- Didn’t realize Krause and Jerry west were tight since the 70s and Krause advised west to avoid Phil. Ultimately did… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 hour ago
- Haven’t watch Carolina in a couple months but today at least, the giant Walker Kessler looked like a different play… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 10 hours ago
- Derek Harper on Lakers Glen Rice: “great shooter. But if he’s not making his shots, he’s not valuable. He can’t de… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 22 hours ago
- Kurt Rambis reacting to seeing Glen Rice show up to the Lakers for the first time after the Rice/Eddie Jones trade: https://t.co/pnA3rShWo7 22 hours ago
- RT @jackfrank_jjf: Wrote about some things that have caught my eye recently: Kira Lewis’ defense, Hamidou Diallo’s passing and Saben Lee’s… 23 hours ago
Just messing around, getting triple doubles
Tag Archives: big board
February 28, 2020Posted by on
This is part two of Scouting Dump #3 and includes tiers three thru 10, players seven thru 78. I’m not really sure what differentiates the tiers except there’s some level of break in skill or differentiation in ability and future potential between the players in one tier and another. It’s not based on hard science or even soft science, but rather on my arbitrary, un-copyrighted “system.”
You may also notice a trend of me suggesting that a player should be moved higher or lower and may ask, “why didn’t you just move them around instead of mentioning it. It only makes things more confusing.” Apologies for any confusion, but I kept them as initially ranked for a couple of reasons: 1) it’s helpful to understand the thought process for ranking or re-ranking a player and in some cases, I’ve explained that; 2) it’s helpful for me to see where my initial, less-thorough scrub landed players and where further investigation cast a new perspective.
Point two above is super important for me as a writer and draft “analyst” in that the process of writing and laying thoughts bare can be a revelatory process. My initial response and outside influences pushed Jalen Smith up my list (#8), but the more I poked and prodded, the less impressed I was and suggested I would drop him down to 12, behind Nico Mannion, Devin Vassell, Josh Green, and Patrick Williams. This is helpful for me to see and think through and hopefully it helps you better understand my process.
- 2/15/20: DePaul @ Creighton
- 2/15/20: Maryland @ Michigan State
- 2/6/20: USC @ Arizona
- 2/8/20: Kentucky @ Tennessee
- 2/1/20: Arkansas @ Tennessee
- 2/9/20: Alabama @ Georgia
- 1/30/20: Baylor @ Iowa State
- 2/3/20: UNC @ FSU
- 1/22/20: Rutgers @ Iowa – in person
- 2/11/20: Alba Berlin @ Ulm
- 2/19/20: Indiana @ Minnesota
- 2/20/20: USC @ Colorado
7. Kira Lewis Jr. Alabama, trending up, Tier3: In case you didn’t know, and if you’re reading this, there’s a good chance you did know, Kira Lewis Jr. a college sophomore, doesn’t turn 19 until April. For age purposes, he’s essentially a freshman who happens to have two years of college experience including one (this season) as the engine powering new coach, Nate Oats’s run and gun offense. Listed at 6-foot-3, 167-pounds, Lewis is wispy. Not quite Trae Young wispy, but the young man could possibly hula hoop through a proverbial cheerio. The thinner frame is most noticeable as a disadvantage on the defensive end where the slightest protruding hip or butt or screen is enough to throw him off his on or off-ball tracking. Off ball and away from screens, Lewis’s speed and quickness are his greatest defensive strengths and with a 6’6.5” wingspan, he has enough length to be a disrupter on that end. For the season, he’s averaging nearly two steals/game with a 2.6 steal percentage. On-the-ball, I’ve seen Lewis struggle to guards like Georgia’s Sahvir Wheeler, a speedy pocket rocket of a guard the likes of which can make a killing at the collegiate levels, but struggle against NBA size. It’s not just that player type that has success against Lewis, against Iowa State earlier in the season, their 6-3 off-guard, Rasir Bolton, a solid player who doesn’t project as an NBAer, was able to frequently get by him. More than strength or physical limitations, I get the sense on-ball technique is the area he can improve on: staying in ready position, taking better angles, these will help him contain. Coming into the season, I wasn’t completely sold on Lewis as lead guard and I’m still not necessarily convinced he’s a starting point in the NBA. And despite somewhat of a flat statistical development (TS same, 3Par down, FTr down; steals, assists, rebounds, and points up), he’s significantly improved. The frequency of quality passes seems to have exponentially increased specifically with drive-and-kicks and over-the-shoulder one-hand passes out of pick-and-roll. The skill improvements are bolstered by video game-like speed and quickness. Lewis is a blur in the full or half court. He changes directions so suddenly my own knees ache at the sight. The speed and quickness will absolutely transfer to the NBA, but where Tyrese Maxey’s base allows him to play at high speed with body control and balance, some of Lewis’s faster forays feel a bit out of control or off-balance. Strengthening his lower body, continuing to develop his passing and reads, and ultimately improving as a three-point shooter (35% on 282 attempts) are keys to NBA effectiveness. ESPN has placed him in the 30s on their big boards and mock drafts. Without having built out my own, I’d likely rank him higher than that based on upside and having a clear attribute (speed/quickness) that is NBA-ready.
8. Jalen Smith, Maryland, trending up, Tier3: Smith is another sophomore and ranks as the second-highest big behind Onyeka Okongwu in this player set. Without taking away from the man they call “Stick,” it’s worth noting that he’s over a year older than Kira and if we consider the leaps Smith has made from his 18 to 19-year-old season, it’s easy to see why Lewis supporters will beat you over the head with his age as a sign of development to come. But we digress and take away from the goggle-wearing Smith. He’s lean-ish at 6-10, 225 with a listed wingspan of 7’1.5” although it sometimes seems like he’s longer. I enjoyed him as a freshman alongside current Atlanta Hawk, Bruno Fernando as he showed flashes of being able to hit the jumper (27% from 3 on 71 attempts) with good rim protection and rebounding. In his second season, everything has improved: he’s over 62 TS, his block percentage is up to 8.1, his shooting splits up from 49-27-66 to 53-36-75. Even his at-the-rim numbers are up from 67% to 71%. Improvement is always a positive (I think), but it’s not to say Smith has entered a realm of flawlessness in this draft class. That leanishness I referenced earlier was on display against Michigan State’s Xavier Tillman (#17 on this list) in mid-February. Numerous times, Smith had Tillman boxed out, only to have the 6-9, 245-pound Tillman use swim moves and superior upper-body strength to dislodge the younger player. Some NBA box outs look like rugby scrums and while Smith will absolutely get stronger, packing functional strength on that frame is going to take time and work – it’s not enough to out-jump and out-reach guys for loose balls. If strength is an area of improvement, being physical isn’t. Smith won’t win all the positional battles, but he doesn’t shy away from contact and typically puts forth effort. Defensively, he shows good technique staying vertical in rim protection and bodying up potential drivers. Offensively, he has touch from the perimeter to the interior, but is somewhat limited on that end. He’s best shooting the three off the catch and while I don’t have the data, his accuracy seems to drop when he rushes or has a quick release. A lack of awareness and vision limit his passing impact as well. He misses open teammates, and like his shot, he has occasion to rush the play. If he finds a path to being effective as a pro, it’ll be driven by consistent shooting, rim protection, and improved understanding of NBA team defense. A part of this exercise that’s revealing is how the under-the-hood view of a prospect can skew your valuation more than you expect. If I were to do this over again, I would likely drop Smith down to 12 and bump up Nico, Vassell, Josh Green, and Pat Williams.
9. Nico Mannion, Arizona, trending down, Tier3: I ranked Mannion atop a list of 45 players back in December and while I believe he’s improved since then, the combination of other players revealing more and me placing more scrutiny on Mannion’s strength and limitations have put him on a downward trajectory. I watched him against USC earlier in February in a game where he scored 20 on the strength of 12-18 free throw shooting with seven assists to four turnovers and kept thinking that he has this base of great fundamentals, vision, and anticipation that are somewhat muffled by an average-to-below-average physical profile. This feels kind of lazy in terms of race-based analysis, but his inability to get the slightest of edges on defenders prevents him from fully accessing his passing and vision. If he’s lacking somewhat in burst and vertical athleticism, he finds other ways to play bigger than his size. Like Michigan State’s Cassius Winston, he’s a great screener who uses his smaller size to set solid screens on bigs. Arizona runs a lot of screen the screener actions from which he benefits. Offensively, his passing his far and away his best skill. Despite strong mechanics and mostly good shot selection, he’s shooting just 33% from deep (that number drops to 30% in 14 conference games) with a 44% 3PAr. Mannion’s been at his best when attacking aggressively – seeking his shot, attacking off the bounce, and not letting defenses settle in. I still believe in the shot, but he’ll have to shoot it better and develop more skill and craft off the dribble in order to unlock his full scope of ability. If I’m projecting out, I’d have him as a reserve guard in the NBA which is great, but a far cry from what I expected back in November.
10. Devin Vassell, Florida State, trending up, Tier3: I’ll be honest, I haven’t watched a ton of the lengthy 6-7 sophomore from FSU this season. He’s an advanced stats darling with one of the top BPMs (10.2 as of this writing) in the country, 59 TS on 43% three-point shooting, a 4.4% block rate and 2.9% steals. In two seasons at Tallahassee, he’s shooting 42% from three on over 150 attempts, but unlike a lot of college shooters, he incorporates a pull up mid-range game and while his handle isn’t tight enough to create space with frequency, his length and high-release point allow him to get shots off without a ton of room. He’s a plus-defender who second naturedly navigates screens and switches with a high defensive IQ that allows him to anticipate play development and act/react quickly. Like most Leonard Hamilton players, he stays active and engaged on the defensive end with his length and anticipation game helping him to rack up those steal and block rates. Like many players in this draft, he’s a very good complimentary piece who can plug into a role without needing to be a high usage (19.4%) focal point. Bonus: per barttorvik, as of February 26th, he’s one of only three players (as of Feb. 26) in the country with over 20 dunks, over 20 threes made, and above 40% from three.
11. Josh Green, Arizona, trending up, Tier3: Like Mannion, I wrote about Green back in December and not a ton has changed. He’s a plus-athlete who can pass, and competes defensively. At Arizona, he’s probably been a below-average shooter (42-32-77 with a 52 TS), but I kind of buy his shooting a bit more than the current output and believe he’s lacking some confidence on the perimeter as he sometimes catches and hesitates before letting an open catch-and-shoot fly. Ultimately I see him as a fringe level starter who plays hard on both ends of the floor, doesn’t shy away from physicality, and has shown a willingness to buy into a role which I probably value higher than others. Like so many of these prospects, he desperately needs to find consistency in his shot in order to be a regular contributor. Bonus: per friend of blog, Spencer Pearlman, Green has two left handed finishes over the last two years counting AAU and Arizona (not IMG). Two.
12. Patrick Williams, Florida State, no change, Tier3: I initially had Williams as the first player in my T4, but given his age (turns 19 in August), size (6-8 with 6-11 wingspan), and defensive versatility (3.5 stocks/40min and can defend both interior and perimeter – more on this), I bumped him up to T3. I’ve seen a handful of FSU games this season and given Williams’s propensity to be deployed in the corner as something of a floor spacer, I was surprised to see him second on the team in usage (among players with actual minute volume) behind senior point, Trent Forrest. While he’s far from an initiator with FSU (9% ast rate with 1.7 TOs to every assist), he’s shown a little mid-range ability in multiple games. These are usually one or two hard dribbles into the pull-up or into a jump stop with the occasional fade mixed in. There’s not a ton of passing or creation off the bounce and this dates back to his 2018 EYBL season as well (1.8 assists to 1.5 TOs). His physical ability, the lanky, muscular frame, best percolates on the defensive end. I’ve seen him defend shooters like Florida’s Noah Locke and point guards like Indiana’s Rob Phinisee and harass the hell out of these smaller, in theory quicker players. His size, bend, and lateral mobility allow him to sit deep in a defensive crouch and mirror dribbler movements. His length and push off power allow him to quickly cover ground both vertically and laterally. And this is apparently a theme of this player set, but as I write this, I realize I’d likely swap Williams with Green. His defensive versatility and shooting, albeit on low volume, have a higher likelihood of seamless transition to the NBA.
Tier 4: Not quite lightning round, but let’s get it moving:
13. Trayce Jackson-Davis, Indiana, trending up, Tier4: Only a freshman, TJD is already 20-years-old and plays like he has some grown man strength. He’s listed at 6-9 or 6-10, 245-pounds and he makes opponents feel it. Physical player with no problem elevating. Prefers back-to-basket camping on right block, but can face up as well. No three attempts on season, but strong FTr (65%) and hits 70% clip. Struggles to defend in space. Kind of poor man’s Okongwu, projects as rotation 4/5 in the NBA. Has bit of an edge, will dunk on you.
14. Tyler Bey, Colorado, trending up, Tier4: Lanky 3/4 or 4/3, listed at 6-7 but seems taller to me with ton of length (listed at 7-0). Uber efficient Mr. Do Everything type of player for Buffs. Can hit unguarded three (13-26 on season) at low volume; lot of garbage man work on offensive end; 64% of his shots come at the rim with 59% being assisted; over 8 FTAs/40 with a 69% FTr. Roughly three TOs to every two assists; not a playmaker, but can make basic passes/reads. Plus on rim protection, able to make himself a massive obstruction at the rim with sound verticality, good lift, and long arms. Somewhat of an intangibles guy that maybe comes from a similar family tree as Shawn Marion, Shane Battier, and/or Andre Roberson.
15. Zeke Nnaji, Arizona, no change, Tier4: At the lazy, surface level, Nnaji reminds me of Jordan Hill: both big-haired Arizona big men with high motors. Beyond that, the comparison pretty much falls apart. I bring this up to say that Nnaji is not Jordan Hill. Against USC in early February, I wanted to see how the Minnesota native who grew up playing piano would matchup with noted ass kicker, Onyeka Okongwu. It took some adjusting, but Nnaji, was able to match USC’s big man through effort and positioning, using tireless footwork to gain position on box outs and post deflections. Offensively, he used a blend of skill, strength, and quickness to create good looks including a post catch into a shoulder fake, then immediately following the shoulder with a quick shot fake that Okongwu bit on before attacking for the finish. This is the type of move Okongwu would use himself and is the type of advanced post play that rounds out Nnaji’s strong offensive arsenal. He has range out to 18 to 20 feet and is a threat to roll, pop or slip screens. He’s also at 78% from the line on a 65% FTr which greatly aids his already efficient game – 65 TS. If he can extend his range to the NBA three-line, he can become super interesting as a pro prospect. He doesn’t have the rim protection of TJD, but he’s nearly a year younger and given his shooting, it’s not a stretch to see him as the better long-term prospect.
16. Santiago Vescovi, Tennessee, trending up, Tier4: I took a weird route to put the 6-3 Uruguayan point guard this high. After watching him against Kentucky (2/8) and Arkansas (2/11), I walked away thinking he’s not dissimilar from Nico Mannion. Both are cerebral, pass-first point guards. Mannion probably plays a tighter, more controlled game whereas Vescovi has more improvisational cleverness. Mannion is stronger with more burst as well. Vescovi was granted eligibility midway through the season and has struggled at times to adjust to NCAA officiating; most noticeable in his ball control and 5.2 turnovers/40 (1:1 ast:TO rate), much of which are travel and carry violations. He has good length, decent-sized hands, range out to NBA level, runs a good P&R game, and is active and aware as a team defender. Finishing at the rim and developing better decision making on dribble drives are areas for improvement, but I like him longer term as a potential NBA rotation piece and it’s worth noting that he doesn’t turn 19 until September. Bonus: Tennessee has two McDonald’s-level players coming in at guard next season in Jaden Springer and Keon Johnson which has some interesting potential implications if Vescovi is still there.
17. Xavier Tillman, Michigan State, trending up, Tier4: I’ve gone back and forth on Tillman since the season-opener against Kentucky and despite him being undersized as a pro five, I always come back to him just knowing how to play the damn game. He’s solidly built at 245-pounds with a thick neck and a +4 or 5” wingspan and has an extremely efficient economy of movement that allows him to quickly close space and make quick, decisive movements. He’s hell on the defensive end and has made life difficult for Maryland’s Jalen Smith and Iowa’s Luka Garza among other Big 10 bigs. As of this writing, he’s at 3.2 stocks/game. He has a habit of overplaying, over-helping and cheating on the defensive end that leaves him susceptible to back cuts, but this type of thing can be coached up. Offensively, he’s less impressive as a shooter/scorer (53-28-66 shooting with 58 TS), but exceptional as a screener with above average positional awareness, and capable of making somewhat advanced reads. He seems like he’d be an excellent fit on the KG Celtics and maybe that’s because he kind of reminds me of Leon Powe, but his intangibles, feel, fundamentals, and build make him feel like a reserve big with the potential to contribute to a winning team.
18. Paul Reed, DePaul, trending down, Tier4: Paul Reed is the only player in the NCAA D1 this season to average at least 1.5 steals and 2.5 blocks and is the first player in six seasons to do it. He kind of looks like Hakim Warrick with a long, lanky frame and a fluid gait with long strides, but he wrecks shit in ways Warrick could not. Reed is possessed of good hands, a high motor, and quick leaping ability. Multiple times a game, he’ll catapult into the screen from some unknown place (the bench? Dunkin Donuts?) and snare a rebound or aggressively swat a shot off the board. He can make basic reads passing out of the post, but can be rushed into mistakes with double teams. Reed has touch around that hoop that includes jump hooks and Steven Adams-like push floaters and while he can make threes, there’s a lot of movement in his form and it’s not a shot I trust in its current form (shooting 33% on 102 attempts for his career). Given the lack of bulk and what is, to me, somewhat of an unreliable shot, I like him as a dive man playing the 4/5 in an end-of-bench role with his defensive potential opening up more avenues to playing time as he physically develops.
19. Aaron Henry Henry, Michigan State, trending down, Tier4: Fairly certain Henry is ambidextrous. He shoots jumpers with his left, but attacks with the right and has a variety floaters and finger rolls from close range. He has pro size at 6-6, 210-pounds with a +4” wingspan, doesn’t shy away from contact, and is aggressive in attack although mostly average as a shooter (35% on threes, 42% on non-rim twos, 72% FT). Good as a team defender like most Michigan State guys and capable of defending the one thru three spots. May be able to defend smaller fours, but it’s not something I’ve seen. Pretty clearly behind Josh Green, Patrick Williams, and Devin Vassell for me. They each offer greater athletic and offensive upside with similar defensive potential.
Tier 5: More ranking, less writing, please:
20. Cassius Winston, Michigan State, no change, Tier5: Good enough passer, floor general, role accepter that I believe he’ll stick if he can hit the pull-up and three-ball at average rates. I do question his defensive ability; particularly on-ball.
21. Joe Wieskamp, Iowa, trending down**, Tier5: **had been trending up, but recent shooting slump 6-27 FG, 1-12 from three including missing wide open, high-leverage looks have made questions about mental toughness resurface. Completely disappears at times and looks confounded in quest to find effective contributions. For his player type (shooter), he needs to be better.
22. Romeo Weems, DePaul, no change**, Tier5: **had been trending down, but recent run of aggressive attack rebalanced him. Great physical profile with massive defensive upside has struggled mightily to find offensive consistency. Inconsistent shot and inability to create space off the dribble mean he’s only really effective as a cutter. I blame some of this on what appears to be an abysmal DePaul offense and team approach in general, but Weems is collateral damage. If he comes out, I’d absolutely gamble on him in the second round and if he wound up better than Vassell, Green, and them, it wouldn’t be a surprise.
23. Daniel Oturu, Minnesota, trending down, Tier5: Weird scoring big man at 6-10 with 7-2 wingspan, always looking for his shot. Likes to turn and face off the catch and capable of hitting mid-range or putting it on the deck and attacking. Gaudy 28% usage with excellent 62 TS, but more than two TOs for every assist. Decent defensive timing and length. Screams G-League to me.
24. John Petty, Alabama, trending up, Tier5: Far and away one of my favorite players in this class. After a ho hum first two seasons in Alabama, under the tutelage of Nate Oats, Petty is flashing the ability that made him a top-35 recruit in the class of 2017. He’s always had some J. Smith pull-up confidence, but this season has cranked up his efficiency (45% on 189 3s vs 36% on 413 previous two seasons). What’s been more impressive though is his improved rebounding and assists with declining turnover percentage despite more minutes and lower usage. He’s made leaps and bounds as a passer, able to create off the dribble and find teammates on drive-and-kicks or drive-and-dumps with one-handed whip passes or more conventional dump offs.
25. Immanuel Quickley, Kentucky, trending up, Tier5: Like Petty, Quickley has enjoyed a breakout season. He’s a lanky 6-3 guard with a 6-8 wingspan and wiry strength. He’s rightly been recognized for his shooting this season (91% on over five FTAs/game and 43% on five threes/game), but has rounded out his game with passing creation, quickness, and defense which make me think he can spend time as a combo guard in the NBA or play alongside bigger point guards and take the point guard matchup defensively. More compelling as a prospect than Winston, but maybe bit more risk.
26. Ashton Hagans, Kentucky, trending down, Tier5: Hagans is a real MFer and I mean that in the most positive sense. He’s a floor general who competes on both ends, has strong hands he uses to strip bigger (or smaller) opponents, has a high BBIQ, and is above average as a college facilitator. But he can’t shoot (28% on 108 3s in two seasons), is average at the rim, and poor from non-rim twos (30% on 73 attempts). Every guard I have ranked above him in this set shoots the ball better and unless he can make improvements there, it’ll be hard to stick at the league’s most competitive spot.
27. Nick Richards, Kentucky, trending up, Tier5: 22-year-old junior with a 7-5 wingspan, runs floor hard, plays within himself, probably slots in as a roll man with bit of potential for elbow pick-and-pops. Good rim protector is a better fit for pro style than Oturu despite being less skilled.
28. Marcus Zegarowski, Creighton, trending up, Tier5: Listed at 6-2, but not convinced he’s that big. Looks smallish, but has no issues getting his shot off against taller opponents and is 64% at the rim. Plays with good speed despite lacking quickness, has clean handle, and good offensive awareness. Shoots it well from all over the court (42% on 301 career threes, 44% on non-rim twos), struggles to contain penetration at times on defensive side as is lacking lateral quickness.
Tiers 6 and 7: Lightning round-ish
29. Ron Harper Jr. Rutgers, trending up, Tier6: Thick at 6-6, 245 with long arms with shot potential (33% on 101 attempts this season). If you told me he winds up in Houston or Boston, I would say, “Yes, that makes sense.”
30. Jared Butler, Baylor, no change, Tier6: Have seen very little of him.
31. Ty-Shon Alexander, Creighton, trending up, Tier6: Bit undersized to play off-ball at 6-4, but shoots it well 59 TS and 40% from three on over 175 attempts. Does bit of everything and makes me think of more well-rounded, but worse shooting Quickley. Big fan of his.
32. Luka Garza, Iowa, trending up, Tier7: Massive physical evolution, monster motor, back-to-the-basket player in mold of Al Jefferson is up to 36% from deep on nearly 100 attempts this season after 31% on 118 attempts previous two combined. Still runs awkwardly and lacks agility required to defend pretty much anyone in space. Potential to be end-of-bench big or Euro MVP.
33. Malik Hall, Michigan State, trending down, Tier7: 6-7, 215 pound combo forward, plays up in position in Izzo’s scheme and shown more flash than consistency as a 19-year-old freshman.
34. Keion Brooks, Kentucky, trending up, Tier8: I know what was going through my head when I had Brooks trending up, but I believe it was an overreaction: over the course of the season, I believe he’s gotten bigger, is moving more fluidly and generally looks a bit more confident on the floor, but none of it translates in the numbers and given that the bulk of games I saw from him were pre-conference season, I’m trusting the data here. He should be lower, my bad. (The more I think about this, the less sense it makes.)
35. Yves Pons, Tennessee, no change, Tier8: freak athlete at 6-6, 205-pounds with 7-foot wingspan. Third year at Tennessee and he still can’t shoot a jumper, but is the only player in the country 6-6 or shorter with a block rate of 8% or higher per barttorvik. Feel like he’d be amazing at parkour.
36. McKinley Wright, Colorado, trending up, Tier8: Pit bull of a point guard with a nose for the rim, plus-speed, handle with either hand and stays low with it, touch on floater, but just average from deep (34% on 292 career attempts) and solid at the line (78%). Size on defense and lack of high level vision/passing have him behind guys like Zegarowski, Butler, and Hagans.
37. Mark Vital, Baylor, no change, Tier8: 23-year-old redshirt junior fascinates me because he’s built like a middle linebacker (6-5, 230, thick neck) and jumps out of the gym. Can’t shoot to save his life (14% on 49 career threes, 43% on 60 FTAs this season) should be behind some of the guys I have him ahead of.
38. Nick Ongenda, DePaul, trending up, Tier8: Impossibly long freshman looks like baby giraffe, but surprisingly fluid movements; reminds me of Stephen Hunter based on build, but he’s probably skinnier. He’s a two years away from being two years away kinda guy, but the length and mobility offer hope.
39. Jemarl Baker, Arizona, trending up, Tier8: Great size at the point, good passer, pushes with pace, and (mostly) plays under control, can defend on-ball, average shooter. Positional size probably greatest strength, but doesn’t strike me as pro level guard.
40. Rayshaun Hammonds, Georgia, trending up, Tier8: Ehhh, maybe empty calorie four man. Likes to shoot and can attack off dribble, but below average defender and inefficient shooter. Probably would not be trending up on a redo.
Tier 9: some mistakes; probably punch drunk
41. Johnny Juzang, Kentucky, trending up, Tier9: looks better than start of season, willing and capable defender with strong lower body, and decent looking shot. Mostly incomplete though.
42. Toumani Camara, Georgia, trending up, Tier9: all effort garbage man hits o-glass, probably ranked too high here.
43. Mitch Ballock, Creighton, trending up, Tier9: Impressive shooter with decent size (6-5, 205); 40% from three on 552 career attempts with quick release off catch or dribble. Should be in Tier8.
44. Christian Bishop, Creighton, trending up, Tier9: Another impressive Creighton kid; plays up at 6-7, active defender (3.3 stocks/40) with plus BBIQ, and impressive athlete. Not a shooter, probably too small for player type.
Yooo! This pass from Christian Bishop (#13) is too much: pic.twitter.com/rb2p3iJ9Ez
— fendo (@dancingwithnoah) February 4, 2020
45. Mason Jones, Arkansas, trending down, Tier9: 32% usage, weird guard with somewhat of a throwback, ground-based game built on craft. Not good enough to warrant high usage in NBA and doesn’t do enough outside of scoring to be effective in league.
46. Charlie Moore, DePaul, trending down, Tier9: smallish player with plenty of scoring and passing ability, but wind up questioning his reads and deep forays into the paint with nowhere to go. Not a DWN favorite.
47. Trent Forrest, FSU, no change, Tier9: Plays point guard, but don’t believe he’s a point guard. If he could play defense only, he’d be more valuable.
Tier 10: getting late
48. Christian Brown, Georgia, trending down, Tier10: long wing, probably more combo forward than wing, good athlete, incomplete.
49. Anthony Cowan, Maryland, no change, Tier10: Big shot maker, average shooter, probably deserves to be a bit higher, but is he really going to be a scoring guard in the NBA?
50. Donta Scott, Maryland, trending up, Tier10: Burly, banging Maryland four-man who can shoot a bit. Not scared.
51. Marcus Bingham, Michigan State, trending down, Tier10: 6-11 soph with a 7-5 wingspan who shot 43% on 14 threes as a frosh, but is 5-27 (18.5%) this year. Better in theory than practice.
52. Armando Bacot, UNC, trending down, Tier10: Supposedly Cole Anthony’s wingman, rebounds ball well, narrow shoulders with ok length, ok around rim, but doesn’t shoot it well anywhere else. Turns 20 March 6th. Bonus: Same birthday as Shaq.
53. Aaron Wiggins, Maryland, trending down, Tier10: Has regressed as a sophomore who showed 3-and-D potential as a frosh. Not good enough to regress.
54. Raiquan Gray, FSU, trending down, Tier10: Fun player, kind of built like Zion, but with maybe half Zion’s vertical and efficiency. Cool spin move.
55. Marcus Carr, Minnesota, no change
56. Isaiah Mobley, USC, trending down
57. Christian Koloko, Arizona, no change: super long, fun shot block disrupter, missed two free throws to seal fate in loss against Oregon. It’s ok.
58. Balsa Koprivica, FSU, no change
59. CJ Fredrick, Iowa, trending up: Probably not an NBA player, but carries himself like he is and it matters.
60. Gabe Brown, Michigan State, no change
61. Davonte Gaines, Tennessee, trending up: super long and skinny redshirt frosh. Has defensive upside.
62. Ethan Anderson, USC, trending down
63. Jaden Shackelford, Alabama, **trending down: Should probably be trending up.
64. George Conditt, Iowa State, trending down: had higher hopes for him; seems to struggle against first units.
65. Sahvir Wheeler, Georgia, no change
66. Jaylen Butz, DePaul, trending down
67. Rocket Watts, Michigan State, **trending down: Had career game against Iowa on 2/25 and played with uber confidence. One game can flip flop a freshman, I guess.
68. John Fulkerson, Tennessee, trending up
69. EJ Montgomery, Kentucky, trending down
70. Elijah Weaver, USC, trending down
71. Nick Rakocevic, USC, trending down
72. Darious Hall, DePaul, trending up
73. Eric Ayala, Maryland, trending up
74. Rasir Bolton, Iowa State, trending down
75. Shereef Mitchell, Creighton, no change
76. Joe Toussaint, Iowa, no change
77. Matthew Mayer, Baylor, no change: Should probably be 8-10 slots higher.
78. Daniel Utomi, USC, trending up: I’m a sucker for hoopers who look like they live in the weight room.
June 21, 2018Posted by on
Post written by Brian Foster, aka Bug. Follow him on Twitter.
DeAndre Ayton: From a physical standpoint, DeAndre Ayton is the most NBA-ready of all the bigs projected in the top half of the lottery. Standing at a rock solid 7’1”, 250 pounds, Ayton has the physique and mobility of a young David Robinson. Although Ayton doesn’t possess the shot-blocking acumen of the Admiral, he is the perfect blend of throwback size/strength with some modern NBA big floor skills sprinkled in. What stands out the most when I watch Ayton is his footwork and agility for a man that big. That rare ability to have that size/athleticism combination along with his elite footwork is what sets him apart from the other elite bigs in this draft. Ayton has a good balance to his offensive game that allows him to score in a variety of ways. His physical gifts make him a great finisher around the rim on both post-ups and pick-and-roll dives to the rim. At Arizona, he played with another center on the floor, while also facing a lot of zone defenses, so I expect him to be even more of a beast on the block with more room to operate. Ayton exhibits an excellent touch on his jump shot from the mid-range, so he has the potential to be a pick-and-pop threat if he develops range to the three-point line. His 73% free throw shooting is a good sign for his jump shot translating to the pros. Another area Ayton excels at offensively is efficiency. He had a PER of 32.6 during his freshman season, averaging 20.1ppg on only 13 shot attempts. Paired with his elite rebounding stats (11.6rpg), Ayton was an absolute monster for teams to handle from the moment he stepped on the court.
Like most young prospects, Ayton has areas of concern that he will have to improve upon to reach his full potential. The concerns with Ayton come on the defensive end of the floor. His defensive struggles seem to be more focus and recognition problems. At times, he will kind of space off and lose his man or allow his guy to get to the rim without much contest. He also had a low steal average at 0.6/game with just under two blocks. You would think he has the ability to double both of those averages with the minutes he had on the floor. He averaged a low 2.3 fouls-per-game while also playing a whopping 33.5 minutes each night, so it is fair to wonder if some of the low work rate on defense was from fatigue. I’m not as concerned as some may be about his defensive struggles, mostly because someone with that much athletic ability can become, at worst, a capable defender with experience and coaching. Ayton has the potential to be an all-time great if he can clean up some of those defensive lapses, while also showing some more nasty when protecting the paint. Assuming no health issues arise down the road, my money is on Ayton reaching his potential, becoming a dominant force for years to come with Hall of Fame-type numbers when it is all said and done.
Jaren Jackson: Jaren Jackson Jr. is one of the most intriguing players in the draft, possessing traits NBA execs are looking for from a high lottery pick. Jackson is young (doesn’t turn 19 until September), oozing with upside, and passed the NBA combine measurement tests with flying colors. During his freshman season at Michigan State, he showed the ability to provide elite rim protection, while also being able to switch and contain guards if needed. Jackson used his long 7’5” wingspan to block three shots-per-game while only playing 22 minutes en route to Big Ten DPOY honors. In this modern era of switching defenses, that defensive versatility and rim protection alone should get Jackson minutes right away. As an added bonus, Jackson also proved to be a capable outside shooter while in East Lansing, shooting a very respectable 39% from deep on 2.7 attempts per game. It remains to be seen if that percentage will translate to the NBA three-point line, but even having a pick and pop game in the 15-18 foot range is going to be a plus at his size.
The two biggest red flags for me with Jackson are his playing time and production in college. Some of the playing time issues were his own doing with foul trouble (8.6 fouls per 100 possessions), but Michigan State’s roster wasn’t talented enough for him to only be playing half of the game. Jackson also leaves a lot to be desired as a rebounder. He started out the season strong with five double-doubles in his first 10 games, but only had one double-digit rebounding game in his last 25 games of the season. With his size and length, you would hope to see a much better rebound rate, especially considering Coach Tom Izzo’s reputation for his teams always crashing the glass hard. All things considered, Jackson is still an 18-year-old kid learning to play the game. The difference between Jackson and the other bigs at the top of the draft, is that I believe Jackson is still a couple of years away from being a starting caliber player. If the team selecting him in the draft is expecting to get a player they need to produce right away, I think they’ll be disappointed. Patience will be the key for whoever selects Jackson.
2018 NBA Draft Big Board | Player #4: Trae Young; alternately: Wispy Hairs, Bold Dazzle, & Basketball
June 20, 2018Posted by on
The first time I saw Trae Young (December 30th, 2017) play a full game, I lost my mind for a bit. This is hardly something to be ashamed of or to apologize for. Without pangs of momentary inspiration and even occasional overreaction, what are we? Pre-programmed overly rational beings subsisting on sterile logic and rationale? Part of what makes us human is our ability to feel, free of judgment, to exist in a moment, to imagine. This is why Trae Young has become an object of emotional overreaction – both good and bad. So what?
First the bad, the sober, the audit. For an NBA lottery pick, Young is slight of build. He’s 6’2” with a 6’3” wingspan and somewhere around 180-185 pounds. These measurements compare nicely with Jay Williams, Jordan Farmar, and Luke Ridnour. Unlike Williams and Farmar, Young isn’t an electric athlete. He has quickness and good instincts, but he’s not an exceptional leaper or explosive off the dribble. In his one year at Oklahoma, while he drew a lot of fouls (8.6 FTA/gm; sixth in the NCAA in FTAs) and didn’t physically breakdown, he was corralable by smart defenses and struggled at times to finish over size. His finishing was exacerbated by his decision making. Young is challenging to scout because his role at OU was so unflinchingly imbalanced: he was everything and everyone and so his decision making which could, at times, be described as abominable, becomes slightly less abominable against the context of his setting in Norman. And this decision making extends into every part of his offensive game: pulling up from 30-plus feet with plenty of time on the shot clock, penetrating into the jaws of the defense and leaving his feet in the lane and then flinging up contested and impossible shots, and making those same forays but instead of forcing the shot, forcing a pass into a tangle of long arms (5.2 turnovers/game).
Defensively, he doesn’t have the greatest physical makeup for a defender, but we’ve seen enough players to know effort and technique can mask physical limitations. In Young’s case, I frequently watched him standing straight up and down, considering taking an opportunistic approach to defending, but in the end opting to take no approach. His go-to move when getting screened was to wilt and make no attempt at fighting through. Similar to Young’s overly-relied-upon role on offense, I wonder (wishful thinking?) if some of this was enablement, maybe Young preserving his energy to continue carrying the team on offense. Effort is table stakes and not bringing effort is a sin even for the atheistic.
All of the above make Young’s NBA candidacy, while obvious, something that stirs up the bubble guts. If Big 12 teams could hassle him into the brink of the abyss, then what of Boston or Golden State or Utah or Patrick Beverley or Fred Van Vleet? If Alabama’s Herb Jones (6’7” with a wingspan around 7-feet) can frustrate him, then what of longer, stronger, better NBA wings?
Despite the physical limitations, coaching gaps, and decision making, Young averaged over 27-points and nearly nine assists. He made 118 threes on 36% shooting despite 74% of his total three-point-attempts coming from beyond the NBA line and 102 of those 241 coming from 30-feet or deeper (per CleaningTheGlass.com). His coaches struggled to develop any type of cohesion between Young’s supernova flaming balls of 35-foot-three-point bombs and his talented, if overshadowed, teammates. As the season progressed, entire defenses were stacked up to slow or stop him and they usually succeeded.
And yet, Young still inspires because, like Doncic, he has a set of skills that appear ready-made for the NBA in 2018. His range extends to 35-feet from the hoop which means his gravity has the potential to tilt entire defenses. Stretching the opposition to breaking points opens worlds of possibility for those with foresight, vision, and imagination. Young, despite being notorious for his deep, deep, deep threes, is at his best when playing his strengths (shooting depth, ball handling, and passing) off of each other. His handle is excellent: creative, quick, dexterous. The handle and shot allow him to create space or beat defenders without having powerful burst. His release, even from 30-plus feet, is quick enough that defenders have to close out tight which creates attack options. Once the initial defender is beat is when Young’s powers form like Voltron as he can beat opponents with floaters, lay-ins, drawing fouls, or, most impressively, passing. At the collegiate level, he kept his eyes up and patiently surveyed his options, reading, reacting, interpreting, and deciding. I’ve already mentioned that his decision-making needs vast improvement. He doesn’t have the size or strength to complete passes with the same oomph of Doncic, but his vision, spatial awareness, and improvisation are special and I imagine will only be better accessed when playing with NBA players. My refrain in all Young’s college games was something like, “imagine what he’d do with legit teammates.”
My first reaction when I saw Young’s combine measurements was to drop him down my big board. It wasn’t far (4th to 5th), but I thought it validated the concerns I’d seen; namely that he could be neutralized by length on the perimeter or interior; that his physical limitations would only be exacerbated in the NBA. As I’ve had time to process these prospects and Young’s game, I’ve realized that his skill and ability exceed the shortcomings. Decision making can be learned. Effort can be drilled. To be 19 with infinite range and preternatural vision is to inspire awe that makes people compare you to Steph Curry and Steve Nash. In draft terms, it’s not important that Young becomes Curry or Nash or Pete Maravich. It’s that he could, that it’s actually a possibility. That potential alone is enough to light up butterflies. That it’s purely potential and not realized against NBA men is probably causing reflux. Somewhere between butterflies and reflux lies the future of Trae Young.
June 8, 2018Posted by on
We pieced together our initial big board about three weeks ago which, in the world of draft prospecting, feels like it was pieced together many moons past. Between now and then was the NBA draft lottery (May 15th), the combine (May 16th – 20th), agency pro days, player workouts with teams, and finally, the NCAA’s deadline for players to withdraw from the draft in order to retain eligibility for college basketball.
Less than three weeks out from the draft, we’ve re-ranked our big board. Four amateur “scouts” (I use the term oh-so-loosely) looking at 54 players, two of whom are new additions to this board (Elie Okobo and Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk) ranked bottom to top.
There are some massive risers: Maryland’s Kevin Huerter, Donte DiVincenzo of NCAA Championship fame, Rodions Kurucs (I’m not certain why he rose), elite rebound collector Jarred Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech’s all-world athlete Josh Okogie (it’s a soft “g” in Okogie).
As for the fallers, speaking specifically for my own re-rankings, it’s often been a rank of circumstance where a player like Huerter who happened to test, measure, and play well at the combine, rose and pushed other guys down. The same can be said for Okogie and DiVincenzo whose athleticisms were elite in Chicago. It’s also worth noting, specifically with Huerter, a lean white kid with a head of red hair, how a player’s appearance can potentially skew our perceptions. Even the redheaded NBA players that come to mind in Brian Scalabrine and Matt Bonner, while contributors to winning teams in their own right, occupied a place of self-deprecation; a jokey awareness that acknowledged their status as visual demographic outliers. There’s even a hint of this in my original notes on Huerter, where I wrote, “Not to be hyperbolic and it’s probably just a height and shooting thing, but he reminds me of Klay Thompson when he was at WSU.” The use of hyperbole wasn’t inappropriate in the sense that it’s a stretch to compare most college basketball players to one of the greatest shooters of all time. Rather, somewhere in my subconscious was probably a touch of awareness that Huerter’s pasty white complexion doesn’t have a long history of success in the NBA. Racial bias, either conscious or unconscious, is something that exists. Throughout this process, in terms of both our player comparisons and general scouting, I’ve attempted to maintain an awareness of when my analysis drifts into simplistic appearance-based comps, but the truth is that I have frequently found myself, with players of all sizes, slipping into this lazy approach and have had to intentionally make attempts to avoid it.
Then there’s the wrinkle of information dissemination. If you follow ESPN’s Jonathan Givony or Mike Schmitz on Twitter, you’re privy to a steady stream of firsthand reports on how players are performing at agency pro days. I get anxiety just watching these clips: basketball courts surrounded by NBA scouts and executives, all crowded shoulder to shoulder with their phones, clipboards, notebooks. They whisper to each other, seeming to be above it all, maybe even annoyed by the young men shooting, dribbling, and executing basketball maneuvers with their futures hanging in the balance. (And if you believe that landing spot, coaching decisions, team culture, and player development matter in how these young men evolve through the NBA, then yes, for the many of the kids participating in these pro days, whether or not they make a career out of the NBA is contingent on decisions made by the men [and I think it’s almost 99% men] watching them. Meanwhile, the kids, in their late teens and early 20s, exhibit a poise that makes me wonder how in the hell I would’ve performed in a similar setting at the same age. Of course, they’ve been groomed and trained for these moments for their entire lives, but that doesn’t diminish the pressure or largeness of the moment.) As we see Givony and Schmitz (and the Givonys and Schmitzes of the world) tweet out that Moritz Wagner “has been drenched in sweat every workout I’ve seen this pre-draft process. Goes Hard” or that Rodions Kurucs “helped himself after a tough year in Barcelona,” a few things can be taken away. First, it seems like every player is shining. The recaps of the pro days that I’ve seen are exclusively positive. Nowhere in the streams of tweets from Givony or Schmitz are critiques of ability or effort which isn’t to say their scouting reports, a more static piece of content, isn’t more well-rounded. But, for some players, there is silence. And silence in this setting, for me as a consumer of information that is exclusively positive, is akin to criticism.
Givony reported that there were “100 NBA reps expected” at the CAA pro day. NBA teams are plenty capable of drawing their own conclusions from full bodies of work just like the rest of us, but Givony/Schmitz actively influence the market valuations of these pro prospects and to some degree, have a likely hand in shaping where players land. It might be a the slightest of touches, the most delicate of nudges, but how we all land our assessments is influenced by both our own eye and the din of the chorus in all its varied forms and pitches.
Without ado and further meanderings, here are our revised big board rankings:
May 14, 2018Posted by on
236 basketball players are testing the NBA waters this spring. This doesn’t include seniors like Keita Bates-Diop, Grayson Allen, Jevon Carter, Devonte Graham, Kenrich Williams, or Kevin Hervey. There are just 60 picks in the draft, but during the 2016-17 season, 88 players made rookie appearances. In 2017-18, that number jumped up to 120, thanks, in part, to two-way contracts between the G-League and NBA. Through the G-League and global scouting, the league has created a talent pool that is deeper and wider than ever. As more players present themselves as NBA-caliber, the basketball world gets both bigger and smaller. Bigger in the sense that not being drafted is no longer a death knell to a player’s NBA aspirations. Smaller in the sense that the league continues to evolve in how it keeps tabs on players – from teenagers entering the USA Basketball system to a G-League that’s on its way to every NBA team having its own minor league affiliate. There are very few Neon Boudeaux’s these days.
Despite this growing population of NBA newcomers, the most impactful players are still being found in the draft. Of those 120 rookies that appeared in NBA games this season, just 26 of them appeared in at least 1,000 minutes. Of those, just three (12%) players were second-round picks (Sindarius Thornwell, Semi Ojeleye, and Wesley Iwundu), and three (12%) were undrafted (Max Kleber, Royce O’Neal, and Milos Teodosic). Among starters of the four conference finalists, three (15%) were second-round picks (Draymond Green, Trevor Ariza, and PJ Tucker) while one part-time starter wasn’t drafted (Aron Baynes).
Of course, 1,000 minutes and starters on conference finalists are completely arbitrary in terms of their selection and statistical significance, but directionally they help to remind us that the top 80-some-odd-percent of the league’s primary contributors still come from the first round.* I expect that this percentage gets smaller over time, but at present, Draymond Green (35th overall, not big enough), Isaiah Thomas (60th overall, too small), Paul Millsap (47th overall, small school, too small), Manu Ginobili (57th overall, too European/Argentine), Kyle Korver (51st overall, can he get his shot at this level?) are still outliers, players who serve as reminders to guard against physical, racial, or geographic bias or conventional stubbornness. *(This was sticking in my craw or something so I looked at the total minutes played by drafted players beginning with the 2003 draft and ending with the 2017 draft. Among all drafted players in that sample, lottery picks make up 44.8% of total minutes (2,270,126 out of 5,069,530), rest of first round makes up 32.7%, and second rounders make up 22.6%. First rounders (lottery included) make up 77.4% of total minutes. This doesn’t include any undrafted players.)
It is under this guise of an ever-expanding universe of potential draftees that my friends joined me to pull together a 55-player big board for the 2018 draft cycle. I’ll caveat and hopefully not lose you by admitting we haven’t seen or scouted all 236 of the players who put their name in the draft. Most concerning for me is probably Elie Okobo; a favorite among some draftniks whose perspectives I respect. I didn’t see Tyus Battle either, but that’s maybe because I have a semi-conscious bias towards Syracuse. It’s hard to say. I would’ve liked to see and understand Jarred Vanderbilt better, but sometimes the universe, injuries, and the loss of Draft Express’s Youtube clips conspires against us.
Leading up to the draft, we’ll post deeper scouting profiles and projections on the top 30 players appearing on our big board. And if time and inspiration allow for it, we may go deeper on guys who felt outside of the top-30, but who one of us may be high on.
In the big board below, you’ll see a few basic values such as the rankings from me and my Dancing with Noah (DWN) friends and colleagues: Bug, Hamilton, and Maahs. You’ll see our DWN average ranking and the DWN standard deviation. The standard deviation is maybe more intriguing to me than the rankings on their own as the greater the deviation, the greater the difference in what our eyes see. There’s the Season-long aggregate rank (YR AVG) which includes big boards from Draft Express, NBADraft.net, Sports Illustrated, The Ringer, and The Stepien which offer up a longer, consensus view. And finally, there’s a comparison of the DWN average versus the consensus (DIFF). Again, I’m a lot less interested in players like Luka Doncic or DeAndre Ayton who have a difference in aggregate of less than one. The differences are where learning lies.
The other piece of context that’s worth including is that, between me and the other guys ranking players, we haven’t discussed our criteria for ranking. There isn’t any component of the following posts that has to do with mock drafting, but that doesn’t discount the role of team and scheme in how we discuss these players, scout them, or how I’ve ranked them. I encountered a bit of the Allen Iverson conundrum while ranking some of these players in that I believe Collin Sexton and Michael Porter to be players with higher ceilings than Mikal Bridges, but consider Bridges to be a more adaptable player who may offer a greater contribution to winning. But none of these concepts (ceiling, adaptability, or winning contribution) are absolutes. It’s not that Bridges has reached his ceiling or that Sexton or Porter must be lead dogs in order produce. If we dealt in these absolutes, then perhaps player rankings would be easier. We don’t deal in absolutes though and perhaps, in the right role, with the right coaching, Sexton could become a perfect fourth man on a contending team. Another example is the role evolution of Andre Iguodala who’s found his greatest success as a role player. With a highly adaptable game and the mindset of accepting a diminished role, Iguodala has achieved wild success, but few will suggest he was better than Iverson who required massive usage to achieve optimal effectiveness and who struggled in less usage-heavy roles. Did my colleagues think about this the same way? I doubt it, but do all 30 teams use the same criteria when ranking their players? I have my doubts. (Looking at you David Kahn.)
June 19, 2017Posted by on
Welcome to the third installment of the Dancing with Noah 2017 NBA Draft player analysis featuring players ranked 11 to 15 from our big board. Players one through five and six through ten have been covered already. This round covers Frank Ntilikina, Donovan Mitchell, Luke Kennard, OG Anunoby, and Justin Patton. And as the guy who wrote three of the scouting reports/analyses below, it’s crazy how quickly the quality of prospect shifts from semi-definition to mere outlines and visions based on potential. And it’s not to say none of the top-10 players are “specialists,” but as we shift lower, it seems some of these players have obvious specialty skills offset by weaknesses that lower their ceilings relative to players in the top-10. And as always, special thanks to my fellow writers Hamilton and Bug, and our talented designer, Maahs.
Fenrich: Frank Ntilikina
The only tape I’ve seen of Ntilikina (a difficult name to spell) is against teens in an U-18 European tournament. It’s nigh impossible to comprehend how skills translate from the high school or low-pro level to the NBA or how a 6’5” point guard with monster length translates. In some regards, I imagine this is how scouts felt in the late 1990s and early 2000s watching the likes of Eddy Curry feasting and beasting on 6’4” centers at the high school level.
Enough about Curry though. Ntilikina is super long with a balanced, if slow, catch and shoot jumper. His motion is consistent as he gets square and has strong balance. As that jumper is presently constituted, I don’t see him getting clean looks in the NBA unless he’s able to speed up his release – which he showed on occasion.
In the limited tape I viewed, I didn’t see a ton of footspeed quickness; particularly on the offensive end. However, most scouting reports which point to the defensive end as his greatest strength call out lateral quickness. With an unofficial wingspan near seven-feet, there’s potential to be a damn hellion on that end of the floor. This type of scouting report is applicable to a lot of youngsters as the skill-side hasn’t caught up with their physical gifts. Anunoby, Isaac, and Anigbogu come to mind. Also, there’s no guarantee the skill side does catch up.
I do wonder if he’s really a point guard or if he’ll slot into a combo guard capable of switching onto multiple positions at the NBA level. Bug compared him to a mini version of Thabo Sefolosha and I’m apt to agree with him though I may take it even a step further and extend a high-end comparison to Nicolas Batum. Both players are smart, with defensive versatility and offensive games better-suited as second or third (or further down) options.
Even with that all that defensive potential, I don’t think you draft Ntilikina with the expectation of immediate returns. He’s one of the younger players in this class and while he may be somewhat ready to make plays on the defensive end, the offensive side of the ball is going to take time to develop. If he’s entering his fourth season as a 22-year-old and he hasn’t ascended to starter-level, will a team still be invested? Will he maintain his confidence? These types of variable scenarios are realistic and will shape how adapts to the NBA over time.
Hamilton: Donovan Mitchell
To be quite honest, I didn’t see much Donovan Mitchell during the 2016-17 season. After watching some of his tape, I wish I had paid closer attention because he’s fun to watch. He’s fast (fastest ¾ court combine sprint since 2009), shifty, long-armed, and has incredible leaping ability. Anyone who has played JUCO ball knows this player type … It’s highly unlikely he makes it to Dwyane Wade’s level, but Wade has developed the template for the smallish slash-first scorer with supreme athletic ability in the modern NBA.
Mitchell appears to be a better three-point shooter than Wade was coming out of Marquette and that’s a good thing for him because he isn’t quite as big. He gets his shots off above and around bigger defenders and can make tough ones. His sturdy build along with great two-footed leaping and long arms should help him on drives and finishes in the NBA as well. He protects and hides the ball on drives using long strides and impressive body control to get to his spot. This is where he most reminds me of Wade.
On the downside, he appears to settle for jump shots a lot. Probably won’t ever be much of a PG. Not a great one-foot leaper, which will be somewhat limiting against NBA size. He looks awkward driving to his left and going up off one foot.
Talented enough to be a top player from this class, Mitchell projects as a starter on a bad team or a 2nd unit scorer on a good one. He plays with a flair that reminds of J.R. Smith, Nate Robinson or Nick Young. He’ll do some things that make you cringe and just as easily wow you on the next possession. And that’s what you live with when you have guys like JR, Nate Rob or Swaggy P. He is cut from their cloth. Irrational confidence. Pull-up 3s in transition. Highlight reel shot-making. 20+ points on any given night. Equally likely to be a total no-show.
Bug: Luke Kennard
Going into my analysis of Luke Kennard, I tried to keep an open mind as far as player comparisons go. I didn’t want to take the easy way out and compare him to fellow Duke alum J.J. Redick, but the more I watched Kennard, the more I saw a lot of the tools that make Redick successful in the NBA. The similarities go deeper than them being white guys from Duke that are elite shooters. Both players have wingspans that are shorter than their height, which can make it harder to get shots off in the paint and off-the-dribble.
Looking back at Redick’s Draft Express profile from 2006, they also had a lot of the same weaknesses and concerns coming into the draft. Does he have enough athleticism to be able to guard NBA players? Is he explosive enough to get to the rim, and when he does get in the paint, will the lack of length make it tough on him to score? These are all legitimate concerns, but Redick has given players with Kennard’s skill-set a blueprint to succeed in the NBA. He’s not going to be a franchise guy and #1 scorer for a team, but he can carve out a role on a team to help provide shooting and spacing, which is huge for the giving primary scorers room to operate.
He made a huge leap from his freshman to sophomore seasons. He went from 12-points on 32% three-point shooting to the second-leading scorer in the ACC at 19.5 points with 53-44-86 shooting percentages. The thing that jumps out to me when I watch Kennard’s tape from Duke is his basketball IQ and an extremely advanced triple threat, face up game. As noted earlier, Kennard doesn’t have overwhelming athleticism, but he makes up for it with crafty moves off shot fakes, step backs and pull-ups. His deadly jumper sets up his offense because the defense is forced to respect his shot. He plays within himself most of the time, and doesn’t try to make plays outside of his capabilities. His 1.6 turnovers-per-game is outstanding for a player that was asked to carry a lot of the offensive load for his team.
Overall, I think Kennard is a very good late lottery prospect that can help out a team that needs shooting. In today’s NBA with smaller lineups and less low post banging, a team can never have enough shooting. Not only will the team drafting him be getting a great shooter, they will also be getting a good basketball player that knows how to play the game with great pace and intelligence.
Fenrich: OG Anunoby
No one seems higher on OG Anunoby than The Ringer’s Jonathan Tjarks who lists him fourth on his big board. I’m nowhere near that high, but I’m also not as low as my guy Bug who sees him as an “offensive train wreck.”
I’m probably somewhere between those extremes, but closer to Bug than Tjarks. What stood out to me seeing Anunoby’s clips from Indiana were his tree trunk legs. I envision those quads being able to power him to success in a strong man competition pulling a semi-truck in neutral, but a more practical application would be defending both forward positions in the NBA. In addition to the that powerful lower body, Anunoby has a 7’2” wingspan on a 6’8” frame. (I’ve also seen this wingspan listed at 7’5”.)
While he appeared in just 16 games as a sophomore at Indiana due to what was reported as an ACL tear, Anunoby averaged over two blocks and two steals per-40 minutes. I don’t see him as some kind of Andrei Kirilenko defensive wunderkind, but the ceiling for his defensive impact is significant. Not to take away from his work ethic, but it helps to be built like a long pterodactyl-like wings.
Now to the bad: OG can’t shoot. He shot just 52% from the line for his college career and after nearly 45% from three as a freshman on just under one attempt-per-game, that number dropped to 31% on nearly three attempts as a sophomore. It’s not just that the percentages are bad, but his form and release are awful. His footwork is poor and even when the shot goes in, I find myself cringing. I saw no evidence of playmaking.
I tend to downplay the 45% he shot from three as a freshman because the mechanics are so poor. His shooting has scared me into seeing his offensive floor maybe a level above Dennis Rodman’s – which is just horrendous. He can absolutely evolve offensively, but he doesn’t look like he’ll ever be even a top-four option on offense. Coupled with the lack of playmaking and it’s enough to land him in the specialist category which isn’t the worst place to be as a 6’8” combo-forward who can potentially defend all five positions.
Fenrich: Justin Patton
Justin Patton, Harry Giles, Jonathan Isaac, Zach Collins, John Collins, Jarrett Allen, Ike Anigbogu. Who are these young, athletic giants roaming college and high school campuses across the United States? I watched their tapes, read their scouting reports and they’re all unique as snowflakes, complete with their own bags of strengths and weaknesses, idiosyncrasies and TBD-futures.
Patton lands right in the middle of this batch; a nearly seven-foot red-shirt freshman from Creighton where he shot a ridiculous 67% from the field on 13 attempts-per-game. Per Draft Express and Synergy, that number kicked up to 75% around the rim. Those shots around the basket accounted for 77% of his total field goal attempts. 174 of his 200 makes came at the rim. This is on some DeAndre Jordan distribution.
But Patton is no Jordan; in both good and bad ways. He can hit the jumper as he was able to make eight threes on just 15 attempts. His mechanics are funky though and he shot just 52% from the line. In short, there are no guarantees. And that’s the good on the Jordan comparison.
The bad is that he doesn’t rebound anything like DeAndre; not even Texas A&M, raw, unpolished DJ. Where DJ averaged nearly 12-rebounds-per-40 as a freshman, Patton averaged less-than-ten. His per-40 rebounding average is lower than any of the bigs included on this big board. His rebounding rate (under 14%) was 81st in the country – for freshmen.
If he’s not ready to be a reliable jump shooter, with his current defensive ability (good lateral movement, but questionable technique), he’s a five-man in the NBA. And if he’s a center, then he has to be better as a rebounder.
Patton doesn’t have to be DJ anymore than Isaac has to be Kevin Garnett. But unless he’s able to maintain his efficiency from three at the NBA level or proves he can sharpen his defensive technique, then he’ll be a rotation player.
Or, if his copious physical gifts (7’3” wingspan, nearly 31” vertical at just a hair under seven-feet) and skills reach their potential, then he’s a guy who can impact the game on both sides of the ball. The same can be said of most of these big guys. The art for scouts and front offices is figuring out who has the desire and will to be better and then putting them in a position where they can grow at a pace that’s both natural and challenging. If it was easy, everyone would do it.
May 30, 2017Posted by on
Malcolm Brogdon, Josh Richardson, Norman Powell, Jordan Clarkson, Nikola Jokic, Draymond Green, Khris Middleton, Jae Crowder. Since the 2012 draft, the previous players have been taken in the second round, well behind players who are less effective as NBA pros. The draft isn’t a crap shoot, but with a crush of 19-year-old freshmen leaving college every season (11 of the top prospects in 2017 are freshmen, five of the top eight were freshmen in 2016, 11 of the top 13 in 2015, six of the top seven in 2014), the sample size to scout these players against top competition in a competitive setting is small.
Against that backdrop, I’ve teamed up with a few friends (Bug, Hamilton, and Maahs) to create a Big Board of the top-20 prospects in this year’s draft and over the next four weeks, scout these players in a series of posts. I lay out the above premise, that projecting NBA prospects has become an exercise that runs 90-players deep, to show the depth to which the league goes now in finding productivity and value. In the 2016-17 season, 88 different players who saw time on an NBA court were classified as rookies. The number was 73 in ’16, 82 in ’15, 78 in ’14, 78 in ’13. The draft is just 60-picks so what we’re seeing is close to an entire round worth of new players coming into the league each season.
The introduction of G-League-to-NBA team affiliations is up to 22 for 2016-17 and will rise to 28 by 2019. Combine that with two-way contracts (creates two additional roster spots and adds both team and player benefits that allow G-League players to make more money while giving the team flexiblity in bringing a player up to the NBA team without having to commit to an NBA salary until after 45 days – stipulations apply) that were created with the latest CBA agreement and there are more domestic pro basketball opportunities available.
All of the above means that the 20-player big board we’ve put together below is not comprehensive. We’re four people, three of us have children, and we’re all gainfully employed. Effective scouting, even with the copious tools that Draft Express puts out, isn’t just about identifying talent. The combination of team and scheme, opportunity, chemistry, player commitment and discipline – it’s a complex equation with few, if any, guarantees. And even if a team lands on a player and tries to cultivate him through the G-League, there’s still no guarantee they’ll figure out how to best tap that player’s potential in their particular system. Hassan Whiteside and Seth Curry are examples of players who were both late NBA bloomers and squandered by NBA teams. Whiteside was drafted 33rd in 2010, found himself out of the league in 2013 and is arguably a top-five player from his draft class. Curry wasn’t even drafted and played on four teams before latching on in Dallas as a productive member of NBA society this past season.
Caveats and qualifications aside, at the aggregate level, there’s not much variation from Draft Express or The Ringer’s big boards. This isn’t to say there’s not individual deviation, but collectively that our views converge with status quo. As we get into deeper analysis over the next few weeks, we’ll go into more player-specific detail. And because a cap of 20 prospects is woefully inadequate, where time and life allow, we’ll explore deeper cuts like DJ Wilson, Jawun Evans, Semi Ojeleye, Kobi Simmons, Sindarius Thornwell, Monte Morris and others.