Category Archives: Scouting Reports

Digging for Deep Sleepers– Best Players Not Invited to Combine

07 Thursday Jun 2018

Posted by in NCAA, Scouting Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Most of these guys are going to amount for nothing, but just for fun I am going to take a stab at some deep sleepers who were not invited to the combine that nobody is talking about. I excluded Gary Clark who is widely considered a snub, and am focusing on players who are actively underrated in my estimation.

1) Xavier Cooks 6’8″ SF/PF Winthrop

xaviercooksncaabasketballtournamentfirstrfodcnd1qsbl

Cooks is the ultimate unicorn of under the radar players. I doubt there was ever an undrafted player who can handle, pass, rebound, and protect the rim like he can. He is not super athletic, but he has a nice first step and is highly cerebral, which enables him to stuff the stat sheet at his height.

In the past 8 NCAA seasons, here are the players who had 15%+ TRB, 16%+ AST, 3%+ BLK, were 6’6″+ and had at least 10 possessions as a PnR Handler (per synergy):

Player Class TRB% AST% BLK% PnR poss
Xavier Cooks SR 16.6 25.4 7.7 79
Xavier Cooks JR 17.4 21.2 6.1 58
Frank Kaminsky SR 16.1 18.4 4.5 23
Draymond Green SR 19.8 24.2 3.3 20
Royce White SO 17.7 34.5 3 11
Draymond Green JR 16.6 30.6 4 10

This includes two first round picks, an all-time round 2 steal, and Cooks. And he runs the pick and roll far more often than any of them with quite a few more blocks. This is arguably a product of playing against low major competition, but there are no other low or mid major players in his stratosphere. He is an incredibly rare prospect.

Cooks’ biggest flaw is efficiency. He posted a weak 103 ORtg as a senior against low major competition, which is a major flag. But his passing was good enough to help balance the scales. Here are his senior synergy efficiency percentiles as a scorer vs. scoring + passes:

%ile %ile including passes
PnR 77% 91%
Iso 41% 70%
Post-up 88% 90%

His splits plus passes are likely bolstered by luck to some extent, but it is easy to see how he may offer enough value to overcome his efficiency woes. Also worth noting that Winthrop had a monstrous split with him on the court vs. off.

His other issue is that he may not be able to shoot. His career 68% FT 35% 3P inspires hope, but he has an ugly tornado form that reminisces of Joakim Noah.

Cooks has incredibly outlier strengths for a player that will likely go undrafted. His shooting and efficiency woes will be his undoing as a pro fairly often, but he is absolutely worth a summer league flier and 2 way contract. I would even take him in the 2nd round.

2) DJ Hogg 6’9″ SF/PF Texas A&M (ESPN: #66)

svqrxs6u_400x400

Hogg is a not great athlete with relatively short arms (6’10.5″ wingspan) who averaged a modest 11 points and 5 rebounds per game as a junior, so it is easy to write him off at a glance. But there are reasons for optimism:

At 6’9″ he is a big wing, which is quickly becoming the prototypical PF mold. He has good vision and is a good shooter, and enough athleticism to average nearly a block per game. This is an excellent baseline for a 3 + D prospect.

The problem is that his overall scoring and rebounding leaves much to be desired, but there are a number of factors stifling his production:

  1. He was forced to play the 3 with Texas A&M rotating three bigs– he would have been a 4 on almost any other team
  2. He had the worst coach of any major conference player
  3. He had the worst PG of any major conference player

His creation is nevertheless a flag for even a 3 + D role player, as he rarely even attacked closeouts. But for a player with such a good baseline of role player abilities, there could be a nice payoff if he translates well to a more favorable environment.

3) Vince Edwards 6’8″ SF/PF Purdue (ESPN: #72)

10789857

All Edwards did in 4 years at Purdue was win win win no matter what. He was an instant contributor from his freshman year, and the Boilermakers were a mainstay at the top of the Big Ten standings during his tenure.

He is 6’8″ and can rebound, pass, and is a great shooter with 39% 3P and 82% FT over his career. He also can handle a bit, which puts him in a mold that has an incredibly easy path to success as a pro.

His main question is whether he has the quickness and athleticism to defend at the NBA level. Given his size, IQ, and skill level it is worth gambling that he can in the 2nd round.

4) Desi Rodriguez 6’5″ SG/SF Seton Hall

Rodriguez had an interesting career arc at Seton Hall. As a freshman he was a pest on defense and a beast on the glass, but too raw to contribute much offensively. Over time he added polish to his skill level, and his steals and rebounds declined as his offensive role grew.

His shot is a bit of a question mark, but at 37% 3P and 74% FT as a senior he has improved enough to have potential. And his 6’10” wingspan and strong frame gives him potential to switch onto bigger players.

Desi’s ability to provide secondary creation ties everything together. It is a common misperception that 3 + D players only need to make 3’s and play defense. Low usage NCAA players have a terrible NBA track record for a reason. Competent shot creation is a necessity for even low usage NBA role players, as players who cannot punish the defense on easy scoring opportunities are major offensive liabilities.

In the NBA he will likely mirror his freshman role where he can focus on defense and rebounding, while his performance as a junior and senior proves that he has the offensive competence to succeed in a low usage NBA role. If he can combine the best of both worlds and develop into a reliable shooter, he should be a useful NBA role player.

5) Zach Thomas 6’7″ SF/PF Bucknell

yyhkecxhyavcizt-20170317171841

Thomas offers passing, rebounding, and shooting with ideal wing size and good feel for the game. He has a shot distribution that would make James Harden blush, as he attempts an inordinate amount of threes and free throws. And he has a solid frame and athleticism to give him a chance of translating to higher levels.

An encouraging point is that he scored an efficient 27 points in 29 minutes against Michigan State in the tournament before fouling out.

6) Desonta Bradford 6’4″ SG East Tennessee St.

bradford-jpg-2

Bradford has a Tyler Johnson-ish profile, as he did it all for a very good ETSU team as a junior and senior. He is a bit undersized for a SG at 6’4″, but he makes up for it with excellent athleticism.

He does not quite match Johnson’s elite NCAA efficiency, but is nevertheless a solid flier. There are not many better UDFA gambles than an athletic mid-major star.

7) Chima Moneke 6’6″ SF/PF UC Davis

653620880-0

At a glance Moneke does not seem like a prospect, as he is an undersized chucking PF who posted a 1:3 assist:TOV ratio in 2 years at UC Davis and is now 22 years old.

But he is very athletic, excellent on the glass, has good steal and block rates, and UC Davis defense was great with him on the floor and significantly declined with him off both years.

Moneke has a workable shot– he made 67% FT and 9/23 3P in his 2 years at Davis. He has also been able to score in his two games against elite major conferences defenses– posting 24 points on 10/15 shooting vs Ivab Rabb’s Cal team and 20 points on 8/13 vs Kansas in the tournament.

Moneke needs to develop an NBA 3, become a more willing passer, and successfully convert to the perimeter.  This is a bit of a longshot parlay, but the baseline talent is there and how can you not love that headband + goggles combo?

8) Bryant Crawford 6’3″ PG Wake Forest

bryant-crawford-600x400

Crawford has solid PG tools, as he measured 6’3.5″ with a 6’6″ wingspan in 2014 and has solid strength and athleticism. He has good vision, can create off the dribble, and his 83% FT as sophomore and 87% as a junior conveys excellent shooting potential.

His only weakness is that he doesn’t have a major strength. All of his tools are decent but not great, and the same can be said for his basketball IQ and skill level. But if he develops well, he has an easy path to NBA rotation guard.

9) Jordan McLaughlin 6’1″ PG USC

usa_today_9927205-0

Small point guards are weird. Often times the most highly touted ones fail to translate to the pros, but occasionally a stud role player like Fred VanVleet goes undrafted.

After Jevon Carter (who was invited to the combine), McLaughlin is the best shot at a FVV level UDFA steal in this crop. He is a good shooter with elite floor vision, and an uncanny ability to be a pest on defense (77th best steal rate in NCAA) without fouling (6th lowest foul rate).

He overall had a less impressive career than FVV, but McLaughlin’s senior year breakout offers enough intrigue for the speedy PG to be a nice undrafted flier.

10) Malik Pope 6’10” SF/PF San Diego St.

usatsi_10507886_168381682_lowres-1

Chad Ford stanned so ridiculously hard for Pope as a possible top 10 pick that it became a running joke, especially without him ever putting it all together over his 4 year career.

But even if Ford’s optimism was highly unwarranted, there were non-trivial reasons to like him. There are not many 6’10” athletes with even possibly enough skill to play the wing, and Pope is still only 21 on draft night.

He never developed well enough to be truly exciting, but it is worth seeing if an NBA coach can find a way to get more out of Pope than he showed as San Diego State.

10 players I would disinvite from the combine to take a closer look at these guys: Malik Newman, George King, Allonzo Trier, Justin Jackson, Brian Bowen, Billy Preston, Austin Wiley, Devon Hall, Tyus Battle, Kostas Antetokounmpo

Zhaire Smith Has Plutonium in his Calves

06 Wednesday Jun 2018

Posted by in NCAA, Scouting Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

usa_today_10733860-0-0

Zhaire Smith is one of the most unique prospects in the draft. He came out of nowhere to perform as one of the best freshmen in the NCAA in spite of being a 3* recruit. Let’s dive into his profile to estimate what to expect from him as a pro.

Profile

In spite of his 6’4″ height, he played like a power forward, using his nuclear athleticism to finish powerful dunks on cuts and putbacks. He also showcased his defensive potential by leading the #4 NCAA defense in both steals and blocks, and showed solid instincts for a young athletic freak.

He is limited offensively, as his shot and handle are a work in progress. But his 1.8 assists vs 1.1 turnovers indicates good feel for the game. While he has a slow release on his shot, his form is good and his 72% FT conveys decent shooting potential for an 18 year old.

The main concern is that he is a 6’4″ guard who showed limited ability to handle and create his own shot, and teams will be afraid of using a high lottery pick on his archetype.

Physical Comps:

Here are the recent prospects who have the most similar dimensions, athleticism, and NCAA statistical production to Zhaire.

Height Length Weight
Westbrook 6’3.5 6’7.75 192
Mitchell 6’3 6’10 211
Oladipo 6’4.25 6’9.25 213
Zhaire 6’4 6’9.75 199
LaVine 6’5.75 6’8.25 181
Shumpert 6’5.5 6’9.5 222

There’s a case to be made that Zhaire has the best physical profile of the bunch. He’s in the same tier of athleticism as Westbrook and LaVine but with better size. And the > 200 pound guys are all ~2 years older, he will likely weigh a similar amount by then and is likely more athletic than any of them.

Granted, athleticism is tricky to measure. There is no numerical way to pin it down, and it comes in various forms– first step, one foot leaping, two foot leaping, quickness, body control, etc. But to my eye Zhaire has special athleticism for two reasons

  1. It frequently appears he may hit his head on the rim when dunking
  2. He has elite body control to complement his elite explosiveness

The linked highlights are of impossible dunks that I cannot recall another player approximating. Zhaire has an uncanny ability to get way up while controlling his body to be able to smoothly finish from awkward positions.

But He Can’t Dribble!

UCLA vs Chico State. We won by a lot. Like 93 - 51.

To demonstrate how his handling ability compares to other players at the same age, I combined synergy iso and PnR handler stats into possessions used per 40 minutes and points per possession. And for a frame of reference, I threw in 2017’s elite scoring prospects to show how much top lead guard prospects normally produce as NCAA freshmen (and young sophomore Westbrook):

Age Poss/40 PPP
DSJ 19.1 10.3 0.85
Fultz 18.6 10.0 0.95
Fox 19.0 8.8 0.88
Mitchell 19.3 3.8 0.73
LaVine 18.8 3.1 0.61
RWB 19.1 2.4 0.72
VO 18.7 2.0 0.86
Zhaire 18.6 1.8 0.64
Shump 18.5 5.5 0.58

Zhaire has the lowest volume of this group and lower efficiency than everybody but LaVine and Shumpert. But his physical comps were all in the same tier of non-scorer at the same age, as you can see relative to the actual scoring prospects who crush the raw athlete wings in both volume and efficiency.

Westbrook set the record for highest single season NBA usage rate with above average efficiency. Oladipo scored 23 points/game in 17-18 with above average efficiency. Mitchell scored 24 pts/game in the playoffs as a rookie. LaVine went from worst player in the NBA as a rookie to solidly efficient scorer in his 3rd season.

Beyond the numbers, DraftExpress expressed doubt about the limited ball handling of both Victor Oladipo and Russell Westbrook.

The point is clear– a limited handle at a young age does not limit NBA scoring upside for a nuclear athlete with good basketball IQ and combo guard dimensions.

Zhaire is slightly behind his peers at this stage, but he is nevertheless showed flashes of impressive creation ability and easily roasted Mo Bamba twice. Perhaps he does not share the same creation success as the aforementioned comps, but he has enough baseline ability to build on.

So How Good Will Zhaire Be?

It is important to note that I did not try to cherrypick the most successful NBA players for this comparison. Shumpert and LaVine were my best attempts at comps that did not wildly succeed as pros, and they are both above median mid-1st round picks. And LaVine was clearly well below the group statistically as an NCAA player.

The intersection of elite athleticism and NCAA statistical production rarely fails, and often yields a high upside. It’s hard to find a truly pessimistic comp.

The only catch is that Zhaire is stylistically different than these comps. He was the tallest player on his high school team and often played center, which explains why he slid through the cracks as a recruit. This reflects in his Texas Tech performance where he played more like a garbageman PF than a guard.

Who Does He Actually Play Like?

Zhaire is statistically most similar to a pair of 4″ taller players: freshman Otto Porter and junior Jimmy Butler. Per 100 possession stats:

Age PTS 2P% 3PA FT% AST TOV
Otto 18.6 20.7 61.1 3.4 0.702 3.3 2.4
Zhaire 18.6 23.2 57.4 2.2 0.717 3.7 2.3
Jimmy 20.3 26.6 53.4 1.7 0.766 3.6 2.1

The similarities are uncanny as the offensive output is nearly identical. Jimmy did a bit more than the other two being older, but it worth noting I chose his best NCAA season as he slightly regressed as a senior.

STL BLK TRB
Otto 2.4 1.7 14.5
Zhaire 2.3 2.3 10.3
Jimmy 2.4 1.1 11.5

Otto + Jimmy show their superior size with better rebound rates, but Zhaire shows his superior athleticism with a better block rate.

Efficiency translates well to the NBA when it comes with the necessary physical tools to succeed. Even though Zhaire is 4″ shorter, his athleticism, length, and strength should make up for it.

Bottom Line

Zhaire is a weird prospect. He plays like a hybrid of Otto Porter and Jimmy Butler in Russell Westbrook’s body. I am not sure what that will amount to in the NBA, but I would bet it is good and it might be really awesome.

Of course this is looking at him through a rose colored lens that assumes he will develop reasonably well. If his shot, handle, and defensive instincts do not develop well, he could be an awkward role player who is not particularly useful. But the same can be said for any prospect who isn’t a #1 overall candidate.

History tells when things go well for nuclear athletes, they tend to go extremely well. Zhaire already made teams pay for sleeping on him as a recruit, now the same may happen in the draft as ESPN currently projects him to go 16th overall. I rate him as an obvious top 10 prospect in the draft with a strong case for top 5.

Is Trae Young Getting Overhyped?

24 Thursday May 2018

Posted by in NCAA, Scouting Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

usa_today_10706604-0

Everybody loves Trae Young, as he is a skill wizard that reminisces of Steph Curry.

But he is not Steph, and I have expressed this sentiment in a data driven analysis of his team’s performance. But since not everybody is into data, let’s key in on qualitative factors that are being overlooked:

1) He is really, really small

Trae measured just 6’1.75″ in shoes with a 6’3″ wingspan at the combine. This is shorter than Steve Nash, Steph Curry, and Chauncey Billups who are all listed at 6’3″.

The vast majority of good players listed at 6’2″ or less have had elite athleticism on their side. Chris Paul, Kemba Walker, Mike Conley, Kyle Lowry, Tony Parker, and Ty Lawson were all described as elite athletes in pre-draft scouting reports at DraftExpress.

Trae may have underrated quickness and speed, but nobody believes it is top shelf. He is in a physical tier where nobody has been elite.

The only player who *maybe* had similar physical limitations and excelled was John Stockton. He is before my time, and I do not have a strong grasp on his athleticism. But for the sake of argument we will say he is physically similar to Trae. Except there is one key difference

2) Trae’s Defense Is Awful

John Stockton was a 5 time NBA all-defense selection. If you are 6’1″ without freakish athleticism, you need to make a positive impact in every possible way to sum to elite production. And Trae is downright abysmal on defense, where it is not clear that he even cares to get stops.

Oklahoma’s defense declined from 39th best to 85th best returning almost everybody after adding Trae. He rates as by far the worst defensive guard in the class via Jacob Goldstein’s PIPM metric, and his defense is visibly terrible in this scouting video created by @GuillaumeBInfos.

He is probably going to be the worst defensive player in the NBA as a rookie, and there is not a ton of room for improvement. His physical profile makes his defense risky enough even with good effort, and he has such a low starting point it is hard to see him ever becoming decent on this end.

If Trae is 3 or 4 points worse than Stockton or Curry on D, that puts a ton of pressure on his offense to merely achieve goodness, let alone greatness.

3) Will he perform better in a smaller role with less of an offensive burden?

He played AAU with the Porter bros Michael and Jontay, and did not show clearly better efficiency in a more limited offensive role. He also shot poorly playing for Team USA in FIBA u18 championship in 2016, as well as the Nike Global Challenge in 2015.

There is some possibility that he lacks the basketball IQ to be an efficient scorer in a medium usage role. He appears to be an extremely skilled chucker who was able to succeed early in his Oklahoma career when he was hot against soft defenses.

Maybe he can learn to be more efficient over time, but based on current information there is limited reason for optimism.

4) Trae fell off a cliff vs better defenses

Most of statistical goodness came against soft defenses. When he faced good defenses his production fell off a cliff. Compare Trae’s per 40 stats vs. top 60 defenses to Steph Curry’s 5 career NCAA tournament games:

Pts eFG% AST TOV Opp DRtg
Steph 33.6 56.3% 3.6 1.9 89.5
Trae 27.7 47.7% 7.9 6.3 95.8

People commonly lament the attention Trae drew from defenses, but Steph got the same attention vs much tougher defenses in the tournament and he shined.

These splits were a signal that Steph had some cerebral advantage to translate his goodness to higher levels while Trae did the opposite. It would be a good idea to stop making this comp forever.

5) Is Trae a High IQ Passer?

Trae has excellent vision, and Chris Stone made a reasonable case that he made a positive effect on his teammates. But the vast majority on his effect came on Brady Manek– a 3* recruit who was much better than expected and happened to specialize in offense. Once you give most of the credit for Manek’s performance to Manek, Trae’s effect on his teammates is only slightly positive.

When you factor in his high turnover rate, and his inability to punish defenses for the insane attention he saw, it’s hard to argue that Trae is an elite passing prospect.

Trae’s passing was good this year, and he could eventually blossom into great. But there is no clear signal that he is a historically elite passer (as I argued for Lonzo Ball last year).

If Trae merely becomes an 85th percentile passing point guard in the NBA, he will likely stick in the league. But it will not be enough to be great in spite of his disadvantages. He needs to be a crazy outlier in this regard, and the early signals say that he is probably not.

6) Is He Actually An Elite Shooter?

Trae has never shot above 36% from 3 at any level. Just in case you needed another reason to know why it is a bad idea to compare him to a player who makes 44% of his NBA 3’s at a high volume.

Part of this is due to awful shot selection and poor size, and he has some non-zero chance of becoming the 2nd best shooter in NBA history. But he has a long way to go, and his shooting may always be undermined by his inability to get clean looks.

7) Does Trae deserve excuses?

It’s amazing how commonly people excuse Trae’s flaws by explaining how bad his teammates were and how many triple teams he saw.

These type of excuses should be reserved for an elite talent like DeAndre Ayton who is so physically gifted that he has significant margin of error for his NBA success.

Trae Young is in a physical tier where almost nobody succeeds in the NBA and he needs to be essentially *perfect* to be great. Yet he has the following flaws:

–Doesn’t play defense
–Awful shot selection
–No history of efficient play
–Struggles to get shot off against tough opponents
–No clear positive effect on his teammates’ performance

His skill and vision is rare enough such that he can nevertheless find an NBA niche. But does he actually sound like a player that is an intelligent gamble in the high lottery?

Bottom Line

I don’t see a path to him sniffing Steph Curry’s level of goodness. Maybe he can become a low end all-star like the Dallas version of Steve Nash, but he needs a ton to go right for that to happen. If he falls short of Nash, he is going to be a difficult fit into a good starting lineup. He can be a bench microwave, but as lead guard his team will have limited playoff upside.

The realistic upside comp for him is Isaiah Thomas. IT drew some MVP chatter for his box score stats in Boston, but ultimately did not help the offense drastically more than he hurt the defense, translated poorly to the playoffs, and the Celtics became a better team after parting ways with him. That is not a player worth targeting in the lottery– Thomas slid to last pick in the draft for good reason.

In reality, Trae will likely be worse than Thomas. As special as his vision and skill are, he has even more qualities that are especially bad to drag them down.

He has such a weird and polarized profile, it is difficult to say exactly where he should rate. He has some non-trivial value. But there is currently too much wishful thinking that he may be Steph, and I would bet that anybody who drafts him in the top 10 will be disappointed with the result.

We Need to Talk about Jaren

11 Friday May 2018

Posted by in NCAA, Scouting Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jaren Jackson Jr. is currently rated as the #4 prospect by ESPN. He is perceived as more of an elite role player than a true star with the upside of Luka Doncic or DeAndre Ayton, so let’s explore the validity of this narrative.

Physical Profile

JJJ measured 6’10” with a 7’4″ wingspan at Nike Hoop Summit at age 17, and he complements his strong dimensions with great mobility and athleticism. He is currently a bit skinny, but he has a nice frame that should fill out in time.

The only real flaw with his tools is that he’s not elite athletically, as he is more explosive in space than in traffic. But for an elite shot blocker, he covers a ton of ground defensively.

JJJ has a unique ability to both protect the rim and switch onto the perimeter. His physical profile is overall excellent, as it gives him endless defensive upside.

Skill Level

It’s difficult to predict NBA shooting from a small sample of stats, but JJJ’s shooting indicators are excellent for an 18 year old big. He shot 40% from 3 and 80% FT in a smallish NCAA sample and 40% on 84 3PA pre-NCAA according to DraftExpress (RIP).

His form is a slightly awkward push shot so these percentages should be taken with a grain of salt. But he also has a reasonably quick release, and there is some chance that he is a legitimately good shooter.

It remains to be seen how well he shoots from NBA 3 range.  But for a big with JJJ’s tools, having even a serviceable shot is highly valuable.

Further, he shows budding ball skills as he can attack from the perimeter off the dribble with surprising shiftiness and a good first step. He is still raw and often turned it over when he tried to attack, but his slashing potential is elite for an 18 year old big.

It’s hard to predict where his skill level will peak on the scale of decent to great, but he has rare skill potential for a toolsy, defensive minded big.

IQ and Instincts

4b947d44-83d9-46ca-84f3-fdd84042d7ba-sized-1000x1000

This past season Michigan State was nearly impossible to score on inside the arc, posting by far the best defensive 2P% in the NCAA. Here’s how they compared to stingiest interiors in kenpom’s database going back to 2002:

Year Team Def 2P% NCAA Avg Difference
2018 Michigan St. 38.4% 50.0% 11.6%
2015 Texas 37.7% 47.8% 10.1%
2017 UCF 39.9% 49.3% 9.4%
2004 Uconn 38.7% 48.0% 9.3%
2014 UC Irvine 39.2% 48.5% 9.3%

Texas boasted Myles Turner and fringe big prospects Cam Ridley, Prince Ibeh, and Jonathan Holmes. UCF and UC Irvine each had a 7’6″ big against mid-major schedules.  UConn had four (!!!) first round bigs: Emeka Okafor, Charlie Villanueva, Josh Boone, Hilton Armstrong.

All of these past outliers had some unique interior presence(s), and Michigan State is by far the biggest outlier of the bunch. Their performance can in part be attributed to a wealth of quality bigs and never gambling for turnovers, but JJJ was the clear star of the show accounting for 42% of the team’s blocks. And unlike these other defenses being anchored largely by giant statues, JJJ is actually able to defend the perimeter as he led his team in steal rate.

Much of his dominance was due to his his tremendous close out speed, but these indicators are decisively positive indicators for his IQ. He has sharp instincts, excellent timing on blocks, and appears to be an intelligent defensive player who rarely yielded quality shot attempts near the rim.

Given that individual stats, team stats, and the eye test all paint a favorable picture for JJJ, optimism for his basketball IQ is warranted. But he was not perfect, as he was foul prone on defense and turnover prone on offense. And his rebound rate was slightly underwhelming, so there is no guarantee that he is cerebrally elite.

Perhaps the fouls and turnovers are a product of youth that will become a distant memory with more experience, or maybe they indicate some flaw that will never fully go away. Maybe the rebounds were a product of playing in a supersized lineup with a not yet developed frame, or maybe his toughness and motor are slightly lacking. These questions are difficult to answer with any confidence.

To some extent we are guessing how intelligent and instinctual a player is based on limited information. This is a major part of the variance in draft predictions. But in JJJ’s case we have a unique clue to work with: his father’s NBA career

Chip Off the Old Block?

hqdefault

Jaren Jackson Sr. didn’t even start in his first three seasons at Georgetown, averaging 7, 11, and 18 minutes per game respectively. As a senior he finally averaged 27 minutes and cracked double digit scoring for the first time to finish his 4 year career with averages of 16.5 minutes, 7.5 points, 2.9 rebounds, and 1.2 assists.

Then he unsurprisingly went undrafted, and did not play more than garbage minutes in his first 7 NBA seasons. At age 29, he finally earned his first consistent rotation role playing 15 mins/game for Washington.

Then Jackson moved on to San Antonio where he became a part-time starter for  3 years, and played a significant role in their 1999 championship run. He brought almost nothing to the table outside of shooting and defense, but he did so effectively, as he rated as slightly positive by both BPM and RAPM metrics as one of the original 3 + D role players.

At 6’4″ with limited athleticism and skill, Jackson is one of the least talented players to ever become useful in the NBA. He couldn’t get real minutes in college, couldn’t get drafted, and couldn’t get real NBA minutes for 7 years, but he nevertheless found a way to positively contribute to a champion.

Jaren Sr. must have had subtle but significant cerebral and intangible advantages that the basketball world failed to discern until he crossed paths with Gregg Popovich.

What Does This Mean For Jaren Jr.?

While there is no guarantee that Jaren Jr. shares these advantages, he should be considered more likely than average to have the overachiever gene. After all, 50% of his genetics came from a extreme overachiever at professional basketball. And the other half of his genes came from a basketball mom, making him 7″ taller, more athletic, and more skilled than his dad.

Even without considering his father’s career, JJJ is legitimate candidate for #1 overall. If this point has no bearing on his career, he can easily be a perennial all-star similar to Chris Bosh. And if he overachieves as much as his father did, he has potential to be a Kevin Garnett level generational star.

It’s difficult to say exactly how much weight should be given to Jaren Sr’s career, but it is a nice cherry on top of a highly attractive profile. If it carries any serious gravity, the payoff for drafting JJJ will be immense.

I believe it is correct to place some positive skew on JJJ’s range of outcomes based on his genetics. If nothing else it is yet another positive point to add to the endless list of reasons to be optimistic for his NBA future.

Bottom Line

636551665561076107-si-20180225-ads-bl1-12

JJJ is not excellent athletically like Ayton nor is he skilled as Doncic, but he has a nice blend of both on top of possibly elite IQ and intangibles. His talent level is excellent and highly underrated.

It makes sense that he would be underrated, as IQ and youth are commonly overlooked and he is among the youngest and smartest players in this draft.

And to cap it off he doesn’t have any frightening warts. His shooting form is slightly funky, and there is some dependence on him progressing his somewhat raw skills at a reasonable rate. But compare that with the flaws of other recent elite prospects

DeAndre Ayton– Appears to be completely lost on defense
Luka Doncic– Lacks burst + shake to get past defense, will rely heavily on shotmaking as pro
Lonzo Ball— Major flags in his handling and shooting for a guard who is non-elite athlete
Markelle Fultz— Shaky FT% and his NCAA team was awful
Ben Simmons— Broken shot, awful NCAA team, intangible flags
Karl-Anthony Towns— Too slow to be good defensively
Joel Embiid— Major health concerns. Also late basketball starting age may inhibit his ability to score efficiently as a pro the same way it is difficult to learn a second language if you do not start as a child

JJJ arguably has the least off-putting warts of the group. And his team defense and genetics are compelling reasons to be optimistic for his NBA upside. From almost every angle of analysis, he is dripping with goodness.

Ultimately I rate Jaren Jackson Jr. as the best prospect of the past 6 years. It’s not by a big margin, as Luka Doncic could also be argued to be the best recent prospect and Ayton is not that far behind either.  But JJJ at least belongs in the #1 conversation, and letting him slide out of the top 3 would be nothing short of a historic draft blunder.

Who is the Best 3 + D Wing in the Draft?

22 Thursday Mar 2018

Posted by in NCAA, Scouting Reports

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

The 2018 draft has some good 3 + D wings outside of the top 10 such as Mikal Bridges, Miles Bridges, Troy Brown, and Jacob Evans. But nobody is talking about Josh Okogie, who is only ranked #46 on ESPN and may be the gem of the class

Why Does He Have No Hype?

Because he plays for an awful Georgia Tech team. He didn’t get many high major offers as he wasn’t a top 100 recruit, so he settled for the major conference team close to home.

It’s easy to see why he wasn’t a top 100 recruit. He is super young for his class, and was less developed than his high school peers. He is only 6’4″, not super athletic, and not a big time shot creator. He doesn’t check the most easily discernible boxes, so it makes sense that recruiting services would overlook him.

Before his freshman year, Georgia Tech was considered a threat to go 0-18 in ACC play by stat models, common narratives, and yours truly. But 18 year old Okogie and junior Ben Lammers led them to the #6 kenpom defense, a respectable 8-10 ACC record, and a trip to the NIT finals. They deserve a parade for this, as the Yellow Jackets were one of the biggest overachievers in the 16-17 NCAA season.

As a sophomore the Jackets took a small step back, but that can be in part blamed on his coach, cast, and bad luck. Overall Okogie’s two years at Georgia Tech were a huge success given the circumstances.

Defense

Okogie’s physical profile is overall terrific, as he has a 7’0″ wingspan and a strong frame to go along with above average athleticism and good quickness.

His length and strength give him ability to guard NBA wings, and his quickness gives him the ability to defend guards. With the tools to hold his own against any position 1-4, he has elite versatility in heavily switching defenses that are prevalent in the modern NBA.

He is also disruptive as a team defender, as he uses his length effortlessly to deflect passes and block shots.

Granted, he is not guaranteed to be a lockdown defensive player. He is mistake prone as he makes unnecessary gambles and sometimes gets beat due to mental lapses. He’s not a Marcus Smart or Justise Winslow level defensive wizard. But he atones for this with an excellent motor, and often hustles his way back into the play after he is beat.

Okogie offers a rare intersection of switching versatility, disruptive playmaking, and non-stop motor.  Most of his mistakes stem from being too aggressive, and could be reduced over time with more experience and better coaching. Okogie has excellent defensive potential, and is firmly in the conversation for best defensive wing prospect in the draft.

Offense

Offensively Okogie is a work in progress, but one area where he shines is shooting. He made 78% of his FT’s (82% as a sophomore) and 38% of his 3’s during his two years at Georgia Tech. This is really good for an 18/19 year old wing who is younger than freshmen Michael Porter Jr. and Mo Bamba.

He has a rudimentary handle and a good first step, but is mostly limited as a creator. He led the Yellow Jackets in usage (27% both years) because the rest of the team is so dreadful they don’t have any better options.  Because of his limited handling and subpar body control, he struggles to finish near the rim on these occasions and had just a 43% 2P as a sophomore (45% overall).

He has a long way to go to become more than a guy who can move the ball, make 3’s, score off the ball, and attack closeouts. But at 19, he has enough physical advantages to have some creation upside if he develops better than expected.

3 + D

Josh Okogie is the quintessential 3 + D prospect. His 3 and free throw stroke are decisively good, and he has upside to be a great shooter. His release is slightly slow, but his form is good and his shot tends to fall. The same can be said for his defense. He is not GOATish in either area, but offers a rare intersection of good at both.

His creation upside spices up his prospect value with a nice upside scenario. Even if he seems like a boring non-creator who will likely not peak higher than players such as Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, Wes Matthews, or Danny Green, there is some potential for more. Nobody talked about Donovan Mitchell or Kawhi Leonard’s upside pre-draft, so why will Josh Okogie not surprise like them?

Kawhi Not?

Kawhi’s DX profile notes similar weaknesses to Okogie (non-elite athlete, struggles to finish off the dribble) and the only major difference is that Okogie is 3″ shorter in both height and length. This is a significant disadvantage, but Kawhi minus 3 inches would nevertheless be a great player.

This is not to say Okogie WILL be Kawhi minus 3 inches. He may not be on the same level cerebrally, and likely will not match Kawhi’s NBA defensive and creation value. But based on current information the possibility cannot be ruled out, and he at least has a small chance of becoming mini-Kawhi. The same cannot be said for Mikal Bridges, as his creation limits are far more significant given his meager 15% usg at ages 19/20.

Bottom Line

Mikal Bridges is considered to be the premier 3 +D prospect in the class. But Bridges is a bit more than two years older, not clearly better in either category, and does not have the same sneaky star potential as Okogie. Further, Bridges’ low freshman + sophomore usage may indicate subtle flaws that give him a lower floor than Okogie.

There are reasons to like Bridges, as he is hyperefficient in his low usage role and Villanova has been the #1 or #2 kenpom team in all three of his seasons there. He knows how to win, has solid role player potential, and is a fine choice in the 15-25 range.

But in terms of NBA upside, Okogie shines as the superior talent. He is the best 3 + D wing prospect in the draft, and is worth a lottery selection. I expect Okogie to rise up draft boards as he outshines higher rated prospects such as Tyus Battle, Khyri Thomas, and Aaron Holiday throughout the draft process.

Could Shai Gilgeous Be the Best PG in 2018?

19 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by in NCAA, Scouting Reports

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is rising on draft boards, as the Kentucky point guard has ascended to #14 in ESPN’s top 100 with his hot recent play. He is currently rated as the #3 PG in the class behind Collin Sexton (#8) and Trae Young (#9).

Shai’s main selling point is that he is a lead guard who can create for himself and others while defending multiple NBA positions, as he is 6’6″ with a 7’0″ wingspan. His primary concerns are average athleticism and limited shooting range, as these arguably prevent him from being more than an intriguing role player. Let’s explore the nuances of his game to determine which side carries more gravity.

Can Shai run an NBA offense?

The most significant anti-Shai point is he is an average athlete posting a mere 23% usage rate. There is no public narrative that he could be an elite point guard, as he is not even in the conversation as best PG in the class with Trae Young and Collin Sexton.

But his recent performance suggests that he may have more lead guard potential than common narratives suggest. After carrying a 22% usage rate for the first 29 games, it has spiked to 27% in the past 7 and the results have been excellent (stats are per 40 minutes):

FGA FTA 2P% AST TOV
First 29 gms 11.9 4.6 49.4% 5.8 3.2
Last 7 gms 13.0 8.2 54.9% 7.2 2.9

He is clearly performing at a different level than early in the season. And this is in spite of a slightly tougher average defense over the recent span than the earlier one.

And it’s not just Shai– the entire Kentucky offense has completely transformed with his emergence:

2P% 3P% TOV% Pts/Poss
First 29 50.9% 34.3% 19.1% 1.082
Last 7 53.2% 42.5% 15.5% 1.189

Kentucky  is clearly a different beast from early in the season. They are an incredibly young team that was a dumpster fire for most of the regular season, and this obscured much of Shai’s goodness.

Now that the Wildcats have found their groove with Shai leading the way, they are performing as efficiently as any Calipari offense is capable. This offers a good argument that Shai has the IQ to run an efficient offense, and that his early season performance vastly undersells his upside on this end.

How Will This Performance Translate?

There are inevitably doubts that a non-elite athlete can translate scoring from NCAA to the NBA. But it could translate well, as Shai has an elite euro-step to compensate for his average athleticism. He is incredibly shifty and is deft at stepping his way around defenders to atone for his inability to explode past them.

In this regard he is similar to James Harden who is also an average athlete that has thrived on dimensions, instincts, skill, and outlier coordination. Shai is clearly an inferior prospect to Harden, as he is a clearly much worse shooter and likely has other nuanced disadvantages. But Harden was considered a clearly inferior prospect to the more athletic Blake Griffin, and even Hasheem Thabeet was taken ahead of him due to athleticism concerns.

Dejounte Murray is another average athlete who appears to be a late 1st steal due to good dimensions and shake. I rated Murray as a lottery pick at the time, and perceive Shai as superior.

The tall, long, and shifty lead guard mold is rare, but Murray and Harden show that it is a type that has been wildly underrated in the past. This may be a signal that it is underrated once again with Shai.

Defense

Shai is not a lockdown defensive player at this stage, but his potential is clear. His dimensions and solid quickness give him potential to switch onto multiple positions. Also he has shown ability to use his length to make plays on D– here is how his steal, block, and rebound rates stack up vs other Kentucky guard prospects under Calipari:

ORB% DRB% BLK% STL%
Shai 3.1 10.1 1.7 2.9
John Wall 2.6 10.2 1.5 2.9
De’Aaron Fox 2.1 12.2 0.7 2.7
Eric Bledsoe 1.9 8.6 1.1 2.6
Tyler Ulis 1.7 7.1 0.3 2.3
Archie Goodwin 5.6 10.4 1.4 2.1
Andrew Harrison 2.4 8.1 0.8 1.7
Marquis Teague 1.6 6.7 0.8 1.7
Malik Monk 1.1 7.2 1.5 1.6
Jamal Murray 4.9 11.1 0.9 1.6
Devin Booker 2.6 7.8 0.3 1.3
Brandon Knight 2.1 10.4 0.6 1.1

His rates are nearly identical to John Wall. Although Shai is not nearly as explosive as Wall, his other advantages help compensate. No other Kentucky guard prospect matches Shai’s steals and blocks, and nobody outrebounds him by a significant margin. There is a good argument to be made that he has as much defensive potential as any Kentucky guard prospect in recent memory.

There is no guarantee that Shai will be a positive defensive player, but he has clearly attractive upside on this end.

Summary

At a glance, it is not obvious that Shai has two way potential. He is not a super athlete, he doesn’t score a boatload of points, he is not considered an elite passer, he is prone to getting beat on defense, and he is not a reliable 3 point shooter. Thus it is understandable why he has yet to garner top 10 attention.

But when he is given a closer look, he is dripping with two way upside. His length and coordination give him slashing potential, Kentucky’s recent offensive performance shows his playmaking potential, his defensive stats and length show his defensive potential, and the only significant concern is his shooting. But even that has hope between his 81.5% FT and 71st percentile off the dribble shooting per synergy.

There are enough questions to rule him out as a possible top 3 selection, but there are enough answers to arguably give him as much upside as anybody once Doncic, Jackson, and Ayton are off the board.

If nothing else he should be in the conversation for best point guard prospect in the class. It would be an unequivocal error to draft Collin Sexton ahead of him. Sexton is more athletic and talented at scoring, but is too small and one dimensional to have as much upside as Shai and has significantly more bust risk.

It’s not as clear who is superior between Shai and Trae Young, as Trae is too weird to assess with high confidence. But almost every guard with Trae’s physical tools outside of Steph has failed, and Shai is about as likely to be Harden as Trae is to be Steph. Shai at least has the success of Dejounte Murray to suggest a solid floor without the best possible NBA translation and development, which is a good reason to give him the edge.

In my eyes Shai has cemented himself as a clear top 10 pick. It will be interesting to see if he can continue his recent level of play into the Sweet 16, but as of now I’d rate him as the #1 PG in the class with a solid case for a top 5 selection.

2018 Preview: Is Michael Porter a Future NBA Star?

24 Saturday Jun 2017

Posted by in Big Boards, Scouting Reports

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,

58cac7f806e3e-image

Now that the 2017 draft is over, attention shifts to 2018 where Michael Porter Jr. is battling Luka Doncic for #1 overall, where league executives are allegedly split. I decided to get a taste of Michael Porter Jr. by watching the Nike Hoop Summit where he led team USA with 19 points.

Michael Porter Jr. Scouting Report

Porter is a 6’10” knockdown shooter who rebounds well and has decent athleticism. So it is easy to see why he is labeled as a possible #1, as that baseline of skill makes it sound like he has Kevin Durant upside.

But his warts are apparent in watching him play. He is not particularly smooth, explosive, or advanced with the handle so he struggled to get by defenders and often drove directly into the crowd and hoisted some awkward looking shots. On several occasions he was able to flail and draw free throws, but it appears that and pulling up for jumpers are the only creation he can muster off the dribble.

He does not have good passing instincts, as while he is a willing passer it is with the objective of moving the ball rather than setting up a teammate. For all of the goodness that his shooting presents on offense, his shaky instincts shown in his slashing and passing are going to detract from his shooting goodness.

Defensively he has the size and mobility to make an occasional play, but his awareness is not great as he had lapses where he got caught watching the ball or out of position. On the upside has has great height and moves well and was able to use his tools be useful at times, so it is difficult to judge his defense as either good or bad based on this game. But based on his limited instincts he does not appear to be a stopper on this end and has clear downside.

Overall Sentiment

Porter strongly reminisces of my first time viewing Andrew Wiggins, where it stunned me that people viewed him as a tanking candidate. They have a number of marked similarities as prospects, as Porter essentially has two inches of height and better shooting in lieu of Wiggins’ otherworldly athleticism.

This was just one game, and I cannot yet rule out that he will be good. But elite stars normally stand out to my eye immediately: Joel Embiid and Lonzo Ball were love at first sight, and Karl Anthony Towns, Ben Simmons, and Markelle Fultz were extremely attractive at first blush (even if I have my doubts about the latter two, their talent is undeniable).

Porter is in a class with Andrew Wiggins of putting me in shock that people can look at a prospect like this and somehow believe he is better than prospects like Luka Doncic or Lonzo Ball. I would bet every dollar I own that he is not.

I am not going to call him a likely bust based on a one game eye test, as Andrew Wiggins could have been pretty good if he was able to develop better from his rookie year. But it is difficult to argue that the hype machine be given any benefit of the doubt to treat Porter as anything remotely special this early.

No Proof of Goodness Means More Downside

1251047

The fact of the matter is that the draft hype machine has not exactly been nailing NCAA top 3’s a year ahead of time lately

2014: Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker, Julius Randle
2015: Jahlil Okafor, Emmanuel Mudiay, Stanley Johnson
2016: Ben Simmons, Skal Labissiere, Jaylen Brown
2017: Harry Giles, Jayson Tatum, Josh Jackson

8 of those 12 have playing at least one NBA season, and all look disappointing relative to hype. Simmons, Tatum, and Jackson are the only ones with clear star potential, and none of them are guarantees.

If you randomly select a player from this pile, he is more likely than not to be an ordinary, meh NBA player. It is extremely difficult to predict NBA success without observation vs. NCAA or professional competition. Intuitively Porter, Ayton, and Bamba do not seem any better than prior early top 3’s, and are each more likely to be below average NBA players than good starters.

How Does Porter Compare to 2017?

Everybody who thinks Porter should go #1 in 2017 is crazy. It would be terrible if any of Porter, Ayton, or Bamba were chosen in this year’s top 6, as it was a especially good top 6 (Fultz, Ball, Tatum, Jackson, Fox, Isaac) who all showed strong potential vs. NCAA competition compared to 19 y/o’s who have been feasting on 17 and 18 y/o’s.

I would also take Real Madrid star Luka Doncic over all 3 prospects combined, as he has been one of the best players in the second best professional league behind the NBA, all at a younger age than these guys as high school seniors. It may seem crazy now, but in a few years it will not.

I know these are many piping hot takes at once, but if nothing else they will be fun to re-visit in a few years. On to the rankings:

Tier 1: Basketball God

1. Luka Doncic 6’8″ Real Madrid

lukadoncic

I still need to watch him before singing his praises too loudly, but he is 6’8″, athletic, super skilled, and smart and has clear GOAT potential. It is difficult to see him failing, and there is no reasonable argument that anybody else should even sniff #1.

Tier 2: Regular Basketball Players

2. Collin Sexton, 6’2″ Freshman, Alabama

Sexton is the only player in the Hoop Summit who glowed to my eye. He is incredibly athletic, smooth, and shifty, and has strong potential as a slasher. He also showed legitimate passing and vision, and can be a pest on defense and was willing to battle with bigs for rebounds.

It is difficult to get too excited for a 6’2″ player this far from the draft, and Sexton does seem to be a risk of taking poor shots and over gambling on defense. But he is the only player in the Hoop Summit who looked like a possible future star, so he gets my #2 slot.

3. Wendell Carter, 6’10” Freshman, Duke

Carter was more quiet than I had hoped in the Hoop Summit, but it is still easy to see him being good. He has a 7’3″+ wingspan which gives him potential to play center in the NBA, and he seems to be above average at everything.

The main thing holding him back from top 3 hype is lack of elite explosiveness, but he is a good, well rounded basketball player who is almost a year younger than each of Ayton, Bamba, and Porter.

4. DeAndre Ayton, 7’0″ Freshman, Arizona

Ayton did not play in the Hoop Summit, so my eyes have yet to qualify him. I have my doubts about him as he has a reputation for not caring a ton, but he has monster height and a 7’5″ wingspan with real talent, so I will see how he looks for Arizona before passing firm judgment.

5. Mohamed Bamba, 7’0″ Freshman, Texas

Bamba has a 7’9″ wingspan and projects to be a force defensively, and he did look impressive on that end at the Hoop Summit. Unfortunately, he looked like a zero offensively as he cannot handle and his touch around the rim looked bad.

On the upside he can make FT’s and the announcers were saying his touch is normally good, so if he can at least make shots offensively he has upside to be a Rudy Gobert or Tyson Chandler type.

6. Michael Porter Jr., 6’10” Freshman, Missouri

As I have detailed, I do not believe he is great. Maybe he is nevertheless good, but at this juncture there is no compelling reason to believe that he is anything other than an ordinary top 10 prospect.

That said this is a low confidence opinion, and it will be easier to have a grasp on him when he plays for Missouri. By draft time it is possible I will move him up into the top 3, or he may be out of the top 10. It could go either way.

7. Ethan Happ, 6’9″ Junior, Wisconsin

Happ hardly has any draft hype, as he is only ranked 36th on DraftExpress. The knock on him is that he is a traditional white PF who cannot shoot and lacks explosive athleticism, so he is getting overlooked as a draft prospect.

But people are wrong to overlook him, as he is a stud at everything but shooting. He may not be a leaper but he moves his feet well, and at 6’9″ he is an elite handler, passer, rebounder, and defensive player who excels at everything except scoring from a distance. At age 21 with a 57% FT you have to be worried about his shot, and it is genuinely a major wart.

But given how elite the rest of his profile is, I would happily gamble on it all working out.

8. DeAnthony Melton, 6’4″ Sophomore, USC

DeAnthony Melton completely stuffed the statsheet as an 18 year old freshman, as he racked up rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks. He has exceptional instincts to go with great length and quickness, and has the foundation to be a star combo guard.

The downside is that he still has a long way to go to fit in offensively as he posted just a 33rd percentile half court efficiency on low usage as a freshman. He still is not a reliable 3P shooter at 28% and he cannot yet create against a set defense.

If Melton makes a major offensive leap as a sophomore he has star upside, otherwise he is an intriguing role player.

While Melton and Happ have their share of flaws, they also have unique strengths to help them overcome. Don’t be surprised when one of the duo is a better pro than Michael Porter Jr.

9. Robert Williams, 6’9″ Sophomore, Texas A&M

The Aggies had no point guard this past season and all of their returners badly regressed. Now that they have help at the position, Williams who excels at moving off the ball and finishing may see a big sophomore breakout.

10. Miles Bridges, 6’6″ Sophomore, Michigan St.

Bridges is smooth and athletic, and coming off a good freshman season for Michigan State where he did a bit of everything.

The only worry with Bridges is that his dimensions are a bit weak as he last measured 6’6.25″ with a 6’8.75″ wingspan. Given that he also had a mediocre efficiency, he will have extra worry about his ability to be an efficient NBA player without better combine measurements.

11. Jarred Vanderbilt, 6’9″ Freshman, Kentucky

Vanderbilt was the surprise star of the Hoop Summit, and he has strong feel for the game with excellent rebounding and passing. He also is able to make plays on defense and is one of the younger members of the class having recently turned 18.

His downside is that he is a poor shooter, and does not look like an elite defensive stopper to make his shot worth stomaching. But I would nevertheless not be surprised if he emerges as the best freshman in the class.

12. Jaren Jackson Jr., 6’10” Freshman, Michigan St.

Jackson is still just 17 and has good physical tools for a big, and made a number of impressive finishes and defensive plays in the Hoop Summit. He also has traces of an outside shot, and is another player who has potential to climb my board by the draft. While the freshman class lacks a likely star, there is a significant cluster of players that have a chance of shining in NCAA.

I only have Jackson 12th because he appears to be a role player with questionable instincts, but he could just as easily be argued to be much higher.

13. Troy Brown, 6’6″ Freshman, Oregon

Brown is the super role player of the class, as he has a 6’11” wingspan and made some impressive passes for a wing in the Hoop Summit. He also competed and moved his feet well defensively and at 17 is one of the youngest players in the class.

He is a prototypical 3 + D wing, as his only weaknesses are lack of elite athleticism and scoring ability. This does inhibit his upside, but if teams pay this too much attention he could be a steal in the back end of the lottery.

Overall I believe the freshman class should be seen as 5 good but not great prospects battling for #2 (Sexton, Carter, Ayton, Bamba, Porter) with Vanderbilt, Jackson, and Brown right behind them as role players with sneaky potential.

Tier 3: The Rest
14. Mikal Bridges, 6’8″ Junior, Villanova
15. Bruce Brown, 6’4″ Sophomore, Miami FL
16. Andrew Jones, 6’4″ Sophomore, Texas
17. Hamidou Diallo, 6’5″ Freshman, Kentucky
18. Emmanuel Akot, 6’8″ Freshman, Arizona
19. Mitchell Robinson, 6’11” Freshman, Western Kentucky
20. Markis McDuffie, 6’8″ Junior, Wichita St.
21. Jacob Evans, 6’6″ Junior, Cincinnati
22. Rawle Alkins, 6’5″ Sophomore, Arizona
23. Tyler Hall, 6’4″ Junior, Montana St.
24. Shamorie Ponds, 6’0″ Sophomore, St. John’s
25. Gary Clark, 6’7″ Senior, Cincinnati
26. Trent Forrest, 6’5″ Sophomore, Florida St.
27. Bryant Crawford, 6’3″ Junior, Wake Forest
28. John Petty, 6’6″ Freshman, Alabama
29. Kevin Huerter, 6’6″ Sophomore, Maryland
30. Kevin Hervey, 6’7″ Senior, UT Arlington

2016 Final Big Board With Writeups

23 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in Big Boards, Scouting Reports

≈ 4 Comments

I am fairly confident that the draft outcome is rife with inefficiencies. With pristine analysis of all available information, the resulting ranking of the true EV’s of each prospect should heavily vary from the actual draft order. I tend to reflect this in my historical big boards because being an extreme contrarian is fun, but I am now coming to grips with the facts that 1) I lack complete information and 2) my analysis is neither thorough nor pristine. Consequently I am left with extremely contrarian opinions based on limited confidence, and the overall efficiency of my final rankings suffer.

For my final board, my intent is to embrace my lack of knowledge and accept that the actual decision makers do not always differ from my opinion based on completely invalid information. I also am weighing in the perspectives of other draft writers that I respect. This will make my board less boldly anti-consensus but also should make it more efficient.

Tier 1 : Possible Stars

1. Brandon Ingram (DX: 1, ESPN: 2)

Ingram’s main concern is that he may not be that good, which is somewhat understandable since he is excellent at nothing and is not an explosive athlete either. But I believe he’s better than implied by his stats.

Ingram has multiple outs to create offense, as his extremely long arms give him the ability to shoot over most defensive players, and his handle and long strides provide him an ability to create off the dribble in spite of non-elite burst. He complements this with solid vision and passing as well as good defense and versatility to switch onto a wide range of matchups.

The fear is that he never develops into a great shooter, and his lack of athleticism prevents him from being a stud creator or defender and he is merely a decent role player rather than somebody who justifies a top 2 overall selection. This is a plausible outcome, which is why I rate him as a below average #1 overall choice. But he is super young with reportedly elite intangibles, and if he works on his skills and body diligently he can become a star. It is unlikely he lives up to the Kevin Durant comparison, but I see him as a player who has a strong balance of strengths with no real weaknesses in the vein of Millsap. And there is clear potential to pass Millsap as he offers superior height, length, and shooting.

2. Ben Simmons (DX: 2, ESPN: 1)

Simmons is clearly more talented than Ingram, and if he had Ingram’s intangibles he would be an above average #1 pick. But between LSU’s dismal team performance and reports that his intangibles are sorely lacking, there is sufficient evidence to devalue him to an average or worse #1 pick. Frankly it is sheer guesswork to determine much he should be devalued without full information and thorough analysis. My guess is more bearish than consensus, but it could be wrong if Simmons locks in defensively in the pros. And if he develops an 3 point shot this ranking could look especially silly in retrospect. But LSU’s defense was just so bad without much of an offensive spike with an alleged stud PG playing center, that I err on the side of pessimism and rate him behind Ingram.

3. Dragan Bender (DX 3, ESPN: 6)

As much as I want to love Bender and put him #1 on my board, there is simply not enough available information to put him above Simmons and Ingram who would both have viable cases for top 2 picks in an average draft. But there is nevertheless much to love here.

–He can guard all 5 positions
–He is an elite passer
–He appears to have a strong chance of developing into an acceptable NBA 3P shooter

The only other player in the NBA who fits these qualifications is Draymond Green, and he nearly just won finals MVP. And while it is dangerous to read too heavily into his 16 year old 9 game FIBA sample, they don’t just imply that he fits in with the top 3– they imply he may be better than Ingram and Simmons combined.

Since he appears to be a real threat of falling out of the top 5, I am erring on the side of caution and ranking him #3. But it is a strong #3 ranking, and I believe it is an unequivocal error to draft any player other than Simmons and Ingram ahead of him.

Tier 2: Pretty Good Prospects That Should Not Be Top 5 in a Normal Draft

4. Kris Dunn (DX: 4, ESPN: 3)

Dunn provides a baseline of great defensive upside to defend either guard position and elite floor vision to make him the default choice at #4 overall. But there are some pink flags regarding his ability to score. He shot 37% from 3 as a senior on low volume, and he took a number of long 2’s a step inside the arc. It seems he is more comfortable inside the arc, and he may not have a reliable shot from NBA 3 point range.

Further, for such a toolsy and experienced point guard, he created a surprisingly middling volume of layups for himself in the half court. If he struggles to get to the rim vs. NBA defenses he may be relegated to a mid-range chucker who cannot score efficiently enough to capitalize on his vision.

If Dunn can create layups and make NBA 3’s, he should become a nice 2 way player. But if neither happens he is merely a defensive specialist, which is why he is such a weak option at #4 overall.

5. Jaylen Brown (DX: 5, ESPN: 7)

Statistical models are not particularly fond of Brown, neither are most writers in the draft nerd community. But there are a number of factors that mitigate his lackluster statistics:

–He shot much better than his 29% 3P% and 65% FT% at Cal, as DX has him at 39% from 3 and 70% FT in 1,144 pre-NCAA minutes
–He is a better defender than his steals and blocks suggest, as Cal had the #17 kenpom defense with an anemic team steal rate and no elite shot blockers
–He has elite physical tools and the versatility to defend all positions 1-4
–He can create his own shot at the rim, just not at an efficient clip

He still is just an average rebounder and passer, and an inefficient chucker on offense. He may never become good at NBA basketball. But if he becomes a solid 3P shooter, a good and versatile defensive player, and he cleans up his shot selection and decision making on offense, he has as much star potential as anybody outside the top 3.

There’s a good chance I regret ranking Brown this high, but with such meh other options why not gamble on the scarce upside.

6. Wade Baldwin (DX: 14, ESPN: 17)

Nearly every draft nerd loves Wade Baldwin, and his monster 6’11.25″ wingspan gives him great defensive upside. He also has good floor vision and is a good shooter, and is a strong bet to become a useful NBA player. But he lacks the burst and handle to create his own shot at the rim, and his slow trigger resulted in a bizarrely low 3PA rate at Vanderbilt. While he is a strong bet to become a useful NBA player, he may not have the offensive upside to become a 2 way star. But his PG skills, shooting, and switching upside provide enough to be valuable without scoring much, and he is a flat out steal outside the top 10.

7. Deyonta Davis (DX: 11, ESPN: 16) 

Deyonta Davis is tall, athletic, and defensively versatile, with efficient garbage man skills on offense. He has a good assist:TOV rate for a young big and an acceptable mid-range/FT shot, and has nice 1.5 way potential as a valuable piece for switching defense that is not a complete liability on offense.

 

8. Marquese Chriss (DX: 6, ESPN: 5)

Chriss is slippery, as his youth, size, athleticism, and shooting offer promising upside while his poor rebounding, vision, and defense counter with frightening downside.

I tend to be bearish on players who cannot pass, rebound, or defend. But Chriss was actually a better offensive rebounder than Ben Simmons or Henry Ellenson, and DRB% can be a bit funky to predict (see: Andre Drummond who has ~doubled his NCAA DRB% in the NBA). His lack of vision and defensive fundamentals loom as concerns, but he is too young for his limitations to condemn him at such a young age. He may never overcome them, but the behind the scenes feedback doesn’t seem to deter teams from wanting to gamble on him.

Overall I feel there is more risk than upside, but there’s enough to like such that he is a fine gamble as a boom or bust player in the mid-lotto.

 

9. Jakob Poeltl (DX: 9, ESPN: 12)

I have written about Poeltl as an undervalued piece, and I still like him. He has been likened to the 3rd Zeller brother, which is a reasonable comparison. It does make it hard to see his upside, but if he emerges with better defense, rebounding, and passing than your average Zeller those can add up to make a difference.

 

 

10. Timothe Luwawu (DX: 12, ESPN: 26)

Luwawu strikes me as the French Jaylen Brown. He’s older and not quite as toolsy, but he offers a similar package of defensive versatility and offensive upside if his skills progress smoothly.

11. Chinanu Onuaku (DX: 38, ESPN: 37)

There are some pink flags chipping away at his prospect value– he’s slightly short, cannot shoot, is not an explosive athlete, and he has a minor heart condition. But collectively these do not add up to a ton in comparison to how awesomely good he is for such a young player. He still projects to slide to round 2 but I’m not hedging on this one– Onuaku is my clear favorite to be the steal of the draft.

12. Jamal Murray (DX: 7, ESPN: 4)

He’s a stud shooter, but his limited height, length, and quickness makes him project to be a significant liability as an NBA defensive player. The key question for him as a prospect is whether he can complement his shooting with his PG skills. He has a decent handle and good vision, but in college he struggled to get past quicker matchups and was relegated to a spot up shooter with Tyler Ulis running the offense.

There is wiggle room for him to justify his early lotto projection if he develops into a good shot creator and passable defensive player, but with just one proven dimension I believe he is slightly overrated.

Tier 3: Let’s Get Deep

13. Dejounte Murray (DX: 30, ESPN: 9)

Murray is a boom or bust candidate, as his profile is highlighted by his slithery slashing ability, good vision, and SG size. He also offers solid rebounding and defensive potential, and if his shooting, decision making, and strength improve he could be a home run selection.

14. Furkan Korkmaz (DX: 20, ESPN: 13)

Korkmaz offers a compelling combination of shooting, youth, passing, and solid wing height and athleticism. The concern is that he is a bit one dimensional as a shooter, and is too skinny to ever not be a liability on defense.

15. Zhou Qi (DX: 36, ESPN: 47)

We live in a world where Clint Capela was selected 25th, Rudy Gobert 27th, and Nikola Jokic 41st. It seems clear that NBA teams are scared by funky international big men, and Qi is as funky as it gets with monster height and length which is complemented with mobility and shooting ability rarely seen in giants. He is plagued by an outlier rail thin frame and lack of aggressiveness to scare off scouts and keep him out of round 1.

I have no idea if he can stick in the league or not– he could easily be a complete flop. But how many players have been failed with his combination of reach, mobility, and shooting? I assume the answer is none because I cannot think of any with his intersection of strengths. Once the lottery is done, why not gamble on the outlier prospect with an outlier upside over another vanilla 3 + D prospect? There is no reason that a player with an unprecedented intersection of strengths such as Qi should slide to round 2.

Frankly it seems conservative to rank him 15th, but without much information or hype I believe my point is made by placing him here.

16. Domantas Sabonis (DX: 18, ESPN: 10)

He’s young, he can rebound, he can score, and he has a good chance of having an NBA career. But he has such short arms, limited athleticism, and limited defensive versatility that I just don’t see the star potential to justify his rise to a possible top 10 pick.

 

17. DeAndre Bembry (DX: 27, ESPN: 20)

Bembry offers a little bit of everything between his athleticism, passing, rebounding, defense, shot creation. His shot is below average, but if it improves to average he should provide a nice return on any non-lotto pick.

18. Skal Labissiere (DX: 10, ESPN: 14)

Part of me feels compelled to call Skal a lock bust, but he allegedly has serious Channing Frye shooting potential as a hyper athletic 7’0″. How bearish can you be on a player like that? Whatever the answer is, mine is the maximum. He is an anemic rebounder, non-passer, has bad instincts, and is exceptionally foul prone because he tries to block everything on defense. In spite of his tools he could manage to match Frye’s shooting and still be a worse overall player. Conversely he could also manage to be a rich man’s Frye because of his tools, so I am tempering my desire to sell. My inkling is that he offers more boom than bust, but without many (or any?) prior prospects with his combination of burst, height, and shooting this cannot be stated with certitude.

19. Henry Ellenson (DX: 13, ESPN: 11)

Ellenson has been slowly sliding down draft boards, and it is hard to disagree. He offers a compelling offensive package for a 7’0″ player, but still is not yet particularly good at anything. He is average at passing and shooting and shot a hair under 50% from 2P%, so he still has a ways to go to put it together on this end. And even if he does he sounds like a strong bet to be a defensive liability. Ellenson’s upside scenario remains attractive but it requires such a parlay of good development that my optimism for his NBA prospects remains tempered.

20. Ivica Zubac (DX: 16, ESPN: 25)

Zubac is a funky prospect highlighted by his great size, hands, and touch which provides elite interior scoring upside. He’s only 19 and also has solid potential as a passer, shooter, and rebounder as well. Defense is his biggest concern, but if he becomes decent on this end he could provide a load of goodness without any gaping weaknesses.

21. Taurean Prince (DX: 19, ESPN: 34)

Prince is a prototypical 3 +D prospect, as he offers the versatility to guard either forward position, an acceptable 3 point shot and passing ability, and not much else. He won’t become a star but he could easily become a useful cog that fits in any NBA lineup.

22. Patrick McCaw (DX: 29, ESPN: 32)

McCaw is a 3 +D prospect similar to Prince but smaller– he has versatility to defend either guard position and possibly SF’s once he adds bulk. He complements this with adequate passing and shooting but lacks the creation ability to become a star.

 

23. Brice Johnson (DX: 30, ESPN: 29)

Brice Johnson is Jeremy Evans Deluxe, as his profile is highlighted by his elite leaping and finishing ability. He is a bit bigger and was much more productive at North Carolina than Evans was at North Carolina. If Evans’ finishing translated to such respectable NBA production, Johnson’s analogous upside is tantalizing.

Of course there is a reason why Evans is not a regular rotation player, and Johnson has similar concerns. He is a prone to bullying from other PF’s but lacks the defensive fundamentals to adequately guard the perimeter, and also lacks perimeter skills offensively. This makes him an awkward fit into NBA lineups, and it may prevent his statistical production from translating into positive value for his team.

Johnson is another slippery prospect, but he is in the conversation for most athletic player and most productive NCAA player in the draft (kenpom’s algorithm rated him as player of the year) and is still just 21. Those are inarguably nice check marks for a late 1st gamble.

24. Buddy Hield (DX: 8, ESPN: 8)

I have written about Hield as my clear choice for most overrated top 10 pick. He brings elite shooting volume and accuracy, but even if he replicates Klay Thompson’s shooting (which is close to his absolute upside since Klay converted most 3P of all time for any non-Curry in 15-16), he still lacks Klay’s size, court vision, defensive aptitude, and defensive versatility. This would be enough to make him a useful rotation piece. But unless his slashing game develops into a legitimate weapon, it is hard to see an upside tail that justifies his top 10 hype.

25. Denzel Valentine (DX: 25, ESPN: 22)

I want to love Denzel Valentine– it is rare that a player with his intersection of passing, shooting, and rebounding is available outside of the lottery ever. But at the same time he projects to be a major liability defensively and is inept at getting to the rim on offense.

26. Gary Payton Jr. (DX: 48, DX: 56)

The Mitten turns 24 in December, but his elite rebound, steal, and block rates cannot be ignored and he offers just enough offensively to have upside as a 1.5 way PG. His PG skills are not great, but he used his athleticism to get to the rim with regularity and complemented this with a good assist to turnover ratio. His biggest wart is his shot, as he shot 30% on limited 3PA volume and 65% FT, and he may be too old to improve this to an adequate rate. But if his shot experiences a mini-leap forward, he could be highway robbery in round 2 given his athleticism, ability to defend either guard position, and PG skills.

 

27. Malik Beasley (DX: 23, ESPN: 21)

Beasley is an athletic shotmaker and slasher who offers surprising rebounding and competes enough on defense to amount to a useful NBA guard. His intangibles appear to have elevated his stock to the 12-20 range. But he is an undersized SG without much PG skills, so I do not see a tempting enough upside tail for him to be near the top of my list in that range.

28. Cheick Diallo (DX: 24, ESPN: 24)

Diallo is an exceptionally smooth and coordinated big, and after dominating the high school all star circuit I was sky high on him entering NCAA season. Then he spent the year buried on Kansas’s bench, he still is too short to play center, and he lacks the passing and shooting to play on the perimeter. This makes him slippery to peg, but he could be a bigger and better Faried and he is an intriguing fringe 1st round gamble.

 

Tier 4: I Wish I Could Rank All Of These Guys Higher

 

29. Paul Zipser (DX: 26, ESPN: 57)

Zipser is the European Taurean Prince, as he offers defensive versatility as a combo forward and enough shooting and passing to fit in on the perimeter as a solid 3 + D type.

30. Rade Zagorac (DX: 33, ESPN: 45)

Zagorac provides an interesting offensive blend of creation, passing, and shooting for a 6’9″ athlete. There are questions about his defense given his weak frame and limited quickness, so I am not quite as high on him as other intelligent people. But it is easy to see how he strengths could sum into a nice NBA piece for a late 1st/early 2nd flier.

31. Caris LeVert (DX: 46, ESPN: 41)

LeVert is a consummate role player, as he does a little bit of everything among passing, shooting, defense, rebounding, and secondary creation. He lacks strength, athleticism, and durability as his past two seasons ended prematurely due to separate leg and foot injuries. But if he can stay healthy, his small strengths could stay into a surprisingly positive role player and he is consequently one of my favorite 2nd round sleepers.

32. Demetrius Jackson (DX: 17, ESPN: 31)

Jackson’s package is highlighted by athleticism, shooting, and PG skills. But he is almost 22, excellent at nothing, and too small to guard SG’s. He is good enough to justify a late 1st or early 2nd selection, but too bland to be an exciting choice.

33. Juan Hernangomez (DX: 15, ESPN: 18)

Hernangomez is a late riser based on his PF size, non-stop motor, great intangibles, and ability to space the floor. I am skeptical of this rise as I believe talent evaluators are expecting him to fit on the perimeter due to his shooting when his awful assist to turnover rate is the more important signal for swing forwards to translate to the next level. Further he is not a lock stud defensive player, as he is a non-rim protector and has mediocre reach for a PF. My inclination is that he lacks the ball skills for SF and size or burst to defend PF, but perhaps his quickness, shooting, and motor enable him to find an NBA niche nevertheless.

34. Ante Zizic (DX: 22, ESPN: 23)

Zizic is a 19 year old with decent center tools and tantalizing scoring, rebounding, and shot blocking stats in the Adriatic league. The downside is that his steal and assist:TOV rates suggest seriously flawed instincts. He appears to be a pure garbage man which limits his upside, but he is so good at his role it is easy to envision him finding a niche in the NBA.

35. Robert Carter (DX: 44, ESPN: 54)

One of the draft nerd darlings of the 2nd round, Carter does a little bit of everything. With his 7’3.25″ wingspan and balanced game, he has a tiny sliver of equity to be a Millsap level steal.

36. Isaia Cordinier (DX: 39, ESPN: 44)

Cordinier is a mystery box but his scouting report resembles one that may possibly contain a boat: athleticism, vision, shooting, competitive defense, intangibles. He is an intriguing early 2nd gamble.

37. Damian Jones (DX: 21, ESPN: 27)

Toolsy centers with good bodies and athleticism require little skill to succeed in the NBA. DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond offer examples of players who slid in the draft and then translated better than expected. But Jones does not match their levels of athleticism and offers nearly nothing in terms of skill and feel. In spite of his tools he has weak rebounding stats and shockingly low steal and block rates. If he could defend Vanderbilt’s defense would rank much better than #34 as he had the privilege of playing alongside Wade Baldwin and Luke Kornet.

His best skill is his scoring, but he is a poor FT shooter, lacks 3P range, and is a poor passer even if he has become a more willing one. He doesn’t turn 21 until shortly after the draft and is still salvageable, but I do not believe he’s enough of an athletic freak to become a quality starter in spite of his basketball playing limitations.

 

38. Thon Maker (DX: 40, ESPN: 19)

He is 7’1″ and has some semblance of a skill level, but in the 2015 Hoop Summit he looked nothing near an NBA prospect as it appeared he had hands for feet and feet for hands. Being uncoordinated and unathletic is a tough pair of weaknesses to overcome, and he was outshined by a number of players who struggled as NCAA freshman.

He apparently interviewed well and it may be easy to talk yourself into his upside without proof that he is bad, but there is even less proof that he is good. It is possible he’d be firmly in the undrafted ranks with a full NCAA season, so he likely belongs somewhere in round 2.

39. Stephen Zimmerman (DX: 40, ESPN: 40)

Zimmerman looked like he had decent potential in the 2015 Hoop Summit, but then he was a disappointment for UNLV. He battled through injuries and two bad coaches so perhaps he is still salvageable, but there’s not much to love about his freshman performance.

 

40 Kay Felder (DX: 56, ESPN: 49)
41. Tyler Ulis (DX: 28, ESPN: 23)

Ulis’s high stock seems to be an overcorrection to Isaiah Thomas’s success as the #60 overall pick, but this neglects that Isaiah Thomas is likely the best player < 6′ in NBA history and he still commanded limited FA and trade value after early successes. Further, IT’s success is predicated on elite speed to get to the rim and crafty finishing as he carried a monster usage for good efficiency in Boston. Neither are part of Ulis’s repertoire, as he created a low volume of layups for himself at Kentucky.

Ulis is going to be a harmful player defensively, and it is hard to see how he atones without creating a high volume of offense on the other end. His great floor general skills and outside shooting create an ounce of intrigue, but he has such extreme limitations to overcome I do not believe he deserves to get selected in round 1.

Kay Felder may be the diminutive PG with slightly better odds of success as his superior athleticism and creation ability give him a clearer path to a big offensive impact.

42. Isaiah Whitehead (DX: 57, ESPN: 52)

Whitehead is an incredibly erratic offensive player, as evidenced by his 39% 2P% and poor turnover rate. But he has some PG skills, 3P shooting, and defensive upside, and has sneaky potential if he can find a real coach and clean up his decision making on offense.

43. Diamond Stone (DX: 31, ESPN: 33)

Stone grades decently well according to some statistical models, but I just don’t think his tools are good enough for him to fit in defensively in the NBA. At 6’10.25″ he is too short to play center and without much burst or quickness he does not figure to find a niche in modern NBA defenses.

 

44. Guerschon Yabusele (DX: 32, ESPN: 30)

Yabusele has a good PF body, athleticism, and shooting. But he lacks the quickness to guard the perimeter and is neither a rim protector or generally regarded as good on defense, and there is too much disaster potential on this end to consider him in round 1.

 

45. Malachi Richardson (DX: 35, ESPN: 15)

My most disliked green room invite, I’m softening my anti-Malachi stance on the premise that he might be better than his on paper scouting report. If he has good intangibles it is not impossible to envision him sticking in the NBA. He can slash to the rim and possibly be a solid 3 point shooter and decent wing defender. His assist to turnover ratio wasn’t terrible, and if he can clean up his awful mid-range shot selection he may become a serviceable 3 +D wing after all.

I still don’t see how he merits a first round selection, but it is easy to argue that he is solidly draftable.

46. Georgios Papagiannis (DX: 50, ESPN: 46)

It is hard to keep up with all of these late emerging internationals, but Papagiannis is huge, 18, and not obviously super bad so let’s just stash him here on my board and be happy with it.

 

47. Malcolm Brogdon (DX: 42, ESPN: 38)

Brogdon is super old and unathletic, but he was one of the best players for one of the best NCAA teams. His length, BBIQ, and shooting give him some hope of sticking as a 3 +D player.

48. Prince Ibeh (DX: 51, ESPN: 88)

Ibeh is a complete zero offensively, but he is draftable based on his stunning tools and defensive potential alone.

Tier 5: Fliers
49. Derrick Jones Jr. (DX: 70, ESPN: 86)
50. Troy Williams (DX: 73, ESPN: 75)

I am not sure how these guys are rated so lowly. They are both super athletes with potential to be good defensive pieces. Williams does enough things on offense to possibly fit in on the perimeter, and Jones is young enough to have time to figure things out.

The behind the scenes information on these players must be ugly because on paper they are both easily worth a 2nd round flier. With good intangibles they are both 1st rounders to me.

51. Pascal Siakam (DX: 52, ESPN: 43)

Nothing jumps off the page about Siakam, but he does enough things well to merit a shot in round 2.

 

52. AJ Hammons (DX: 43, ESPN: 45)

A number of intelligent people seem bullish on Hammons based on his body and stats, but I believe he is too old, indifferent, and lacking in instincts to be much of a sleeper.

53. Jake Layman (DX: 49, ESPN: 48)

He has good size, athleticism, shooting and not much else.

54. Alex Caruso (DX: 84, ESPN: NR)

One of the most underrated players in NCAA this past season, Caruso doesn’t have great length or athleticism but he has great PG height, vision, and defensive instincts. He has a chance of being a reliable NBA 3P shooter, and I believe he’s too good to not merit a late 2nd flier.

55. Petr Cornelie (DX: 37, ESPN: 50)

Cornelie seems bleh to me, but DX and ESPN think he is draftable so why not include him in my top 60.

 

56. Jameel Warney (DX: 100, ESPN:78)

Warney strikes me as a Spurs-ian type who thrives on feel and skill to post monster stats for Stony Brook as an undersized PF. He is probably too short and slow to cut it in the NBA, but his measurables are identical to Millsap so his sliver of poor man’s Sapquity requires mentioning.

57. Daniel Ochefu (DX: NR, ESPN: NR)

Ochefu isn’t that athletic and projects to have struggles defending the PnR, but he was so so good as a college senior I believe he deserves late 2nd consideration.

58. Fred VanVleet (DX: 83, ESPN: 61)
59. Ron Baker (DX: 78, ESPN: 60)
60. Jared Uthoff (DX: 59, ESPN: 36)

Some more super productive seniors who I like more as NCAA players than NBA prospects

Just Missed the Cut: Josh Scott, Isaiah Cousins, Dorian Finney-Smith, James Webb, Elgin Cook, Anthony Barber, Joel Bolomboy, Josh Adams, Michael Gbinije, Tyrone Wallace, Thomas Walkup, Wayne Selden

75ish. Ben Bentil (DX: 45, ESPN: 36)

Bentil is the player consensus to be drafted that I like the least. He has meh athleticism, meh rebounding, meh passing, no defense, and just doesn’t offer a whole lot outside of medium efficiency volume scoring when he was consistently set up by Kris Dunn.

 

 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Poeltl

03 Friday Jun 2016

Posted by in NCAA, Scouting Reports

≈ 11 Comments

NCAA Basketball: Washington State at Utah

After Brandon Ingram and Ben Simmons go off the board, there are a myriad of possible choices at #3 overall. Dragan Bender is the good choice, and if the Celtics correctly select him, the 4th overall pick is a mess of players who should never be chosen in the top 5 of any draft. Kris Dunn is the only choice that is reasonable to both draft nerds and scouts, which is good argument for him being the best choice. ESPN and DX offer Jaylen Brown, Jamal Murray, Marquese Chriss, and Buddy Hield as alternate possibilities. Draft nerds (such as myself) may argue that Wade Baldwin or Chinanu Onuaku deserve consideration. I would like to make an argument for a player which neither crowd considers to belong in the top 5.

Jakob Poeltl is a 20 year old center from Austria. He is 7’1″ and mobile, he scores efficiently with elite rim touch, passes well, and rebounds decently. He does not attempt jump shots, but he did improve his FT% from 44% as a freshman to 69% as a sophomore.

He fails to arouse excitement in the lottery because he is not an explosive leaper, he does not make jumpers, and there are questions about his defense. His lack of bulk and toughness makes him prone to bullying, and he was most recently seen getting dominated by Domantas Sabonis in an NCAA tournament blowout loss. Further, his lackluster steal and block numbers prevent the statistically aware crowd from embracing him as a two way center. In world where big men are losing utility, it is natural to feel meh toward one who can neither shoot nor defend.

A Defense Of Poeltl’s Defense

He measured 7’1″ with a 7’2.75″ wingspan 239 pounds. This is similar to Willie Cauley-Stein who is 7’0.5″ with 7’3″ wing 242 pounds. Poeltl lacks the athleticism and quicks of Cauley-Stein, but he is not a slouch in these areas. WCS has elite tools and is an elite defensive prospect, and comparatively it is fair to say that Poeltl has good enough tools to be a good defensive prospect.

I do not read heavily into the Sabonis matchup because he can physically match up and it was just one game. There’s no reason to believe that Poeltl will be routinely dominated by Sabonis types. In the 2015 tournament against Jahlil Okafor DX says “Poeltl won the head-to-head battle in almost every aspect of the game.” And Okafor is theoretically Poeltl’s kryptonite since getting he was draft 3rd overall largely for his ability to bully weaker players in the post. The Gonzaga loss was likely just a bad game for Poeltl at the wrong time, especially since I had loads of moneys on the Utes.

 

The Okafor example proves that Poeltl can handle bullies no more than Sabonis proves that he is a sieve. But proneness to bullying is not the most debilitating weakness as post-up attempts are rapidly vanishing from the NBA. It is a blip in his profile, but not a death knell.

His low steal rate is another blip, and then his block rate suspiciously dropped from 8.6% as a freshman to 5.0% as a sophomore. There are two possible explanations for this :

  1. He lacks some level of burst/reach/instincts to protect the rim at an elite level
  2. He does not attempt to block as many shots as his giant peers

#1 is true to at least some extent and adds another blip, but let’s explore #2 for a moment

Non Block Party

Jumping at every shot in the paint to try to swat it into the 4th row is not optimal defense. It leaves the attempting blocker susceptible to pump fakes and fouls, and even when shots are blocked they are rebounded by the defense at a lower rate than normal. It is often preferrable to contest without blocking, which Poeltl seems to prefer.

Utah finished #131 of 351 in defensive block rate, but #32 in defensive 2P%. In Pac-12 play they were #9 in Blk%, #2 in 2P%. Utah also had the lowest defensive FT rate in the entire NCAA, with Poeltl’s impressively low 4.5 fouls per 100 possessions playing a factor. He is the anti-Skal Labissiere who posted double the block rate and committed 11.2 fouls per 100 in the process.

This aligns with DraftExpress’s scouting report which praises Poeltl’s fundamentals for his discipline, competitiveness, and ability to switch pick and rolls.

One concern may be that Utah’s defense slipped from #6 to #69 following the departure of Delon Wright and 7’0″ backup Dallin Bachynski. Of course any defense will miss Delon Wright, but much of the decline is attributable to variance. Utah’s defensive 3P% slipped from 31.2% to 37.1% and opponent FT% increased a few points as well. This has nothing to do with Poeltl, a little to do with Wright, and a lot to do with variance. If opponents missed shots against Utah like they did the prior year, the Utes could have easily had another top 25 defense. This is not amazing, but is solidly good for a roster that does not feature much size or athleticism outside of Poeltl.

This does not mean that his block rate should be entirely ignored. Even his freshman block rate was slightly less than most stud defensive big prospects post. But his freshman rate did not raise flags, and his low sophomore rate correlates with positive aspects of his defensive profile

In Summation

+Good physical tools
+Good fundamentals
+Anchored good team defense
+Solid defensive rebounder

 

-He lacks strength and is prone to bullying
-He is not an explosive playmaker with both steals
-Nothing about his defensive profile is amazing

 

His profile is founded on good intersection of macro indicators with a few blips that cut into his upside and create a downside tail. He may be good defensively, or he may be soft and mediocre. But nobody is as worried about the defense of Deyonta Davis who also had issues with steal rate, is 2.5 inches shorter, and has no indicator that he should be better outside of a being slightly more athletic. Poeltl should be treated similarly, as a good but not great defensive prospect.

But centers are a dying breed!

As the game drifts beyond the arc, centers are being used less frequently in favor of small lineups with superior shooting. This dents the value of bigs, especially ones that cannot make threes such as Poeltl. But this will not necessarily trend until centers are extinct– it is generally helpful to be extremely tall at the game of basketball, and it is possible the league will take measures to counteract the 3 point bombing fest that the game has become (i.e. move the 3 point arc back).

Further, while Poeltl is not a 3 point shooter, he does offer the other key small person traits of passing and ability to switch onto smaller matchups. I doubt that a mobile 7’1″ player with multiple skills will become totally obsolete, so it is not reasonable to condemn him based on recent anti-big trends.

Bottom Line

Scouts like Poeltl, stat models like him, and he is much better defensively than his stat sheet suggests. The intersection of these qualities tends to suggest that a prospect is good.

Poeltl has an awesome offensive package of rim touch, passing, hands, and improved FT%. He may never be able to make 3’s, but his FT% implies a fair chance of developing a mid-range game and he could be solidly good on both ends. He could also be soft on defense and limited offensively, or he could be a player who is productive but can only be played situationally as the NBA evolves. But everybody outside of the top 3 has serious bust risk and non-elite upside.

His NCAA statistics in many ways parallel to fellow Ute and former #1 overall pick Andrew Bogut, who also had a curiously low NCAA block rate and provided a rare case of a higher NBA block rate from age 25 onward. He also has shades of Al Horford and Marc Gasol who are above average at a wide range of things to sum to a solidly good player. Those are optimistic outcomes that require him to develop a jump shot and hit his upper bound defensively, but they are nice upside scenarios for a weak #4 slot.

I am not certain that he belongs at #4 overall. Kris Dunn and Wade Baldwin may be safer choices in a world where two way perimeter players who can guard multiple positions trade at a premium. But beyond them there are not many names who offer notably fewer flags or higher upside, so I have Poeltl locked into the #4-7 range in my big board.

 

I’m Not Your Friend, Buddy

02 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in NCAA, Scouting Reports

≈ 5 Comments

buddy-hield
This past season Buddy Hield (DX: 7, ESPN: 6) captured the basketball world’s heart as the fast talking Bahamian delivered a break out season at Oklahoma. He thrived on his sharp shooting, as he led Oklahoma to the Final 4 while elevating his stock from 2nd round to a possible top 5 pick.

Why his stock is high

Hield’s two strongest selling points are his shooting accuracy and ability to get off a high volume of 3PA. He put on a Steph Curry-ish shooting display as a senior, averaging more 3P per game than any other NCAA player while converting a staggering 46%, backing this up with 88% FT. Many of these shots came off the dribble, as only 68% of his 3P were assisted. Combine this with adequate tools for an NBA SG, no debilitating weakness in his game, and the work ethic to continue to progress at an above average rate and it is easy to see why he is regarded as a strong candidate to be an ideal floor spacing SG.

Hield is often compared to a more athletic JJ Redick, and a possibly superior version of Redick is certainly an adequate upsisde for a mid-lottery pick in this draft.

Is Redick really a fair comparison?

I have skepticism regarding Hield’s ability to attain that Redick’s of goodness. Redick is a better shooter who has picture perfect form and shot 40% from 3 and 92%+ FT in each of his first 3 NCAA seasons. Hield shot a mere 35% from 3 and 80% FT over his first 3 seasons, which casts significant shade on his senior shooting numbers (although in fairness they were superior to Redick’s senior %’s). While there was clearly genuine progression in his senior season shooting ability, shooting percentages are heavily plagued by variance and it’s exceptionally unlikely that Hield’s senior percentages are indicative of his true shooting ability. He is nevertheless a very good shooter, but not likely to be an outlier shooter on par with Redick, Steph Curry, Kyle Korver, etc.

Other than his shooting, Buddy does not have many notable strengths in his profile. His tools are roughly average for an NBA SG, which can be viewed as a strength for a great shooter. He can score in transition and has enough handle and athleticism to create his own shot off the dribble. If there is a second feature to his game, it is that he created an excellent volume of his own shots at the rim this past season and increased his FT rate. With 55% 2P to complement his great 3P% and FT%, his offensive game appears to maximize the sweet spots of 3’s, layups, and FT’s similar to James Harden.

But as his scoring improved, he saw a spike in turnovers while his assists stagnated, resulting in an atrocious assist to turnover rate for a senior guard. Any team drafting him should be extremely worried that his lack of vision will prevent his slashing game from efficiently translating to the NBA, especially since he is not the shiftiest player. He should be able to attack closeouts and finish in transition, but I doubt he can efficiently penetrate NBA defenses with regularity given his poor vision.

Defensively he lacks the quickness to guard PG’s and the size to guard SF’s. And he is not good at guarding his only competent position of SG. It is conceivable that he could become average a guarding NBA SG’s, but a low floor, low upside, and limited versatility on this end makes it difficult to get excited over an old guard with a 1.5 dimensional offensive game.

Hield’s work ethic inspires some optimism to overcome his flaws, but he turns 23 in December and has limited time to improve before he reaches his peak. Perhaps his career will mirror that of Redick, who didn’t become a useful rotation player until his 4th season at age 25. But JJ Redick is an outlier example of a one dimensional shooting senior becoming a solid starter, and choosing him as a Hield comp undersells nuances to Redick’s skill, feel, basketball IQ, and pro development that enabled his success. Hield is more likely to be a compare to Doug McDermott or Jimmer Fredette than Redick.

Bottom Line

My favorite Hield comparison is Anthony Morrow. He can easily populate his game outside of shooting to be a rich man’s Morrow (most readily by not being awful on defense). Also he can make a greater shooting impact by getting off a higher volume of 3’s, even if he 3P% will likely be lower. A more complete Morrow is a useful rotation player, and if his work ethic leads to surprising leaps in his game, Hield will become a starting caliber SG.

Buddy is worth a 1st round selection, but his equity to be an above average starter is slim, and he isn’t going to become an all-star. It is possible that I am underrating the value of his massive 3PA rate, his slashing ability, and his odds of becoming competent defensively, but I simply do not see the upside to justify a lottery selection.

Fortunately, there are healthier alternatives for teams starved for wings:

Wade Baldwin (DX: 15, ESPN: 20)

baldwin

This is every draft nerd’s free space for SG to rate above Hield. Baldwin is a much better passer and defensive player than Hield while being 2.3 years younger. Given that he also has a better career 3P% with 80% FT and a similar physical profile, it is a layup that he is better than Hield.

Hield’s key edge is that he attempts more than twice as many 3’s as Baldwin, who struggles to shoot off the dribble and has a slower trigger. It seems that Baldwin should be able to increase his 3PA rate in the NBA as he plays more off the ball, but it is a noteworthy flaw in his profile. And while Baldwin doesn’t have the burst or handle to regularly penetrate to the rim, his youth and passing nevertheless place his slashing upside far above that of Hield.

It is arguable that Hield is a slightly better offensive prospect due to his edge in 3PA rate, but once you factor in defense it is no contest: Baldwin is clearly the superior overall prospect.

Baldwin should become something on a scale of Delonte West to George Hill a significant % of the time. He’s a solid 3 + D prospect with a hint of PG skills and versatility to defend either guard, and deserves to be picked in the top 10.

Dejounte Murray (DX: 32, ESPN: 12)

NCAA MENS BASKETBALL, STANFORD AT WASHINGTON

Murray is younger and has higher risk of busting completely, but he also has a sliver of star upside that Hield lacks.

Murray’s best selling point is his slashing potential, as he posted an excellent assist rate for a freshman wing and pairs this with a slithery ability to penetrate through defenses. If he adds strength and improves his skills at a good rate, he could become a weapon offensively as a James Harden lite. While Murray won’t be nearly as good, Harden exemplifies how vision and shake can sum to elite slashing without an explosive first step.

Murray’s biggest wart is his shooting (29% 3P, 66% FT), which makes him far more likely to resemble Monta Ellis, Michael Carter Williams, or 50 year old Kobe than Harden. But unlike Hield who will never have adequate PG skills, Murray could conceivably improve to an average 3 point shooter.

Murray’s defense is a mystery box. ESPN labels him as a good defender, DX labels him as indifferent albeit with upside. His steals, blocks, and rebounds indicate good potential on this end. He could be as poor as Harden or solidly good on this end.

Murray is a slippery prospect. There is a high upside, but it requires a long parlay of conditionals to be reached. He provides an example where behind the scenes evaluation would be particularly helpful. With personality green flags he’s a tantalizing sleeper that belongs in the lottery, without them he’s a long shot in the dark. I cannot say that he’s a definitively better prospect than Hield, but he has a much clearer path to stardom and a more attractive gamble from afar.

Caris LeVert (DX: 46, ESPN: 43)

635652287629113380-levert

LeVert’s stock has been harmed by having his past two seasons prematurely ended by injury, and he has fallen from possible mid-1st rounder all the way to round 2.

LeVert offers a balanced package as a role playing wing, as he is 8 months younger, 2 inches taller, better defensively, more defensively versatile, better at passing, and has a better career 3P% than Hield. That’s a whole lot of goodness that he brings to the table that Hield lacks.

Hield’s advantages are his 3PA rate and his lack of an injury history. He is also stronger and perhaps slightly more explosive, but it’s difficult to see his trigger and ability to shoot off the dribble as more valuable than LeVert’s more well rounded package. LeVert’s versatility offers a prototypical role player who fits in any lineup, and his summation of many small strengths can add up to more upside than meets the untrained eye.

Hield still may be the better overall prospect depending on your optimism (or lack thereof) regarding LeVert’s ability to stay healthy, but the two prospects are close. Why use a lottery pick on Hield when you can nab LeVert in the late 1st or early 2nd?

Malachi Richardson (DX: 37, ESPN: 14)

 

Just kidding! Somebody has to explain to me why he is even top 50. In spite of being a freshman, he is sophomore aged and his most notable statistic is 39% 2P. His big selling points are that he is an average shooter and has a 7’0″ wingspan. Other than that he’s an average athlete and unspectacular rebounder and passer. Nobody knows if he’s good on defense because he played in Syracuse’s zone, but he posted curiously low steals and blocks for a wing with 7’0″ length.

According to Chad Ford he interviewed well, but it is hard to see that mattering when the position he seeks is “NBA basketball player.” I would like a hit of whatever Ford is smoking to rate him as a lottery pick.