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

2021 NBA Draft Safari

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
kriegs said:
Liddell might actually be good? Here's to hoping he stays a Buckeye for one more year
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think people are (reasonably enough) unsure about his fit in the NBA, but overall, he produced at a high level across the board for a sophomore. He scores from all over the court and generally fills out the box score with rebounds/assists/steals/blocks at a very solid rate for a first-round PF. Even in their embarrassing first round loss he put up 23/14/5, which is a really impressive stat line for a sophomore.
 
Last edited:
I'mWithDan said:
These will adjust slightly as people have more of an athletic opinion. I don't personally do that. I tend to lean on guys who compile athletic or player tracking data for an athletic assessment. It is really just meant to separate two guys who net out similarly. Right now, each has their age input but a generic athletic number.

Screen-Shot-2021-06-16-at-2-56-46-PM.png


Really, what you see his how damn strong this draft is from a profile perspective. Really, the top 13, with the exception of Kuminga, have just unusually strong draft slot value. Green is a near median player against pro competition, which is a strong indicator. Kuminga was a rather poor impact player in the G-League and the especially concerning non scoring number as well (GS/ADJ) as a compounding negative. Relative to his size and athleticism, his hustle numbers are bad.

Guys who my stuff would identify as "clean" prospects.....i.e. median or better in each calculation:

Mobley, Suggs, Sengun, Johnson, Wagner, Kispert, Mitchell, Jackson and Butler.

Cade just missed, as his turnovers are such a negative anchor on his non scoring calculation.

I left Kuminga in the top 6, tools wise....but on a final big board, I suspect I would have him more in the #10 range......behind Sengun, Johnson and Wagner.
Click to expand...

I think some of the discrepancies here are because my calculation factors in age much more heavily than yours. So it's willing to invest in the potential improvement of Kuminga, it's more bullish on Giddey, Springer, and Garuba, and it's much less bullish on Kispert.
 
My gut tells me we'll draft Scottie Barnes while moving Okoro to the 2-guard spot. Which would mean we'd have a lineup of:

PG: Colliln Sexton
SG: Isaac Okoro
SF: Scottie Barnes
PF: Larry Nance Jr.
C: Jarrett Allen
6th man: Darius Garland

On paper, that should be a 40 win team on a 82 game schedule next year, with a ceiling of 50 wins or so in the next few years. The talent isn't lacking, that's for sure.
 
JJ_PR said:
My gut tells me we'll draft Scottie Barnes while moving Okoro to the 2-guard spot. Which would mean we'd have a lineup of:

PG: Colliln Sexton
SG: Isaac Okoro
SF: Scottie Barnes
PF: Larry Nance Jr.
C: Jarrett Allen
6th man: Darius Garland

On paper, that should be a 40 win team on a 82 game schedule next year, with a ceiling of 50 wins or so in the next few years. The talent isn't lacking, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd be happy with that outcome. Sexton will have to carry a big load as a scorer, but that's exactly what he gets paid to do.
 
Garland as the 6th man doesn't work. The delusion on this board that Colin is a good playmaker is lolz. Garland isn't a good enough slasher which 6th men generally are. At least try in the future.
 

Great game analysis for Scottie Barnes. Im a big fan because of his versatility. Seems like he can play soo many positions. My go to would be Garland-Sexton-Barnes-Nance-Allen. But JB can go Garland-Sexton-Okoro-Barnes-Allen vs small teams or Garland/Sexton-Barnes(can help guard the other teams PF)-Nance-Love-Allen on bigger teams.
 
JJ_PR said:
My gut tells me we'll draft Scottie Barnes while moving Okoro to the 2-guard spot. Which would mean we'd have a lineup of:

PG: Colliln Sexton
SG: Isaac Okoro
SF: Scottie Barnes
PF: Larry Nance Jr.
C: Jarrett Allen
6th man: Darius Garland

On paper, that should be a 40 win team on a 82 game schedule next year, with a ceiling of 50 wins or so in the next few years. The talent isn't lacking, that's for sure.
Click to expand...
This would be in the running for the worst record in the league :celb (13):
 
red. said:
Click to expand...

Added him to my model and he comes out about like you'd expect: projected impact about +2 on offense, -3 on defense, -1 overall with very low uncertainty. So he's probably a guy, but seems like a particularly bad fit on the Cavs?
 
Nathan S said:
I think some of the discrepancies here are because my calculation factors in age much more heavily than yours. So it's willing to invest in the potential improvement of Kuminga, it's more bullish on Giddey, Springer, and Garuba, and it's much less bullish on Kispert.
Click to expand...

Kispert is a bad example for sure :chuckle: but the reason I opted for a smaller age adjustment calculation is I believe it can be off-set by two things:

1. Athletic talent or physical tools
2. Production

I think there are too many instances where a large age penalty would have really lead teams to make some bad draft decisions.

Steph, Lillard, Draymond, Butler, Klay.

Just off the top of my head.....4 of those guys are what? 4 of the best 20 players in the NBA?

There are 20 year old darlings like Brandon Knight who always get drafted ahead of guys like Kemba too. When guys like Walker go on to be top 5 players in their class but are less sexy as 21.5/22 year old rookies.

I think age is similar to athleticism......where it matters in situations where prospects are close. But I have yet to see evidence that age closes even moderate gaps between prospects. Maybe that data is out there though.

In my stuff.......guys who are young that pan out as All-Star types, had good profiles as well.

Screen-Shot-2021-06-17-at-11-29-16-AM.png


Russ is the one true anomaly. But if you look through the pantheon of young prospects......these are not really developmental guys in any way. They all profiled well, in addition to being young. There are just so few examples of guys who were really raw, didn't produce and and developed. Every year, those are the guys in the 5-8 range that teams continually whiff on. That is why I largely think adjusting for age in any sort of meaningful way skews the results too much on older guys. Impact just generally seems to be a good future indicator.....wether a guy is 20 or 22.

I guess I would believe more in a more heavily weighted age calculation if you didn't see results like the above. Where all of these really young guys are already bubbling up without a large boost from age adjustment.
 
I'mWithDan said:
Kispert is a bad example for sure :chuckle: but the reason I opted for a smaller age adjustment calculation is I believe it can be off-set by two things:

1. Athletic talent or physical tools
2. Production

I think there are too many instances where a large age penalty would have really lead teams to make some bad draft decisions.

Steph, Lillard, Draymond, Butler, Klay.

Just off the top of my head.....4 of those guys are what? 4 of the best 20 players in the NBA?

There are 20 year old darlings like Brandon Knight who always get drafted ahead of guys like Kemba too. When guys like Walker go on to be top 5 players in their class but are less sexy as 21.5/22 year old rookies.

I think age is similar to athleticism......where it matters in situations where prospects are close. But I have yet to see evidence that age closes even moderate gaps between prospects. Maybe that data is out there though.

In my stuff.......guys who are young that pan out as All-Star types, had good profiles as well.

Screen-Shot-2021-06-17-at-11-29-16-AM.png


Russ is the one true anomaly. But if you look through the pantheon of young prospects......these are not really developmental guys in any way. They all profiled well, in addition to being young. There are just so few examples of guys who were really raw, didn't produce and and developed. Every year, those are the guys in the 5-8 range that teams continually whiff on. That is why I largely think adjusting for age in any sort of meaningful way skews the results too much on older guys. Impact just generally seems to be a good future indicator.....wether a guy is 20 or 22.

I guess I would believe more in a more heavily weighted age calculation if you didn't see results like the above. Where all of these really young guys are already bubbling up without a large boost from age adjustment.
Click to expand...

I guess the overarching thing is that, not to sound arrogant, but my age adjustment is purely based on outcomes of past prospects. So the data is out there, and I used it when I made my model.

It's not impossible to have a high rating on my model as an older prospect if your numbers are good enough...Curry came out at +3.5 (better than any NCAA prospect in this draft) despite being a relatively old prospect. But you have to be elite, and elite in multiple key areas (3's, free throws, assists, steals for Curry).

It's also pretty discerning when it comes to really young prospects; for example Talen Horton-Tucker a couple years ago and Josh Primo in this draft were both very young freshmen who produced at similar levels, but it liked Horton-Tucker a lot (+2.3 projected impact) and dislikes Primo (-1.8 projected impact). So just being young and having a pulse isn't a free ticket to a high rating either.

EDIT: I guess I'd be more concerned about your model overrating too many older prospects. Like, where does Garza rank? Wright? Hurt? Abmas? Queta? Reaves? Duarte?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top