couple sentences, it's probably more of a case by case basis with every draft and every player possibly available. For instance, Turner and Porzingis strike me as polarizing guys. Turner's current lack of mobility and Porzingis current lack of strength leave me feeling like both are boom or bust players. Maybe Ainge has stronger convictions than I regarding one or both of them and will either move up to grab one or pass on both. My guess is he and his staff scrutinize and target players rather than just hedge their bets by throwing many picks at the wall and seeing who sticks. I guess I could be wrong though.

Along these lines, Tankathon has us 4th in the draft rankings because of our 4 picks in the top 41, despite sitting at pick 11.

http://www.tankathon.com/power_rankings

Of course, it's just a generic valuation based off of prior drafts, but maybe lends some comfort to those that feel like the sky is falling with every win we get.

Those power rankings are an interesting idea, but the weights that tankathon is using are crazy, they completely over-value later picks. There's just no way that our picks collectively are worth more than the #1 pick.

The logical mistake they're making is only using average player value at each draft slot. It makes much more sense to incorporate the *maximum* value, or the chances you get a superstar. That's what drives the #1 pick to have so much more value than the #11 pick.

Yes, I have to agree with Boris here because of the roster effect. Only 5 starters and a tiny (13-man 'active') roster means that the 'true value' of most late picks is essentially zero, even if the 'average' value for that late pick is above zero (because one or two sleepers out of 20-30 guys picked at that slot).  Another way of saying that is that your are far more likely to get _nothing_ out of those late picks than _something_, even if 'something' is actually better than 'average' for that pick.

But the graph said!

I think I get what you're saying. You're saying the chances of hitting on a Jimmy Butler are slim to nil and most likely we can expect Delonte West level rotation guys or worse with the Clips, Sixers 2nd and our own. Three D Wests do not equal what you can hope for with say, pick #7, but this Tankathon site adds them all up anyways. Right?