The NBA Draft as the Start not the End

Evaluating draft selections after three to five years must account for team environment, development, and more. Players are not finished at selection.

There is an industry of #DraftTwitter amateur scouts who profile and debate prospects for years, following in the footsteps of college recruiting websites that have chronicled and ranked pre-teens almost since the advent of the Internet (there were pre-Internet rankings, but not an entire industry of amateur scouts producing daily public content for millions).

Amateur scouts assess and argue over minutia, debating the prediction power of high-school three-point attempts, free-throw percentage translating to three-point shooting, finishing rate at the rim, foul rates, and more. Every player ranked in the top 100 or 150 of potential NBA draft picks has enough potential, skill, talent, and more to survive in the NBA — We see un-drafted players breakthrough every year — the Thunder’s Alex Caruso, Luguentz Dort, and Kenrich Williams — but there are only a few can’t miss players every year. Therefore, how important is the scouting and the minutia? Is the best pick at any spot in the draft order undeniably the best pick or the best pick for a specific team?

There is one consensus can’t miss prospect this year, and potentially two, based on who you follow. Everyone drafted after the second pick has potential, but uncertainty. They may have the ceiling of an NBA All-Star, but they need definite and specific improvements even to be a certain NBA rotation player. How much does drafting one specific player over the others matter when everyone has questions about his viability and potential?

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander was drafted eleventh in the 2018 NBA Draft. Should he have been drafted first? Luka Doncic was the most accomplished NBA draft pick of the last 30 years, if not ever, and he was picked third in the same draft. Did the scouts make mistakes or did the environment after the draft affect Doncic’s, SGA’s, and Jaren Jackson Jr.’s success while #2 pick Marvin Bagley III and #6 Mo Bamba barely remain in the league? Maybe SGA’s psychological, emotional, and mental skills, which are difficult to evaluate, enabled him to make a giant leap as a professional.

Caruso, Dort, and Williams went un-drafted; Isaiah Hartenstein, Isaiah Joe, and Aaron Wiggins were second round picks. Did the scouts miss? If so, what can we learn from their misses when identifying talent? Or are some environments better than others? Are the important differences after the draft? NBA players are believed to be great and almost beyond coaching, but some environments appear better than others, whether by positioning players correctly, maximizing strengths, providing earlier opportunities, improving weaknesses, or other factors. Does drafting the exact player matter when a team has the right environment to nurture and develop any selection? Potentially everything is up to the individual; most likely a player’s ultimate success is a combination of factors.

I watched very little college basketball this season, and have few opinions on this year’s draft. However, a player such as VJ Edgecombe was drafted #3 overall, whereas Adou Thiero was a second-round pick, #36 overall. Edgecombe is younger, but they are described as the two most explosive athletes in the draft, and most of their draft value is derived from explosiveness, potential, and defense.

Edgecombe now has an advantage, as high lottery picks receive more opportunities than second round picks. Teams show more patience; he will receive the important repetitions at NBA Summer League in a few weeks. He also is younger, so maybe he has a steeper developmental trajectory. He is the safer bet to have the better career.

However, much of the difference has to do with the environment: Opportunities, patience, repetitions, coaching. If each entered the exact same environment with the same coaches, opportunities, playing time, teammates, and more, would Edgecombe still be the safer bet? Maybe, as he is younger, but the differences are smaller.

College teams invest hours and hours recruiting players between attending games, watching films, talking on the phone, and more. Often, they invest more time recruiting than in the players already on campus. They chase their most-wanted players and are upset when they miss, often going to social media to subtweet and throw shade.

In reality, there are 10-15 true difference makers in any class. Yes, adding AJ Dybantsa or Cam Boozer is worth the time and effort (and now money), but how many teams have a realistic chance to sign one of the top 10-15 players? I imagine most of the top 25-50 programs shoot their shots, but only a handful, probably numbered on one hand, really have a shot.

The rest of the players are not the same. Edgecombe and Thiero are not the same. There is a reason one was picked 30 picks earlier. Each player has different strengths and weaknesses, slightly taller or shorter, quicker, better shooter, and more, but the differences are relatively small. NCAA Division 1 players are the top 2% of all players in the country; once players have reached that level, there is much less to separate them. The differences after the selections are made or the players are signed will determine success more than rankings and draft order.

I coached at a partially-funded NJCAA D1 program. I did not recruit in the deep waters with the elite of the elites. AAU coaches laughed at what I was able to offer compared to even some of my peers in my region. My player pool was pretty flat, just as the NBA pool after the can’t miss players is fairly flat. Therefore, I did not care which specific player I signed. Many coaches get caught up in needing the best possible player; they suffer from fear of missing out. When a player turned me down, I pivoted to the next player. I trusted our environment and my coaching: I believed the player who I signed would out-perform the player who turned down my program.

Imagine my first choice point guard in a class had a 75 grade (the actual number is meaningless). She chose another school, and I pivoted to a 70-grade player. I believed the 75-player would not hit her ceiling at another program; she likely would be somewhere from a 50-70-grade player. I believed players in my program would near or reach their ceilings. A 70-grade recruit would be a 65-70-grade player. I believed I would end up with the better player either way.

Now, this is an arrogant approach, and certainly some players who turned us down succeeded, depending on one’s definition of success. The other coaches in the region were actually very good. However, as one example, my AD would not approve the first international player I attempted to sign because he she would not be eligible (NJCAA self-reports eligibility and hopes to avoid being audited). I asked the player if she had a younger teammate (eligibility issues start when players turn 18). I signed her teammate, while the original player signed at arguably the best junior-college program in the country.

The younger, lesser player ended up, by any metric, the better and more successful player. She was a 90-grade recruit who hit her ceiling and signed with a Power 4 program; her former teammate was a 90-grade recruit who left her junior college as a 75-grade player (albeit as a national champion) and signed with an NCAA D2 program. Part of that was luck; part was opportunity because our team had less talent overall; part was individual dedication. But, the environment from her teammates, our style of play, coaching, approach to individual workouts, strength and conditioning, overall lifestyle, and more impacted her growth and development too. She likely does not reach her 90-grade ceiling at the other program with different teammates and expectations.

This is not to suggest scouting, recruiting, and drafting are unimportant. However, we emphasize these areas so much, but ultimately the environment — coaches, teammates, opportunities, facilities, nutrition, strength & conditioning, atmosphere, and more — and the individual — work ethic, desire, dedication, focus, ability to learn, role acceptance, confidence, assertiveness, resilience, and more — determine players’ relative success.

We may look back in five years and be amazed that Edgecombe was drafted 30 picks before Thiero; we may look back and ask why Edgecombe was never in the conversation for the first pick. Who knows? However, when we re-examine the draft, we are not evaluating only scouting and drafting. Regardless of what happens, the evaluations and selection order this week may have been absolutely correct. Talent development is multifactorial. Identification and selection are two of many factors, but the most important factors occur after draft day. Draft day is the beginning of the process, not the end. Fans, coaches, management, and owners should evaluate the environment in which the players will develop and grow with as much scrutiny as they evaluate the players they draft.