Let’s Talk About All of the Little SG’s

19 Monday Jul 2021

Posted by deanondraft in NCAA, Scouting Reports

Tags

ayo dosunmu, cameron thomas, chris duarte, david johnson, jaden springer, jalen green, james bouknight, josh christopher, keon johnson, Quentin Grimes

This draft seems to have an inordinate amount of undersized shooting guards in round 1, so let’s sort through them:

Jalen Green (#2 ESPN)

2021 NBA Mock Draft 8.0: Jalen Green No. 2, Evan Mobley No. 3 if picks based on highest upside - CBSSports.com

Green is the headliner of the class, currently projected to go #2 overall with outlier elite athleticism and highlight reel scoring ability.

His big flaw is that he is tiny for a shooting guard. He is listed at 6’6″ for G League Ignite, but so is Jonathan Kuminga. Based on any image of them standing next to each other, Kuminga is at least 2″ taller.

The most recent measurements available from Green came 2 years ago from Nike Skills Academy.

For a quick and dirty estimate, we can compare these measurements of a number of these players to their combine measurements to see how much these prospects grew on average:

If we use the laws of averages from this sample, Green would be 6’4.25″ in shoes with 6’7.5″ wingspan and weigh 180 pounds. That is a small player.

He is 3 months younger than the average player age in the sample, but he is also smaller and it seems less common for little guys to big growth spurts at this age. Further, the only two non-lotto picks from this sample to opt out of measurements were Sharife Cooper and Cam Thomas who measured 5’11.5″ and 6’1.5″ respectively, which indicates that they likely did not have significant growth spurts to show off to NBA teams.

His G League Ignite teammate Daishen Nix measured 6’4.25″, and in photos where they are next to each other it is difficult to tell who is the taller player.

If Green measured a fraction of an inch above 6’5″ in shoes, that would give him the biggest growth spurt in the class, which doesn’t seem likely. And he certainly doesn’t look like he filled out much in terms of strength.

Let’s err on the side of generosity and give him an extra half inch relative to his law of averages dimensions and his listed weight at 180. Here are the NBA players who he is most physically similar to:

	Height	Length	Weight
Jalen Green	6’4.75	6’8	180
Devin Booker	6’5.75	6’8.25	206
Zach LaVine	6’5.75	6’8.25	181
Bradley Beal	6’4.75″	6’8	202

He even skews slightly smaller on this scale, as LaVine is 1″ taller and Beal + Booker are significantly beefier. Beal also played much bigger in college, with 4.7% and 18.2% offense and defense rebound rates and 2.6% block rate compared to Green’s 1.9%/11.6% OR/DR and 0.8% BLK.

This trio also indicates approximately the peak of goodness for smaller SG’s. All time greats like Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Vince Carter were all listed at 6’6″ with 6’11” wingspans and clearly stronger frames than Green. It doesn’t seem like ~1″ height, ~3″ length, and ~15 pounds of muscle should make the different between all-time great and low end all-star like Zach LaVine, but based on NBA history it seems to have a substantial impact on attainable upside.

James Harden measured 6’5.25″ with 6’10’75” wingspan and 222 pounds, and was a megastud college player who is essentially a point guard in a SG body.

Dwyane Wade measured 6’3.75″ without shoes with 6’10.75″ wingspan and 212 pounds. He was a better college rebounder than 6’11.5″ Kai Jones and is the best shotblocking SG in NBA history, and functioned as much bigger than his size.

Ray Allen was 6’5, and there is no information on his wingspan but he rebounded similarly to Bradley Beal in college and became one of the greatest shooters in NBA history.

Essentially almost every great non-PG at 6’4 or 6’5 both was functionally bigger due to frame + length and played bigger in terms of rebounding and/or shotblocking, and Green fills none of these boxes. This makes his size a major red flag, even with his 99th percentile athleticism.

It makes sense, as these small guys can be bullied and hunted on defense, and by not being a floor general they often need another ball handler on the floor who tends to skew small. And it is difficult to consistently score over bigger players, so there is a cap on scoring efficiency for these little guys.

Athleticism is an extremely important physical tool, but it can only do so much for a player whose size and mold essentially caps his upside at low end all-star such as LaVine or Booker. The optimistic argument would be that Green is better than Zach LaVine at the same age, so maybe he can be better than LaVine longterm and be the best player in NBA history in this mold.

Yet that can all come to fruition and he can still not be a hall of fame caliber player, which is why it is difficult to see the case for him as a top 3 pick.

How Good are LaVine and Booker?

This is especially true when players like LaVine and Booker are extremely difficult to build around. Take the Phoenix Suns for instance–they have built around Booker perfectly, with Chris Paul finishing 5th in MVP voting, former #1 overall DeAndre Ayton blossoming into a quality NBA big this playoffs, and a cast of quality role players with no weak link. Yet they needed heavy injuries to opposing stars to even make the finals, and now that they are here they are down 3-2 with their game 2 win being massively luck driven shooting 20/40 from 3 vs 9/31 from the Bucks in a 10 point win. Game 2 could have easily been a double digit loss with neutral shooting luck.

And while Milwaukee is likely the 2nd best team in the NBA and a worthy champion, Phoenix was able to avoid playing the best team in Brooklyn after injuries to James Harden and Kyrie Irving caused them to fall short to the Bucks in 7.

Phoenix is around the 5th or 6th best team in the NBA and good enough to sniff a title with enough luck on their side. And if they win this year, it will have been due to extreme luck and they will be one of the weakest champions in NBA history.

On the bright side, you could say that Booker is good enough to be the 2nd best guy on a fringe NBA contender that isn’t exactly loaded with star power, and if they had correctly taken Luka Doncic over DeAndre Ayton, they would have enough star power to win it all.

But if they had Doncic and Paul, what is the value of having Booker? If they have the option of a Doncic or CP3 pick and roll, Booker’s ability to score in isolation and make difficult shots is not particularly useful as it is the least efficient option and comes with by far the weakest passing. And it is not worth paying him a max deal to stand in the corner and play like a glorified Anthony Morrow in a 3 minus D role.

This is the problem with this mold. Being small enough to get hunted on defense without being a natural floor general on offense is a massive double hit to a player’s value. Booker is talented enough to be perhaps the 3rd best player on a good NBA champion, but to maximize his value he needs to be taking the most shots, which makes him incredibly difficult to build around. He essentially needs to be surrounded with the perfect blend of role players, and it is difficult to offer him a much better cast than Phoenix has without having star(s) that render his creation ability redundant.

Having a Booker type makes it easier to win 50+ games and be a threat to win a playoff series or two. But if you are picking top 3 and looking to change your franchise’s fortunes and maximize future championship odds, how can you justify taking somebody who maxes out somewhere in the vicinity of Devin Booker’s level? This badly caps your upside with a flawed player who is difficult to build around, while having bust risk just like anybody else.

Are We Sure he is not an Outlier?

Who do you take?

Prospect A: 6'5" 18.9 yrs, 23.3 USG 102 ORtg, 1.9% OR 11.6% DR, 13.5% AST 2.4% STL 0.8% BLK, .365 3P .829 FT

Prospect B: 6'6 18.4 yrs, 24.6 USG 101 ORtg, 4.9% OR 8.7% DR, 13.8% AST 2.3% STL 1.6% BLK, .375 3P .817 FT
— Dean (@deanondraft) July 18, 2021

One final sanity check for Green is to compare his G League #’s to Kobe Bryant’s NBA rookie season. They are essentially the same player, except Kobe is 6.5 months younger and playing in the NBA instead of the G-League. And that is forgetting Kobe being in the minimum tier of dimensions and strength to be a hall of fame SG while Green misses the cut across the board.

Even if they seem close enough physically, Kobe has a sneakily significant size advantage. And that 6.5 month age gap is not trivial either at such a young age.

If Green is an undersized G League knockoff of Kobe, it is difficult to see how that amounts to a top 3 pick.

Granted, he could seem like a fine choice in retrospect if he becomes as good as Booker and LaVine and becomes a low end all-star. And perhaps he develops into a slightly better passer and defensive player than either and is the GOAT score first little guy. There aren’t that many stud athletes who are competent at the G League level at a young age such that we can completely write him off.

But given the limited value of the mold and its difficulty to build around, Green is not a favorable valuable proposition relative to prospects like Evan Mobley, Cade Cunningham, Scottie Barnes, Jalen Suggs, Franz Wagner, or Alperen Sengun.

Green is still likely the best small SG in the draft, but it is not by as significant of a margin as his consensus rating will have you believe.

The Tennessee Boys: Jaden Springer (#29 ESPN) and Keon Johnson (#9 ESPN)

Tennessee's Keon Johnson, Jaden Springer project as first-round talents

These two share a number of striking similarities. Johnson measured 6’4.75″ with 6’7.25″ wingspan, Springer 6’4.25″ with 6’7.75″ wingspan. Springer is beefier weighing in at 202 vs 185 pounds, while Keon has nuclear powered calves as he smashed the combine record for standing vertical leap by 2″ at 41.5″ with Nick Young and Kenny Gregory being 2nd at 39.5″. This is inflated due to him tanking his standing reach measurement by 3-4″, but the guy can nevertheless jump.

Statistically they also are near twins in many ways:

	Age	USG	OR%	DR%	AST%	TOV%	STL%	BLK%	FTr
Keon	18.8	26.8	4.8	10.9	20.7	22.4	2.5	2	0.409
Jaden	18.3	26.1	4.6	10.9	24	20.6	2.7	2	0.44

Springer is 6.5 months younger and had slightly more assists and fewer turnovers, but otherwise they are twins. And if that’s not enough, check their distribution of shots per 100 possessions:

	2PA	2P%	3PA	3P%	FTA	FT%
Keon	16.8	0.492	4.1	0.271	8.5	0.703
Jaden	16.3	0.475	4.1	0.435	9	0.81

Both guys also love to pull up for mid-range shots. It is almost eerie how they are nearly the same exact player, except Springer has more offensive polish, strength, and youth while Keon can jump to the moon.

They should be likely be valued in the same tier, and it is outright crazy that ESPN mocks Springer at #29 currently. He will likely get picked higher in reality.

Springer

Intuitively, the younger guy with more polish seems like he should trade over, but Springer’s creation is very ugly as he relies on heavy dribbling as he bullies his way for incessant mid-range jumpers. Johnson’s creation is ugly too, but if he develops his skills over time, he has the athleticism to blow by his opponents for more easy buckets.

Springer’s ideal path as an NBA player will likely be as a 3 + D role player like Gary Harris who plays as a secondary handler rather than a lead guard. They are similar physically with the only difference being Springer 1″ longer, so let’s make Springer sandwich with Gary Harris’s two college seasons:

	Age	USG	OR%	DR%	AST%	TOV%	STL%	BLK%	FTr
Harris	18.3	20.6	3.7	6.2	9.8	15.2	2.8	0.7	0.298
Springer	18.3	26.1	4.6	10.9	24	20.6	2.7	2	0.44
Harris	19.3	25.4	4	10.2	16.8	12.7	3.4	1.6	0.312

Springer was the better FT shooter making 81% as a freshman vs Harris 78.8% over two years. But Gary Harris attempted more 3’s at 9.7 per 100 as a freshman and 12.3 as a sophomore, making 37.6%, compared to a measure 4.1 3PA/100 for Springer.

Harris started as a good NBA 3 + D role player until he was plagued by injuries and stopped making 3’s. Ideally, Springer wants to cut out his dribbling for mid-range jumpers and replace them with spot up 3’s, which he should be able to do given his excellent FT% and youth.

Then the question is whether Springer can be better than Harris due to playing slightly bigger at a young age in terms of rebounds and blocks, and if his creation ability amounts to any substantial advantage. It is difficult to have much confidence in his creation, but he is so young it has to be valued as worth something.

In retrospect, Harris was a decent return on a 19th overall pick, and Springer is a slightly suped up version of Harris and it would make sense to value him as a late lottery choice

Johnson

Keon is more complicated to evaluate. Simple logic would be that a small guard with bad offense should not work out most of the time. The bad comp for him is Archie Goodwin:

Goodwin was 0.5″ taller and 2.25″ longer, and a good athlete in his own rite albeit not on Keon’s level of elite athleticism.

	Age	USG	OR%	DR%	AST%	TOV%	STL%	BLK%	FTr
Keon	18.8	26.8	4.8	10.9	20.7	22.4	2.5	2	0.409
Archie	18.4	27.5	5.6	10.4	16.8	21	2.1	1	0.594

Granted, Archie slid to the late 1st at 29th overall and perhaps there was good reason for that. He shot 26.6% from 3 and 63.7% FT in college so perhaps GM’s thought his shot was irreparably broken, maybe his athleticism did not inspire enough upside excitement, or maybe they did not believe he was committed enough to work and improve his game to invest a better pick.

If we look at lottery picks, Kris Dunn or Emmanuel Mudiay may seem like reasonable downside comps. Except Mudiay didn’t have a college sample to compare to, and Kris Dunn was an even more limited offensive player than Johnson at the same age posting a similar efficiency (96 ORtg vs 95.5) on a far lower usage rate (16.3 vs 26.8). Dunn was a more natural PG, but because he couldn’t score he wasn’t a much more prolific passer than Johnson with a relatively minor advantage in AST% at 22.8 vs 20.6. Dunn improved substantially from his freshman to junior and senior seasons, but perhaps an elite athlete like Keon Johnson would have as well.

Now if we shift to positive comps, we can start with arguably the most nuclear athlete in the NBA: Russell Westbrook. Westbrook measured 1.25″ shorter but 0.5″ longer. Let’s take his career per 100 possession stats at UCLA because his minute weighted age is similar to Johnson’s:

	Age	2PA	2P%	FTA	REB	AST	TOV	STL	BLK
Keon	18.8	16.8	0.492	8.5	8	5.7	6	2.5	1
RWB	19	15.2	0.491	6.9	6.9	7.3	4.5	2.9	0.3

Russ is clearly a more natural point guard, with a better assist rate, lower turnover rate, and more steals. This is with sharing the load with Darren Collison, and he likely could have done even more playmaking if he had complete control of the offense during his sophomore year.

But Keon played slightly bigger, with more rebounds and blocks, and scored a slightly higher volume, had a slightly higher 3PA rate (4.1 per 100 vs 3.8) and FT% (70.3 vs 68.5). These are relatively small advantages compared to Westbrook’s more natural floor general skills, and it is difficult to imagine a version of Westbrook that is less point guardy but slightly better in other areas would look like. But it would be something, to say the least.

Another comparison may be surprising. Brandon Roy was not drafted until he made significant leaps as a junior and senior, and he measured 1.5″ taller and 0.75″ longer than Johnson. But he had a surprisingly rocky start to his NCAA career that parallels to Johnson. His 224 minute freshman sample was really bad, so let’s compare his sophomore season to that of Keon:

	Age	2PA	2P%	FTA	REB	AST	TOV	STL	BLK
Keon	18.8	16.8	0.492	8.5	8	5.7	6	2.5	1
Roy	19.4	15.8	0.505	7.8	9.5	5.9	4.9	2.2	0.7

Roy’s shooting signal looked similar as well, as he made just 9/37 3’s and 72.1% FT in his first two seasons at UW.

His extra SG size cannot be ignored, nor can his massive leap over the two following seasons as well as a better than expected NBA translation. But Johnson is the clearly better athlete between the two, and it’s probably worth something to note that how similar they were at a young age.

The other elite athlete to pop up as a statistical comp is Zach LaVine. LaVine is 1″ taller and longer, and played a different role in college as more of a spot up shooter with Kyle Anderson, Norman Powell, and Jordan Adams leading the UCLA offense. LaVine was arguably the worst player in the NBA as a rookie, but through hard work and elite athleticism he made an all-star team.

Ultimately, it’s complicated for Keon Johnson. On one hand, it seems that his offense is far too inefficient to fit in the NBA as a little guy. But then when you dig through past examples, the high tier athletes who fill up the stat sheet decently enough in all categories like Keon tend to make greater progressions than expected. But there isn’t one truly satisfactory comp to look back on, and it is difficult to envision his NBA role. His size limits his defensive versatility, and while he has some PG skills it is difficult to see him blossoming into a true floor general.

It is difficult to get excited by the idea of drafting him, but it is similarly difficult to criticize the idea of drafting him once the top tier guys are off the board.

Springer is more simple because he has more polish and fits more of a role player mold, and it is easier to see him fitting into an NBA lineup. But he likely doesn’t have the same upside tail as Johnson.

These guys are both fairly weird. It is difficult to say which one should be valued higher with any confidence, as both belong in a similar tier. It seems fair to value them in the back end of the lottery as the 2nd and 3rd best small SG’s in the draft.

James Bouknight #8 ESPN
Quentin Grimes #28 ESPN

Houston's Quentin Grimes Named Finalist for Jerry West Award - American Athletic Conference

Grimes is 0.5″ taller at 6’5.25″ vs 6’4.75, Bouknight is 0.25″ longer at 6’8.25 vs 6’8, and Grimes has an extra 15 pounds of beef at 205 vs 190 pounds.

Bouknight is rated much higher for his superior off the dribble creation ability, whereas Grimes is more of a pure spot up shooter.

Grimes has had a particularly interesting career arc. He started his NCAA career in Kansas as the #8 RSCI recruit, and after a dreadful freshman year transferred to Houston where he had a solid sophomore season. After shooting a pedestrian 33.3% 3P and 64% FT to start his career, his shooting completely blasted off as a junior making 40.3% of his 3PA on a massive 15.3 3PA per 100 possessions, and backed it up with a 78.8% FT. He also saw significant leaps in rebounds, steals, and blocks.

It is generally prudent to be wary of taking major NCAA leaps at face value due to small sample noise, but then Grimes proceeded to be the best player on the floor in the two combine scrimmages by a comfortable margin.

In two games, he was able to make 9/16 from 3 in 50 minutes of play, as he showed off a lightning fast release to go with good off ball movement and a good step back 3. He also showed off impressive athleticism, a bit more drive and dish game than he did at Houston, and he abused Austin Reaves off the dribble on a couple of occasions. His defense looked solid, he moves his feet well, his frame makes him difficult to push around, and he seems to have decent awareness. Everything about him looked good, and he should find a role in the NBA as a 3 + D role player.

Granted, this was only two games of unorganized basketball, but it appears that Grimes is finally living up to his top 10 recruiting hype. Between his combine performances and RSCI, it seems relatively safe to take his breakout junior season at face value.

Bearing this in mind, Grimes and Bouknight have some interesting similarities in terms of box score production this past season:

	Age	OR%	DR%	AST%	STL%	BLK%	FT%
Grimes	20.7	5.4	14.1	12.7	2.6	1.1	0.788
Bouknight	20.3	5.4	15.1	12.8	2.2	0.9	0.802

Defensively they both do fairly well for their position, but Grimes eye tests as slightly better and his stronger frame makes him difficult to push around. If one prospect gets a slight edge for defense, it is Grimes.

This brings us to the more complicated offensive comparison per 100 possessions, where we will include Grimes’ sophomore season to get a feel for his junior transformation:

	Age	2PA	2P%	3PA	FTA	AST	TOV
Grimes ’20	19.7	11.3	0.538	9.2	7.4	5.5	5
Grimes ’21	20.7	10.9	0.41	15.3	7	3.6	3.4
Bouknight	20.3	18.3	0.528	9.5	10.3	3.4	5.3

As a sophomore, Grimes was more of a playmaker who created more for his teammates and drew more free throws, but still had a fairly high turnover rate for a guy who did not create Bouknight’s scoring. As a junior, he fully embraced his role as a spot up guy and focused on getting as many 3PA as possible.

Bouknight may be best served to make a similar adjustment to his offensive approach. While he is capable of creating his own shot at the rim and finishing, he is not particularly efficient at it as he has a rudimentary handle and is prone to playing slightly out of control.

He nevertheless creates an impressive volume of 2PA that he converts at a good %, but this is largely due to cuts, putbacks, and transition play. If he is collectively creating an extra 7 2PA and 3 FTA compared to Grimes at a higher %, but at the cost of ~2 TOV and ~6 3PA without any additional assists is that really a favorable tradeoff? Do you really want your tunnel visioned and slight framed 6’5″ guard consistently trying to score inside arc against NBA defenses instead of playing within the flow of the offense and getting off a massive volume of 3PA?

It’s a difficult question to answer. Bouknight still is a more natural scorer with a better career FT% than Grimes (80% vs. 70%). And he does play well off ball. If he is willing to transition to more of an off ball player in the NBA, and finds a way to get off a big volume of 3PA, he should surpass Grimes offensively.

Bouknight could also make his shot creation work, but that is an extremely dicey proposition for a guy who had such a poor assist:TOV ratio at age 20 and is merely a good athlete as opposed to nuclear like Jalen Green or Keon Johnson. At this stage, his on ball play is more likely to be a bug than a feature.

Bouknight is a confusing guy, as he does a number of things well and it is easy to see him being useful to an NBA team. But it is hard to see a big upside tail for him, and things can go wrong if he tries to force the issue too much against bigger and more athletic NBA defenders.

Summary

Grimes gets a tiny edge on defense, and has figured out how to play an offensively style tailor made for an NBA role player which makes him a safer bet on offense. Bouknight has more longterm upside on offense, but is currently a chaotic ball of energy that needs to be refined and could prove to be frustrating on that end as well.

Ultimately, Bouknight is a weird guy who is difficult to pin down. It is difficult to know how his offense will translate to the NBA, and how good he can really be in his best case. But it is tough to see his star upside, and it is unclear whether he is actually a better prospect than Grimes.

The safest thing to say here is– why pick Bouknight in the mid-lottery when you can have Grimes in the late 1st?

I would currently rank these two not too far behind Springer and Johnson as the #4 and #5 SGs in the draft that belong somewhere in the mid-1st.

Josh Christopher (#34 ESPN)

ASU basketball: Josh Christopher declares for 2021 NBA draft

Christopher is the discount version of Jalen Green, as he was the #10 RSCI freshman this past season.

He is not quite the athlete, passer, or shooter that Green is, but he is an impressive athlete in his own rite. You can see the offensive disparity with Green being better across the board in spite of playing the tougher schedule in the G League:

	Age	2PA	2P%	3PA	3P%	FT%	AST	TOV
Green	18.9	9.9	0.550	7.3	0.358	0.786	3.8	3.4
Christopher	19.1	10.5	0.496	5.3	0.305	0.8	2.6	3.2

Christopher atones by being functionally larger with ~1.5″ more length and ~35 pounds more muscle, and functionally playing bigger:

	OR%	DR%	STL%	BLK%
Green	1.9	11.6	2.4	0.8
Christopher	2.4	16.2	2.7	1.9

Again, not a perfect comparison in terms of league difficulty, but NCAA and G League are close enough such that it seems fair to give Christopher the edge here.

Green’s superior offense and athleticism should weigh significantly heavier than Christopher’s size advantage. But this doesn’t seem like such a blowout to justify the difference between a top 3 overall choice and a 2nd round pick.

Christopher should be valued somewhere in the back end of round 1.

Ayo Dosunmu #32 ESPN

3 best teams suited to pick Ayo Dosunmu in the 2021 NBA Draft

Ayo is a good handler and passer for a SG, and could pass for a big PG as much as a small SG at 6’5″ with 6’10.25″ wingspan.

His limitation is that he is not the quickest or most explosive guard, and could end up getting beat often on defense while struggling to get to his spots offensively.

But he has a nice intersection of size, skill, and athleticism, and it wouldn’t be surprising to see him develop into a Spencer Dinwiddie caliber role player. He is worth a shot in the late 1st.

Bones Hyland #30 ESPN

Bones Hyland breaks VCU freshman 3-point record | Plus | richmond.com

Bones is a unique guy. He is an excellent shooter, and is capable of getting off shots at high volume and efficiency. In his two years at VCU, he averaged 13.8 3PA per 100 possessions making 39.9% while backing it up with 82.7% FT, and he also was effective scoring in his one game at the draft combine.

He measured only 6’3.5″ in shoes and weighs 169 pounds, which makes his size a significant concern. But he has a 6’9.25″ wingspan, and excels at making plays with his length to give himself a chance of hanging defensively.

His other concern is that he is not the most natural with the ball for a little guy. When he was asked to increase his usage rate from 21.1 to 28.6%, his assist to turnover ratio took a dive from 1.58 to 0.68. And he did not look particularly better off the dribble in the NBA combine scrimmage.

His flaws are scary, but he has some unique strengths to make him an interesting flier in the late 1st or early 2nd.

David Johnson (#40 ESPN)

Louisville G David Johnson declares for NBA Draft - Card Chronicle

Johnson is only 6’4.75″, but he has a nice 6’10.5″ wingspan to go with a solid frame and good athleticism.

He showed loads of promise as a freshman bench player, including a monster game at Duke. He looked like he may be in the discussion for a lottery pick entering his sophomore season, but he just couldn’t figure out how to do offense as his usage dropped and he saw major declines in his 2P% (54.5% to 42.6%), assist rate (35.9% to 18.8%), and FT rate (.278 to .183).

If there was a glimmer of hope, he did show a capable outside shot making 38.6% from 3 and 70% from FT after looking relatively busted as a freshman.

In the combine scrimmage he showed off impressive passing in his first game but was hesitant to attack off the dribble, and then he didn’t play the second game.

There’s a good chance he can’t handle well enough to make it in the NBA. But if his sophomore season was some fluke affected by COVID, and he figures out his handling, and his shooting comes around, he has a tantalizing combination of physical tools and vision for round 2.

He is a bit of a longshot, but there is some nice home run upside for a 2nd rounder. He is arguably even worth considering in the late 1st.

Cam Thomas #25 ESPN

LSU's Cameron Thomas, Trendon Watford, Javonte Smart earn All-SEC acclaim – Crescent City Sports

Thomas is a unique guy, as he is exceptionally good at scoring without contributing anything else to the team. He might have the record for the highest ratio of points per game to the sum of rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals of any player who has ever been drafted. Based on a quick and dirty search that is probably not comprehensive, here is a list for comparison from the past 20 years:

Prospect	Year	Pts	Reb	Ast	Stl	Blk	RABS	Ratio
Cameron Thomas	FR	23	3.4	1.4	0.9	0.2	5.9	3.90
John Jenkins	JR	19.9	2.9	1.2	0.8	0.3	5.2	3.83
John Jenkins	SO	19.5	3	1.2	0.8	0.3	5.3	3.68
Jodie Meeks	JR	23.7	3.4	1.8	1.3	0.1	6.6	3.59
Seth Curry	SR	17.5	2.5	1.5	0.9	0.2	5.1	3.43
Salim Stoudamire	SR	18.4	2.3	2.2	0.8	0.1	5.4	3.41
Malik Monk	FR	19.8	2.5	2.3	0.9	0.5	6.2	3.19
Joe Young	JR	18.9	2.8	1.9	1.3	0	6	3.15

There’s a clear brand here– little guys who can shoot and do not much else. Meeks and Curry have had careers as NBA role players so he can be something. But overall this list is fairly weak, and Thomas may not buck the trend as he is probably 6’2 or 6’3″ and one of the worst defensive players in the draft.

His closest comparison is Malik Monk, and he is a slightly worse pull than Monk who was ranked a bit higher RSCI at #9 vs #22 and at least had the excuse that maybe John Calipari was suppressing his numbers, as he showed more hope as a passer and shot blocker.

Thomas does have good wingspan (measured 6’6″ in 2019) and frame and if he does start caring about defense and becomes passable, he can fit in some NBA lineups that have a bigger shot creator as a more athletic Seth Curry. There is something to be said for him to have scored so much as a freshman, and he did so with a microscopic turnover ratio while making 88.2% FT. So he may be a justifiable choice around the turn of round 1.

But it’s just so hard to win with this brand, as historically it either ends in complete bust or flawed bench player, so he probably belongs moreso in early round 2 than late round 1.

Chris Duarte #22 ESPN

Why the Memphis Grizzlies should avoid Chris Duarte with No. 17 pick

Duarte is the senior citizen of the draft, having turned 24 in June.

He fits a nice 3 + D archetype, and he can possibly give whoever drafts him a rotation player for cheap for 4 years as his rookie deal will essentially cover his prime.

But he is so limited with the ball and so low upside, it is difficult to see how he is adequate value for round 1. His best comp is likely Damion Lee who went undrafted and was acquired on the cheap by Golden State, and still was cheap to retain after finding a rotation role.

Searching for a cheap 8th man is such a suboptimal use of a late 1st round pick when there are guys who can be better right away and solid for years to come still on the board.

Duarte did do really well for Oregon and can be a bit better than Lee, and is likely fine in round 2. But capping your upside this badly in round 1 is just wrong. You can find similar caliber pulls to fill out the bench on the scrap heap and aim higher with your first round pick.

Josh Primo #26 ESPN

Primo is very young, not turning 19 until December. But he is also very bad at basketball, and his first round hype is not justified.

This Draft Feels Like 2014 All Over Again

15 Thursday Jul 2021

Posted by deanondraft in NCAA

≈ 23 Comments

Tags

alperen sengun, Andrew Wiggins, cade cunningham, evan mobley, Jabari Parker, Julius Randle

2014 was the first draft I blogged about, and I started this blog largely because it was so much fun to analyze that crop. Now 2021 is loaded with parallels with makes it similarly exciting to analyze.

It started with Andrew Wiggins being hyped as the next LeBron, and then massively disappointing as a college freshman while his teammate Joel Embiid looked like a mega stud out of nowhere as an exceptionally coordinated 7 footer.

But in spite of his disappointment, Wiggins still went #1 overall as his freshman performance was good enough to not wash away the shiny hype he entered the season with, and the prospect of improvement based on his elite athleticism.

Now this year, Cade Cunningham was hyped as a Luka Doncic type generational prospect, but has performed more on Wiggins’ level while Evan Mobley has been the elite, athletic 7 footer who stuffs the stat sheet. Yet Cade’s preseason hype has helped him maintain the consensus #1 overall status.

In fact, Cade’s hype has held up even stronger than than Wiggins, as at least there were genuine discussions as to whether Embiid should go #1 before his medical red flags caused him to drop to #3. In this case, Cade is still holding strong as the consensus #1 overall in spite of Mobley being completely healthy.

The Cade/Wiggins comparison has been commonly dismissed as Wiggins being an athlete who has no idea how to play, and that Cade’s passing and shooting means that he won’t fail. But that ignores the fact that Wiggins was not any worse of an NCAA player than Cade, while also being 5 months younger. Let’s look at a quick and dirty spot check of NCAA goodness with Box Score Plus/Minus

	Age	BPM
Mobley	19.6	13.7
Embiid	19.8	11.9
Wiggins	18.9	8.3
Cade	19.3	8.3

In retrospect is is easy to reduce Wiggins to an athlete who has no clue how to play, but it just was not that apparent at the time. He had decent scoring ability offensively, averaged 17 points on solid shooting %’s, drew a ton of free throws, and was a good defensive player due to his excellent athleticism.

Now people may lament that Cade’s teammates were the worst thing since sliced bread, while Wiggins played on a perennially great Kansas team. But then when we look at their on/off splits, Wiggins is the one who made a clearly positive impact on his team. From hooplens.com:

Wiggins not only had a major impact on the defense as a long, athletic player who could defend multiple positions, but he also had a more clearly positive impact on the offense where he could at least use his athleticism to get some easy shots, crash the offensive glass, and draw a high volume of free throws. Whereas in spite of his passing, Cade’s team seemed to get more easy 2 pointers with him off the floor.

Of course this doesn’t prove that Cade will be as bad as Wiggins, as college on/off stats are very noisy and plenty of players with lower freshman BPMs have gone on to be all-stars. On average, Cade should be better than Wiggins. But it is enough information to at least start questioning what makes Cade’s floor necessarily higher than Wiggins.

The common answer would be that athleticism is overrated, and Cade’s shooting and passing is what is actually the more valuable trait. But that isn’t necessarily the case– athleticism is and always has been an incredibly valuable NBA trait. Further, OJ Mayo could shoot and pass as well as Cade and had a pedestrian NBA career. The real lesson from Wiggins should be that being well rounded with limited flaws is predictive of NBA stardom– not checking a few magical boxes regardless of the flaws that come with it.

One funny commonality is that both were arguably better as role players. Wiggins had a narrative that worst case he would be a great role player as he could make an open 3 and be a defensive stopper. But Minnesota had different plans for him to relentlessly chuck stepback jumpers from mid-range instead, and it did not amount to a good player.

There seems to be a similar notion with Cade, that worst case he can be a more athletic Joe Ingles who provides excellent 3 + D support. But Joe Ingles wouldn’t be Joe Ingles if he was drafted #1 and expected to carry the offense like Luka Doncic, because he would do very poorly in that role.

Cade may do a better job of it than Joe Ingles would, but that doesn’t mean he will necessarily be an adequate primary creator in the NBA. And if he always has the ball in his hands– how much value does his shooting *really* carry? Being able to make pullup 3’s is a helpful skill, but if he is still collectively inefficient and his shooting is not often being used to provide spacing gravity to his other teammates, it diminishes the value of it.

Maybe Cade Turns Out Better than Wiggins

But does it really matter? This kid from USC is an obvious stud and everything about him is wired for efficiency. You would think that with the advent of statistics that qualities like elite efficiency, passing, defense, in a player who is also taller, longer, and more athletic than Cade would be valued higher. But the level of analysis has gotten so basic that all that matters are checking the magical boxes of being a wing creator (doesn’t matter if you are good or bad at it as long as you tried!) and being able to shoot. Conversely being tall makes you automatically bad, even if you are capable of doing perimeter things like handle, pass, shoot, and switch onto smaller players.

It is such a basic level of analysis, it is like watching everything go backwards. At least in 2014 teams were open enough to bigs for Embiid over Wiggins to be a realistic discussion before Embiid’s injury flags mucked everything up. Now we have a stud in Mobley who isn’t even in the conversation with a clean bill of health.

It makes sense to place an additional emphasis on speed and skill over taking whatever big stiff is available to fill the middle. But this has gone overboard. Being tall always has been and always will be an incredibly useful trait for basketball. And momentum can always shift back toward bigs– for instance the coming rule changes to reduce cheap fouls on shooters adds just a bit more value back toward bigs and away from guards and wings.

And regardless, a tall guy like Mobley who can protect the rim and do perimeter things like handle, pass, and shoot are going to give you a ton of lineup flexibility.

And the #2 pick is even worse than #1

As flawed and overhyped as Wiggins was, he still fit a quality NBA mold and had enough strengths such that in his mid 20’s, he has finally become a useful NBA player. And he still has room to grow into a solidly + player, much like Rudy Gay who was his negative comp, but ended up having a better than expected second act for the Spurs.

On the other hand, Jabari Parker was the ultimate empty calories scorer, and he is so one dimensional with such bad defense that he is nothing more than a cheap flier for his 6th team in Boston as he enters his prime age.

Granted, there is no reason to believe Jalen Green will necessarily be that bad. His athletic scoring off the dribble looks quite a bit more aesthetically pleasing and should have better NBA translation than Parker’s bully ball. Perhaps he can have a career closer to his physical doppelganger Zach LaVine, who was chosen later in the 2014 lottery.

But Green is much smaller than Parker and there are so many scenarios where he is just dreadful on defense without offering much more than scoring offensively, he has a nasty downside tail and his upside is capped at the Zach LaVine/Devin Booker tier, which is not good enough to win a championship as your best player.

Booker needed MVP candidate Chris Paul, a quality big in former #1 overall pick DeAndre Ayton, and a strong cast of quality role players just to be a 2nd tier contender who was able to make the finals when every star player in their path got injured. He is a good player and contributed to the run to be sure, but you want to aim higher than a Booker best case at #2 overall, especially when it comes attached to a fair amount of bust risk.

The Rest of the Draft May Be Even Better

It would really be something to see a top 3 of 1. Cade 2. Green 3. Mobley perfectly mirror the Wiggins, Parker, Embiid top 3 of 2014. And even after that, there are some similarities.

Scottie Barnes, like Aaron Gordon is the big, toolsy wing with questionable shooting. Gordon is the more explosive athlete, but Barnes is longer with better PG skills. I would rate Barnes as the better prospect between the two based on pre-draft.

Jalen Suggs is the high IQ combo guard, similar to Marcus Smart. But he has a better first step with more offensive potential, which makes him the better pre-draft prospect than Smart.

We even have a young, tall point guard from Australia in Josh Giddey, who hopefully has a better NBA career than Dante Exum. Giddey is stylistically closer to Lonzo Ball than Exum, but is smoother with his movement as well as being the more skillful passer. He has a certain wizardry to his passing, as he not only is exceptionally high IQ with great vision, but is also highly accurate and passes like he has the ball on the string. He has limited tools and scoring which give him a wide range of future outcomes, but his passing is so outlier good for his height and youth he clearly has a nice upside tail.

Later in the lottery, we have a one dimensional mid-major shooter Corey Kispert playing the role of Doug McDermott being slotted far above where his talent level merits.

International Man of Mystery

The 2014 draft was also loaded with awesome international bigs. I ranked Jusuf Nurkic and Clint Capela 5th and 6th ahead of Parker and Wiggins, and Nikola Jokic 16th. This year there is only one elite big but he is better than all of them: Alperen Sengun.

But the trouble is that they were all true centers, whereas Sengun is more of an old school PF. Is he more of a Julius Randle, who in spite of quality box score production, does not fit the modern NBA and will turn into a pumpkin in the playoffs?

In some ways Sengun is similar to Randle, but he also offers more than 2x the steal and block rates (2.6/5.9 vs 1.0/2.6) almost 2x the assist:TOV ratio (1.11 vs 0.57), a wetter jump shot (79.4% FT vs 70.6%), and much better interior scoring (67.4% 2P vs 51.7%) on higher usage (26.7 vs 25.5). All while playing in a better league at 8 months younger.

At the time I argued that Randle is just not an interesting mold, and even if he posts good stats he may not be that useful in the NBA. And it is an interesting debate where he should rank in a re-draft. I ranked him #22, which feels too low based on his recent season in NYK. But that was after his initial team let him walk for nothing when New Orleans signed him for the mid level exception. So perhaps it was a reasonable place to rate him, as there is no clear answer.

Regardless, it’s fascinating how much the market has adjusted since then. Randle went 7th overall and was considered a reasonable or even good pick by most at the time. Now Sengun is a massively suped up version with much more perimeter qualities and hope on defense, yet he isn’t even projected to go in the lottery.

At this point it doesn’t seem that most people are critically thinking about the ways in which Sengun can provide value to a team, and are just blindly fading him based on his perceived mold.

It is completely reasonable to dock his value for having questions about how he fits into the modern NBA, but based on just the #’s he is the clear #1 pick in this draft. You are heavily shorting his mold just by dropping him out of the top 5. Dropping him out of the top 10 seems like a clear overreaction to the recent trends in the modern NBA.

Trends Don’t Last Forever

It is crazy how much has changed in the past 7 years after the Warriors built the death lineup around Steph Curry and Draymond Green, and the rest of the league started adapting to combat them. Now that the Warriors are no longer a contender, the small ball trend has continued, and may continue indefinitely.

But that doesn’t mean that the momentum cannot slightly swing back toward bigs whether it be with small rule changes such as reducing fouls on non-basketball moves. Or perhaps a new super team emerges, which causes a shift back the other way.

Imagine if Mobley and Sengun were paired together. They would be a perfect duo on defense– Sengun cleans up the glass and puts a body on stronger bigs in the post, while Mobley handles the rim protection. Offensively, you have two bigs who can handle, pass, shoot, and score inside. Sengun should be an especially good floor spacer, while Mobley can at least make an open shot.

When you have that level of creation, passing, finishing, and shooting from your two bigs, it is ridiculously easy to build a good offense. It will be especially difficult for small lineups to match up with them, even though Sengun is short for a 5 and Mobley is skinny, their passing and interior scoring could collectively provide nightmares for a team that needs to put a big wing on either one of them. As of now almost every starting lineup in the NBA would need to do this.

It may be hard to believe that a great offense can come from somewhere other than wing or guard with a great first step, but let’s bear in mind that the Nuggets won a playoff series against Portland with a monster 123.4 ORtg in spite of having a guard rotation of Austin Rivers, Facundo Campazzo, Monte Morris, and Markus Howard. Michael Porter Jr. is a great shooter but nothing close to a point forward, and Aaron Gordon is not a volume creator.

Jokic is the MVP and one of the best offensive bigs of all time, but based on pre-draft Sengun clearly has more offensive talent and Mobley arguably does too. Even without either peaking nearly as high as Jokic, you can still build a really awesome offense around those two. Sengun may give a decent bit back on defense, but if he proves adept at guarding the perimeter, it would be over for the rest of the NBA.

And if teams are forced to match up with two bigs who provide those sort of matchup issues offensively, playing two bigs may start to become more commonplace once again. And if it does not, they can destroy the rest of the league with any decent supporting guards and wings.

Summary

By far the two drafts that I have been most motivated to scout film and generate content for have been 2014 and 2021, and there is a good reason for that– because they had the biggest inefficiencies at the top.

And the source of current inefficiencies is this obsession with mold. Which matters to some extent, as I noted in my 2014 writeups on Julius Randle. But at this point it has gotten so extreme that a significant portion of the basketball world is lazily grouping players into buckets without any further analysis for what they actually do on the floor.

Even though consensus should be getting sharper 7 years later, in certain ways it may be getting duller.

This is especially the case since at least Wiggins in 2014 had a clear argument for #1 with Embiid’s injury. He was actually better than Jabari Parker. Aaron Gordon and Marcus Smart proved to be better, but they are still mere role players.

Now this year, Mobley is healthier than Embiid, Suggs has more potential than Smart, Barnes has more potential than Gordon, Giddey may be better than Exum, Sengun is drastically better than Randle, and there isn’t even a Franz Wagner super role player in the mix. So the prizes at the top all offer possibly much richer payoffs, yet Cade is even more firmly entrenched in #1 than Wiggins was. This is not an efficient market.

At this point you cannot get ahead of the curve by going all in on wing creators and all out on anybody over 6’9. The recent trends toward small ball have been so fast and furious, at this point lineups cannot plausibly trend any smaller. And even if they tread water at current levels, elite bigs are still elite and mediocre wings are still mediocre.

The NBA has been a big centered game for 60+ years. There has been a vicious correction over the past 7 years, which should stay to a significant extent. But at this point it is safe to say that the correction is over, and even after all of that elite bigs are still elite and mediocre wings are still mediocre. At this point you cannot get ahead of the curve by overvaluing wings and disregarding bigs, but you can create elite opportunities for other teams who are interested in elite basketball players.

Evan Mobley Moves and Thinks with Surgical Precision

12 Monday Jul 2021

Posted by deanondraft in NCAA

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

evan mobley

Evan Mobley is currently projected to go #3 overall, as he is a fluid and mobile 7’0 that offers a bit of everything.

The areas where he stands out in particular are with his passing and defense. He reads the defense very well, and every time he is double teamed he quickly swings it to the open shooter. And he was rim protector for the 6th best defense in the NCAA, and did so with an unprecedented ability to avoid fouls.

Let’s take a look at how his passing, rim protection, and foul rates compare to past top 5 big prospects at a similar age:

	Age	AST%	A:TO	BLK%	PF/40	BLK:PF
Evan Mobley	19.6	14.1	1.20	8.8	2.1	1.64
DeAndre Ayton	19.5	10.2	0.83	6.1	2.8	0.81
Jaren Jackson Jr.	18.3	9.3	0.63	14.3	5.9	0.95
Karl Anthony-Towns	19.1	11.6	0.83	11.5	5	0.77
Kristaps Porzingis	19.4	5.2	0.38	5.2	4.9	0.40
Joel Embiid	19.8	11.5	0.58	11.7	6.3	0.77
Anthony Davis	18.8	7.5	1.22	13.7	2.4	2.38
Greg Oden	18.9	5	0.33	12.7	3.8	1.21
Al Horford	19.6	15.1	1.04	6.9	4.5	0.70
Tyrus Thomas	19.4	10.4	0.71	11.9	5	1.21
Andrew Bogut	20.1	18.2	0.85	6.2	5.8	0.83
Emeka Okafor	19.3	4.4	0.57	12.7	3.5	1.57
Chris Bosh	18.8	7.9	0.53	6.7	3	0.92

Mobley is in the conversation for best passing big of the top 20 years, as he only gets edged out in assist rate by sophomores Horford and Bogut, and atones with a better assist to turnover ratio.

He does not have quite the block rate as most of the stud rim protectors, but atones with his lack of fouling. The only prospect who showed a better ability to block without fouling is Anthony Davis, who was a clear top 3 prospect of the past 20 years.

Davis was also younger with better steals and rebounds and more explosive athleticism, so Mobley isn’t on his level of generational prospect. But he holds up well when compared to everybody else on the list.

Among the other prospects who were able to accumulate more blocks than fouls: Greg Oden, Emeka Okafor, and Tyrus Thomas, none were close to Mobley as a passer or a shooter.

Mobley gives some of his goodness back by having a thin frame and being weaker on the glass than everybody on this list other than JJJ. But you can see he has some unique strengths to make him exciting

Team Success

Andy Enfield’s tenure at USC has been decent but unspectacular. He was hired in 2013-14, and after two rebuilding seasons he was able to get the Trojans perennially to the NCAA tournament bubble, ranging from #49 to #82 kenpom ranking among D1 teams for 5 seasons in a row. And the 20-21 season appeared to be no different, as they lost their top 4 players ranked by win shares from the 19-20 season with Evan’s brother Isaiah as the only decent returner. They replaced everybody else with a glut of ordinary low and mid-major role players, and their perimeter creation appeared to be sorely lacking.

But it worked for a couple of reasons. They had the 6th best defense in NCAA, in large part because having two intelligent bigs makes for a strong defensive foundation. And they overperformed their #24 block rate with the #2 defensive 2P%– a sign that Mobley’s good but non-elite block rate may understate his rim protection. Similar to Tim Duncan and Andrew Bogut, he prioritizes forcing difficult shots over trying to send every opponent shot attempt into the stands.

They also had the 14th best offense, which was particularly shocking for a team with such pedestrian perimeter talent. But mid-major transfers Drew Peterson and Tahj Eaddy were able to sustain similar usage and assist rates as they did for their mid-major teams in 19-20 with a slight bump in efficiency for Peterson and a huge jump for Eaddy.

This is incredibly rare as most mid-major transfers see a significant drop in offensive output when they move up to high major. Peterson and Eaddy deserve credit for improving, but this level of performance likely would not be possible without two intelligent passing big men to make life easier for the guards and wings.

Consequently, USC ended up with by far the best team in Andy Enfield’s career, finishing as the #6 kenpom team and making a surprising elite 8 run.

Everybody talks about how bad Cade Cunningham’s teammates are, but every half-decent computer model rated Oklahoma State as the better team entering the season as he had relatively decent high major teammates. Evan Mobley was the top prospect who had the clearly most flawed cast, yet he was able to carry them much further than expected by several orders of magnitude.

Comps

Chris Bosh

The most obvious comp to Mobley is Chris Bosh, who shares a similar physical profile and looks like he could be Mobley’s biological father:

	Age	USG	2P%	FT%	OR%	DR%	AST%	STL%	BLK%
Mobley	19.6	23.6	0.615	0.694	9.7	18.9	14.1	1.4	8.8
Bosh	18.8	22.5	0.576	0.73	10.8	20.8	7.9	1.8	6.7

Bosh was 9 months younger and showed slightly better rebounding and shooting (also attempted 1.9 3’s per 40 vs 1.4 for Mobley), but otherwise Mobley looks good with better passing, rim protection, and slightly better usage and efficiency.

Mobley is right on the cusp where he can maybe develop into a good shooter or maybe not, and this will obviously make a significant swing on his NBA value. But Bosh never became a reliable NBA shooter until his final few seasons. Mobley’s passing and rim protection advantages are so significant, if they were both in this draft he would likely deserve the edge as the better pick.

It’s close enough such that it’s not clear whether his median outcome will be better or worse than Bosh. And when that can be said about a comparison to a hall of fame player, that’s a good sign that Mobley is a worthy #1 overall.

Jaren Jackson Jr.

Another recent skinny big prospect who has some parallels is Jaren Jackson Jr.

	Age	USG	2P%	FT%	OR%	DR%	AST%	STL%	BLK%
Mobley	19.6	23.6	0.615	0.694	9.7	18.9	14.1	1.4	8.8
JJJ	18.3	22.9	0.596	0.797	8.7	19.7	9.3	1.6	14.3

They are similar rebounding, and JJJ is the better shooter with better FT% and a higher 3PA rate of which he made 39.6% while being more than a full year younger. JJJ had more blocks, but Mobley had a small fraction of the foul rate, fouling 2.1 times per 40 compared to 5.9 for JJJ..

Personally I was extremely high on JJJ, and with his youthful upside it would have been difficult to take Mobley ahead of him. Especially since prospects with NBA fathers tend to out perform their draft stock, and Jaren Sr. outperformed himself going from undrafted free agent to useful rotation player for the championship Spurs.

Jaren Jr.’s rebounding, assist, and foul rates were all flags, but it made sense that he should improve his rebounding as he filled out and improve his assist and foul rates with repetition and experience, but none of that has happened.

In part this may be attributed to being hampered by injuries, and he at least showed an improved rebounding rate this past season. And he is not a bust by any stretch, as he is still a useful 21 year old player with plenty of upside to grow.

Mobley at least offers a safer and more polished prospect. He won’t be the same shooter as Jaren, but his superior passing and ability to avoid fouls are nice features that should make his NBA translation more seamless.

It is difficult to draw any strong conclusions from Jackson thus far, but he is a bit of a cautionary tale to show that Mobley is not a lock to be a stud– especially if he struggles to rebound in the NBA as much as Jackson has.

Joel Embiid

Embiid is much bigger and bulkier than Mobley, but they both have the coordination of ballerinas which is especially enticing in a talented 7 footer:

	Age	USG	2P%	FT%	OR%	DR%	AST%	STL%	BLK%
Mobley	19.6	23.6	0.615	0.694	9.7	18.9	14.1	1.4	8.8
Embiid	19.8	24.7	0.639	0.685	12.7	27.3	11.5	2.2	11.7

Embiid’s major strength advantage shows in his vastly superior rebound rate, and he is no doubt the better raw talent than Mobley in a vaccum.

But Mobley makes up for this by being better at playing under control, with a significantly lower turnover (3.9 vs 5.9) and foul rate (3.1 vs 8.5) per 100. This is what him makes such a rare prospect– he is both physically capable of moving under control, and mentally capable of playing under control. In tandem this lends itself to elite levels of efficiency and positive team level impact.

Assuming full health, it is close between the two. But given Embiid’s significant health flags, Mobley would be the easy choice on draft night.

Tim Duncan/Kevin Garnett

Kevin Garnett is more physically similar to Mobley, but Duncan is the one with the college sample thus he will be the one who gets compared. Amazingly, Duncan was the same age as a junior as Mobley was as a freshman, so let’s compare that season, as it relatively falls in line with his overall college trajectory. Stats per 40 minutes:

	Age	2PA	2P%	FTA	FT%	TRB	AST	TOV	STL	BLK	PF
Mobley	19.6	10.8	0.615	6.9	0.694	10.2	2.8	2.6	0.9	3.4	2.1
Duncan	19.7	13	0.57	7.3	0.687	13.3	3.1	3.5	0.7	4	2.4

It’s stunning how similar these guys are. Timmy has a bit more post game and edges out scoring volume at 20.6 pts per 40 vs 19.3 for Mobley. But Mobley compensates with better 2P%, lower TOV, and slightly better shooting.

Their assist, steal, block, free throw, and foul rates are more or less identical, and really the only area where Duncan stands out is due to his superior rebounding. In tandem with his thin frame, it is Mobley’s one nagging flaw and it is difficult to assess how much it matters.

On the bright side, Duncan never improved as a shooter, making 69.6% FT and 17.9% 3P in his NBA career. If Mobley develops into a real NBA 3 point threat, he can help atone for his lack of beef and rebounding.

The Rebounding Conundrum

Mobley’s only flaw is his thin frame and lack of rebounding, and there are different ways to look at it.

The downside is that Jaren Jackson Jr. posted similar NCAA rebound rates to Mobley, but has been an anemic 4.6%/14.4% O/D rebounder in the NBA thus far. If Mobley proves to be as soft inside as JJJ, he could be disappointing.

The upside is the two recent USC bigs to make the NBA have seamlessly translated their NCAA rebounding to the pros in limited NBA samples thus far: Onyeka Okongwu 12.4/18.4 NCAA to 12.0/17.9 NBA (including playoffs), Chimezie Metu 7.8/18.6 NCAA to 7.7/19.4 NBA.

So if we are being optimistic: Kevin Garnett was a month older as NBA rookie than Mobley as a USC freshman and posted slightly worse rebound rates: 9.1/17.0 that dipped further as sophomore to 7.6/16.8, before creeping up as he filled out and eventually became a very good rebounder in his prime.

If Mobley both sees his rebound translate well to the NBA and he consistently improves over time like Garnett, he can be a top 10 all-time great like Garnett and Duncan. This is an unlikely outcome, but in tandem with the possibility that he can also shoot 3’s better than Garnett and Duncan, this level of greatness cannot be ruled for Mobley.

The more realistic outcome is that he is a slightly different version of Chris Bosh, which is still a hall of fame level player worthy of a #1 overall choice.

And even if he falls short and is closer to a Jaren Jackson Jr. type– that is still a highly useful NBA player.

It is difficult to see how anybody else can be justified as the #1 overall pick. Mobley has the highest upside, median, and floor of anybody in the draft. His current ESPN projected at #3 overall is starting to feel like 2014 again– as the warty and overhyped wing Cade Cunningham plays the role of Andrew Wiggins and empty calories volume scorer Jalen Green plays the role of Jabari Parker in Zach LaVine’s body.

Cunningham and Green can have much better careers than Wiggins and Parker respectively, but you cannot take either over the elite 7 footer who moves like a ballerina and expect favorable results. At least in 2014, GM’s had the excuse of fretting over Embiid’s foot injury that delayed his eventual NBA debut by 2 seasons. In 2021 there is no injury excuse– you either take Mobley, or run the risk of setting your franchise back for years to come.

Four Factors of Cade Cunningham’s Offense

12 Monday Jul 2021

Posted by deanondraft in NCAA

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

alperen sengun, cade cunningham, franz wagner, jalen suggs, scottie barnes

Any generational prospect should be able to compare favorably to other similar prospects. Cade Cunningham has great dimensions, frame, and shooting ability, but let’s see how he stacks up to past top 3 picks who were teenage offensive hubs at wing or guard.

In this case we will look at 2P% since that is more predictive of creation ability and less noisy than eFG%, assist to turnover ratio which more informative than raw TOV%, as well as offensive rebounding and free throw drawing over the past 20 drafts.

Year	Prospect	Age	2P%	AST:TO	OR%	FTr
2021	Cade Cunningham	19.3	0.461	0.86	2.3	0.39
2021	Scottie Barnes	19.4	0.561	1.66	7.4	0.339
2021	Jalen Suggs	19.6	0.588	1.55	2.7	0.367
2020	Anthony Edwards	18.4	0.504	1.05	2.5	0.338
2019	RJ Barrett	18.5	0.529	1.33	4.8	0.319
2019	Ja Morant	19.4	0.545	1.95	4.1	0.51
2019	Zion Williamson	18.5	0.747	0.87	12.7	0.467
2017	Jayson Tatum	18.8	0.504	0.82	4.8	0.381
2017	Markelle Fultz	18.6	0.502	1.85	4	0.383
2016	Ben Simmons	19.4	0.561	1.42	9.6	0.769
2016	Brandon Ingram	18.3	0.464	1	6	0.351
2016	Jaylen Brown	19.2	0.482	0.65	4.5	0.574
2015	D’Angelo Russell	18.8	0.479	1.72	3.6	0.303
2014	Andrew Wiggins	18.9	0.493	0.68	8.4	0.538
2012	Bradley Beal	18.5	0.541	1.05	4.8	0.44
2010	John Wall	19.3	0.504	1.62	2.6	0.53
2009	James Harden	19.3	0.564	1.25	5.4	0.597
2008	Derrick Rose	19.3	0.521	1.77	5	0.47
2008	OJ Mayo	20.2	0.464	0.93	3.9	0.284
2007	Kevin Durant	18.3	0.505	0.46	9	0.396
2003	Carmelo Anthony	18.6	0.496	1	8.9	0.389
	Average	19.0	0.525	1.21	5.6	0.435

These guys are all in a roughly 1 year age range outside of old man OJ Mayo, and Cade is in the upper portion of that range. Among this group he rates dead last in 2P% and offensive rebounding rate, and is solidly below average in assist to turnover and free throw rate.

Scottie Barnes and Jalen Suggs are both projected outside of the top 3 in this year’s draft but they absolutely destroy Cade as efficient offensive hubs in terms of 2P% and assist:TOV ratio.

Even prospects seen as decidedly non-elite such as Anthony Edwards and RJ Barrett were better at everything except having a slightly lower free throw rate while being nearly a full year younger. Cade is bigger and better at shooting, but his basketball playing ability is not clearly above these guys by any means. Yet neither received a fraction of the hype and adoration that Cade has garnered.

Cade has been compared to Ben Simmons with a jump shot, which is ridiculous since Simmons demolishes him in all 4 categories.

Cade has also been compared to a bigger James Harden, which is also comical since Harden destroys him in all 4 categories. And Harden also destroyed him in all 4 as a freshman when he was nearly a full year younger.

Athletic guards like Bradley Beal, John Wall, Derrick Rose, and Ja Morant topped him in all 4 categories and Markelle Fultz was only a hair behind in FT rate.

Jayson Tatum is the only player that Cade edges out in 2 categories with better assist to turnover and free throw rate by a hair each while being about half a year older. And unlike the rest of the list, Cade is not bigger or better at shooting than Tatum. And Tatum was not perceived as a can’t miss star entering the draft by any stretch.

Brandon Ingram has similar dimensions and was a full year younger than Cade trumping him at all categories except slightly lower free throw rate, and he still was bad at NBA basketball for 3 seasons before figuring it out.

Jaylen Brown is an outlier NCAA statistical overperformer, yet he still trumps Cade in 3 of 4 categories.

Cade was a better NCAA shooter than Tatum, Ingram, and Brown, but each of those three makes 38-40% NBA 3P– what are the odds that Cade is significantly better than them as a pro? He could be one of the all time great NBA shooters, but it’s very rare for high usage guys outside of Steph to make > 40% from 3.

OJ Mayo is a bit older than this group, but his statistical profile to highly similar to Cade. He dominated high school by being physically developed early, then showed up to NCAA with less athleticism than anticipated but still did fairly well by being an OK enough creator and knockdown shooter at 41% 3P 80% FT. If Cade is a bigger OJ Mayo, that’s a useful NBA player, but is it really a guy you take top 3?

Carmelo Anthony profiles similarly to Cade physically and stylistically as an iso scorer who relies on his jump shooting. But he crushes Cade on rebounds, with solidly better 2P% and assist:TOV while being 8 months younger and leading Syracuse to an NCAA title. Melo wasn’t the most efficient fellow in the NBA, so if Cade is a less efficient version of the same thing– is he really worth a top 3 pick?

The Limit of Shooting

While shooting is a vitally important part of basketball, it is its own skill in isolation and does not connect to other parts of the game. Especially not the physical or cerebral ones that lend themselves to greatness.

Players like Dirk and Durant have been able to dominate with shooting using their elite height and reach to get their shot off whenever they want. But Cade doesn’t have that same reach, and is going to need to rely on his basketball playing ability.

And if you watch him play, there are multiple issues that come up. He is not crafty or explosive enough to create many easy attempts for himself, and often bullies his way as close to the rim as possible until pulling up for a difficult contested shot.

While he is a willing passer who moves the ball in transition and sees the floor well, he is only a good but not great passer and detracts with turnovers as his loose handle often gets stripped and he frequently throws sloppy passes away.

He has a rudimentary approach to offense where he loves to spam the pass or shoot button without putting much thought into the quality of shot that ensues. In tandem with his loose handle, this leads to frequent turnovers for himself as well as his teammates who often receive his passes in difficult 1 on 2 situations.

These flaws would all be easier to forgive if he was more physically dominant, but he rebounds offensively as well as a small guard and gets to the line at an ordinary rate. He does not have the best motor or effort, and does not atone for his offensive mistakes with defensive dominance, and it is not clear that he is on track to become an above average defensive player in the NBA.

These sum to fairly significant flaws, and are not typical concerns for a top 3 pick let alone a consensus #1 overall.

Do the Numbers Reflect Reality?

To some extent he was in a suboptimal situation playing for a not so good NCAA coach surrounded by mostly defensive talent, but that is the case for most elite prospects. NCAA coaches and offenses are typically not good, but the true studs find a way to stuff the stat sheet anyhow.

There is some small possibility that he was affected by the pandemic, which caused him to underperform in the mental aspects of the game relative to his prior expectations. You would need to strongly believe that some combination of COVID and suboptimal situation dimmed his output to even think about him at #1.

But there is the other possibility that the guy has a basic operating system that was in effective in high school where he physically developed sooner than his peers and often was playing on all-star teams that could outrun everybody in transition. And now taking the step up to NCAA against guys physically closer to him, his limited basketball IQ is getting exposed. This is something that happens much more frequently to hyped prospects than having their talent hidden by poor NCAA situations, so it is the most likely explanation for his performance.

Also it is worth noting that if you want to give extra weight to his priors for other aspects, it is also worth considering he significantly outperformed his expectation as a shooter. If he shoots like his NCAA self and plays like his high school self he will be very good, but if he shoots like his high school self and plays like his NCAA self, he is going to be massively disappointing.

Is Cade Obviously Top 3 in this Draft?

Cade offers some major warts that are not typically stomached by top 3 picks, so why is beyond the shadow of a doubt in the top 3 in this draft? Because his shooting is THAT valuable? Because we are that certain that his situation dragged down his numbers in a way that has yet to happen with past top 3 picks? An explanation would be nice, because there is nothing on film or in his stat sheet that makes anything obvious other than he has a fairly easy path to a decent NBA starter.

But even that is far from a lock if he is going to be developed into a suckier Carmelo Anthony rather than a bigger Klay Thompson who provides elite 3 + D support.

Evan Mobley plays with a surgical precision in terms of his movement and decision making that obviously trumps Cade’s style of bludgeoning you to death with difficult shot attempts. He is hands down the better prospect.

It seems that some people have accepted that Mobley is better or it is close. But that’s where it ends. The idea that Cade might not be top 2 is a taboo idea in a world where prospects like RJ Barrett and Anthony Edwards were relentlessly bashed for warts arguably less significant than what Cade brings to the table.

Why do we need to take him over Jalen Suggs, who is cerebrally multiple tiers above Cade as well as more athletic and efficient? Cade is bigger and better at shooting, but it is not clear that this is more valuable.

Why do we need to take him above Scottie Barnes who is physically superior with slightly better dimensions, and far better offensive efficiency and defensive effort? Cade has a major shooting advantage and Barnes has nasty flaws in his defensive fundamentals that need improvement, but you are more likely to get a superstar from a guy like Barnes who needs to learn to shoot than a guy like Cade who can already shoot but needs to learn how to play.

Even after those guys, Franz Wagner offers pristine decision making and defensive play while having better dimensions than Cade and not being clearly worse at shooting. Cade had a better shooting signal this season, but Franz has made > 80% FT and taken a decent rate of 3PA since he was 16, and this is the first season that Cade did either.

Cade theoretically has more upside because of his creation that is less efficient than any top 3 pick basically ever. But why do we NEED to gamble on inefficient creation just in case it becomes efficient, especially in a non-elite athlete lacking a strong first step. They are the same age, and there is zero question that Franz is the better player right now. Per 100 stats:

	2P	2PA	3P	3PA	FT	FTA	AST	TOV
Franz	5.9	10.5	2.3	6.8	4.4	5.3	5.6	2.4
Cade	6.5	14	3.6	8.9	7.6	8.9	5.4	6.2

You are basically stomaching an extra 3.8 Cade turnovers and 3.5 2PA than mostly brick for what? 2.1 more 3PA and 3.6 FTA? It’s not apples to apples since Michigan is a better offense with a better coach and Cade is playing a more difficult role, but come on now. Cade’s creation is mostly just more bricks and turnovers than Franz, and Franz is essentially a lock to be better defensively. If Cade isn’t a significantly better shooter who figures out how to navigate defenses that can match up with him athletically over time, he isn’t going to be a more useful NBAer than Franz.

I have already written about Cade’s numbers paling in comparison to those of Alperen Sengun, but let’s revisit since looking at their numbers side by side is so fascinating

Prospect	Age	eFG%	A:TO	OR%	FTr
Cade	19.3	0.515	0.86	2.3	0.39
Sengun	18.4	0.641	1.11	17.5	0.61

It is inherently more efficient to run offense through a perimeter ball handler like Cade rather than a post player like Sengun, but can anybody look at these numbers with a straight face and say that Cade is a clear favorite to be the better offensive player in the NBA?

And the crazy thing is Sengun isn’t even that far behind as a shooter and has superior steal and block rates. It is not clear who projects to be the better defensive player. Frankly is it not clear that Cade projects to be better at Sengun at anything outside of shooting, where Sengun could close the gap in time.

Wing Creators are Only Valuable when they are Good

There seems to be an assumption that because Cade was the #1 RSCI that he is an elite wing creator, and that all of his shortcomings can be attributed to bad teammates. But that is just not something that happens to prospects who are good enough to run an NBA offense based on every comparison that can be found in the past 20 years.

The most analogous prospect to Cade in terms of both distribution of strengths and weaknesses and playing situation is likely Khris Middleton. He played for Texas A&M who thrived on bully ball and defense, as their offense was driven by offensive rebounds and free throws with mediocre shot making and turnover rates during his sophomore season– much like Oklahoma State.

Prospect	Age	2P%	A:TO	OR%	FTr
Cade	19.3	0.461	0.86	2.3	0.39
Khris	19.4	0.492	1.04	8.2	0.418

Yet Middleton was slightly better across the board at the same age and still slid to round 2. This is in part because he was hidden by starting college early as a young freshman and battling injuries and bad 3P% variance as a junior when he missed 12 games and shot 26% behind the arc.

Cade was a much better NCAA shooter, but Middleton is a career 40% 3P, 88% FT shooter in the NBA, and it is not likely Cade is better by any significant margin.

But even based on his NBA success, he definitely was never a #1 overall talent. He is a highly useful secondary piece who provides a nice intersection of shooting, passing, and defense to be a low end all-star, but is only in the NBA finals because he is playing alongside 2x MVP Giannis.

And based on the numbers, Cade is a clear underdog to be as good as Middleton in the NBA. If you give extra weight to his priors and slightly better dimensions, then perhaps he is only a small underdog to be Middleton, but that is not the type of player you target at #1 overall.

This is especially true that when he is being drafted to be a primary creator instead of a complementary piece, which makes it more likely that he follows a suboptimal developmental path. This is what happened to Andrew Wiggins when he was overused as an inefficient high volume creator.

So when you are running the risk of getting a guy who is technically NBA caliber but somewhat gross to max like a different flavor of Andrew Wiggins, taller OJ Mayo, or less efficient Carmelo Anthony in the hopes of landing Khris Middleton or at best Jayson Tatum, but zero chance of Luka or Harden. That is not a guy who obviously belongs in the top 3, let alone #1 overall.

This Lottery is Good

It would be one thing to lock in Cade as #1 in a draft like last year where nobody really stood out in a sea of mediocrity. But this year has so many more interesting options at the top. Mobley is a legit #1 candidate, and then Suggs, Barnes, Franz, and Sengun are all nice consolation prizes.

Cade’s priors should count for something, especially in light of the pandemic adding randomness to the season. We cannot assume his NCAA performance was indicative of his precise self, so perhaps he is the correct #2 overall.

But at the same time, his NCAA warts were so nasty both on the stat sheet and on film, that it is difficult to treat his goodness with any certainty. It is simply not clear that he is one of the best 5 prospects in a talented lottery.

This may sound like a hot take at face value, but the only past top 3 pick who really shared his distribution of strengths and weaknesses was OJ Mayo, and he even pales in comparison to 2nd rounder Khris Middleton. So the real hot take is consensus’s idea that he is a clear #1 overall, as there is no information that even remotely supports the notion.

Is Trey Murphy a Stretch 4 Sleeper?

07 Wednesday Jul 2021

Posted by deanondraft in NCAA

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Matthew Hurt, Trey Murphy

Virginia guard Trey Murphy to sign with agent, forgo eligibility

Trey Murphy has been skyrocketing up draft boards, rising from a largely unknown mid-major transfer from Rice last offseason to #21 overall in ESPN’s latest mock after an impressive junior season with Virginia.

At a glance, it is easy to see why. He shot 92.7% FT and 43.3% from 3 for the Cavs with a lightning quick release, he has excellent wing dimensions at 6’9″ with 7’0″ wingspan, and NBA athleticism with 23 dunks on the season out his total 32 made shots at the rim. He also seems to have good intangibles on top of checking some major boxes for a modern NBA 3 + D role player.

After seeing the success of Cam Johnson and Duncan Robinson, it makes sense why he would be an appetizing target after the high upside lottery picks are off the table.

But he also comes with some frustrating warts which makes him enigmatic. He is extremely skinny, and in spite of his dimensions and athleticism he rebounds like a guard. He also has close to zero ball skills, and is almost a complete non-threat to attack off the dribble.

Now one may say– who care if he creates? You can have your guards create shots for him and he will provide elite spacing gravity to help them out. But it isn’t that simple. In the last 5 possessions of Virginia’s 1 point loss to Duke, he was guarded by Duke’s worst defensive player 6’1″ Jeremy Roach. Virginia didn’t even attempt to attack the possible mismatch once, and they struggled to create offense, scoring only 2 points in the final 5 possessions.

This raises the question– how valuable is his spacing gravity if he cannot even exploit a mismatch by a bad defensive NCAA PG? If his shooting is going to turn games into a 4 on 4 minus the other team’s worst defensive player, that negates much of the value of his shooting ability.

The other concern is that whether he can actually hang defensively in the NBA. He is mobile and active, but Virginia often tries to hide him on the worst opposing offensive player. Which may seem OK since Virginia has historically elite defenses, but this is the first time in 8 years that they had a defense rated lower than #7 in Kenpom as they dropped all the way to #36 overall with more offensive minded personnel.

Murphy seems to have been one of the weaker links, as he rebounds like a guard with pedestrian steal and block rates. He also was prone to lapses in awareness, as he was caught napping for backdoor cuts, including a crucial bucket with Virginia’s season on the line. He moves his feet well defensively, but he was not often tested by quality matchups as Virginia often hid him on weak opponents, but his thin frame makes him prone to getting bullied. If he has to match up with NBA wings, how much does it help to move his feet well if they can push him around at will?

Also he struggled to figure out how to guard a shooter like Buddy Boeheim, often getting blown by out of respect for his shooting ability, even though Boeheim is not known for his first step or creation ability.

Before anybody drafts Murphy in round 1, they need to seriously consider the risk that he is bad at all aspects of the game other than shooting. How sharp can it be to draft a prospect in round 1 who as an NCAA junior often matched up with the opponents’ worst offensive player AND worst defensive player?

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Murphy can’t eventually become a useful NBA player. Let’s compare him to Duncan Robinson and Cam Johnson at similar ages:

	Age	USG	ORtg	OR%	DR%	AST%	STL%	BLK%
Duncan	21.7	17.4	123.6	2.5	12.1	12.1	1.3	1.2
Cam	20.8	16.4	120.7	2.5	12.8	14.4	1.7	1
Trey	20.5	17.3	127.9	2.8	11.7	8.2	1.8	1.8

They are all very similar, and we definitely cannot rule out Murphy becoming that level of role player. But if there is one signal that enabled Cam and Duncan to make it in the NBA that may preclude Murphy, it’s their relatively significant advantages in assist rate indicating superior ball skills. Even though they are not often asked to create off the dribble, being able to attack closeouts and exploit mismatches is a crucial baseline skill to function in an NBA offense, and there is some clear risk that Murphy is so poor at this that it detracts from all of the positive value his shooting offers.

Both Duncan and Cam stayed for two more years, and Cam continued to improve while Duncan saw a dip in both his rebound and assist rates, as he was relegated to more of a spot up role once Michigan improved their creation in the backcourt. So it is not clear that Robinson is a better prospect than Murphy, as Trey could feasibly catch up to his ball skills in time. But Robinson also went undrafted for good reason, as there was no clear signal that he would be a useful NBA player at the time.

Further, Murphy’s assist rate for mid-major Rice was a paltry 8.5% last season, so he cannot share the excuse that he was surrounded by too much offensive talent to show off his creation ability. He needs to improve, possibly by a significant margin.

Collectively, it’s difficult to make the case that Murphy is on the same level of prospect of Cam Johnson. And even though it worked out, it still can be questioned whether Johnson was an intelligent gamble at #11 overall. He hit his absolute upside and is still just the 7th man for Phoenix, and hardly an integral piece to their playoff run.

Duncan Robinson’s level of goodness seems more clearly attainable for Murphy, and even then it’s worth questioning how good exactly that may be. Robinson looked like an UDFA steal last season making an otherworldly 44.6% from 3, this season after dropping to an ordinary level of elite at 40.8%, it is not clear that he is more than an ordinary rotation player.

And without many examples of similar one dimensional shooters making themselves useful NBA players, there is the substantial risk that Murphy is outright busts like everybody imagined Duncan Robinson would.

If we say Murphy’s range of outcomes is likely somewhere on the scale of bust to being a role player on the level of a one of a kind UDFA, is that really worth investing a first round pick?

Who is the real stretch 4 sleeper?

It is interesting that a mid-major transfer is getting first round hype, while there is a similar prospect projected to late in round 2 at #55 who was a former 5* recruit: Matthew Hurt.

Hurt’s stock suffers because of his limited physical tools, as he is below average in quickness and athleticism, and measured with a wingspan equal to his height at 6’9.5″. He also has a doughy physique with 15.2% body fat, and physically does not look the part of NBA player. But him and Trey have some strong similarities in statistical output:

	Age	USG	ORtg	OR%	DR%	AST%	STL%	BLK%
Trey	20.5	17.3	127.9	2.8	11.7	8.2	1.8	1.8
Hurt	20.6	21	130.1	5.3	17.1	8.6	1.3	2.1

Hurt’s big advantage here are competent rebounding and a semblance of offensive creation ability. His offense off the dribble is largely based on mid-range pullups and turnarounds, which is not the most exciting offense. But he nevertheless shot a higher 2P% than Murphy (63.9% vs 62%) on approximately double the 2PA, and has shown he can at least do something to punish the opponent if they try to hide an undersized guard on him.

Murphy is no doubt the better shooter. Hurt has the higher career 3P% (42.1 vs 40.1) but Murphy has a better 3PA/100 (12.3 vs 9.3) and FT% (81.9 vs 73.7) as well as a quicker release. But if Hurt is a bigger threat to attack off the dribble, and can sustain a similar efficiency on higher usage, it is difficult to argue that he is not the superior offensive prospect collectively.

Defensively, Hurt’s lack of physical tools could make him a major liability and keep him off the NBA court. But he is a better rebounder than Murphy, less liable to get pushed around, and is also a higher IQ defensive player as he has better awareness and understands how to position himself to contain penetration better. He definitely won’t be a good defensive player, but he has some chance of becoming passable on that end.

If we are comparing the two defensively, it’s fuzzy and unclear who will be better between Hurt or Murphy. Both guys have a range of unplayably bad to passable. Perhaps it is right to give Murphy the edge based on his 2.5″ better length and athleticism and mobility, as he could close the gap on Hurt’s defensive IQ but Hurt is always going to be limited physically. It stands to reason he has more outs to land on the passable side of the spectrum.

But it’s difficult to make Murphy any more than a slight fave to be better on defense with all of his warts, whereas Hurt’s case to be offensively superior is a bit more clear.

Ultimately it is fairly close between the two. Both guys have a shot of becoming useful rotation players, and neither guy is going to be a star. But it is difficult to make a clear case for Murphy being the better prospect, so why expend a first round pick on him if Hurt can be had in mid-late round 2 or possibly even UDFA?

It’s great to land a Duncan Robinson out of nowhere, and Murphy is live to be just as good. But it seems like an unnecessarily risky proposition to use a first rounder on him when Duncan himself was UDFA and we have shooting prospects like Hurt and Joe Wieskamp (#54 ESPN) projected in the late 2nd this year.

UPDATE— After typing this out, it’s tough to be convinced that Murphy is really good or bad. These are all decent reasons to be skeptical, but it is difficult to compare him to a negative example to offset the Duncan Robinson and Cam Johnson comps.

The fact of the matter is that guys who are 6’9″, elite at shooting, and not slow as molasses are exceptionally difficult to find. Perhaps that is the right intersection of strengths, and having a good defensive IQ or being able to beat NCAA defenses off the dribble or rebound at the high major level are all trivial relative to the rare intersection of strengths.

Ultimately there is no reason to have any conviction that Murphy is not a 1st round prospect, and I ended up ranking him significantly above Hurt on my final big board. I was tempted to delete this article because I didn’t agree with my own conclusion after taking a few days to digest it all, but I have never deleted anything from the site and there are still valid reasons to be cautious in valuing Murphy, regardless of whether he hits his upside or not.

Capture the Flag: Which Prospects Are Riskiest to Draft in 2021?

04 Sunday Jul 2021

Posted by deanondraft in NCAA

≈ 17 Comments

Tags

corey kispert, davion mitchell, josh primo, kai jones, tre mann

It’s all fun and good to try to predict the sleepers and value picks in the draft, but it is very difficult to know how players will develop. Even the top prospects with nasty warts such as Cade Cunningham and Jalen Green have clear all-star potential. The easiest way to get an edge in the draft is to just not draft the guys who aren’t talented enough to have any real upside and take anybody else projected in that range, so let’s run through them here.

Reddest Flag: Davion Mitchell 6’1″ PG Baylor, ESPN: #7

Know The Prospect: Davion Mitchell - Posting and Toasting

Currently projected to go #7 overall, Mitchell is considered a defensive stopper in the Patrick Beverley mold. He is nicknamed “off night” for his propensity to shut down his opposing matchup, and he has a quick first step, passable floor general skills, and showed off an improved 44.7% 3P shot as a junior, playing an integral role on Baylor’s championship teams.

But there are a few problems. First– there is a very low cap to the defense that 6’1 players provide. It is insane to target a Patrick Beverley in the lottery, because that just isn’t a high enough upside compared to the other players available. Second– if you are comparing a prospect to a one of a kind player like PatBev, they better measure similarly based on pre-draft.

Both guys are 6’1″, but Mitchell’s wingspan is 3″ shorter than PatBev’s at 6’4″ vs 6’7″ which is a bad start. Now let’s compare some of their college stats that indicate defensive potential based on Mitchell’s 2 seasons at Baylor vs PatBev’s 2 seasons at Arkansas:

	Age	OR%	DR%	STL%	BLK%	FTr
Davion	21.8	1.4	8.3	3	1.3	0.254
PatBev	19	4.1	14.5	2.6	1.3	0.396

Aside from the fact that Davion is 3 years older during this sample, he also gets destroyed at the physicality aspects of the game in rebounding and drawing free throws. While their steals and blocks are similar, if you look at Davion’s 19 year old freshman season when he was a similar age he was much worse at 1.7% STL 0.2% BLK.

Right away this makes it ridiculous to project a strong defensive output– if you are a small guy you need every factor in your favor to make an impact on this end. 3″ less length with significantly less physicality is enough to completely nullify this comparison. But let’s keep going, just for fun.

Now let’s compare PatBev’s 18 year old freshman season to Davion’s 21 year old junior year:

	Age	USG	ORtg	AST%	A:TO	TS%
Davion	21.3	19.1	100.5	22.3	1.70	0.503
PatBev	18.5	20.2	114.3	18.2	1.57	0.582

Beverley is not known for his offense, but at 3 years young absolutely destroyed Davion offensively. He took a step back as a sophomore, but was still 2 years younger and clearly better. He was painfully obviously the better prospect on both ends, yet he still slid to #42 overall because a 6’1″ 3 + D guy is a low upside target. Davion somehow being projected to go top 10 based on this comparison is nothing short of madness.

The counterargument in Davion’s favor is that he has A+ intangibles and made a big senior leap, so perhaps he can catch up over time. But a big part of that leap is his 3P% increasing from 32.4% to 44.7%, while his FT% slightly dropped from 66.2% to 64.1%. He improved his shooting to some extent, but it still not clear he is even an average NBA shooter.

It’s extremely difficult to find players as limited as Davion at age 21 who ended up becoming good NBA players. Most guys who break pre-draft stat models are young, physical monsters like Giannis or Jaylen Brown, not old 6’1″ guys with a large sample of being subpar by NBA standards.

The most offensively challenged upperclassman to become an NBA starter may have been Eric Snow who averaged just 6.8 points as a junior and 10.8 as a senior in seasons that straddled Davion’s junior age. If you average those seasons he is about 2 months younger than Davion, and he averaged 10.8 pts and 9 assists per 40 compared to 12.2 pts and 4.7 assists for Mitchell. He only scored slightly less, but had nearly double the assist rate on top of being 2″ taller and better rebound, steal, and free throw rates.

Snow isn’t a realistic Davion comp as he had significant size, passing, and defensive advantages and his lack of scoring was largely due to terrible shooting that he eventually improved.

If we are looking for 6’1″ offensively challenged guys, the best comps are Earl Watson and Chris Duhon. In this case we will be as generous as possible to Davion, and compare their per 40 minute senior seasons to the mean average of his junior and senior years:

	Age	Pts	REB	AST	TOV	STL	2P%	FT%	FTr
Duhon	21.3	11.3	4.6	6.9	3.2	2.5	0.514	0.722	0.292
Watson	21.6	16.9	4.2	6	3.9	2.2	0.556	0.636	0.401
Davion	21.8	14.6	3.3	5.4	2.9	2.1	0.519	0.653	0.254

First, both guys were better rebounders, got to the line more frequently, and had slightly higher steal rates which all imply better physicality and defense. Then if we disregard Davion’s fluky 3P%, his offense does not stand out as superior to these guys in any way. Further, Watson was creating this level of offense for 2 prior years while Duhon was a top 10 recruit who was churning out this production all 4 years at Duke, which implies they have stronger baselines of talent level and are more natural floor generals.

If all 3 of these guys are in the same draft, it should be a clear Duhon > Watson > Davion ranking. Both Duhon and Watson went in round 2, and peaked as fringe starters, which is about the pinnacle of optimism for Mitchell. And even that is a bit of a stretch since these are the most optimistic possible comparisons from the past 30 years of the draft, and Davion STILL has some clear disadvantages with no real advantages.

It’s a great story that this kid worked his way up from a terrible NCAA freshmen to an OK-ish redshirt sophomore to a good junior who played a major role on a championship team, but that just isn’t a formula that produces NBA players in general, let alone good ones.

His hype is so mindblowing that it’s hard to know where to rank him. It is not even clear that he is one of the top 60 prospects in the draft. He definitely should not be going in round 1, let alone the top 10.

Draft Instead: Miles McBride (#33)

His teammate Jared Butler would have been one clear answer, but it seems that he may not cleared to play in the NBA due to a heart condition.

Instead, we can look at early round 2 where Miles McBride is projected to go #33 overall and completely waffle crushes him at all basketball related abilities.

McBride measured 1.25″ taller and 4.5″ longer at 6’2.5 with a 6’8.75″ wingspan, which actually gives him slightly better PatBev dimensions and makes that comp reasonable for him. Second, if we compare their output on the floor, it is not close between the two. Per 100 possessions:

	Age	Pts	REB	AST	TOV	STL	2P%	3P%	FT%	FTr
McBride	20.1	26.3	6.5	8	3	3.1	0.439	0.414	0.813	0.338
Davion	21.8	21.5	4.8	8.3	4.2	3	0.519	0.376	0.653	0.254

Once again we are mushing together Davion’s junior and senior seasons, which may seem unfair since it disregards his improvability. But college seasons are small samples littered with variance, and 6’1″ players like Mitchell simply do not go on parabolic trajectories once they are legal to drink alcohol. Further in an odd season afflicted by pandemic, there should be an advantage to being an upperclassmen on an elite team that returns most key players. You cannot accurately analyze him based on his senior season in a vacuum.

Davion has a better first step and creates his own shot at the rim at about double the rate of McBride: 1.32 per 40 vs 0.65. This is reflected in his clearly superior 2P%. But that’s where the fun ends for Mitchell. McBride is almost 2 full years younger, a significantly better shooter, and beat Davion in the physical categories of rebounds and free throw rate (this is becoming a consistent theme in guys who succeeded in the NBA). He also is a better floor general, with a significant AST:TOV edge in spite of his youth.

If you want to target a guy to fill the PatBev role, McBride is clearly the guy. He is likely slightly underrated and should be valued somewhere in the 20’s, and Mitchell should be valued considerably lower.

If you take Mitchell in the lottery when McBride is available on the fringe of round 1, you failed at drafting.

If you want to make one tweak to the consensus board to be +EV, just take Davion Mitchell off your board and congratulations: you are now ahead of the curve!

Red Flags:

Corey Kispert 6’7″ SF Gonzaga, ESPN: #13

After that wall of text breaking down Mitchell, Kispert is an easier task:

Per 100 stats:

Prospect A: 6'7" 25.2 pts 11.8 rebs 2.8 assists 2.6 TOVs 1.8 stl 0.8 blks 41.2% 3P 77.2% FT 60.1% TS 6'11" length age 21.8

Prospect B: 6'7" 23.3 pts 8.1 rebs 2.8 assists 2.1 TOVs 1.4 stls 0.7 blks 40.8% 3P 82.4% FT 62.6% TS 6'7" length age 22.3

Who do you take?
— Dean (@deanondraft) June 23, 2021

Most people agree that Joe Wieskamp is the better prospect on paper than Kispert, and he is available in round 2! In reality they are closer than this poll suggests, as Kispert has a quicker release and a better looking shot. But Wieskamp has a significant 4″ reach advantage with better rebounds, steals, and blocks, which gives him more defensive potential.

There is no reason why Kispert cannot be an NBA rotation player as a 6’7″ efficient knockdown shooter, but his upside is far too limited to take in the lottery. He is currently projected at #13 and Wieskamp at #54. If you want a shooter on the wing, it’s a clear moneyball play to target Wieskamp in round 2 and take somebody with much more upside than Kispert in the late lotto.

Kai Jones, 6’11” Texas, ESPN: #14

At a glance Jones has appeal as an athletic 6’11” who can finish lobs, and has a passable outside shot making 38.2% from 3 an 68.9% FT as a sophomore for Texas.

But if you give him a closer look, you run into the enigma that he doesn’t know how to play basketball and it is not clear how he fits into a NBA lineup. He has the skill level of a center but plays more like a big wing defensively, which is not ideal.

Even though he seems like a guy who can make an open shot, he has a low 3PA rate of 3.3 attempts per 100 and at 67.7% FT from his career he still projects to be more of a barely passable shooter than an actively good one. And he is a non-handler with a bad assist to turnover ratio at 0.6 vs 1.4 per game, which strongly implies that he will struggle to play the perimeter in the NBA.

Defensively he cannot really play center. His 5.3% blk rate is more like a PF than an NBA rim protector, and his 8.9%/14.4% rebound rates are more like a SF.

Even if he can make an open shot he is going to depress an NBA offense with his lack of creation. If you are hoping for the next Jerami Grant, he had a higher usage (21.6 vs 18.2) and much better assist (1.4) to turnover (1.2) as a 2 month younger sophomore. And in spite of being 3.75″ shorter, he measured with 1″ better wingspan (7’2.75″ vs 7’1.75″) and is the more explosive athlete. He made 0 three pointers as a sophomore and then developed into a solid NBA 3 point shooter and now you have a decent perimeter player. That is not a possibility for Kai.

If you are hoping for the next Christian Wood, then good luck with that. Let’s compare their sophomore seasons per 100 possessions:

	Age	Pts	Rebs	Ast	Tov	Stl	Blk
Wood	19.3	29.6	18.7	2.4	4.5	0.6	5.1
Kai	19.9	22.3	12.2	1.5	3.5	2.1	2.3

Wood completely destroys him across the board outside of steals, while being 8 months younger and 1.5″ longer. He also had the better career NCAA FT% (74.7 vs 67.7) and 3PA rate (5.7 vs 3.3), and he somehow went undrafted.

The draft can be strange and funny how randomly guys get hyped out of nowhere. A projected lotto pick shouldn’t get crushed this hard by a past undrafted free agent, but here we are with Kai looking like a homeless man’s version of Christian Wood. And what makes it even stranger is that he didn’t even play a major role for his NCAA team, as he only started 4 of his 26 games as a sophomore.

If we are being optimistic, his steal rate is a bit of a saving grace, and maybe he can be some sort of wing stopper defensively who can squeak by as a small 5 on occasions. But his ball skills are just so so bad for a guy who is not a full time center on D, he simply does not belong in round 1.

Draft Instead: Alperen Sengun (#16 ESPN), Usman Garuba (#17 ESPN), Day’Ron Sharpe (#31 ESPN), Charles Bassey (#35 ESPN), Santi Aldama (UDFA)

Everybody is so down on drafting bigs, you can pretty much throw a dart at any random tall person in the draft and they are going to be a more attractive value proposition than Jones.

First let’s discuss the high comedy that is that rating Jones above Alperen Sengun who won Turkish League MVP at age 18. He has similar dimensions to Jones, and posted better steal and block rates at 2.6/5.9 vs 2.0/5.3. Jones is more athletic, but Sengun has a much higher IQ and every question that is directed toward Sengun’s defensive ability needs to be asked about Jones just as strongly. His athleticism may give him a bit more hope on this end, but he is at best a slight favorite to be better than Sengun defensively.

And outside of that Sengun destroys him to a comical extent. Sengun nearly doubles him up on the glass at 17.5/23.4 vs 8.9/14.4 in ORB%/DRB%. He is an obviously better shooting making 79.4% FT vs Kai’s 67.7%. And he has a higher usage at 26.7 vs 18.0 yet he STILL has a much better assist:TOV at 2.7 vs 2.4 compared to 0.6 vs 1.4 a higher 2P% at 67.4 vs 64.2% all while being an entire 1.5 years younger.

The disparity in skill and IQ between Sengun and Jones is so preposterous such that Jones’ superior athleticism is practically trivial. They are clearly multiple tiers apart as prospects.

Then we can move onto Usman Garuba, who is slotted in a reasonable range and has similar steal, blocks, and shooting rates, But has maybe 0.5 to 1″ better wingspan, better assist:TOV, and better rebounding.

Day’Ron Sharpe is a different type of big but he is also better, so why not throw him a shout out.

Charles Bassey is in a similar boat of shooting, perhaps slightly better with career 76.8% FT, excellent 2P%, and shoddy assist:TOV. But he actually rebounds and blocks shots like a big man, and you just can’t take the guy who defends and rebounds like a wing above him.

Then if we want a skinny 6’11” guy who probably gets destroyed on D, let’s roll with Santi Aldama in the undrafted pile over Jones. Aldama is definitely less athletic than Jones, but has similar steal (1.7) and block (5.6) rates and is much more intelligent and skilled offensively. He only made 68.6% FT 38.6% 3P as a sophomore and 63.9% and 30.6% for his career, but he attempted 3PA at nearly triple the rate of 9.4 per 100 vs 3.3 for Jones and his stroke looks smoother.

Aldama is likely the better shooter and is far more skilled overall on offense as he is super coordinated for a big man and carried 30.5% usage with an efficient 58.5% 2P and 2.3 assists vs 3.2 turnovers per game. His D is a greater cause for concern than Jones as he is skinnier and less athletic, but it’s just a more interesting flier to bet on the highly skilled and coordinated guy with good feel than it is to bet on the athlete with sorely limited skill and IQ.

Tre Mann, 6’4″ PG Florida, ESPN: #23

At a glance Mann seems like an interesting combo guard prospect, as he offers a bit of everything from creation to passing to shooting, as the former 5* recruit had a breakout sophomore season for Florida.

But digging deeper there are a few causes for concern. First– his physical profile is littered with flags. He has a t-rex wingspan at 6’4″ and he is skinny and not athletic, which basically makes him a PG sized defensive player with no + tools.

These players can be useful if they are wizards offensively, but Tre is merely pretty good in terms of skill level. He has enough handle and shake to get to the rim in a pinch, but his creation largely hinges on making floaters, as he lacks the burst to blow by more athletic defensive players. And he is more of a combo guard than a true point as he had only slightly more assists (3.5) than turnovers (2.8) as a sophomore.

He did shoot very well as a sophomore, making 40.2% from 3 and 83.1% FT, but that’s not much to complement a physically deficient PG with only a pinch of creation.

He also had a terrible freshman season, which is scary. As mentioned regarding Davion Mitchell, big leaps are a stronger signal of limited baseline talent than they are outlier improvability. If a guy has bad tools and isn’t a skill wizard, there are only so many gains to be made. If he needed a year to adjust to the physicality of college, that may be a sign that he will never adjust to the physicality of the NBA.

And it is maddeningly difficult to find a comp. Randy Foye got off to a similarly inefficient start to his college career and is 1″ shorter, but is 2″ longer, much stronger, and more athletic which gives him more potential to capitalize on gains throughout his career.

Luke Kennard has physical similarities, but is 1.25″ taller and longer and was just better at basketball as both a freshman and sophomore.

When it feels like we are reaching to compare Mann to fringe starters, that’s a good sign that he doesn’t belong in round 1. The nicest thing that can be said about him is that if Bryn Forbes and Seth Curry can be rotation NBA players, he can too as he does offer a bit more creation than those guys.

But it is far from a guarantee that he is a great shooter, as he shot poorly as an NCAA freshman to dock his two year %’s to 34.9% 3P 78.8% FT. Curry and Forbes were knockdown shooters as freshmen, and they were also undrafted free agents. You don’t chase this archetype in round 1 or early round 2. Maybe in mid-late round 2 it is fine since he can be a slightly better version of Forbes or Curry, but it’s tough to get too excited.

Draft Instead: Jaden Springer (#29 ESPN), Cam Thomas (#25), Quentin Grimes (#28), Bones Hyland (#30), Ayo Dosunmu (#32), Josh Christopher (#34), Jason Preston (#43), Joel Ayayi (#49)

The one player that would be a glaring error to pass in favor of Mann is Jaden Springer. They measured at the same height of 6’4.25″, but Springer is functionally bigger with 6’7.75″ wingspan and stronger at 202 vs 177 pounds. Further, Springer is the better defensive prospect posting 2.7%/2.0% stl/blk vs 2.2%/0.4% for Mann while also eye testing as the better defensive player. Springer is still undersized for a SG, but he can at least hang with SG’s defensively on top of being the better player on this end, which sums to a healthy chunk of value in Springer’s favor.

Offensively, they have strikingly similar outputs:

	Age	Pts	Ast	Tov	2P%	3PA	3P%	FT%
Jaden	18.3	28.1	6.6	5.4	0.475	4.1	0.435	0.81
Tre	19.9	28.1	6.1	5	0.494	8.2	0.402	0.831

Springer creates his own shot at the rim slightly more (1.23 vs 1.03 per 40), and otherwise these guys are basically twins. Tre loves to pullup for floaters, Jaden loves to pullup for midrangers. Tre has double the 3PA rate and may be the slightly better shooting prospect, and it may seem reasonable to give him the slight advantage on this end.

That is until we remember that Springer is 1 year 8 months younger, and this completely disregards Mann’s disastrous freshman year. Let’s see what happens when we smush Mann’s two seasons together

	Age	Pts	Ast	Tov	2P%	3PA	3P%	FT%
Jaden	18.3	28.1	6.6	5.4	0.475	4.1	0.435	0.81
Tre	19.5	24.3	4.6	4.5	0.477	8.6	0.349	0.788

Now Jaden is clearly better offensively, still more than a full year younger, physically superior, and better on defense and all we can really do is feel sad if any team actually drafts Mann higher.

Everybody else is a major step down from Springer who is criminally underrated at #29 and belongs in the lottery. But we can run through them quickly:

Cam Thomas may be slightly overrated at #25 as a 6’3″ one dimensional shooter, but he made 88.2% FT as a freshman and got off a huge volume of shots without turning it over. And he measured with a +4.5″ wingspan in 2019 and has better strength and athleticism. Ultimately he has more unique selling points that make him a better value proposition than Mann.

Quentin Grimes is a former top 10 recruit who is also a good shooter making 40.3% 3P 78.8% FT as a junior with a monstrous 15.3 3PA/100. He also has much more defensive potential with an extra 1″ height, 4″ length, and 32 pounds of beef. He carries a high usage and positive assist:TOV ratio, and fits a stronger 3 + D archetype than Mann. Mann’s creation advantages with his floater game just don’t shift the scales back enough in his favor.

Bones Hyland is a similar mold to Mann as a combo guard who can shoot, but he has a stronger shooter making 86.2% FT as a sophomore with a massively better 3PA rate at 14.3 per 100 and a better career 3P% at 39.9 vs 34.9%. He is nicknamed Bones due to his skinny frame, actually weighing 8 pounds less than Mann at 169 but his 6’9.25″ nevertheless gives him more defensive potential.

Dosunmu offers more creation, less shooting, and much better physical tools with 1″ height, 6″ length, and better frame.

Christopher fits the common trend of being 5″ longer, 37 pounds stronger, more athletic, and not particularly worse at basketball.

Jason Preston is a unique flier as his defense is very bad and he is similarly skinny to Mann, but at least he has 6’8.5″ wingspan and wizard like passing ability to make him an arguably more interesting flier.

Joel Ayayi rounds this out unsurprisingly as a guy who projects to be an efficient role player but is bigger than Mann with more defensive potential.

Josh Primo, 6’5″ SG Alabama, ESPN: #26

Primo is the youngest player in the draft, not turning 19 until December. He also boasts a promising outside shot, making 38.1% from 3P and 75% FT as an NCAA freshman.

And that’s about where the good news ends. He has mediocre physical tools for a SG at 6’5″ with 6’9″ wingspan and average at best athleticism. He isn’t much of a rebounder or defensive playmaker, and his ball skills are vastly subpar for a SG as he averaged a miserable 1.5 assists vs 2.4 turnovers per 40, which is brutally bad for a 17 usg spot up SG.

Granted, his extreme youth gives him hope of improving, and through that lens he may not be completely screwed as a ball handler. But he is off to such a poor start it is difficult to get excited. We don’t have many examples of players who started school this young, but the most similar comparison may be Svi Mykhailiuk who actually was 6 months younger when he enrolled at Kansas.

Svi had odd dimensions with 3″ more height and 4.5″ less wingspan, but let’s say they are functionally the same size and make a Svi sandwich out of his freshman and sophomore seasons the bread to Primo’s freshman meat:

	Age	3PA	3P%	FTA	FT%	TRB	AST	TOV	STL	BLK
Svi	17.5	10.7	0.29	1.2	0.83	6.4	3.5	3.1	1.6	0.2
Primo	18	9	0.38	3.5	0.75	8	2	3.4	1.4	0.7
Svi	18.5	11.8	0.40	3.2	0.68	6	4.1	3.3	1.5	0.6

Svi only played 259 minutes as a freshman, but you can see his rate stats were fairly stable to the next year and his main difference is that his shots happened to fall in the next year.

Primo played larger with slightly better rebounds, blocks, and free throws draw, but Svi had a notable advantage in assist rate and approximately 2x’d Primo’s assist:TOV ratio in each of his first two seasons.

Primo could develop his ball skills to catch up with Svi in time, but with such a poor starting point he will almost certainly be worse than the Svi Rex. And for a perimeter player, this is a far more significant handicap than Primo’s physicality edge.

It’s tough to make any bold proclamations about somebody as young as Primo. Maybe he has an outlier skill curve, and becomes an adequate passer and handler and historically good shooter. Maybe he still has a little growth spurt remaining, maybe his body and athleticism develop better than expected with age. He isn’t drawing dead to surpass Svi and become something useful over time.

But his trajectory currently looks weaker than Svi at the same age, and Svi went 47th overall and is a fringe NBA rotation player. So how is taking Primo in round 1 anything other than wishful thinking with so many limitations and such little to build on at this stage? He is going to be fringey or worse a huge % of the time, and even when he hits he is likely to be an ordinary role player.

Draft Instead: All of the same guys listed above Mann

How Good Is Jalen Suggs?

02 Friday Jul 2021

Posted by deanondraft in NCAA

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

jalen suggs

Suggs projects as a clear top 5 pick in this draft, as he is an athletic guard with excellent basketball IQ and a well rounded skill set with a clear path to NBA usefulness.

The big question is: for a PG sized guy at 6’4″ with 6’6″ wingspan, does he bring enough offensive upside to the table relative to his hype? In this regard he has a clear comparison to another recent high lottery pick: Marcus Smart. They have a number of statistical parallels:

	Age	Usg	ORtg	ORB%	DRB%	AST%	BLK%	STL%	AST:TOV
Suggs	19.6	25.4	110.7	2.7	18	23.7	1.1	3.5	1.55
Smart	19.8	30.3	110.4	5.1	14.9	30.1	1.9	5	1.80

	FTr	2P%	3PA/100	3P%	FT%	Height	Wing
Suggs	0.367	0.588	6.4	0.337	0.761	6’4	6’6
Smart	0.648	0.514	8.1	0.295	0.751	6’3	6’9

Right off the bat the upside concerns are apparent. Suggs does not have Smart’s length, and he is not as disruptive as Smart who posted better steal and block rates. Smart is also the more physical player drawing more free throws. Both players also excel defensively on film, although Suggs is slightly more mistake prone. Smart offers approximately the maximum defensive value for combo guard size, and while Suggs is not far behind, he does project to be at least slightly worse on this end than Smart.

This means that Suggs needs to pick up the slack on offense, and do so by a significant margin to be more than a quality role player like Smart. He had similar efficiency on lower usage, a lower assist rate, worse assist:TOV, and a similar shooting signal. At a glance, it is clear why Suggs is currently not projected top 3, as there is no guarantee that he has the offensive skill to offer a big upside tail for his size.

What is his path to greatness?

His biggest advantage over Smart is a better first step, that he uses to get to the rim with greater frequency. Based on play by play data, he created his own shot at the rim in the halfcourt 1.62 times per 40 vs 1.07 for Smart. Smart’s free throw rate indicates his physicality which is a strength on defense, but offensively he was more of a pure bully which is difficult to translate to the NBA for a guard.

Also, Suggs’ pedestrian assist rate may be deceiving considering he was playing on one of the best NCAA offenses of all time for Gonzaga that was absolutely loaded with ball handlers and scorers. They typically played 3 guard lineups, and everybody’s assist rate took a hit:

	19-20	20-21
Suggs	N/A	23.7
Nembhard	33.1	20.2
Cook	27.2	17.5
Ayayi	16.6	12.6

Suggs also eye tests as much better than his assist rate, as he sees the floor well and makes excellent reads. He likely would have been able to successfully handle a bigger usage with a higher assist rate on an ordinary NCAA team that wasn’t insanely loaded with offensive talent.

The only cause for concern is that many of his best assists were in transition, and it is not clear if he has the handle to make advanced passes off the dribble against set defenses. But in terms of vision and IQ, he has elite passing upside.

He also should be a better shooter than Smart, as Smart’s outside shot has developed at a mediocre rate in the NBA while being slightly worse in college.

While he does not project to quite match Smart’s defense, Suggs should be better offensively, possibly by a significant margin.

Let’s Talk About Upside

It’s difficult to come up with perfect upside comps for Suggs, but he has one clearly attainable one that stands out: Jrue Holiday.

	Age	Usg	ORtg	ORB%	DRB%	AST%	BLK%	STL%	AST:TOV
Suggs	19.6	25.4	110.7	2.7	18	23.7	1.1	3.5	1.55
Jrue	18.6	20.7	106.2	5.9	11.9	23.8	2.1	3.5	1.72

	FTr	2P%	3PA/100	3P%	FT%	Height	Wing
Suggs	0.367	0.588	6.4	0.337	0.761	6’4	6’6
Jrue	0.249	0.528	5.7	0.307	0.725	6’3	6’7

Jrue shared the handicap of having to share ballhandling duties with another PG, as he played alongside senior Darren Collison at UCLA. He was significantly less effective on offense than Suggs, although much of this could be chalked up to his 1 year youth advantage as guards often make a big leap from age 18 to 19. Given that he was #2 RSCI and NBA ready as a rookie, it would be fair to expect him to post similar production to Suggs had he stayed for his sophomore season.

Overall they are similar as they thrive on defensive IQ with intelligent passing with decent enough skills offensively. And Suggs is the better athlete, so he does not need all that much to go right to become Jrue level or better.

But How Much Better?

This is where it gets murky, as it is difficult to find anybody with more than a vaguely similar distribution to Suggs. You need to go back to the 90’s to find any half decent upside comps, per 40 stats used:

Jason Kidd is an interesting comp as he was also an exceptionally cerebral player who thrived with transition passing and defense, and was an old freshman:

	Age	Pts	Rebs	Asts	Stls	Blks	TOVs	2P%	3P%	FT%
Kidd	19.8	16.4	6.2	9.6	4.8	0.3	4.9	0.537	0.286	0.657
Suggs	19.6	19.9	7.4	6.3	2.6	0.5	4.1	0.588	0.337	0.761

Suggs was a better shot maker, but Kidd’s instincts were on a different level with much better assist and steal rates. Suggs could have maybe posted a better assist rate elsewhere as aforementioned, but that assist rate for Kidd is insane. Granted it dropped to 3.6 as a sophomore, but it still makes it difficult to project Suggs on Kidd’s level as a defensive player or passer. He can make up with scoring, but it is overall a highly imperfect perfect comp.

	Age	Pts	Rebs	Asts	Stls	Blks	TOVs	2P%	3P%	FT%
Suggs	19.6	19.9	7.4	6.3	2.6	0.5	4.1	0.588	0.337	0.761
Baron	19.7	20.7	4.7	6.7	3.3	0.5	4.3	0.548	0.343	0.599

Baron Davis is a bit more athletic than Suggs, but Suggs is 1″ taller. And Baron’s better steal rate can’t really be glazed over. There are some clear similarities here, but once again not perfect.

	Age	Pts	Rebs	Asts	Stls	Blks	TOVs	2P%	3P%	FT%
Suggs	19.6	19.9	7.4	6.3	2.6	0.5	4.1	0.588	0.337	0.761
Payton	19.5	15.2	3.5	7.8	2.4	0.4	3.6	0.514	0.397	0.699
Payton	20.5	21.2	4.3	8.6	3.2	0.6	3.2	0.56	0.385	0.677

Gary Payton’s breakout junior year is included as it is likely more indicative of his true value. It’s unlikely that Suggs’ passing is as saucy or that his defense is as elite as the glove, but they are the same height and athletically similar so it may be somewhere in his range of possibilities if we want to envision his most optimistic outcome.

Conclusion

Suggs is a relatively safe pick as he comes as a polished as a high IQ player who has the athleticism to make plays, and it is difficult to see him not being a useful NBAer.

Most likely he will be somewhere on a scale of Marcus Smart to Jrue Holiday level of goodness. But because he is more athletic than both, he should have upside to surpass Jrue if things go well for him.

But it is still unclear exactly how much upside he has. Both because it is difficult to find a satisfactory comparison for him, and because it is unclear exactly how good his passing would be if given complete control of an offense rather than sharing the load on an excessively talented NCAA team.

As far as this draft goes, the only guy he is clearly below is Evan Mobley who is super well rounded with more upside and fewer limitations.

After that, it’s difficult to compare Suggs to Cade Cunningham and Scottie Barnes. Cade and Barnes are in higher upside molds, but Suggs is a safer bet to reach his upside. We likely don’t have enough information to rank those 3 with any confidence.

It is easier to compare him to Jalen Green, also sized like a small SG. Green is a bit taller, longer, and more athletic with better shooting and creation ability. But Suggs is stronger with vastly better passing and defense, more potential to play PG, and should fit in a wider range of lineups. It’s understandable why many folks prefer Green, but Suggs feel, IQ, and well roundedness should give him the edge.

There is something to be said for a good median outcome with decent enough upside. Consider 2014– Marcus Smart arguably was the best non-Embiid selection in the lottery in spite of being somewhat of an unsexy role player. And he was retained for a reasonable 4 years @ $52 million compared to Andrew Wiggins’s ridiculous 5/147 extension.

Ultimately Suggs is a solid and safe pick, and once Mobley is off the board it is difficult to see how he could be a bad selection.

2021 Draft Lottery Guide

22 Tuesday Jun 2021

Posted by deanondraft in Big Boards, International, Mock Drafts, NCAA

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

alperen sengun, cade cunningham, davion mitchell, evan mobley, isaiah jackson, jaden springer, jalen green, jalen suggs, jared butler, jonathan kuminga, scottie barnes, sharife cooper

With the lottery order being determined tonight, let’s run through the prospects at stake

Tier 1: Likely star

Evan Mobley 7′ PF/C USC

Mobley has good dimensions for a big at 7′ and 7’4 and has a unique combination of fluidity and passing for his size.

He is one of the best passing bigs in recent memory, as he averaged more assists (2.4) than turnovers (2.2). He is physically similar to Chris Bosh (1.2 vs 2.3) and has Joel Embiid’s fluidity (1.4 vs 2.4), but is a much better passer than both as NCAA freshmen. He isn’t quite Nikola Jokic who averaged 2.5 vs 1.5 in the Adriatic league while being 8 months younger, but he is a much better athlete than Jokic.

Given that he is able to play with precision both physically and mentally, he has an easy path to becoming a highly efficient NBA player.

Passing and height pair particularly well because he can pass over the defense, and because passing has a strong correlation with defensive ability. He was a very good rim protector for USC, anchoring the 6th best defense in the country with 2nd lowest 2P%.

His team massively overachieved overall, as he led a team of mediocre transfers that probably should have missed the tournament to the elite 8 and #6 kenpom ranking. This was by far Andy Enfield’s best team ever, as he peaked at #49 in 7 prior seasons at USC.

His shooting is acceptable for a big at 69.4% FT and 30% 3P, but a bit of a question mark.

His biggest weakness is his thin frame makes him a mediocre rebounder and prone to getting bullied by stronger bigs. He will often work as a 5 in the NBA, but may need to slide to the 4 when he faces a stronger big like Jokic or Embiid. This is the flaw that likely prevents him from being a generational prospect and Kevin Garnett level hall of famer, but it’s really the only thing to dislike.

Overall Mobley is loaded with unique strengths with limited flaws in his game, and has an easy path to stardom. He is not quite a lock star but since he is more well rounded and less flawed than everybody else in the draft, he should be the easy choice at #1 overall.

Tier 2: Possible stars with a few warts to work through

2. Scottie Barnes 6’8″ PG FSU

I have written an extensive analysis of Barnes, but the cliff notes are that he checks every box for upside in a way that we have rarely seen before. He is 6’8″ with a 7’2.75″ wingspan, and while not the most explosive athlete is fluid and agile with a good handle. He also is an exceptionally good passer for his dimensions and plays under control making good decisions with the ball.

He also had a good assist to turnover rate for any height at 1.66. For perspective, this was higher than Steve Nash’s assist:TOV ratio for his first 3 seasons at Santa Clara until his senior season edges out Barnes at 1.69.

He used his length to be disruptive defensively, and often guarded opposing PG’s, although not always well as he was prone to getting beat off the dribble and defensive lapses. He has excellent upside on defense but is currently a work in progress on that end.

His biggest question mark is his shooting as he only made 62.1% FT and 27.5% 3P for FSU. But he had a tiny sample of FTA at 41/66, and in a much bigger pre-NCAA sample he shot 67.5% (166/246) and his form doesn’t look too bad.

If he can eventually become a reliable NBA 3 point shooter and improve defensively, Barnes essentially has an uncapped upside and can make teams feel awfully bad for passing on him.

3. Jalen Suggs 6’4 PG Gonzaga

Suggs is slippery to pin down, as there have not been many prospects to similar to him. The scary angle is that he is a 6’4″ combo guard who recently turned 20 and does not have the best shooting or handle, which is not the ideal archetype to take in the top 3.

But the upside is that he seems to be good at basketball, and may be a big athletic PG who can do it all. He did not play point guard full time for Gonzaga as they often played 3 guards capable of running an offense, and everybody’s assist rate suffered for it. Andrew Nembhard dropped from 33.1% at Florida to 20.2% for Gonzaga, Joel Ayayi dropped from 16.6% the prior season to 12.6%, and Aaron Cook dropped from 27.2% at Southern Illinois to 17.5% for Gonzaga.

Suggs led the team with 23.7% assist rate, and had a solid 1.55 assist to turnover ratio. Given that he also showed exceptional instincts defensively with a 3.5% steal rate, he likely has the vision and instincts to be a good decision maker with the ball as a full time handler.

The question is exactly how much he will be able to create offensively. He is a good athlete but not elite, and his handle can stand to improve as well.

He can get to the rim and finish against set defenses proficiently enough to have a big upside on that end, but whether he hits his upside largely hinges on how much his handling and shooting improve, as he is a capable but not great shooter at 76.1% FT 33.7% 3P.

It’s difficult to come up with a satisfactory comp for him, but he is something like a John Wall or Derrick Rose hybrid with Marcus Smart, where he trades a notch of athleticism for better instincts and IQ.

Perhaps it is crazy to rank a prospect who is so much smaller and worse at shooting above Cade, but Suggs smashes the eye test as a guy who knows how to play and doesn’t have any major weaknesses outside of some minor questions about his skill level.

4. Cade Cunningham 6’8 PF Oklahoma State

It is going to be controversial to rank the consensus #1 this low, but there are serious question marks about Cade.

It is easy to see why he has so much hype, as he has excellent wing dimensions at 6’8″ with a 7’1″ wingspan and is a great shooter for any size as he made 40% 3P and 84.6% FT as freshman for Oklahoma State. He also has a point forward skill set with a 20.4% assist rate and showed competent switch-ability on defense, and it’s just not common to see a prospect with this intersection of strengths.

But before getting too excited with his strengths, Cade has some serious flags to address. First, his assist to turnover ratio was awful at 3.5 vs 4.0. From watching film, his passing just isn’t on the level of the other guys in this tier. He often makes bad decisions, throwing turnovers into traffic or feeding teammates in unfavorable positions that lead to them getting blocked or turning it over.

Further, his self creation was inefficient as he has a somewhat loose handle and was prone to getting stripped. And he was more of a bulldozer who tried to run over defenses instead of finding seams in the defense for easy buckets. Consequently, he shot a pedestrian 46.1% inside the arc and his team performed equal to slightly better with him off the floor.

He also has a suspect motor, as he is sometimes lackadaiscal on defense and has an anemic offensive rebounding rate for his size at 2.3%. This makes it questionable how good he will really be on defense.

If he improves his effort, decision making, and handling, then he has an excellent upside based on his strengths. But these are some nasty warts for a guy to be consensus #1 overall, as he currently has quite a bit of fat to be trimmed from his game.

Tier 3: Quality Prospects with Difficult Paths to Stardom

5. Franz Wagner, 6’9″ SF/PF Michigan

Wagner does not share the high upside of the prospects rated above him, but he fits a mold for being an elite role player that fits into any NBA lineup.

While he doesn’t have the typical strength or athleticism of an NBA stopper, he was an elite defensive player for Michigan based on his unique intersection of dimensions at 6’9″ with 7’0″ wingspan, intelligence, quick hands, and exceptional lateral movement. He is outlier good at containing penetration, and moves his feet laterally better than any wing prospect in recent memory.

He played a huge role in Michigan having the 4th best NCAA defense, as the defense was elite with him on the floor and turned to mush when he went to the bench:

The team was significantly better in each of the four factors with him on the floor, and notably the turnovers. On paper his 2.3% steal rate looks good but not exceptional for a wing, until you realize that Juwan Howard massively suppresses steals in a defense that heavily emphasizes forcing difficult shots over forcing turnovers. Most Michigan players who played for other coaches saw their steal rates fall off a cliff. When you consider that Franz was responsible for 29.1% of his team’s steals, his steal rate is much more impressive.

Further, he did this without heavily gambling, as he was very rarely beaten off the dribble and had a significantly positive impact on his team’s defensive eFG%.

His weakness is that he is not the most athletic or physical player, and had a mediocre rebound rate, which likely sets him below Kawhi and Draymond as an outlier defensive player. But he nevertheless is very good on this end.

Offensively he had a limited 19.1% usage rate. But he was able to create off the dribble in doses as he has a capable handle and is coordinated enough to step through seams in the defense. He shined with his lack of mistakes, as he had an excellent 3.8 assists vs 1.6 turnovers per game. His shooting is a work in progress, as he only made 32.5% from 3 in two years at Michigan and his form needs improvement, but his 83.5% FT offers hope for his ability to develop into a good shooter longterm.

He is not in the top tier without the athleticism or creation upside to have all-NBA upside. But in spite of being a sophomore, Franz is younger than Mobley, Suggs, and Barnes and is only a month older than Cade, and has an awesome role player skill set with a very low rate of making mistakes.

He fits a similar mold to Mikal Bridges and Otto Porter of hyperefficient role player, fits into any NBA lineup, and has very low odds of busting.

Once the possible stars are off the board, it’s difficult to see how taking Franz will be a regrettable choice.

6. Josh Giddey 6’8″ PG Australia

If the intersection of 3 indicators could be used to predict upside, the best choices would likely would be age, height, and passing. And Giddey smashes all 3. Here’s a list of teenage 6’7+ prospects who posted the highest pre-draft assist rate in the past 20 years:

	Age	AST%	STL%	Height	Wingspan	Year	Pk
Josh Giddey	18.2	36.3	1.8	6’8	6’7.5	2021	?
Scottie Barnes	19.4	31.7	3.4	6’9	7’3	2021	?
Luka Doncic	18.8	30.5	2.4	6’8	?	2018	3
Ben Simmons	19.4	27.4	3.1	6’10	7’0	2021	1
Khris Middleton	19.4	23.7	2.5	6’8	6’10.5	2011	39
Andre Iguodala	19.9	23.7	2.6	6’7	6’11.5	2004	9
Draymond Green	19.8	23.3	2.9	6’7	7’1	2010	35
Tomas Satoransky	19.2	22.5	2.6	6’7	6’7	2012	32
Paul George	19.7	22.4	3.9	6’9	6’11	2010	10
Corey Brewer	19.8	22.4	3.2	6’7	6’9	2006	7
Ronnie Brewer	18.8	22.4	3.6	6’8	6’11	2004	14
Julius Hodge	19.1	21.9	2.1	6’7	7’0	2005	20
Nic Batum	19	21.5	2.7	6’8	7’1	2008	25
Kyle Anderson	19.3	20.4	3.4	6’9	7’2	2014	30
Cade Cunningham	19.3	20.4	2.5	6’8	7’0.5	2021	?
Jalen Johnson	19.1	20.5	3.1	6.9	6’11	2021	?

Giddey doesn’t just edge out the competition– he posted *by far* the highest assist rate at by far the youngest age. His passing also eye tests as elite, as he seems to always make the right decision, and even on non-assists often puts his teammates in a strong position to score.

Unfortunately, almost everything else is a weakness for him. Among prospects in the table, he has the lowest steal rate of the group without length to be as disruptive on defense as the typical point forward. He also doesn’t have particularly good frame or athleticism, and isn’t the best shooter (29.3% 3P 69.1% FT) or shot creator.

This gives Giddey one of the most polarizing distributions in draft history, and makes his NBA future extremely difficult to predict. The obvious comparison for him is Lonzo Ball, who is only 2″ shorter at 6’6″ with 1.5″ more wingspan and has similarly overpowered passing and underpowered everything else.

Lonzo had a solidly better steal rate at 2.8% vs 1.8% as well as blocks at 2.1% vs 1.4%, so the prospect of drafting a Lonzo with less defensive impact is not exceptionally thrilling, and there is no doubt Giddey has some non-trivial bust risk.

But Giddey is much more fluid than Lonzo, who may be the most awkward lottery prospect of all time. If he can parlay his fluidity into a capable scoring ability and develops a decent outside shot to boot, that may be enough to be a weapon offensively with such excellent passing. And he did have better usage (19.6 vs 18.1) and assist rate (36.3 vs 31.4) for Adelaide than Lonzo did at UCLA while being a full year younger, so the greater potential for creation is clearly there.

And even though they are completely different players, it is worth considering how badly Nikola Jokic smashed expectations. Being the best passer of all time at your height range is an overpowered ability when everything else develops well, and Giddey is likely the best passing prospect of all time at 6’7+.

There’s definitely risk in a prospect with such limited skills and physical tools. But if he develops well, Giddey has excellent upside and could be the NBA player that everybody hoped Lonzo Ball would be when he was chosen #2 overall.

7. Alperen Sengun 6’10” PF, Turkey

Sengun does not fit the ideal for a modern NBA archetype, as he is a post-up PF that has become completely obsolete.

At 6’10” with 7’1″ wingspan and limited vertical explosion, he can play as a small center in some situations but lacks the rim protection to be ideal for the role consistently. And it’s not clear if he has the mobility to defend the perimeter, although he has a chance as his feet seem decent enough.

But once you get past the physical limitations, Sengun has a rare combination of skill and IQ. He has a capable handle, and is a sharp passer for his size, averaging more assists than turnovers (2.7 vs 2.4). He is also an exceptional offensive rebounder at 17.5% and shot maker with 63.2% 2P and 79.4% FT. He only made 7/35 from 3, but given his FT% at age 18 it seems likely he should be able to develop into an above average NBA 3 point shooter in time.

And what he lacks physically defensively, he helps atone with high IQ with good steal (2.6%) and block (5.9%) rates. If he proves capable of lateral movement and sharp decision making, he may not be a defensive sieve as feared.

The obvious comparison for him is Kevin Love. Which raises an interesting question– if you knew for sure you would get Kevin Love, where do you draft him in this modern era? It’s difficult to say, but there is a limit to how bearish you can be on such a statistically productive player. And Sengun’s statistical output smashes everybody else in the draft– even Mobley. So there is some wiggle room for him to be even better than Love.

While the prospect of drafting such an archaic mold with a high pick is scary for a modern GM, this mentality could also lead to Sengun being a steal with such a rare combinaton of youth, skill, and intelligence.

8. Jalen Green 6’5″ SG, G League Ignite

Green is universally considered to be a top 4 pick, as he is an exceptional athlete and scorer who was decent in the G League while only turning 19 years old in February.

The downside is that he is an undersized SG at 6’5″ or 6’6″ with a 6’8 to 6’9ish wingspan, and is somewhat one dimensional as a scorer. He has clear all-star upside in the Devin Booker or Zach LaVine mold, and largely deserves his hype.

But he may be slightly overrated with so many bigger and well rounded players slated to go above him. Everybody else ranked above him is a clearly better passer, and he is only slightly bigger than Jalen Suggs. This makes his goodness far from guaranteed and puts a healthy dent in his upside, as he is clearly the weakest link the consensus top 4 along with Cade, Mobley, and Suggs.

9. Jalen Johnson 6’9″ PF, Duke

Johnson is one of the most enigmatic players in the draft. He is a huge point forward at 6’9″ with 7’0″ wingspan and is a great athlete, stuffing the statsheet with bulk output in every category.

But his game is somewhat erratic, as he averaged more turnovers (2.5) than assists (2.2) and is not a good shooter with 63.2% FT and a low 3PA rate.

Also, he quit Duke’s team midseason. His team performed better with him off the floor, and it is not common to see top prospects leave their team midseason, which may suggest that his personality is erratic as his game. I really don’t know what to make of it, perhaps he had valid reasons and it does not deserve a significant reaction in light of his talent. But it is an odd point that makes him a bit uncomfortable to draft over the other talented prospects who do not have any similar nagging question marks.

It’s tough to know where to rank Johnson. His intersection of strengths is very rare, but to be comfortable drafting him a team should want to gather intelligence on what happened at Duke and whether he is worth betting on fulfilling his potential or not.

10. Jaden Springer, 6’4″ SG Tennessee

Springer is a funky guy with funky upside. He is one of the youngest prospects in the draft, turning 19 in September. And he does quite a bit well, as he can handle, pass, shoot, and defend.

On the downside, he is very small for SG at 6’4.25″ with 6’7.75″ wingspan, and is a decent but not great athlete. And he tends to overdribble and live in the mid-range which is a turn off for most scouts. Through this lens, it is easy to understand why he is only ranked 27th at ESPN currently.

But he made 81% FT at Tennessee, and while he shot a low volume of 3PA, there is no reason why he cannot develop his shooting to NBA 3 point range given his age. He can also get to the rim in a pinch, and if he develops his handling and passing he has some potential to operate as a big PG. And he is defensively very good for his size.

There’s not a great comp for him, but there is a lot to like. And he has more PG skills than Gary Harris and overall offensive polish than DeAnthony Melton, so he may have more upside than a mere quality role player.

Frankly it’s not clear that he is a weaker prospect than Jalen Green– he is about 1″ shorter and definitely less athletic and proficient at scoring, but much more well rounded.

11. Isaiah Jackson 6’10” C, Kentucky

Jackson offers an impressive 7’5″ wingspan to go with explosive athleticism, as he was an excellent rebounder and shot blocker with potential for switching at Kentucky.

Offensively he seems fairly raw, but does have hope for shooting with 70% FT and John Calipari is an expert at making futurue NBA stars look like ordinary college players. So if he has more offense than he has shown at Kentucky and his skills develop well, he has potential to be an Al Horford type which would be an outright steal in the late lottery.

The downside is that there’s only one Al Horford and he is much more likely to be a Willie Cauley Stein dime a dozen big. The upside makes him clearly worth a lottery pick, but its likelihood of hitting is less clear which makes somewhere in the late lottery seem like a fair slot for Jackson.

12. Moses Moody, 6’6 SG/SF, Arkansas

Moody is a prototypical 3 + D prospect, as he made 35.8% 3P and 81.2% at age 18, as he turned 19 recently in late May. He complements this with a 7’0.75″ wingspan that should help him hang defensively in the pros.

He is fairly limited as a shot creator, but he does have some interesting perks to his game. He is a good offensive rebounder (6.3%) for a SG, he has low turnover rate and about a 1:1 assist:TOV. And he has a surprisingly high FT rate for a non-creator at 0.482– higher than all of Cade Cunningham (.39), Jalen Suggs (.367), and Scottie Barnes (.339). This makes him both an effective spacer and efficient overall offensive player.

If there is one gripe to be had is that he uses his length surprising not well to generate steals, as he had a disappointing 1.6% steal rate– easily the lowest of Arkansas’s top 6 players. This leaves some questions about how much D he actually comes equipped with, but nevertheless he has an easy path to useful role player.

Tier 4: Now the Draft Gets Boring

13. BJ Boston, 6’7″ SF Kentucky

This may seem like an odd choice to rank this high since Boston is currently ranked 37th at ESPN after a dismal freshman season where he chucked brick after brick shooting 38.4% from 2 and 30% from 3.

But the draft gets horribly uninteresting after the aforementioned 12 go off the board, and there are reasons to be high on Boston.

For starters, he as #4 RSCI and seemed like a top 5 pick entering the season, and playing for John Calipari whose prospects routinely underperform in college, see their draft stock slip, and then overperform in the NBA. And the pandemic added extra randomness and weirdness to the season, which may give Boston further excuse for his relentless bricklaying.

Further, his season was not all *that* bad. He had more assists (1.6) than turnovers (1.4) and shot 78.5% FT, and led his team with 2.5% steal rate. For a wing prospect who is 6’7″ with 6’10.25″ wingspan, that is a solid foundation for 3 + D player who should attempt higher quality shots once he swaps his bad NCAA coach for a competent NBA coach.

His horrible shotmaking is a flag to be sure, but it seems excessive to drop Boston to round 2 just for that when he otherwise fits such a strong role player mold with such strong priors. Especially considering how bland this draft gets post-lottery.

14. Keon Johnson 6’5″ SG Tennessee

The good news for Johnson is that he is young, athletic, and capable of making plays on both sides of the ball.

The bad news is that he is highly inefficient for a small SG, as. he measured 6’4.75″ with 6’7.25″ wingspan with more turnovers (2.6) than assists per game (2.5). He also isn’t much of a shooter, making just 13/48 from 3. His 70.1% FT offers a ray of hope

Personally I would have a tough time getting excited drafting a tiny and inefficient SG, but he is really young and athletic which is more than can be said for most players available at this stage

15. Sharife Cooper 6’1″ PG Auburn

Cooper has an odd profile as a sort of Trae Young lite, which isn’t the most attractive mold since it needs to either hit hard or it is a miss since he is likely going to be a sieve on defense and needs to offer a huge amount of offensive creation to atone for that wart.

But he had an insane 34.3% usage and 51.5% assist rate for Auburn, and that level of shot creation cannot be ignored.

What sets him well behind Trae is that his jump shot is mechanically poor and likely needs to be completely re-worked, as he only made 13/57 (22.8%) 3P on the season. On the upside he did make 82.5% FT, so it’s a reasonable gamble that if he correct his mechanics he may have the natural touch to be a good shooter and realize his upside.

Overall he is a strange value proposition, but Cooper has enough home run upside to be more interesting than most post-lottery, and even if he doesn’t hit his upside perhaps he can be a bench microwave.

16. Jared Butler, 6’3″ PG/SG Baylor

Butler is somewhat of a boring role player, as he is not particularly athletic or adept at getting to the rim, which is a worrisome flaw for a SG in a PG body.

But he is a very good shooter, defensive player, and passer, and was clearly the best overall player on Baylor’s championship team. And he is a young junior at age 20, not turning 21 until August.

He doesn’t have much of an upside as a 3 + D PG who makes intelligent decisions, but he does figure to be an effective role player especially if he plays alongside a bigger ballhandler like Luka Doncic or Giannis.

One note that may dampen his stock is that he was allegedly playing with a heart condtiion for Baylor, and it’s not clear. how significant of a risk it is moving forward. It is plausible that NBA teams deem it to be an unnecessary risk to take and it causes him to slide in the draft.

17. Jonathan Kuminga 6’8″ SF/PF G League Ignite

Kuminga is the epitome of mystery box, as he has an excellent physical profile at aprpoximately 6’8″ with 7’1″ wingspan and good athleticism. For all intents and purposes he is a slightly bigger Jaylen Brown, and if he develops his skill level the sky is the limit for him.

The challenge for him is twofold. First, his skill level is not very good right now. He made just 24.6% 3P 62.5% FT in his G League stint, and has a loose handle that needs improvements.

He is listed as 18 not turning 19 until October. Based on that, he has reasonable odds of improving his skill set enough to be a Jaylen Brown-esque player in due time given his excellent physical tools.

But the second challenge is that it is not clear that he is actually 18 years old. He was born in Democratic Republic of Congo where only 25% of kids are born with birth certificates, and didn’t move to America until 2016 when he should have received advice to lie about his age to maximize his odds of an NBA future.

And there is a HUGE difference between 18 vs 19 vs 20, especially for a kid like Kuminga who you are betting on to make a major leap in skill level. So if he is 18, it is completely reasonable to take him in the #5-7 range as he is currently projected. But if he is 19, he takes a hit to his stock and perhaps belongs in the mid-1st. And if he is 20, he likely belongs in round 2. And if he is 21+, then he arguably does not deserve to be drafted.

Personally, I have no idea what the odds of each outcome actually are. Whatever NBA team that drafts him needs to be diligent on their intelligence regarding his age, because being wrong is very costly. For a quick and dirty estimate, let’s use Kevin Pelton’s draft pick value chart

If we say he should go #6 if 18, #15 if 19, #35 if 20, and #60 if 21+, and give 25% odds to each possibility, his respective values are 2110, 1240, 300, and 50 which average out to 925, or approximately the 21st pick in the draft.

Given that this draft is weak after the top 12, perhaps he can be bumped to the #15-20 range as a reasonable estimate. But that is pure guess work, as I have no clear info regarding his true age.

I don’t want to drop any hot takes about how he is not deserving of being drafted high, because it is unfair to him if his age is real and he gets punished for being born into a terrible situation that nobody would want to live through.

But at the same time, it would have been wise for him to lie about his age upon arrival in America, and if an NBA team is going to invest a top 10 pick in him, they should have a higher confidence in his youth than can be had based on available information.

Ultimately Kuminga is exceptionally difficult to value without any clear evidence regarding his age, and all that can be said is that he is extremely risky to take high lotto without any special intelligence that his age is likely accurate.

Overrated

Davion Mitchell 6’1″ PG, Baylor

Currently projected to go #8 overall at ESPN, he is being sold as the next Patrick Beverley as he is a good defensive PG with the nickname “off night” for his reputation of shutting down his matchup defensively.

Offensively he has a quick first step and can get to the rim often enough, averaged 5.5 assists vs 2.4 turnovers, and made 44.7% from 3. So at a glance it would seem that he offers enough to be decent on that end and justify his defense.

But when we dig deeper, there are some flags. First he is 22 years old turning 23 in September, which is fairly old. Second, he was dismal offensively as a 21 year old sophomore, posting an anemic 100.5 ORtg on 19.1 usage. It’s very difficult to be that limited offensively that old as a little guy and thrive in the NBA.

He did clearly improve as a junior, but the biggest part of his leap was increasing his 3P% from 32.4% to 44.7%. But his FT% did not improve, and was actually slightly worse declining from 66.2% to 64.1%. This makes it unclear how much he actually improved his outside shooting vs happened to make more due to small sample size variance.

He did improve his 2P% and passing as well, as his handle likely did improve. But his handle remains fairly weak for his age, as he does not look particularly comfortable doing anything off the dribble in traffic, and moreso is capable of finding opening that present himself due to his quickness.

Most likely he is a mediocre shooter and mediocre ball handler who is too old to progress these skills to an NBA starter level, especially not for a 6’1 guy with 6’4″ wingspan where skill is paramount to success.

Yes he is very good defensively, but defense cannot be the main skill for somebody taht small with so many offensive warts. Especially when he comes with an anemic 1.7% ORB, 8.0% DRB rate and a low FT rate and isn’t the most physical player, it’s worth wondering if he is truly as good as his reputation on that end.

Most likely he will be an outright bust or an ordinary bench player, and it is difficult to see how his lottery hype is justified.

This is espcially true when he has a teammate who was better at just about everything while being 2 years younger and 2″ taller. Mitchell is more athletic and slightly more proficient at creating his own shot at the rim, but that’s a small advantage compared to Butler being outright better.

It is difficult to say exactly where to rank him because entering the season he did not even vaguely resemble a prospect and now his hype is out of control.

Is Cade Cunningham Clearly the Best Prospect in 2021?

18 Friday Jun 2021

Posted by deanondraft in NCAA

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

cade cunningham, evan mobley, jalen suggs, scottie barnes

Currently the consensus #1 overall, Cade Cunningham offers some tantalizing strengths. He has an excellent NBA body and dimensions at 6’8″ with 7’1ish wingspan. He is an excellent shooter for his size making 40% from 3 and 84.6% FT as a freshman to go with his point forward skill set and ability to defend multiple positions and make plays defensively with a solid 2.5% steal rate.

It’s easy to see why he is so coveted, as prospects with his intersection of size, passing, scoring, and shooting rarely fail. But he comes with some funky warts that put a dent into his upside and makes him tricky to evaluate.

Efficiency

His biggest flaw is his lack of efficiency in spite of his excellent shooting. He posted a meager 104.2 ORtg on 28.6 usage– it is difficult to be that inefficient while making 40% 3P and 85% FT. But there are a number of cumulative flaws that chipped away at his efficiency.

Passing IQ

Cade’s biggest wart is questionable decision making. He has good vision and is willing to push the pace in transition, but he often delivers passes to teammates in difficult positions while being closely guarded or 1 on 2.

He often seems more interested in moving the ball forward than he does in creating efficient opportunities, and teammates seem to get blocked or turn it over after receiving his passes inordinately often.

This also resulted in a poor assist to turnover ratio (3.5 vs 4.0 per game) and the team not missing a beat with him on the bench. From watching it seemed that Oklahoma State generated higher quality shot attempts when somebody other than Cade initiated, and it reflects with 53.8% 2P with him off the court vs 51.3% with him on.

Shot Selection

This also reflects in his shot selection, as he often forced his way for difficult shots. Further, he has a somewhat loose handle and isn’t the most explosive athlete, which prevented him from creating many easy attempts for himself.

He was nevertheless able to create with his physical tools and shot making ability, but his high rate of difficulty in many of his attempts resulted in an underwhelming 46.1% inside the arc.

Motor/Effort

He also has a lackluster motor, as he posted a paltry 2.3% OREB% and only got 1 putback over the entire season. This also manifests in a sometimes lackadaisical approach to defense.

Prospects with Cade’s dimensions and quality assist and steal rates tend to be strong bets to be good defensive players in the NBA, but Cade’s inconsistent effort, ordinary athleticism, and questionable half-court IQ make it unclear how good he will be on this end.

Visual Evidence

In his OT game vs Oklahoma, most people were impressed with him scoring 40 points in a comeback win. But if you watch carefully, you can see an inordinate amount of pass attempts leading to a bad outcome. I timestamped 12 passes with a comment, although a number of them aren’t terrible decisions by Cade. He fed the big for poor postup attempts 4 times, which may have been a bigger flaw in his coach than himself. And at least one pass was a fine read where he turned it over because he threw it short. But if we are going to single out the truly bad decisions, here are the timestamps:

7:14 Runs PnR with Moncrieffe and oddly decides to pass it after giving opposing big ample time to recover, such that Moncrieffe is forced into a difficult shot while double teamed.

11:55 Passes to Moncrieffe streaking directly toward two defenders in transition and he blows the layup

29:42 Pushes it to Avery Anderson 1 on 2 in transition, and he gets the ball deflected out of bounds

37:17 Runs PnR with Moncrieffe streaking toward open lane with only 6’2″ DeVion Harmon available to help, but instead swings to tightly guarded Rondel Walker who travels

54:32 Runs PnR and dumps it off to tightly guarded non-handler Rondel Walker who is promptly stripped

This is a consistent theme with Cade. He has lapses in his awareness and makes sloppy passes that team his teammates in unfavorable positions more than you would like from a potential #1 overall pick.

Recently DraftExpress shared a video of Cade’s scoring highlights, and you can see that all of these shots are contested. His ability to make difficult shots is impressive, but he doesn’t have the burst to blow by opponents, or the handle or shake to wiggle around them. He plays a bulldozing style that enables him to create a high volume of shots, but not the most efficient ones.

How much will this limit him longterm?

It’s difficult to say. He was better in AAU, so perhaps to some extent he was affected by the pandemic restrictions and performed below his true ability.

Or maybe he has always depended on brawn over brains, and the step up in competition exposed weaknesses that weren’t apparent in AAU or high school.

Either way, it’s unlikely to be a death knell in light of his strengths. He sees the floor well and makes a number of good passes as well, so there is something to build on if he can improve his awareness and decision making. And his mold of big wing who can handle, pass, and shoot fails so rarely, he doesn’t need to improve a ton to be good.

But at the same time, it’s not the type of flaw you want to gamble on at #1 overall. If you are drafting him to be a 30 usage star, can you be comfortable with the fact that his creation includes a significant % of low quality attempts and turnovers for both himself and his teammates at this point?

And if you are drafting him to be a secondary creator a la Khris Middleton who can also space the floor and defend multiple positions, is that really a high enough upside mold to take at #1?

Comparisons

Cade has such a unique distribution of strengths and weaknesses he doesn’t have any particularly strong comps. But we can nevertheless walk through the roughly similar players to approximate his value.

Luka Doncic

The most optimistic comparison that can be made is Luka Doncic since both are point forwards with similar size and non-elite athleticism. Let’s compare Luka’s NBA rookie stats to Cade’s freshman stats:

	Age	USG%	AST%	TOV%	OR%	DR%	FTr	ORtg
Luka	19.8	30.5	31.5	15	4	21.9	0.409	107
Cade	19.3	29.1	20.4	18.7	2.3	16.3	0.39	106

In spite of only being 7 months older, Luka had a higher usage, his assist:TOV was twice as good (1.73 vs 0.86), he played more physically with better rebounding and free throw rates. And in spite of only making 32.7% 3P and 71.3% FT compared to Cade’s 40% 3p and 84.6%, he still had the better overall efficiency. Luka is clearly the better NBA creator than Cade was in NCAA.

Cade is nowhere near Luka’s stratosphere as a prospect. Luka is a god tier shot creator and Cade is merely good for his size, and his shooting advantage only slightly closes the gap because Luka’s advantages are so enormous.

If Cade was deservedly the obvious #1 pick, he would be better at the NCAA level than the obvious #1 pick who fits a similar archetype was at a similar age in the NBA.

Funny how Luka actually slid to #3 but now Cade is locked into #1 sans debate. Perhaps some Luka FOMO is contributing to his excessive hype.

Kawhi Leonard

We could also compare Cade to Kawhi as they have a number of similarities as sharp shooting point forwards.

	Age	USG%	AST%	TOV%	2P%	STL%	BLK%	ORtg
Cade	19.3	29.1	20.4	18.7	46.1	2.5	2.3	104
Kawhi	19.5	27.5	16	14.6	47.8	2.7	1.9	109

At a glance it seems this may be a path to greatness…until you compare their rebounding rates and Kawhi destroys him with 11.2/26.6 vs 2.3/16.6. Kawhi has an all time elite motor, where Cade is weak, and this is why Cade is never going to sniff Kawhi’s defensive output.

Kawhi also had a better assist:TOV and slightly better overall efficiency in spite of only making 29% 3P And 76% FT. And Kawhi has progressed to an elite NBA shooter that Cade is not likely to surpass. And with likely overall less efficient offense, and significantly weaker defense and rebounding, it’s difficult to see Cade’s path to Kawhi’s level.

Paul George

If we take a step down to Paul George we are getting warmer:

	Age	USG%	ORtg	AST%	TOV%	2P%	STL%	BLK%	OR%	DR%
Cade	19.3	29.1	104	20.4	18.7	46.1	2.5	2.3	2.3	16.3
PG	19.7	27.7	105	22.4	20.9	48.5	3.9	2.9	6.6	19

They have very similar distributions offensively, as being turnover prone point forwards with a significant dependency on shooting. Cade posted his #’s vs. better defenses so he should get a small edge offensively, but PG is the better athlete with a significant advantage in steals and rebounding. Cade is unlikely to match him defensively, and PG’s offense did develop about as well as could have hoped.

It’s plausible Cade is able to be a slightly better offense/worse defense version of PG, but he nevertheless seems like a clear underdog to have PG’s level of goodness:

Jayson Tatum

Cade’s #1 kenpom comp shared a freshman season with many similarities:

	Age	USG%	ORtg	AST%	A/TO	STL%	BLK%	OR%	DR%	FT%	2P%
Cade	19.3	28.6	104	20.4	0.86	2.5	2.3	2.3	16.3	84.6	46.1
Tatum	18.8	25.4	109	12.4	0.82	2.3	3.2	4.8	19.7	84.9	50.4

Cade has a higher assist rate, but a similar assist:TOV. And Cade had a higher 3PA/100 (8.9 vs 6.9) and 3P% (40 vs 34), but Tatum had the better pre-NCAA FT% in the mid-high 80s vs 74.9% for Cade with neither attempting many 3’s. Meanwhile Tatum was 5 months younger with slightly better rebounding and 2P%. Overall they are close but Tatum gets the edge as the better prospect.

So it’s curious that Tatum wasn’t in the conversation for top 2 behind Lonzo Ball and Markelle Fultz whereas Cade is considered the consensus #1 overall.

Granted, Tatum ended up being the correct #1 in that class after landing in a great situation playing for Brad Stevens and developing about as well as possible. And there is no reason why Cade cannot be similarly good if he develops well. But again, he is slightly worse overall as a prospect, will almost certainly end up in a less favorable situation, and likely won’t develop as well, and he is a clear underdog to be as good as Tatum

Jaylen Brown

Tatum’s teammate is Cade’s #2 kenpom comp.

	Age	USG%	ORtg	AST%	A/TO	STL%	BLK%	OR%	DR%	FT%	2P%
Cade	19.3	28.6	104	20.4	0.86	2.5	2.3	2.3	16.3	84.6	46.1
Jaylen	19.2	31.2	95	15.1	0.65	1.7	2.2	4.5	16.5	65.4	48.6

Cade’s #’s are mostly better across the board, and he clearly has a stronger pre-draft profile than Brown statistically, who was even more turnover prone and inefficient than Cade.

It’s a slippery comp because Brown is a better athlete than Cade, was fortunate to play for an elite coach, and has been one of the biggest overperformers of pre-draft numbers in recent memory. But we are reaching the point where it’s unclear whether Cade is more likely to be better or worse than Brown, which makes him a somewhat reasonable comp in terms of overall value.

Khris Middleton

Middleton slid all the way to #39 in round 2 after starting school young and being injured and less effective in his final season as a junior. But his sophomore season where he was freshman aged seems to be indicative of his true value, and it is strikingly similar to freshman Cade:

	Age	USG%	ORtg	AST%	A/TO	STL%	BLK%	OR%	DR%	FT%	2P%	FTr
Cade	19.3	28.6	104	20.4	0.86	2.5	2.3	2.3	16.3	84.6	46.1	0.39
Khris	19.4	27.9	108	23.7	1.04	2.5	0.2	8.2	13.3	78.1	49	0.418

They are basically twins! Cade is slightly bigger and maybe has 2″ to 2.5″ more wingspan. He also has higher block rate (KM career block rate was 0.9%), KM does better on the offensive glass, and otherwise these guys are nearly doppelgangers.

This is my favorite comp for Cade, as it is the type of player I believe his drafting team should try to develop him into.

Negative comps

The good news for Cade is that it’s difficult to come up with a truly frightening comparison for him, as big wings who are willing passers tend to perform well relative to draft slot. The most recents busts in that mold would be Evan Turner and Josh Jackson, who both have short arms and are poor shooters unlike Cade.

Then the one semi-interesting comparison who pops up in his top 10 kenpom comps is Andrew Wiggins. It’s a highly imperfect comparison because Wiggins had vastly superior athleticism and inferior passing + shooting, but let’s run with it for a moment:

	Age	USG%	ORtg	AST%	A/TO	STL%	BLK%	OR%	DR%	FT%	2P%	FTr
Cade	19.3	28.6	104	20.4	0.86	2.5	2.3	2.3	16.3	84.6	46.1	0.39
Wiggins	18.8	25.5	112	9.2	0.68	2.1	3.1	8.4	12.2	77.1	49.3	0.538

Cade’s advantage in shooting and passing is significant, but in spite of that Wiggins was slightly more efficient overall as he was a better finisher and more willing to mix it up inside on the offensive glass and drawing free throws. And in spite of Wiggins being a tunnel visioned non-passer, Cade’s assist:TOV ratio wasn’t *that* much better.

Now let’s focus on the similarities: they were both consensus #1’s entering the season, who had tantalizing strengths but also a surprising amount of meh qualities that were largely overlooked by people anchored to their preseason hype. They both have lackadaisical streaks, looser than expected handles, and both are prone to mental lapses.

After seeing him in summer league, I wrote that Wiggins appeared to be pushed down the wrong path of high volume iso scorer. Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown had an excellent coach developing them, and Khris Middleton was a humble 2nd rounder never expected to lead a team. If whoever drafts Cade tries to force him into a high volume scorer who runs the offense, he may not be as effective as he would in a secondary creation role a la Middleton.

While he is a different type of player than Wiggins, it wouldn’t be surprising to see Cade provide a similar career arc in terms of value if he is also pushed down the high usage path without developing the creation and decision making to justify it early in his career.

Summary

It seems fair to give Cade a reasonable target of being as good as Jaylen Brown or Khris Middleton, with Jayson Tatum being approximately the upper bound of his upside. His downside would be a different flavor of Andrew Wiggins, where he is an inefficient high usage player with his warts weighing a bit heavier than his tantalizing strengths.

It’s tough to say his odds of each path. On the upside, most players with his intersection of strengths tend to pan out, and given that he is the consensus #1 overall, the safest assumption is that he will be good more often than not.

But at the same time, he has an unique distribution and we haven’t seen many prospects with his specific weaknesses, so it’s not safe to get overconfident in his goodness.

Where Does He Fit in This Draft?

Although he is the consensus #1 overall, it is difficult to understand why he is valued above Evan Mobley. Mobley is more well rounded with fewer warts, more statistically productive, made a bigger team impact, and eye tests as more fluid and athletic.

There isn’t a clear case for Cade going higher. This strongly reminisces of Wiggins vs Embiid, where the public got too attached to a prospect hyped as generational, and neglected his myriad warts when a clearly superior prospect emerged. Mobley even has a higher BPM than Embiid (13.7 vs 11.9) and Cade has a slightly lower BPM than Wiggins (7.9 vs 8.3). Mobley smashes the eye test with his incredible fluidity like Embiid while Cade underwhelms with a somewhat sloppy approach like Wiggins. And unlike Embiid, Mobley doesn’t have any injury concerns to dampen his stock.

Mobley may not exceed Cade’s NBA value by the same margin as Embiid over Wiggins, but taking Cade first will likely prove to be some level of mistake in the long run.

After that, Cade has a solid case for #2 overall along with Jalen Suggs and Scottie Barnes. In particular Cade vs Barnes is an interesting comparison since they are both point forwards with funky distributions. I recently made a case as to why Barnes may be better. Cade is the much better shooter, but Barnes has 1-2″ more of dimensions, more defensive upside, and is the much better passer and decision maker with the ball.

It is fairly close between Barnes and Cade, but intuitively I would lean toward Barnes as his cumulative advantages are significant, and he has decent enough odds of developing an acceptable shot.

Suggs is a more challenging comparison because of his vastly inferior dimensions, but it’s easy to see him as the better prospect as well as the more explosive athlete with significantly higher basketball IQ.

After that, it’s difficult to value anybody else above him. Jalen Green is too small to be rated above him without being a better passer. Franz Wagner and Josh Giddey are a couple of late lotto sleepers who can easily be better than Cade, but are too role player-ish to value above Cade’s starry mold with any confidence.

Ultimately it’s fair to rank him anywhere in the #2 to #4 range, so he should have about the same stock as his insanely unrealistic upside comp Luka and his more reasonable upside comp in Tatum. Luka was an obvious market inefficiency at the time, but it is curious that he is valued so solidly above Tatum without any clear logic as to why. Tatum edges him out as slightly better in most categories.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think this is a hot take. Based on available information, it seems the market is flat out wrong about Cade being the consensus #1 overall.

More Round 2 Hidden Gems

28 Friday Aug 2020

Posted by deanondraft in NCAA

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

jordan nwora, malik fitts, paul reed, reggie perry, tre jones, zeke nnaji

I have already written about my three favorite sleepers in round 2, but that’s just scratching the surface. Round 2 is littered with all sorts of interesting prospects this year. This draft may have the smallest disparity between prospects slated to go round 2 vs its underwhelming lottery picks that I have ever seen. Let’s look at a few more possible sleepers who may carve out solid NBA careers, once again sorted by current ESPN ranking:

33. Zeke Nnaji

191117_bkb_vs_newmexicost_chook_19

Nnaji is a somewhat boring big prospect, as he provides good interior scoring and rebounding, but has ordinary steal, block, assist rates to go with a pedestrian 7’1″ wingspan and decent but not great athleticism.

What makes him interesting is that his flaws run parallel to fellow Arizona alum Lauri Markkanen. Lauri had even worse steal, block, assist rates, and wingspan, but he made up for it with good lateral mobility. For productive big men, ability to potentially defend in space can help atone for lack of defensive playmaking abilities.

Obviously Nnaji doesn’t have Lauri’s elite shooting ability for a big man, and isn’t the same tier of prospect. But he does offer some shooting potential, making 76% FT and 5/17 from 3 as a freshman.

He also does traditional big man things like interior scoring and rebounding better than Lauri. He is smooth and coordinated which makes him a reliable interior finisher in spite of lacking high end explosiveness.

Even though he is boring on his surface, he has a number of strengths that accumulate and no glaring weakness. There are questions about his defense and shooting, but that’s true for most prospects. He has good intangibles, and if he is successfully develops his 3 + D, he is going to be a solid player.

36. Tre Jones

46e09982-38a9-4909-a69f-4e0799d2f3fc.sized-1000x1000-1

Jones is also a boring mold of game managing PG who plays smart and avoid mistakes, similar to his brother Tyus.

It’s not clear if he is better or worse than Tyus. Odds are he is approximately the same. He doesn’t have the creation or defensive potential to have a big upside tail, but he does have good odds of being an efficient high end backup to low end starting PG like his brother.

It’s understandable why a player like that would slide to round 2, but it feels like he is sliding a bit too far for a prospect likely to be a useful role player.

44. Jordan Nwora

2019-20, BKCM, Men’s Basketball, Virginia, UVA

Much like Aaron Nesmith, Nwora offers good shooting and an NBA body, and that’s about it.

But Nwora is slightly bigger, at 6’7.5″ he is an important 1.5″ taller and his 6’10.5″ wingspan is half an inch longer. He also seems slightly more athletic, and his physical edge shows in his superior rebounding.

	3PA	3P%	FT%
Nwora	10.9	0.394	0.785
Nesmith	11.7	0.41	0.825

Nesmith is also 13 months younger so he gets the clear edge in shooting.

Otherwise both guys have similar steal, block, assist, and free throw rates. They really are similar prospects, and it largely comes down to Nwora’s slight physical advantages vs Nesmith’s slight shooting advantage. How do we choose between the two?

One argument would be that Nwora can easily become the better NBA shooter, but the difference between 6’6″ and 6’7.5″ is significant and Nesmith can never make up that gap. Even though Nwora’s percentages are slightly worse, he appears to have the quicker release on his shot which makes it harder to buy into Nesmith’s advantage for a skill that is extremely high variance to begin with.

The flipside is that Nesmith is lauded for his work ethic and leadership, so teams deciding between the two may favor his intangibles. But Nwora is the son of the Nigerian national team coach and seems to have good intangibles as well, so it’s not a clear advantage for Nesmith based on the limited information available.

Ultimately they are very close and it’s not clear who is the better prospect. The short answer is that they belong in the same tier, which is the sign that the massive gap between their current #44 and #10 rankings should be closed significantly.

49. Reggie Perry

bfea9e19-b710-4aae-9d3c-19b36baeada4-perry

Perry brings a fascinating offensive skill set to the table for a 6’10” player, as he does a bit of everything. He can handle, pass, and shoot, as well as do traditional big man things like score inside and he is an excellent rebounder.

Granted, his skills are still in development. He showed big offensive improvements as a sophomore, but was still turnover prone with 3.0 assists vs 3.7 turnovers per 40. And he shot a solid 76.8% FT, 32.4% from 3, but had a low 3PA rate and still needs to improve his range. But he only turned 20 in March, and has a nice baseline for skill for a young big to build on.

Defensively, Perry faces questions similar to Vernon Carey. He has a 7’0.5″ wingspan, and while he is a decent athlete, his lateral mobility and ability to defend in space are in question. He is currently slotted in round 2 because there’s some chance he gets roasted on defense in the NBA.

But he also has a chance of defensive competence. If he can learn to hold his own on that end and develops his offensive skills well, that will accumulate to a good player.

Perry is yet another 2nd round big who isn’t that different from Obi Toppin. He lacks Toppin’s explosive finishing ability, but is much more well rounded offensively, better rebounding, and has slightly better dimensions and hope of competence on defense.

Even though both are technically sophomores, Perry is two full years younger and likely has more upside to develop into a complete player.

Ultimately it’s confusing how Toppin’s flaws get overlooked while Perry gets jammed in the back end of round 2. Is explosive finishing that rare of a skill compared to motor, physicality, and perimeter skill? It typically isn’t valued that high, and even though it’s a significant advantage, Perry chips away with a number of smaller advantages that add up.

It’s plausible that Obi is nevertheless the better prospect. But it isn’t consistent to ignore his flaws while stashing Reggie Perry and Vernon Carey in the round 2 dumpster in spite of their flaws not being any worse.

51. Paul Reed

sw54640

Reed is a limited offensive player who has spent his NCAA career mired on a horribly coached DePaul team. He is likely going to be a low usage role player in the NBA, so his lack of NBA hype is understandable.

That said– there is much to like about him. In spite of his offensive limitations, he still has a passable shot, making 73.9% FT and 33% 3P over his DePaul career. He has a low 1.9 3PA per 40 minutes, so his shot still needs improvement but it’s not broken.

Other than that he is capable of finishing and has an OK enough 2.0 assists vs 2.9 TOVs per 40 such that he won’t be a significant impediment to an NBA offense if his shooting comes around.

And he offers excellent defensive potential. He is 6’9″ with 7’2″ wingspan with good athleticism. He anchored the #56 defense for DePaul as a junior (close to Leitao’s best ever which is #47) and posted excellent 3.4% steal, 9.4% block, 11.2% ORB, 25.8% DRB rates.

Reed had excellent on/off splits on both ends. DePaul averaged 0.97 vs 0.90 points/possession with him on and turned to mush with 0.83 vs 1.03 with him off.

He isn’t perfect on D, as he is mistake prone on this end, and it remains to be seen how well he can guard NBA perimeter players. But his length, athleticism, and steal rates all suggest that he had a great chance of success, especially once he is freed from the shackles of Dave Leitao’s coaching.

He appears to be a role player in the mold of guys like James Johnson, Moe Harkless, and Andre Roberson. All of those guys were solid returns on first round picks, so why is Reed mired deep in round 2?

My best guess is because he slid through the recruiting radar as a 3* prospect being young for his class and limited on offense, and spent his NCAA career on a perennially bad team. The interesting in draft comparison is Precious Achiuwa, who is currently slated to go #9.

Unlike Reed, Achiuwa was a 5* recruit because he was very old for his class and showed more handling and scoring ability than Reed. But now that they are both in school, even though Achiuwa is a freshman and Reed is a junior, he is only 3 months younger. They have very similar physical profiles with nearly identical dimensions, and their statistical distributions are similar as well:

	Pts	Reb	Ast	TOV	Stl	Blk	2P%	FT%	3PA	FTr
Precious	28.4	19.4	1.7	5.0	2.0	3.4	0.514	0.599	2.3	0.507
Reed	26.7	18.8	2.9	4.0	3.3	4.5	0.551	0.738	3.2	0.227

Most advantages point toward Reed. His assist:TOV suggests he is more likely to be able to play the perimeter in the NBA without being a disaster. His FT% and 3PA rate more optimism for his shooting. And his superior steals and blocks suggest more defensive upside.

On the flipside, Precious has a significant free throw rate advantage and is a bit tankier and more physical. He also does have a better handle which gives him slightly more offensive upside in the instance that he improves his myriad flaws on that end. And his significant RSCI edge may not be 100% attributable to scouts being tricked by age. After all, Reed had a breakout junior year and it’s easier to take Precious #’s at face value.

Like Nwora and Nesmith, the two likely belong in the same tier and are very close considering their disparity in current hype and stock. Reed is more likely to be useful because he is currently a better team player, but Achiuwa has a bit more home run potential.

78. Malik Fitts

1malik

Fitts projects to be undrafted because he turned 23 in July and he’s merely a good but not great player. He started his career as a 3* recruit for South Florida, and after an underwhelming freshman year he transferred to Saint Mary’s where he played well for two seasons.

On one hand, he is an unheralded recruit who never performed well in NCAA until he was 21. But he does a number of things well that should translate to the NBA as a 3 + D wing.

He is 6’8″ with 6’11.5″ wingspan, a good body and athleticism, and he rebounds fairly well. He also has the mobility to defend the perimeter and a solid steal rate, which suggests good potential for versatile NBA defense.

He also is a good shooter, making 40.7% from 3 and 78.6% FT in his two years at Saint Mary’s. And he can handle, and is capable of getting to the rim and finishing.

It’s not that he just slightly checks the boxes, he clearly is a competent handler and shooter and has physical tools to defend multiple positions in the NBA. Those are the 3 most important qualities for a role playing wing, and Fitts brings them all to the table.

Even we compared him in these 3 areas to top 5 prospect Deni Avdija, Fitts is clearly better in all 3. Deni is 3.5 years younger and could surpass Fitts handling and shooting longterm, but Fitts current advantages are so significant he should be considered the favorite to be more skilled longterm. And Fitts physical tools will always be a notch better than Deni.

But of course this doesn’t make him necessarily a better overall prospect than Deni. Deni is known for his basketball IQ, and in spite of his youth is already a much better passer than Fitts who is prone to tunnel vision and has an ugly 2.1 assists vs 3.3 turnovers per 40 for Saint Mary’s. He is also not a lockdown defensive player in spite of his tools, as he is mistake prone and struggles to defend the pick and roll.

This significant IQ/vision advantage for Deni makes him the overall better prospect, but Fitts’ edges in skill and tools makes it much closer than an UDFA should be to a top 5 prospect.

For an undrafted player, Fitts’ flaws aren’t backbreaking. IQ and vision are slippery to assess– interestingly he had a better assist rate as a freshman for South Florida when the rest of his game was much weaker. Perhaps his vision is fine, and NBA coaching is able to mitigate his mistakes in which case he should be a solid role playing wing.

Fitts’ age inhibits his upside, he’s not going to be a slam dunk steal of the draft. But his upside doesn’t seem all that much lower than the younger and similarly flawed players that are currently getting lottery hype.