I don't remember. Are you saying Harden was indeed ranked higher than the PGs -- Evans, Rubio, Flynn, Curry?
I think the counter-argument would be: you have to multiply that risk by the potential impact of success. When you strike gold with a big man, it's a pretty big deal for the franchise because a dominant big man can affect games in ways that stars at other positions cannot. That's why there is a draft premium and a salary premium put on big men. So, if you're swinging for the fences you'd rather end up with a David Robinson than a Grant Hill. Hill was a great player and probably a more talented player, but did he mean as many wins on the court as Robinson? Drafting the best big man available is the biggest gamble you can make in the draft -- high chance for failure but great rewards if you succeed.
correction: at the 11th pick and after, "high chance for failure but a solid, non-allstar starter if you succeed."
I would argue that the only time you draft need over BPA is if you are able to trade down to a point in the draft were you confidently believe the player will be available. Otherwise, what's the point. Of course, there are caveats (like you can work out a deal to trade down), but otherwise, why wouldn't you go with BPA?
BPA then trade for a center. We need a center that can compensate the inches that we're missing from Hayes.
When you're drafting that low, the cost of failure is likewise lower. And, the logic of wins on the floor still applies: an Okur is probably worth more wins to us than, say, a Sefalosha, even if Sefalosha is more talented.
Between Hill Thabust and the possibility of yao... *sigh* I think we should draft a SF. But that's just me. Bud has been looking good lately but we have no one behind him. I think Lee is undersized to play the SF and needs to stay at SG. (Now I wait for TWILL comments from people )
I think he was talking about Westbrook/Durant, though some would argue that Durant and Green's positions overlap. ashishduh-- The problem with what you're asking is it's nearly impossible for you to claim a player is "obviously" better than another. As people are quick to point out around here, the draft is a crap shoot -- I don't think there are really big divides between players outside of the top three. Of course, that could change depending on how deep the draft is. So here's another hypothetical: you have a big board of prospects that you rank 1-20; this includes giving some players a small bonus because they fit a need, as one poster suggested. Your pick is #13. You have a SG rated as the 12th best player in the draft still available. A 7-foot center who you rated as the 14th best player is also available. Do you still keep with BPA approach and take the SG, knowing Martin/Lee are at the same position? Remember, I already factored in a small bonus for the C because he's at a position of big need.
Well in that case I would take the gamble on the center but it's evaluated on a case by case basis so you can't say for sure. But the fact is that big man is a position of need for most teams so we are really talking about the same thing here. Big men are overvalued by every (good) team and rightfully so. But in general I still say BPA unless you're the Jazz and it's BWPA.
That late in the draft, I take the center. Now if the guard was ranked in the top 5 of my draft board and was projected to be a superstar, then you take the guard(see Sam Bowie).
If there were a good center available when the Rockets pick, I'd pick him. I don't see that guy out there, so I'd pick the best wing available. I think that player is going to be Derrick Williams, and even if he's not available where the Rockets pick, the Rockets pick + the Suns/Magic pick should be enough to move up enough for him.
HP, wasn't Sam Bowie a pick for need? I don't if this is hindsight or real at that time. Was Bowie considered a better prospect than Jordan? Portland got Drexler the year before. They didn't need another athletic SG. They picked a big instead.
My posts were playing a game. The challenge was to find a pick for need that worked out over a BPA. Bowie obviously did not work out. Honestly, I don't remember if Bowie was ranked higher. I was in the Army then, not seeing too many NCAA games. I do remember the argument everybody was having (not just Rox fans) was who should the Rockets take...Akeem or Jordan. The pick was clearly Akeem as best available (no one disputed that), but the argument was maybe the Rox should pick based on need and take the best guard, since they already had Sampson. Not sure what the Portland argument was.
The thing is, don't be a mediocre team. That is the worst. A bad team has many needs, and can go for best available because it probably will fill a need. A good team has few holes and can choose to either stash a bpa or fill a special need. A mediocre team has some holes, but also needs talent. Therefore they have to choose in the middle and have a lesser chance to do both like a poor team, without the luxury to choose like a good team.
The problem with this kind of simple thinking is you don't actually know who the best player will be until the draft is over. I'm pretty sure if you asked the Kings when they drafted Tyreke Evans, they were thinking they got the BPA. In the Oden vs Durant debate, the main factor is that Oden is injury prone while Durant has remained healthy. If Oden had been as healthy as DH my guess is no one would have questioned the Blazers' pick, he was shaping up to have a Blake Griffin-esque splash in the league before his body broke down. So IMHO, the Blazer's mistake wasn't that they didn't go BPA, its because they ignored all the red flags they got and still picked Oden knowing his legs had major problems.
BPA, you can always trade for need with the players that become replaceable once your BPA develops/becomes a star.
One thing missing from this thread is a 3rd factor. It's neither BPA nor Need. But rather, from an economic viewpoint, scarcity. Which I feel is a not-mentioned part the problem between some of the debates here. In the whole "Center vs SG" debate, there's a disclaimer. Specifically, how should Morey draft given two different situations. One situation is where the Rockets have a legit center, say Tyson Chandler or Marcus Camby. The other situation is where the Rockets are right now. The question is, should Morey change his pick based on his roster? IMO, the answers should be a resounding NO. Morey should either go with the SG or the Center, whichever one he feels is better. Hence, he would not be drafting for need. But if Morey drafts the center, it may not be because the center is BPA, but rather provides the best marginal benefit to the team. This is simple economics. Average SGs are a dime a dozen(relatively speaking). Morey can wave his wand and get a decent wing. Centers are not. The rejected C. Lee for some guy I've never heard of makes it pretty clear that even semi-decent centers are considered prizes in the NBA. So grading centers "on a curve" has more to do with the dearth of supply rather than our need. Even if we have a healthy Yao right now, I wouldn't mind taking a center in the draft over a SG if they're graded similarly. Of course, the whole Durant v. Oden example is worthless because is not about two "similar" players. Oden had a lot more issues than Durant, and had many more question marks coming out. If they were graded without positional bias, Durant would've been better than Oden by a mile. A better example would be something like Durant of Dwight Howard, had they came out in the same year. Would you take the star wing or the star center?
