I made a few minor changes based on late feedback because why not:

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. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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. Also he may be struggling to gain lottery traction due to concerns about his leadership skills. But his PG skills, shooting, and switching upside provide enough to be valuable without scoring much, and I like gambling on him anyway.

10. 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.

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. 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. In spite of his woeful flaws his strengths make him a bit of a unicorn, and this gives him some special appeal.

15. 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.

16. 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.

Much like Labissiere, Qi has unicorn strengths that give him extra upside over the more vanilla prospects.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

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. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

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. 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.

27. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

41. Kay Felder (DX: 56, ESPN: 49)
42. Fred VanVleet (DX: 83, ESPN: 61)
43. 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 arguably 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 he does not deserve to get selected in round 1. Frankly he is not an exciting round 2 flier either– 43rd is a generous ranking which is convenient for the sake of comparison to fellow small PG’s.

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

Fred VanVleet is a few inches taller than Ulis or Felder at 6’1″, but he has the same wingspan and is the least athletic of the three. But he is likely a better prospect than Ulis as well, as he shares a similar assist to turnover ratio while projecting to be much better defensively with superior height, strength, and instincts. He is also a better rebounder and finds his way to the rim with greater frequency.

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. But if he can clean up his act and become respectable on this end he is an interesting flier.

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. 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.

47. 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.

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. 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.

52. 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.

53. 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.

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

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

57. 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.

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

Now that I have gone on a binge of writing words, I will post an attempt at a big board with DX and ESPN rankings for comparison.

One note on this board is that it is extremely hard to have rankings that I feel good about while thin slicing these prospects. There is such a thin margin between being the #15 and #30 prospect in this draft, it is nearly impossible to correctly value the key nuances from afar. I can make a good effort with the available pieces and logical analysis, but the draft process entails loads of luck even with the thick slice. When thin slicing and filling in the blanks with guesswork, predicting NBA futures feels like a complete variance fest. But it is a fun variance fest, so here are my rankings:

The top 3 are all below average #1 picks but above average for #3. They can be reasonably ranked in any order. It is probably a horrible idea to rank Dragan Bender #1 based on a small sample of FIBA stats and highlights of touchdown outlet passes, but I like to live life on the edge. He could be a Darko level flop and make me feel bad about this ranking, or he could also be a generational star in a world where Brandon Ingram is Luol Deng-ish and Ben Simmons is an enigma, so let’s gamble. Ingram is the safest pick but the least sexy, and then Simmons is roughly taller Rajon Rondo which means he will land somewhere on the scale of incredibly frustrating to awesome.

Wade Baldwin is beloved by every draft nerd and should rise on ESPN and DX’s respective boards. I feel similarly toward Baldwin as I did toward Marcus Smart– he may not have the burst and ball skills to be a true superstar, but he has wiggle room for surprise upside and at least he is unlikely to provide a bad return for the drafting team.

I wrote about Jakob Poeltl and Chinanu Onuaku as two of my favorite bigs.

I have no Furkan idea where to rank Korkmaz, but he is 18, 6’7″, can shoot, pass, and jump which is a super nice intersection of traits. I do not understand why he does not have more draft hype in a world where the intersection of shooting and athleticism causes traditional scouts to drool all over themselves. You would think the rest of his game is awful, except youth, passing, and good wing height further bolster his profile to the point where he feels like he may merit consideration at #4 overall. His weaknesses are strength, defense, and ball handling, all of which seem readily improvable given his age. Yet here we are, with Chad Ford ranking him one slot ahead of Malachi Richardson and DX not even having him top 20. Shrug.

Timothy Luwawu is another international guy that seems like a better gamble from afar than these crappy young NCAA guys.

Jaylen Brown, Jamal Murray, Henry Ellenson, and Marquese Chriss make up my tier of baby NCAA players who I am not particularly fond of, but all have outs to become good NBA’ers so I am not relentlessly selling.

Zhou Qi is another international who just seems like he is a better shot in the dark than most NCAA guys. He has monster height and wingspan, skill, and basketball IQ, yet DX barely has him in round 1 Chad Ford has him ranked behind loads of 23 year old NCAA players who are locked into D-League careers. Especially after seeing foreign bigs like Jokic and Capela providing awesome draft value recently, why get so bearish on a guy with a unique collection of good traits?

Brice Johnson is my pet sleeper. He is young for a senior, and is in the conversation for both best NCAA player this past season as well as most explosive leaper in the draft. Any time both of those things are true, how bad can it be to draft him? He is Jeremy Evans deluxe– Evans always had solid stats, and I imagine if he was a bit bigger and more well rounded like Brice that he would be a useful pro.

Denzel Valentine is weird. On one hand, a guy who is great at passing, shooting, and rebounding seems like a great gamble in the mid-1st. On the other hand, how good can a guard be while being a statue on defense and unable to get to the rim on offense?

I have written about my doubts regarding Buddy Hield.

I like everybody in the #22-32 range. Most of them I wish I could move up, but I’m not sure to move down. This is a section where I wish I was more familiar with nuances, so I could have a more accurate ranking. Instead I may as well randomize it.

Damian Jones has a great body and athleticism and is a young junior, but suffers from being bad at basketball. As a regular Vanderbilt watcher, he was incredibly frustrating as the game of basketball simply does not come natural to him. He has a basic scoring repertoire and has become a willing passer. But his poor instincts are reflected in his lackluster rebounds, steals, and blocks, as well as the fact that Vandy only had the #34 defense in spite of Jones sharing the floor with more talented players such as Wade Baldwin and Luke Kornet.

Like Damian Jones, Skal Labissiere has great tools but little in the way of basketball playing ability. The only area where he stuffed the statsheet is blocks, and that is largely because he jumps at everything. His anemic rebound, assist, and steal rates indicate his awful feel for the game, and as an old freshman he seems nearly hopeless to me. His best skill is his decent mid-range/FT shot. It is hard to write off an explosive 7’0 player at age 20, but outside of height and athleticism there is approximately nothing to work with. He is just 9 months younger than Jones, skinnier, has a shorter wingspan, and more frightening statistical craters. His tools leave him some shot of having a successful NBA career, but color me pessimistic.

What happened to Troy Williams‘ stock? His 6’8.25″ wingspan is meh, but other than that he has the tools to be a wing stopper defensively. There are questions about his perimeter skills offensively, but if his handle and shot progress well he could be a steal. I had him as a 1st rounder pre-season and his junior year wasn’t bad, so I am not sure why he fell off the radar.

My familiarity with Thon Maker comes from the 2015 Hoop Summit, who looked like he had hands for feet and feet for hands. Maybe I am selling him short, but as far as I can tell his selling points are that he is 7’0″, young, and sometimes attempts to dribble and shoot. With such poor coordination and hands, it is hard to see him becoming good.

Juan Hernangomez is meh to me. He is a 3/4 tweener whose terrible assist to turnover ratio implies that he lacks the ball skill to succeed as an NBA perimeter player, in spite of him being an acceptable shooter. Without exceptional defense or athleticism to make up for this flaw, I remain unexcited.

Jameel Warney is the Paul Millsap flier of the draft. His NCAA statistics are not as strong as Millsap’s and he will likely not develop into a player who can make 3’s and defend the perimeter, but he has similar measurables and posted more assists than turnovers three seasons in a row as an efficient volume scorer for Stony Brook. He is a not bad under the radar sleeper in round 2.

Daniel Ochefu is the guy totally off the radar who I believe is most likely to carve out a rotation role in the NBA. He was among the best NCAA players in the country, and at age 22 is not insanely old for a senior. He has center size and does a little bit of everything. DraftExpress thinks his poor flexibility prevents him from switch onto smaller players. This may be a death knell for his NBA odds as heavy switching becomes increasingly popular, but there is enough to like to gamble on him in round 2 anyway.

Life hack: if you are Chad Ford, try swapping Malachi Richardson and Zhou Qi on your big board before the draft instead of 4 years after.

Let’s kick this off with the NCAA Box Score Plus Minus leaders from this past season. BPM is a useful stat because it is adjusted for strength of schedule and is likely the most predictive of any catchall stats, as well as the most likely to correlate with draft models:

These are mostly seniors, and most of them are going to get drafted. Valentine is a potential lottery pick, Brice Johnson is a possible 1st round pick in spite of being stuck in a skinny PF body, Caris Levert would likely go round 1 without injury concerns, and Payton and Hammons have 2nd round stock.

The players who project to not get drafted are Thomas Walkup who has obvious physical limitations and accrued most of his stats vs. low major competition, Daniel Ochefu who definitely deserves to be drafted, and Jonathan Holton who is ancient.

Then there are two teenagers on the list: possible #1 pick Ben Simmons who is often accused of posting empty stats and then the younger, statistically superior Chinanu Onuaku who is currently slated to go 2nd…round (ESPN: 36th, DX: 38th).

Consider the insanity of this for a moment. Onuaku may be a sophomore but he is freshman aged, and over the past six seasons only four freshmen have posted a higher BPM than him:

The top 2 players on the list are historically good #1 overall picks followed by two other bigs who would have been clear choices at #1 overall without injury concerns. Over six seasons, no freshman has posted a better BPM without deserving a #1 overall selection.

After that it’s a slew of lottery picks who rank comfortably behind Onuaku plus Dieng who was a 21 year old freshman and has nevertheless become a useful NBA rotation player.

The sample is small, but there are not any false positives for elite BPM at a young age making an unworthy NBA prospect on its own legs. Nevertheless BPM is far from perfect, and win shares and PER paint a less glowing portrait of Onuaku. Also prospect profiles extend beyond statistics, so let’s dive into why he may not be as good as his statistics suggest.

Warts

Onuaku has three noteworthy flaws: he is an inch shorter than ideal for center, he is an average athlete, and he is a poor shooter who has resorted to shooting free throws underhanded.

Tools

He is 6’10” with a 7’2.75″ wingspan, which is about an inch shorter than ideal for center. Since he cannot shoot, teams will look at him as a slightly undersized center without great athleticism to compensate. While his lack of size and burst harm his upside, Onuaku is not a misfit physically. He has great mobility and strength, and overall his physical tools are clearly adequate to play center at the NBA level, especially as teams trend toward lineups with smaller centers.

Skills

Onuaku is an inept shooter who was largely invisible on offense as a high school aged freshman. As a sophomore, his offensive stats spiked across the board as he became an efficient medium usage scorer with a good assist to TOV ratio (2.7 vs 3.4 per 40) for such a young center. He still does not have a mid-range shot in his game, but he did elevate his FT% from 47% to 59% by shooting underhanded.

At this point his only clear weakness offensively is his shooting, so I am not sure if his freshman limitations still linger on his scouting report. Another plausible explanation is that he is not a positive in any of the three most coveted traits of size, burst, and shooting which causes him to drift toward the bottom of the scouting pile.

How He Compares To Peers

It’s fair to devalue Onuaku’s statistically implied upside based on these limitations. But the statistics imply that he is the #1 pick in the draft, and there is no way that these problems are so terrifying that his stock should plummet out of the first round. He is a clear plus at defense, rebounding, passing, rim finishing, strength, mobility, and has some semblance of post creation ability. This is a strong base package and his fellow baby bigs projected to late lotto hardly appear more appetizing.

Deyonta Davis

Davis is currently rated as the #10 prospect by DX and #15 by ESPN. I believe he deserves a selection in the back end of the lottery. Davis is a bit more explosive than Onuaku, has a slightly greater hope of developing a mid-range game.

Both players have similar bodies, ages (Davis is a month younger), and molds as players. Onuaku anchored a much better defense (#2 vs #52) has better statistical indicators of feel (1.9% vs 0.8% STL, 12.6% vs 7.5% AST), had a higher DREB%, and created more offense for himself as he did not have a Denzel Valentine feeding him lobs.

If you are particularly bullish on Davis’s athleticism and defense it is arguable that he is slightly superior to Onuaku, but it is difficult to argue that he is drastically ahead of Onuaku.

Marquese Chriss

Chriss is a different mold, as he checks off scouts’ two favorite boxes of athleticism and shooting which instantly commands boatloads of attention. While he undoubtedly has significant advantages over Onuaku in both categories, he is outlier good at neither. He is a solidly good athlete but not a freak. He shoots well for a big man making 35% of 3’s on a small sample of 60 3PA and 69% of FT’s, which doesn’t nearly guarantee that he becomes an above average NBA 3 point shooter.

Chriss is also 9 months younger, but Onuaku crushes him in all other areas. Chriss is an anemic rebounder and passes scarcely (whereas Onuaku is great at both), and it’s rare for players to be poor in both areas and valuable as a player. Onuaku is also 2.5 inches longer and is a much better defensive player.

The case for Chriss is that if he makes an outlier leap in rebounding and passing from his young freshman to sophomore (or NBA rookie) season like Onuaku, his edges in shooting and explosiveness give him an extra degree of upside. This is a fair point in his favor, except the more likely case is that he doesn’t and remains clearly inferior to Onuaku for their entire careers.

The only way that Chriss should rate above Onuaku is with significant advantages in work ethic and intangibles that are invisible from afar. The most likely case is that Onuaku is equal or better, and Chriss is currently rated higher due to a Boolean Bias where his athleticism and shooting boxes are rated as “true” and Onuaku’s as “false.”

Skal Labissiere

Labissiere is similar to Chriss with his athleticism and shooting battling poor rebounding, passing, and instincts. He’s 2 inches taller and longer, but also was slightly worse statistically while being 1.3 years older and lacking 3 point range. I rate him worse than Chriss and comfortably below Onuaku.

Bottom Line

Onuaku is outlier good at basketball for his age, and he doesn’t have any glaring red flags that will preclude him from success in the NBA. He has pink flags that deflate his upside, but I cannot see how he should ever slide out of the lottery. He is 3 years younger than Kris Dunn and Buddy Hield, and was arguably a more valuable NCAA player this past season.

He could potentially be a beast defensively and rebounding with a respectable offensive repertoire of passing, finishing, and post scoring to preclude him from being a drain on that end due to his shooting. Even if his lack of size and burst limit him to being a casually good defensive player, he could nevertheless be a great return on a top 10 pick in a weak draft.

I believe that ESPN and DX are wrong about his value. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him shoot up draft boards in June, and whoever picks him is likely getting awesome value. He’s a top 10 prospect on my board.

The 2016 draft may not be rife with talent, but it does provide a rare occasion for a legitimate #1 overall debate. I am not certain which player is truly the correct pick, as having access to interviews, feedback from coaches, workouts, etc. would be helpful information toward discerning the correct pick.

Brandon Ingram is the straightforward prospect, who offers height, length, shooting, youth, and no discernibly debilitating weakness in his game. Given that he will only be 18 on draft night, there is some non-zero  (albeit exceptionally small) chance that his game develops well enough such that he becomes a Kevin Durant doppelgänger. On the downside, he isn’t an exceptional athlete or skilled enough such that it’s guaranteed that he becomes a star, and he is more likely t0 approximate Marvin Williams than Durant. But he becomes an all-star or fringe all-star a significant frequently enough to be a comfortable pick at #1 overall, albeit a below average #1 overall. This is aided by the fact that his shooting and defensive versatility make him a comfortable fit in any NBA lineup.

Ben Simmons is the enigmatic prospect of the duo, as he has the talent to be as good as LeBron James but the red flags to be as disappointing as Michael Beasley. He is 6’10” with elite speed, athleticism, ball skills, rebounding, and touch near the rim. The only skill that separates him from LeBron is shooting, which is something that he is not hopeless to acquire given his youth.

His glaring concerns are his lack of competitive drive and defense, which are difficult to quantify from afar. But a quick look at LSU’s bottom line is not encouraging. In 2013-14 with freshmen Jordan Mickey and Jarrell Martin, LSU was the #58 kenpom team in the country. In 2014-15 they were the #44 team before losing both to the NBA draft and replacing them with Ben Simmons and Antonio Blakeney.

Simmons vs. Martin and Mickey

It may be natural to think that Martin and Mickey are NBA players and Blakeney is not, so some level of decline should be expected. But the summation of Simmons (11.6) and Blakeney’s (1.6) BPMs exceed that of Mickey (5.5) and Martin (5.3), and with other returning players progressing it is easy to argue that LSU should have taken a leap forward. Pre-season projections tended to agree, as they were projected #30 by SI.com, #32 team rankings, and #49 kenpom. Yet the Tigers instead fell off a cliff finishing #92 in spite of Simmons exceeding expectations statistically.

This does not necessarily prove that Simmons’ statistics are empty, as key wing Keith Hornsby missed 13 games, and Simmons was playing out of position at center where he is not a rim protector like Mickey. But LSU’s defensive 2P% in conference play was 14th out of 14 at an abysmal 54.7%, far behind #13 Missouri (52.4%) and 12th Auburn (49.0%).

It’s fair to expect a decline from their #4 ranking (44.7%) the prior year after losing Mickey, but plummeting like that bodes ill for Simmons’ defensive performance. And even if you want to shift the blame to his teammates, coach, and Mickey’s goodness– it doesn’t explain why the offense barely improved from #77 and #84 in the prior two years to #69 with their center now having superstar PG skills.

Where does this leave us?

It leaves us with a 6’10” player that anchored an awful defense and couldn’t even compensate by leading a particularly good offense even though PG skills are a key selling point on his prospect profile. At best he is a serious risk to land in the dreaded intersection of poor defense and poor shooting, and at worst he is simply not hardwired to make winning basketball plays.

I did not watch enough LSU basketball to have a strong opinion on the matter, but when statistical trends align with behind the scenes narratives it is easy to hop on the skepticism train. If he does not have great competitive drive, do you really want to gamble that he learns to shoot and/or defend? And if he proves to be poor in both of those areas, how good can he truly be since his PG skills more conducive to producing highlights than efficient offense.

I cannot say with certainty that he will not be great. He is clearly the most talented player in the draft, and perhaps both statistics and narratives overstate concerns about his NBA future. This is a thinly sliced argument, after all. But if I were an NBA executive immersed in the evaluation process, I *suspect* the conclusions I would arrive at are:

1. Brandon Ingram is a better prospect than Ben Simmons
2. I would rather roll the dice on Dragan Bender at #2 overall (to add an even more thinly sliced prospect to the equation!) than gamble on Simmons’ talent overcoming his warts.

I do not believe there is a 3rd prospect who merits consideration about Simmons, but my gut feeling is that he is an underdog to become a clearly positive NBA player. Again, this is all thin analysis from afar and it could be wrong, but it’s my foggy perspective and I am in the mood to share it.