Lottery Worthy Position by Position Analysis seems to point to obvious strategy

[Fireworks_Boom!]

An observation that this year's draft seems to be deeper at the big positions (PF/C) and very thin at PG and SF. Look for Pick #3 to either be a PG (Kris Dunn) or a SF (Brandon Ingram if still available or Jaylen Brown which would be considered an early pick for JB).

We can still get 1 of top 5 at either SG or PF/C at Pick #16.

PG
Kris Dunn
Jamal Murray

SG
Buddy Hield
Malachi Richardson
Dejounte Murray
Furkan Korkmaz
Denzel Valantine

SF
Brandon Ingram
Jaylen Brown

PF/C
Ben Simmons
Dragan Bender
Marquese Chriss
Damountis Sabonis
Jakob Poeltl
Skal Labissiere
Deyonta Davis

I also believe that Danny could take some of the unknown players off the board earlier than expected given the amount of picks we have. Whether it be reaching for Thon Maker @ 16, Ante Zizic/Timothe Luwawu at 23, Zhou Qi @ 31, Georgos Papagiannis at 35, etc.

[mmmmm]

Are you suggesting that one should take a player with your top pick at a position that is most weakly represented in the draft over from a position that is stronger in this draft?

That seems like a flawed strategy. 

The best PF out of a large pool of PFs is more likely to be a better, more valuable player than the best of 2 SFs.

Further, it seems like a mistake to even focus on position in a draft.   You draft a player based on his projected value over 4-8 years, not on your immediate roster needs.   Next year's draft is supposed to be strong in SFs.  So taking the 'best of a poor selection' at that position this year doesn't seem like a wise long term strategy.

If the best player available is a PG or SF, then yes, Danny should take that player.  But not because there might be fewer PG or SF options in this particular draft.

[droopdog7]

Why are people always overthinking the NBA draft, especially at the top.  You take the best player (i.e., best talent) ALWAYS.

Nothing else matters.

[hwangjini_1]

Why are people always overthinking the NBA draft, especially at the top.  You take the best player (i.e., best talent) ALWAYS.

Nothing else matters.

perhaps one reason for such intensive and extensive thinking maybe to decide what exactly the definition of BPA is, and then to research which player fits that definition the best.

by BPA are we saying:
- highest ceiling in terms of physical abilities? or skills? or mentality?
- highest ceiling in the first 2-3 years? 4-6 years? beyond?
- BPA compared to whom? others in the same position? league wide? fit with team plans?
- best ability to grow slowly yet reach a high ceiling? or a lower ceiling with quicker growth?
- based upon the perceived odds of reaching a high ceiling? or simply having a high ceiling?
- best talent, but which talent is the "best" and why?
- what combinations of the above should a team deploy when making player assessments?

none of these are easy questions. hence the need to really think things through.

[LilRip]

If DA picks a project at 3, id rather he go for someone more established at 16. But if he picks someone who can contribute at 3 (brown?), I'd rather he pick a project at 16 like maker.

[mef730]

Why are people always overthinking the NBA draft, especially at the top.  You take the best player (i.e., best talent) ALWAYS.

Nothing else matters.

perhaps one reason for such intensive and extensive thinking maybe to decide what exactly the definition of BPA is, and then to research which player fits that definition the best.

by BPA are we saying:
- highest ceiling in terms of physical abilities? or skills? or mentality?
- highest ceiling in the first 2-3 years? 4-6 years? beyond?
- BPA compared to whom? others in the same position? league wide? fit with team plans?
- best ability to grow slowly yet reach a high ceiling? or a lower ceiling with quicker growth?
- based upon the perceived odds of reaching a high ceiling? or simply having a high ceiling?
- best talent, but which talent is the "best" and why?
- what combinations of the above should a team deploy when making player assessments?

none of these are easy questions. hence the need to really think things through.

I think of it this way (and I certainly don't have a monopoly on the "right" way to view it): Each GM is going to think of the concept of "best player" differently, whether it's upside, ability to play right away, etc. But what I'm not doing is picking based on position, i.e., if my definition of BPA rates Kris Dunn higher than Dragan Bender, I'm not picking Bender simply because the 4 is a need for us.

Mike

[Fireworks_Boom!]

The whole notion that you don't draft for need but rather talent absolutely makes zero sense.

If BPA at your draft position doesn't fit a need, then there might be a higher likelihood you look to move out of this position to either collect more future resources OR to take BPA at a position of need which you can get at an either earlier or later draft position.

It's common sense really...

[Fireworks_Boom!]

I'm suggesting that there is a much greater likelihood that a player at a position weakly represented will be harder to find at pick #16.

Are you suggesting that one should take a player with your top pick at a position that is most weakly represented in the draft over from a position that is stronger in this draft?

That seems like a flawed strategy. 

The best PF out of a large pool of PFs is more likely to be a better, more valuable player than the best of 2 SFs.

Further, it seems like a mistake to even focus on position in a draft.   You draft a player based on his projected value over 4-8 years, not on your immediate roster needs.   Next year's draft is supposed to be strong in SFs.  So taking the 'best of a poor selection' at that position this year doesn't seem like a wise long term strategy.

If the best player available is a PG or SF, then yes, Danny should take that player.  But not because there might be fewer PG or SF options in this particular draft.

[hwangjini_1]

The whole notion that you don't draft for need but rather talent absolutely makes zero sense.

If BPA at your draft position doesn't fit a need, then there might be a higher likelihood you look to move out of this position to either collect more future resources OR to take BPA at a position of need which you can get at an either earlier or later draft position.

It's common sense really...

and if you cant find such a trade? or, if the only available people are lesser talents despite fitting a positional need? what then?

[chiken Green]

Drafting the best player is really all speculation..  Nobody can honestly Say they know..

Draft the best player for your team that fits your Teams Plan or you risk looking like the 76'rs drafting drafting 3 Centers.

[Fireworks_Boom!]

If a trade is unable to be consummated, sometimes it makes sense to reach on a player and throw off all the draft mocks (e.g. Jaylen Brown could be that player this year).

The whole notion that you don't draft for need but rather talent absolutely makes zero sense.

If BPA at your draft position doesn't fit a need, then there might be a higher likelihood you look to move out of this position to either collect more future resources OR to take BPA at a position of need which you can get at an either earlier or later draft position.

It's common sense really...

and if you cant find such a trade? or, if the only available people are lesser talents despite fitting a positional need? what then?

[droopdog7]

Why are people always overthinking the NBA draft, especially at the top.  You take the best player (i.e., best talent) ALWAYS.

Nothing else matters.

perhaps one reason for such intensive and extensive thinking maybe to decide what exactly the definition of BPA is, and then to research which player fits that definition the best.

by BPA are we saying:
- highest ceiling in terms of physical abilities? or skills? or mentality?
- highest ceiling in the first 2-3 years? 4-6 years? beyond?
- BPA compared to whom? others in the same position? league wide? fit with team plans?
- best ability to grow slowly yet reach a high ceiling? or a lower ceiling with quicker growth?
- based upon the perceived odds of reaching a high ceiling? or simply having a high ceiling?
- best talent, but which talent is the "best" and why?
- what combinations of the above should a team deploy when making player assessments?

none of these are easy questions. hence the need to really think things through.

A lot of things come into play, obviously.  For me, it's the player you expect to be best/most impactful player at his apex (regardless of position or how long it takes to get there; within reason) multiplied by some risk factor.

Of course, how you rate best player is going to depend on your scouting and how you value prospects.  But all of this is done in vacuum, regardless of the composition of your roster and the  rest of the draft.

[mmmmm]

I'm suggesting that there is a much greater likelihood that a player at a position weakly represented will be harder to find at pick #16.

That just may mean that its a bad draft to get that position from.