He's gone through a bit of a shooting slump lately but still, players who are 79-80% FT shooters historically have a lot of shooting potential, even if their shot isn't textbook. He clearly has repeatable mechanics or he wouldn't be that type of FT shooter.....and there has been a nice progression of improvement during his time at DePaul.
I've been driving the Paul Reed bandwagon but I think I'm most curious about his athletic testing and measurements...maybe more so than any other player. Guys who are just naturally smooth and effortless can tend to look like more average athletes when they are not. I don't think he's an average athlete but I more just want to see things like lane agility, no step vert, etc. just to have a frame of reference.
My stuff says they're
kind of similar profiles but Clarke was the more efficient scorer.....but certainly they were both grossly undervalued at this point. Through 17 games, the most surprising stat is probably that Reed is a better rebounder than Clarke...posting 2.2 more REB per 100, which isn't insignificant. He's almost a full 2 years younger than Clarke.
I think Reed has a potentially more interesting frame than Clarke. He's not the same caliber of athlete but he just looks really long....and he uses that length really well, both inside and on the perimeter. He has a significantly higher steal rate for players with such high defensive impact (9.0 DBPM player).....and I'd imagine it is that length manifesting itself.
Reed, just historically speaking, has a pretty high floor profile. I'm still probably more bullish on his offense than most.....but at worst, he looks like he's probably a good defensive NBA player who's passable on offense. The positional difference metric my stuff spits out has been especially promising in identifying the really undervalued prospects. Last year it liked a lot of guys who have cropped up in the early rookie VOPR and BPM leaderboards (Clarke, Hayes, Gafford, Thybulle, Johnson, etc.). And it did so across the pick spectrum. Historically, it's been similarly good as well.....not necessarily predicting who should go where but generally speaking, taking a best guess at which player outcomes are likely to be the most positive.
It slots Reed, this year, in that orangish / yellow band....just where outcomes are almost universally positive for guys that play full seasons. There's really only been one dud out of that group (KJ McDaniels).....but he was a later draftee. So if Reed continues to hold there, through conference play, it is certainly a feather in his cap from a prospect perspective.
.....Positional difference is just how much above or below average a player profiles vs his drafted peers, in terms of overall impact.....0.9-.95 is kind of a generic prospect at their position. So any guys you see around 1.0 or better are guys that you just really need to dig in on and pay attention to. They don't all make it.....but there definitely is a significant uptick in positive outcomes at or above that 1.0 mark. The higher you go, the more certain it is that the outcome will be positive.
