2024 NBA Draft Thread

[BostonCouchGM]

Do bigs actually take longer to develop when you control for age, opportunity and selection bias? I hear this all the time but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of hard evidence. Mostly just anecdotes and cherry picking of data points.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

it's based off the notion that the taller you are, the higher your center gravity is resulting in poorer balance. It takes longer to adjust to this and to grow into your body i.e. coordination to catch up and account for it. There's a reason why as NBA players by position, go taller (PG->SG->SF->PF->C) their coordination and skillset for the most part gets worse. Longer limbs usually means less muscle and longer paths of travel. It's just basic common sense.

Only problem with your logic is that as is often the case with "common sense" it's completely wrong or unproven. There's really not much evidence to point to bigs taking longer to develop.

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/insider/story/_/id/34848832/nba-mailbag-point-guards-developing-faster-used-luka-ja-indication

If you have any evidence that backs up the claim of bigs taking longer to develop, by all means, please drop a link. I haven't really seen a good empirical case for it. Mostly just anecdotes and old heads talking.

70 years of the NBA and 45 years of personally watching it is my evidence. Trying to convince someone who lacks common sense is a losing proposition and I have zero desire to try.

[EvanZ]

it's based off the notion that the taller you are, the higher your center gravity is resulting in poorer balance. It takes longer to adjust to this and to grow into your body i.e. coordination to catch up and account for it. There's a reason why as NBA players by position, go taller (PG->SG->SF->PF->C) their coordination and skillset for the most part gets worse. Longer limbs usually means less muscle and longer paths of travel. It's just basic common sense.

Only problem with your logic is that as is often the case with "common sense" it's completely wrong or unproven. There's really not much evidence to point to bigs taking longer to develop.

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/insider/story/_/id/34848832/nba-mailbag-point-guards-developing-faster-used-luka-ja-indication

If you have any evidence that backs up the claim of bigs taking longer to develop, by all means, please drop a link. I haven't really seen a good empirical case for it. Mostly just anecdotes and old heads talking.

70 years of the NBA and 45 years of personally watching it is my evidence. Trying to convince someone who lacks common sense is a losing proposition and I have zero desire to try.

Common sense told people to keep shooting long 2’s until they were proven wrong with data. Same thing happened in baseball. “Common sense” isn’t always right.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[BostonCouchGM]

Only problem with your logic is that as is often the case with "common sense" it's completely wrong or unproven. There's really not much evidence to point to bigs taking longer to develop.

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/insider/story/_/id/34848832/nba-mailbag-point-guards-developing-faster-used-luka-ja-indication

If you have any evidence that backs up the claim of bigs taking longer to develop, by all means, please drop a link. I haven't really seen a good empirical case for it. Mostly just anecdotes and old heads talking.

70 years of the NBA and 45 years of personally watching it is my evidence. Trying to convince someone who lacks common sense is a losing proposition and I have zero desire to try.

Common sense told people to keep shooting long 2’s until they were proven wrong with data. Same thing happened in baseball. “Common sense” isn’t always right.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

lol wut? No one in history has ever attributed taking long twos to common sense. It was often-times a necessity as that is what defenses gave up gladly. No head coach was saying "hey guys, it's common sense for us to take these inefficient long twos so please keep doing it and how about we design our whole offense to give us more of these looks while we're at it?" lmao

[zimpy27]

Only problem with your logic is that as is often the case with "common sense" it's completely wrong or unproven. There's really not much evidence to point to bigs taking longer to develop.

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/insider/story/_/id/34848832/nba-mailbag-point-guards-developing-faster-used-luka-ja-indication

If you have any evidence that backs up the claim of bigs taking longer to develop, by all means, please drop a link. I haven't really seen a good empirical case for it. Mostly just anecdotes and old heads talking.

70 years of the NBA and 45 years of personally watching it is my evidence. Trying to convince someone who lacks common sense is a losing proposition and I have zero desire to try.

Common sense told people to keep shooting long 2’s until they were proven wrong with data. Same thing happened in baseball. “Common sense” isn’t always right.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Technically long 2s were a form of spacing that got optimised.

[GSWFan1994]

lol wut? No one in history has ever attributed taking long twos to common sense. It was often-times a necessity as that is what defenses gave up gladly. No head coach was saying "hey guys, it's common sense for us to take these inefficient long twos so please keep doing it and how about we design our whole offense to give us more of these looks while we're at it?" lmao

"I want the evidence showing that crossing a street with red lights on is dangerous for my well being!

I need the empirical data! You owe it to me!"

[europeannbafan]

Has anyone watched Aday Mara on the u18 fiba eur championship?
Just saw in his first 3 games he has 19points and 9rebounds on average

[EvanZ]

70 years of the NBA and 45 years of personally watching it is my evidence. Trying to convince someone who lacks common sense is a losing proposition and I have zero desire to try.

Common sense told people to keep shooting long 2’s until they were proven wrong with data. Same thing happened in baseball. “Common sense” isn’t always right.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

lol wut? No one in history has ever attributed taking long twos to common sense. It was often-times a necessity as that is what defenses gave up gladly. No head coach was saying "hey guys, it's common sense for us to take these inefficient long twos so please keep doing it and how about we design our whole offense to give us more of these looks while we're at it?" lmao

Literally every time an old head said you "need a mid-range jumper" this is what they meant.

But keep on old heading.

[BostonCouchGM]

Common sense told people to keep shooting long 2’s until they were proven wrong with data. Same thing happened in baseball. “Common sense” isn’t always right.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

lol wut? No one in history has ever attributed taking long twos to common sense. It was often-times a necessity as that is what defenses gave up gladly. No head coach was saying "hey guys, it's common sense for us to take these inefficient long twos so please keep doing it and how about we design our whole offense to give us more of these looks while we're at it?" lmao

Literally every time an old head said you "need a mid-range jumper" this is what they meant.

But keep on old heading.

reeeee. There's a difference between a mid-range 15 footer and a "long two". Mid-range jumpers are essentially just FTs from different spots on the floor. Every single coach in history would prefer that over a long two 18 to 23 ft. So yeah, you're right, they definitely did want guys to get a mid-range jumper but never to shoot long twos.

[EvanZ]

lol wut? No one in history has ever attributed taking long twos to common sense. It was often-times a necessity as that is what defenses gave up gladly. No head coach was saying "hey guys, it's common sense for us to take these inefficient long twos so please keep doing it and how about we design our whole offense to give us more of these looks while we're at it?" lmao

Literally every time an old head said you "need a mid-range jumper" this is what they meant.

But keep on old heading.

reeeee. There's a difference between a mid-range 15 footer and a "long two". Mid-range jumpers are essentially just FTs from different spots on the floor. Every single coach in history would prefer that over a long two 18 to 23 ft. So yeah, you're right, they definitely did want guys to get a mid-range jumper but never to shoot long twos.

Wait, you think mid-range jumpers are as efficient as free throws? Is that what common sense tells you? Now we're onto something because I hate to be the bearer of bad news but literally *any* mid-range jumper is on average almost HALF as efficient as shooting free throws.

Point being at any time during the 3pt era it would have been more efficient to shoot 3's over pretty much any mid-range jumper regardless of distance. But that wasn't "common sense" literally until about 2012-ish when Steph started taking over and to some extent the Rockets made it a coherent strategy to avoid any mid-ranger jumpers.

[Hal14]

Castle vs Holland, head to head. Castle had 41 points, Holland had 14. I know points aren't everything, but watching this, Castle is clearly better. Although Holland is 2" taller, more athletic and a little bit younger.

A few plays in this game where they match up and Castle clearly wins the matchup.

Watch on YouTube

Now, how about Collier vs Castle..

Watch on YouTube

Castle is good, but Collier is a little better
Collier is clearly quicker, more burst, more athletic. Both show some decent passing chops but Collier plays with better pace, a little bit better playmaking, better shooting
Castle's only advantage is being 2" taller..

[SeattleJazzFan]

all three are really good (this class is wildly underrated), but yeah, Collier is the class of the group.

[Jamaaliver]

Watch on YouTube

[MemphisX]

all three are really good (this class is wildly underrated), but yeah, Collier is the class of the group.

No Wemby but I like this draft for teams that already have their #1 guy.

[Chuck Everett]

I'm starting to sound like a sycophant, but I saw NBAdraft[dot]net has Proctor in their top 3. I keep coming around to thinking he is going to be the first PG off the board. 6'5, floor general who can defend, pass and shoot. Hard to believe he's not a lock top 5, barring injury.

Note: Obviously, I am expecting him to have an All-America type season. Still not buying Filipowski though.

[clyde21]

I'm starting to sound like a sycophant, but I saw NBAdraft[dot]net has Proctor in their top 3. I keep coming around to thinking he is going to be the first PG off the board. 6'5, floor general who can defend, pass and shoot. Hard to believe he's not a lock top 5, barring injury.

Note: Obviously, I am expecting him to have an All-America type season. Still not buying Filipowski though.

not a real mock, they just randomly plot players I think at this point, Brazile at 4 and Alexander at 7 should've given it away lol

[shangrila]

I'm starting to sound like a sycophant, but I saw NBAdraft[dot]net has Proctor in their top 3. I keep coming around to thinking he is going to be the first PG off the board. 6'5, floor general who can defend, pass and shoot. Hard to believe he's not a lock top 5, barring injury.

Note: Obviously, I am expecting him to have an All-America type season. Still not buying Filipowski though.

not a real mock, they just randomly plot players I think at this point, Brazile at 4 and Alexander at 7 should've given it away lol

dotnet has always been more click baity than other sites. There's going to be wild swings on their mocks every update so I don't put much stock into it until nearer the end of the season.

[Hal14]

I'm starting to sound like a sycophant, but I saw NBAdraft[dot]net has Proctor in their top 3. I keep coming around to thinking he is going to be the first PG off the board. 6'5, floor general who can defend, pass and shoot. Hard to believe he's not a lock top 5, barring injury.

Note: Obviously, I am expecting him to have an All-America type season. Still not buying Filipowski though.

If he was that good, he would have been drafted in 2023. Anyone who's returning needs to show how they have developed in a significant way in order to be considered lottery.

A couple yrs ago, Ivey and Mathurin both looked REALLY good in U19, so putting them in lottery (despite being sophomores) was justified. What has Proctor done this summer? Nothing. No reason to move him up.

The 2023 draft class, no returner was considered lottery entering the season, except maybe Terquavion and Max lewis who were 15-20 range in the preseason. Throughout most of last season, it was pretty much all 1st year eligibility guys in the top 20.

[MemphisX]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=q0Zbv7QUrzRY6VJruFoDsg

Good news!

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[SeattleJazzFan]

wow. that's great

[SeattleJazzFan]

I'm starting to sound like a sycophant, but I saw NBAdraft[dot]net has Proctor in their top 3. I keep coming around to thinking he is going to be the first PG off the board. 6'5, floor general who can defend, pass and shoot. Hard to believe he's not a lock top 5, barring injury.

Note: Obviously, I am expecting him to have an All-America type season. Still not buying Filipowski though.

but he can't shoot. if we just make up things dudes do well, i guess we can make an argument for anybody to be a top 5 lock.