2021 NBA Draft Safari

[Randolphkeys]

Finalized my statistical rankings. The Model-SOS-Rank Blend column at the end pretty closely resembles my current "big board," though based on my own gut feeling/film/combine measurements I may move guys up or down a few spots. Of course, since the final column accounts for consensus mock draft position (now somewhat out of date), those numbers are also subject to change if prospects rise/fall significantly in mock drafts.

Sengun has jumped comfortably into my top 5. I can't wait to see him play with Cedi this summer against better competition. His mobility and footwork are jaw-dropping. I'd like to see him get stronger and develop an outside shot, but I say that about almost every 18 year old prospect over 6'5.

 

[Nathan S]

Sengun has jumped comfortably into my top 5. I can't wait to see him play with Cedi this summer against better competition. His mobility and footwork are jaw-dropping. I'd like to see him get stronger and develop an outside shot, but I say that about almost every 18 year old prospect over 6'5.

Yeah, there's at least a 50/50 chance we get Turkey/Canada, and that'll be loads of fun if it happens.

 

[I'mWithDan]

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?

I really only consider Duarte old in all honesty.

Garza is borderline, turning 23 end of December. Draymond was 22.75 at the same point his rookie year. Harrell was 22.92. IT was 22.92. Covington was 23. Will Barton was 23. Parsons was 23.16, Clarke was 23.25. Unless this data set is wrong, it says Brogdan was 24.08. There's plenty of success cases in that 22.5-24 range.

Max Abmas? He's only 20 right now. Will be 21 in April of next year.

Queta won't be 22 until the end of July. Again, I don't think that is old.

Hurt isn't 22 until April of next year.

I can pull ranks but if I remember correctly, Queta and Garza were the only guys it really liked. I believe the other guys are in that right at median pool of players that have a better than average chance of being a top 10 VORP or better guy from this class.

Garza, I think there's a pretty strong qualitative scouting case against him.....relative to his frame and athleticism. Queta? I don't know. I genuinely know little about him. I tend to dig in more on guys like him when the Cavs have second round picks.

I can go back through the drafts the next week or so and see how VORP lists have shuffled.......but there was surprisingly an even split in age bands, of just the distribution of VORP or better players by age. It is a graveyard above 24......but 19-20, 20-21, 22-23 was really interesting to look at.

And again, I don't claim to have some magic elixer.....just that I try to preach the pool narrowing exercise. Like Draymond......it wasn't as if the stuff I have said he would be a star but PDIFF measured him as a top 15-16 prospect in his class.....and he went 35th. So it is more of a value exercise in many instances.

 

[Nathan S]

I really only consider Duarte old in all honesty.

Garza is borderline, turning 23 end of December. Draymond was 22.75 at the same point his rookie year. Harrell was 22.92. IT was 22.92. Covington was 23. Will Barton was 23. Parsons was 23.16, Clarke was 23.25. Unless this data set is wrong, it says Brogdan was 24.08. There's plenty of success cases in that 22.5-24 range.

Max Abmas? He's only 20 right now. Will be 21 in April of next year.

Queta won't be 22 until the end of July. Again, I don't think that is old.

Hurt isn't 22 until April of next year.

I can pull ranks but if I remember correctly, Queta and Garza were the only guys it really liked. I believe the other guys are in that right at median pool of players that have a better than average chance of being a top 10 VORP or better guy from this class.

Garza, I think there's a pretty strong qualitative scouting case against him.....relative to his frame and athleticism. Queta? I don't know. I genuinely know little about him. I tend to dig in more on guys like him when the Cavs have second round picks.

I can go back through the drafts the next week or so and see how VORP lists have shuffled.......but there was surprisingly an even split in age bands, of just the distribution of VORP or better players by age. It is a graveyard above 24......but 19-20, 20-21, 22-23 was really interesting to look at.

And again, I don't claim to have some magic elixer.....just that I try to preach the pool narrowing exercise. Like Draymond......it wasn't as if the stuff I have said he would be a star but PDIFF measured him as a top 15-16 prospect in his class.....and he went 35th. So it is more of a value exercise in many instances.

Could they succeed? Sure. I'm just saying, if not for the age adjustment, like 90% of the top prospects are going to be older guys. Out of the top-40 players in box plus/minus this year, only Mobley, Wagner, and Suggs will be under 21 going into next season. The other 37 players are all older prospects. And that's true pretty much any year...the overwhelming majority of the best NCAA players are juniors and seniors.

 

[I'mWithDan]

Could they succeed? Sure. I'm just saying, if not for the age adjustment, like 90% of the top prospects are going to be older guys. Out of the top-40 players in box plus/minus this year, only Mobley, Wagner, and Suggs will be under 21 going into next season. The other 37 players are all older prospects. And that's true pretty much any year...the overwhelming majority of the best NCAA players are juniors and seniors.

Isn't that the point of per 100 stats though? To level the playing field? The best guys aren't just older on a per 100 basis. They are the players that do the most with those possessions. What you are describing doesn't appear to be true to me.

Only 3 of the top 11 guys in just an unfiltered look at PDIFF are "old". And that is if you consider Queta old.

So the vast majority of these guys are both young and productive.

In Queta's example specifically......that guy has a pretty strong profile for a big. Very similar to Robert Williams.

Again. Williams is not a star......but he is currently 8th in VORP in the 2018 class and he's #2 in BPM. That is a massive hit at #27.

This is generally just all I point out. That the value exercise here is historically pretty good on these guys. Where when someone stands out like Williams did, that guy is just going to succeed a lot more often than someone who is younger than him but also producing at a lower rate.

 

[Nathan S]

Isn't that the point of per 100 stats though? To level the playing field? The best guys aren't just older on a per 100 basis. They are the players that do the most with those possessions. What you are describing doesn't appear to be true to me.

Only 3 of the top 11 guys in just an unfiltered look at PDIFF are "old". And that is if you consider Queta old.

So the vast majority of these guys are both young and productive.

In Queta's example specifically......that guy has a pretty strong profile for a big. Very similar to Robert Williams.

Again. Williams is not a star......but he is currently 8th in VORP in the 2018 class and he's #2 in BPM. That is a massive hit at #27.

This is generally just all I point out. That the value exercise here is historically pretty good on these guys. Where when someone stands out like Williams did, that guy is just going to succeed a lot more often than someone who is younger than him but also producing at a lower rate.

But BPM is a per-100 stat, so the playing field is level...

Do you have guys like Micah Potter and Jay Huff in there? They're older guys who played relatively few minutes but were extraordinarily productive per-possession. Loyola's Krutwig is another. I'll trust you if you say you have all these guys in there already and they just don't have very strong projections, but it's surprising to me.

 

[I'mWithDan]

But BPM is a per-100 stat, so the playing field is level...

Do you have guys like Micah Potter and Jay Huff in there? They're older guys who played relatively few minutes but were extraordinarily productive per-possession. Loyola's Krutwig is another. I'll trust you if you say you have all these guys in there already and they just don't have very strong projections, but it's surprising to me.

So as I have said, part of this is a qualitative exercise. I generally look at 80-100 prospects, depending on the draft. I draw that prospect list from a few sources, things like consensus mocks......I also look at sleeper lists and very specific outliers in stats like scoring, ast or rebounds. So it isn't a blind look at every NCAA player. It is a look at the roughly 100 guys NBA teams tend to think are NBA prospects. So that narrows the lens a bit.

But for the sake of this, I'll pull guys that are just more random players to see what happens:

Neither really stands out relative to what you are saying right?

Neither would make that above list even though they are ultra productive and older. Each are several tiers down from Garza for example. Who most people are probably really on the fence about.

And again.......there is the qualitative layer here of only assessing 80-100 guys. I'm sure there would be far more noise if you just said give me the whatever, the 1,000 draft eligible players across the NCAA spectrum.

 

[I'mWithDan]

@Nathan S Here is the data I have on VORP or better guys, from the possession era.

There are funky total pool numbers here with some prospects I don't have data on. Now it is better (getting data on guys like Ball or the G-League trio) but in past years I just didn't have reliably good per 100 data on guys like Luka or Gobert for example. If anyone has that now, I would love to update my stuff and include them.

Median VORP Age: 22.17 of 1/1 of their rookie year.

VORP Players 19-20: 21
VORP Players 20-21: 31
VORP Players 21-22: 20
VORP Players 22-23: 20
VORP Players 23-24: 10
VORP Players 24-+ : 4

Pretty interesting right? That the 22-23 group has produced as many VORP or better players as the 19-20.

Median All-Star Age: 21.50 of 1/1 of their rookie year.

So it only lowers rather marginally. 8 months. But the results are kind of wild.

ASG Players 19-20: 7
ASG Players 20-21: 10
ASG Players 21-22: 9
ASG Players 22-23: 3
ASG Players 23-24: 0
ASG Players 24-+ : 0

So there is a big balancing act here. At some point in the draft, it makes sense to take older guys because VORP outcomes really seem rather unaffected by guys who are reasonably aged at 23.5 ish or younger at 1/1 of their rookie year.

But at the top of the draft, this is saying you really should not be drafting any player that is older than 22, as the star outcomes just go off a cliff. You potentially miss on Butler, Green and IT there.....but the data is the data. But you certainly take those types anywhere else relative to the VORP numbers.

So my age comment was based on the VORP stats......just drafting one of the 10 best players from any given draft.....where in most years, that tends to be a good NBA player. If you are assessing the top 5 guys, then age should largely be factored in......as the ASG cutoff is rather stark.

 

[Nathan S]

@Nathan S Here is the data I have on VORP or better guys, from the possession era.

There are funky total pool numbers here with some prospects I don't have data on. Now it is better (getting data on guys like Ball or the G-League trio) but in past years I just didn't have reliably good per 100 data on guys like Luka or Gobert for example. If anyone has that now, I would love to update my stuff and include them.

Median VORP Age: 22.17 of 1/1 of their rookie year.

VORP Players 19-20: 21
VORP Players 20-21: 31
VORP Players 21-22: 20
VORP Players 22-23: 20
VORP Players 23-24: 10
VORP Players 24-+ : 4

Pretty interesting right? That the 22-23 group has produced as many VORP or better players as the 19-20.

Median All-Star Age: 21.50 of 1/1 of their rookie year.

So it only lowers rather marginally. 8 months. But the results are kind of wild.

ASG Players 19-20: 7
ASG Players 20-21: 10
ASG Players 21-22: 9
ASG Players 22-23: 3
ASG Players 23-24: 0
ASG Players 24-+ : 0

So there is a big balancing act here. At some point in the draft, it makes sense to take older guys because VORP outcomes really seem rather unaffected by guys who are reasonably aged at 23.5 ish or younger at 1/1 of their rookie year.

But at the top of the draft, this is saying you really should not be drafting any player that is older than 22, as the star outcomes just go off a cliff. You potentially miss on Butler, Green and IT there.....but the data is the data. But you certainly take those types anywhere else relative to the VORP numbers.

So my age comment was based on the VORP stats......just drafting one of the 10 best players from any given draft.....where in most years, that tends to be a good NBA player. If you are assessing the top 5 guys, then age should largely be factored in......as the ASG cutoff is rather stark.

It's probably worth mentioning that I'm projecting peak impact...which is as far away as 2030 for some of the youngest prospects. Rookie year impact is a different beast, and my big board would definitely skew older if I was projecting that.

Who're the 7 19-20 year old ASG guys in your dataset? I'm wondering how many of them were obvious stars at the college level.

 

[I'mWithDan]

It's probably worth mentioning that I'm projecting peak impact...which is as far away as 2030 for some of the youngest prospects. Rookie year impact is a different beast, and my big board would definitely skew older if I was projecting that.

Who're the 7 19-20 year old ASG guys in your dataset? I'm wondering how many of them were obvious stars at the college level.

So 3 I would say. Durant, AD and Kyrie all profiled like stars to me. Kyrie in a smaller sample. But his number at the PG position is elite.

Profile wise.....Beal / Tatum / Russell were roughly grouped together. Drummond was technically above median but he really lags what a typical All-Star big looks like. He also isn't a super useful player. Still can't believe he was a 2x All-Star. Weird one.

Tatum seems like the lowest rated guy but that is always my shtick on 3's. They severely lag the other 4 positions in per 100 college production and if a guy is above median as a true NBA SF, there is a much higher probability that player will succeed (than any other position).

 

[Nathan S]

So 3 I would say. Durant, AD and Kyrie all profiled like stars to me. Kyrie in a smaller sample. But his number at the PG position is elite.

Profile wise.....Beal / Tatum / Russell were roughly grouped together. Drummond was technically above median but he really lags what a typical All-Star big looks like. He also isn't a super useful player. Still can't believe he was a 2x All-Star. Weird one.

Tatum seems like the lowest rated guy but that is always my shtick on 3's. They severely lag the other 4 positions in per 100 college production and if a guy is above median as a true NBA SF, there is a much higher probability that player will succeed (than any other position).

So, how high are you on the Champagnie bros? Not trolling or anything...I'm trying to decide what to make of them myself.

 

[I'mWithDan]

So, how high are you on the Champagnie bros? Not trolling or anything...I'm trying to decide what to make of them myself.

Honestly.........I just kind of throw my hands up. They are young. They are productive. They have good size.

Really intrigued how they do......as they don't really seem to be on draft radars at all......which is just generally puzzling to me.

Again, I don't pretend to be a scout......but there is just a lot of overwhelming positive data on them. Really glad to see Justin got a combine invite. If he tests well, his profile is that of someone who should most definitely rocket up draft boards. Julian lags more.....but still an interesting guy. Justin is the one that makes absolutely no sense to me when looking at his scoring impact, his impact less scoring and just his rebound and hustle numbers. It would be genuinely shocking to me if he is not a good NBA player, relative to historical outcomes of guys who profile like he does but we'll see.

 

[Nathan S]

Honestly.........I just kind of throw my hands up. They are young. They are productive. They have good size.

Really intrigued how they do......as they don't really seem to be on draft radars at all......which is just generally puzzling to me.

Again, I don't pretend to be a scout......but there is just a lot of overwhelming positive data on them. Really glad to see Justin got a combine invite. If he tests well, his profile is that of someone who should most definitely rocket up draft boards. Julian lags more.....but still an interesting guy. Justin is the one that makes absolutely no sense to me when looking at his scoring impact, his impact less scoring and just his rebound and hustle numbers. It would be genuinely shocking to me if he is not a good NBA player, relative to historical outcomes of guys who profile like he does but we'll see.

Yeah, Julian also lags a little on my draft rater, but still, he seems like a ridiculously high-floor guy to me. He's like a textbook example of a 3&D wing, which is such a popular archetype these days.

 

[Randolphkeys]

Yeah, Julian also lags a little on my draft rater, but still, he seems like a ridiculously high-floor guy to me. He's like a textbook example of a 3&D wing, which is such a popular archetype these days.

I thought Julian didn't declare for the draft yet. He is the brother with a bigger frame, both need to become more consistent shooting from the outside.

 

[Nathan S]

I thought Julian didn't declare for the draft yet. He is the brother with a bigger frame, both need to become more consistent shooting from the outside.

Justin's 3-point shot is iffy, but Julian shot 38% from 3 and 89% from the line on pretty high volume. Fell just short of the eye-candy 40/90 numbers, but still super impressive for a 19-year-old wing with quality physical tools. I'd be pretty shocked if he's not at least a decent 3-point shooter at the next level.