2020 NBA Draft

[daddywags]

I think it's getting a bit muddied between a playmaker and a point guard in all honesty, when I list players I list them at the positions they can defend because I feel its the easiest way to make a viable line up on court and it comes with the assumption there is generally a lead player on offense at pg/sg/sf. For example I guess technically LeBron is the lakers pg in their starting lineup but the guards are Green/KCP and Kawhi is technically the pg for the Clippers as all Beverly really does is defend but I would list KCP/Beverly as the pg's for those teams.

I think the cavs view Porter as the playmaker on the team so to draft a point guard when Sexton defends that position (or the weaker guard if the point guard is a star) with Porter on the court is not something they're looking to do and doesn't fit, however a player like Avdija who also has playmaking skills but the size to defend 3's is ideal. From what I am reading is theyre very much 'all in' on Porter which is fairly in line with my views on the team make up/direction/needs

I get that but IMO it's really scary to put that much projection onto the 30th pick in last year's draft. His assists/turnovers per 36 numbers were about the same as Sexton's first two seasons. Porter will need to take a significant jump to become our main playmaker on a serious playoff contender. Not saying he can't do it - he showed flashes last year (good and bad) - but it's a gamble.

 

[inliner311]

Thanks. Basically asked because of the comparison of Murray’s and Sexton’s respective 2nd seasons. I still think Colin is smart enough, talented enough, and hard working enough to become a legit PG for us as he continues his NBA journey. Not saying I think it’s the most probable outcome but I also don’t think it’s far fetched, regardless of what his year 1 and 2 numbers suggest.

I also believe Sexton can be a legit PG but I don't think the Cavs are willing to go through the pain that it will take to get him there. I personally think it would be worth it because his scoring threat would give him the gravity to open up shots for other players.

I think after last season they believed he would be a sixth man and they could pair him with a backup PG to get the best out of him, similar to Clarkson. I think in Sexton's second season he proved he is clearly a starter in this league. That possibly throw a wrench into the plans for how they were going to build this team.

I believe that they now see Sexton and KPJ as starters for the future. The question becomes who pairs well with them in this draft and what will it take to get that guy.

 

[inliner311]

I get that but IMO it's really scary to put that much projection onto the 30th pick in last year's draft. His assists/turnovers per 36 numbers were about the same as Sexton's first two seasons. Porter will need to take a significant jump to become our main playmaker on a serious playoff contender. Not saying he can't do it - he showed flashes last year (good and bad) - but it's a gamble.

I personally see it more likely that KPJ can play SF long term on this team over him being the main playmaker. Hopefully we can draft someone at SF who is a good playmaker so that KPJ doesn't need to play out of position or have to take that huge jump as a playmaker.

 

[Nathan S]

I'm going to start writing up scouting reports using the following positionless template. I like using a positionless template because I think it's increasingly clear that skills like passing and shooting traditionally associated with perimeter positions are just as valuable for bigs, and vice versa. My ratings are based on box score stats (e.g. 3-point volume) as determined by a regression analysis of past prospects as well as subjective measures (e.g. shooting form) where I'll largely defer to the analysis of of esteemed internet scouts. I'll also note that my ratings will be age adjusted. This means that, for instance, if an 18-year-old prospect and a 22-year-old are equally good scorers right now, the 18-year-old will have a substantially higher rating in anticipation of likely improvement.

A rating of 5 means a prospect is totally average in an area. I'll re-emphasize that these ratings are positionless; for instance a point guard with a rating of 5 for interior defense is outstanding for his position, while a center with a rating of 5 for interior defense is horrible for his position (and vice versa, so a point guard with a rating of 5 for team offense is a horrible facilitator for his position, while a center with a rating of 5 for team offense is great).

The template:

Spoiler

Offense:

-Perimeter Scoring

• Box score - 3-point volume, free throw percentage
  • Players who make the most threes are usually the best pure shooters, though their percentages may lag behind their lower-volume peers due to the higher degree of difficulty that typically comes with high-volume shooting.
• Qualitative - 3-point accuracy adjusted for shot difficulty, shot diversity, shooting form

-Interior Scoring

• Box score - Free throw volume, offensive rebound rate
  • Players who dominate the paint typically perform well in these areas. A high free throw rate indicates suggests that the player attracts a lot of defensive attention inside the arc, while a high offensive rebound rate suggests athletic dominance, which elite prospects should be able to show at the college level. 2-point volume+accuracy a relatively poor indicator, probably because average 2-point shot difficulty varies way too much from one player to another.
• Qualitative - 2-point accuracy adjusted for shot difficulty, shot diversity, above-the-rim finishing ability, ballhandling ability and footwork

-Team offense

• Box score - Assist rate, Assist:TO ratio, steal rate
• Qualitative - Passing accuracy adjusted for pass difficulty, pass diversity and creativity, top-level orchestration, off-ball IQ, leadership and mental makeup, creating transition opportunities and decision making on the break
  • Top-level orchestration refers to a player's ability to "run the offense" effectively by recognizing defensive schemes, strengths, and weaknesses, and initiating plays accordingly. Sparking fast break opportunities (with a steal or otherwise) isn't always thought of as an offensive skill, but I'm treating it as such here.

Defense:

-Perimeter defense

• Box score- Steal rate, foul rate
  • Counterintuitively, college foul rate is positively correlated with defensive success at the NBA level. The willingness to play with high intensity/physicality to the point of occasionally committing fouls is generally a positive sign, at least to a point.
• Qualitative - Lateral agility + length to contain, Hands to make ballhandlers uncomfortable and disrupt dribble drives

-Interior defense

• Box score - Offensive rebound rate, block rate, foul rate, height
  • Offensive rather than defensive rebound rate is a good indicator for NBA defensive success presumably because it's a good proxy for contested rebound rate (defensive rebounds are largely uncontested).
• Qualitative - Strength and toughness holding ground in the post and on box outs, "nose for the ball" to get rebounds/strips in traffic, length and timing to block/alter shots around the rim,

-Team defense

• Box score - Assist:TO ratio, steal rate, block rate (edited to add block rate)
  • Preventing opponent transition opportunities by taking care of the ball isn't always thought of as a defensive skill, but I'm treating it as such here. Assists may also be an indicator for general basketball IQ which is applicable on defense as well as on offense.
• Qualitative - Anticipating passes/cuts/drives in order to disrupt plays or cause a turnover, understanding schemes and switching quickly and appropriately, off-ball IQ to track man while maintaining awareness of ballhandler, leadership and mental makeup

Here are the first couple:

LaMelo Ball

Spoiler

Perimeter offense: 6/10

Clearly there are some mixed signals here. Ball was an incredibly high volume 3-point shooter, and many of his shots had a high degree of difficulty. On the other hand, his form is inconsistent (to put it nicely), and he converted at an abysmal 25%. Given his respectable free throw percentage, hovering just above 70%, and his youth, I tend to think he'll develop into a viable 3-point threat at the NBA level, though probably not a high-volume one. A wide range of outcomes is possible here.

Interior offense: 6/10

Ball isn't unusually explosive or strong, but he fared reasonably well here considering the level of competition and the extremely high level of defensive attention he attracted. He's a very good ballhandler, his length helps him finish over smaller guards, and he's good at using the threat of his passing to keep bigs off balance. Also a surprisingly good offensive rebounder.

Team offense: 10/10

Not much to say here that hasn't already been said. One of the best passers at age 18 the game has ever seen, sky-high potential.

Perimeter defense: 6/10

Inconsistent, but tantalizing flashes on the perimeter. Excellent length and anticipation resulted in a high steal rate, and surprisingly quick feet laterally when motivated. Unfortunately, a lot of these positives were offset by a lack of effort and poor fundamentals. Again a wide range of possible outcomes here, depending a lot on how coachable he is.

Interior defense: 5/10

Skinny frame and inconsistent effort hurt him, but he sure uses his length well. Among the league leaders in defensive rebounds thanks to good hands and uncanny anticipation. Potential to hold his own against bigs depends a lot on how his body develops.

Team defense: 6/10

Really tough to assess here as well. IQ and length give him the potential to fit nicely in a modern, switch-happy defense, but this will depend on his willingness to stay engaged, especially when he's far from the action. Lack of discipline is real, but not unusual compared to typical 18-year-old prospects. This weakness stood out more playing among seasoned pros than it would have in the college game, in my opinion.

Overall: 39/60

Tyrese Haliburton

Spoiler

Perimeter offense: 7/10

Deadly accurate off the catch with deep range, but still learning to shoot off the dribble and over contests. He's often talked about as a high floor/low ceiling prospect, and in this area at least that appears to be completely true.

Interior offense: 2/10

Nice touch with some ability to finish above the rim, but really appears to lack confidence in this part of his game, and shies away from contact. May always be limited here due to his skinny frame.

Team offense: 9/10

A good and willing passer, and an exceptional leader on the court. Vocal, and radiates his infectious love for the game. Not quite a savant, but can make all the passes you'd expect to see from an NBA point guard, and even a few more thanks to his above-average height and length.

Perimeter defense: 8/10

Length, quickness, and high energy level make him great in a lot of 1-on-1 situations. Needs to add some muscle and keep working on his fundamentals, as savvy opponents will use his jumpy/aggressive nature against him, but overall really high potential in this area.

Interior defense: 4/10

Skinny frame really hurts him, but he's an earnest competitor even when outmatched, and gets more than a few blocks thanks to his length and timing.

Team defense: 8/10

As on offense, he's a very vocal and active teammate on the defensive end. Fantastic anticipation and instincts. Lack of strength again dampens his potential a bit, but does his best to make up for it with effort, and not afraid to mix it up with bigger, stronger players.

Overall: 38/60

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm going to start writing up scouting reports using the following positionless template. I like using a positionless template because I think it's increasingly clear that skills like passing and shooting traditionally associated with perimeter positions are just as valuable for bigs, and vice versa. My ratings are based on box score stats (e.g. 3-point volume) as determined by a regression analysis of past prospects as well as subjective measures (e.g. shooting form) where I'll largely defer to the analysis of of esteemed internet scouts. I'll also note that my ratings will be age adjusted. This means that, for instance, if an 18-year-old prospect and a 22-year-old are equally good scorers right now, the 18-year-old will have a substantially higher rating in anticipation of likely improvement.

A rating of 5 means a prospect is totally average in an area. I'll re-emphasize that these ratings are positionless; for instance a point guard with a rating of 5 for interior defense is outstanding for his position, while a center with a rating of 5 for interior defense is horrible for his position (and vice versa, so a point guard with a rating of 5 for team offense is a horrible facilitator for his position, while a center with a rating of 5 for team offense is great).

The template:

Spoiler

Offense:

-Perimeter Scoring

• Box score - 3-point volume, free throw percentage
  • Players who make the most threes are usually the best pure shooters, though their percentages may lag behind their lower-volume peers due to the higher degree of difficulty that typically comes with high-volume shooting.
• Qualitative - 3-point accuracy adjusted for shot difficulty, shot diversity, shooting form

-Interior Scoring

• Box score - Free throw volume, offensive rebound rate
  • Players who dominate the paint typically perform well in these areas. A high free throw rate indicates suggests that the player attracts a lot of defensive attention inside the arc, while a high offensive rebound rate suggests athletic dominance, which elite prospects should be able to show at the college level. 2-point volume+accuracy a relatively poor indicator, probably because average 2-point shot difficulty varies way too much from one player to another.
• Qualitative - 2-point accuracy adjusted for shot difficulty, shot diversity, above-the-rim finishing ability, ballhandling ability and footwork

-Team offense

• Box score - Assist rate, Assist:TO ratio, steal rate
• Qualitative - Passing accuracy adjusted for pass difficulty, pass diversity and creativity, top-level orchestration, off-ball IQ, leadership and mental makeup, creating transition opportunities and decision making on the break
  • Top-level orchestration refers to a player's ability to "run the offense" effectively by recognizing defensive schemes, strengths, and weaknesses, and initiating plays accordingly. Sparking fast break opportunities (with a steal or otherwise) isn't always thought of as an offensive skill, but I'm treating it as such here.

Defense:

-Perimeter defense

• Box score- Steal rate, foul rate
  • Counterintuitively, college foul rate is positively correlated with defensive success at the NBA level. The willingness to play with high intensity/physicality to the point of occasionally committing fouls is generally a positive sign, at least to a point.
• Qualitative - Lateral agility + length to contain, Hands to make ballhandlers uncomfortable and disrupt dribble drives

-Interior defense

• Box score - Offensive rebound rate, block rate, foul rate, height
  • Offensive rather than defensive rebound rate is a good indicator for NBA defensive success presumably because it's a good proxy for contested rebound rate (defensive rebounds are largely uncontested).
• Qualitative - Strength and toughness holding ground in the post and on box outs, "nose for the ball" to get rebounds/strips in traffic, length and timing to block/alter shots around the rim,

-Team defense

• Box score - Assist:TO ratio, steal rate, block rate (edited to add block rate)
  • Preventing opponent transition opportunities by taking care of the ball isn't always thought of as a defensive skill, but I'm treating it as such here. Assists may also be an indicator for general basketball IQ which is applicable on defense as well as on offense.
• Qualitative - Anticipating passes/cuts/drives in order to disrupt plays or cause a turnover, understanding schemes and switching quickly and appropriately, off-ball IQ to track man while maintaining awareness of ballhandler, leadership and mental makeup

Here are the first couple:

LaMelo Ball

Spoiler

Perimeter offense: 6/10

Clearly there are some mixed signals here. Ball was an incredibly high volume 3-point shooter, and many of his shots had a high degree of difficulty. On the other hand, his form is inconsistent (to put it nicely), and he converted at an abysmal 25%. Given his respectable free throw percentage, hovering just above 70%, and his youth, I tend to think he'll develop into a viable 3-point threat at the NBA level, though probably not a high-volume one. A wide range of outcomes is possible here.

Interior offense: 6/10

Ball isn't unusually explosive or strong, but he fared reasonably well here considering the level of competition and the extremely high level of defensive attention he attracted. He's a very good ballhandler, his length helps him finish over smaller guards, and he's good at using the threat of his passing to keep bigs off balance. Also a surprisingly good offensive rebounder.

Team offense: 10/10

Not much to say here that hasn't already been said. One of the best passers at age 18 the game has ever seen, sky-high potential.

Perimeter defense: 6/10

Inconsistent, but tantalizing flashes on the perimeter. Excellent length and anticipation resulted in a high steal rate, and surprisingly quick feet laterally when motivated. Unfortunately, a lot of these positives were offset by a lack of effort and poor fundamentals. Again a wide range of possible outcomes here, depending a lot on how coachable he is.

Interior defense: 5/10

Skinny frame and inconsistent effort hurt him, but he sure uses his length well. Among the league leaders in defensive rebounds thanks to good hands and uncanny anticipation. Potential to hold his own against bigs depends a lot on how his body develops.

Team defense: 6/10

Really tough to assess here as well. IQ and length give him the potential to fit nicely in a modern, switch-happy defense, but this will depend on his willingness to stay engaged, especially when he's far from the action. Lack of discipline is real, but not unusual compared to typical 18-year-old prospects. This weakness stood out more playing among seasoned pros than it would have in the college game, in my opinion.

Overall: 39/60

Tyrese Haliburton

Spoiler

Perimeter offense: 7/10

Deadly accurate off the catch with deep range, but still learning to shoot off the dribble and over contests. He's often talked about as a high floor/low ceiling prospect, and in this area at least that appears to be completely true.

Interior offense: 2/10

Nice touch with some ability to finish above the rim, but really appears to lack confidence in this part of his game, and shies away from contact. May always be limited here due to his skinny frame.

Team offense: 9/10

A good and willing passer, and an exceptional leader on the court. Vocal, and radiates his infectious love for the game. Not quite a savant, but can make all the passes you'd expect to see from an NBA point guard, and even a few more thanks to his above-average height and length.

Perimeter defense: 8/10

Length, quickness, and high energy level make him great in a lot of 1-on-1 situations. Needs to add some muscle and keep working on his fundamentals, as savvy opponents will use his jumpy/aggressive nature against him, but overall really high potential in this area.

Interior defense: 4/10

Skinny frame really hurts him, but he's an earnest competitor even when outmatched, and gets more than a few blocks thanks to his length and timing.

Team defense: 8/10

As on offense, he's a very vocal and active teammate on the defensive end. Fantastic anticipation and instincts. Lack of strength again dampens his potential a bit, but does his best to make up for it with effort, and not afraid to mix it up with bigger, stronger players.

Overall: 38/60

Nice work, but do you really think making Halliburton only a single point better than Lamelo in terms of perimeter shooting is fair? One guy has poor form and shoots 25% is "above average", and the other guy shoots over 40%?

 

[Nathan S]

Nice work, but do you really think making Halliburton only a single point better than Lamelo in terms of perimeter shooting is fair? One guy has poor form and shoots 25% is "above average", and the other guy shoots over 40%?

Largely an age thing, and also a degree of difficulty thing. At age 18, shoorting form is still pretty malleable for most players...there's a real chance Ball could make significant changes to his mechanics and be a much more consistent shooter. Also, a lot of Ball's attempts were tough off-the-dribble looks, some of which was self-inflicted bad shot selection, but some of which was simply because his team lacked other scorers, so he was always stuck with the ball at the end of possessions and had to heave up a very difficult 3. If you compared Ball and Haliburton on similar difficulty shot attempts, I would expect that the difference in shooting percentage is more like 7-8% rather than 15%.

Also, emphasis on "A wide range of outcomes is possible here."

 

[Muffinalt]

I'm going to start writing up scouting reports using the following positionless template. I like using a positionless template because I think it's increasingly clear that skills like passing and shooting traditionally associated with perimeter positions are just as valuable for bigs, and vice versa. My ratings are based on box score stats (e.g. 3-point volume) as determined by a regression analysis of past prospects as well as subjective measures (e.g. shooting form) where I'll largely defer to the analysis of of esteemed internet scouts. I'll also note that my ratings will be age adjusted. This means that, for instance, if an 18-year-old prospect and a 22-year-old are equally good scorers right now, the 18-year-old will have a substantially higher rating in anticipation of likely improvement.

A rating of 5 means a prospect is totally average in an area. I'll re-emphasize that these ratings are positionless; for instance a point guard with a rating of 5 for interior defense is outstanding for his position, while a center with a rating of 5 for interior defense is horrible for his position (and vice versa, so a point guard with a rating of 5 for team offense is a horrible facilitator for his position, while a center with a rating of 5 for team offense is great).

The template:

Spoiler

Offense:

-Perimeter Scoring

• Box score - 3-point volume, free throw percentage
  • Players who make the most threes are usually the best pure shooters, though their percentages may lag behind their lower-volume peers due to the higher degree of difficulty that typically comes with high-volume shooting.
• Qualitative - 3-point accuracy adjusted for shot difficulty, shot diversity, shooting form

-Interior Scoring

• Box score - Free throw volume, offensive rebound rate
  • Players who dominate the paint typically perform well in these areas. A high free throw rate indicates suggests that the player attracts a lot of defensive attention inside the arc, while a high offensive rebound rate suggests athletic dominance, which elite prospects should be able to show at the college level. 2-point volume+accuracy a relatively poor indicator, probably because average 2-point shot difficulty varies way too much from one player to another.
• Qualitative - 2-point accuracy adjusted for shot difficulty, shot diversity, above-the-rim finishing ability, ballhandling ability and footwork

-Team offense

• Box score - Assist rate, Assist:TO ratio, steal rate
• Qualitative - Passing accuracy adjusted for pass difficulty, pass diversity and creativity, top-level orchestration, off-ball IQ, leadership and mental makeup, creating transition opportunities and decision making on the break
  • Top-level orchestration refers to a player's ability to "run the offense" effectively by recognizing defensive schemes, strengths, and weaknesses, and initiating plays accordingly. Sparking fast break opportunities (with a steal or otherwise) isn't always thought of as an offensive skill, but I'm treating it as such here.

Defense:

-Perimeter defense

• Box score- Steal rate, foul rate
  • Counterintuitively, college foul rate is positively correlated with defensive success at the NBA level. The willingness to play with high intensity/physicality to the point of occasionally committing fouls is generally a positive sign, at least to a point.
• Qualitative - Lateral agility + length to contain, Hands to make ballhandlers uncomfortable and disrupt dribble drives

-Interior defense

• Box score - Offensive rebound rate, block rate, foul rate, height
  • Offensive rather than defensive rebound rate is a good indicator for NBA defensive success presumably because it's a good proxy for contested rebound rate (defensive rebounds are largely uncontested).
• Qualitative - Strength and toughness holding ground in the post and on box outs, "nose for the ball" to get rebounds/strips in traffic, length and timing to block/alter shots around the rim,

-Team defense

• Box score - Assist:TO ratio, steal rate, block rate (edited to add block rate)
  • Preventing opponent transition opportunities by taking care of the ball isn't always thought of as a defensive skill, but I'm treating it as such here. Assists may also be an indicator for general basketball IQ which is applicable on defense as well as on offense.
• Qualitative - Anticipating passes/cuts/drives in order to disrupt plays or cause a turnover, understanding schemes and switching quickly and appropriately, off-ball IQ to track man while maintaining awareness of ballhandler, leadership and mental makeup

Here are the first couple:

LaMelo Ball

Spoiler

Perimeter offense: 6/10

Clearly there are some mixed signals here. Ball was an incredibly high volume 3-point shooter, and many of his shots had a high degree of difficulty. On the other hand, his form is inconsistent (to put it nicely), and he converted at an abysmal 25%. Given his respectable free throw percentage, hovering just above 70%, and his youth, I tend to think he'll develop into a viable 3-point threat at the NBA level, though probably not a high-volume one. A wide range of outcomes is possible here.

Interior offense: 6/10

Ball isn't unusually explosive or strong, but he fared reasonably well here considering the level of competition and the extremely high level of defensive attention he attracted. He's a very good ballhandler, his length helps him finish over smaller guards, and he's good at using the threat of his passing to keep bigs off balance. Also a surprisingly good offensive rebounder.

Team offense: 10/10

Not much to say here that hasn't already been said. One of the best passers at age 18 the game has ever seen, sky-high potential.

Perimeter defense: 6/10

Inconsistent, but tantalizing flashes on the perimeter. Excellent length and anticipation resulted in a high steal rate, and surprisingly quick feet laterally when motivated. Unfortunately, a lot of these positives were offset by a lack of effort and poor fundamentals. Again a wide range of possible outcomes here, depending a lot on how coachable he is.

Interior defense: 5/10

Skinny frame and inconsistent effort hurt him, but he sure uses his length well. Among the league leaders in defensive rebounds thanks to good hands and uncanny anticipation. Potential to hold his own against bigs depends a lot on how his body develops.

Team defense: 6/10

Really tough to assess here as well. IQ and length give him the potential to fit nicely in a modern, switch-happy defense, but this will depend on his willingness to stay engaged, especially when he's far from the action. Lack of discipline is real, but not unusual compared to typical 18-year-old prospects. This weakness stood out more playing among seasoned pros than it would have in the college game, in my opinion.

Overall: 39/60

Tyrese Haliburton

Spoiler

Perimeter offense: 7/10

Deadly accurate off the catch with deep range, but still learning to shoot off the dribble and over contests. He's often talked about as a high floor/low ceiling prospect, and in this area at least that appears to be completely true.

Interior offense: 2/10

Nice touch with some ability to finish above the rim, but really appears to lack confidence in this part of his game, and shies away from contact. May always be limited here due to his skinny frame.

Team offense: 9/10

A good and willing passer, and an exceptional leader on the court. Vocal, and radiates his infectious love for the game. Not quite a savant, but can make all the passes you'd expect to see from an NBA point guard, and even a few more thanks to his above-average height and length.

Perimeter defense: 8/10

Length, quickness, and high energy level make him great in a lot of 1-on-1 situations. Needs to add some muscle and keep working on his fundamentals, as savvy opponents will use his jumpy/aggressive nature against him, but overall really high potential in this area.

Interior defense: 4/10

Skinny frame really hurts him, but he's an earnest competitor even when outmatched, and gets more than a few blocks thanks to his length and timing.

Team defense: 8/10

As on offense, he's a very vocal and active teammate on the defensive end. Fantastic anticipation and instincts. Lack of strength again dampens his potential a bit, but does his best to make up for it with effort, and not afraid to mix it up with bigger, stronger players.

Overall: 38/60

I'll be really interested in your report about Saddiq Bey. Past few days I've watched a lot of stuff on him and ive become a very big fan.

The thing that keeps coming up with and some of the other wing defenders tok this year, is that they prefer to be reliable defenders who don't gamble but prefer rock solid safe positioning. As the result their blocks and steals are low. Have you come across this before? I know last year you were using this criteria already right?

I think Bey is really interesting because he's a really good defender via eye test, but could be rated pretty low based on numbers. Or and that's why Bey is such an interesting case to follow for me personally, it could be that the numbers are actually right because he lacks that quick burst and athleticism. Maybe he does well in college but will struggle with Nba burst?

Anyway I write so much coz my last few days have been all about Saddiq Bey and the other wings this year (if I remember Okoro is another who when interviewed said he prefers to be safer on defense). Could be some interesting outcomes and difference between qualitative and quantitave analysis in your write-ups.

What's your opinion on Bey btw? Do you think his lack of athleticism will hinder his otherwise super good total package?

 

[Nathan S]

I'll be really interested in your report about Saddiq Bey. Past few days I've watched a lot of stuff on him and ive become a very big fan.

The thing that keeps coming up with and some of the other wing defenders tok this year, is that they prefer to be reliable defenders who don't gamble but prefer rock solid safe positioning. As the result their blocks and steals are low. Have you come across this before? I know last year you were using this criteria already right?

I think Bey is really interesting because he's a really good defender via eye test, but could be rated pretty low based on numbers. Or and that's why Bey is such an interesting case to follow for me personally, it could be that the numbers are actually right because he lacks that quick burst and athleticism. Maybe he does well in college but will struggle with Nba burst?

Anyway I write so much coz my last few days have been all about Saddiq Bey and the other wings this year (if I remember Okoro is another who when interviewed said he prefers to be safer on defense). Could be some interesting outcomes and difference between qualitative and quantitave analysis in your write-ups.

What's your opinion on Bey btw? Do you think his lack of athleticism will hinder his otherwise super good total package?

My draft rater is pretty neutral on him defensively, giving him a -0.3 defensive rating. For context, that's roughly halfway in between Okoro/Vassell and Williams/Bane among wings. Where he'll probably get knocked the most in my report, when I get to him, will be interior offense. I gave Haliburton a 2/10, and he'll probably get a similar rating there as his lack of strength/athleticism limits his versatility offensively. I see him as a better, more well-rounded version of Nesmith, but I'm not as high on him as the consensus, which seems to be mid first-late lottery right now.

 

[Pioneer10]

A rating of 5 means a prospect is totally average in an area. I'll re-emphasize that these ratings are positionless; for instance a point guard with a rating of 5 for interior defense is outstanding for his position, while a center with a rating of 5 for interior defense is horrible for his position (and vice versa, so a point guard with a rating of 5 for team offense is a horrible facilitator for his position, while a center with a rating of 5 for team offense is great).

How would have the age factor impacted guys like Lillard and McCollum? Curious to see what Portland has been able to find these older draft prospects from smaller conferences. Finding guys who weren't great high school prospects is a nice value add from a draft perpesctive

 

[Nathan S]

How would have the age factor impacted guys like Lillard and McCollum? Curious to see what Portland has been able to find these older draft prospects from smaller conferences. Finding guys who weren't great high school prospects is a nice value add from a draft perpesctive

The bar gets higher the older you get, but it's still possible to clear it. Lillard, for instance, racked up 42.2 points per 100 on 63.5% true shooting. McCollum averaged a staggering 46.3 points per 100 on 62.8% true shooting. That's substantially better than even the absolute best freshman scorers, e.g. Young who averaged 40.4 points per 100 on 58.5% true shooting. So those guys certainly projected as an elite scorers despite being older prospects.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Largely an age thing, and also a degree of difficulty thing. At age 18, shoorting form is still pretty malleable for most players...there's a real chance Ball could make significant changes to his mechanics and be a much more consistent shooter. Also, a lot of Ball's attempts were tough off-the-dribble looks, some of which was self-inflicted bad shot selection, but some of which was simply because his team lacked other scorers, so he was always stuck with the ball at the end of possessions and had to heave up a very difficult 3. If you compared Ball and Haliburton on similar difficulty shot attempts, I would expect that the difference in shooting percentage is more like 7-8% rather than 15%.

Also, emphasis on "A wide range of outcomes is possible here."

Regarding age, Halliburton was shooting over 40% when he was at the same age as Lamelo shot 25%, so that doesn't seem to be much of a justification.
A skeptic might suspect that you just fudged the shooting numbers to justify your ranking of LaMelo as a "Tier 1" prospect, and Halliburton as Tier 2.....

It's time for another big board. I've finally succumbed to the Okongwu fever

Tier 1
1. LaMelo Ball

Tier 2
2. Tyrese Haliburton
3. Onyeka Okongwu....

If 5 is "average" in your new scoring comparisons, the clearly below average perimeter shooting of LaMelo would make him a 4 at best, but that would have meant he totaled only 37 points to Halliburton's 38. So, you added up the numbers, thought "fuck, II've got LaMelo ranked higher overall, so I gotta squeeze out two more points for him from somewhere", and fudged it by rating Lamelo as "above average" perimeter shooting, despite his busted shot and 25% average.

I'll be interested in seeing how the other players you rate for perimeter shooting fit in between Halliburton's 42%+ 3Pt. % getting a 6, an LaMelo's 25% earning a 5.....



Not trying to be a dick -- I just don't think even you believe that LaMelo should be scored as an "above average" perimeter shooter. Of course it is possible that he becomes one someday, but if it is possible for him, it's possible for anyone, and that makes the numbers pretty meaningless.

Also, I don't want Ball, so I'm willing to be a bit of sceptic/dick just to convince myself the Cavs won't take him.

 

[Nathan S]

Regarding age, Halliburton was shooting over 40% when he was at the same age as Lamelo shot 25%, so that doesn't seem to be much of a justification.
A skeptic might suspect that you just fudged the shooting numbers to justify your ranking ofLaMelo as a "Tier 1" prospect, and Halliburton as Tier 2.....



If 5 is "average" in your new scoring comparisons, the clearly below average perimeter shooting of LaMelo would make him a 4 at best, but that would have meant he totaled only 37 points to Halliburton's 38. So, you added up the numbers, thought "fuck, II've got LaMelo ranked higher overall, so I gotta squeeze out two more points for him from somewhere", and fudged it by rating Lamelo as "above average" perimeter shooting, despite his busted shot and 25% average.

I'll be interested in seeing how the other players you rate for perimeter shooting fit in between Halliburton's 42%+ 3Pt. % getting a 6, an LaMelo's 25% earning a 5.....

Fair to be suspicious, but I assure you that this is something I considered before I made my board

Statistically, 3-point volume is a far better indicator for shooting skill than 3-point accuracy. This is pretty solid at the NBA level too; this year for instance Harden led the league in 3-point volume, while George Hill led the league in 3-point accuracy. Obviously Harden is a much, much more impactful shooter than Hill.

If I trusted the above blindly, Ball would rate even better, as his 3.0 made 3's per 100 is fantastic for such a young player (even better than Haliburton's freshman 3-point rate, for instance). Of course, he's an extreme outlier in that he made 3's at a high rate but was also very inaccurate. There are few comparison points for him. His volume at his age points to an 8 or 9 out of 10, while his accuracy points to a 3 or a 4 (with 0-2 reserved for guys who haven't even begun attempting 3's). I split the difference and came up with 6, but, again, I'm not at all confident in my assessment of him in that area, and I think a very wide range of outcomes is possible.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Fair to be suspicious, but I assure you that this is something I considered before I made my board

Statistically, 3-point volume is a far better indicator for shooting skill than 3-point accuracy. This is pretty solid at the NBA level too; this year for instance Harden led the league in 3-point volume, while George Hill led the league in 3-point accuracy. Obviously Harden is a much, much more impactful shooter than Hill.

If I trusted the above blindly, Ball would rate even better, as his 3.0 made 3's per 100 is fantastic for such a young player (even better than Haliburton's freshman 3-point rate, for instance). Of course, he's an extreme outlier in that he made 3's at a high rate but was also very inaccurate. There are few comparison points for him. His volume at his age points to an 8 or 9 out of 10, while his accuracy points to a 3 or a 4 (with 0-2 reserved for guys who haven't even begun attempting 3's). I split the difference and came up with 6, but, again, I'm not at all confident in my assessment of him in that area, and I think a very wide range of outcomes is possible.

i think there is a correlation/causation aspect to the usual link between volume/success that simply doesn't apply in the situation (league/team/big fish/small pond applicable to Lamelo's stint Down Under.

In other words, there is no way in hell anyajorcollege coach in the U.S. would have let him put up that volume of 3PA given his inaccuracy.

 

[Nathan S]

i think there is a correlation/causation aspect to the usual link between volume/success that simply doesn't apply in the situation (league/team/big fish/small pond applicable to Lamelo's stint Down Under.

In other words, there is no way in hell anyajorcollege coach in the U.S. would have let him put up that volume of 3PA given his inaccuracy.

Well, you only need to look as far as Anthony Edwards to see you're wrong...

No, I get your point. It's tough. In some ways, I do think he's a more advanced shooter than the average 18-year-old prospect (remembering that we're averaging across prospects at all positions). Most apparent is that he's very fluid and comfortable going from a live dribble into his shot, something few 18-year-olds are used to doing. But, does he have the basic skills that other young guys have? Like, if left open with his feet set, could he simply knock down 40%+ of those high-quality looks? I have no idea. I think in a normal system he probably would have taken about half as many 3's as he did in Australia, but by eliminating most of the high difficulty attempts his 3-point percentage would be up in the mid 30's.

I know workout videos can be misleading, but...does this really look like a guy who can't shoot? When he has space and time it looks reasonably smooth and natural to me.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I know workout videos can be misleading, but...does this really look like a guy who can't shoot? When he has space and time it looks reasonably smooth and natural to me.

That is one weird-ass shooting form. It almost looks like a two-handed set shot with a very low release.