Realized I didn't respond here.
Franz was a guy that was talked about.....a lot, IMO. If you go back to early season discussions with a lot of the regulars, it honestly was a lot of "What are we missing here on Wagner?" He was churning out some of the best metrics in the class, just clearly looked like a top 10 guy but it took mock draft heads MONTHS to start gaining steam with him.
The SF bust rate is enormous and that is honestly why I try to actually NOT include more guys. Because it is a position, to me, that you just have to be far more critical on. The NBA skillset at the 3 is by far the most coveted and difficult to find. Just finding guys who are the right size and body type (setting skill aside) is very hard in itself. Then layering on the necessary basketball skills just makes it a tiny pool.
Every year, the worst analytically performing group in my model is
always NBA small forward prospects. They have the least amount of impact, they typically get the lowest shot and scoring volume and many times are cast out of position. The guys that break through that (guys like Barnes, Wagner, etc.) are just so head and shoulders better than everyone else in the pool that it does honestly become very obvious, very quickly, who the most likely to succeed guys are.
It isn't a guarantee or anything but to me, SF is the position that is just the easiest to immediately throw guys out at......because the skill and size necessary to play that spot is so different than any other. So I tend to not make a large list but do the opposite. Try to only pick 2, maybe 3 guys that I think pass the eye test and then just wait for data to tell me which other guys I should pay attention to. Everyone is different though. Most of the initial mock drafts are simply group think among moderately informed people (no offense to those guys). I don't think they are indicative of actual draft boards or internal perception of prospects franchise to franchise. I think looking at the thread last year......it is kind of a 5 step process.
1. See who is being thrown in the pool
2. Form some qualitative opinions about players via film
3. See how they perform in some models after a few games
4. Combine qualitative and quantitative
5. Rank them in more final tiers
As we tracked guys last year......I think players like Barnes and Wagner were talked about WAY in advance of any mock draft having them both in the top 10. Even a
month before the draft, some mock drafts didn't even have either in the high to mid lottery.....and a guy like Kuminga, who was just a player that falls entirely in to the group think model described above, was just ALWAYS a top 4-5 pick. Once a guy gets placed there, it is so hard for any mock draft types to get off of them because they don't want to look dumb. Someone like Boston was like that as well......not to the same degree but I think everyone in the draft thread last year was diving off that ship after about 4-5 college games.
With the small forward position, I'm not even sure I really
truly believe in anyone I mention, prior to seeing them play against better competition......they tend to be guys where I say to myself "I don't know if this guy is for sure a 3.........but since I'm not 100% sure that he is most definitely not a 3, I'll put him in a pool of guys to pay attention to". Anyone I love, I'm
almost certain has the requisite size, skill and just needs to develop. In my experience, most guys who are labeled 3's by draft sites are either definitely 2's or 4's who aren't big enough to play the 4. Just one person's opinion but that has been my experience tracking that position in particular.
