The Official 2023 Draft Thread

[TGW]

YODA has a 2nd round/undrafted grade for Bufkin.

[80sballboy]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Is it wrong to shout DOUMBOUYA!!

[Hidden Eye]

The bar is so low for Davis, if he gets to even replacement level next season, that would be miraculous.

Davis starting over Morris this upcoming season isn't going to be hard to do.

Yeah... especially if he can match Monte's 38.2% 3-point percentage, his .831 FT %, & his 5.4 to 1 assist to turnover ratio.

Is that what you think "isn't going to be hard to do"??

Davis can score on his own and play defense. He's shown the most improvement out of any non lottery pick in the last 20 years for the wizards. Nitpicking 3 pointer on a first year player isn't a comparison. His improvement is rapid.

[Hidden Eye]

The bar is so low for Davis, if he gets to even replacement level next season, that would be miraculous.

Davis starting over Morris this upcoming season isn't going to be hard to do.

Uh what? Monte Morris is head and shoulders better than Davis. Davis would be most improved player of the year if he managed to be as good as Morris was last year.

Defensively not. Morris can not turn the ball over which is playing safe and tbh he isn't in the best shape. He moves slow and can threes but it's always setup. Can't really create on his own. Davis has shown more improvement than Kispert and Avdija in their first years. Davis is gonna take over the position soon. Morris isn't doing anything super impressive that should make him the starter. He plays safe anybody can do that. Nothing against him as a person but on court better options which is JD starting. Long term it's better for that.

[payitforward]

A reach? Based on what? Mocks to this point by people who are not GMs?

Mock drafts are not player assessments -- they're predictions of what GMs will do.

Nor, for that matter, do GMs turn out to be right w/ any meaningful consistency whatsoever -- at least not past the 3d pick.

If you wish to put that statement to question, try the following experiment: after picks 1-3, there remain 27 picks in R1. Suppose you divide them into 3 groups of 9 each: 4-12, 13-21, & 22-30.

Now look back at the last dozen drafts & tell me which group has produced the best players. Or the largest number of good players.

Now introduce the fact that, all things being equal, I can probably trade the #8 pick for something like the #13 & #30 -- & then look at those same drafts again to compare the best single player available at 8 vs. the best 2 players available at 13 & 30.*



* Of course, you can't always make that particular trade. Sometimes, in fact, you can't make any trade down. But, that doesn't affect the point I'm making.

[payitforward]

I like Bufkin late 1st. Gotta go Podziemski over him, not even close.

You like Bufkin less than you Johnny Davis at PG last draft cycle?

I like him more than Sharife Cooper, that’s forsure.

LOL...
If you're gonna hand it out, better learn to take it!

[payitforward]

Davis starting over Morris this upcoming season isn't going to be hard to do.

Yeah... especially if he can match Monte's 38.2% 3-point percentage, his .831 FT %, & his 5.4 to 1 assist to turnover ratio.

Is that what you think "isn't going to be hard to do"??

Davis can score on his own and play defense. He's shown the most improvement out of any non lottery pick in the last 20 years for the wizards. Nitpicking 3 pointer on a first year player isn't a comparison. His improvement is rapid.

Not nitpicking anything, nor am I the one who made the invidious comparison. That would be you.

I'm just looking at Johnny's actual level of play. That said, no one will be happier than I to see Johnny Davis turn into an NBA player. But, he's not there yet, & he hasn't come close.

To put it another way, what you're writing about him -- how easily he'll replace a known solid role-player, how great his improvement was -- is complete ballshot. Nor will repeating it, which I imagine you'll proceed to do, improve its truth-value.

It's not hard to tell when a rookie looks good. Here are some examples:

Walker Kessler (pick 22) looked good.
Jalen Williams (pick 12) looked good.
Mark Williams (pick 15) looked good.
Jalen Duren (pick 13) looked good.
Tari Eason (pick 17) looked good.
Christian Braun (pick 21) looked good.

Johnny Davis isn't on that list, because Johnny Davis did not look good.

Now, he did play reasonably well in 1 or 2 meaningless games at the end of the season. & I bet he's been working hard since the season ended. So, let's hope he comes back an improved player.

In the meantime, you won't make him better by writing nonsense like the claim that it isn't going to be hard for him to become a starter on the Wizards.

[payitforward]

Davis starting over Morris this upcoming season isn't going to be hard to do.

Uh what? Monte Morris is head and shoulders better than Davis. Davis would be most improved player of the year if he managed to be as good as Morris was last year.

Defensively not. Morris can not turn the ball over which is playing safe and tbh he isn't in the best shape. He moves slow and can threes but it's always setup. Can't really create on his own. Davis has shown more improvement than Kispert and Avdija in their first years. Davis is gonna take over the position soon. Morris isn't doing anything super impressive that should make him the starter. He plays safe anybody can do that. Nothing against him as a person but on court better options which is JD starting. Long term it's better for that.

Wow... this is is impressively ridiculous! By no means the usual casual fan claptrap -- instead this is a truly astonishing bunch of nonsense.

Hey, Hidden Eye -- what do you think about the rest of the Wizards players? For example, tell us your analysis of Kyle Kuzma, ok?

[tleikheen]

With these young guy who cares if Whittemore doesnt pass the ball really good right now. He's in the top 10 because he soars high and thunder dunks the effin ball which the Wiz havent seen in a long while.
If Cam Whittemore drops to #8 like the mock Locked on NBA draft goes then he's a steal and the Wiz can use some luck that way.
If Beal gets moved to Miami ,presently the front runners, then Tyler Herro is the return.
Getting Herro (23 y o) back and Whittemore (19 y o) paired with Avidja (22 y o) & Kispert (24 y o) gives you the youth to start with in the rebuild.

[awolfinwater]

If you wish to put that statement to question, try the following experiment: after picks 1-3, there remain 27 picks in R1. Suppose you divide them into 3 groups of 9 each: 4-12, 13-21, & 22-30.

Now look back at the last dozen drafts & tell me which group has produced the best players. Or the largest number of good players.

This is wrong. I did this analysis for an NBA team in an earlier life. There is a definite monotonically decreasing value of draft picks based on historical performance.

I found this blog post that explains the relationship pretty well. Of course, each draft is different; thus the value of future draft picks should not be 100% predicated on the mathematical aggregated relationship of historical drafts.

https://thedatajocks.com/nba-draft-pick-values/#:~:text=42%25%20of%20the%20win%20shares,exist%20in%20picks%2014%2D60.




Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[Dat2U]

You like Bufkin less than you Johnny Davis at PG last draft cycle?

I like him more than Sharife Cooper, that’s forsure.

LOL...
If you're gonna hand it out, better learn to take it!

Always! And I'm pretty damn confident that Sharife Cooper is a better player than Johnny Davis is right now and certaintly a better PG.

[payitforward]

I like him more than Sharife Cooper, that’s forsure.

LOL...
If you're gonna hand it out, better learn to take it!

Always! And I'm pretty damn confident that Sharife Cooper is a better player than Johnny Davis is right now and certaintly a better PG.

...& I hope he gets to show it! I like him too....

[payitforward]

If you wish to put that statement to question, try the following experiment: after picks 1-3, there remain 27 picks in R1. Suppose you divide them into 3 groups of 9 each: 4-12, 13-21, & 22-30.

Now look back at the last dozen drafts & tell me which group has produced the best players. Or the largest number of good players.

This is wrong. I did this analysis for an NBA team in an earlier life. There is a definite monotonically decreasing value of draft picks based on historical performance.

I found this blog post that explains the relationship pretty well. Of course, each draft is different; thus the value of future draft picks should not be 100% predicated on the mathematical aggregated relationship of historical drafts.

https://thedatajocks.com/nba-draft-pick-values/#:~:text=42%25%20of%20the%20win%20shares,exist%20in%20picks%2014%2D60.

Sorry, but no. The claim is utterly ridiculous. Here's a random draft. Instead of referring to (self-declared) authority, try to make the case out of this data:

1. Anthony Edwards
2. James Wiseman
3. LaMelo Ball
4. Patrick Williams
5. Isaac Okoro
6. Onyeka Okongwu
7. Killian Hayes
8. Obi Toppin
9. Deni Avdija
10. Jalen Smith
11. Devin Vassell
12. Tyrese Haliburton
13. Kira Lewis Jr.
14. Aaron Nesmith
15. Cole Anthony
16. Isaiah Stewart
17. Aleksej Pokusevski
18. Josh Green
19. Saddiq Bey
20. Precious Achiuwa
21. Tyrese Maxey
22. Zeke Nnaji
23. Leandro Bolmaro
24. RJ Hampton
25. Immanuel Quickley
26. Payton Pritchard
27. Udoka Azubuike
28. Jaden McDaniels
29. Malachi Flynn
30. Desmond Bane

The best player out of that R1 was Tyrese Haliburton (12). The other 5 best players have been Desmond Bane (30), Immanuel Quickley (25), Tyrese Maxey (21), Josh Green (18), & Lamelo Ball (3). Okoru (5) & Okongwu (6) have also been good.

Some people like Anthony Edwards (1) for reasons only they can argue, but let's leave him out of this -- since in any case I only need to make the point about guys taken from 4 down.

James Wiseman (2), Patrick Williams (4), Killian Hayes (7), Deni Avdija (9), Jalen Smith (10), Kira Lewis (13), Aaron Nesmith (14), Isaiah Stewart (16), Aleksej Pokusevski (17), Zeke Nnaji (22), Leandro Bolmaro (23), RJ Hampton (24), Udoka Azubuike (27), Jaden McDaniels (28), and Malachi Flynn (29) have all been one or another kind of failure -- from complete bust (12 of the 15) to way below average at best.

Here are 6 picks out of Round 2, all of whom are better than at least 2/3 of the players taken in the first round:

35. Xavier Tillman Sr
41. Tre Jones
42. Nick Richards
49. Isaiah Joe
52. Kenyon Martin Jr
58. Paul Reed

In fact, Tillman, Jones, Joe, & KMart Jr. should go on that first list with Bane, Quickley, et. al. to make the 10 best players out of that draft.

In short, how good the players out of that draft have been is related randomly to where they were picked.

Every draft is different, of course, but you can make that same overall statement about virtually every one. If you don't believe that just take a look at 2011 -- https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2011.html -- & page forward through the drafts from there. It's obvious.

[awolfinwater]

If you wish to put that statement to question, try the following experiment: after picks 1-3, there remain 27 picks in R1. Suppose you divide them into 3 groups of 9 each: 4-12, 13-21, & 22-30.

Now look back at the last dozen drafts & tell me which group has produced the best players. Or the largest number of good players.

This is wrong. I did this analysis for an NBA team in an earlier life. There is a definite monotonically decreasing value of draft picks based on historical performance.

I found this blog post that explains the relationship pretty well. Of course, each draft is different; thus the value of future draft picks should not be 100% predicated on the mathematical aggregated relationship of historical drafts.

https://thedatajocks.com/nba-draft-pick-values/#:~:text=42%25%20of%20the%20win%20shares,exist%20in%20picks%2014%2D60.

Sorry, but no. The claim is utterly ridiculous. Here's a random draft. Instead of referring to (self-declared) authority, try to make the case out of this data:

1. Anthony Edwards
2. James Wiseman
3. LaMelo Ball
4. Patrick Williams
5. Isaac Okoro
6. Onyeka Okongwu
7. Killian Hayes
8. Obi Toppin
9. Deni Avdija
10. Jalen Smith
11. Devin Vassell
12. Tyrese Haliburton
13. Kira Lewis Jr.
14. Aaron Nesmith
15. Cole Anthony
16. Isaiah Stewart
17. Aleksej Pokusevski
18. Josh Green
19. Saddiq Bey
20. Precious Achiuwa
21. Tyrese Maxey
22. Zeke Nnaji
23. Leandro Bolmaro
24. RJ Hampton
25. Immanuel Quickley
26. Payton Pritchard
27. Udoka Azubuike
28. Jaden McDaniels
29. Malachi Flynn
30. Desmond Bane

The best player out of that R1 was Tyrese Haliburton (12). The other 5 best players have been Desmond Bane (30), Immanuel Quickley (25), Tyrese Maxey (21), Josh Green (18), & Lamelo Ball (3). Okoru (5) & Okongwu (6) have also been good.

Some people like Anthony Edwards (1) for reasons only they can argue, but let's leave him out of this -- since in any case I only need to make the point about guys taken from 4 down.

James Wiseman (2), Patrick Williams (4), Killian Hayes (7), Deni Avdija (9), Jalen Smith (10), Kira Lewis (13), Aaron Nesmith (14), Isaiah Stewart (16), Aleksej Pokusevski (17), Zeke Nnaji (22), Leandro Bolmaro (23), RJ Hampton (24), Udoka Azubuike (27), Jaden McDaniels (28), and Malachi Flynn (29) have all been one or another kind of failure -- from complete bust (12 of the 15) to way below average at best.

Here are 6 picks out of Round 2, all of whom are better than at least 2/3 of the players taken in the first round:

35. Xavier Tillman Sr
41. Tre Jones
42. Nick Richards
49. Isaiah Joe
52. Kenyon Martin Jr
58. Paul Reed

In fact, Tillman, Jones, Joe, & KMart Jr. should go on that first list with Bane, Quickley, et. al. to make the 10 best players out of that draft.

In short, how good the players out of that draft have been is related randomly to where they were picked.

Every draft is different, of course, but you can make that same overall statement about virtually every one. If you don't believe that just take a look at 2011 -- https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2011.html -- & page forward through the drafts from there. It's obvious.

Sample size, PIF. You'll find differences in every draft. My argument is based on a large sample, the higher draft pick performs better than a lower sample. The data backs me on this.

Now, obviously, that doesn't say that you can't find value at lower picks, you can and will in every draft. Let me see if I can dig up a paper or proper blog post that shows the probability of all-star or bust with every range of picks. Maybe that is what you are asserting.

But in terms of whatever aggregate stat you want to come up with, the higher draft pick will more likely perform better than a lower draft pick given an adequate sample.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[gesa2]

Awolf if you look back through this years thread as well as the last 2 or 3, you’ll find several instances of this argument between payitforward and others. The data does show a correlation between draft order and success but the value drops off quickly and after the first 7-10 picks any 2 later first round picks are likely to be worth more on average. Payit argues that it drops so quickly after 3 that the rule would hold that early, but many disagree. He also uses anecdotal data to make his argument which drives some people nuts even if we mostly agree with him.
Is that a good summary? No need to go through it all.

[awolfinwater]

Awolf if you look back through this years thread as well as the last 2 or 3, you’ll find several instances of this argument between payitforward and others. The data does show a correlation between draft order and success but the value drops off quickly and after the first 7-10 picks any 2 later first round picks are likely to be worth more on average. Payit argues that it drops so quickly after 3 that the rule would hold that early, but many disagree. He also uses anecdotal data to make his argument which drives some people nuts even if we mostly agree with him.
Is that a good summary? No need to go through it all.

Got it, thank you. I'll spare everyone from beating a dead horse then.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[Hidden Eye]

Yeah... especially if he can match Monte's 38.2% 3-point percentage, his .831 FT %, & his 5.4 to 1 assist to turnover ratio.

Is that what you think "isn't going to be hard to do"??

Davis can score on his own and play defense. He's shown the most improvement out of any non lottery pick in the last 20 years for the wizards. Nitpicking 3 pointer on a first year player isn't a comparison. His improvement is rapid.

Not nitpicking anything, nor am I the one who made the invidious comparison. That would be you.

I'm just looking at Johnny's actual level of play. That said, no one will be happier than I to see Johnny Davis turn into an NBA player. But, he's not there yet, & he hasn't come close.

To put it another way, what you're writing about him -- how easily he'll replace a known solid role-player, how great his improvement was -- is complete ballshot. Nor will repeating it, which I imagine you'll proceed to do, improve its truth-value.

It's not hard to tell when a rookie looks good. Here are some examples:

Walker Kessler (pick 22) looked good.
Jalen Williams (pick 12) looked good.
Mark Williams (pick 15) looked good.
Jalen Duren (pick 13) looked good.
Tari Eason (pick 17) looked good.
Christian Braun (pick 21) looked good.

Johnny Davis isn't on that list, because Johnny Davis did not look good.

Now, he did play reasonably well in 1 or 2 meaningless games at the end of the season. & I bet he's been working hard since the season ended. So, let's hope he comes back an improved player.

In the meantime, you won't make him better by writing nonsense like the claim that it isn't going to be hard for him to become a starter on the Wizards.

You are bringing up players that had more playing time. jD in the second half is who he is. Scoring against starting players. Unlike Monte he doesn't struggle to score the ball and can play better defense .

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

YODA has Bilal at 5th overall

[TGW]

Read on Twitter

YODA has Bilal at 5th overall

He's 18, he could conceivably still be growing.

On a side note, DE mentioned that Sengun had grown 2 inches from when he was drafted.