Listened to a podcast on draft philosophy recently (not going to recommend, because it was way too meandering), but I though the guest's larger points were interesting:
- Too often we judge (esp. potential high) draft picks on how much talent we think they have as a #1 option. Yet for the majority, these skills are not going to really affect winning much, even if they end up as a #1 option (often on sub-par teams). Very, very few players are of the caliber to affect winning as a #1. Argued that Demar Derozan is likely better at scoring than most draftees we're trying to shoehorn in as a #1, yet his effect on winning is relatively small. Seemed to apply this even to Harper this year. He'd rather have players that are just good and well rounded than someone who can get their own (unless the latter is also a clear superstar).
- Made an argument that psychology has to be important in (professional) player observation. (Obviously this is something that we have novices have virtually no access to.)
- Seemed to be arguing that the wave of the future is getting as many players with no real weaknesses in their games, especially those with superior BBIQs.
- Made a strong argument that these types of no/few-weakness, strong BBIQ, quick processing players are really the types that have staying power and have real trade value (if an opportunity ever comes around to swap for the few generational types, for example). Gave example of Josh Hart (and someone else I'm forgetting now, maybe Marcus Smart?).
- Generally argued that processing speed/ability is too underrated when applied to draft prospects.
