2021 Draft thread. Woo! 15th pick here we come! Hoo. Ray.

[NatP4]

Yeah. Same goes for any pick after Suggs&Mobley are off the board. Teams will wanna get into that 5-10 range to draft one of the “high upside” guys like Kuminga/Johnson/Barnes/Moody/Williams. I would also trade down from that spot for multiple picks.

[Ruzious]

I just ran the tankathon lottery simulator and got the #1 pick 4 times out of 7. I also landed at #3 once. #8 the other two times.

If we land #1, do you take Cunningham? If not, I think he is the consensus pick for so many teams that there would be an opportunity to trade down like what Boston did with Fultz. Let's say we're #1 and Cleveland is #3. Cleveland's weakest spot is SF so they'd presumably kill for Cunningham. Would they trade their #3 pick and next year's unprotected pick to move up to #1? We could still land Suggs or Mobley and have a likely late lotto pick next year.

Or is that exactly what Atlanta did when they traded away the opportunity to draft Doncic?

That's a tough one. If I got the 1st pick, I'd probably look to trade down to 3 and get that team's top 5 protected 2022 1st.

[pcbothwel]

I just ran the tankathon lottery simulator and got the #1 pick 4 times out of 7. I also landed at #3 once. #8 the other two times.

If we land #1, do you take Cunningham? If not, I think he is the consensus pick for so many teams that there would be an opportunity to trade down like what Boston did with Fultz. Let's say we're #1 and Cleveland is #3. Cleveland's weakest spot is SF so they'd presumably kill for Cunningham. Would they trade their #3 pick and next year's unprotected pick to move up to #1? We could still land Suggs or Mobley and have a likely late lotto pick next year.

Or is that exactly what Atlanta did when they traded away the opportunity to draft Doncic?

I think Cade and Green go in the top 3. So if I got #1 I would certainly listen to offers from whoever picks 3 & 4.

[NatP4]

I think it goes:

1. Cunningham
2. Mobley
3. Green
4. Suggs
5. Kuminga
6. Johnson
7. Barnes
8. Moody
9. Williams
10. Bouknight
11. K Johnson
12. Kispert
13. Wagner
14. Sengun
15. Springer

[NatP4]

Would love to end up trading back from 8ish for OKCs picks at 12ish&17ish. Wagner&Butler instead of someone like Moses Moody/Jalen Johnson is a home run.

[NatP4]

Signature performance from Suggs. He’s special.

One of the best games of the year.

[NatP4]

This is extremely accurate:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Ruzious]

Signature performance from Suggs. He’s special.

One of the best games of the year.

And he turned it on when they needed him the most. The kid is everything you want in a leader.

[Ruzious]

This is extremely accurate:

Read on Twitter

If Isaiah Jackson would stop getting in foul trouble, he'd be a late lotto pick possibility.

[Ruzious]

Looking at Philly's 2020 draft, I'm seeing a great example of Pif's ideas on making use of later picks. At 21, they got Tyrese Maxey - who's had typical rookie problems - but looks like one of their future building blocks and perhaps a team leader. At 49, they got Isaiah Joe - also having typical rookie problems - but shows the potential for being a great 3 point shooter. And at 58, the pizza resistance - Pif favorite Paul Reed - dominating the G League and has a chance to ultimately be the steal of the draft.

[nate33]

This is extremely accurate:

Read on Twitter

I'm not sure how much I trust the Bayesian Performance Rating. I note that the top 4 players in college basketball by that metric all play for Gonzaga. Gonzaga is good, but not THAT good.

It looks to me that the system over-weights team success. Going back and looking at its rankings from prior years and comparing that to their actual performance in the NBA does not inspire confidence.

[NatP4]

This is extremely accurate:

Read on Twitter

I'm not sure how much I trust the Bayesian Performance Rating. I note that the top 4 players in college basketball by that metric all play for Gonzaga. Gonzaga is good, but not THAT good.

It looks to me that the system over-weights team success. Going back and looking at its rankings from prior years and comparing that to their actual performance in the NBA does not inspire confidence.

My “this is extremely accurate” was in reference to the other tweet in my post, not the BPR tweet.

But Gonzaga is THAT good. They have dominated some of the top teams in the country. Kispert, Ayayi, and Suggs are all going to be quality NBA players.

[NatP4]

Did we discuss the fact that an Oklahoma State team, without Cunningham, beat a top 10 ranked West Virginia team? Maybe his teamates aren’t actually that bad?

It’s been very strange to me that we don’t give Evan Mobley the same “plays on a bad team” pass. USC is horrible. No guard play, awful coaching. Mobley still puts up terrific numbers.

[nate33]

This is extremely accurate:

Read on Twitter

I'm not sure how much I trust the Bayesian Performance Rating. I note that the top 4 players in college basketball by that metric all play for Gonzaga. Gonzaga is good, but not THAT good.

It looks to me that the system over-weights team success. Going back and looking at its rankings from prior years and comparing that to their actual performance in the NBA does not inspire confidence.

My “this is extremely accurate” was in reference to the other tweet in my post, not the BPR tweet.

But Gonzaga is THAT good. They have dominated some of the top teams in the country. Kispert, Ayayi, and Suggs are all going to be quality NBA players.

Sure, they're good. But the 3rd best defensive player on Gonzaga is not a better defender than Evan Mobley. It doesn't pass the smell test.

How often do 3 or 4 players on a college team all end up as good pro's? (Unless they're an all-freshmen superteam like the Fab Five or some of the Calipari era Kentucky teams.) Usually, you find out that the 3rd and 4th best guys were pulled along by the greatness of the top 1 or 2 players. I suspect we will discover that Kispert and Ayayi are merely competent, experienced, physically developed upper classmen swept up by the greatness of Suggs and Timme.

Kispert might have a shot at being more than a situational role player at the NBA level if it turns out he can man the PF position utilizing his strength a la Jae Crowder. But if he has to play SF, he won't amount to anything.

[NatP4]

I'm not sure how much I trust the Bayesian Performance Rating. I note that the top 4 players in college basketball by that metric all play for Gonzaga. Gonzaga is good, but not THAT good.

It looks to me that the system over-weights team success. Going back and looking at its rankings from prior years and comparing that to their actual performance in the NBA does not inspire confidence.

My “this is extremely accurate” was in reference to the other tweet in my post, not the BPR tweet.

But Gonzaga is THAT good. They have dominated some of the top teams in the country. Kispert, Ayayi, and Suggs are all going to be quality NBA players.

Sure, they're good. But the 3rd best defensive player on Gonzaga is not a better defender than Evan Mobley. It doesn't pass the smell test.

How often do 3 or 4 players on a college team all end up as good pro's? (Unless they're an all-freshmen superteam like the Fab Five or some of the Calipari era Kentucky teams.) Usually, you find out that the 3rd and 4th best guys were pulled along by the greatness of the top 1 or 2 players. I suspect we will discover that Kispert and Ayayi are merely competent, experienced, physically developed upper classmen swept up by the greatness of Suggs and Timme.

Kispert might have a shot at being more than a situational role player at the NBA level if it turns out he can man the PF position utilizing his strength a la Jae Crowder. But if he has to play SF, he won't amount to anything.

I don’t see a 3rd Zags player on that list above Mobley. Not sure what you are looking at.

And not often, but this Zags team is one them. I’ve compared them to the Nova team that had Brunson, Divencenzo, and Bridges. All 3 are quality NBA players now.

The Duke team before them had Grayson Allen, Tyus Jones, Quinn Cook, and Justise Winslow.

Timme is just a good college player, nothing more. Kispert is one of the best scorers/shooters in college basketball history that will absolutely carve out a role as a Davis Bertans-like shooter/high basketball IQ guy. Nothing at all like Jae Crowder (??). 22 points on 70% TS per 36. Ayayi is the safest pick in the draft. He’ll fill it up and play great defense and help any teams bench.

We’re talking about a team that has run through Kansas, Auburn, West Virginia, Virginia, Iowa, BYU x2.

[nate33]

Did we discuss the fact that an Oklahoma State team, without Cunningham, beat a top 10 ranked West Virginia team? Maybe his teamates aren’t actually that bad?

It’s been very strange to me that we don’t give Evan Mobley the same “plays on a bad team” pass. USC is horrible. No guard play, awful coaching. Mobley still puts up terrific numbers.

To me, it's not about their numbers. It's about the eye test. I can see Cade Cunningham can fill the SF position (or the SG position) in the NBA right away. He has the necessary physical profile and shooting ability that his success is guaranteed. For him, the only question is whether or not he's merely an above-average starter like an Otto Porter, or a star like a Jason Tatum or Paul George. But there is virtually zero bust risk.

I love Evan Mobley, and I agree that his stats are just as impressive as Cunningham's, but that frame and his rebounding ability are red flags (or yellow flags, at least) that can't be ignored. If he was built stronger and grabbing 11-12 boards per 36, he'd be a no-brainer top pick in the Tim Duncan/Anthony Davis mold. But the possibility exists that his lack of strength and toughness will significantly detract from his NBA potential. Instead of Davis, maybe he's merely Myles Turner or Nerlens Noel.

[nate33]

I don’t see a 3rd Zags player on that list above Mobley. Not sure what you are looking at.

The DBPR metric ranks Suggs first, Ayayi 5th, Kispert 17th, and Mobley 21st..

Timme is just a good college player, nothing more.

I think he is an exceptional college player, but he doesn't have the physical profile to be a good pro. It's a different game and he isn't suited for it.

Kispert is one of the best scorers/shooters in college basketball history that will absolutely carve out a role as a Davis Bertans-like shooter/high basketball IQ guy. Nothing at all like Jae Crowder (??).

The Jae Crowder comparison is for defense. Kispert has a similar body type in that he's extremely stout and strong, but not long or particularly quick. He has to play somewhere on D. I think he'll get abused by NBA wings. But if he can hold his own as an undersized PF, maybe he can stay on the floor when it matters. Otherwise, he'll merely be a backup who helps in the regular season but can't play in the playoffs or in crunch time - a Matt Harpring tier player.

Ayayi is the safest pick in the draft.

Cunningham is the safest pick in the draft.

[doclinkin]

I'm not sure how much I trust the Bayesian Performance Rating. I note that the top 4 players in college basketball by that metric all play for Gonzaga. Gonzaga is good, but not THAT good.

It looks to me that the system over-weights team success. Going back and looking at its rankings from prior years and comparing that to their actual performance in the NBA does not inspire confidence.

Yeah parsing stats for defensive effect is tricky to translate. The one stat that seems to carry over from NCAA to the NBA (and NCAA to Euro ball but not vice versa) is defensive rebounding relative to position. And it seems to be a good indicator of defense in general. That is: a 1G who tends to rebound opponent misses better than other Point Guards will commonly prove a solid defender at the next level.

Shooting guards are tricky. You have to compare them to SF's, the NCAA gets by with many undersized gunners who simply don't pass well enough to be termed PGs so they are designated as off ball players. But a guard who rebounds well relative to Small Forwards often proves to be one of the better defenders at the next level. Even on the perimeter.

Ditto SFs vs Power Forwards. However, here I start looking at other ball smarts metrics. Forwards and centers have more opportunities to catch missed bounces, so in some cases with front court players their stats are less about reading the floor and team positioning, and more about simply being taller when the ball falls near them. If a SF both rebounds well and has good assist numbers, I trust it better. Here I start to cross reference defensive rebounds with blocks, and steals. For wing players a high steal rate often means a player is willing to gamble out of position. The steals you want are on-ball steals, players who can harass the guy in front of them. Wing players have more opportunities to try to steal the ball on a lateral movement by jumping the pass, but it tends not to be a good indicator of NBA level defense and can indicate a guy who is a showboat type player, more willing to be flashy than team oriented.

Steals by bigs though do seem to translate to good defense. C/PFs who both rebound well on the defensive end, and who steal the ball at times are generally excellent defenders at the next level. Better even than those who block shots. Often the notable shot blockers are the equivalent to the wing players with steals. Shotblockers tend to be able to do it at the lower level in part by superior size alone. This is where you get tall bouncy athletic marvels who have no idea what is happening on the court at the next level and take a while to develop (JaVale, Wiseman). Here you often get the overtall but underweight players that can't keep up laterally with the P/R plays they will be forcefed 10-20 times a game in the NBA. Blocks look pretty in the stat sheet for bigs, but are mostly fluff if they don't have other indicators. But Steals by forwards who rebound well on defense are both rare and valuable. These are big mobile heads-up players who can really disrupt opponent game plans. To me these are the true unicorns, more rare and precious than bigs who can shoot from outside. Unibrow, Kawhi, Draymond, etc.

For bigs the metric that seems to indicate a solid positional defender (when cross-referenced against defensive boards) even more than blocks, are assist ratios. Players who can pass well from from the interior while posting solid rebounding measures tend to be guys who understand team concepts. If they don't turn it over they tend to have good hands. As pass dependent players they get fewer opportunities to show their passing, so you may be only looking at 3 or so assists per game. But when you tag that sort of player then you generally can expect smart play at both ends. Even if they are not athletic supertalents. They prove smart enough to anticipate and defend by good positioning. This is one stat that does seem to translate from Euroball, at least in low post Bigs (not the new breed unicorns who want to be more KD than KG). Marc and Pau were solid in this. Joakim Noah and AL Horford were two others. Unibrow of course.

After ID'ing a player that looks good statistically I will look at their game log. Do they play well against their toughest and literal biggest competition. If so they are a good bet to do it at the next level, no matter their height. This is where your Draymond and Paul Millsapp players will show up. Guys who can rack defensive boards even if matched against taller opposition in the NCAA will be able to do so at the NBA level as well. They may not score as efficiently down low, so they better have good FT% and a face up jumper (you can build a 3FG from that, but it is not necessary) but it is a good place to steal a solid productive player late, since most teams will overlook an underheight Big. Regardless of their stats.

Lastly I look at school. Some teams just teach good habits. Virginia and Villanova seem to churn out defenders whose habits translate to the NBA and play bigger than their position or measurements.

Anyway. This is the rough sketch on how to find late draft steals. I'm not sure if it translates at the top of the draft since one thing I look at is if a player develops from one year to the next. That is a 'hard work' indicator, which seems to really be the place you get best value from your draftees. If you select a guy who has a talent for working their tail off and improving, that is as rare as 7 foot height and long wingspan. It's just harder for me to see in freshman and highschool ballers. I lack the "sawces" to scout them. (Where's my curly fries...)

[nate33]

Love the Ken Beatrice call out!

[NatP4]

Am I blind? I don’t even see Kispert on the DBPR list.