Brandon Miller - Alabama

[ItsDanger]

There's talk of Miller going #2.

Miller haters in shambles.

[JMAC3]

There's talk of Miller going #2.

Miller haters in shambles.

Been preaching for weeks that Miller was ahead of Scoot in my ranks, took a ton of heat for questioning Scoot as a lock.

[The-Power]

For me, his explosiveness is a problem and it will take time to get past it. I had the same hangup with Cade when he was coming out: you can be big, fluid, long, look the part in every way, but at a certain point it matters that you don't jump very high, because it's basketball. Not my only issue with Miller, but definitely the biggest flag.

So, first step is one thing but where is this coming from? People make it seem like Miller is some bad athlete and that just isn't true at all.

Dunk at 0:48.

Watch on YouTube

Tip-in at 2:46.

Watch on YouTube

You don't make these kind of plays regularly if you're not a good athlete. Miller is a genuinely good athlete. Not top tier but clearly on the positive end and it's absolutely not a red flag whatsoever.

[The-Power]

There's talk of Miller going #2.

Miller haters in shambles.

Been preaching for weeks that Miller was ahead of Scoot in my ranks, took a ton of heat for questioning Scoot as a lock.

With Scoot struggling to close out the season, it's certainly becoming less controversial. It just takes a while to change widely held beliefs. Not only among draft folks as a group but also for people as individuals. It took me a while to push Miller ahead of Scoot because in my mind there was just no question about Scoot at #2 when we entered the college season. It seemed like a lock.

[reanimator]

There's talk of Miller going #2.

Miller haters in shambles.

Validation doesn't come from where you are drafted.

[The-Power]

Also, just to put his production into context (not to draw sweeping conclusions), here are the top 10 BPM scores from Freshmen (≥ 400 minutes played, since 2010/11).

1. Zion Williamson (20.1)
2. Anthony Davis (17.2)
3. Chet Holmgren (15.0)
4. Karl-Anthony Towns (14.3)
5. Evan Mobley (13.7)
6. Brandon Miller (13.1)
7. Nerlens Noel (12.1)
8. Lonzo Ball (12.0)
9. D'Angelo Russell (11.9)
10. Joel Embiid (11.9)

Pretty good company to be in. Highest ranking among non-bigs and the only player who is neither a big man nor a lead guard.

[reanimator]

I just don't see that dunk from yesterday as good example of as good athleticism. He is in space with full steam as a team down 20 just disengages and doesn't even attempt to stop the ball.

There were multiple possessions in the Mississippi St and Texas A+M games where you could see where lack of burst or verticality limited his ability to convert.

Past 5 games, neither Miller nor Scoot have been particularly efficient but 1 guy has the narrative going for him. Both have contributed in other ways. This is the advantage of college where visibility is concerned.

[clyde21]

^ and did it in the most athletic conference

that said, still think it's a reach to say you'll take him over Scoot, just can't get there. can't get there for AB or KG either, but he's firmly 5th for me.

but im probably much higher on Scoot, Black and Keyonte than most.

[JMAC3]

Not only is he putting up really strong numbers, but he is doing so while also playing on the number 1 team in the country. His game is clearly translating to winning team play.

[HiDef]

For me, his explosiveness is a problem and it will take time to get past it. I had the same hangup with Cade when he was coming out: you can be big, fluid, long, look the part in every way, but at a certain point it matters that you don't jump very high, because it's basketball. Not my only issue with Miller, but definitely the biggest flag.

So, first step is one thing but where is this coming from? People make it seem like Miller is some bad athlete and that just isn't true at all.

You don't make these kind of plays regularly if you're not a good athlete. Miller is a genuinely good athlete. Not top tier but clearly on the positive end and it's absolutely not a red flag whatsoever.

It's the burst that's concerning. Being a primary in the NBA, you don't get to be running out in a straight line from the perimeter every time you want to make a layup.

[The-Power]

I just don't see that dunk from yesterday as good example of as good athleticism. He is in space with full steam as a team down 20 just disengages and doesn't even attempt to stop the ball.

The point was in reference to the statement that he ‘doesn't jump very high’. To me, that sounds like a statement about his limited vertical athleticism and dunks like these show that he can indeed ‘jump very high’.

So maybe I should ask: what is exactly the argument here? That he doesn't jump out of the building a couple times each game in the half court? Who does? I'm confused what exactly the argument is.

There were multiple possessions in the Mississippi St and Texas A+M games where you could see where lack of burst or verticality limited his ability to convert.

We're talking about someone who has converted 62% of his 2pt-shots during conference play. In the best conference in college basketball. So I ask again: if he struggles to convert, then who doesn't? And if the answer is ‘well, everyone does but that doesn't mean Miller is perfect’ then yeah, that's technically true. He's not perfect. But what is the point of this conversation (which only really happens in this thread)?

Past 5 games, neither Miller nor Scoot have been particularly efficient but 1 guy has the narrative going for him. Both have contributed in other ways. This is the advantage of college where visibility is concerned.

There's levels to this. You seem to insinuate that both similarly struggle but one has ‘narrative going for him’. I mean, if he played as poorly as Scoot then why would the narrative be with him and why would increased visibility be a good thing?

The difference that during Miller's inefficient stretch, he's still at 52.2% TS. Below average but not terrible (for comparison, Keyonte George's TS% for the entire season is 53.4%; Anthony Black's is 52.6% for all SEC play; Jarace Walker's is 53.5% for the season). Scoot's inefficiency during the last 5 games is considerably worse.

And that doesn't even take into account the fact that Miller when he struggles to score still plays good defense and commands a lot of defensive attention on the perimeter which Scoot does not. Scoot is the better playmaker, yes. But to insinuate that both have a had similarly inefficient stretch and both similarly contribute in other ways during this stretch is just painting it with the broadest brush possible so that it doesn't have to be acknowledged that Miller has struggled considerably less than Scoot as of late and that the reason Miller is rising while Scoot is being questioned isn't just about narrative and visibility. There are real reasons for that.

People would be foolish to believe even for one second that NBA scouts or even posters on this board who follow draft prospects closely for a long time are just driven by the most recent narrative or who they have seen on TV most recently. That just seems like a convenient narrative to push because they don't like the conclusions or the direction in which the consensus is heading.

[The-Power]

For me, his explosiveness is a problem and it will take time to get past it. I had the same hangup with Cade when he was coming out: you can be big, fluid, long, look the part in every way, but at a certain point it matters that you don't jump very high, because it's basketball. Not my only issue with Miller, but definitely the biggest flag.

So, first step is one thing but where is this coming from? People make it seem like Miller is some bad athlete and that just isn't true at all.

You don't make these kind of plays regularly if you're not a good athlete. Miller is a genuinely good athlete. Not top tier but clearly on the positive end and it's absolutely not a red flag whatsoever.

It's the burst that's concerning. Being a primary in the NBA, you don't get to be running out in a straight line from the perimeter every time you want to make a layup.

Okay, so he can indeed jump high generally speaking. Glad we have clarified that point. Now, could you explain how the person for whom this is a specific problem manages the score on 62% of his 2PA during conference play in the strongest conference in the country – a number much better than that of most of his peers in the draft?

Also, since you mentioned Cade Cunningham.

Full Season: 46% 2P on 14 2PA/100, 57% TS
Conference: 46% 2P on 14 2PA/100, 58% TS

For comparison, here's Miller.

Full Season: 51% 2P on 11 2PA/100, 61% TS
Conference: 62% 2P on 10 2PA/100, 64% TS

Very different players, very different results. And it's not like Cade is some kind of cautionary tale at this point. He struggled with efficiency during his Rookie season. That happens. But care to venture a guess how efficient he was on 2s? 47%. Same as in college. His efficiency problems are entirely related to his 3pt shot not translating and him being unable to draw fouls. Only the latter of the two may be the result of athletic limitations.

[HiDef]

snip

It's the burst that's concerning. Being a primary in the NBA, you don't get to be running out in a straight line from the perimeter every time you want to make a layup.

Okay, so he can indeed jump high generally speaking. Glad we have clarified that point. Now, could you explain how the person for whom this is a specific problem manages the score on 62% of his 2PA during conference play in the strongest conference in the country – a number much better than that of most of his peers in the draft?

Also, since you mentioned Cade Cunningham.

Full Season: 46% 2P on 14 2PA/100, 57% TS
Conference: 46% 2P on 14 2PA/100, 58% TS

For comparison, here's Miller.

Full Season: 51% 2P on 11 2PA/100, 61% TS
Conference: 62% 2P on 10 2PA/100, 64% TS

Very different players, very different results. And it's not like Cade is some kind of cautionary tale at this point. He struggled with efficiency during his Rookie season. That happens. But care to venture a guess how efficient he was on 2s? 47%. Same as in college. His efficiency problems are entirely related to his 3pt shot not translating and him being unable to draw fouls. Only the latter of the two may be the result of athletic limitations.

Cade's three didn't translate, but he is also shooting:

29% on 2s when there's a defender 0-2 feet from him
42% on 2s when there's a defender 2-4 feet from him
64% on 2s when there's a defender 4-6 feet from him.

So, he still can't shoot a contested shot to save his life.

Miller has plenty of tools as a rim finisher. He's got a great runner, he can make touch shots, he gets putbacks, he can run off screens, he can run the floor in transition. He's got some footwork too. Not in denial that he can play basketball, I'm just not confident in his ability to finish against NBA rim protectors or shoot over tight contests at the next level.

[reanimator]

The point was in reference to the statement that he ‘doesn't jump very high’. To me, that sounds like a statement about his limited vertical athleticism and dunks like these show that he can indeed ‘jump very high’.

So maybe I should ask: what is exactly the argument here? That he doesn't jump out of the building a couple times each game in the half court? Who does? I'm confused what exactly the argument is.

We're talking about someone who has converted 62% of his 2pt-shots during conference play. In the best conference in college basketball.

Is this strictly in the halfcourt? I've made it pretty clear multiple times the distinction between his athleticism/production in space where he can build momentum and playmake at a high level vs in a halfcourt setting where he often struggles to get separation on a drive or finish off a drive with enough touch to convert. This is further exacerbated when Alabama plays formidable defense. Yes, these things matter if a possible outcome is Tatum/Ingram/PG/whatever....Hell, Tatum himself caught flack early into his NBA career for this very inability. Does that mean Miller can't similarly solve the issue? Of course not but it doesn't make much sense to not acknowledge it just like people so readily understand that Scoot "shoots too many long 2s."

There's levels to this. You seem to insinuate that both similarly struggle but one has ‘narrative going for him’. I mean, if he played as poorly as Scoot then why would the narrative be with him and why would increased visibility be a good thing?

G League and NCAA D1 do not have the same amount of eyeballs. It is much easier for a armchair scout and casual fans to access an Alabama game and see them dominate which leaves quite the impression. No fault of Miller's but thats just a byproduct of the leagues they are in.

The difference that during Miller's inefficient stretch, he's still at 52.2% TS.

A bit deceptive due to all the penalty FTs in the last game, but not really addressing the point of my statement. Scoot's inability to convert is conventionally thought of as a product of his shot distribution, yet Miller whose gone 29/80 in the past 5 games allegedly has no limitations to explain such a stretch.

And that doesn't even take into account the fact that Miller when he struggles to score still plays good defense and commands a lot of defensive attention on the perimeter which Scoot does not.

Its been a mixed bag, actually. I've seen halves (1st half Auburn game) where they switched onto him and scored at will and other halves where he competed onball and even provided some rim protection. Its also easier to play "good" defense when you are buoyed by great size, athleticism, and rim protection with guys like Bediako/Clowney. Not saying Scoot will be good on that end at all but roster and competition level can't be discounted.

People would be foolish to believe even for one second that NBA scouts or even posters on this board who follow draft prospects closely for a long time are just driven by the most recent narrative or who they have seen on TV most recently. That just seems like a convenient narrative to push because they don't like the conclusions or the direction in which the consensus is heading.

Scouts aren't infallible and neither is the "consensus" so yeah I question if some people watch the games when they make declaratively false statements about said games. If I turn on ESPN and hear from DX how Miller is some isolation/PnR ballhandler maestro rather than someone whose flashes but holistically has struggled in those regards then I'm looking at it sideways.

[crows2]

Points in order:

1) As a prospect, Tatum was a 34% 3pt shooter at Duke. It wasn't clear he was going to be an elite shooter. It wasn't clear he was going to be a #1 option at the NBA level. He was also criticized for some of his iso/mid-range attempts. However, many who had doubts about Markelle Fultz still saw Tatum as having the highest upside and worth the #1 pick, especially for a team like Boston who didn't have a positional need at point guard. Whether I was personally lukewarm towards him isn't the question. It's clear now that he's the best player in his class. So your point here misses.

Given you were so far off in your assessment of Tatum, and have made the exact same criticisms of Miller as a prospect, why should anyone pay any attention to your analysis of Miller?

[The Moose]

I still like Miller and I think he's earned a top 3 spot, but I'll be interested to see how he does in the tournament. His numbers have been considerably different against top 50 teams, and I assume he'll play a few in the next couple of games.

Overall season (33 games) : 11.9 BPM , 61% TS, 12% AST, 1.5 STLR, 52% 2pt, 40% 3pt, 121 ORTG

Against top 50 teams (16 games): 6.7 BPM, 53% TS, 9.6 AST, 0.9 STLR, 42% 2pt, 34% 3pt, 106 ORTG

[reanimator]

Points in order:

1) As a prospect, Tatum was a 34% 3pt shooter at Duke. It wasn't clear he was going to be an elite shooter. It wasn't clear he was going to be a #1 option at the NBA level. He was also criticized for some of his iso/mid-range attempts. However, many who had doubts about Markelle Fultz still saw Tatum as having the highest upside and worth the #1 pick, especially for a team like Boston who didn't have a positional need at point guard. Whether I was personally lukewarm towards him isn't the question. It's clear now that he's the best player in his class. So your point here misses.

Given you were so far off in your assessment of Tatum, and have made the exact same criticisms of Miller as a prospect, why should anyone pay any attention to your analysis of Miller?

Because everyone has misses and if they don't then they haven't been doing it long enough. That doesn't mean treat someone's word as law but I personally like to consider whats valid in everyone's perspective even if I don't ultimately agree.

[reanimator]

I still like Miller and I think he's earned a top 3 spot, but I'll be interested to see how he does in the tournament. His numbers have been considerably different against top 50 teams, and I assume he'll play a few in the next couple of games.

Overall season (33 games) : 11.9 BPM , 61% TS, 12% AST, 1.5 STLR, 52% 2pt, 40% 3pt, 121 ORTG

Against top 50 teams (16 games): 6.7 BPM, 53% TS, 9.6 AST, 0.9 STLR, 42% 2pt, 34% 3pt, 106 ORTG

Yes, I've been pointing this out. Against any opponent, he is going to produce but against weak defenses I notice he absolutely kills them with shot creation and playmaking.


That said, the tournament will depend on matchups. San Diego St/Virginia/Creighton/Maryland all grade well defensively but teams like Baylor/Nc St/West Virginia/Missouri won't offer much resistance.

[crows2]

Points in order:

1) As a prospect, Tatum was a 34% 3pt shooter at Duke. It wasn't clear he was going to be an elite shooter. It wasn't clear he was going to be a #1 option at the NBA level. He was also criticized for some of his iso/mid-range attempts. However, many who had doubts about Markelle Fultz still saw Tatum as having the highest upside and worth the #1 pick, especially for a team like Boston who didn't have a positional need at point guard. Whether I was personally lukewarm towards him isn't the question. It's clear now that he's the best player in his class. So your point here misses.

Given you were so far off in your assessment of Tatum, and have made the exact same criticisms of Miller as a prospect, why should anyone pay any attention to your analysis of Miller?

Because everyone has misses and if they don't then they haven't been doing it long enough. That doesn't mean treat someone's word as law but I personally like to consider whats valid in everyone's perspective even if I don't ultimately agree.

But when that same person attempts to double down on that view by pretending he had the opposite opinion previously, it’s very difficult to trust the validity of their analysis. I get you don’t rate Miller for your own reasons, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend that Catchall’s opinion is in any way credible in this particular circumstance.

[reanimator]

Given you were so far off in your assessment of Tatum, and have made the exact same criticisms of Miller as a prospect, why should anyone pay any attention to your analysis of Miller?

Because everyone has misses and if they don't then they haven't been doing it long enough. That doesn't mean treat someone's word as law but I personally like to consider whats valid in everyone's perspective even if I don't ultimately agree.

But when that same person attempts to double down on that view by pretending he had the opposite opinion previously, it’s very difficult to trust the validity of their analysis. I get you don’t rate Miller for your own reasons, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend that Catchall’s opinion is in any way credible in this particular circumstance.

I do rate Miller...I have him 3rd and have been very complimentary in his all around versatility and production, but my contention is simply the lack of willing analysis of his flaws when discussing whether he should go over Scoot and what his role will look like at the next level.

I hear names like PG/Tatum/Ingram but I see shades and various aspects of Middleton/Markannen/Klay. All great players.

As for Catchall, I think he has provided some good analysis in this thread or at least one of the few willing to discuss what Miller doesn't do well though I think he overstates some of the weaknesses.