The 2024-25 Rookies

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

[DCZards]

[url]

Read on Twitter

[/url]

[closg00]

Watch on YouTube

[badinage]

Would you trade Bub Carrington or Kyshawn George for Reed Sheppard right now? They've both shown more in their NBA time but they've had a lot more opportunity and, of course, Sheppard showed more at the college level.

I would trade any of them for future picks.

I know, not the question you asked. So, no. I would want assets for Bub or George not other rookies from this underwhelming draft class.

This brings up something interesting:

Shouldn’t Dawkins be looking to move any of Bub or Sarr or Kyshawn or Bilal in advance of the 2025 draft? If the goal is to be a great and not just good team — generationally great, as Winger said — shouldn’t that mean that if a player hasn’t shown glimpses of becoming a star or second or third option, the team should punt for more draft picks?

So, theoretically, if Bilal is not seen as an eventual no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3 — trading him for a lotto in this year’s draft. Or, if Bub is not deemed a no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3 either — trading him for a late lotto, this year or next (in a stacked draft). Same with Sarr. Same with Kyshawn.

I mean, right? Isn’t this the smart “asset management” way of thinking? The Hinkie way of thinking (remember when he shipped out the Rookie of the Year, in MC-W)? We already did it once, last summer, with DA — why shouldn’t we keep doing it?

I really can’t see the argument not to.

Time?

Ha. Good one.

[dckingsfan]

Would you trade Bub Carrington or Kyshawn George for Reed Sheppard right now? They've both shown more in their NBA time but they've had a lot more opportunity and, of course, Sheppard showed more at the college level.

I would trade any of them for future picks.

I know, not the question you asked. So, no. I would want assets for Bub or George not other rookies from this underwhelming draft class.

This brings up something interesting:

Shouldn’t Dawkins be looking to move any of Bub or Sarr or Kyshawn or Bilal in advance of the 2025 draft? If the goal is to be a great and not just good team — generationally great, as Winger said — shouldn’t that mean that if a player hasn’t shown glimpses of becoming a star or second or third option, the team should punt for more draft picks?

So, theoretically, if Bilal is not seen as an eventual no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3 — trading him for a lotto in this year’s draft. Or, if Bub is not deemed a no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3 either — trading him for a late lotto, this year or next (in a stacked draft). Same with Sarr. Same with Kyshawn.

I mean, right? Isn’t this the smart “asset management” way of thinking? The Hinkie way of thinking (remember when he shipped out the Rookie of the Year, in MC-W)? We already did it once, last summer, with DA — why shouldn’t we keep doing it?

I really can’t see the argument not to.

Time?

Ha. Good one.

You nailed it (IMO). And this is if this FO can "relentless" trading players they have picked.

IMO, none of the three is looking to be a #1 or #2 option. Yes, you will see some saying, patience. But that isn't relentless.

If done right (IMO again), we shouldn't get too attached to our current batch of youngsters. There is a discussion of how to move up in the '25 draft with Orlando. Answer: move one of the rookies and our lower pick for a higher Orlando pick.

Oh, the shrieks of horror to follow.

[tontoz]

Would you trade Bub Carrington or Kyshawn George for Reed Sheppard right now? They've both shown more in their NBA time but they've had a lot more opportunity and, of course, Sheppard showed more at the college level.

I’d probably trade Sarr for Sheppard. I’m not sure about Carrington and George.

I would trade Sarr or Carrington for Sheppard, but not George.

[payitforward]

I would trade any of them for future picks.

I know, not the question you asked. So, no. I would want assets for Bub or George not other rookies from this underwhelming draft class.

This brings up something interesting:

Shouldn’t Dawkins be looking to move any of Bub or Sarr or Kyshawn or Bilal in advance of the 2025 draft? If the goal is to be a great and not just good team — generationally great, as Winger said — shouldn’t that mean that if a player hasn’t shown glimpses of becoming a star or second or third option, the team should punt for more draft picks?

So, theoretically, if Bilal is not seen as an eventual no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3 — trading him for a lotto in this year’s draft. Or, if Bub is not deemed a no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3 either — trading him for a late lotto, this year or next (in a stacked draft). Same with Sarr. Same with Kyshawn.

I mean, right? Isn’t this the smart “asset management” way of thinking? The Hinkie way of thinking (remember when he shipped out the Rookie of the Year, in MC-W)? We already did it once, last summer, with DA — why shouldn’t we keep doing it?...

You nailed it (IMO). And this is if this FO can "relentless" trading players they have picked.

IMO, none of the three is looking to be a #1 or #2 option. Yes, you will see some saying, patience. But that isn't relentless.

If done right (IMO again), we shouldn't get too attached to our current batch of youngsters. There is a discussion of how to move up in the '25 draft with Orlando. Answer: move one of the rookies and our lower pick for a higher Orlando pick.

Oh, the shrieks of horror to follow.

What shrieks of horror? OTOH... is this meant as criticism? Is it even meant as a suggestion?

If the latter, what exactly are you suggesting? Or, to put it otherwise, please suggest something concrete. Otherwise, this is just more rhetorical flourishes aimed at making the FO look... something.

Are you, for example, suggesting we trade a late lotto pick from 2024 (Bub) to... I don't know... say the Heat for their late lotto pick in the upcoming '25 draft? In order to pick... whom? Essengue? Fears? Demin? Fleming? Presumably because of some projection of -- or at least opinion about -- one of those players (or whoever you'd replace those names with)?

If not the Heat, then who do you have in mind as the trade partner? Are you suggesting we trade Bilal & Bub to the Sixers for salary & their (presumably) #7 pick, & then take Maluach? Or any other proposed trade?

If, in fact, you don't have any team in mind, if you have no idea of an actual trade, & if you have no player in the '25 draft whom you targeting to get in this deal for Bub and/or George and/or Sarr and/or Deni, why then...

...once again we find ourselves in a completely meaningless anti-Dawkins tirade. I.e. a rhetorical formulation invented for the express & sole purpose of using it to bitch/moan about Dawkins -- &, above all, the oh-so-horrible-sinful-evil decision to trade Deni (Ha Moshiach) Avdija, an "original sin" level decision from which, it seems, there is no return. One which stains the FO unto eternity.

[Endless Loop]

What shrieks of horror? OTOH... is this meant as criticism? Is it even meant as a suggestion?

If the latter, what exactly are you suggesting? Or, to put it otherwise, please suggest something concrete. Otherwise, this is just more rhetorical flourishes aimed at making the FO look... something.

Are you, for example, suggesting we trade a late lotto pick from 2024 (Bub) to... I don't know... say the Heat for their late lotto pick in the upcoming '25 draft? In order to pick... whom? Essengue? Fears? Demin? Fleming? Presumably because of some projection of -- or at least opinion about -- one of those players (or whoever you'd replace those names with)?

If not the Heat, then who do you have in mind as the trade partner? Are you suggesting we trade Bilal & Bub to the Sixers for salary & their (presumably) #7 pick, & then take Maluach? Or any other proposed trade?

If, in fact, you don't have any team in mind, if you have no idea of an actual trade, & if you have no player in the '25 draft whom you targeting to get in this deal for Bub and/or George and/or Sarr and/or Deni, why then...

...once again we find ourselves in a completely meaningless anti-Dawkins tirade. I.e. a rhetorical formulation invented for the express & sole purpose of using it to bitch/moan about Dawkins -- &, above all, the oh-so-horrible-sinful-evil decision to trade Deni (Ha Moshiach) Avdija, an "original sin" level decision from which, it seems, there is no return. One which stains the FO unto eternity.

I don't think Badinage has any obligation on a chat board to present you with a complete plan for who the front office should take. That wasn't his point. His point was that the front office has demonstrated that they are willing to cast aside good players in order to have a shot at great players. So, IF they feel the upside for any of their rookies or Bilal is limited, then they should consider trading them while their value is still high due to their youth. Just an observation.

He was inviting people to come up with ideas, which they did until you jumped into your reflexive defense of the front office.

I think it's an interesting observation.

It wasn't an anti-Dawkins tirade at all.

[doclinkin]

Would you trade Bub Carrington or Kyshawn George for Reed Sheppard right now? They've both shown more in their NBA time but they've had a lot more opportunity and, of course, Sheppard showed more at the college level.

I would trade any of them for future picks.

I know, not the question you asked. So, no. I would want assets for Bub or George not other rookies from this underwhelming draft class.

This brings up something interesting:

Shouldn’t Dawkins be looking to move any of Bub or Sarr or Kyshawn or Bilal in advance of the 2025 draft? If the goal is to be a great and not just good team — generationally great, as Winger said — shouldn’t that mean that if a player hasn’t shown glimpses of becoming a star or second or third option, the team should punt for more draft picks?

So, theoretically, if Bilal is not seen as an eventual no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3 — trading him for a lotto in this year’s draft. Or, if Bub is not deemed a no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3 either — trading him for a late lotto, this year or next (in a stacked draft). Same with Sarr. Same with Kyshawn.

I mean, right? Isn’t this the smart “asset management” way of thinking? The Hinkie way of thinking (remember when he shipped out the Rookie of the Year, in MC-W)? We already did it once, last summer, with DA — why shouldn’t we keep doing it?

I really can’t see the argument not to.

Time?

Ha. Good one.

My read is that it is way too early to make a call on any rookie in this draft class. Regardless of whatever youtube video someone posts as their convincing argument. If you look at ROTY voting, you commonly see names that were not the best players in their draft class. For every Wemby there are handful of players like Brogdon, Michael Carter-Williams, Tyreke Evans, Brandon Roy, etc that don't live up to their early promise. And some of the all-stars in every year had rocky early years. Check the early stats of players like Steve Nash, Kobe, Devin Booker, the sainted Deni Avdija, Giannis. etc. and you will note a number of standout players who started slow.

Let's take a look. I picked MVPs Nash, Kobe, Giannis, and Wizards players KyShawn, Bub, and Otto Porter. I dunno why Otto, except that I recall him being the last Deni Avdija for us: a player who started slow then became a demi-god to the stat nerd cognoscenti.

https://stathead.com/tiny/1A9Lf

Shooting efficiency: Bub scores more efficiently from 2pt range than any on this list. Kyshawn is 2nd in that metric. Bub is better than any of them in eFG% as well. Bub is #1 in FT%, edging out Nash, who ended up 2nd all time in this category. Bub is 3rd in TS% behind Nash and Kobe. Bub and George are 2nd behind Kobe in points per 36 minutes.

Defense: Bub and Kyshawn are #2 and #3 in defensive rebounds per 36, behind only baby Giannis. Bub likewise posts the fewest fouls/36. Kyshawn is behind only Giannis in blocks/36.

Playmaking: Bub and Kyshawn are likewise #2 & 3 in assists per 36 minutes behind Nash; Bub leads the group in Asst/TO ratio.

Durability: Bub already has played more minutes than any of them but Giannis, if he plays 21 minutes his next game, he will pass him.

My point is not that these two are surefire MVP players and Hall of Famers. It is that by looking at a raw rookie YOU HAVE NO IDEA how good they will become. The only way to check that is to see how they develop, first over the course of a season, and second from year to year.

I personally see these two as having a startling upside to their games. Both have fixable flaws and both are making giant leaps to fix them over the course of a season. Neither lacks for confidence, but are smart as hell and hungry to learn. I actually think Nash is a good model for Bub to follow, as a lead guard who learned to play the spaces between players instead of the man in the uniform. Both were never going to rule from their quick twitch run-jump muscles, but by their in game smarts. Bub has a chance to be a far better defender than Nash. When you see a player with high assists, low fouls + low TOs, and high defensive rebounding, that's an excellent early indicator of a player who will eventually be a ++ defender.

Sarr I still have question marks about. He's developing in a different direction than I would normal want of a front court player. And I'm not sure if he'll add the muscle or soft hands the position requires. But Bigs develop slow. So I'm okay giving him time. We are not in a rush to win games for the next couple years. You want to evaluate the players' growth. That requires one or more offseasons to understand if they are on a steep climb to stardom or if this is the best you're gonna get.

Fans always wanna be first to call it, so they can get bragging rights later on. Me I'm early on the other side of the teeter totter. I see some things in each of them that startle me in how quickly they are learning. Given age and growth spurts, and improvement over the season. I think some of you have no real idea the upside of the guys we've got. We haven't seen real tanking so we're not used to it. But they selected young players for a reason: because they grow more and quicker. These puppies have big paws, I for one won't be startled if we get some Big Dawgs out of this group.

[payitforward]

I don't think Badinage has any obligation on a chat board to present you with a complete plan for who the front office should take. That wasn't his point. His point was that the front office has demonstrated that they are willing to cast aside good players in order to have a shot at great players. So, IF they feel the upside for any of their rookies or Bilal is limited, then they should consider trading them while their value is still high due to their youth. Just an observation.

He was inviting people to come up with ideas, which they did until you jumped into your reflexive defense of the front office.

I think it's an interesting observation.

It wasn't an anti-Dawkins tirade at all.

Fair enough. I'm happy to stand corrected in my critique of my buddy Badinage! Only I'm not sure that

...the front office has demonstrated that they are willing to cast aside good players in order to have a shot at great players

has actually been demonstrated. Except, I guess, in the obvious sense that any FO will exchange a good player for a great one. Or, if you mean that the deni trade demonstrates this, I'd have to say there's more to it than that....

In any case, to avoid a thicket of argumentative misrepresentations on all sides (!) I withdraw my critique altogether!

[J-Ves]

Would you trade Bub Carrington or Kyshawn George for Reed Sheppard right now? They've both shown more in their NBA time but they've had a lot more opportunity and, of course, Sheppard showed more at the college level.

I would trade any of them for future picks.

I know, not the question you asked. So, no. I would want assets for Bub or George not other rookies from this underwhelming draft class.

This brings up something interesting:

Shouldn’t Dawkins be looking to move any of Bub or Sarr or Kyshawn or Bilal in advance of the 2025 draft? If the goal is to be a great and not just good team — generationally great, as Winger said — shouldn’t that mean that if a player hasn’t shown glimpses of becoming a star or second or third option, the team should punt for more draft picks?

So, theoretically, if Bilal is not seen as an eventual no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3 — trading him for a lotto in this year’s draft. Or, if Bub is not deemed a no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3 either — trading him for a late lotto, this year or next (in a stacked draft). Same with Sarr. Same with Kyshawn.

I mean, right? Isn’t this the smart “asset management” way of thinking? The Hinkie way of thinking (remember when he shipped out the Rookie of the Year, in MC-W)? We already did it once, last summer, with DA — why shouldn’t we keep doing it?

I really can’t see the argument not to.

Time?

Ha. Good one.

That’s like buying a new car driving it around for a year and then trying to sell it back to the dealer for the price you paid for it. 95% of the time these players depreciate in value the moment you pick them

[dckingsfan]

My read is that it is way too early to make a call on any rookie in this draft class.

I kind of disagree with you here and kind of agree.

I think there are two different things:

Will they be/can they be a #1 or #2.

Will they improve to be a solid rotational player.

Are they going to be a bust.

I think our group has shown they aren't going to be a #1 or #2 on a really good team. I don't think it is too early to make that read.

I think that all 4 look like they have the potential to be solid rotational guys.

I don't think any of them look like they are going to be Johnny Davis level busts.

I think I first got the notion of being relentless from you. That is why if they package any of the four to move up, I am going to be fine with it. I am trying not to get attached to this group because I "feel" that if the FO follows its own strategy, they should move these players if they have the opportunity for additional draft assets.

Now back to badinage's original post and the point. If they can take one of the 4 and move up materially in this years' strong draft class - you don't hesitate.

If there are no opportunities to do so, just let the kids develop. But time is a tick'n as they will soon be off their rookie contracts (especially give our timeframe if we don't get lucky).

[dckingsfan]

I would trade any of them for future picks.

I know, not the question you asked. So, no. I would want assets for Bub or George not other rookies from this underwhelming draft class.

This brings up something interesting:

Shouldn’t Dawkins be looking to move any of Bub or Sarr or Kyshawn or Bilal in advance of the 2025 draft? If the goal is to be a great and not just good team — generationally great, as Winger said — shouldn’t that mean that if a player hasn’t shown glimpses of becoming a star or second or third option, the team should punt for more draft picks?

So, theoretically, if Bilal is not seen as an eventual no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3 — trading him for a lotto in this year’s draft. Or, if Bub is not deemed a no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3 either — trading him for a late lotto, this year or next (in a stacked draft). Same with Sarr. Same with Kyshawn.

I mean, right? Isn’t this the smart “asset management” way of thinking? The Hinkie way of thinking (remember when he shipped out the Rookie of the Year, in MC-W)? We already did it once, last summer, with DA — why shouldn’t we keep doing it?

I really can’t see the argument not to.

Time?

Ha. Good one.

That’s like buying a new car driving it around for a year and then trying to sell it back to the dealer for the price you paid for it. 95% of the time these players depreciate in value the moment you pick them

Doesn't that depend on the buyer and what they need (given where their team is at the moment)?

I am going to make this hypothetical (no reality here). Let's say Phoenix has the 18th pick. They might want a player we have and that 24th pick given their cap situation.

You get where I am going with this.

[Dat2U]

I'd like to revisit Stephon Castle because he's an interesting case. I think the biggest issue with my pre-draft evaluation was I relied too much on his UConn tape where he played a tiertary role and looked passive at times while trying to fit in. I did watch his HS film and he did display much of what he is now. A dynamic and ultra aggressive slasher. I just didn't necessarily think it would translate with his old school pace & what I viewed as good but not elite athleticism.

In reality, he's so solid and wiry strong at 6-5, and uses it so well, guys just bounce off of him when he's in motion. He's also proven to be an elite finisher using a mix of craft, power & pop around the rim to shoot 65% in the paint.

The jumper is still bad. At any range. He attempts 3s though and that's at least half the battle. He's offset his shooting woes with his ultra aggressiveness but he still hurts the Spurs offense in most advanced stat modules. He puts into question the future of Jeremy Sochan in a Spurs uniform simply because the offense craters when two non-shooters are on the floor. There were also issues with him and Vassell in lineups.

He's still a rookie so the Spurs have time to figure it out. The good thing is if they can tweek future lineups to ensure maximum spacing, Castle will only need to become a passable threat from the perimeter to be a potential star. In retrospect in draft with a ton of question marks, drafting Castle would have provided some 'juice' to a rebuild while he is still trying to answer those questions. Shooting really does matter in today's NBA but Castle appears to be a potential outler to that if he continues to pulverize guards on drives and improves his biggest weakness to near league average.

[payitforward]

I...Stephon Castle... an interesting case....
He's offset his shooting woes with his ultra aggressiveness....

Games are won by controlling possessions & scoring efficiently. Period. Nothing else. What a guy "looks like" he's doing means nothing whatever.

The description "aggressive" means nothing -- literally nothing -- in the absence of results. Castle doesn't produce results. Not in controlling possessions & not in scoring efficiently.

Controlling possessions:
So far, Stephon Castle is a below average rebounder at his position. He's also turns the ball over at an above average rate. Giving the other team extra possessions does NOT help your team win. Period. Ought to be obvious.

Scoring efficiently:
Castle scores inefficiently. & he does so while taking an above average number of shots. Missing shots & ftas does NOT help your team win. Period. Ought to be obvious.

I......He's still a rookie so...

...so there's a chance he improves. That's as far as it goes.

...In retrospect in draft with a ton of question marks, drafting Castle would have provided some 'juice' to a rebuild ....

As bad as Castle has been, he has all the same been better than Alex Sarr.

But he hasn't been as good as Bub Carrington. Or Kyshawn George.

Or Zach Edey. Or Donovan Clingan. Or Dalton Knecht. Or Kel'el Ware. Or Yves Missi. Or Tristan DaSilva. He hasn't been as good as Jaylen Wells -- or a number of other guys taken in R2.

Some day maybe he will be better than all those guys. I don't know that, & neither does anyone else.

I...Stephon Castle... an interesting case....

Sure. & I wouldn't write him off. After all, he hasn't been good, but he's been better than Zacharie Risacher, the #1 pick in the draft.

[doclinkin]

My read is that it is way too early to make a call on any rookie in this draft class.

I kind of disagree with you here and kind of agree.

I think there are two different things:

Will they be/can they be a #1 or #2.

Will they improve to be a solid rotational player.

Are they going to be a bust.

I think our group has shown they aren't going to be a #1 or #2 on a really good team. I don't think it is too early to make that read.

I think that all 4 look like they have the potential to be solid rotational guys.

I don't think any of them look like they are going to be Johnny Davis level busts.

Geek that I am: I'm reading various studies right now on age and the NBA. This in relation to my central point, that these cats are too young to judge. Across various papers there are a few things that are clear.

1. What quartile of the year were players born? It makes a difference.
In general players who are born earlier in their draft year tend to get more opportunities to grow than players born later in the year. Makes sense: in early grades teams will select stars who are bigger, stronger, better developed than their classmates. The more reps a player gets, especially early, the higher their upside. Growth is exponential early, slows down later. The more reps you get, the quicker you get to those fabled 10,000 hrs that Malcolm Gladwell theorizes are necessary to make a Pro anything. Violinist. Ballerina. Baller.

2. In general 20 and 21 year old entrants to the NBA tend to have better peak production over their careers than players who enter later. And earlier. (*) This is true not just over the length of their careers (obviously the younger a guy turns pro, the more NBA minutes he can earn before age catches up). It is true in terms of how high their peak is, and how long it is sustained. Also makes sense, especially in light of the above. That is: NBA teams are pretty good at identifying 1-and-done talent. If those guys are also more likely to be freshmen who were old for their class, they will be both new to the NCAA, and have more of the benefit of those early reps.

(* except that the sample size of 18 and 19 year olds is significantly smaller, which may skew the data. Still, it also makes sense in view of 1. above, in that these will be players born later in the year. Unless they are from Europe where they often graduate from school earlier and turn pro at 16 if they are good enough.)

3. HOWEVER. In that smaller sample size of teen NBAers, the data suggests that the younger a player shows competence, the higher their upside is and the longer their peak. The taller and longer their gooditude gets. That is, if you have a player who is 19 who is playing as good as a guy that is 20, the peak of that 19 year old is significantly higher than the 20 year old. The early studies on this in baseball suggested it could be as much as a 40-60% higher peak, depending on what study you read. In basketball again the sample size is smaller in the 1-and-done era. But the trend lines are suggestive.

4. NBA Prime age tends to be 26 or 27. BUT, if you correct for seasons played, that prime tends to be after 5-6 years of development. Players who start earlier tend to continue to grow past their age 26 or 27 year. They get the same 5-6 year on ramp to stardom, but stay on it longer before father time catches up. Obviously this data is either skewed by -- or perhaps demonstrated by -- players like Garnett, Kobe, LeBJ, Giannis, etc. Young players who entered the league early, then continued to constantly grow their games and had peaks that sustained for a very long time. Forever in the case of LeBJ.

So. The question is. Of the shortcomings of a player like Bub: how many of those things can or are likely to improve over the course of his career. Or let's say over his first 6 years. We can compare him to other players' first years (as I did with the Stathead link earlier) and see that he's on par or above various other players' first year production. We can knock him for his aggression and his interior scoring and ability to rack fouls. But, in doing so you can miss things that the kid is doing that jump off the page.

Bub is not wrong when he says his mid-range shot is more effective than any lay-up. Check it:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/carrica01/shooting/2025

The kid hits 60% of his pull-up jumpers in that mid-range. Point guards generally hit between 60-70% of their shots at the rim. He is right. For him a pull-up is a dunk. Also notable. 70% of those shots are self-created. He is better creating for himself than he is at catch and shoot. That's rare. Which is because it is new for him to not be the lead guard. Here he has had to share the ball. Effectively he has just added an off-ball game over the course of an NBA season. It is still a work in progress, but he is hitting above average 3FG% for an NBA rookie. NBA average 3FG% for all point guards, veterans included, is 35.3%. Bub is hitting 34.5%. But check this.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/carrica01/splits/

As a starter Bub hits .364 of his 3's. Better than the average point guard. Against starting defenses. The kid can create for himself. He is just picking and choosing his chances since he has been shifted to an unaccustomed role for him: off ball scorer. Of course he is tentative, he is used to being the guy who picks a defense apart. And he is getting stronger. Most players hit a wall after January, when they have already played more games in the year than they ever played in their life. Check out Bub's February numbers. In February, when most rookies hit bottom out, Bub achieved the 180 club: 50/40/91.

To me, you would think that Wiz fans of all NBA watchers would be wary of giving up too early on a player that shows promise. But if you think you have seen the top end of this kid, you are not watching carefully. Yes he plays better with a guy like Valanciunas who set great screens. Yes he plays better when he has finishing threats to dump off to. He plays better when he can dissect and dice up teams with the ball in his hand instead of waiting for Poole or Kuzma to do whatever wild thing they are trying to do. You have a point guard with no one to pass to, no shooters, no interior finishers. But when he gets a chance to create for himself, he does so at an elite level. As he said. His pull-up is a dunk.

Now imagine him 4 years from now. Or 3 years when players get their first breakout. Or 6 years from now and in his prime. Walk his stats forward. When his mistake free ast/TO ratio has elite shot-makers to finish the play. When he has a dominant interior scorer to jam it home. Or he's taken the lead guard role and can pick and choose when to take his own shot. Okay he doesn't finish on the inside right now, and doesn't force fouls.

Can he ever get better at finishing inside and learning wily tricks? Take a look at the rookie seasons of his 2 recent mentors:

https://stathead.com/tiny/U1FLR

19 year old Bub compares well to 20 year old rookie Smart, and 21 year old rookie Middleton. He rebounds better than the 2 bigger older players. Passes better. Shoots better. Midd is the better interior scorer. Smart the better defender. But Bub gets the benefit of them as early mentors. Both have mentioned how Bub corners them after every practice to pick their brains.

And this is the kid we want to kick out early? Because he is not yet as good as the 5th year player we traded away. That posters are complaining we gave up too early on. Nobody on here has a sense of irony?

No. If you think Bub has no upside, you are missing a few pieces of your puzzle here. Kid has a head start on a really good career, and is getting all the reps he can handle, early, to develop super fast.

[payitforward]

Based on actual performance, this draft has been an absolute sh#t show. Dat & others called that pre-draft, & I denied it. I doubted it would look that way. I thought rookie performances would be somewhere near the average of other years.

You guys were right, I was wrong. This is the worst draft class in more than a decade. Maybe one of the worst in league history.

Based on terrible performance levels up to now.

[doclinkin]

I'd like to revisit Stephon Castle because he's an interesting case. I think the biggest issue with my pre-draft evaluation was I relied too much on his UConn tape where he played a tiertary role and looked passive at times while trying to fit in. I did watch his HS film and he did display much of what he is now. A dynamic and ultra aggressive slasher. I just didn't necessarily think it would translate with his old school pace & what I viewed as good but not elite athleticism.

In reality, he's so solid and wiry strong at 6-5, and uses it so well, guys just bounce off of him when he's in motion. He's also proven to be an elite finisher using a mix of craft, power & pop around the rim to shoot 65% in the paint.

Or I mean you could just re-read what I said in the draft thread. Since I made all those points. That he showed that Jimmy Butler strength and balance, and ignored contact on his forays to the basket. That he raised his game when the stakes were highest. That it was to his credit that he adjusted when the team needed him to, and took on the role of feeding the post and making opportunistic attacks. (And now with Wemby out the team needs him to force the issue and attack, so we get to see it again). That he is a relentless competitor and will find his way to impose his will on the game.

Probably it would be even simpler to just say: "doc was right on this one".

Try it. "doc was right".

[DCZards]

Dat, you’re absolutely right about Castle. He was my favorite player in the 2024 draft--Doc you weren't the only one on the Castle bandwagon.

But I was all in for the Zards taking Sarr with the second pick because of his unique blend of size, length, and athleticism. I thought Sarr might be special but it turns out that Castle might be even more special.

Wouldn't be surprised if 4-5 years from now we're calling Castle the best player from the 2024 draft.

[Dat2U]

I...Stephon Castle... an interesting case....
He's offset his shooting woes with his ultra aggressiveness....

Games are won by controlling possessions & scoring efficiently. Period. Nothing else. What a guy "looks like" he's doing means nothing whatever.

The description "aggressive" means nothing -- literally nothing -- in the absence of results. Castle doesn't produce results. Not in controlling possessions & not in scoring efficiently.

Controlling possessions:
So far, Stephon Castle is a below average rebounder at his position. He's also turns the ball over at an above average rate. Giving the other team extra possessions does NOT help your team win. Period. Ought to be obvious.

Scoring efficiently:
Castle scores inefficiently. & he does so while taking an above average number of shots. Missing shots & ftas does NOT help your team win. Period. Ought to be obvious.

I......He's still a rookie so...

...so there's a chance he improves. That's as far as it goes.

...In retrospect in draft with a ton of question marks, drafting Castle would have provided some 'juice' to a rebuild ....

As bad as Castle has been, he has all the same been better than Alex Sarr.

But he hasn't been as good as Bub Carrington. Or Kyshawn George.

Or Zach Edey. Or Donovan Clingan. Or Dalton Knecht. Or Kel'el Ware. Or Yves Missi. Or Tristan DaSilva. He hasn't been as good as Jaylen Wells -- or a number of other guys taken in R2.

Some day maybe he will be better than all those guys. I don't know that, & neither does anyone else.

I...Stephon Castle... an interesting case....

Sure. & I wouldn't write him off. After all, he hasn't been good, but he's been better than Zacharie Risacher, the #1 pick in the draft.

Castle is woefully inefficient but he is also just 20 years old. I'm not judging a 20 yr old rookie for being inefficient (same with Alex Sarr). The production and raw numbers are more important to at least show what your capable of in time. I'm more harsh on rookies that struggle to produce when given the opportunity. The fact that Castle is getting to the rim as much as he is - I'm very impressed.

That said, you make a lot of good points which is why I was extremely critical of him in the predraft process.

Bottom line, he must become more efficient. Time will tell if he does or not but I think both the Spurs and casual observers have to be impressed with what's in his tool kit. Not many guys I can truly say are just an average jump shot away from being a special player.