NBA DRAFT 2020 DISCUSSION

[Pelicanidae]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...D4W3Q/htmlview

Another handy evaluation tool here: it's shot distributions and efficiencies of a bunch of major players in this years draft. Separated by at-rim attempts, midrange attempts (called ''other 2pt'' here, basically everything from 5 feet out to the 3pt line), and 3pt attempts, as well as assisted% on these attempts. Colour is included as a metric; redder means worse, greener means better. It's adjusted for position, so a 6'0 guard can shoot exactly the same at the rim as a 6'7 wing, but have a more favourable colour because his shooting is better relative to position.

I wish that it distinguished between half court and transition at-rim attempts, to be honest, because there are a lot of players who are pretty good at the rim but who benefit massively from transition opportunities that don't reflect their ability to actually break down a defense. You can get those numbers, but you require Synergy access so it's not really available for everyone.

Anyway, here's a few players and some notable numbers that I think are worth considering.

Anthony Edwards: 69% at rim, 38.2% assisted there. For a guy of his position, size and strength, that's pretty mediocre finishing, and a relatively high number of assisted makes. Only 30.3% on ''other 2pt'' shots as well, which doesn't bode well for his shooting projections along with his 29.1% 3PT. There are plenty of guys who don't shoot great in college from 3, but show good signs of having that potential because they have high level touch that translates to the midrange; a good example of this is Jayson Tatum, who was a relatively unimpressive 3pt shooter in college (34%) but who showed impressive shooting in the midrange and at the 3pt line. Seeing Edwards being pretty uninspiring from 3pt range and the midrange is kind of troubling for that projection, and his rim-finishing isn't massively great to make up for it.

Devin Vassell: 69.9% at rim, 62.7% assisted there. 42.6% from the midrange, only 22.4% assisted, and then 41.5% from 3, 86.4% assisted. This is just solid stuff all around; for a guy who projects best as an off-the-ball player, the lack of self created at-rim shots isn't too worrying, but the solid finishing as well as the excellent shooting from 3 and encouraging midrange numbers go some way towards reassuring me of his NBA shooting projections.

Grant Riller: I've said it before and I'll say it again: Riller shooting 70.6% at the rim with only 13.9% of those shots being assisted as a 6'3 guard is stupid and I love it. He might be the most talented finisher in the entire class; the only real competition is someone like Obi Toppin, who is a much much taller player. Shooting 40.1% from midrange (3.1% assisted ) and 36.4% from 3 (48.4% assisted) is also very very encouraging. 83% FT shooter helps solidify all of that. He's 23, which is obviously pretty old for an NBA rookie, and his defensive/playmaking concerns limit his absolute upside, but he's so much fun and I'm sure he will be a good NBA player if given the opportunity. Grant Riller is my friend.

Isaac Okoro: Interesting, Okoro's numbers are very similar to Edwards'. 68% at-rim with 33% of them assisted, and also landing in at basically 29% from 3, it's funny to see how guys with relatively similar statistical blueprints actually play so very differently on the court. This isn't to say they're the same type of player or even that they share offensive roles: they do not. It's just funny how some people view Edwards as this insanely dominant interior scoring prospect while seeing Okoro as a complete none-factor offensively despite them both actually producing fairly similar efficiencies. Other differences make the comparison a bit less apt, in fairness; Edward's 30.3% midrange is disappointing, but Okoro's is 16% which is just trash, and Edwards is a better FT shooter. That said, Okoro is a better ball handler and far superior decision maker and defender, so it's all relative.

Killian Tillie: Tillie has been one of my favourite prospects for a while, and there's some nice numbers to back it up. 72% at the rim, 50% from midrange, 40% from 3, as well as being a really smart team defender and a brilliant big-man passer is hard to argue with. His self-creation rates are fairly low, as he's mostly an off-ball threat, but I don't mind that too much. There's value in being a low-usage, high impact guy imo.

[Eman5805]

Weird to have two dudes named Killian in the same draft.

[Pelicanidae]

Weird to have two dudes named Killian in the same draft.

Wait until next year's draft where we'll see Jalen Johnson, Jalen Green, Jalen Suggs, and as a bonus ''not-quite-but-almost'' candidate, Jaden Springer. All likely first round picks next year.

[Pelicanidae]

It's only just hit me how awful this year's draft is at free throw shooting in particular. Here, here's the top 20 prospects according to Tankathon (other sites definitely vary, as does my own evaluation), along with their FT% and their FTAr. FTAr, or free throw attempt rate, is a measure of how many FTAs a player gets per field goal attempt. Obviously higher is better; for scale, James Harden has a career high FTr of .592 which is very very very high, whereas Jrue Holiday's career high in the same stat is only .234, and we all know how frustrating Jrue's lack of calls can be.

1) LaMelo Ball - 72.3% on .231
2) Onyeka Okongwu - 72.0% on .501
3) James Wiseman - 70.4% on .038
4) Killian Hayes - 87.6% on .313
5) Tyrese Haliburton - 82.2% on .184
6) Anthony Edwards - 77.2% on .339
7) Obi Toppin - 70.2% on .364
8) RJ Hampton - 67.9% on .358
9) Deni Advija - 52% on .431
10) Aleksej Pokusevski - 78.3% on .219
11) Devin Vassell - 73.8% on .221
12) Josh Green - 78.0% on .378
13) Isaac Okoro - 67.4% on .541
14) Tyler Bey - 74.3% on .693
15) Paul Reed - 73.8% on .227
16) Jalen Smith - 75% on .474
17) Cole Anthony - 75% on .371
18) Saddiq Bey - 76.9% on .248
19) Kira Lewis Jr - 80.2% on .292
20) Tyrese Maxey - 83.3% on .342

What you'll notice is that not a single one managed to combine a high FTr with a high percentage. The guys which have elite percentages like Hayes, Haliiburton, and Maxey only manage relatively mundane (or in Haliburton's case, dreadful) FTr numbers. The guys who really rack up the FT attempts, like Tyler Bey and Onyeka Okongwu are only mediocre FT shooters. There's nobody who is constantly getting to the line and also nailing them.

Well, nobody among these names. The old champ Grant Riller managed 82.7% from the line on .470 rate, which is pretty close to elite in both areas.

Just for some historical comparisons, here are some players we know went on to be elite foul-drawers/FT guys in the NBA (for multi year guys, career highs are given):

Chris Paul - 84.2% on .654 (those are just absurd numbers, ridiculous combo of foul drawing and efficiency)
James Harden - 75.6% on .597 (surprisingly low efficiency but again, look at that absurd volume)
Damian Lillard - 88.7% on .519
Karl-Anthony Towns - 81.3% on .523
Devin Booker - 82.8% on .223 (surprisingly low volume)
Khris Middleton - 78.4% on .419
JJ Redick - 93.6% on .422
Paul George - 90.9% on .364

These are examples of great years. Chris Paul's combo of efficiency and volume at the FT line is beyond absurd. Redick shooting basically 94% on that volume is nuts. Slightly surprised at Harden's low efficiency compared to the high 80s he shoots now, but the volume is still way up. Lillard's closing in on 90% at +.500 volume is also incredible. These are guys who we know have made the leap to being top tier shooting threats in the NBA.

[MichaelMcNamara]

It's only just hit me how awful this year's draft is at free throw shooting in particular. Here, here's the top 20 prospects according to Tankathon (other sites definitely vary, as does my own evaluation), along with their FT% and their FTAr. FTAr, or free throw attempt rate, is a measure of how many FTAs a player gets per field goal attempt. Obviously higher is better; for scale, James Harden has a career high FTr of .592 which is very very very high, whereas Jrue Holiday's career high in the same stat is only .234, and we all know how frustrating Jrue's lack of calls can be.

1) LaMelo Ball - 72.3% on .231
2) Onyeka Okongwu - 72.0% on .501
3) James Wiseman - 70.4% on .038
4) Killian Hayes - 87.6% on .313
5) Tyrese Haliburton - 82.2% on .184
6) Anthony Edwards - 77.2% on .339
7) Obi Toppin - 70.2% on .364
8) RJ Hampton - 67.9% on .358
9) Deni Advija - 52% on .431
10) Aleksej Pokusevski - 78.3% on .219
11) Devin Vassell - 73.8% on .221
12) Josh Green - 78.0% on .378
13) Isaac Okoro - 67.4% on .541
14) Tyler Bey - 74.3% on .693
15) Paul Reed - 73.8% on .227
16) Jalen Smith - 75% on .474
17) Cole Anthony - 75% on .371
18) Saddiq Bey - 76.9% on .248
19) Kira Lewis Jr - 80.2% on .292
20) Tyrese Maxey - 83.3% on .342

What you'll notice is that not a single one managed to combine a high FTr with a high percentage. The guys which have elite percentages like Hayes, Haliiburton, and Maxey only manage relatively mundane (or in Haliburton's case, dreadful) FTr numbers. The guys who really rack up the FT attempts, like Tyler Bey and Onyeka Okongwu are only mediocre FT shooters. There's nobody who is constantly getting to the line and also nailing them.

Well, nobody among these names. The old champ Grant Riller managed 82.7% from the line on .470 rate, which is pretty close to elite in both areas.

Just for some historical comparisons, here are some players we know went on to be elite foul-drawers/FT guys in the NBA (for multi year guys, career highs are given):

Chris Paul - 84.2% on .654 (those are just absurd numbers, ridiculous combo of foul drawing and efficiency)
James Harden - 75.6% on .597 (surprisingly low efficiency but again, look at that absurd volume)
Damian Lillard - 88.7% on .519
Karl-Anthony Towns - 81.3% on .523
Devin Booker - 82.8% on .223 (surprisingly low volume)
Khris Middleton - 78.4% on .419
JJ Redick - 93.6% on .422
Paul George - 90.9% on .364

These are examples of great years. Chris Paul's combo of efficiency and volume at the FT line is beyond absurd. Redick shooting basically 94% on that volume is nuts. Slightly surprised at Harden's low efficiency compared to the high 80s he shoots now, but the volume is still way up. Lillard's closing in on 90% at +.500 volume is also incredible. These are guys who we know have made the leap to being top tier shooting threats in the NBA.

Yeah, this is a good thing to take notice of when evaluating this class. However, one thing that I think should be considered for context --- How many of these guys were the clear go to guy or even go to creator for their teams? Many of the most skilled guys went overseas and were playing with men and other top prospects like Vessell, Green, and Maxey were secondary or third creators on their team. Cole Anthony was out of the lineup during the time when he would have started to flourish.

It would have been interesting to see a lot of these guys in their 2nd year - ideally after having gotten some tourney experience. It would have been nice to see what Ball or Hampton or even Advija would have done in the US. And even nicer to see them in a 2nd or 3rd year like a lot of the guys on your list got.

Its gonna be hard to evaluate with numbers this year, unless maybe you include all their HS numbers as well. High level camps, etc.

I think this year more than ever, you have to evaluate off eye test, their personality in their interviews and then you gotta call and get character and work ethic evaluations from all their coaches, guys they played with, etc. There just arent enough numbers this year to evaluate off of

[Pelicanidae]

Yeah, this is a good thing to take notice of when evaluating this class. However, one thing that I think should be considered for context --- How many of these guys were the clear go to guy or even go to creator for their teams? Many of the most skilled guys went overseas and were playing with men and other top prospects like Vessell, Green, and Maxey were secondary or third creators on their team. Cole Anthony was out of the lineup during the time when he would have started to flourish.

It would have been interesting to see a lot of these guys in their 2nd year - ideally after having gotten some tourney experience. It would have been nice to see what Ball or Hampton or even Advija would have done in the US. And even nicer to see them in a 2nd or 3rd year like a lot of the guys on your list got.

Its gonna be hard to evaluate with numbers this year, unless maybe you include all their HS numbers as well. High level camps, etc.

I think this year more than ever, you have to evaluate off eye test, their personality in their interviews and then you gotta call and get character and work ethic evaluations from all their coaches, guys they played with, etc. There just arent enough numbers this year to evaluate off of

Sure, and I would never suggest looking at a statistic without also watching the games for context. Cole is probably a huge example of that: he had a dreadful year offensively, I don't think many people could argue against that, but it's also absolutely true that UNC never really had the ability to put him in a position to succeed. Even disregarding the injuries, for most of the time he was on the floor the entire opposing defense could zero in on him and there was little his teammates could do about it. Similarly, Maxey got put in an off-ball position for much of the season playing second fiddle to Hagans, which really hurt his ability to showcase his playmaking and off the dribble abilities.

That said, I do think for a lot of players there's enough games to do a reasonable evaluation of the stats. Zion only played 33 games last year, for example, and someone like Toppin played 31, and I don't think most people thought there was a paucity in Zion's sample size. People like Cole obviously have the injury issue which dragged their games played down, so that's actually someone who I would recommend going back and watching some of his pre-college tape. Going purely off his UNC career, it would be hard to justify him in the lottery, but knowing all of the problems he had with health and the team, combined with what he showed pre-college, is enough to give him the boost in a draft this weak (imo).

I go back to my usual perspective; use the numbers, but watch the games too. For me, that's the best strategy and helps combine the strengths of each perspective.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Sure, and I would never suggest looking at a statistic without also watching the games for context. Cole is probably a huge example of that: he had a dreadful year offensively, I don't think many people could argue against that, but it's also absolutely true that UNC never really had the ability to put him in a position to succeed. Even disregarding the injuries, for most of the time he was on the floor the entire opposing defense could zero in on him and there was little his teammates could do about it. Similarly, Maxey got put in an off-ball position for much of the season playing second fiddle to Hagans, which really hurt his ability to showcase his playmaking and off the dribble abilities.

That said, I do think for a lot of players there's enough games to do a reasonable evaluation of the stats. Zion only played 33 games last year, for example, and someone like Toppin played 31, and I don't think most people thought there was a paucity in Zion's sample size. People like Cole obviously have the injury issue which dragged their games played down, so that's actually someone who I would recommend going back and watching some of his pre-college tape. Going purely off his UNC career, it would be hard to justify him in the lottery, but knowing all of the problems he had with health and the team, combined with what he showed pre-college, is enough to give him the boost in a draft this weak (imo).

I go back to my usual perspective; use the numbers, but watch the games too. For me, that's the best strategy and helps combine the strengths of each perspective.

I'm not talking about you or me. Our opinion doesn't matter. I am saying that this will be an odd year for decision makers -- maybe the most unusual year ever -- for several reasons. Not only is the sample size low, but there are no conference tourney or NCAA tourney games to learn from. There will be no combine and likely no individual, face to face, workouts.

Combine all that with an unusually weak class and a class that had more overseas players and players who got injured/suspended early than usual. Its just an impossible year to really draw many conclusions from this draft. Which leads me to believe that the smart teams will rely more on personality and work ethic evaluations than usual. And that is something that you or I will have little to no access to. What I have focused on, however, is history. And history says one thing very clear, and I have put together an article on that which will come out in a few days/weeks. Long story short -- history says you will not draft a role player that will be a role player for your team. You either draft a very good starter to All Star, a bust, or a guy that will go on to be a role player years later for someone else.

So, people should keep that in mind when they advocate for some guy who can be a solid 3-and-D compliment, role player. History says he may become that, but it won't be for the team that drafted him. I will have all the history and stats in the piece, but believe me it is true. It simply does not happen

[Pelicanidae]

I'm not talking about you or me. Our opinion doesn't matter. I am saying that this will be an odd year for decision makers -- maybe the most unusual year ever -- for several reasons. Not only is the sample size low, but there are no conference tourney or NCAA tourney games to learn from. There will be no combine and likely no individual, face to face, workouts.

Combine all that with an unusually weak class and a class that had more overseas players and players who got injured/suspended early than usual. Its just an impossible year to really draw many conclusions from this draft. Which leads me to believe that the smart teams will rely more on personality and work ethic evaluations than usual. And that is something that you or I will have little to no access to.

I do agree that I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who is evaluating as individuals from outside of the process. You're obviously right that for the guys who made decisions for the teams, executives and managers, there's a lot of disruption to the usual process. This is especially true for some of the least-well-managed teams (there are some teams which seem to make decisions solely off the tournament, as if their drafting process begins at that point) but it will impact even the best organisations.

Overall, I try not to make my player evaluations or draft rankings based on what teams would or should do, because there's a ton of information that we, as outsiders to the process, just aren't privy to. So for me, when I make a draft ranking, I'm doing it based entirely on my perception of the player and what they've done on court, with only minimal influence from things like player personality, which is something that a team will consider more highly than I do, and for understandable reasons.

As for your article, I don't think I disagree too much with the premise anyway, but obviously I'll wait until I can read it before making any further judgement.

[Speakthetruth]

https://nbadraft.theringer.com/ ringer just out it's big board.

Interesting stuff

[Pelicanidae]

https://nbadraft.theringer.com/ ringer just out it's big board.

Interesting stuff

I am shocked by how much I agree with this big board.

Definitely some disagreements but usually mainstream draft boards (ESPN comes to mind here) are waaaaaay off and this one isn't bad.

[MichaelMcNamara]

I am shocked by how much I agree with this big board.

Definitely some disagreements but usually mainstream draft boards (ESPN comes to mind here) are waaaaaay off and this one isn't bad.

Its solid, but KOC definitely has types. And he certainly overvalues certain skills and attributes while overlooking certain things. That said, it is a good list. But when a guy is not a sure fire prospect, his outcome will come down to who drafts him more than anything else. So, the #4 guy right now might be better than the #9 guy, but the #9 guy could easily have the better career outcome because of the situations each guy goes too.

Because of that, I think we have a good chance to get a guy who outperforms his draft spot. Too many of these guys will be asked to do more than they are capable of early in their career. We have the luxury to ask whoever we draft to focus on maybe one or two things his first few years and then grow their game from there.

Knowing what Griffin wants to focus on (athleticism, character, and multi-positional versatility), my overwhelming favorite to be our pick as of right now is Josh Green. Do we need him now - No. But you have to imagine JJ is definitely gone by the time Green develops. Jrue would likely be gone, and Green (if he hits his ceiling, or close) is a fantastic fit with our core

[bogiesfedora]

I am shocked by how much I agree with this big board.

Definitely some disagreements but usually mainstream draft boards (ESPN comes to mind here) are waaaaaay off and this one isn't bad.

Tjarks who is usually in on The Ringer’s board, nailed Clarke last year, he had him at 3. It is certainly mainstream, but most mainstream boards do not differ all that much at all, its just confirmation bias on top of confirmation bias. Tsjarks and KOC's board usually includes prospect rankings way outside of mainstream consensus which shows they are thinking about it in a more nuanced way.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Tjarks who is usually in on The Ringer’s board, nailed Clarke last year, he had him at 3. It is certainly mainstream, but most mainstream boards do not differ all that much at all, its just confirmation bias on top of confirmation bias. Tsjarks and KOC's board usually includes prospect rankings way outside of mainstream consensus which shows they are thinking about it in a more nuanced way.

But Clarke won't be the 3rd best player from that draft. Just like Taj Gibson wasn't a top 5 player from his draft, despite being All Rookie 1st team. Clarke was just one of the most NBA ready. No way he should have slipped as far as he did, but for instance - I know Griff wouldn't swap Hayes for Clarke right now

But yes - to your point - the Ringer guys don't do as others do and just start with a consensus big board and just move guys up and down a few spots

[bogiesfedora]

His jumper just keeps getting better, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was the third best player in this draft. I think he becomes a guy who shoots mid-high 30’s (edit I originally had it as 20’s) on 3-4 attempts a game. I don't think there is any doubt he would go top 7/8 if there was a redraft. In fact if I had to pick life/death who was the third best player from this draft after Zion and Morant, I would go with Clarke or maybe Herro. Although to your point there are guys with more upside, and he was NBA ready for sure. Him dropping as far as he did just shows the age discrimination in the draft process, and I would also had upside and progression are not linear. I think he still has a good bit of upside just with improvement of the jumper alone.

[MichaelMcNamara]

His jumper just keeps getting better, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was the third best player in this draft. I think he becomes a guy who shoots mid-high 30’s (edit I originally had it as 20’s) on 3-4 attempts a game. I don't think there is any doubt he would go top 7/8 if there was a redraft. In fact if I had to pick life/death who was the third best player from this draft after Zion and Morant, I would go with Clarke or maybe Herro. Although to your point there are guys with more upside, and he was NBA ready for sure. Him dropping as far as he did just shows the age discrimination in the draft process, and I would also had upside and progression are not linear. I think he still has a good bit of upside just with improvement of the jumper alone.

Well, I hope you are not in a position where you have to bet your life.

I had Clarke 6th last year, so I get it. But that was mostly because of his high floor. There is no universe, IMO, where he becomes one of the 5 best players from this draft. Maybe longevity wise, if you are into that. But a half of dozen or more guys will have a higher peak than Clarke. Clarke will have a nice PJ Brown-ish career and that's awesome. But I would alway swing for the home run in the draft and get my singles and doubles in trades and FA. Which is why I didn't love the NAW pick last year. No chance at being a home run.

You will see when I publish my piece that teams don't draft and keep role players. Just doesn't happen. So, try for the triple or home run in the draft, because even if you draft the single or double, history says you will just develop him for someone else's benefit

[bogiesfedora]

Well, I hope you are not in a position where you have to bet your life.

I had Clarke 6th last year, so I get it. But that was mostly because of his high floor. There is no universe, IMO, where he becomes one of the 5 best players from this draft. Maybe longevity wise, if you are into that. But a half of dozen or more guys will have a higher peak than Clarke. Clarke will have a nice PJ Brown-ish career and that's awesome. But I would alway swing for the home run in the draft and get my singles and doubles in trades and FA. Which is why I didn't love the NAW pick last year. No chance at being a home run.

You will see when I publish my piece that teams don't draft and keep role players. Just doesn't happen. So, try for the triple or home run in the draft, because even if you draft the single or double, history says you will just develop him for someone else's benefit

I think that is probably where we disagree, his ceiling. I think with his defensive versatility(its DPOY type potential), and if the jump shot continues to improve, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he made 1-3 all star teams over the course of his career. Interesting take on the role player angle I look forward to reading it. I am just not sure I know what that means anymore. Is it anyone who doesn’t make an all star team in any given year? Or is it someone who isn’t one of the 3 best players on a good team.

[MichaelMcNamara]

I think that is probably where we disagree, his ceiling. I think with his defensive versatility(its DPOY type potential), and if the jump shot continues to improve, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he made 1-3 all star teams over the course of his career. Interesting take on the role player angle I look forward to reading it. I am just not sure I know what that means anymore. Is it anyone who doesn’t make an all star team in any given year? Or is it someone who isn’t one of the 3 best players on a good team.

So, the bottom guy on the tier up is Myles Turner, if that helps

Going back to 2012, there likely is only going to be one guy taken 6-19 that will be a good role player with the same team that drafted him --- Zach Collins.

Over 24 solid to good role players taken in that range but they are all on other teams and none of them really got any value back for the team that drafted them

Basically, what you have is a ton of Austin Rivers. Sucks for the team that took them, gets nothing when team trades them or let's them go. Then, eventually they accept who they are and are solid role players for other teams

So, the lesson is not to draft guys you think could become your Rivers or Ariza or PJ Tucker. Let other teams spend the resources and time on them, and then get them once they have been humbled and their price tag is reduced. Ben McLemore, another great example.

So, look at that draft guide again. Look at KOCs comparisons. Even for a lot of the best case scenarios for guys, you will see role players who got kicked around 3 or 4 teams before they caught on

With our pick, we gotta go for the monster upside. Drafting for a good role player/fringe starter is just spending resources to help out a competitor

[Pelicanidae]

Just figured I'd post this:

LaMelo Ball took a total of 42 shots at the basket out of isolation this year. He shot 43.8% on those attempts.

For comparison, Grant Rller took 80 such shots, and made 54.5% of them. Kira Lewis took 59, and made 44.1%. Malachi Flynn (who most have as a 2nd rounder, including me) took 50 and shot 47.1%.

Obviously this alone doesn't mean a massive amount, but it's just another point of reference with regards to LaMelo. I still thing his combination of handle, decent size, and nuts passing puts his ceiling at a higher place than almost anyone else in this class, but all of the flaws people bring up in his game are very real. Cannot finish. As of today, cannot shoot. Isn't a particularly good foul drawing guard, and isn't massively impressive as a FT shooting guard. Can't or won't defend anyone, with relatively poor feel and recognition on that end. Bad decision maker.

His innate gifts really are special, so if he can improve some of the areas of his game that are roughest, he could still be great. But if you buy into him, it's with a lot of 'if' considerations.

[Eman5805]

So ridiculous. So advanced at thr flashy stuff, but none of the Ball brothers can make a layup.

[MichaelMcNamara]

So ridiculous. So advanced at thr flashy stuff, but none of the Ball brothers can make a layup.

Look at the guys who make it in this league -- yes, they have skill but they are grinders. They are guys who do anything to win. That hate to lose more than they love to win. Does any of that remind you of LaMelo?

I wouldn't take him at 12 if he somehow fell. I would be shocked if he even had a career as good as Fred Van Vleet. Give me Cole Anthony and numerous guards in this class over LaMelo's YouTube highlights any day

[Pelicanidae]

So ridiculous. So advanced at thr flashy stuff, but none of the Ball brothers can make a layup.

It's the same for LaMelo's handle. You get a lot of people talking about how incredible his handling is, and for this class yeah it's pretty good (it's not actually elite, like a Kyrie handle, but still) but in reality it's flashy without effect. He can string together a lot of fairly advanced dribble moves but he doesn't have the burst or the first step, or the deceptive shiftiness required to actually turn those dribble moves into attacks. Can't leverage the skill into actually beating people off the dribble, it's so frustrating.

Like I said, if people speak to his coaches in Australia and speak to him directly and they get the feeling that he's a harder worker than it appears, and they're also confident in their strength and conditioning program, and their shooting program, etc, then Ball's upside is probably the highest in the class. But that's so many ifs. The bust potential for him is massive; if he comes in with a half-effort attitude, or if he refuses to put on any core muscle, or if he's stubborn about his jumpshot/refuses to work on it at all, then he could be out of the league in just a few short years. Truly the definition of a boom/bust candidate.

[Pelicanidae]

Max Carlin, one of the two guys on the Prep2Pro podcast, is going some clipping and tweeting about some of James Wiseman and I'm looking at it because of how long it's been since Wiseman played and sheeeeeeesh. Problems.

Doesn't have the mobility to hedge in the first place, but someone has to teach him how to hedge pic.twitter.com/HyFNpoCvZv

— Max Carlin (@maxacarlin) April 18, 2020

*sigh* pic.twitter.com/QeHTpnV4Co

— Max Carlin (@maxacarlin) April 18, 2020

Wiseman's PnR defense is so frequently utterly baffling. His recovery always starts a moment or two late, and he's often wildly out of position. So much work to be done to be viable in any coverage, not even accounting for his movement limitations/lack of coverage versatility pic.twitter.com/61X7F8UNVs

— Max Carlin (@maxacarlin) April 18, 2020

Wiseman gets away with the goaltend. Serious load time pic.twitter.com/isYbkiPrMM

— Max Carlin (@maxacarlin) April 18, 2020

James Wiseman is fouled here, but pretty lucky outcome for him after putting the ball on the ground and barreling into the paint with four defenders in it while Boogie Ellis is wide open one pass away--doesn't even glance in his direction despite the dig pic.twitter.com/AhahS5B4dy

— Max Carlin (@maxacarlin) April 18, 2020

In fairness, there are also a couple of positive takeaways from this tweetstorm:

Wiseman is really good using his size to seal and get easy duck-ins. Nice footwork on the spin on the catch to evade the help pic.twitter.com/xHLkXY2jEW

— Max Carlin (@maxacarlin) April 18, 2020

Wiseman's screening has been really good these first two Memphis games. Getting wide, creating contact, and generating advantages. Definitely fits into a general trend of improved usage of his ridiculous frame. Also, see the length come into play pic.twitter.com/QVKSk6TDcs

— Max Carlin (@maxacarlin) April 18, 2020

It's a shame we only got to see such a small amount of tape from Wiseman this year because I would have loved to see if he could improve his game throughout the season, as some other players did (RJ Hampton comes to mind here), but watching what little we do have available, combined with watching his pre-college ball, it's really baffling to me that some people had him at #1 coming into the year. I still can't believe I saw sports writers refer to him as being like David Robinson. Just nuts.

[Taker597]

Max Carlin, one of the two guys on the Prep2Pro podcast, is going some clipping and tweeting about some of James Wiseman and I'm looking at it because of how long it's been since Wiseman played and sheeeeeeesh. Problems.


It's a shame we only got to see such a small amount of tape from Wiseman this year because I would have loved to see if he could improve his game throughout the season, as some other players did (RJ Hampton comes to mind here), but watching what little we do have available, combined with watching his pre-college ball, it's really baffling to me that some people had him at #1 coming into the year. I still can't believe I saw sports writers refer to him as being like David Robinson. Just nuts.

It's just that instinct on defensive and IQ is just sooo bad. He plays like a 7'1" Guard. Bad positioning, late recovery, and poor recognition.

But he'll still probably surge into the top 3 due to bad teams needing bigs, poor class, and measurable alone. I don't know... he plays like an overhyped Kanter to me. My most disappointing prospect in some years coming into the draft.

I'm glad he is out of reach for us, because he would be a good fit on paper. Yet, if he doesn't develop a defensive game. He's worthless if we are trying to win a championship.

[Pelicanidae]

It's just that instinct on defensive and IQ is just sooo bad. He plays like a 7'1" Guard. Bad positioning, late recovery, and poor recognition.

But he'll still probably surge into the top 3 due to bad teams needing bigs, poor class, and measurable alone. I don't know... he plays like an overhyped Kanter to me. My most disappointing prospect in some years coming into the draft.

I'm glad he is out of reach for us, because he would be a good fit on paper. Yet, if he doesn't develop a defensive game. He's worthless if we are trying to win a championship.

I actually think the Kanter comparison is more apt for Toppin; defensively disastrous bigs who at least have some concrete offensive value, that leads to their best probably position being as a high usage bench weapon in order to avoid being exploited by starter calibre guards and bigs on the defensive end while maximising their impact.

You're right that it's easy to imagine Wiseman going pretty highly from a combination of pre-college hype, crazy measurables (I think he has a 9'4 standing reach?) and people wanting him to fill a positional need, but I couldn't do it. I'm kind of against drafting bigs in the top 10 anyway unless they are either clearly dominant or have some brilliant special skill to their game, and combine that general scepticism with Wiseman's massive defensive/decision-making/IQ issues and the holes in his game regarding versatility on offense (bad passer, far worse shooter than most seem to realise), I think he could end up being a big time bust.

[Taker597]

I actually think the Kanter comparison is more apt for Toppin; defensively disastrous bigs who at least have some concrete offensive value, that leads to their best probably position being as a high usage bench weapon in order to avoid being exploited by starter calibre guards and bigs on the defensive end while maximising their impact.

You're right that it's easy to imagine Wiseman going pretty highly from a combination of pre-college hype, crazy measurables (I think he has a 9'4 standing reach?) and people wanting him to fill a positional need, but I couldn't do it. I'm kind of against drafting bigs in the top 10 anyway unless they are either clearly dominant or have some brilliant special skill to their game, and combine that general scepticism with Wiseman's massive defensive/decision-making/IQ issues and the holes in his game regarding versatility on offense (bad passer, far worse shooter than most seem to realise), I think he could end up being a big time bust.

I think my projection is going to be the less harsh Melo/Griffin projection. Like his ceiling is good but never great. If the draft class turns out to be bad and he is simply decent. He'll be a good pick.

He is the kind of player that may give you a King's Ransom or regret giving a Max in 4 or 5 years. He doesn't give me best at his position vibe untill maybe his middle to late prime. Which is 1 1/2 Max contracts away

I really don't like being down on young man, but mental lapses are the hardest thing to shake in the NBA. So, I do worry for him. I'd like to be wrong, because it been a long while since a Top 5 uber talented big busted. It just feels due.