Moderators: Marcus, Duke4life831
spree8 wrote:WargamesX wrote:spree8 wrote:I’d even take Keegan Murray over Chet honestly. He looks like a pf version of Mikal.
Mikal ain’t ever score like Keegan though
His 18ppg in Villanova is prob equal to 25ppg in Iowa
Duke4life831 wrote:This is why I dont think about taking raw athletic/defensive only bigs higher than 25 in the draft (I feel like if your picking 25th-30th in the 1st, youre an elite team and using a 1st on a guy like this can be worth it).
Gobert: 27th overall pick
Capella: 25th overall pick
Williams: 27th overall pick
Gafford: 38th overall pick
Mitchell Robinson: 36th overall pick
Those 5 guys make up half of the top 10 in blocked shots at the moment so far this season. Those are also kind of the who's who in defensive 1st bigs. You can throw Jarrett Allen in there as well (22nd overall pick).
That to me is when a player of this archetype enters my draft board. Basically the ideal 1st round pick for already elite teams who could use a 5, or the ideal 2nd round pick for a bad lotto team. But ya raw athletic 5s or defense only 5s, 25th pick and on is where the value becomes worth it. Not because they will end up being the 25th or worse player in the draft, but that is the time where you can find these guys in most drafts.
clyde21 wrote:im a big Mikal Bridges fan, had him top 4 in that draft, but scoring is not just raw ppg, it's about how they get buckets, and Murray is just a much more sophisticated scorer coming out, come on.
clyde21 wrote:spree8 wrote:WargamesX wrote:Mikal ain’t ever score like Keegan though
His 18ppg in Villanova is prob equal to 25ppg in Iowa
im a big Mikal Bridges fan, had him top 4 in that draft, but scoring is not just raw ppg, it's about how they get buckets, and Murray is just a much more sophisticated scorer coming out, come on.
The-Power wrote:clyde21 wrote:im a big Mikal Bridges fan, had him top 4 in that draft, but scoring is not just raw ppg, it's about how they get buckets, and Murray is just a much more sophisticated scorer coming out, come on.
Yeah. I'm was and am high on Mikal as it gets – also had him in my top 5 – but Keegan is clearly a more potent scorer. Mikal has other advantages which allow him to be a perfect role player (long and athletic, great hands, as smart on the court as they come, great floor spacer, excellent off the ball) but he's definitely not a go-to scorer – first or second option type – in the way Keegan could be.
spree8 wrote:I love Keegan’s game, but he’s not going to be a first or second option on an NBA team. Bookmark this and come talk to me next season.
The-Power wrote:spree8 wrote:I love Keegan’s game, but he’s not going to be a first or second option on an NBA team. Bookmark this and come talk to me next season.
I don't need to bookmark this as I'm not interested in being proven right or wrong – I'm simply voicing my opinions here. That said, I certainly don't believe any of our opinions about prospective Rookies can be validated or invalidated after only one year; and I also used ‘could be’ instead of ‘will be’ anyway, so it's not like I see this as an already determined outcome. Still, the point that I will firmly stand behind is that Keegan is a more advanced scorer than Mikal at the college level.
Duke4life831 wrote:clyde21 wrote:yoyoboy wrote:In a weaker draft like this though? I’m not sure there are players around 10-11 who have outrageously more upside than Williams. Realistically you’re looking at slightly more upside with significantly worse median outcomes. I can agree in the upper half of the lotto you shoot mainly for upside but after that, especially when the draft class isn’t impressive, I’d be perfectly comfortable drafting a player with a good chance of being a high-level role player. It’s why I was so adamant on the Cavs picking Mikal Bridges in 2018. You knew he wouldn’t be a star yet I’m pretty sure half the teams in the lotto are now kicking themselves for passing up on him. Also I’m really not sure there are plenty of players in FA like Mark Williams every year. There are a lot of teams who need defensive bigs right now that can’t seem to find them. And how many of them have 7’7 wingspans?
Utah just drafted Udoka at the end of R1 couple of yrs ago who had a 7-7 wingspan, it's something but still not really huge factor, and yea you can find a lot bigs in FA to D up the paint and grab a few boards for you, it's not particularly hard or expensive. you can also find them later in the draft on a regular basis.
for example in 2021 draft you had:
Sharpe #27
Queta #39
Bassey #53
Sims #58
is Williams really that much better than these guys in terms of how his archetype is gonna project?
and yea, doesn't matter if it's a weak class, you always gotta aim high if you're picking lotto and really the top20 tbh, a guy like Mark Williams doesn't really change the trajectory of your team at all even if he reaches his high end outcome. also a Williams high end outcome would likely have less impact than a wing's or a combo guards medium outcome, that has to factor.
but at the end of the day different people have different draft philosophies.
I think Mark is a better prospect than any of those guys. But with that said, I dont see the value of taking him high in the draft. Even if Mark is the top level of this archetype of a player, I dont think the impact difference is still great enough to make him worth a top 10ish or lotto pick, compared to say an average raw defensive big that you can get early 2nd.
This is why I dont think about taking raw athletic/defensive only bigs higher than 25 in the draft (I feel like if your picking 25th-30th in the 1st, youre an elite team and using a 1st on a guy like this can be worth it).
Gobert: 27th overall pick
Capella: 25th overall pick
Williams: 27th overall pick
Gafford: 38th overall pick
Mitchell Robinson: 36th overall pick
Those 5 guys make up half of the top 10 in blocked shots at the moment so far this season. Those are also kind of the who's who in defensive 1st bigs. You can throw Jarrett Allen in there as well (22nd overall pick).
That to me is when a player of this archetype enters my draft board. Basically the ideal 1st round pick for already elite teams who could use a 5, or the ideal 2nd round pick for a bad lotto team. But ya raw athletic 5s or defense only 5s, 25th pick and on is where the value becomes worth it. Not because they will end up being the 25th or worse player in the draft, but that is the time where you can find these guys in most drafts.
spree8 wrote:How so? He’s bigger so he’s better in the paint (that’s why I said pf version), but how else?
Hal14 wrote:Duke4life831 wrote:clyde21 wrote:
Utah just drafted Udoka at the end of R1 couple of yrs ago who had a 7-7 wingspan, it's something but still not really huge factor, and yea you can find a lot bigs in FA to D up the paint and grab a few boards for you, it's not particularly hard or expensive. you can also find them later in the draft on a regular basis.
for example in 2021 draft you had:
Sharpe #27
Queta #39
Bassey #53
Sims #58
is Williams really that much better than these guys in terms of how his archetype is gonna project?
and yea, doesn't matter if it's a weak class, you always gotta aim high if you're picking lotto and really the top20 tbh, a guy like Mark Williams doesn't really change the trajectory of your team at all even if he reaches his high end outcome. also a Williams high end outcome would likely have less impact than a wing's or a combo guards medium outcome, that has to factor.
but at the end of the day different people have different draft philosophies.
I think Mark is a better prospect than any of those guys. But with that said, I dont see the value of taking him high in the draft. Even if Mark is the top level of this archetype of a player, I dont think the impact difference is still great enough to make him worth a top 10ish or lotto pick, compared to say an average raw defensive big that you can get early 2nd.
This is why I dont think about taking raw athletic/defensive only bigs higher than 25 in the draft (I feel like if your picking 25th-30th in the 1st, youre an elite team and using a 1st on a guy like this can be worth it).
Gobert: 27th overall pick
Capella: 25th overall pick
Williams: 27th overall pick
Gafford: 38th overall pick
Mitchell Robinson: 36th overall pick
Those 5 guys make up half of the top 10 in blocked shots at the moment so far this season. Those are also kind of the who's who in defensive 1st bigs. You can throw Jarrett Allen in there as well (22nd overall pick).
That to me is when a player of this archetype enters my draft board. Basically the ideal 1st round pick for already elite teams who could use a 5, or the ideal 2nd round pick for a bad lotto team. But ya raw athletic 5s or defense only 5s, 25th pick and on is where the value becomes worth it. Not because they will end up being the 25th or worse player in the draft, but that is the time where you can find these guys in most drafts.
All fair points.
But it begs the question...does that mean Jalen Duren shouldn't go in the top 20?
Duren fits this archetype. He's not a stretch big. Has an okay mid range jumper (as does Mark Williams) but Duren can't shoot beyond mid range, can't put the ball on the floor and drive from perimeter and is an average at best passer for a big..
However Duren is a consensus top 10 pick in the draft. Some even have him going top 5..
The-Power wrote:spree8 wrote:How so? He’s bigger so he’s better in the paint (that’s why I said pf version), but how else?
Well, being able to do more in the paint without losing anything on the perimeter would make him a better go-to scorer. He can operate in the post and he's better on the offensive glass, but he can also do more on the ball from the perimeter in isolation and obviously he's more suited to being a roll man (while also being able to ran the occasional PnR as the ball handler).
Mikal is better as a shooter (especially spot-up), he's awesome off the ball in the half court and better at running in transition off the ball with his athleticism. That's great, but that's just more the profile of a great offensive role player and glue guy, whereas Keegan can do more on the ball and, at least for the time being, it seems he can push his scoring volume up to levels that Mikal simply couldn't with his profile.
We'll have to wait and see how that holds up but the foundation for being a versatile scorer at the next level are definitely there for Keegan.
The-Power wrote:Duke4life831 wrote:This is why I dont think about taking raw athletic/defensive only bigs higher than 25 in the draft (I feel like if your picking 25th-30th in the 1st, youre an elite team and using a 1st on a guy like this can be worth it).
Gobert: 27th overall pick
Capella: 25th overall pick
Williams: 27th overall pick
Gafford: 38th overall pick
Mitchell Robinson: 36th overall pick
Those 5 guys make up half of the top 10 in blocked shots at the moment so far this season. Those are also kind of the who's who in defensive 1st bigs. You can throw Jarrett Allen in there as well (22nd overall pick).
That to me is when a player of this archetype enters my draft board. Basically the ideal 1st round pick for already elite teams who could use a 5, or the ideal 2nd round pick for a bad lotto team. But ya raw athletic 5s or defense only 5s, 25th pick and on is where the value becomes worth it. Not because they will end up being the 25th or worse player in the draft, but that is the time where you can find these guys in most drafts.
I think you can interpret these data points in two different ways. The one, which is how you do it, is to say: these kind of guys are available later on, so don't take them earlier because it's a waste of value. Another one is to say: well, these guys should have been taken earlier in retrospect, so if you're confident your prospect is going to develop into one of those players (which Gobert obviously being the high-end outcome), then you should make sure to get and use your pick on them – even if that pick is higher than 25.
clyde21 wrote:we legit have these don't pick single level centers in the lotto arguments every single year, and every single year we're proven right. do we really have to do this again with guys like Duren and Collins?
spree8 wrote:The-Power wrote:spree8 wrote:How so? He’s bigger so he’s better in the paint (that’s why I said pf version), but how else?
Well, being able to do more in the paint without losing anything on the perimeter would make him a better go-to scorer. He can operate in the post and he's better on the offensive glass, but he can also do more on the ball from the perimeter in isolation and obviously he's more suited to being a roll man (while also being able to ran the occasional PnR as the ball handler).
Mikal is better as a shooter (especially spot-up), he's awesome off the ball in the half court and better at running in transition off the ball with his athleticism. That's great, but that's just more the profile of a great offensive role player and glue guy, whereas Keegan can do more on the ball and, at least for the time being, it seems he can push his scoring volume up to levels that Mikal simply couldn't with his profile.
We'll have to wait and see how that holds up but the foundation for being a versatile scorer at the next level are definitely there for Keegan.
Main takeaways from your post… Mikal is more athletic and Keegan is better offensively in the post… that’s exactly why I said a “pf version of Mikal” because that’s what separates them most.
As I mentioned above: They both don’t have very good handle, and can’t take their man off the dribble. They don’t really shoot off the bounce and attack in straight line drives. They’re both very long and play passing lanes and contest shots well. They’re both explosive in transition too and can finish above the rim. Mikal, despite being smaller, played well in the post, but Keegan being bigger, does better there (again, I thought saying the pf version of Mikal covered this). They’re not going to be a number 1 or 2 option on an NBA team.
There’s a lot of similarities in their games… but again, Keegan looks like a pf version of Mikal and scoring easier in the paint comes with it. Are they exact in every single aspect? No, but you should know what I’m talking about if you watch them both.
Duke4life831 wrote:The-Power wrote:Duke4life831 wrote:This is why I dont think about taking raw athletic/defensive only bigs higher than 25 in the draft (I feel like if your picking 25th-30th in the 1st, youre an elite team and using a 1st on a guy like this can be worth it).
Gobert: 27th overall pick
Capella: 25th overall pick
Williams: 27th overall pick
Gafford: 38th overall pick
Mitchell Robinson: 36th overall pick
Those 5 guys make up half of the top 10 in blocked shots at the moment so far this season. Those are also kind of the who's who in defensive 1st bigs. You can throw Jarrett Allen in there as well (22nd overall pick).
That to me is when a player of this archetype enters my draft board. Basically the ideal 1st round pick for already elite teams who could use a 5, or the ideal 2nd round pick for a bad lotto team. But ya raw athletic 5s or defense only 5s, 25th pick and on is where the value becomes worth it. Not because they will end up being the 25th or worse player in the draft, but that is the time where you can find these guys in most drafts.
I think you can interpret these data points in two different ways. The one, which is how you do it, is to say: these kind of guys are available later on, so don't take them earlier because it's a waste of value. Another one is to say: well, these guys should have been taken earlier in retrospect, so if you're confident your prospect is going to develop into one of those players (which Gobert obviously being the high-end outcome), then you should make sure to get and use your pick on them – even if that pick is higher than 25.
I would say it would be best to trade down to get them. Its kind of like RBs in the NFL (if youre a NFL fan). You can love a RB prospect, but that doesnt mean you should waste a top 10 pick on one (unless they're straight up freak prospects).
Derrick Henry: 2nd round
Dalvin Cook: 2nd round
Jonathan Taylor: 2nd round
Joe Mixon: 2nd round
Nick Chubb: 2nd round
The top 5 rushing leaders in the NFL right now are all 2nd round picks. RBs are kind of like 5s in the NBA right now. If a true freak prospect comes around, sure totally makes sense to take them high. But if they arent freaks, you can get them at great value later on.
And again to be clear, Im not saying raw athletic big men wont be better than top 25 in their draft. But at the current market value, that is where their value is at. So say youre a team that loves Mark Williams and youre sitting at 11 in the draft. Even if you love Mark Williams, I dont think you should take him at 11, you should trade down to the 20s to get him. And if he is gone by then, great chance you can still find another big man in the 20s.
I just think there is a pretty good amount of data that shows that is where the draft value is for those kinds of bigs.
spree8 wrote:Main takeaways from your post… Mikal is more athletic and Keegan is better offensively in the post… that’s exactly why I said a “pf version of Mikal” because that’s what separates them most.
clyde21 wrote:like, why would you take Collins or Duren in the lotto when you can take a guy like Tshiebwe in the late first or early second? it makes no sense. is the value add from Collins/Duren that much more because they are a couple of yrs younger despite being the same archetype?
