Milwaukee Bucks (And All Teams) Should Pick The Best Player Available In The NBA Draft

Jun 25, 2015; Brooklyn, NY, USA; Prospects pose for a group picture with NBA commissioner Adam Silver (holding basketball) before the start of the 2015 NBA Draft at Barclays Center. Mandatory Credit: Brad Penner-USA TODAY Sports
Jun 25, 2015; Brooklyn, NY, USA; Prospects pose for a group picture with NBA commissioner Adam Silver (holding basketball) before the start of the 2015 NBA Draft at Barclays Center. Mandatory Credit: Brad Penner-USA TODAY Sports /
facebooktwitterreddit

Taking the best player available is always the right move when it comes to the NBA Draft.

I’ve no idea who the Milwaukee Bucks will select in the 2016 NBA Draft. I also have no idea who they should select, although I have some hopes.

One thing I do know, however, is how they should choose who to draft. The Bucks–and every other team–should take the best player available in the 2016 NBA Draft.

It doesn’t matter if your team just won ten games or 73 games. Drafting for fit is a waste of the most valuable currency to be had in the NBA–sweet, sweet draft picks.

More from Bucks News

With the salary cap constantly rising and free agency becoming a contest to see who can max out the most mediocre players, drafting good players is going to be what differentiates good teams from bad teams going forward.

Thus, it’s probably a good idea to draft the best player possible, every time. Drafting for fit seems like a smart idea, but what does fit even really mean? Good teams find ways to fit good players next to each other.

It could be argued that Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant are too ball-dominant to fit well together. The Oklahoma City Thunder haven’t won a title with the two of them, but they’ve made the pieces fit well enough to make the Thunder one of the premier NBA teams.

It could be argued that the Golden State Warriors have too many shooters and not enough skilled big men. Steve Kerr made a lineup of two guards and three forwards–Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, Andre Iguodala, Harrison Barnes and Draymond Green–fit together.

The Warriors are one win away from a second consecutive NBA title and just set the NBA regular season wins record, in no small part thanks to that lineup without any big men.

Fit is nice, but it can be manufactured. Talent cannot. It’s either there or it isn’t. Good franchises can make any players fit together, but they can’t turn average players into stars.

The most dramatic example of fit vs best player available has to be the 1984 NBA Draft. Michael Jordan was available at the second overall pick, held by the Portland Trail Blazers.

Portland liked Jordan, but they had two good shooting guards already in Jim Paxson and Clyde Drexler. The Blazers drafted for fit instead of talent, and took center Sam Bowie instead of Jordan.

Portland hasn’t won a title since 1977. The Chicago Bulls, who snatched up Jordan with the third overall pick that season, won six rings with His Airness.

Having too much talent at one position is the right kind of problem to have in the NBA. Not having enough talent at any position is not.

More from Behind the Buck Pass

Imagine for a second that Portland takes Jordan and realizes the kind of player he is. Then the Blazers trade one or both of their other guards, and build around Jordan.

The haul the Blazers could’ve gotten for either Paxson or Drexler, plus Michael Jordan, would’ve resulted in an almost immediate dynasty. Portland still had a good run in the decade after taking Bowie–imagine if he were swapped out with Michael Jordan.

Now obviously most NBA Draft decisions don’t involve the greatest player of all time like that one. Still though, what team would rather have one mediocre center and one good guard than two good guards?

Next: NBA Mock Draft 3.0: Searching For Consensus

Especially in the modern NBA, where teams are finding ways to play their talented players together as much as possible despite traditional positional boundaries, there’s no reason to consider fit above talent level.