Is Flagg really better than Harper?

[clyde21]

If Flagg and Harper turn into Gordon Hayward and Devin Booker, then it's pretty obvious Harper would be the better player.

no, that's not how any of this works. the outcome doesn't retroactively change the scouting process or why each player is ranked where they are.

if you think Harper is a better prospect then make the case now, you don't make it AFTER they're in the NBA.

Actually, you can only rate draft picks in hindsight. Like, what would the point of having a GM even be, if they’re just supposed to do what the consensus is on mock drafts? Good GMs are the ones who make picks that look good after the fact, and bad GMs are the ones who made bad picks. Of course you can mitigate bad picks if injuries, etc, come into it, but for the most part the evaluation process is pretty simple.

If you had the 4th pick, and the guy you got was arguably the 4th best player in the draft, then you met expectations. If you got the best guy in the draft with the 4th pick then you had a perfect selection. If you drafted the 10th best guy then you had a miserable draft. As I said, there are some mitigating factors like injuries (if you couldn’t see them coming), or maybe you drafted the 5th best player with the 4th pick but they’re pretty similar players and the guy you took fits better, but for the most part that is the formula for assessing this.

again, irrelevant.

just because Ja Morant ended up being better than Zion Williamson doesn't mean Ja Morant was a better prospect than Zion Williamson. this is just not how it works.

[One_and_Done]

no, that's not how any of this works. the outcome doesn't retroactively change the scouting process or why each player is ranked where they are.

if you think Harper is a better prospect then make the case now, you don't make it AFTER they're in the NBA.

Actually, you can only rate draft picks in hindsight. Like, what would the point of having a GM even be, if they’re just supposed to do what the consensus is on mock drafts? Good GMs are the ones who make picks that look good after the fact, and bad GMs are the ones who made bad picks. Of course you can mitigate bad picks if injuries, etc, come into it, but for the most part the evaluation process is pretty simple.

If you had the 4th pick, and the guy you got was arguably the 4th best player in the draft, then you met expectations. If you got the best guy in the draft with the 4th pick then you had a perfect selection. If you drafted the 10th best guy then you had a miserable draft. As I said, there are some mitigating factors like injuries (if you couldn’t see them coming), or maybe you drafted the 5th best player with the 4th pick but they’re pretty similar players and the guy you took fits better, but for the most part that is the formula for assessing this.

again, irrelevant.

just because Ja Morant ended up being better than Zion Williamson doesn't mean Ja Morant was a better prospect than Zion Williamson. this is just not how it works.

I mean, it depends. If Oden could have stayed healthy I feel confident he could have had a Dwight like career... but he still would have been worse than Durant who should have gone #1.

With all the money and resources invested by teas into getting it right, our analysis should go deeper than 'well, all the mock drafts thought such and such was better'. Why even have scouts then.

[clyde21]

Actually, you can only rate draft picks in hindsight. Like, what would the point of having a GM even be, if they’re just supposed to do what the consensus is on mock drafts? Good GMs are the ones who make picks that look good after the fact, and bad GMs are the ones who made bad picks. Of course you can mitigate bad picks if injuries, etc, come into it, but for the most part the evaluation process is pretty simple.

If you had the 4th pick, and the guy you got was arguably the 4th best player in the draft, then you met expectations. If you got the best guy in the draft with the 4th pick then you had a perfect selection. If you drafted the 10th best guy then you had a miserable draft. As I said, there are some mitigating factors like injuries (if you couldn’t see them coming), or maybe you drafted the 5th best player with the 4th pick but they’re pretty similar players and the guy you took fits better, but for the most part that is the formula for assessing this.

again, irrelevant.

just because Ja Morant ended up being better than Zion Williamson doesn't mean Ja Morant was a better prospect than Zion Williamson. this is just not how it works.

I mean, it depends. If Oden could have stayed healthy I feel confident he could have had a Dwight like career... but he still would have been worse than Durant who should have gone #1.

With all the money and resources invested by teas into getting it right, our analysis should go deeper than 'well, all the mock drafts thought such and such was better'. Why even have scouts then.

is your argument that Ja Morant was a better prospect than Zion because Ja became a better player in the NFL?

[FarBeyondDriven]

If Flagg and Harper turn into Gordon Hayward and Devin Booker, then it's pretty obvious Harper would be the better player.

no, that's not how any of this works. the outcome doesn't retroactively change the scouting process or why each player is ranked where they are.

if you think Harper is a better prospect then make the case now, you don't make it AFTER they're in the NBA.

Actually, you can only rate draft picks in hindsight. Like, what would the point of having a GM even be, if they’re just supposed to do what the consensus is on mock drafts? Good GMs are the ones who make picks that look good after the fact, and bad GMs are the ones who made bad picks. Of course you can mitigate bad picks if injuries, etc, come into it, but for the most part the evaluation process is pretty simple.

If you had the 4th pick, and the guy you got was arguably the 4th best player in the draft, then you met expectations. If you got the best guy in the draft with the 4th pick then you had a perfect selection. If you drafted the 10th best guy then you had a miserable draft. As I said, there are some mitigating factors like injuries (if you couldn’t see them coming), or maybe you drafted the 5th best player with the 4th pick but they’re pretty similar players and the guy you took fits better, but for the most part that is the formula for assessing this.

very true. Just because the group think consensus is that Player A is the best prospect and higher on the board does not necessarily make him the best prospect. It's up to the G.M. to see through that and take who they feel will be the best player. The problem is it's exceedingly rare for G.M.s to go against consensus by more than a few picks at most. I can't think of a single instance where this has happened and the G.M. was right. I do give teams credit for taking good players in the late first and second because group think dissipates the deeper you get into the draft but they only get credit if they didn't already pass on that player by taking worse players.
Teams "hitting" on later picks rings hollow when they had earlier picks but passed on that very player like the Nuggets when Jokic was the 3rd player they drafted that year or when Arenas was the 3rd player the Warriors drafted in 2001.

[One_and_Done]

Smart GMs aren't afraid to buck consensus.

[tmorgan]

Smart GMs aren't afraid to buck consensus.

You still haven’t answered my question, though.

Why would anyone consider Harper an equal or better prospect than Flagg?

[One_and_Done]

Smart GMs aren't afraid to buck consensus.

You still haven’t answered my question, though.

Why would anyone consider Harper an equal or better prospect than Flagg?

Well that's what I started this thread to gauge others views on.

[tmorgan]

Smart GMs aren't afraid to buck consensus.

You still haven’t answered my question, though.

Why would anyone consider Harper an equal or better prospect than Flagg?

Well that's what I started this thread to gauge others views on.

Well, then your thread title was misleading.

Flagg is literally better at everything except his handle, which is basic but still strong for a player his size.

There are plenty of arguments to be made about X over Y in this draft, because I think a whole lot of these guys are going to disappoint or surprise based on their assumed draft positions, but Coop at #1 isn’t one of them. Two tiers, if not three, above anyone else this year.

[Ice Man]

I mean, Harper *could* end up being a better player than Flagg. But there's no reason to believe so. He's 3 inches shorter than Flagg, had roughly similar speed and hops in the NBA combine, had worse NCAA stats (although still very good), is currently a lesser defender (and likely always well be, given Flagg's excellence), and is almost a year older than Flagg.

I mean, who ultimate knows about their futures? But nobody would draft Harper over Flagg; that's not the way to bet.