Should the Knicks Draft by Talent or by Fit?

The next NBA Draft is deep in talent. So where do the Knicks turn as they look to re-build?

We’re more than three-quarters through the 2016–17 NBA season, and the fight for a playoff spot in both conferences is closely contested. With the sixth through 10th seeds in the East separated by three games and the eighth through 11th seeds in the West separated by three and a half games, the final push to qualify for the playoffs is in full swing.

For some teams, however, the race for the bottom is just beginning.

As Drew Steele pointed out in his article on tanking last week, statistics show that a team finishing with a top 10 pick has a far greater chance of drafting a star player compared to a pick outside of the top 10. DraftExpress’ Jonathan Givony said something similar on The 4 Quarters Podcast:

If you look at historically what you can expect to get get in the top three, in the top five, in the top 10, and then once you get outside of the Top 10 the dropoff is just enormous. You’re pretty much drafting a backup 75 percent of the time once you get outside the Top 10.

There are certainly exceptions to the rule, but the likelihood of drafting a star decreases significantly after that 10th pick.

This year’s Draft class is being heralded as not only deep in terms of top 10 talent but flush with skilled guards: Washington’s Markelle Fultz, UCLA’s Lonzo Ball, NC State’s Dennis Smith Jr., Kentucky’s De’Aaron Fox and Malik Monk, and Frank Ntilikina from France.

Teams drafting in the top 10 must decide whether they should select a player based on talent or by fit. Should a team like the Boston Celtics select a guard even though they have Isaiah Thomas, Avery Bradley, Marcus Smart, and rookie Jaylen Brown earning minutes in the Celtics’ back court? Do the Phoenix Suns take a guard despite having Eric Bledsoe and Devin Booker for the foreseeable future? Would the Philadelphia 76ers, a team in desperate need of a guard, consider drafting a forward like Jayson Tatum or Jonathan Isaac if they feel either player has a higher ceiling than any of the guards left on the board?

And what about the New York Knicks?

The Knicks will likely miss the playoffs for the 12th time in 16 seasons. A team that at one point was 16–13 in a mediocre Eastern Conference has faded down the stretch, losing 28 of its last 38 games. With the Knicks closer to having the second-worst record in the NBA than being the eighth seed in the East, it might be time to look towards the Draft instead of the slim chance to play four games against the Cleveland Cavaliers in the playoffs.

It’s no secret that the Knicks have lacked a consistent, homegrown, two-way starting point guard for what feels like centuries. Yet the Knicks have also been without a consistent, homegrown, two-way starting wing as well. Wings such as Josh Jackson, Jonathan Isaac and Jayson Tatum are all projected to be drafted in the top 10. And while heralded prospects Michael Porter Jr. and Luka Doncic will likely enter the Draft in 2018, drafting either of them may be a pipe dream as long as a star like Carmelo Anthony is on the Knicks next season.

Given the team’s surplus of open roster spots and lack of young, starting-caliber players, should the Knicks draft by talent or by fit? Do they draft a guard simply because one is available, or should they draft a different position player who may have a higher ceiling? And how could the triangle offense factor in to the team’s decision, if at all?

If it just so happens that the team’s draft selection is a) the best player available and b) a point guard, well… two birds, one stone. And if that best player available is a forward, the Knicks should draft that forward.

Whether it’s three months from now or three years from now, there will come a time when Carmelo Anthony, Courtney Lee, Joakim Noah, and Derrick Rose will all be gone. What if the Knicks are really interested in drafting Jackson, Isaac, Tatum, or Lauri Markannen? Perhaps the Knicks like any of those players better than the best guard available on the board. Should they pass on any of those forwards in favor of a point guard because one happens to be available?

Of course not.

The front office shouldn’t say “Oh, well, we currently have these veterans, so it doesn’t make sense to draft a forward since we need a point guard.” It should say, “Wow, that forward, __________, is incredible. He’ll need a bit of time to develop but the potential is there. His ceiling is higher than that of all the other players on the board. He’ll be ready to take the next step by the time bigger contracts are off the books.” And can you imagine if a forward becomes a superstar but the Knicks passed on him solely because they felt they needed to draft a point guard? The fan base would burn president Phil Jackson at the stake.

Remember when the Knicks could have taken Emmanuel Mudiay, Justise Winslow, or Willie Cauley-Stein but drafted Kristaps Porzingis instead? Some fans looked past Mudiay’s inability to shoot efficiently in limited playing time in China, desperate for the Knicks to draft him because:

He was considered the best point guard in the draft;

It would have filled a need since the Knicks hadn’t drafted a pure point guard in the first round since Charlie Ward in 1994; and

Fans were more familiar with him than they were with Porzingis

Flash forward almost two years later — the talent of the two players is incomparable. One is starting every game for the Knicks while the other has been benched numerous times by the Denver Nuggets for poor play.

I don’t hear those once advocating for Mudiay now saying “This team should have drafted Mudiay instead,” do you? Mudiay represented filling a need whereas Porzingis was about drafting the better player available. Simply grabbing a player “just because” isn’t smart for the present or the future of a franchise. And sure, an argument could be made that the Knicks could have used a player at any position in 2015, so any player would have been acceptable. But the Knicks sought the best talent available, regardless of a specific position.

The goal for the Knicks should be to assemble the most talented team around Porzingis going forward, not one with less-talented players based solely on their positions. We’ve entered an era of “positionless” basketball, where players like LeBron James, Giannis Antetokounmpo, and Draymond Green can spread the floor, defend multiple positions, and create their own shot. These players don’t just grow on trees, so if a team has the opportunity to draft a prospect who is versatile and has a high ceiling, that team should take it.

What also makes the elite, positionless players so desirable is their ability to pass. The championship-winning triangle offense thrived not with one ball-dominating point guard but with a two-guard front. Both guards took care of the basketball and were skilled passers. When taking a closer look, the best player on those teams was never the lead guard. In fact, of those 11 championship teams, only one “point” guard (one!) was named an All-Star once (once!). As for where those facilitators were drafted:

The best triangle “point” guards weren’t drafted in the Top 5.

This could also explain how guards like Chasson Randle and Ron Baker look good in the triangle offense. Randle played the triangle at Stanford and Baker knows how to facilitate, play defense, and be aggressive on the court. Are Randle and Baker system players, or are they potential diamonds in the rough that could eventually succeed anywhere? There’s no definitive answer, but it’s worth mentioning that Langston Galloway found success with the Knicks as well as with the New Orleans Pelicans before being traded to the Sacramento Kings this season. Maybe the only explanation is the Knicks front office is good at identifying young talent?

One has to wonder how much emphasis will be on the traditional triangle offense once Jackson’s contract with the team expires. Drafting a player based on fit in the traditional triangle, an offense that may not be utilized in three seasons, may appear moot. Surprisingly enough, this may not be the case though.

Much like how the league is transforming, the triangle offense is essentially positionless. Ball movement is key for every player on the court, not just from the lead guard. This is a main reason why Jackson brought in skilled big men who can pass like Noah, Kyle O’Quinn, and Willy Hernangomez. And while Porzingis may not be the team’s best passer, his ability to play all five spots in the triangle (high and low posts, the corners, and the top of the key) and pass out of them shows how important versatility and ball movement is for the offense.

Jackson could also draft a more talented, traditional point guard over a pass-first player. Jackson did bring in Rose and Brandon Jennings last off-season, and neither player is a pass-first player who brings solid defense to the table or shoots well from outside. Whether both players were acquired to serve as placeholders or fit the type of guard Jackson wanted in the system is to be determined.

The Knicks hope to have two of their future starting positions filled with Porzingis and Hernangomez, leaving three future starting spots up for grabs. If New York feels a forward is better than the best point guard available, and drafts that forward, the team would still be addressing a need and adding top talent. ESPN’s Fran Fraschilla said “Why try to hit a single or a double when you may be hitting a grand slam?” after Porzingis was drafted. So this year, why should the Knicks draft a guard who could be a single or a double, when a forward still on the board could be a grand slam? As long as the player the Knicks draft is talented, can facilitate, and has a high basketball IQ, the sky is the limit.