• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

2019 NBA Draft

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
From Chris Fedor’s Q&A today:

“Along those lines, Kevin Porter Jr. won't be overlooked. A top 50 player in the 2018 class, Porter was suspended for a violation of team rules. Some of the Cavs' early intel points to that not being a huge red flag. Now that USC's season is over, they will devote plenty of resources to getting those questions answered.”

I apologize in advance that I’m going to keep beating this drum all the way up to the draft lmao.... but his on-court activity level is just not consistent with the perception he’s given that he doesn’t care. The USC program is a shitshow and I’m going to continue to discount the idea that he’s a bad locker room guy until there’s more evidence reported or discussed. USC just had a 2018 top 100 recruit transfer yesterday because he wasn’t seeing the floor. Charles OBannon was a McDonalds All American that never plays. And that’s not even to mention all the on court stuff you see and FBI bs too.

Btw I didn’t have time to post it, but ESPN dropped a new mock yesterday and Porter was one of the biggest movers, up to #12 I believe.

He can be a bad locker room guy and still have a good activity level on the court...those two things don't necessarily go hand in hand. I watched him against Washington the other day, which was on paper his most impressive performance of the season. He hit shots, and he showed a great level of activity. But he didn't show very good awareness offensively, and just generally doesn't look like a guy who'll create offense at the next level.

Assuming he doesn't have #1/#2 option upside, I can't get behind the idea of investing in an energy guy wing who's a questionable lockerroom guy. There are so many good roleplayer type guys to choose from who don't come with those questionmarks.
 
His shooting really fell off second half I think. His mechanics are broken and he wasn’t the best shooter previously I don’t think, so it’s not too surprising. Has a nice statistical profile, but teams are definitely going to tell him to go back. If he entered this year I’d bet on him going undrafted. Really just a defender to me, but doesn’t have the strength/size to check bigger wings.

Will always be solid on models with the stocks and his size.

I'm no shot doctor so I'm not going to argue about whether or not his shot's broken. Clearly he can handle and pass well enough for a roleplayer wing, which leaves the jumpshot as his big swing skill. I think he'll be more than fine defensively in the NBA, certainly at SF if not at PF. Almost all really big wings are sliding over to PF these days.
 
He can be a bad locker room guy and still have a good activity level on the court...those two things don't necessarily go hand in hand. I watched him against Washington the other day, which was on paper his most impressive performance of the season. He hit shots, and he showed a great level of activity. But he didn't show very good awareness offensively, and just generally doesn't look like a guy who'll create offense at the next level.

Assuming he doesn't have #1/#2 option upside, I can't get behind the idea of investing in an energy guy wing who's a questionable lockerroom guy. There are so many good roleplayer type guys to choose from who don't come with those questionmarks.

I’m not saying they always go hand in hand. They certainly do more often than not however.

If you don’t think he can create shots then that’s just simply a difference in our evaluation. That’s the one thing that is close to a certainty to me, and something I’ve not heard anyone say before about Porter.

Just out of curiosity would you take Alpha Diallo over KPJ?
 
I’m not saying they always go hand in hand. They certainly do more often than not however.

If you don’t think he can create shots then that’s just simply a difference in our evaluation. That’s the one thing that is close to a certainty to me, and something I’ve not heard anyone say before about Porter.

Just out of curiosity would you take Alpha Diallo over KPJ?

I mean...he can create bad shots, where he's unable to get around his defender and heaves up a fadeaway. It's clear to me watching him why they don't want to put the ball in his hands. It rarely results in a high-percentage look (unless he's already open behind the arc or under the basket, obviously). I'd take Diallo over him, but mostly because I'm very low on KPJ, not because I'm very high on Diallo.
 
@3 Ball...GOT IT , how do you think KPJ compares to Miles Bridges last year as a creator? I see him as similar athletically, but somewhat less skilled in all areas offensively. Granted, KPJ is younger than Miles last year so theoretically could make up that ground if he improves steadily. But Miles is pretty clearly a roleplayer in the NBA.
 
Apologies if I missed the discussion on him, but what do people think of Matisse Thybulle?

I haven't watched UW at all but his defensive numbers are absurd and he seems to be increasingly on the draft radar in the media.
 
Apologies if I missed the discussion on him, but what do people think of Matisse Thybulle?

I haven't watched UW at all but his defensive numbers are absurd and he seems to be increasingly on the draft radar in the media.

I posted a few times about him...this posts basically sum up my thoughts:

Thybulle is a real talent. You couldn't build a better perimeter defender in a lab. Lateral quickness and reflexes of a point guard, great body control, great instincts, a 7-foot wingspan and elite athleticism. He's not much on offense, but he can finish strong, hit an open 3, and generally makes the right pass with good zip. Would seriously consider him with the Rockets pick, and I think he could be drafted even a bit higher than that.

I think he's somewhere on the spectrum between Sefolosha and Ginobili defensively. Not overwhelmingly strong and physical, but rangy, active, and extremely smart.
 
If anyone was reading back in this thread, you may have noticed I took down my shooting potential post. I was looking at the data it was producing and I honestly thought I had done something wrong... because the results tended to make too much sense. So I was nervous that what I was trying to measure, just wasn't real.

So I started doing a bunch of reading on how you actually correlate two data sets, etc. and through those topic discussions, had a light go off in my head on how I should be trying to do this.....and what adjustment should be made to this calculation.

With that said, the adjustment to the calculation was so that (0) was the baseline average prospect from the near 400 college players who have per 100 stats. Previously, the numbers being spit out were extremely hard to compare at a glance. And I wanted positive values to only represent a strong belief that a player would exceed their 3PT efficiency at the NBA level, values closer to zero less confidence. Values below zero, a thought that they are regression candidates.

This calculation only looks at blind data and does not consider other things like shooting form, athleticism, shot difficulty, shot type, etc. It merely looks at basic per 100 shooting stats, in relation to FT% and makes a shooting determination. It looked at all college players, that attempted 300 NBA 3’s, regardless of how many college 3 point attempts they took.

As a whole data set it was pretty promising but broken down by position, even more so. Varying (r) values but 3 of the 4 position sets have strong correlations. Shooting forward and PF/C it really seems to have a handle on, in terms of projection. PG is all over the place but still a decent positive correlation number. Anyone have a guess as to why PG is is all over the map?

Point Guards

PG-SHOP.png


Shooting Guards

SG-SHOP.png


Power Forwards / Centers

PFC-SHOP.png


Small Forwards

SF-SHOP.png


Still cleaning up the dataset and will post updated screenshots with interesting 2019 prospects but thought I would share. SHOP stands for shooting potential and the value is based on shooting tiers, relative to their college stats. Shooting tier sounds complicated but it is not. It starts at zero (average shooting percentage) and then assigns a positive or negative number in shooting bands…..i.e. Tier 0 (34-36%) Tier 1 (36-38%)…….that is a really watered down explanation of what is going on here but helps someone visualize what this is trying to do. It is NOT trying to assign a specific percentage to someone and say, "this is the percentage they will shoot"…..it is just roughly trying to predict how a prospect can improve (or regress), moving forward, based on various shooting markers they display in college....and then measuring that against their difference in 3PT percentage from college to the NBA, to see if this data is at all predictive.
 
Last edited:
If anyone was reading back in this thread, you may have noticed I took down my shooting potential post. I was looking at the data it was producing and I honestly thought I had done something wrong... because the results tended to make too much sense. So I was nervous that what I was trying to measure, just wasn't real.

So I started doing a bunch of reading on how you actually correlate two data sets, etc. and through those topic discussions, had a light go off in my head on how I should be trying to do this.....and what adjustment should be made to this calculation.

With that said, the adjustment to the calculation was so that (0) was the baseline average prospect from the near 400 college players who have per 100 stats. Previously, the numbers being spit out were extremely hard to compare at a glance. And I wanted positive values to only represent a strong belief that a player would exceed their 3PT efficiency at the NBA level, values closer to zero less confidence. Values below zero, a thought that they are regression candidates.

This calculation only looks at blind data and does not consider other things like shooting form, athleticism, shot difficulty, shot type, etc. It merely looks at basic per 100 shooting stats, in relation to FT% and makes a shooting determination. It looked at all college players, that attempted 300 NBA 3’s, regardless of how many college 3 point attempts they took.

As a whole data set it was pretty promising but broken down by position, even more so. Varying (r) values but 3 of the 4 position sets have strong correlations. Shooting forward and PF/C it really seems to have a handle on, in terms of projection. PG is all over the place but still a decent positive correlation number. Anyone have a guess as to why PG is is all over the map?

Point Guards

PG-SHOP.png


Shooting Guards

SG-SHOP.png


Power Forwards / Centers

PFC-SHOP.png


Small Forwards

SF-SHOP.png


Still cleaning up the dataset and will post updated screenshots with interesting 2019 prospects but thought I would share. SHOP stands for shooting potential and the (y) value it is comparing it to is the increase in shooting tiers, relative to their college stats. Shooting tier sounds complicated but it is not. It starts at zero (average shooting percentage) and then assigns a positive or negative number in shooting bands…..i.e. Tier 0 (34-36%) Tier 1 (36-38%)…….that is a really watered down explanation of what is going on here but helps someone visualize what this is trying to do. It is NOT trying to assign a specific percentage to someone…..it is just roughly trying to predict how a prospect can improve (or regress), moving forward, based on various shooting markers they display in college.

I'd guess that team situation matters a lot for point guards. Maybe you have a Jokic or LeBron passing to you. Or maybe you're the only guy with any passing skills on the court. In other words, you may get like 75% of your 3-point attempts assisted or 10% of your 3-point attempts assisted. Guys at other positions, with the exception of a handful of elite scorers, almost exclusively have 75% or more of their 3-point attempts assisted.
 
I'd guess that team situation matters a lot for point guards. Maybe you have a Jokic or LeBron passing to you. Or maybe you're the only guy with any passing skills on the court. In other words, you may get like 75% of your 3-point attempts assisted or 10% of your 3-point attempts assisted. Guys at other positions, with the exception of a handful of elite scorers, almost exclusively have 75% or more of their 3-point attempts assisted.

That makes sense.

I also considered that, by in large, FT percentages are higher among PG’s.....and so with a higher baseline and typically a lot less variance in percentage, that those differences just mean a lot less.....and are possibly just less predictive on their own (without shot type, unassisted vs assisted, etc.)
 
If anyone was reading back in this thread, you may have noticed I took down my shooting potential post. I was looking at the data it was producing and I honestly thought I had done something wrong... because the results tended to make too much sense. So I was nervous that what I was trying to measure, just wasn't real.

So I started doing a bunch of reading on how you actually correlate two data sets, etc. and through those topic discussions, had a light go off in my head on how I should be trying to do this.....and what adjustment should be made to this calculation.

With that said, the adjustment to the calculation was so that (0) was the baseline average prospect from the near 400 college players who have per 100 stats. Previously, the numbers being spit out were extremely hard to compare at a glance. And I wanted positive values to only represent a strong belief that a player would exceed their 3PT efficiency at the NBA level, values closer to zero less confidence. Values below zero, a thought that they are regression candidates.

This calculation only looks at blind data and does not consider other things like shooting form, athleticism, shot difficulty, shot type, etc. It merely looks at basic per 100 shooting stats, in relation to FT% and makes a shooting determination. It looked at all college players, that attempted 300 NBA 3’s, regardless of how many college 3 point attempts they took.

As a whole data set it was pretty promising but broken down by position, even more so. Varying (r) values but 3 of the 4 position sets have strong correlations. Shooting forward and PF/C it really seems to have a handle on, in terms of projection. PG is all over the place but still a decent positive correlation number. Anyone have a guess as to why PG is is all over the map?

Point Guards

PG-SHOP.png


Shooting Guards

SG-SHOP.png


Power Forwards / Centers

PFC-SHOP.png


Small Forwards

SF-SHOP.png


Still cleaning up the dataset and will post updated screenshots with interesting 2019 prospects but thought I would share. SHOP stands for shooting potential and the value is based on shooting tiers, relative to their college stats. Shooting tier sounds complicated but it is not. It starts at zero (average shooting percentage) and then assigns a positive or negative number in shooting bands…..i.e. Tier 0 (34-36%) Tier 1 (36-38%)…….that is a really watered down explanation of what is going on here but helps someone visualize what this is trying to do. It is NOT trying to assign a specific percentage to someone and say, "this is the percentage they will shoot"…..it is just roughly trying to predict how a prospect can improve (or regress), moving forward, based on various shooting markers they display in college....and then measuring that against their difference in 3PT percentage from college to the NBA, to see if this data is at all predictive.

Interesting stuff.

My best guess would be due to changes in types of shot distribution possibly? The non-PG positions I’d guess are more likely to retain the same shot profile that they had in college (almost exclusively catch and shoots, for example). As opposed to PGs having more shots off the dribble mixed in? I feel like it’s commonplace in the NBA to run two PG lineups now, where each of those two PGs would be running the show exclusively themselves in college. Their offensive role may be more volatile to change in the NBA than the other positions?

Only other thing I could thing of is possibly a higher volume of above the break 3s for PGs? The differential in the NCAA vs NBA 3PT lines is greater on those shots than for corner threes for example, if that makes sense... which PGs wouldn’t be taking as often. That’s a good ?
 
@3 Ball...GOT IT , how do you think KPJ compares to Miles Bridges last year as a creator? I see him as similar athletically, but somewhat less skilled in all areas offensively. Granted, KPJ is younger than Miles last year so theoretically could make up that ground if he improves steadily. But Miles is pretty clearly a roleplayer in the NBA.


I loved Miles last year. I ended up ranking him 6th, which was higher than anyone else I saw I think. I hope he gets more opportunity next year.

I think that they have pretty strong differences offensively. Miles has a decent amount of size on Porter, and his frame is about as good as you’ll see. I’d give Miles a slight nod athletically as well too. I do like KPJs offensive skill upside a lot more than Miles though. Miles is pretty exclusively a catch and shoot guy. His biggest question mark as a prospect was his individual shot creation... IIRC he shot like around 25% on pull ups as a freshman, and improved it to something in the 30s as a Sophomore. A lot of my ranking was based on him hopefully continuing to improve in that area, but it was still rough as a Soph.

Miles is far better getting to the rim and attacking off spot ups. Porter rarely does this... just catches and holds. But Porter does have the more difficult-to-obtain skill of ball handling and beating his guy 1 on 1... and being able get to his shot quickly off the dribble (which Miles may never develop).

Overall in my opinion Porter has a lot higher self-creation upside, but Miles had one of the best offensive floors that I’ve seen. His off ball shooting projection was just so so good. I’d consider Miles much more of a play finisher with creation upside, vs Porter is more of a pure shot creator for himself. I’m iffy on Porters off-ball shooting with the cross-body release and inconsistent FTs... I don’t think you draft him without planning on letting him have the ball a decent amount... vs Bridges it’s the opposite for me.
 
I loved Miles last year. I ended up ranking him 6th, which was higher than anyone else I saw I think. I hope he gets more opportunity next year.

I think that they have pretty strong differences offensively. Miles has a decent amount of size on Porter, and his frame is about as good as you’ll see. I’d give Miles a slight nod athletically as well too. I do like KPJs offensive skill upside a lot more than Miles though. Miles is pretty exclusively a catch and shoot guy. His biggest question mark as a prospect was his individual shot creation... IIRC he shot like around 25% on pull ups as a freshman, and improved it to something in the 30s as a Sophomore. A lot of my ranking was based on him hopefully continuing to improve in that area, but it was still rough as a Soph.

Miles is far better getting to the rim and attacking off spot ups. Porter rarely does this... just catches and holds. But Porter does have the more difficult-to-obtain skill of ball handling and beating his guy 1 on 1... and being able get to his shot quickly off the dribble (which Miles may never develop).

Overall in my opinion Porter has a lot higher self-creation upside, but Miles had one of the best offensive floors that I’ve seen. His off ball shooting projection was just so so good. I’d consider Miles much more of a play finisher with creation upside, vs Porter is more of a pure shot creator for himself. I’m iffy on Porters off-ball shooting with the cross-body release and inconsistent FTs... I don’t think you draft him without planning on letting him have the ball a decent amount... vs Bridges it’s the opposite for me.

I generally don't like to resort to highlight videos, but is there one that shows this off-the-dribble shot creation you're talking about? I want to see him getting around his defender and finishing at the rim, or kicking out to an open shooter, or dumping it off to a big for a layup. I haven't seen that ability when I've watched him.
 
I loved Miles last year. I ended up ranking him 6th, which was higher than anyone else I saw I think. I hope he gets more opportunity next year.

I think that they have pretty strong differences offensively. Miles has a decent amount of size on Porter, and his frame is about as good as you’ll see. I’d give Miles a slight nod athletically as well too. I do like KPJs offensive skill upside a lot more than Miles though. Miles is pretty exclusively a catch and shoot guy. His biggest question mark as a prospect was his individual shot creation... IIRC he shot like around 25% on pull ups as a freshman, and improved it to something in the 30s as a Sophomore. A lot of my ranking was based on him hopefully continuing to improve in that area, but it was still rough as a Soph.

Miles is far better getting to the rim and attacking off spot ups. Porter rarely does this... just catches and holds. But Porter does have the more difficult-to-obtain skill of ball handling and beating his guy 1 on 1... and being able get to his shot quickly off the dribble (which Miles may never develop).

Overall in my opinion Porter has a lot higher self-creation upside, but Miles had one of the best offensive floors that I’ve seen. His off ball shooting projection was just so so good. I’d consider Miles much more of a play finisher with creation upside, vs Porter is more of a pure shot creator for himself. I’m iffy on Porters off-ball shooting with the cross-body release and inconsistent FTs... I don’t think you draft him without planning on letting him have the ball a decent amount... vs Bridges it’s the opposite for me.

I still am just having so much trouble getting over how historically bad he is in every statistical measure but 3P shooting.......and even that is concerning with his small sample size FT%. The back half of the year, in conference play, his FT% was actually even worse too....sub 50%. Again....it's a small sample size but that is unheard of for a guard, who is supposed to be a shooter.....even at a small attempt number.

The shooting model I have been messing around with just hates him. :chuckle: Out of the 9 NBA wings in this class, with similar shooting markers, he ranks dead last.....and it is by a lot. It identifies Porter and Schofield as the two strongest regression candidates on the wing.....and if you believe that to be true, and you downgrade his 3PT shooting at all, he honestly becomes (possibly) the worst statistical player ever drafted (when he is). That sounds like an exaggeration but it seriously may not be. The only positive marker he shows in any of the stuff I look at is his 3PT shooting.....everything else is at best, average and a major of that other is well below average.

He's super young, so it makes his case even harder for me but man, you are really going out on a limb when you couple all his data with even mild off court issues. I'm willing to change my mind but like Nathan, would actually like to see a more extensive scouting video on him......there's a lot of people that think he's an NBA player, so who knows.
 
I've ear marked 3 guys I am excited to see play some better competition and entirely overreact to that one game sample size..... :chuckle:

Miye Oni - Yale, vs. LSU
Dylan Windler - Belmont, vs. Maryland
Neemias Queta - UTST, vs. Washington

Windler had a down scoring game against Temple but he's still a really interesting player to me.....as just an all around hustle wing with some shooting touch. I don't know what he is at the NBA level....9th man? but I was pleasantly surprised that he didn't seem overwhelmed athletically against Temple.....and his rebounding has continued to be good, even against bigger school competition. Maryland has a lot of NBA level athletes on their team, so curious to see that as another benchmark.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top