Category Archives: NCAA

Blinders: The Hidden Prospect Death Knell

01 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

, ,

I mentioned yesterday that blinders needs to become a widespread scouting term. Having “blinders” means that a player will miss open teammates in favor of creating their own low quality shot. I have repeatedly accused Jabari Parker of being a selfish player, and I believe it may be his undoing as an NBA player. But Kobe Bryant is also considered a selfish player and is one of the all-time NBA greats. Personally I believe he is vastly overrated and am not his biggest fan, but he has been a top 2 player for 5 championship teams so it is not a hopeless cause to build around him. With that in mind, I’d like to analyze the possible impact of Jabari Parker’s selfishness on his NBA career.

Derrick Williams is the best recent example of blinders. As a sophomore for Arizona he posted a whopping 69% TS on 28.9 usage to earn the #2 overall draft slot, as his offensive upside seemed immense. But in the NBA he has failed to score efficiently, and since he doesn’t bring any other strengths to the table he is not a useful player and almost certainly will never become one.

His failure may have been unpredictable to some, but there was a strong sign forecasting NBA struggles in his college stats: he had a paltry 43 assists vs. 100 turnovers in college. This did not badly hurt his efficiency because he was big, strong, and athletic enough to overpower most college defenders. But in the NBA he was just an undersized PF, which meant that most defenses carried two players bigger than him whereas many college defenses carried zero.

To me his failure was exemplified with a single play. Earlier this season the Kings were playing the Pacers in a tightly contested game in overtime (if anybody knows how to find clips from random NBA games this past season, please let me know so I can share the moment). Derrick Williams stole the ball and in transition he had teammate Isaiah Thomas wide open in the corner and opponents Roy Hibbert and Paul George standing underneath the hoop. His options were to kick it out for a wide open, catch and shoot corner 3 that Thomas likely nails about 50% of the time, or to attack two of the top defensive players in the NBA. Naturally Williams didn’t see Thomas, tried to attack, turned it over, and the Kings lost. Let’s take a moment to consider the expected value of either option.

1) The expected value of a 50% 3 pointer is 1.5 points plus the re-draw for the offensive rebound in the 50% that the shot missed. But the Pacers were in a better position to rebound and Williams had a small chance of throwing the pass away, so I can round down and stick with 1.5 points for the decision to pass.

2) Roy Hibbert is a 7’2″ mountain who is a stellar rim protector and Paul George was there too. I can’t fathom that it ends well for Williams to attack them 1 on 2 often. I imagine that if he tried it 100 times, he’d get lucky and draw a handful of fouls, maybe convert 2 or 3 miracle finishes, but mostly get stuffed or turn it over. If I’m being excessively generous I’d say that possession is worth 0.5 points, but in reality it’s probably more like 0.25.

So that single poor decision cost the Kings somewhere in the range of 1 to 1.25 points, which is quite the EV punt for a single play. If each player on the floor makes one decision this poor per game, that is enough to render an average team to a Lakers/Celtics/Magic level of tanking as each team had an SRS in the range of -5 to -6 this past season. Incidentally, this also likely explains Williams’s big drop off in efficiency from NCAA to NBA, as he rarely had players nearly the size of Roy Hibbert awaiting him at the hoop in college.

Kobe may err on the side of shooting when the pass is healthier for the team from time to time, but he doesn’t attempt kamikaze missions like Williams does. He has always had a good assist rate, which explains why he was able to succeed in spite of being a somewhat selfish player. If he sometimes declines a pass that would yield a 0.9 point possession for a shot that is worth 0.8, that’s not a huge deal since he needs to make 10-12 errors of that magnitude to match the EV punt in my Williams example.

Note that some players can suffer from blinders and succeed anyway. Dwight Howard has always had poor vision and a poor assist to turnover ratio, but he has such stellar physical tools that he enable him to make his mark with defense, rebounding, and as a garbage man offensively. He loses value by demanding post touches in spite of his limited skill level and vision, but because he brings so much baseline value with his strengths he is nevertheless able to be a highly valuable player.

On the other hand, Jabari Parker has at best average physical tools, and it will be a happy outcome for the Bucks if he is average defensively. I do think he’s more talented than Williams with superior vision and feel, but he posted a putrid NCAA assist:turnover ratio and seemed determined to score every big bucket in big games. This was exemplified by him shooting 4/14 with 0 assists and 4 turnovers in Duke’s tournament exit vs. underdog Mercer, as he insisted on forcing the issue inside vs. their zone while his team shot 15/37 from 3 off of consistently wide open attempts.

To provide a happy return on the #2 overall slot, Jabari Parker needs to become a highly positive offensive player. At his current rate, he could become a Glenn Robinson or slightly better who posts empty bulk stats and doesn’t help his team win. But I do not believe it’s possible that he becomes an positively impactful player without changing his nature and becoming a more willing passer. If he refuses to pass in obvious passing situations in the NBA as he did in college, he’s going to make too many costly decisions in same vein as Derrick Williams. This will offset the good things he does on offense enough to preclude him from making a great impact on that end. In other words: he needs to become Kobe’s brand of selfish instead of that of Williams. I do believe this is possible as he showed solid vision in feel in blowouts early in the season and reportedly was unselfish in high school. I would be nervous about the prospect of gambling on somebody necessarily changing their nature to succeed at #2 overall, but that’s a different argument for a different day.

There are more condemning brands of blinders, as Andrew Harrison is the gold standard for incorrigible tunnel vision that precludes him from ever becoming a useful NBA player. Julius Randle is a less severe example, as he is a willing passer but seems incapable of changing his decision to pass vs. shoot once he puts the ball on the floor.

Blinders do come in varying degrees and flavors, and I’m not certain that it always spells certain death. But I do believe poor vision is a flaw that is not fixable, and my hypothesis is that this is an unseen wart that is severely harmful for translating to higher levels. It gets underplayed by popular draft sites, so this is my primer as it is a concept that I will cite regularly going forward. For any player who is projected to make a big time offensive impact, I believe blinders is the worst red flag that can appear on his scouting report.

Video

Scouting The Hoop Summit: Can Mudiay Go #1?

30 Monday Jun 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

After writing my way too early 2015 preview, I received some commentary on my exclusion of Emmanuel Mudiay. I didn’t realize that he was being hyped as the 2nd most likely #1 overall pick, but Chad Ford says his Hoop Summit performance has him in the equation breathing down Okafor’s neck. Fortunately the Hoop Summit can be watched on youtube, so I decided to pick apart his performance and assess the extent to which I agree with the hype.

Offense
Mudiay played for the World Team and was given the keys to the offense as their only player cut out for heavy ball handling duties. It was clear that his objective was to push tempo in transition, where he is at his best. Also USA Team did quite a bit of pressing and trapping which opened up lanes for Mudiay to attack when the World Team beat the press. He didn’t do much attacking of a set defense, so this was the optimal type of game for him to thrive. Note that this is not completely unabridged, based on box score I’m missing a couple of missed 3’s and maybe a turnove. Then again maybe the box score is wrong.

Passing
3:32 Beats Johnson off the dribble and kicks it out to create an open 3 which is missed.
7:08 Attacks in transition, gets cut off by Oubre, passes to Inglis
7:50 Rises up for shot, changes mind at last second and throws ball away for turnover
22:35 Gets dual pressure from Johnson + Oubre in backcourt, almost turns it over, eventually world team gets called for 8 seconds.
24:47 In transition interior pass gets tipped away by Tyus Jones for turnover
27:50 Attacks on PnR, Oubre pokes away pass for turnover
34:05 World team beats press, Mudiay attacks and makes good decision to pass to Birsen for easy layup.
39:07 Beats press, kicks it out for missed open 3 attempt
39:48 Inbounds to Brandone Francis who makes long 2.
1:22:12 Threads the needle to Towns on the pick and roll, but the bounce pass is knee level and Towns can’t catch it.
1:24:42 Nicely passes the ball off to Lyles in transition who gets rejected by Oubre
1:27:54 Passes to a cutting Lyles who lays it in

Transition Scoring
3:55 Misses transition layup
10:54 Attacks in transition, gets cut off by Oubre on perimeter
23:22 Dunks on transition breakaway
31:03 Attacks and draws FT’s in transition
33:09 After world team beats press, Mudiay catches ball with open lane and explodes to hoop for made layup.
51:29 Beats Johnson in transition for made layup
54:06 Gets to hoop in transition, gets blocked from behind by Cliff Alexander
1:20:38 Rips strong rebound, pushes the ball in transition, dishes the ball to Murray, gets it back and misses layup.
1:22:54 Makes layup in transition
1:28:25 Draws FT’s in transition

Halfcourt Creation
19:39 Spots up for open jumper, blows by overly aggressive Pinson closeout and converts finger roll.
20:45 Two US defenders converge on Birsen who swings to Mudiay. Mudiay attacks open lane to hoop and misses layup.
52:38 Tries to attack Oubre off the dribble, can’t get all the way to the rim, kicks it out to perimeter
55:59 Blows by Alexander after shot fake, misses layup
1:17:25 Blows by Travis, misses layup
1:17:51 Gets crafty inbounding to himself off of Turner’s behind, almost turns it over when Winslow is ready for him at rim.
1:25:29 Jukes Johnson, blows to the rim and finishes +1
1:27:15 Gets matched up vs Okafor on the switch, can’t blow by. Gives ball up, gets it back, still can’t get past Okafor and badly bricks floater.

Jumpshooting
6:25 Hits mid-range shot off the dribble
35:28 Badly bricks transition 3 attempt
41:00 Makes pull up 3 pointer
44:24 Misses pull up jumper with shot clock winding down

Defense
The World played quite a bit of zone and I couldn’t find much foot of Mudiay’s man to man mettle. His length caused problems as he finished with 3 steals. Note that I couldn’t find the timestamp for one of his steals where he deflected a Stanley Johnson inbounds pass and then saved it to his teammate, and it was his most impressive steal. The occasions a USA player ventured into his zone defensively he was somewhat lazy, which is partially understandable given his big role on offense.

5:09 Lazy swipe in transition
6:09 Lazy help
9:01 In zone, makes little effort to cut off Johnson drive
20:00 Doubles myles turner, comes up with steal when turner attacks and loses the ball
24:52 Plays matador defense as he lazily swipes vs Oubre in transition
57:28 Uses length to pick off Tyus Jones’s pass in transition, draws foul going back the other way
1:27:05 Just watches as Jones attacks his area of zone and banks in floater

This may be kind of a mess for anybody who wants to re-watch, but at least it organizes the things that he did in the game for my synopsis.

Strengths:
-Great size for PG. 6’5″ 200 lbs 6’8.5″ wingspan
-Strong athletic package: quicks, speed, and explosiveness all present
-Good ball handler
-Solid court vision
-Didn’t make any appalling decisions. Passed the ball when he was unable to get his shot off. Does not appear to have Andrew Harrison-ish blinders. Only blocked once from behind, was a great athletic play by Alexander and not a bad decision from Mudiay.
-Showed ability to be disruptive defensively with steals. Hard to accurately assess his instincts w/o bigger sample, however.
-Beast in the open court. He pushed pace diligently and attacked every time he had an opening.

Weaknesses
-Sloppy with the ball. Threw away a number of passes
-Missed 5 clean looks at the rim. Can he finish in the half-court?
-Overall shot poorly at All-Star games. Between McDonald’s, Hoop Summit, Jordan Brand tallied 1/11 3’s 7/16 FT’s. DX says he shot 6/41 from 3 in EYBL. Is his shot broken?
-Somewhat lazy on defense. Will he capitalize on his tools on this end?
-Appears to be a work in progress in the half-court. This is where he needs to develop to successfully translate to tougher competition.
-Doesn’t have either an outlier tool or an outlier skill. What makes him a special snowflake?

Conclusion
Overall, there’s a lot to like and not much to hate, but what is there to truly love about Mudiay? First let’s start with his physical tools. They are definitely good, as he is a clear positive across the board. His body is similar to that of John Wall, who measured 6’4″ 196 lbs with a 6’9.25″ wingspan at the combine, only Mudiay was 1.5 years younger when he was measured. But I watched their high school mixtapes on youtube to compare their athleticism, and Mudiay is nowhere near as explosive as John Wall. Granted, he’s clearly a very good athlete and Wall is the gold standard for physical tools for a PG. But if we are talking about #1 overall for a PG with a pedestrian skill package, it’s hard to get too excited if he’s not going to be among the creme de la creme of athletes at his position.

The good news for his skill package is that nothing seems necessarily fatal. To me having blinders (this needs to become a scouting word, it is so descriptive of a common + important flaw) is the worst weakness a prospect can have. It was the reason why scouts so quickly soured on Andrew Harrison, he is awful at making crisp decisions. Once he puts the ball on the floor, he does often not changing his mind and frequently gets stuffed at the rim or turns it over. I was impressed with Mudiay’s ability to pass the ball when he didn’t have a clean look at the rim. Mudiay is also more athletic than Harrison, and with these two tidbits in mind I just don’t see Mudiay plummeting quite as hard as Harrison did.

But there are nevertheless reasons to be concerned. His shot might be broken, his passes were often off target, and he bricked 5 easily makeable layups. It seems that his fine motor skills are not good at delivering the ball where he intends it, and this is something that needs to improve. But if a player is going to be turnover prone, I’d rather it be due to sloppiness than blinders as the former is more fixable.

Also he didn’t seem to take a world of pride in his defense, which is never a good sign for a prospect you are banking on to become good defensively. I’d say he’s a major mystery box on this end. Even DX doesn’t take a stance on his defense in their scouting report, only noting that he has excellent potential without commenting either way on where he is now.

Overall it’s hard to know what to expect. I don’t believe he has as much risk of sliding the same way that Marquis Teague or Andrew Harrison did, as his tools are so universally strong across the board and his instincts appear competent enough such that I can’t envision giving up hope on him so early. I’d say even if he disappoints he has a strong chance of remaining in the lottery. But the reason why I didn’t list him in my top 5 most intriguing prospects is confirmed by his Hoop Summit performance: I don’t see the extreme level of upside that makes him worth the #1 pick at the deepest position in the NBA. Sure, he can become a top 5 NBA PG if he develops well enough, but what’s his ticket to the top 2? He doesn’t have crazy explosiveness, he doesn’t have any super skills or feel, he’s just a toolsy guy who does PG things well enough to be an appealing prospect. I don’t get the same sense of boundless upside that I got from watching Dante Exum’s signature performance vs. Spain.

I feel that after his freshman season, best case he looks like a toolsier Elfrid Payton. That is good, since Payton went 10th in a deeper draft and I liked the pick. In a thinner draft, that puts Mudiay in the conversation for #1 if neither Towns nor Okafor shines. Even if he doesn’t hit his upside he has a strong chance of ending up in the top 5 of my final big board. I suspect I’ll like him alright enough, but without a clear scenario where I truly love him as a prospect I’m marginally more excited for a handful of other freshmen. Best guess is that he ends up somewhere in the 3-10 range on my final big board, although he probably has a better shot of actually getting picked #1 than he does of ranking #1 according to me.

One last note– I don’t think it’s great that he is going to play for Larry Brown. Larry Brown to me is a dinosaur, in that he was probably awesome like 65 million years ago but is obsolete these days and may as well be extinct. His hatred of 3 point shots goes to show how stubbornly unsharp he is (check SMU 3PA’s vs 3PA allowed). He was a great hire for SMU since he quickly attracted enough talent to revitalize the program, and most college basketball coaches aren’t sharp minds anyway. But let’s not act like he’s going to teach Mudiay the right way to play basketball (although limiting his 3PA may not be the worst thing in the world for him).

Other Prospects At The Hoop Summit:
-The two prospects who guarded him the most were Stanley Johnson and Kelly Oubre. Johnson is quick for a prospect of his size, but I think asking him to stay in front of Mudiay was a bit too much as he had a hard time cutting off his drives. Also Johnson struggled to create off the dribble vs. the world zone. It could easily have just been a bad game, as it seems like it was a bad matchup for Johnson on a number of levels. But it woulda been nice if he did more to stand out.

-Oubre on the other hand showed awesome quicks as he seemingly cut off Mudiay’s drives at will. Literally every time Mudiay crossed paths with Oubre he had a bad time (7:08, 10:54, 22:35, 27:50, 52:38). Also Oubre’s block on Trey Lyles was pretty awesome (1:24:45). DraftExpress thinks Oubre has questionable defensive fundamentals, and I’m not yet ready to say that they are wrong but I’m starting to question their questions. Also from my mix tape studying Oubre might be the most explosive guy on the floor and he finished with 3 assists and 1 turnover, so he’s checking off all of the boxes for me. It’s possible that he’s like Wiggins but slightly less athletic and way better at basketball. Again, maybe just a good game/good matchup but my intrigue is growing.

-Jahlil Okafor is kind of a black hole. His final box score looks alright if you focus on the 14 points and 10 rebounds, but 0 assists and 4 turnovers are less impressive. Historically his assist stats are not good, so I hope he’s not just a bigger Jabari (which is an astute comparison that was made in the comment section of my prior post). The good news is that he showed some quick feet to stay in front of Mudiay twice in a row (1:27:15) which can somewhat mitigate his lack of rim protection.

-Tyus Jones is like 90% to be a boss. He might be my favorite college player in this class. He is small and lacks elite athleticism however, so this places a damper on his ability to have high NBA draft stock.

-Justise Winslow had a good game, although it was mostly from scoring points in transition, finishing a nifty lob from Jones, and hitting a buzzer beating 3 to end the 1st half. So I don’t think he proved he can fit in offensively at higher levels, he just had a good game. I still like him and remain hopeful for his Duke performance.

-Myles Turner was there but I believe he was combatting an injury that prevented him from shining. Based on his profile he seems to have at least some #1 overall equity, although he carries a slippery raw label which to me implies that he is bad at converting his physical strengths into production.

-Trey Lyles is completely meh to me. As far as I can tell he racks up points and rebounds without actually doing anything that will be exceptionally useful at the NBA level.

-Karl Towns had a disappointing game. 17 minutes, 6 points, 0 assists, 4 turnovers, 4 fouls. If he has too many games like this at Kentucky he’s not going #1. But he did have a great block + rebound + outlet pass sequence at 8:22 that stood out to me.

-Cliff Alexander has a small slice of #1 equity, with the emphasis on small. He has a great PF body and is an explosive athlete, but he appears to have a center skill level which places a damper on his upside. He didn’t do too much this game, although he had an impressive block on Mudiay and a couple of tough goaltending calls went against him.

If I had to guess who would end up #1 on my big board among the players in the game, my rankings go Towns > Okafor > Oubre > Johnson > Turner > Winslow > Mudiay > Alexander > Jones. It’s the thinnest of thin slice predictions, so these rankings may look totally bananas a year from now. But I’m addicted to making predictions, so I may as well give it a whirl.

Way Too Early 2015 NCAA Rankings

29 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

Top Returning NCAA Players
1. Willie Cauley-Stein: 7’0″ C, Kentucky, Jr.
Cauley-Stein made a surprising decision to stay in school given how jam-packed Kentucky’s front-court will be next year. Julius Randle is gone, but 5 star recruits C Karl Towns and PF Trey Lyles arrive and Dakari Johnson, Marcus Lee, and Alex Poythress have an extra year of seasoning. I’m curious to see how Cal manages his rotations, as WCS was prone to landing in his doghouse this past season and now plays in a more crowded frontcourt.

WCS does have his shortcomings: he’s a pure garbageman on offense and he doesn’t have the best focus or bbiq on defense. But he is huge, athletic, and exceptionally mobile for a 7 footer. Even the quickest of guards have a difficult time blowing by him on switches, so whatever NBA team drafts him gets quite the versatile piece to work with defensively. He is a similar prospect to Clint Capela, but he has more girth and slightly less sexy stats. I’m fairly stubborn that this is a mold that should not slide deep in the draft, even though it seems to happen quite a bit. If WCS lands in Calipari’s doghouse again he could slide and provide great value for the team that bites on him. He’s a favorite to end up in the top 10 on my final big board next season.

2. Bobby Portis: 6’10” PF, Arkansas, So.
Bobby Portis was a 5 star recruit who was curiously underhyped in spite of a great freshman season, but that has been rectified as he’s now 18th in DX’s 2015 mock and ESPN has him marked as possible lotto pick. He measured 6’10.5″ at the Nike Skills Camp this summer after being listed at 6’9″ as a freshman– I don’t know the margin for error for camp measurements but if he actually grew an inch that’s a happy development. He isn’t much of a leaper, but the extra inch leaves him with a nice PF body to go with a great motor as Portis always plays hard. Prospects with average tools and good feel for the game tend to get undervalued in the draft, but if Portis builds on his freshman season with a strong sophomore showing he could be a top 10 value next year.

3. Frank Kaminsky: 7’0″ PF/C, Wisconsin, Sr.
The perpertual victim of his poor face test, Kaminsky has to work against rather strong cognitive biases to get drafted in the lottery next season. Currently DX has him 23rd in the 2015 mock, so early signs show a glimmer of hope. He’s tall, coordinated, and can score from anywhere, and that’s a combination of traits I have an easy time getting on board with. Regardless of where he actually goes, he’ll likely need to have a disappointing senior season to not end up as a lottery value on my big board

4. Rondae Hollis-Jefferson: 6’7 SF, Arizona, So.
Hollis-Jefferson is more or less a poor man’s Aaron Gordon. He was a much better freshman FT shooter at 68%, and the two had strikingly similar stats overall. But he’s 2 inches shorter, 6 months older, and less explosive. He may not be a top 5 pick like Gordon, but there’s plenty to like and he has a strong chance of becoming a lottery value on my big board and a lottery pick in reality.

5. Delon Wright: 6’5″ PG, Utah, Sr.
The crafty and lengthy Wright is back for his senior year after blowing away expectations in his first NCAA season as a JuCo transfer. It will be interesting to see if he can replicate the lofty statistical standards he set as a junior, and personally I do have my doubts about Wright. He got a ton of his points wrecking doormat teams in transition, he’s exceptionally skinny, and he’s at best an average athlete. But I also have a soft spot for weird molds, and unless his performance falls off a cliff I’ll likely have him as a 1st rounder. With a strong enough showing he could even ascend to lottery status.

6. RJ Hunter: 6’5″ SG, Georgia State, Jr.
My favorite 3 + D prospect in the draft, Hunter stuffs the statsheet the same way that Kyle Korver and Danny Green did in college. If NBA teams don’t learn that these types are too useful to slide to the back end of round 2, he’ll be a great value for somebody. Hunter’s big concern is strength as he’s rail thin, which will rightfully scare teams at least a little bit. But I’m pretty sure I’m going to rank him as a 1st rounder anyway, his stats are too good not to.

7. Sam Dekker: 6’7″ SF, Wisconsin, Jr.
Dekker is a vanilla 3 + D SF with solid but not great stats. I have a hard time finding distinct strengths or weaknesses for him, he seems middling in every regard. That’s not going to stop him from becoming an alright role player though, and that makes him a fine pickup late in round 1.

8. Jerian Grant: 6’5″ PG/SG, Notre Dame, Sr.
Grant is a volatile prospect and I have no idea where I’ll rank him. He appeared en route to a breakout junior season after 12 games, but then he was suspended for the remainder of the year. He is going to be a 22 year old senior now, so he really needs to dominate to justify a 1st round selection. In the case that he does he offers an interesting package of shooting, handling, and passing and he has the tools to possibly defend either guard position. DX expresses concerns about him being lazy, but if he can get his act together as a senior he exudes intrigue to me.

Others To Watch
Wichita State fans who are tired of hearing me bash Cleanthony Early can rejoice, as I like both Ron Baker and Fred Van Vleet and am rooting for them to sneak into round 1. They were the guys who created all of the offense and should be a terrific backcourt duo this season. I’m not sure either has the tools to get all the way into round 1, although Chad Ford has marked Baker as a possible 1st rounder. Either way I’ll be watching plenty of Shockers basketball next season.

We finally get to see if Florida PF Chris Walker can actually play or not. That said I’m not sure it matters a ton since he seems to be a dreaded C in a PF body, so I don’t buy the lottery hype for a second.

If you watch Montrezl Harrell’s dunk reel, may be convinced that his lottery pedigree is justified. It isn’t. He’s a one dimensional dunker who doesn’t have either the size or skill to thrive in the NBA. Unless he develops his skill level big time this offseason I’m a seller.

Wayne Selden, Andrew Harrison, and Aaron Harrison are all back to try to redeem their disapppointing freshmen seasons and prove that they do belong in round 1. Of the three, I have Aaron Harrison as the most likely player to justify a 1st round selection.

Caris Levert made a big leap for Michigan this past season, and with Stauskas and Robinson gone he has an opportunity to make another surge forward and get drafted in round 1.

Michael Qualls’ skill level remains a work in progress, but he’s the most electric dunker in the NCAA. If he can make another leap forward he could justify a 1st round pick.

Briante Weber looms as the athletic PG who is beloved by draft models due to his broken steal rate playing for VCU’s press. He has potential as a Rajon Rondo lite.

Most Intriguing Freshmen:
1. Karl Towns: 7’0″ C, Kentucky
He’s only the #7 RSCI recruit, but he may have the best shot of getting selected #1 overall. He has a great body for a center and he’s skilled and coordinated too. If he plays to his potential as a freshman, he’s not the mold of prospect who you can pass up at #1.

2. Jahlil Okafor: 6’11” C, Duke
The #1 RSCI recruit as well as the early favorite to go #1, he sounds like a nice prospect to me but I’m not convinced he has a stranglehold on the slot. He has great length at 7’5″ and he’s also strong and reasonably mobile, but he’s not explosive and there are doubts about his ability to be a defensive stud. He played for the u19 USA team in Prague at age 17 and posted absolutely monster stats. He sort of sounds like Zach Randolph if Z-Bo was 2 inches taller, which is a pretty interesting prospect. I’d say he’s a good bet to go in the top 5, and either him or Towns will end up being the #1 selection a fairly high %.

3. Stanley Johnson: 6’7″ SF, Arizona
So I guess it’s now a rule that smart, toolsy combo forwards with dubious outside shooting are required to attend Arizona. It’s a rule that I endorse, as I like this mold of player and I like the way Sean Miller makes use of them. Johnson is 6’7″ 237 with a 6’11” wingspan, which is a fantastic body for a young SF prospect. He’s also athletic, a competitive defensive player, and a willing passer so he sounds like a prospect that I will have an exceptionally easy time getting excited over. I have high hopes for Stanley and think he has a great shot of landing in the top 5 and is a solid dark horse for #1 overall.

4. Justise Winslow: 6’6″ SF, Duke
Winslow is a slightly smaller Johnson doppelganger as far as I can tell. Surely the two will display differences once we actually see them both play, but he’s another unselfish, defensive SF that I’m excited for. My impression is that he’s a longshot to go #1 because his tools are only solidly good across the board and he doesn’t have a standout attribute, but if he’s as good as I suspect there is always room for a Winslow type in my top 5.

Duke fans who are tired of hearing me bash Rodney Hood and Jabari Parker can rejoice as I have high hopes for Winslow, Okafor, and Tyus Jones (who didn’t crack my top 5 due to his size but sounds like an awesome college player if nothing else), and it’s possible that I end up bullish on all 3 of them. It’s also possible that they disappoint, but I have had a strong feeling that I would like the coming team more than the prior team for the entirety of last season.

5. Kelly Oubre: 6’6″ SF, Kansas
He’s long (7’2″), athletic, and can get buckets which gives him a puncher’s shot at #1 if he exceeds expectations. Oubre is the prospect who stands out as the widest range of outcomes for me, as I could see myself either loving him or hating him if he proves to be a non-defense playing chucker.

Player That Will Break VJL’s Draft Model And Never Actually Get Picked:
Tanner Omlid: 6’3″ F (apparently), Army, So.
I stumbled across Omlid when perusing sports-reference.com for possible sleepers, and man is he an interesting case. He completely stuffs the statsheet with steals, blocks, assists, rebounds, 2p%, and even shows some hope of becoming an adequate shooter (29.5% 3’s, 68% FT’s).

The steals especially stand out, as he tallied a whopping 6.6% steal rate as a freshman which trumps even that of Marcus Smart (5.0%). The only other player that had a steal rate higher than 5.5% this past season was Briante Weber (6.8%), who did so with the aid of VCU’s Havoc press. Army doesn’t seem to have any sort of steal generating gimmick, as the rest of the team has completely pedestrian steal rates. For comparison, Weber created 30.9% of his teams total steals playing 14.2% of the team’s total minutes, Omlid generated 33.6% of his teams steals playing just 8.9% of the total minutes.

Granted, Weber is surrounded by more talent and plays against higher levels of competition, but this is still a stunning outlier. Omlid was almost certainly the beneficiary of sample size variance, as I’m taking the under on a 6% steal rate for him next year easily. But he’s somebody that I plan to monitor and hope to catch a glimpse of if an Army game ever appears on TV. If he plays forward for Army, perhaps he’s long and athletic enough to find a niche in the NBA as a SG one day.

A few caveats: he’s still only a sophomore and almost certainly is staying in school for 4 years since he’s unlikely to get noticed playing at Army. Further, a large part of his appeal is his likely youth, but he could be a bizarrely old for his class as I cannot find his date of birth. And most importantly, he is a stone cold lock to get undervalued by scouts based on his dubious face test.

Parsing Through The NCAA Prospects: Part 4

25 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Commentary on a handful of Round 2 prospects who I skipped in the NCAA parse

Rim creation stats

Zach LaVine
The funny thing about LaVine is that it seems HS scouts rated him accurately as the #52 recruit in his class, and then when he went to college it was decided that he should now be a lotto talent because he can jump through the roof. His steal rate, assist rate, and half-court rim creation stats are all poor and I don’t see a single statistical signal that he has nearly the upside that draft narratives suggest. Further he seems to be a skeptic that 3 > 2, as his favorite move is to catch the ball behind the arc, take a few dribbles, and then launch a long two with his foot on the arc.

He seems to think he has PG skills that he wasn’t permitted to display at UCLA because Kyle Anderson was the primary PG and the coach’s son Bryce Alford was the backup. If he has a world of skill that somehow went completely undetected during his time at UCLA and he also develops well, then maybe he will one day justify the hype. But for now I’m rolling with the more likely conclusion that he’s a leaper who can shoot but lacks the skill and smarts to succeed in the NBA. I think he’s an early 2nd round flier.

Adreian Payne
He seems to be the prototypical stretch 4 from a scouting perspective- he has good height and length for a PF, he makes 3’s, he rebounds, he has the athleticism to finish in the paint, and he seems to have a shot of being competent defensively. This has earned him an invite to the green room and chatter as a fringe lottery pick. But every statistical model I have seen grades him as a mid-late 2nd rounder.

Issue #1 with Payne is that he doesn’t have the steal or block rates to exist as a rim protecting center. Issue #2 is that he has a dreadful assist to turnover rate in spite of being exceptionally old. This doesn’t quite strike me as a death knell, but his horrible passing may completely nullify his ability to fit in offensively as a stretch 4. I still have a bit of skepticism toward his ranking in statistical models, but I see why they would dislike him enough to have a bit more skepticism toward his 1st round ranking. I have him as an early 2nd.

Jerami Grant
I don’t think he should be a 1st rounder. His tools give him upside to be pretty good defensively on the wing once removed from the Syracuse zone, but he simply doesn’t have the skill level to play offensively on the wing in any capacity. He doesn’t even have good skill level for PF, where he is likely too small to play regularly.  I’m not sure how he finds a niche in NBA lineups.

Russ Smith
Russdiculous has made an incredible transformation from his sophomore season when he was an inveterate chucker. Since then he has vastly improved his shooting ability, PG skills, and shot selection to become one of the best players in the NCAA. He is likely too old and small to have much upside, but he makes up for his size with quicks, speed, and quick hands to force a high number of steals in Louisville’s press. He somewhat reminds me of a poor man’s Kyle Lowry. While he almost certainly won’t become nearly as good as Lowry, I believe he’s a solid 2nd round flier.

Nick Johnson
He’s a dreaded SG in a PG body, which is never good for draft stock. Further he doesn’t have an exceptionally high skill level for a 21 year old SG, as both Layne Vashro and Kevin Pelton grade him as a late 2nd rounder based on stats. But I think he has a niche in the NBA anyway as a 3 + D PG. He is an explosive athlete with solid quickness, and he was one of the best defensive guards in the NCAA this past season as he played a key role in Arizona’s super elite defense. There’s such an influx of big PG’s who can cross match with SG’s, I think he’s a good player to target in round 2 if you can pair him with a Michael Carter-Williams or Dante Exum sized PG.

Chris Udofia
A largely unknown prospect who ranks 17th according to VJL’s EWP model. Udofia is an interesting case– like most of the Denver team, he rocked as a junior and then regressed as a senior. Vashro uses a 60/40 weighting, so his junior season plays a big role in his EWP score. Denver runs a unique offense with heavy emphasis on passing and 3 point shooting as they rated top 2 in assists:FGM and top 20 in 3PA:FGA in each of the past two seasons. Defensively they gamble for steals (I don’t know their precise scheme but his steal rate certainly comes with a grain of salt). Both their offensive and defensive 2p% fell off a cliff from 2013 to 2014, as they dropped from the 53rd kenpom team to 143rd in spite of retaining much of their rotation. I don’t know the precise cause, but suffice it to say that Denver is not a run of the mill mid-major team. Further, Udofia played as an undersized 6’6″ center, so there were a number of factors aligning in his favor to post statistics that overstate his talent level.

That said, I’m not completely writing him off. He has a 7’2″ wingspan and appears to be quite explosive based on his block rate and dunk reel. He posted an excellent assist rate playing in Denver’s ball movement offense, which inspires hope for his ability to convert to NBA SF. His shot is a flaw as he only made 29% 3’s and 65% FT’s for his college career, but if he can make a late leap in his shooting ability he may be a round 2 steal.

Dwight Powell
Powell is old and lacks length, athleticism, and consistent 3 point shooting.  All of these things make him not really worth a 1st round selection, as it stacks the odds of him becoming a good NBA player against him.  But he’s a good passer for a big man and is fairly athletic and mobile.  His shot isn’t completely broken, so if he can develop into a capable NBA floor spacer then you have an interesting stretch 4.  I like him as a 2nd round flier.

Scottie Wilbekin
It’s a bit surprising that he isn’t generating any buzz as a 2nd round draft pick.  He was perceived as the leader of the #1 overall seed in the tournament and played quite well en route to the Final Four.  Granted he struggled badly in an upset loss to UConn, tallying just 4 points 1 assist and 3 turnovers.  But based on his college reputation you’d expect him to rank higher than 74th on Chad Ford’s big board, and he’s not even in DX’s top 100, as he’s only their 50th best senior.  I imagine the issue is his lack of length (6’3.25″) and bulk (168 lbs), but those critiques also apply to Shabazz Napier and Wilbekin is 1.75 inches taller and more athletic.  He’s young for his class and does a little bit of everything.  Layne Vashro rates him as the #35 NCAA prospect and Kevin Pelton rates him as the #27 overall prospect.  Given that he was a good defensive player at the NCAA level, I would say that’s enough to make him worth a 2nd round flier.

Khem Birch
It seems stat models have Birch pegged as a second round sleeper, but I don’t share their enthusiasm. He is underskilled for a center, as his offensive repertoire is limited to offensive rebounds and dunks. He can’t pass and he can’t create his own shot at the rim. His 69.3% FT as a junior gives some hope for his shot which is instantly crushed by him shooting 20/75 (26.7%) from mid-range.

To make matters worse, he is undersized for a PF at 6’9.25″ with a 7’1″ wingspan while weighing a paltry 209 pounds. Not only does his size cast doubt on his ability to translate his gaudy block rate to the NBA, but how in the world is he ever going to have enough skill to fit in offensively at PF? He is far too small to play center full time.

Birch strikes me as a cut and dry case of somebody who is built to dominate NCAA and then not translate to the NBA due to his lack of size. You can give his stats enough regard to take him somewhere in round 2, but he’s a run of the mill flier as opposed to a compelling sleeper in my book.

Rodney Hood
I took a cautious approach to writing about Hood earlier in the season. After a full season of observation, there is no need for caution. The guy has mediocre tools and is a complete trainwreck defensively. He had poor steal and block rates, and he was regularly faked out and blown by. He was likely the worst defensive player on Coach K’s worst defensive team that I can remember. Offensively he’s a good shooter and has solid feel for the game as he passes well for a SF. That’s not nearly enough for a 21 y/o with lackluster tools who is lock bad on defense, at best he’s worth a late 2nd round flier.

Cleanthony Early
I honestly can’t fathom how he turns out to be useful as a pro. In spite of being 23 he’s a horrible passer and couldn’t even create shots at the rim playing in the Missouri Valley Conference. He doesn’t have a good steal rate, he doesn’t eye test well defensively, and he’s obviously too small to play PF full time.  He can shoot and he can jump but at age 23 you need more going for you than that to succeed in the NBA. I don’t see how he’s draftable. He is extremely fortunate that he had the game of his life when everybody was watching vs. Kentucky to generate all of his draft hype.

Sim Bhullar
Nobody wants to talk about the New Mexico State giant, but I do.  He’s probably a stiff, but I think people are too quick to assume that he can’t be useful.  The man is 7’5, he doesn’t need to have a world of talent to become a useful rotation player.  He weighs 360 pounds and there is clearly quite a bit of room to improve his physical profile.  Why not take a flier in the back end of round 2, try to get him on a dietary program to see if he can trim down, and then see what happens?  He claims he has lost 17 pounds in the past month which isn’t a bad start.

Also I am not totally convinced that he’s a stiff.  I watched about one half of New Mexico State basketball in the NCAA tournament vs. San Diego State, and I was surprised to see Bhullar make a graceful catch and finish on a long outlet pass in transition.  Layne Vashro’s EWP stat model rates him as a late 1st rounder, although it’s possible that the Bhullar ranking is broken by his outlier height as EWP also rated Shawn Bradley as a historically great prospect.  There’s nevertheless enough to like here such that I’m at least intrigued to see if he can become something if he trims down.

Parsing Through The NCAA Prospects: Part 3

25 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Part 1

Part 2

Rim creation stats that help fuel my skepticism toward a handful of prospects in this post

PJ Hairston
Hairston is a bit of an enigma statistically, as Kevin Pelton’s WARP formula rates him as the #7 NCAA prospect where’s Layne Vashro’s EWP model rates him as a 2nd rounder.  The fact of the matter is that he posted impressive box score stats as a sophomore at UNC, but the EWP model has doubts about his ability to translate based on his reliance on jump shooting.  I think both sides of the equation have merit.

Hairston only made 34.9% of college 3’s (possibly due to poor variance as a freshman), so for a player who doesn’t offer much in the way of handling, athleticism, speed, or passing, it’s kind of frightening how jumper dependent he is.  But he shot 80% on FT’s in college (87% in the D-League) and made 35.8% of 3’s in the D-League (41.8% on 1+ days’ rest- Hairston badly struggled with back to backs).  Overall I feel signs point toward his shot being rather good if not elite.  What gives him appeal is the volume of 3 pointers that he got off due to his quick trigger and deep range.  Hairston attempted 11.3 3’s per 40 minutes, which is better than any recent 1st rounders outside of Steph Curry who attempted around 12 3PA per 40 as a sophomore and junior.  Troy Daniels attempted 12.3 3PA/40 at VCU and he literally offers zero value other than shooting.  Seeing that Morey liked Daniels enough to add him to the playoff roster and allow McHale to play him, I feel compelled to give some extra attention to outlier 3PA rates.

Outside of shooting, Hairston doesn’t have any stand out strengths, but he does do enough to add some balance to his game.  He’s a good offensive rebounder, and he had a good assist:TOV ratio (1.18) as a UNC sophomore even though his assist rate cratered in the D-League.  He has good size, length, and strength for a SG as well as passable quicks and athleticism.  He also posted a good 3.0% steal rate, which implies that he has the instincts to be above average as a defensive wing.  In watching him I’m not sure his focus and awareness are quite enough to make him a stopper, and he likely is an underdog to become above average.  But the possibility is there nevertheless to give him appeal as a 3 + D prospect.

In short PJ Hairston is Troy Daniels with superior physical tools, rim finishing, passing, rebounding, and defensive potential.  If Morey was enamored enough with Daniels to let him anywhere near the playoff rotation as a rookie, it’s worth wondering how he feels about Hairston who can get off a ton of 3’s without being complete deadweight otherwise.  Not that Morey is the best drafter in the world, as he did take Marcus Morris over Kawhi Leonard 14th overall as recently as 3 years ago.  But I nevertheless like Hairston anywhere in the 20’s.

Gary Harris
Harris is an incredibly bland prospect, and I’m not sure why he’s still getting hyped as a lottery pick after his measurements.  His 8’0″ standing reach is appalling, although in his defense Vashro has informed me that height and length in tandem are more predictive than reach.  His 6’4.5″ height with a 6’6.75″ wingspan makes him seem a bit more hopeful, but without plus athleticism or quicks it’s hard to see him translating his good college defense into good defense of NBA SG’s.  He has good strength but when all of his other tools are below average, it’s hard to see him thriving.  Further he badly struggled to get to the rim in the half-court, and doesn’t nearly have the floor general skills to run an NBA offense.

So he’s basically a 3 + D combo guard with mediocre tools, and he obviously lacks the skill to run an offense.  I could see him finding a niche as a Mario Chalmers type who plays with bigger wings who have the skill to run the offense, which is a perfectly useful player.  It’s just not a level of upside that justifies a top 20 pick.

James Young
I want to like James Young.  He was the one Kentucky player who could score against lengthy, athletic defenses and he somehow showed up to a playoff game with Rihanna.  But I have a hard time getting too optimistic.  He seems to care about offense quite a bit more than defense, as he posted disappointing steal and block rates given his physical tools (especially his 7’0″ wingspan).  He didn’t do a great job of containing penetration either– he’s still young but his defense needs work.

Offensively his length enables him to hit tough, contested shots, as he scored 20+ points in all 3 matchups vs LSU as well as in the championship game vs. UConn.  These teams offered the closest approximation of NBA length and athleticism on Kentucky’s schedule, and they gave the Harrisons and especially Randle big time issues offensively.  I believe his 35% 3’s and 70% FT’s underrate his upside as a shooter since he’s exceptionally young and his form looks good.  But he’s still not quite an elite shooter and what else is there to like?  His assist:turnover ratio is solid.  But he struggles defensively, is a mediocre rebounder, and doesn’t have the handles or burst to regularly get to the rim.  Even if his shot develops exceptionally well, he still needs other skills to become a good NBA player and it’s not the most likely parlay that he overcomes enough weaknesses to become a good starter.

I still take him in round 1 since he’s so young, but I think he’s a bit overrated as a top 20 pick.

Mitch McGary
The Jusuf Nurkic of the NCAA.  McGary doesn’t have great length or athleticism, but makes a defensive impact his own way with strength, quick feet, and good instincts to rack up steals.  He’s a beast on the glass and a solid finisher as well.  The downside is that he missed most of this past season with back issues, and he’s also old for a sophomore as he is already 22.  For these reasons I rate him considerably lower than Nurkic, but I neverthless like him as a late 1st flier.

TJ Warren
I don’t even know what to think here.  He is an unathletic SF who thrives scoring inside the arc.  Is that ever going to be useful in the NBA?  I don’t know.  He has a ridiculous floater, he moves well off the ball, and he had a good steal rate so maybe he makes it all work in his own funky way.  But a wing who is neither an elite athlete, defensive prospect, passer, or shooter seems to have limited upside so he’s a fringe 1st rounder to me.

Glenn Robinson
GR3 is another player who I tried to get into but perceive as a likely disappointment.  He uses his leaping ability to be a scintillating rim finisher, converting 83% (!) of his rim attempts as a sophomore.  His 3 point shot is a work in progress but it’s not hopeless, and he also has the tools to be a good defensive player which gives him the makings of a compelling flier.  But whenever I watch him I get the sense that he lacks the feel for the game on to become a genuinely good player on either end of the floor.  He also isn’t much of a rebounder considering that he played PF for Michigan.  He’s a fringe 1st rounder.

Shabazz Napier
Everybody loves Shabazz after he carried UConn to an unlikely title run as a 7 seed.  He hit an endless stream of off the dribble 3’s to enable UConn’s ugly offense to work well enough to beat a number of touch matchups, and he deserves all the credit in the world for making Kevin Ollie a sought after NBA coach.

As an NBA prospect, my feelings toward him are mixed.  He grades as a solid statistical prospect, and I quite like him as a 3 + D PG paired with a bigger PG to run the offense and defend the wing.  But he’s also tiny, unathletic, old, and not an elite playmaker at the deepest position in the league.  It seems unlikely that he ever becomes a top 15 PG in the NBA since he’s in a mold lacking upside.  While he can become useful anyway, I have a hard time getting excited about the thought of taking him in round 1 with so many higher upside PG’s in the class.

Semaj Christon
Speaking of PG’s with more upside than Bazz, Semaj Christon is one of them.  He is not loved by statistical models, but he is the one player where I heavily favor scouting over stats.  Two problems with taking his stats at face value:

1) He was forced to share PG duties with Dee Davis depressing his assist rate
2) Xavier played a non-gambly defense.  He posted a solid 2.3% steal rate to lead the team, but it doesn’t do service to his tools and defensive potential.

He’s old for a sophomore as he turns 22 right at the start of his rookie season, so I wouldn’t say he is loaded with upside.  He still has plenty of shortcomings that inhibit him as a prospect such as his shooting, decision making, and overall skill level.  But he also has sneaky upside that is undetected by statistical models, so I like him as a late 1st or early 2nd flier.  I can see him becoming an Eric Bledsoe lite.

Doug McDermott
The subject of my first post on the blog, and my feelings still have not changed. I picked McDermott as my first topic to write about because he is so straightforward– he is a one dimensional scorer with awful tools, and limited handling and passing ability. He is a great shooter and moves well off the ball, but his interior scoring has translation risk and there’s not enough else to like to offer any compelling form of upside.

In McDermott’s defense I will note that he wasn’t quite as bad defensively in college as his steals and blocks suggested. Rodney Hood got blown by a fair bit more frequently, to offer an example of worse defense. McDermott was at least smart enough to know when he was facing off with a mismatch and give enough space to not get blown by. This is far less important than his poor physical tools and non-existent defensive playmaking ability, but it does give him a glimmer of hope for being a stomachable level of bad.

I stand by my conclusion that he’s not a 1st round talent. As far as I can tell the only reason why he’s in the discussion for a lottery pick is because he scored a boatload of points, even though the NCAA scoring leaderboard is littered with guys who amounted to absolutely nothing in the NBA. While he is a better shooter and may not be quite as tragic of a bust as Adam Morrison, he is a roughly similar prospect in that they are both one dimensional scorers with poor tools. It would amuse me to no end to see Jordan refuse to learn from his Morrison mistake and take McDermott 9th overall. Absolute best case for McDermott is something along the lines of a SF version of JJ Redick.

Parsing Through The NCAA Prospects: Part 2

24 Tuesday Jun 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Earlier I published part one of my last second scouting binge, and now I am on to part 2.

KJ McDaniels
McDaniels was the first prospect I wrote about as underrated when he was barely even on draft radar.  He is now a consensus first rounder who is neck and neck with Rodney Hood on DX and ESPN (DX has KJ 2 slots higher, ESPN 2 slots lower).

KJ thrives on defense, and it shows in his stats, his team’s performance, and his effort vs. Hood.  Clemson had the 20th best defense in the country (per kenpom.com) as they thrived off shot prevention with the 5th best defensive eFG% and the 5th best defensive FT rate.  McDaniels contributed heavily to both categories, as he led the team in blocks accumulating 100 of the team’s 221 total rejections in spite of being a 6’6″ wing.  To make it even more impressive, he committed fewer fouls than blocks as 2.6 fouls per 40 tied him for 3rd lowest foul rate on the team.  The only player with a substantially lower foul rate was Rod Hall who succeeded at avoiding fouls by also avoiding steals, blocks, and rebounds.  Clemson played a non-gambling defense, ranking just 283rd out of 351 in steal%, but KJ was 2nd among the team’s 10 rotation players in steal rate at 2.3%, only ranking behind foul prone guard Adonis Filer (3.0%).  He also had a solid D-Reb% at 15.9%, narrowing trailing Clemson’s bigs.  KJ was essentially a one man wrecking crew defensively as he excelled in all regards and it showed in his team’s success.

McDaniels is clearly a strong defensive prospect, although he may not quite be as strong as his college resume suggests.  He doesn’t have great size for a SF (6’6″ 196 lbs) and he isn’t exceptionally quick.  He atones for this with length (6’11.25″), explosiveness, and incredible timing on his blocks.  While his block rate will likely fall of a cliff in the NBA, he clearly has enough working in his favor to become a good defensive wing in the NBA.

Offense is the side of the ball where McDaniels is a bit shaky.  He only made 30.4% of his 3PA and his 0.69 assist:turnover ratio leaves much to be desired for a 21 year old wing.  But he also played in a woefully bad offense, and 114.4 O-Rtg on 29.1 usage (per sports-reference.com) is nothing to scoff at given how little help he had.  His efficiency was largely boosted by making 154/183 FT’s (84.2%). While he won’t get to the line as frequently as a pro his FT% does offer hope that he is a better shooter than his 3P% would suggest.  Even though he isn’t quite meant to carry an offense (especially not while carrying the defense and playing 34 mpg), he performed well in the role and nearly backpacked Clemson to the NCAA tournament.

KJ doesn’t quite have the upside to merit a top 10 pick, but if he can develop into a capable floor spacer he has potential to become a quality 3 + D role player who is neutral offensively and good defensively. In my earlier writeup I noted that KJ may elevate his stock to lottery caliber with strong conference play, and he certainly obliged.  I now have him as a late lottery value on my board, and I expect him to get selected in the top 20 on draft night.

Nik Stauskas
Stauskas is another prospect I was high on early in the season, and now it seems everybody is on the wagon.  His appeal is rather straightforward: he has an awesome combination of slick handles, vision, and elite shooting.  His ability to shoot off the dribble as well as spot up gives him interesting upside as a pick and roll ball handler.  He also adds a layer of intrigue with his offseason transformation, as he made stellar progress developing his body and PG skills.  If this is any indication of future growth potential, he may vastly succeed expectations.

That said I’m not completely certain that he is deserving of a lottery selection, and I’m a bit surprised that I haven’t come across more Stauskas skeptics given his poor tools and late 1st round grade according to most statistical models.  While he has surprisingly solid athleticism, he is lacking in speed, quickness, length, and strength and is a virtual lock to be below average defensively.  This is supported by his poor steal rate and his team’s mediocre defensive effort where he was likely their worst perimeter defender.  And it’s unclear how much his physical deficiencies will limit him offensively, as he didn’t carry a particularly high usage at Michigan.  His handles stand out as possibly the best in the draft, but how much will they be undermined by his lack of quicks and strength when he tries to navigate through NBA defenses?

I still believe that stat models undervalue him, because his statistics do not fully convey the goodness of his passing and ball handling.  Further, when models price in the prior year’s stats (as they should) it may be a bit misleading as I believe Stauskas’s leap was completely genuine without the help of positive variance.  In my eyes it’s a bonus that he was able to improve both his body and game by such a drastic margin.

Overall I am still enamored with Stauskas’s strengths and ability to develop himself enough to keep him as a late lottery value.  I only have an inkling of doubt that his bad tools and defense are getting underplayed, but he’s really not the type of player that I am in a rush to bet against.

Kyle Anderson
Anderson is likely the weirdest prospect in the draft.  Every time I try to think really hard about what he’ll become in the NBA, I come up completely blank.  He’s pretty much LeBron James if LeBron was doughy and required to move in slow motion at all times.

I respect the work Layne Vashro does modeling prospects, and it’s hard to ignore that he has Anderson as the #2 prospect in the draft.  Even though that should be de-valued for Anderson’s poor speed and athleticism (as well as UCLA’s gambling zone inflating his steal rate), he does at least have one excellent tool in his length at 7’2.75″.  He measured with solid length for a PF (8’11.5″) and while he needs to add strength to play the position full time it is a possible way to somewhat mitigate his slow motion ways defensively.

My big hang up is that Kyle played PG full-time at UCLA and in spite of his size and skill, was only able to get to the rim a frighteningly low % of the time in the half-court.  If he can’t get to the rim vs. NBA defenses, can he be permitted to handle the ball often enough to reap full benefits from his stellar passing ability?  I would assume not.  This isn’t a death knell for his ability to be useful, as he could succeed in a role similar to what Boris Diaw played for the Spurs.  I feel like the Spurs’ offense is the wave of the future, so investing a player who can thrive as a stretch 4 in a ball movement offense is a pretty good idea in my book.  When is the right juncture of the draft to invest in such a player is the difficult question, which hinges largely on Anderson’s slippery upside.  The fact of the matter is that he doesn’t have a historical upside comparison, if he becomes a good starter he will become the token comparison for unathletic tweeners with great passing ability.

Spencer Dinwiddie
If there was any doubt that Dinwiddie is the most intellectually curious player in the draft, he eradicated that when he tweeted an inquiry regarding his WARP rating at Kevin Pelton:

Jun 18

wouldn’t that 1.1 rating put me in the 20’s tho? Or is my math off?

Jun 18

ook thank u, just checkin…as long as y’all keep saying my stock rising I’m happy lol

I’m not sure whether it’s right to significantly upgrade his stock based on this, but it adds a layer of shine to Dinwiddie as a prospect.  And fortunately there is enough to like about him without appreciating his nerdy, intellectual side.  He is a prototypical role playing SG, as he is a good shooter and a solid ball handler and passer.  Further he has the size and quickness to be solid defensively, which is supported by a good steal rate. He also has excellent shot selection, as he limits his mid-range attempts and draws a ton of FT’s of which he converted 85.7% as a junior.  If anything he shot too infrequently last season, but that is of little concern since he doesn’t have a high usage skill set for the NBA anyhow.

His big weakness is that he doesn’t have the athleticism or burst to be a big time scorer, and he is also coming off an ACL tear that prematurely ended his junior season.  I dropped him a few slots for the ACL tear, but players make strong recoveries often enough such that it doesn’t make him much less attractive.

Dinwiddie is a straightforward prospect.  He likely will never become an all-star, but he has all of the necessary traits to become a good role player at a position that is sorely lacking in depth right now.  He’s a good prospect to target anywhere in the second half of round 1.  I believe he’s sorely underrated as a 2nd round pick and expect him to rise into the 1st round on draft night.

Jordan Adams
Adams is another weird UCLA prospect.  If you are in the business of modeling the draft, good luck coming up with a model that doesn’t love him.  He is a young sophomore who stuffed the stat sheet in every category other than blocks, and on paper he appears to be the next James Harden.

The trouble is that his statistical goodness cannot be taken at face value because he simply does not meet scouting expectations for high NBA upside.  While he has good SG length (6’10”), he has mediocre height (6’4.75″) and lackluster speed, quicks, and athleticism.  And he somehow managed to accrue his great stats without being much of a ball handler or 3 point shooter.

Defensively he used his length, quick hands, and good instincts to rack up a Marcus Smart level 5.0% steal rate.  Unfortunately he doesn’t yield the same level of effectiveness in shot prevention as Marcus Smart, as he doesn’t excel at containing penetration and UCLA’s gambling zone ceded a poor defensive eFG%.  His steal rate is indicative of some good qualities, but it is not reflective of his defensive potential and it was a bit bolstered by UCLA’s zone.  As a freshman he posted a steal rate of 4.2% playing man defense with greater frequency.  That rate is still excellent, but Adams is an example of how steals can be a bit misleading in spite of their predictive power.

Offensively he is more or less an elite garbageman, as he thrived in transition and off of cuts.  He also was a solid offensive rebounder and could post up smaller match-ups.  Even though he only made 33.1% of his career college 3’s, his 83.9% FT% suggest that he may be able to develop into a better long distance shooter than his college sample suggests.  He also had a good assist to turnover ratio (3.1 vs 2.0 as a sophomore) as he is a capable passer.  He certainly benefited from ample transition opportunities as well as playing in a ball movement offense alongside the best passer in the NCAA in Kyle Anderson. His offense has major translation risk.  He’s a bit of a bully and while he has good touch around the rim, his lack of explosiveness will make it difficult to replicate this his rim efficiency at the next level.

The crazy thing about Adams is that he lost weight as the season progressed and then dropped a further 15 pounds leading up to the draft.  Even though he is loaded with translation risks, it’s somewhat amazing that he accomplished as much as he did while being that out of shape.  If he commits to staying in shape going forward (not a given as he picked an awfully opportunistic time to trim down), it adds a degree of intrigue.

Jordan Adams may be a player who is cut out to thrive in college and fall on his face as a pro.  But his statistical excellence and improved condition cannot be entirely ignored, and they are compelling enough to roll the dice in the back end of round 1 once the sure bets are off the board.  This is especially true for a team that incorporates heavy doses of ball movement in the offense, as this provides the optimal environment for Adams to succeed.

Jarnell Stokes
Stokes’ mold of undersized PF who doesn’t make 3’s is limiting, but other than that I like everything about him.  He is the strongest player in the draft and he plays like it, as he activated beast mode near the end of the NCAA season and Tennessee started buzzsawing opponents.  Much like Julius Randle, Stokes isn’t an explosive athlete but neverthless moves well.  Stokes and Randle share a number of parallels– they have similar physical profiles, similar skill sets, similar stats, and they played in the same conference.  The key differences between the two of them are that 1) Randle had more recruiting hype and played for a more reputed school and 2) Stokes has superior awareness and instincts and is the better prospect.

Stat models rate Stokes a hair higher (8.0 vs 7.7 EWP, 1.9 vs 1.6 WARP), but what really sets Stokes apart is that he projects to be less of a liability defensively.  Randle has an awful sense of awareness, and not that Stokes’ awareness is top notch but he did post superior steal + block rates and perform better as a team defender.  Stokes started at center for the 19th best defensive team in the country, and his fellow big man Jeronne Maymon more closely resembled a bowling ball than a rim protector.  Not that Stokes’ deserves a world of credit for Tennessee’s success, as Josh Richardson and Jordan McRae both contributed quality perimeter defense and Armani Moore and Darius Thompson were able to make plays defensively off the bench.  But Stokes played the most important position on the floor and it worked in spite of him not being much of a rim protector, as he contributed with his rebounding and ability to defend without fouling.

Offensively Stokes is still a work in progress, but he’s a beast on the offensive glass, a good passer for a big, and his shot isn’t entirely hopeless as he elevated his FT% to 69.6% after making just 57% as a freshman and sophomore.  He also shot a respectable 37.7% on non-rim 2 pointers (for reference Julius Randle converted 34.5% and Jabari Parker 39.2% on similar volume).  And even though Stokes is two classes above Randle, he’s less than a year older because he’s young for his grade.

Stokes’s strength and rebounding are the foundation of his appeal, and he has enough skill offensively and invests enough effort defensively to possibly become a good role player.  As a bonus, he seems to carry a sincere determination to prove to the world that he is every bit as good as players who are beneficiaries of greater hype such as Julius Randle.  Also he got into a car crash and allegedly wanted to attend his workout anyway in spite of being concussed and covered in blood.  He strikes me as the type of personality who has an above average chance of exceeding expectations.  I won’t weigh this heavily into my final ranking, but he is the one non-lotto guy who I randomly feel compelled to root for.

Anyway that’s all for both part 2 of NCAA parsing.  Part 3 will venture into the prospects in the class with deeper flaws.

Parsing through the NCAA Prospects: Part 1

23 Monday Jun 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

I spent the weekend combing through the international draft class.  Now I may as well get my final thoughts on the NCAA prospects in the draft.  I believe I have said all I need to regarding Marcus Smart, Aaron Gordon, Andrew Wiggins, and Julius Randle.  But there are other players I have written about who I would like to make follow up commentary, and other prospects who have been nothing more than a blip on my big board.

Joel Embiid
I am a huge fan of Embiid’s talent and upside, so I was disappointed to hear that he injured his foot.  Further, this makes pinpointing his draft value a painful experience, as I have no medical expertise and do not believe I have any edge whatsoever when it comes to predicting health.  But I will share my thoughts nevertheless.

From the sound of it, this particular injury is a worse than his back injury but not condemning on its own.  Zydrunas Ilgauskas made a strong recovery from the condition early in his career in spite of being 2 inches taller than Embiid.  Yao Ming didn’t recover, but the Rockets’ doctor came out and noted that Yao was a 7’6 monster with uniquely high arches on his foot, and the injury is unlikely to affect Embiid as badly as it did Yao.  Further, it seems that the early prognosis is a favorable point for Embiid as past cases have been exacerbating by going undiagnosed in their early stages.  While the injury on its own seems like it could derail Embiid, it sounds like he has a good enough chance of full recovery to not have his draft stock torpedoed by it.

What sits less well than me is that in 647 minutes, Embiid managed to hurt his knee and back and then he somehow managed to injure his foot in the offseason.  As much as I’d like to believe that he simply has the worst injury luck ever, it’s hard to shake the notion that he’s simply bad at staying healthy.  I have no idea how predictive a myriad of injuries at a young age are regarding future ability to stay healthy, but it feels a bit scary.

Embiid now has to fade his foot injury, general durability issues, and the fact that he’s going to miss out on sorely needed competitive reps to make up for lost time with respect to playing experience.  This definitely deflates his draft stock, but I have no idea how much.  For all I know he’s doomed and we should be slashing his draft stock by like 75%.  Or maybe we are all over-reactive to injuries and this only depresses his stock by 15%.

What I do know is this: once health is assumed, Embiid is miles more valuable than any other prospect in the draft.  He was in a tier of his own before the injury concerns popped up, and super upside should be valued on an exponential curve.  If I was given the choice of healthy Embiid at #1 or the #2 and #3 picks, I would have chosen healthy Embiid rather confidently.  It’s fair to say that healthy Embiid has approximately twice the draft value of healthy Exum (my #2 prospect), so instantly dropping him below #1 is not necessarily correct.  It is well within the realm of possibility that his stock should not be slashed by 50%+, in which case he is still worth the #1 pick injury risk and all.  There’s also a chance that it should be slashed by more than 50%, which would slide him down multiple slots.

So the short answer is I have no idea what to think about his injury, but I can say that his talent is so awesome he is going to remain at or at least near the top of my big board.

Jabari Parker
I covered most of the reasons why I believe he is comfortably inferior to Melo as a prospect, and now I can’t stop feeling sour toward him.  It keeps nagging at me that he was a world beater vs. bad defenses and cancerous vs good defenses, and Layne Vashro pointing out that he had less than half the assist:TOV ratio of Melo is a smoking gun to me.

Given that his tools are at best average and he projects to be a liability defensively, this is a sign that he may not be nearly what he’s cracked up to be.  The problem is that bulk scoring is vastly overrated and ball movement is vastly underrated.  Jabari might me the least Spurs-like prospect in the draft, which can’t bode well for his future.

Jabari’s glimmer of hope is that he did display good feel for the game in non-conference blowouts, when he was a willing and competent passer.  I imagine his issue is that he lives in a world where he is expected to score every high leverage bucket, and this caused him to play sub-optimally once the conference schedule began.  He still has hope to become a good player if he can be re-wired to always play as if it’s a blowout and he needs to get his teammates involved.  But his conference and tournament performance is still possibly indicative of some fundamental flaw (i.e. he doesn’t strike me as particularly perceptive), and at his current rate he has some risk of becoming the next Derrick Williams.  Frankly I wouldn’t use a top 5 pick on somebody with an upper bound of the next Carmelo anyway since he’s such a ball stopper and defensive liability.  Jabari’s ticket to success is definitely going to be developing in the Paul Pierce direction of a more balanced player who doesn’t stop the ball and chuck away.

I have dropped Jabari out of my top 5, but I still have him ahead of Wiggins on my big board.  He has enough red flags for me to disagree with the narrative that he’s a top 2 pick, but none of his flaws are necessarily fatal and he still has enough skill to be molded into something nifty.  And I have to admit I’m a bit frightened to fade him too aggressively him since he’s such an intense competitor.  He has a wide range of possible outcomes and I am fascinated to see how he develops as a pro.

Noah Vonleh
I don’t think I have written anything about Vonleh yet in spite of him perpetually being on the top 10 of my big board.  He has good stats, solid tools, enough skills, and is super young so this earns him a top 10 slot.  But he’s overall a fairly bland prospect.  He’s not a rim protector, he’s a weak finisher, he has bad hands, and he has a horrible assist to turnover ratio.  His main appeal lies in his small sample 3 point shooting where he made 16/33 attempts.  It’s nice to get a stretch 4 who can rebound and possibly play solid defense, but I struggle to see how he becomes a top 15 player and he has plenty of bust risk.  In my eyes his upside is David West with 3 point range.  That’s not a bad upside, and I like Vonleh considerably more than Julius Randle. But I think it would be a big mistake to take Vonleh over Marcus Smart or Aaron Gordon, and I also favor international bigs Jusuf Nurkic and Clint Capela.

Tyler Ennis
Earlier in the season, I wrote about Ennis’s amazing statistical splits where he is at his best against good defenses, in the halfcourt, and in close and late situations.  These are situations that provide the best tests for NBA translation, and he aced all of them.  This along with his fantastic assist:TOV rate define Ennis to me– the man simply knows how to navigate through a set defense.  It is especially impressive coming from a freshman, as I believe PG’s have the toughest transition from high school to college.  They are constantly navigating through bigger and more athletic opposing players than they are accustomed to as the smallest player on the floor, and it is common for players to struggle at first.  I am attracted to prospects who display some level of outlier positive quality, and Ennis seems to possibly have unique feel for the game.

The downside of Ennis is that his great steal rate is completely fraudulent playing in Syracuse’s zone.  He posted a mediocre steal rate in the FIBA u19 games playing for team Canada, and given his mediocre athletic package he projects to be a liability as a man to man defender in the NBA.  He is not certain to be below average defensively, but it is the most likely outcome.

Overall I rather like Ennis, as his unique feel for the game merits a sliver of John Stockton or Steve Nash equity.  His value is somewhat depressed by the current PG depth in the NBA, so my final ranking may not reflect exactly the extent to which I like him.  But after typing this up I feel inclined to at least move him ahead of Noah Vonleh.

Elfrid Payton
I have had Payton as a mid-1st round pick all season long and now everybody is finally catching up ranking him as a fringe lotto pick.  Chad Ford even has him ahead of Ennis, and I think the two players are in a close race for 3rd best point guard in the draft.

Payton’s big advantage over Ennis is his defense.  The two have similar steal rates, except Payton’s was accrued by being a genuinely good ball hawk as opposed to playing in a gimmicky zone and is far more meaningful.  He has good height (6’3.75″) and length (6’8″) for a PG and moves well laterally.  I believe he’s a clear favorite to be an above average defensive PG which is his big selling point over Ennis.  That said it is excessive to try to compare him to Marcus Smart, as he does not have the outlier level of defensive performance that Smart does.  Smart has a higher steal rate against tougher competition, an obviously huge impact on his team’s defense, and has better tools as he is much stronger than Payton.  Payton is a good defensive prospect but he is not on Smart’s level of elite.

Offensively is where Payton is a bit of a mystery.  Layne Vashro’s EWP model ranks him as the 9th best NCAA prospect with John Wall and Derrick Rose included among his top comparisons.  But Kevin Pelton’s WARP model ranks him as just an early 2nd rounder, as he has less faith in his ability to translate offensively.  Suffice it to say that his future on the offensive end is polarizing.

I do not believe the Wall or Rose comparisons are entirely fair.  Those guys all had some level of freakish speed and/or athleticism to accentuate their offensive upside.  Payton is a solid athlete but his physical tools are not enough to carry a guard who cannot shoot to offensive stardom.  They are good enough to dominate Sun Belt defenses in transition, but much of that production will be lost in translation as he moves on to the NBA.  So his 54.1% 2p% on high volume likely overstates his upside, as he was horrible from mid-range and there are questions about his ability to finish against NBA help defense given his sub-par strength and non-elite athleticism.

That said, I’m not completely sour on his offensive package.  In my sample of watching him, his ball handling ability stood out as particularly impressive.  He got to the rim unassisted in the half-court more than any other PG prospect. Even if it was in a weak conference, his combination of handling and quicks give him solid upside as an NBA slasher.  He also fared well as a dependent scorer, tallying 31 assisted half-court FG’s made at the rim as per hoop-math.com.  Among point guards in the class he only trailed Semaj Christon (with 35) who only played PG part-time as he shared duties with Dee Davis.  This offers a bit of hope for his ability to play off the ball in case he doesn’t develop his shot. He also has solid potential as a playmaker and is a good offensive rebounder for a point guard.  And who knows, maybe he improves his shot to an outlier extent and becomes a better than break even 3 point shooter.

Overall he may struggle to translate offensively, but he does have enough positives to have hope of becoming solid on that end.  Ultimately I favor Ennis because he brings more outlier appeal to the table that may result in stardom, as Payton doesn’t have a clear calling card to become great offensively.  But there’s nothing wrong with a point guard who is decent on offense and good on defense, and like other prospects he can always surprise with an outlier rate of development.

I like Payton and have him as a late lottery value right behind Vonleh and Ennis.  Since so few teams need PG’s, one of him or Ennis will inevitably slide and provide fantastic value to the team that pulls the trigger.

Anyway, those are lots of words on Elfrid so now is a good time to cut off part 1.  I’m going to try to squeeze in as much last minute analysis as I can get pre-draft and then I’ll post my updated big board.

Which Prospects Get To The Rim The Most?

05 Thursday Jun 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 28 Comments

Hoop-math.com has some pretty awesome statistical splits for the past 3 years, and I decided to take advantage of that to look at a certain angle for all prospects in this draft: who can get to the rim in the half-court the most frequently?  Not that getting to the rim is everything– Austin Rivers excelled at penetrating defenses in the half-court and was bad at finishing and everything else, so he’s looking like a bust to start his career in spite of this skill.  But the reason why I feel this has value is because Otto Porter was exceptionally bad at penetrating through the defense unassisted, and this is likely correlated with him underperforming draft models, scouting reports, and his actual draft position as a rookie.  He was such a solid and well balanced player that almost every school of thought graded him as a surefire future starter, but that hypothesis now appears to be in doubt.  It’s likely that his lack of handle or burst were both underplayed warts and this was the signal that forecasting his downside risk.

So I looked at a narrow split of half-court unassisted rim FG’s that are not putbacks.  This is going to approximate creation ability, as it offers a glimpse of who can penetrate best through a set defense.  Granted, these numbers should all be taken with a grain of salt since they are scraped from play by play and they are far from precise.  They are all at the whim of assist scorers and play by play timestamps to approximate whether a basket came in transition or not. Also these are unadjusted for strength of schedule, and I measured these per minute instead of per possession since I figure up tempo teams have more transition possessions on average.  I split the sample into point guards, wings, and bigs, and also included assisted HC rim FG’s on the side.  Let’s start with wings:

Player UA FG Mins UA FG/40 Assisted
Isaiah Sykes 61 958 2.55 13
Jordan Clarkson 68 1228 2.21 7
Austin Rivers 51 1129 1.81 5
TJ Warren 54 1238 1.74 47
Doug McDermott 40 1181 1.35 81
Lamar Patterson 34 1174 1.16 17
KJ McDaniels 33 1212 1.09 14
Okaro White 27 1084 1.00 36
Markel Brown 28 1201 0.93 18
Rodney Hood 24 1150 0.83 13
Spencer Dinwiddie 32 1602 0.80 4
Deandre Daniels 22 1103 0.80 27
Andrew Wiggins 22 1148 0.77 17
Roy Devyn Marble 19 995 0.76 14
Nik Stauskas 24 1281 0.75 11
Jordan Adams 18 1082 0.67 31
Aaron Gordon 18 1187 0.61 59
Glenn Robinson 17 1194 0.57 28
PJ Hairston 11 804 0.55 4
James Young 17 1296 0.52 9
Gary Harris 13 1131 0.46 11
CJ Wilcox 12 1116 0.43 12
Otto Porter 11 1097 0.40 20
Nick Johnson 12 1257 0.38 20
Cleanthony Early 9 986 0.37 22
Zach LaVine 7 904 0.31 4

It’s nice to see Isaiah Sykes up at the top since he’s one of my favorite deep sleepers in the draft. He had a high volume role where he likely attacked too much given his ultimate efficiency, but the ability to penetrate is clearly present and it’s one of his multiple skills to work with in the pros.

I had wondered why everybody was so high on Jordan Clarskon, and this largely explains it. The guy can get to the rack! He’s probably just an older Austin Rivers, but he seems like a fine round 2 flier nevertheless.

In spite of all of Dougie’s McBuckets, many of them came assisted. He’s still left with solid unassisted volume, but a fair amount of these are likely post-ups over bigs that are too small to play in the NBA. He’s going to have a difficult time translating his inside the arc scoring to the pros.

Andrew Wiggins grades out in the middle of the pack, which is pretty good for a freshman. In spite of his limited handle, he still had the tools to get to the rim on occasion which is something to work with. His vision and finishing over length are the bigger holes in his slashing game.

Nik Stauskas played PG part-time at Michigan and his rate of getting to the rim is less impressive through that lens, but this isn’t too bad for his limited tools. He has slick handles and the athleticism to finish, and it’s nice to see him with nearly double the rate of Otto Porter.

I am a bit disappointed that Aaron Gordon rated this low, but the entire Arizona team had a curiously low % of rim attempts and high % of assisted FG’s at the rim. Nick Johnson’s unassisted FG per 40 was much better as a sophomore (0.69), for instance. Given Gordon’s youth, tools, handle, finishing ability, and incredibly gaudy assisted total I’m not reading much into this.

I included PJ Hairston’s 2012-13 numbers, and they show how heavily dependent he is on his jump shot. I am starting to cool on him a decent bit, as I’m not sure his shot alone is enough to become a good player.

James Young grades disappointingly for a player who is going to depend so heavily on scoring to succeed. Either he needs to improve his handle significantly or he is going to be leaning hard on his jumper.

Gary Harris was better as a freshman (0.63 per 40) but this illuminates how bland he is as a prospect. He’s a jack of all trades and master of none, and if he’s too small to guard SG’s he isn’t going to make much of an impact. He’s not going to be much of a slasher in the pros and if you measure his creation rate vs. PG’s he is completely blown out of the water. I don’t believe there is any justification for drafting him in the lottery.

If there was any doubt that Cleanthony Early is a worthless prospect, this should eradicate it. He played in the Missouri Valley conference where he was taller than most bigs and this was all of the creation he could muster. For a 23 year old whose main value lies in scoring, that is pathetic.

Zach LaVine finishes in dead last. If there is any statistical signal that the guy is good at basketball, I have yet to find it. His creation stats, his assist rate, and his steal rate are all bad. Perhaps he could have done more with more ball handling responsibilities, but I am highly skeptical of the narrative that he has superstar upside. In all likelihood the guy is not good enough at basketball to be a useful NBA player.

Now let’s move on to point guards, who have a higher frequency of getting to the rim due to greater ball handling responsibility:

Player UA FG Mins UA FG/40 Assisted
Elfrid Payton 65 1258 2.07 31
Deonte Burton 53 1236 1.72 2
Aaron Craft 45 1204 1.50 3
Russ Smith 38 1084 1.40 10
Jahii Carson 38 1168 1.30 13
Tyler Ennis 37 1215 1.22 6
Kendrick Perry 32 1168 1.10 11
Marcus Smart 27 1014 1.07 19
Shabazz Napier 37 1404 1.05 2
Semaj Christon 31 1200 1.03 35
Scottie Wilbekin 25 1150 0.87 0
Kendall Williams 24 1200 0.80 5
Kyle Anderson 23 1196 0.77 5

Elfrid Payton was expected to top this list given his Sun Belt dominance without a jump shot.

Marcus Smart ranks a bit lower than I had hoped. I don’t think this is a serious red flag, but he will need to really tighten his handle to become a star.

On the upside, Kyle Anderson finished with roughly double the creation rate of Otto Porter. On the downside, he finished dead last for PG prospects. While he is going to play SF/PF in the pros, he ran the UCLA offense full-time so he should have made frequent trips to the rim. So this offers a glimmer of hope while also demonstrating his lack of burst all in one.

On to bigs:

Player UA FG Mins UA FG/40 Assisted
Dwight Powell 39 1167 1.34 19
Noah Vonleh 25 794 1.26 21
Javon McCrea 29 937 1.24 71
Julius Randle 37 1233 1.20 29
Jarnell Stokes 34 1199 1.13 50
Adreian Payne 23 870 1.06 34
Jabari Parker 28 1074 1.04 42
Patric Young 25 1019 0.98 43
Jerami Grant 22 1005 0.88 32
Joel Embiid 14 647 0.87 53
Mitch McGary 20 967 0.83 43
Isaiah Austin 20 1065 0.75 36
Khem Birch 10 1037 0.39 41

Jabari Parker’s rate is a disappointment to me. For a guy who was so selfish and took so many shots, he didn’t get to the rim on his own that much. And without knowing the precise splits, I imagine many of these came from bullying small big men anchoring poor defenses. For somebody so dependent on scoring, it looks like he will have to lean hard on his jump shot in the pros. But he is not currently a great shooter and he doesn’t have Melo’s quick release or Durant’s go go gadget arms to get off a high volume of looks, so there is some doubt as to whether he can score efficiently enough to justify a top 3 selection.

Joel Embiid’s rate is not a concern to me. Given his size, rim touch, and footwork, he obviously has quite a bit of creation ability to build upon. Also a fair amount of his assisted FG’s entailed him catching the ball with his back to the basket and doing the brunt of the work.

Khem Birch exemplifies why he isn’t as good as his statistical ranking. The guy has nearly no skill whatsoever but doesn’t even have good size for a PF. I believe he’s going to have a tough time amounting to much as a pure garbage man in a PF body.

Marcus Smart vs. Andrew Wiggins: Who Was The Best Big 12 Perimeter Defender?

01 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 27 Comments

Tags

,

Draft consensus is that Andrew Wiggins is likely to be an elite defensive wing in the NBA, as in theory his stellar physical tools ensure lock down D. But there is more to defense than running fast and jumping high, so I am going to use available NCAA data to measure him against my favorite defensive guard prospect in the draft: Marcus Smart.  Let’s starting by assessing the inventory around them.

Coaching: Bill Self vs. Travis Ford

Coaching has a huge impact on team defense, so let’s get a feel for which coaches historically built the best defenses prior to landing their respective stars.  The table notes each team’s NCAA rank (out of ~350) in adjusted defensive rating as per kenpom.com:

Season Ford Team Ford D Rank Self Team Self D Rank
2013 Ok State Smart Kansas 5
2012 Ok State 111 Kansas 3
2011 Ok State 47 Kansas 11
2010 Ok State 60 Kansas 9
2009 Ok State 74 Kansas 9
2008 UMass 58 Kansas 1
2007 UMass 47 Kansas 1
2006 UMass 40 Kansas 3
2005 E Kentucky 126 Kansas 25
2004 E Kentucky 230 Kansas 16
2003 E Kentucky 301 Illinois 8
2002 E Kentucky 274 Illinois 19

In a nutshell: Self always builds elite defenses whereas Travis Ford doesn’t.  Self’s worst defense pre-Wiggins was 15 slots higher than Ford’s best pre-Smart.  Of course, this doesn’t prove that Self is a smarter defensive coach than Ford, it only suggests it at a loud volume.  But Kansas is a name brand school and it stands to reason that Self should have some advantage given his access to superior talent.  Fortunately, Dan Hanner shared his process for making NCAA projections (which he does well) and included coaching as a significant portion of defense projection.

In Step 15 of his article, Hanner notes that he makes projections for defensive statistics (block rate, steal rate, D-Reb rate), prices in recruiting rankings, and gives a boost for players that mysteriously play high minute totals with poor stats (since these types are often are defensive specialists).  He also notes that these factors alone do a poor job.  Using a 10 year sample from 2003-2012, he measured the greatest impact coaches after adjusting for the aforementioned factors and shared his top 15 defensive coaches.  Bill Self rated #1 on his list.  Travis Ford didn’t crack the top 15 because he offers no value beyond the ability to attract enough talent to make himself seem competent to athletic directors.

It is common for people to blame Bill Self for Wiggins’ shortcomings, but this is misguided.  Self consistently gets stellar regular seasons from players who do not go on to NBA stardom, as his teams tend to outperform their talent before disappointing in the tournament.  It is safe to declare that Bill Self completely waffle crushes Travis Ford at building NCAA defenses.

The Bigs

After coaching, the highest impact players on defense are the tall ones.  They provide rebounding and rim protection, so it should be no surprise that height correlates with defensive success.  Good college defenses are often anchored by good rim protection, so let’s compare the two sets of bigs.  Note that total includes each stat’s minute-weighted average for the collection of bigs.

Kansas:

Player Minutes Height D-Reb% Stl% Blk%
Joel Embiid 647 7’0″ 27.3 2.3 11.7
Tarik Black 446 6’9″ 21.3 1.3 4
Jamari Traylor 549 6’8″ 18.5 1.5 5.3
Perry Ellis 973 6’8″ 18.2 1.7 2.2
Total 2615 6’9.2″ 21.0 1.7 5.5

Oklahoma State:

Player Minutes Height D-Reb% Stl% Blk%
Kamari Murphy 855 6’8″ 18.3 1.1 5.1
Mike Cobbins 256 6’8″ 15.3 1.8 7.9
Le’Bryan Nash 1017 6’7″ 14.6 1 2.8
Leyton Hammonds 230 6’7″ 12.3 1.8 0.5
Total 2358 6’7.5″ 15.8 1.2 4.0

Oklahoma State’s bigs were undersized and unfit to do good things on defense. The Cowboys were rated as the #5 kenpom team with a 12-1 record when Mike Cobbins went down for the year due to injury. Without him they were forced to play small, as Hammonds was largely worthless and when Murphy was on the bench 6’7″ Le’Bryan Nash played C and Marcus Smart was often forced to defend opposing PFs. I’d wager that Smart spent more time as a defensive PF than Wiggins in spite of being a PG who is 5.5 inches shorter.  Not only did the small lineup make it exceptionally difficult to protect the rim, but Smart was forced to be used as an undersized post defender instead of putting pressure on the ball on the perimeter.  Consequently, Oklahoma State went 9-12 without him and dropped from #5 to #26 in kenpom’s overall rankings.

Meanwhile, Kansas had the defensive player of the year in Joel Embiid whose his size and mobility made him an interior force.  He only played 23 minutes a game and missed a handful due to injury, but Tarik Black and Jamari Traylor offered more value as defensive replacements than OKC’s small bigs without Cobbins.  This is another clear advantage for Kansas.

Guards

Let’s see how each team compares in terms of guard and wing impact on defense outside of Smart and Wiggins.

Kansas:

Player Minutes Height D-Reb% Stl% Blk%
Wayne Selden 1023 6’5″ 6.4 1.4 1.1
Naadir Tharpe 1001 5’11” 7.4 1.4 0
Frank Mason 565 5’11” 7.3 1.9 0.2
Total 2589 6’1.4″ 7.0 1.5 0.5

Oklahoma State:

Player Minutes Height D-Reb% Stl% Blk%
Markel Brown 1201 6’3″ 12.9 1.6 3.1
Phil Forte 976 5’11” 5.6 1.7 0.1
Brian Williams 793 6’5″ 11.5 2.6 1.5
Stevie Clark 256 5’11” 7.2 3.4 0.4
Total 3226 6’2″ 9.9 2.0 1.6

Finally, an area where the Cowboys have an advantage. Non-Smart Oklahoma State guards did not offer a ton of value on D, but at least Brian Williams and Markel Brown had the athleticism to occasionally make a play and Stevie Clark generated some steals in limited minutes before getting kicked off the team. Meanwhile, Kansas trotted out two small PG’s and Wayne Selden, who has an elite body but has yet to figure out how to use it for good on the basketball court.  Kansas’s guards were certainly weak links on defense.

This advantage for Oklahoma State is less significant than each of Kansas’s advantages in big men and coaching.  Forte was an undersized and unathletic, and Brown and Williams aren’t defensive stoppers, just athletes who sometimes make athletic plays.  Kansas’s guards were bad, but guard defense isn’t high enough leverage to weigh this discrepancy more than others given that Oklahoma State didn’t have a second perimeter stopper.

Overall

Kansas has a much better coach and better bigs, whereas Oklahoma State has less leaky guards alongside their star.  If the two players made similar impacts, Kansas should have a much better overall defensive rating.  Yet they barely finished with a higher defensive rating, as Kansas finished with the 31st adjusted D-Rtg (out of 351) at 96.3 and Oklahoma State finished 37th at 96.6.  The two defenses were roughly dead even, and once you remove the 3 games missed by Smart (Oklahoma State went 0-3), Oklahoma State was a shade better than Kansas.

If we look at Big 12 games only (noting that Smart missed 3 games, Cobbins missed all 20, and Embiid missed 5), Oklahoma State had an adjusted defensive rating of 95.9 vs Kansas’s 96.2.  If we throw out the 3 games that Smart missed, the Cowboy D-Rtg drops to 94.9 to widen the gap by a point.  By all measures these two defenses were similarly effective over the course of the season, and if anything it appears that Oklahoma State had the edge when Marcus Smart was in the lineup.  Given the advantages that Wiggins had with respect to coach and cast, this strongly suggests that Marcus Smart was the better and more impactful defensive player.  Let’s look at individual stats to check to see how it aligns with the longwinded route.  Note that adjusted D-Rtg is individual D-Rtg (as per sports-reference.com) adjusted for team SOS:

Player Minutes DRB% STL% BLK% Adj DRtg
Andrew Wiggins 1148 12.3 2.1 3.1 96.6
Marcus Smart 1014 14.9 5 1.9 88.9

In spite of all of Wiggins physical advantages, Smart accumulated more than twice the steal rate.  Instincts and aggressiveness are key traits on defense, and this is where Smart shines the most.

Individual D-Rtg takes team D-Rtg and adjusts for individual steal rate, block rate, and defensive rebounding rate.  Because Kansas gets so much production out of their bigs and Oklahoma State gets so little out of everybody other than Smart, Smart destroys Wiggins.  This is the short hand version of my analysis, except it doesn’t account for coaching disparity as there is more team level credit to distribute for well coached teams.  Bearing this in mind, there is an argument to be made that individual D-Rtg actually understates the difference between Smart and Wiggins.

What About Age?

It is fair to point out that Smart is a year older than Wiggins and perhaps should make a greater impact given his additional year of experience.  But if we look at Smart’s freshman year, the defense was even better as Cobbins was healthier only missing 5 games and contributing 728 minutes total.  Many of Brian Williams minutes went to 6’10” Philip Jurick, and Le’Bryan Nash was able to swing between the 3 and 4 instead of being asked to be a full time 4/5.  Smart was able to spend all of his time hawking the ball on the perimeter, and the Cowboys finished with the #15 defense in the country.

Smart’s freshman individual adjusted D-Rtg was 85.6, showing that the gap between him and Wiggins widened once he actually played with serious big men.  The Cowboy defense should have been a joke this year, and it’s quite the feather in Smart’s cap that they were able to keep pace with Kansas with such little size.

The Coaches’ Perspective

Big 12 coaches vote on the best defensive players in the conference after each season.  As both a freshman and sophomore, Marcus Smart was a unanimous selection to the 6 person team.  He was the only non-Kansas big to be chosen unanimously (Jeff Withey and Joel Embiid each shared the honor) over these 2 years.  Wiggins was left off the team altogether, which surprised me given the level of hype and attention he received.  I suppose the Big 12 coaches weren’t as impressed with his defense as draft narratives would suggest, even though he was a unanimous selection to the All-Big 12 first team for his overall play.

Conclusions

Based on every piece of information available and every angle from which it may be analyzed, Marcus Smart was a vastly superior NCAA defensive player to Andrew Wiggins.  He was a one man wrecking crew on defense, whereas Wiggins was merely a solidly good defensive player.  Given the predictive power of steal rate and the fact that Smart has the tools to become an impact defensive player in the NBA, this should weigh heavily into Smart’s NBA defensive projection.

On the other hand, this should dispel the myth that Wiggins is a guaranteed defensive stud.  Hype does not equate to truth, but people seem to treat it as such.  It is common for people to seek narratives to justify Wiggins’ hype instead of looking for the actual truth in data that is free of bias.  I believe the hype was justified: a 16 year old kid with his size, mobility, and explosiveness is a rare commodity, and it’s worth getting excited over him.  But when at age 19 he has shown zero signs of development or impact that were projected, it’s time to scrap the hype and brace for the likely scenario that the person inside the body doesn’t have what it takes to convert the potential into reality.

If Wiggins was truly a high impact defensive player, there would likely be data supporting it.  There is data supporting Smart’s impact and there is data supporting Aaron Gordon’s impact, which is why I have them as the top two perimeter defensive prospects in the draft.  Wiggins believers can have their 44″ vertical snapshots, I’d rather get Smart and take the guy who produces results.

Aside

Who Wants To Gamble On Aaron Gordon?

30 Friday May 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 20 Comments

Tags

Early in the season I was offput by a number of Aaron Gordon’s deficiencies such as his broken shot, his willingness to launch long 2’s, and his mediocre size to defend NBA PF’s.  But he had a strong close to the season and I started perceiving him in a new light.  His shot remains a glaring wart, but let’s cast that aside for a moment and analyze his strengths.

Defense

Two of the hurdles to loving Gordon mid-season were his lackluster steal and block rates.  There aren’t many players who become top end defensive wings in the NBA without posting a good steal rate in college.  Arizona plays a non-gambling defense, but he nevertheless had a lower steal rate than his top defensive teammates such as Nick Johnson, Rondae Hollis-Jefferson, and TJ McConnell.  This made it hard to feel great about him as a defensive prospect, especially when his block rate offered little hope for his potential as a rim protecting PF.  But then he closed the season with a flurry of stocks to render his overall rates respectable, all while I decided that steals and blocks were an unfair way to evaluate his defensive potential in the NBA.

The Wildcat System

Arizona dominated the defensive end in a unique way: they led the NCAA in defensive eFG% without great rim protection, as their starting 7’0″ center Kaleb Tarczewski posted a measly 3.6% block rate.  For reference, the best defensive eFG% teams in each of the prior 3 seasons were anchored by NBA draft picks with monster block rates: Jeff Withey (13.7%), Anthony Davis (13.7%), and Bernard James (13.5%).  Arizona as a team had a mere 11.5% block rate.

Instead of protecting the rim, Arizona simply refused to let opponents get there.  They closed out on 3 point shooters and used their quickness to contain penetration and funnel everything to the mid-range.  And they weren’t giving up open mid-range shots, as they used their size and athleticism to contest everything.  According to hoop-math.com, Arizona forced opponents to attempt a whopping 48.8% of their shots from mid-range (NCAA average: 29.3%), which were made at a paltry 32.0% (NCAA avg: 35.7%).  They then would clean up the defensive glass with the 13th best DREB% in the NCAA.  They rarely fouled with the 55th best defensive FT rate and managed to force an above average turnover rate at 118th in spite of steals being their lowest priority.  Naturally they finished with the #1 defense in the NCAA, and it came in a flavor geared toward stopping quality competition since they took away everything that good offenses tend to value.

Let’s assess how Gordon fared at contributing to Arizona’s defensive goals:

-Containing penetration: Gordon rarely was beaten off the dribble as he moves well laterally and did well at cutting off opponent drives.  When he faced Duke, Jabari Parker never came close to getting by Gordon when matched up and finished shooting 7/21 FG with 5 TOV’s.  He also contested shots well as he rarely failed to closeout.

-Defensive rebounding: in spite of playing a fair amount on the wing, Gordon led his team in defensive rebounding rate at 19.1%, with 7 footer Kaleb Tarczewski finishing second at 16.9%.

-Not fouling: Gordon posted the lowest foul rate of all Arizona forwards, and was closer to Arizona’s guards than the bigs that he outrebounded:

Player Height PF/40
Brandon Ashley 6’8 4.6
Rondae Hollis-Jefferson 6’7 3.8
Kaleb Tarczewski 7’0 3.6
Aaron Gordon 6’9 3.0
TJ McConnell 6’1 2.7
Gabe York 6’3 2.7
Nick Johnson 6’3 2.4

It’s hard to argue that he did anything other than thrive defensively, as he excelled at all of his team’s primary objectives in spite of being the youngest player on the team.  Not only did this help Arizona to the #1 defense in the NCAA, it was only Sean Miller’s first top 40 defense in 5 seasons at Arizona.  Miller is one of the top coaches in college basketball and I love how he built his defense, but this is not a defense that can be readily replicated without a unique collection of talent.  Gordon gets big time credit for his role here.

FIBA u19 Defense

Billy Donovan coached team USA to full court press where they used their physical advantages to force turnovers, generate easy buckets in transition, and blow the competition out of the water.  Here is how each player’s respective steal rates compare to what they posted in the 2013-14 NCAA season:

Player Mins Stls Stl% NCAA Stl%
Marcus Smart 142 22 7.9% 5.0%
Elfrid Payton 170 21 6.3% 3.6%
Aaron Gordon 169 18 5.4% 1.8%
James Robinson 127 10 4.0% 3.0%
Justise Winslow 169 10 3.0% N/A
Jahlil Okafor 128 7 2.8% N/A
Jarnell Stokes 114 6 2.7% 1.4%
Montrezl Harrell 162 8 2.5% 2.0%
Nigel Williams-Goss 206 7 1.7% 2.0%
Rasheed Sulaimon 181 6 1.7% 1.9%
Michael Frazier 151 5 1.7% 2.3%
Mike Tobey 81 2 1.3% 0.9%

Gordon racked up far more steals than a number of players who posted similar or better steal rates this past NCAA season. He only finished behind Marcus Smart and Elfrid Payton, who were two of the best ball hawks in all of college basketball.  Even if the sample is small, Gordon is the only player who heavily strayed from expectation based on his NCAA steal rate.

If his performance at Arizona isn’t convincing that Gordon is a great defensive prospect, his FIBA stats should drive a nail in that coffin.  Not only does this suggest that he may have been able to compile a much higher steal rate if he had been asked, but it also hints at a high level of coachability.  At Arizona he was asked to contain penetration, rebound, and not foul, and he did all of the above.  In Prague he was asked to apply pressure to force turnovers and he complied as he went on to win MVP of the tournament at age 17.

Based on the eye test, his physical profile, and all statistical indicators, I rate him as top end defensive wing prospect with a high floor and a high ceiling.  There is a strong case to be made that he is the best defensive wing prospect in this year’s draft ahead of KJ McDaniels and Andrew Wiggins.

Offense

In my recent post dispelling common draft myths, I shared this tweet from draft statistical modeler Layne Vashro:

 ·  May 22

Handles + court-vision is what separates 3s from tweeners. Gordon easily beats most tween failures in AST/TOV

Gordon can handle and pass exceptionally well for an 18 year old of his size.  He especially shined down the stretch, as he posted 46 assists and 42 turnovers in his first 30 games before finishing with 29 assists and 13 turnovers in his final 8 games.  His PG skills were reputed to be strong entering the season, and it appears they  improved a decent bit over the course of the season.

Gordon’s explosiveness made him a highly effective rim finisher, as he converted 72.9% of his rim attempts on the season.  This is vastly superior to his similarly sized lottery peers such as Andrew Wiggins (63.6%), Jabari Parker (62.7%), and Noah Vonleh (59.3%).  This will help keep his scoring efficiency afloat as he (hopefully) learns to score away from the hoop and improve his shot selection.  He also is a strong offensive rebounder as he corralled 10.4% of his team’s misses.

In spite of his shooting deficiencies, there are multiple ways in which Gordon contributes on offense.  His shooting might be a drag on spacing, but it does not condemn him to being a decisively bad offensive player as a whole.

The Shooting Conundrum

Earlier this season I wrote that Gordon’s shot is irreparably broken, and I would like to now take that back.  It is broken, but not necessarily irreparable.  He is only 18 and his form looks OK enough, his just shots don’t go in.  This creates a few problems:

1) He will not space the floor cannot reliably make NBA 3 pointers
2) A willingness to attempt long 2’s can tank his efficiency
3) An inability to make free throws will prevent him from padding his TS% by drawing fouls

The glimmer of hope for his shooting is that he made 17/45 (35.6%) 3 pointers at Arizona.  The unpleasant news is his FT shooting (76/180 = 42.2%) and non-rim 2PA’s (44/160 = 27.5%) are much larger samples at abysmal percentages.

Overall his shooting prospects seem grim, but he is not completely hopeless since shooting is the most volatile skill that occasionally lends itself to surprising levels of improvement.  Given that he is the youngest prospect in the draft, we can open the door for a bit of extra optimism.  As a college freshman Trevor Ariza shot 18/76 (23.7%) from 3 and 57/113 (50.4%) from FT.  If you combine his age 27 and age 28 NBA seasons, he shot 39.7% from 3 on 707 attempts and 78.7% FT on 315 attempts.  It took him 9 seasons, but he became a genuinely good shooter.  That level of 180 simply isn’t possible with respect to basketball IQ, athleticism, or defensive instincts.

Gordon loosely compares to another poor shooting tweener who was undervalued in the draft– Kawhi Leonard.  Leonard shot 25% from 3 in two seasons at SDSU, and then went on to shoot between 37.4% and 37.9% in each of his first 3 NBA season at San Antonio.  Perhaps the Spurs saw something in Leonard’s form that they tweaked in a way that can be replicated with Gordon.  Given the recent rise of analytics, it is worth wondering if new information can help teach players to make outlier-y leaps in their shooting ability.

In his pre-draft interview, Gordon expressed confidence that he will have his shot fixed by the start of his rookie season and even provided a detailed explanation of his recent adjustments. I have no idea whether his approach will make a meaningful difference, but it at least sounds more promising than taking a bunch of directionless practice reps and hoping for the best.  On the downside, he calls the mid-range “a great shot,” which is a serious leak in his BBIQ that badly needs fixing.

It’s not difficult to envision a scenario where Gordon learns to hit 37%+ on corner 3’s and is coached into exercising discipline with respect to attempting long 2’s (just don’t unite him with Randy Wittman).  In the scenario that his big wart is reduced to a smaller wart, he can easily become an impact player.  Even if this fails to happen the majority of the time, the mere possibility is highly valuable for his draft stock.

Conclusion

I am flipping my story from Gordon’s shot being a debilitating wart to one that is less bad than the warts displayed by other top prospects such as Jabari Parker and Andrew Wiggins.  Given the volatile nature of shooting, I believe Gordon has the most upside of the trio.  And I am not convinced that he has a lower median outcome than either, as spacing the floor is not a prerequisite to becoming a useful wing and neither Parker nor Wiggins are guaranteed to be starting caliber.  It seems that there is a cognitive bias that being slightly above average shooters gives Wiggins and Parker a safeness to their draft stock, when in reality shooting is a) the most volatile trait and b) doesn’t guarantee offensive success on its own.  Gordon can close the gap on the shooting discrepancy, but Wiggins will not catch Gordon in court vision or feel for the game and Parker will always lag in explosiveness and quickness that aid Gordon’s finishing and defense.

My preference is now to gamble on Gordon’s shot, as I have elevated him to #4 on my big board behind Joel Embiid, Dante Exum, and Marcus Smart.