2020 NBA Draft Thread: Bulls pick 4th!

[JohnnyTapwater]

I can totally see Boston or Denver drafting Poku. I feel like they can wait for him to grow into his body.

Obi... I think I can be talked into Obi because I believe what he lacks he can improve, but what he has, you can't teach.

[cjbulls]

There is something to be said for the uniqueness of those statistical profiles, and the correlation between those players outputs -it's elite company. Regardless of minor distinctions between competition, it's just a rare crop regardless. Those players are the best/most promising bigs in the league. If you were to pulled those numbers up for the players you mentioned, or any other 'random' crop of bigs, they would absolutely pale in comparison.

Throwing everything the stats, eye test and more reveals about a player purely because of an obscure situation is what causes guys like Giannis and Porzingis to go underrated through the pre-draft process.

You can also go look up his play in FIBA in the junior European and World Cup's in 2018 and 2019, where his skills translated against some of the best prospects of his age group. He thoroughly destroyed Ariel Hukporti, a projected 2021 lottery pick who plays against grown men and is physically NBA ready when they played against Germany, for instance.

If you would like further reading and the context of that table, here's a link - https://uproxx.com/dimemag/aleksej-pokusevski-2020-nba-draft-scouting-report/

You didn’t even mention these numbers were per 36. I guess I should have realized they seemed off. You can make any group of prospects look alike if you want to compare different leagues, play styles, years, etc. and then make the numbers per 36.
_________Pts__ Reb__ AST__ Stl__ Blk__ TO__ FG%__ 3P%__ FT%
Poku ____18.2__11.6__4.3__2.3__3.4__3.0.___41__38%___77%
J Okafor_20.7__10.2__1.5__.9____1.7__3.0___66%__—___51%
A Bennett 21.4__10.8__1.3__.9___1.6__2.4___59%__38%___70%
E Griffin__19.8__11.9__1.8__1.0__4.9__2.4___43__38%___73%
D Bender_ 12.8 __7.3__1.9__1.5__— __—_____ 50%__36%___72%
Y Jianlian 29.2__13.5__ —__ —__—_4.1__ —___56%__ — ___84%

Sure, per 36 is a pretty standard way of standardizing statistics assuming you're not doing any crazy extrapolation.

Those original names were compiled because they were the quote unquote 'unicorn' prospects who do everything on the court and move exceptionally for their size. This group is quite clearly the opposite. Okafor, Jianlian, Bennett etc. were poor athletes/plodders.. the face of empty stats bigs.

But more than anything, those stats don't even look similar.. the difference in overall stocks and assist rates is absolutely night and day.

Per 36 matters because they hide problems in the numbers, namely small sample size. For example, from what I can see, Poku played 12 games, only started 8, and played 23 minutes. So you’re extrapolating Ayton, Kat or Giannis from 250 minutes? Wiseman had 70 minutes at Memphis

Have you seen what Poku looks like? His body is a shorter Shawn Bradley right now.

[rtblues]

Ignoring positional needs or redundancy issues, and without the benefit of knowing who goes 1-2-3, I'll ask, can Devin Vassell possibly be the 4th best player in this draft?

I like him better than many of the others mentioned after watch some video and checking out some stats.

[sco]

IMO, the biggest mistake we could make would be giving up an asset to trade-up in this draft. I feel like Ball, Edwards and Wiseman could all be fools gold. I wouldn't mind finding a second first rounder in the late teens without giving up a core piece to get him.

[The Box Office]

Ignoring positional needs or redundancy issues, and without the benefit of knowing who goes 1-2-3, I'll ask, can Devin Vassell possibly be the 4th best player in this draft?

I like him better than many of the others mentioned after watch some video and checking out some stats.

To me, Devin Vassell is the 3rd best player in the draft. He's a plus player offensively and defensively. I would look to trade Lauri for Vassell. Vassell's anticipation, twitch reflexes, active hands, and hunger on defense are a beauty to watch.

I need to note that it's rare for him to turn over the ball on offense. He really does take care of it.

[JohnnyTapwater]

When people evaluate. Do they evaluate for star potential, or just role player potential?

There must be a modicum of risk involved when it comes to striking gold with a star or even promising players, a step away from being a star.

Otherwise.

You miss out on Trae Young because he's small and not a defensive stand-out.
You miss out on Michael Porter Jr. because of his injury concern
You let Mitchell Robinson slide because of no freshman year.
You don't go after Donovan Mitchell because of size.
Or Bam Adebayo because you think he's just a rim runner with no other skill set.
Same with Pascal Siakam.

Like... Players get better. You have to roll the dice sometimes and go all in on what they CAN do.

[GimmeDat]

You didn’t even mention these numbers were per 36. I guess I should have realized they seemed off. You can make any group of prospects look alike if you want to compare different leagues, play styles, years, etc. and then make the numbers per 36.
_________Pts__ Reb__ AST__ Stl__ Blk__ TO__ FG%__ 3P%__ FT%
Poku ____18.2__11.6__4.3__2.3__3.4__3.0.___41__38%___77%
J Okafor_20.7__10.2__1.5__.9____1.7__3.0___66%__—___51%
A Bennett 21.4__10.8__1.3__.9___1.6__2.4___59%__38%___70%
E Griffin__19.8__11.9__1.8__1.0__4.9__2.4___43__38%___73%
D Bender_ 12.8 __7.3__1.9__1.5__— __—_____ 50%__36%___72%
Y Jianlian 29.2__13.5__ —__ —__—_4.1__ —___56%__ — ___84%

Sure, per 36 is a pretty standard way of standardizing statistics assuming you're not doing any crazy extrapolation.

Those original names were compiled because they were the quote unquote 'unicorn' prospects who do everything on the court and move exceptionally for their size. This group is quite clearly the opposite. Okafor, Jianlian, Bennett etc. were poor athletes/plodders.. the face of empty stats bigs.

But more than anything, those stats don't even look similar.. the difference in overall stocks and assist rates is absolutely night and day.

Per 36 matters because they hide problems in the numbers, namely small sample size. For example, from what I can see, Poku played 12 games, only started 8, and played 23 minutes. So you’re extrapolating Ayton, Kat or Giannis from 250 minutes? Wiseman had 70 minutes at Memphis

Have you seen what Poku looks like? His body is a shorter Shawn Bradley right now.

No one's using Wiseman's 2 games as statistical evidence.

The one concern that everyone's noted is his frame. Obviously that's a concern, he's not faultless. But as I mentioned earlier, his actual base isn't actually that concerning, he just has stick thin arms.

Again, there's samples of Poku from FIBA play over numerous competitions that I've already cited as well. I've laid more than enough evidence out, do what you want with it, not interested in the back and forth.

[cjbulls]

Sure, per 36 is a pretty standard way of standardizing statistics assuming you're not doing any crazy extrapolation.

Those original names were compiled because they were the quote unquote 'unicorn' prospects who do everything on the court and move exceptionally for their size. This group is quite clearly the opposite. Okafor, Jianlian, Bennett etc. were poor athletes/plodders.. the face of empty stats bigs.

But more than anything, those stats don't even look similar.. the difference in overall stocks and assist rates is absolutely night and day.

Per 36 matters because they hide problems in the numbers, namely small sample size. For example, from what I can see, Poku played 12 games, only started 8, and played 23 minutes. So you’re extrapolating Ayton, Kat or Giannis from 250 minutes? Wiseman had 70 minutes at Memphis

Have you seen what Poku looks like? His body is a shorter Shawn Bradley right now.

No one's using Wiseman's 2 games as statistical evidence.

The one concern that everyone's noted is his frame. Obviously that's a concern, he's not faultless. But as I mentioned earlier, his actual base isn't actually that concerning, he just has stick thin arms.

Again, there's samples of Poku from FIBA play over numerous competitions that I've already cited as well. I've laid more than enough evidence out, do what you want with it, not interested in the back and forth.

Fine, but then why count Poku’s 250 minutes if you are willing to discount Wiseman’s 70? Is that really a meaningful difference? If you want to point to Poku’s FIBA numbers, why ignore Wiseman’s AAU and FIBA numbers that made him the consensus #1 prospect? Looks like you may have a blind spot here.

[RedBulls23]

Hey guys, we had Rob Schaefer on from NBC Sports Chicago talking about the draft and the Bulls getting the 4th pick. Have a listen at the links below.

Apple: https://apple.co/2YvcG7i
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3hDIduY


In general we're going to do some good draft coverage till the draft, so look out for episodes the next few weeks too with some really knowledgeable guests.

[drosereturn]

Ignoring positional needs or redundancy issues, and without the benefit of knowing who goes 1-2-3, I'll ask, can Devin Vassell possibly be the 4th best player in this draft?

I like him better than many of the others mentioned after watch some video and checking out some stats.

Even if Vassell was the 4th best player, it would be crazy to pick him at number 4 when nobody is mocking up that high.
I hope AK copies Ainges strat like when he still got his guy in Tatum at 3 and somehow made Sixers surrender everything by picking a worst prospect at 1.

[PlayerUp]

When people evaluate. Do they evaluate for star potential, or just role player potential?

There must be a modicum of risk involved when it comes to striking gold with a star or even promising players, a step away from being a star.

Otherwise.

You miss out on Trae Young because he's small and not a defensive stand-out.
You miss out on Michael Porter Jr. because of his injury concern
You let Mitchell Robinson slide because of no freshman year.
You don't go after Donovan Mitchell because of size.
Or Bam Adebayo because you think he's just a rim runner with no other skill set.
Same with Pascal Siakam.

Like... Players get better. You have to roll the dice sometimes and go all in on what they CAN do.

This.

People need to decide whether to do the safe route or go the risky route. Risky routes can often lead to a star. Safe routes lead to a complementary piece.

[MGB8]

Ignoring positional needs or redundancy issues, and without the benefit of knowing who goes 1-2-3, I'll ask, can Devin Vassell possibly be the 4th best player in this draft?

I like him better than many of the others mentioned after watch some video and checking out some stats.

To me, Devin Vassell is the 3rd best player in the draft. He's a plus player offensively and defensively. I would look to trade Lauri for Vassell. Vassell's anticipation, twitch reflexes, active hands, and hunger on defense are a beauty to watch.

I need to note that it's rare for him to turn over the ball on offense. He really does take care of it.

I don't know about 3rd best player, but he's up there. Then concerns about him are real - low volume production and low FTA rate. But he was the best player on a good team, with excellent bball IQ, defense, shooting (no Culver issues here) and, yes, athleticism.

I would be just as happy with him as with one of the pgs, who have greater red flags on them. Given age and baseline talent level, Vassell is a better prospect than Mikal Bridges was.

[MrSparkle]

When people evaluate. Do they evaluate for star potential, or just role player potential?

There must be a modicum of risk involved when it comes to striking gold with a star or even promising players, a step away from being a star.

Otherwise.

You miss out on Trae Young because he's small and not a defensive stand-out.
You miss out on Michael Porter Jr. because of his injury concern
You let Mitchell Robinson slide because of no freshman year.
You don't go after Donovan Mitchell because of size.
Or Bam Adebayo because you think he's just a rim runner with no other skill set.
Same with Pascal Siakam.

Like... Players get better. You have to roll the dice sometimes and go all in on what they CAN do.

This.

People need to decide whether to do the safe route or go the risky route. Risky routes can often lead to a star. Safe routes lead to a complementary piece.

I actually disagree, strongly.

I think the definition of safe needs to be revisited:

Safe:
- Good shooting form
- Good defensive floor
- Good size or wingspan
- Atleast moderately athletic
- Fast
- Good ball handling
- High IQ
- Multi positional

Unsafe:
- Slow or unathletic
- Bad shooting form
- Terrible FG%
- Bad IQ
- Lack of fundamentals
- Bad handling
- Weak
- Injury prone
- Bad defensive awareness

X-Factors that only translate if you have fantastic handles and scoring ability:
- Hyper athleticism
- Elite vision

Doesn’t really matter but some people continue making a big deal about it:
- Age

With late bloomers like Curry, Butler, Draymond... I don’t know why people give a crap. If a player is dominating at 18, then that means they’re ready and must be snagged early (Lebron, Luka). Kawhi had 2 college years and didn’t end up like Cody Zeller.

Somehow we associate McDermott and WCJ with “safe”, but Doug was a classic example of a guy I considered a very risky NBA translation, and WCJ was basically the rawest project guy in the top-7 besides Bamba - he was basically a smart defender with a very strong frame, solid fundamentals, good wing-span and a decent form, ability to handle, etc. He was also the youngest player in the draft. But he really didn’t project any particular scoring ability besides the low post (with an undersized length for NBA Cs). If this is what we mean by 'safe' pick, then fair enough. If you had to pick his strengths, things like "age, defensive mechanics and low-post moves" are not huge pluses. So in a way, he was still unsafe.

But anyway, I’d say if your pick has atleast 5 unsafe flags, then you are really just gambling against yourself.

My point, is there was nothing risky about Giannis, Kawhi, Jimmy, George, Westbrook, Rose, Luka. Granted, a lot were later picks... But if a guy has like 2 or 3 faults, but a whole mess of a great skills and attributes, you can’t highlight those faults and pigeon them a roleplayer. They were safe picks with star ceilings. Even had they not become stars with elite scoring, Kawhi or Jimmy would’ve had long NBA careers.

A starting recipe for a star IMO is elite handles, strong scoring ability (either inside or out, or even just getting to the FT line), and a good court awareness. If they don’t have that, then you might as well skip the potential star conversation.

LaMelo’s got that going for him, to be fair... But he has atleast 5 maybe even 7 unsafe flags IMO. Maybe I’m entirely wrong and he gets to the FT line effortlessly in the NBA and bumps his shooting dramatically with a broken form, but going by what I saw, there are lot of problems (light/weak frame, shooting form, %, fundamentals, defense). I can still see a semblance of an argument for taking him... but besides Simmons, there are zero star examples in the last 10 years of primary ball-handlers with poor shooting mechanics. I will admit it's a SLIGHT unknown, because Rubio and Rondo both tore their ACLs, and for a guy who is going to rely more on their defensive/lateral movement and getting to the rim, that's a problem. But having a shooter is generally a safe-guard against really bad injuries. They'll continue providing buckets, like CP3, even as they decline athletically.

[Jvaughn]

Initially his age seems like a turnoff but it shouldn't be. He's a sophomore and a late bloomer that is just now rounding out his skillsets figuring it out. It's one thing if you're a senior at his age just graduating but he started late.

Obi Toppin is quite possibly our best bet to be a #1 option among the lottery picks. High motor, strong, athletic. May have the "it" factor. We should not discount him because of his age and other flaws in his game.

I really believe if he was given the opportunity to perform in March madness he would have played himself into a top 2 pick. We need to find the steal in the draftnajd and I think he might be it. I see the work ethic as he played himself into a top draft pick he has a back to the basket game he can score from outside he plays above the rim and as you said he has that it factor. I think he legit might be the one a few years from now teams will be asking why did they pass him up.

Was all in on Obi after watching clips but you have to look at the weaknesses as well and it's easy to fall off that bandwagon.

Start @ 5:24...that high center of gravity/stiffness, just terrible footwork and awareness. Just so much to work on defensively. Can say all you want about it being an offensive league but defense counts for something. If Bulls coaches can look at that and say oh that is all easily fixable then GREAT but IDK...this is pretty damning stuff. Not for the weak of heart:

Watch on YouTube

Yeah, he's not just a medicore defender. It's really poor. And that goes for his perimeter defense, interior defense, and off ball defense. I understand people like to call him a late bloomer, but I'm not optimistic he becomes serviceable on that side of the ball even with NBA coaching.

[TheSuzerain]

Per 36 matters because they hide problems in the numbers, namely small sample size. For example, from what I can see, Poku played 12 games, only started 8, and played 23 minutes. So you’re extrapolating Ayton, Kat or Giannis from 250 minutes? Wiseman had 70 minutes at Memphis

Have you seen what Poku looks like? His body is a shorter Shawn Bradley right now.

No one's using Wiseman's 2 games as statistical evidence.

The one concern that everyone's noted is his frame. Obviously that's a concern, he's not faultless. But as I mentioned earlier, his actual base isn't actually that concerning, he just has stick thin arms.

Again, there's samples of Poku from FIBA play over numerous competitions that I've already cited as well. I've laid more than enough evidence out, do what you want with it, not interested in the back and forth.

Fine, but then why count Poku’s 250 minutes if you are willing to discount Wiseman’s 70? Is that really a meaningful difference? If you want to point to Poku’s FIBA numbers, why ignore Wiseman’s AAU and FIBA numbers that made him the consensus #1 prospect? Looks like you may have a blind spot here.

Wiseman's AAU stats aren't even top 10 worthy let alone consensus #1.

[PlayerUp]

When people evaluate. Do they evaluate for star potential, or just role player potential?

There must be a modicum of risk involved when it comes to striking gold with a star or even promising players, a step away from being a star.

Otherwise.

You miss out on Trae Young because he's small and not a defensive stand-out.
You miss out on Michael Porter Jr. because of his injury concern
You let Mitchell Robinson slide because of no freshman year.
You don't go after Donovan Mitchell because of size.
Or Bam Adebayo because you think he's just a rim runner with no other skill set.
Same with Pascal Siakam.

Like... Players get better. You have to roll the dice sometimes and go all in on what they CAN do.

This.

People need to decide whether to do the safe route or go the risky route. Risky routes can often lead to a star. Safe routes lead to a complementary piece.

I actually disagree, strongly.

I think the definition of safe needs to be revisited:

Safe:
- Good shooting form
- Good defensive floor
- Good size or wingspan
- Atleast moderately athletic
- Fast
- Good ball handling
- High IQ
- Multi positional

Unsafe:
- Slow or unathletic
- Bad shooting form
- Terrible FG%
- Bad IQ
- Lack of fundamentals
- Bad handling
- Weak
- Injury prone
- Bad defensive awareness

X-Factors that only translate if you have fantastic handles and scoring ability:
- Hyper athleticism
- Elite vision

Doesn’t really matter but some people continue making a big deal about it:
- Age

With late bloomers like Curry, Butler, Draymond... I don’t why people give a crap. If a player is dominating at 18, then that means they’re ready and must be snagged early (Lebron, Luka). Kawhi had 2 college years and didn’t end up like Cody Zeller.

Somehow we associate McDermott and WCJ with “safe”, but Doug was a classic example of a guy I considered a very risky NBA translation, and WCJ was basically the rawest project guy in the top-7 besides Bamba - he was basically a smart defender with a very strong frame, solid fundamentals, good wing-span and a hint of a jumpshot, ability to handle, etc. He was also the youngest player in the draft. But on the other hand, he really didn’t project any particular scoring ability besides the low post (with an undersized length for NBA Cs).

But anyway, I’d say if your pick has atleast 5 unsafe flags, then you are really just gambling against yourself.

My point, is there was nothing risky about Giannis, Kawhi, Jimmy, George, Westbrook, Rose, Luka. Granted, they were later picks... But if a guy has like 2 or 3 faults, but a whole mess of a great skills and attributes, you can’t highlight those faults and pigeon them a roleplayer. They were safe picks with star ceilings. Even had they not become stars with elite scoring, Kawhi or Jimmy would’ve had long NBA careers.

A starting recipe for a star IMO is elite handles, strong scoring ability (either inside or out, or even just getting to the FT line), and a good court awareness. If they don’t have that, then you might as well skip the potential star conversation.

There is a difference between high risk medium reward picks and medium risk high reward picks.

You miss out on Trae Young because he's small and not a defensive stand-out.
You miss out on Michael Porter Jr. because of his injury concern
You let Mitchell Robinson slide because of no freshman year.
You don't go after Donovan Mitchell because of size.
Or Bam Adebayo because you think he's just a rim runner with no other skill set.
Same with Pascal Siakam.

All of these players were not considered high risk medium reward picks and they didn't have most of these issues.

Unsafe:
- Slow or unathletic
- Bad shooting form
- Terrible FG%
- Bad IQ
- Lack of fundamentals
- Bad handling
- Weak
- Injury prone
- Bad defensive awareness

You go for high risk picks that you think can heavily develop at the next level.

[TheSuzerain]

My dream draft at the moment is taking Hali at #4 and trading for another mid-1st to take Poku. I'd like that.

[drosestruts]

When people evaluate. Do they evaluate for star potential, or just role player potential?

There must be a modicum of risk involved when it comes to striking gold with a star or even promising players, a step away from being a star.

Otherwise.

You miss out on Trae Young because he's small and not a defensive stand-out.
You miss out on Michael Porter Jr. because of his injury concern
You let Mitchell Robinson slide because of no freshman year.
You don't go after Donovan Mitchell because of size.
Or Bam Adebayo because you think he's just a rim runner with no other skill set.
Same with Pascal Siakam.

Like... Players get better. You have to roll the dice sometimes and go all in on what they CAN do.

I've never liked this thought process - why can't a safe pick with a decent floor also blossom into a star player?

Looking back at Jayson Tatum's NBADraft.net profile he's labelled as a streaky scorer who struggled getting to the rim and there were concerns about his ability to create his own offense against NBA wings. His NBA comp was Danny Granger.

Granger's a pretty nice NBA comp, most people would be happy with, and Tatum seems to have already passed that.

[cjbulls]

No one's using Wiseman's 2 games as statistical evidence.

The one concern that everyone's noted is his frame. Obviously that's a concern, he's not faultless. But as I mentioned earlier, his actual base isn't actually that concerning, he just has stick thin arms.

Again, there's samples of Poku from FIBA play over numerous competitions that I've already cited as well. I've laid more than enough evidence out, do what you want with it, not interested in the back and forth.

Fine, but then why count Poku’s 250 minutes if you are willing to discount Wiseman’s 70? Is that really a meaningful difference? If you want to point to Poku’s FIBA numbers, why ignore Wiseman’s AAU and FIBA numbers that made him the consensus #1 prospect? Looks like you may have a blind spot here.

Wiseman's AAU stats aren't even top 10 worthy let alone consensus #1.

Yet he was the #1 prospect coming out of high school. So yes, by definition, they were.

[TheSuzerain]

Fine, but then why count Poku’s 250 minutes if you are willing to discount Wiseman’s 70? Is that really a meaningful difference? If you want to point to Poku’s FIBA numbers, why ignore Wiseman’s AAU and FIBA numbers that made him the consensus #1 prospect? Looks like you may have a blind spot here.

Wiseman's AAU stats aren't even top 10 worthy let alone consensus #1.

Yet he was the #1 prospect coming out of high school. So yes, by definition, they were.

Nobody gives a **** how Rivals/247 ranks anybody.