Looking back on the 2019 draft

[payitforward]

In response to this from nat:

We used a top 10 pick on [Rui] and he’s not good.

Pcbothwei makes an interesting set of statements:

Who would meet this threshold of "Good" in their 2nd year? Outside of generational talents like Zion & Ja, nobody in the ENTIRE 2019 draft has done anything of note. Now, could it be that a COVID hit and ruined the last quarter of the season along with entire 1st offseason as a pro? Probably.

Did Rui get hit even harder as he missed the middle 3rd of his rookie year with a freak injury? Also probably.

Again, look at that draft and tell me who is better than Rui? Zion and Ja... Ughhh Duh, ok. Next

Top 10? Nobody but Hunter has an argument, and he was TERRIBLE his rookie year and appears to have made a huge jump into his 2nd year.

11-30? Sure, you could point to a couple 24/25 y/o low ceiling players like Cam Johnson or Brandon Clarke, but neither project as an actual starter in the league. Its really Keldon Johnson, maybe PJ washington... But not by much. And thats it.

Some names I hear praised on this forum like Coby White, Herro, Thybulle, Bazley, Paschall, Bol, THT, etc...
Has anyone actually looked at their stats? I wouldn't take any of those guys over Rui... except MAYBE Herro.

Right now, the 2019 draft looks really bad. Or maybe their a bunch of 22 y/o players who have had a chaotic 12 months.

There's definitely something to this. A bunch of guys people (including some of us) thought would be good haven't shown much so far.

OTOH, there's something in this that feels a little different -- that's a kind of "special pleading" -- maybe designed for Rui. I.e. to counter nat without having to find data in Rui's actual play that will do the job.

In any case, it's interesting to look back on that draft. Or I think it could be, anyway -- if you learn from the past, just maybe it makes you more effective in the future.

[payitforward]

1. pcbothwei claims that other than "generational talents" i.e. Zion & Ja, no one taken above Rui has been better than him. That's not quite true, as Jaxson Hayes has looked pretty good in limited minutes & is still only 20. But, in any case it's totally irrelevant! Even if Hayes suddenly turns into a monster player -- he was taken #5.

OTOH, to say only that "Hunter has an argument" is a little silly. He's been really outstanding this year. No one would put Rui at his level so far. Yet... once again that's totally irrelevant! The guy was picked #4 in the draft.

To put it another way, nothing about picks 1-8 matters if the discussion is about Rui. Or, really, not even about Rui -- about whether Rui was a "good pick" at #9.

[payitforward]

2. Another 21 guys were taken in R1 -- after Rui.

I doubt there are many drafts in which there weren't at least 3 guys taken after the #9 pick who turned out better than the guy picked #9.

In fact, forget about "I doubt..." -- I just looked: going back to 2008 the only examples are 2009 (Demar Drozan) & 2010 (Gordon Hayward -- & in this case, Paul George went right after Hayward).

In other words, even if a few players taken from #10 down in the 2019 draft turn out to be better NBA players than Rui, that alone does not make a Rui a bad draft pick. Picks are made under conditions of uncertainty.

In fact, this is especially true (at least so far) in the case of 2019, because if you look at the next 11 players taken -- Cam Reddish, Cam Johnson, PJ Washington, Tyler Herro, Romeo Langford, Sekou Doumboya, Romeo Langford, Chuma Okeke, Nickeil Alexander-Walker, Gogo Bitadze & Luka Samanic -- only Johnson & Herro stand out (either in fan opinion or in stats) as having done better so far than Rui.

Herro stands out, because of a few big game highlights. Like it or not, he actually hasn't been all that good. OTOH, he's still very young, so the acclaim may turn out accurate. But, I don't think it's any kind of sure thing that he winds up a better player than Rui.

Johnson is kind of the opposite. He's been better than Rui, but he's already 25. You expect him to have started to get near his peak. I.e. you'd expect him to come in & be pretty good right away.

[nate33]

1. pcbothwei claims that other than "generational talents" i.e. Zion & Ja, no one taken above Rui has been better than him. That's not quite true, as Jaxson Hayes has looked pretty good in limited minutes & is still only 20. But, in any case it's totally irrelevant! Even if Hayes suddenly turns into a monster player -- he was taken #5.

Jaxson Hayes is terrible. His per-minute stats are half-decent because a big percentage of his minutes are in garbage time. Go ask any New Orleans fan, they think he is a bust. The kid has played just 300 minutes this year and has a ton of DNP-CD's on a bad New Orleans team. He started one game due to injury and committed 4 fouls in 11 minutes.

I guarantee any coach in the league would want Hachimura over him.

He is still young and very slight of frame, so maybe he'll fill out and figure things out, but he has given no indication that he'll do so as of yet.

[pcbothwel]

Good thread as we had the 9th pick and this draft had the latter half of their season and entire first offseason thrown into chaos. Will be interesting to follow.

There is no "Special Pleading" for Rui. Any young/raw player with upside from that draft should be given a little latitude given what has occurred over the last 12 months. I've said before that Rui's lack of fluidity/awareness/reaction time will always limit his ceiling from being Elite. But who cares. You can be a 3rd option on a top 5-7 team and not be elite or even an All Star.
For me, next year is going to be the real needle mover one way or another with Rui.

He'll have a stretch of health, about 3,000 NBA minutes under his belt, and a full & normal offseason with two of the most dedicated players in the NBA (Russ & Beal). Hopefully he gives us reason for optimism after the AS break.

As for the rest of the draft, there are quite a few players I find disappointing given where they were drafted and/or a decent rookie year:
- Coby White appears to a bench scorer at best. Poor defender, average playmaking, and not a good enough shooter/scorer to overcome his inability to get to the line.
- Jaxson Hayes is also underwhelming and limited. Poor IQ and cant shoot. He'll play a decade in this league and float around, but you simply cant take guys with this profile in the top 10.
- Thybulle gets a lot of praise due to high level defense, but his is the defensive version of Bertans. The guy does NOTHING else. He rebounds like a 5'10 PG and shoots like Biyombo. He cant draw fouls even though teams TRY to send him to the line.
- Grant Williams was one of my sleepers and has been really disappointing. He was always a poor rebounder, but now he cant pass, shoot, and he fouls too much.
- Herro has been terrible given the hype last year. I still think his shot will start to fall and his IQ will allow his playmaking to progress, but there has to be real concern. His poor frame and athleticism might put a ceiling on him as he doesn't get to the line and is a poor defender. Rui is a better player than Herro now and I'll bet on Rui's projection a bit more.

As far as outright TERRIBLE... Hard to do worse than Culver, Reddish, Langford, and Sekou at the moment. Not even 15th man NBA players right now.
Side Note: My god TWolves, do they have a record of top 10 picks that are Bust? Flynn, Wes Johnson, Derrick Williams, Burke, Dunn, Wiggins, Patton, Culver...

As far as players I liked that had really bad rookie years and appear to be turning a corner: Garland, Goga, Little... even NAW. Ill be keeping an eye on them.

[Dat2U]

Guys I really liked at the time... Garland, Goga, Herro, Clarke, Windler, Bol

Guys I hated or wasnt high on at the time... Reddish, Hachimura, Culver, Dombouya, Langford, Little...

I thought P.J. Washington would be solid. Same with Eric Paschall.

[payitforward]

1. pcbothwei claims that other than "generational talents" i.e. Zion & Ja, no one taken above Rui has been better than him. That's not quite true, as Jaxson Hayes has looked pretty good in limited minutes & is still only 20. But, in any case it's totally irrelevant! Even if Hayes suddenly turns into a monster player -- he was taken #5.

Jaxson Hayes is terrible. His per-minute stats are half-decent because a big percentage of his minutes are in garbage time. Go ask any New Orleans fan, they think he is a bust. The kid has played just 300 minutes this year and has a ton of DNP-CD's on a bad New Orleans team. He started one game due to injury and committed 4 fouls in 11 minutes.

I guarantee any coach in the league would want Hachimura over him.

He is still young and very slight of frame, so maybe he'll fill out and figure things out, but he has given no indication that he'll do so as of yet.

Fair enough, though he did get almost 1100 minutes as a rookie.

Anyway, main point is that it makes no sense to compare any player unfavorably to a player taken a fair amount higher than he was in the same draft -- that comparison tells you nothing about whether you made a bad pick. It can tell you that a team picking higher made a bad pick, of course.

[pcbothwel]

I doubt there are many drafts in which there weren't at least 3 guys taken after the #9 pick who turned out better than the guy picked #9.

In fact, forget about "I doubt..." -- I just looked: going back to 2008 the only examples are 2009 (Demar Drozan) & 2010 (Gordon Hayward -- & in this case, Paul George went right after Hayward).

Quick suggestion on comparing value of picks.
I like to use the pick before and after the one im referencing as it could be an outlier. Hell, sometime even two picks on either side. I.E. If you want to compare how good of a player you can draft at 9 vs 20, you dont look at 9 vs 20 over the last 5-10 years. You look at 8-10 vs 19-21.

I just think this gives you a better idea of the talent level available.

[nate33]

I doubt there are many drafts in which there weren't at least 3 guys taken after the #9 pick who turned out better than the guy picked #9.

In fact, forget about "I doubt..." -- I just looked: going back to 2008 the only examples are 2009 (Demar Drozan) & 2010 (Gordon Hayward -- & in this case, Paul George went right after Hayward).

Quick suggestion on comparing value of picks.
I like to use the pick before and after the one im referencing as it could be an outlier. Hell, sometime even two picks on either side. I.E. If you want to compare how good of a player you can draft at 9 vs 20, you dont look at 9 vs 20 over the last 5-10 years. You look at 8-10 vs 19-21.

I just think this gives you a better idea of the talent level available.

I look at the pick and the next 4 guys pick after. If the guy you picked is the best among those 5, then you did a good job.

Obviously, that metric becomes less and less valuable the later you pick because the draft becomes more of a crap shoot after the first 20 picks or so.

[payitforward]

Guys I really liked at the time... Garland, Goga, Herro, Clarke, Windler, Bol

Guys I hated or wasnt high on at the time... Reddish, Hachimura, Culver, Dombouya, Langford, Little...

I thought P.J. Washington would be solid. Same with Eric Paschall.

A mixed bag, better than most, as would be expected.

R2 was really weak in 2019, so GS gets a blue ribbon for finding Paschall (though he's pretty bad this season...).

Washington otoh is a little better this season -- though I thought he'd be a fair amount better than he's looked so far. As with Rui, he may be a guy who takes a little more time, or he simply may not develop all that much. No way to know.

The 3 guys who have not been good among the 6 you liked were picked all up & down the draft #5, #18, & #44. Mr. Unnamable & Windler have both been terrific -- both picked in the twenties.

So far, Culver (#7), Reddish (#10), Doumbouya (#15) & Langford (#14) -- off of your dislike list -- have been bad. OTOH, the last on that list, Little (#25), has played pretty well this year, tho he's only played 12 minutes a game -- in only 20 games -- due to injury.

[doclinkin]

Early on I liked a trade down to net Bruno Fernando + future picks, but ended up with Luka Samanic as my pick (*), who hasn't played much behind Rudy Gay but has excellent G-League numbers and good per 36 numbers this year.

(* mostly as a contrarian pick, because PIF had used up all the airspace on Clarke and I wanted my toldjaso's all to myself if I got one right)

I was also banging on about Tillman, and liked a trade down for Clarke and Bol Bol. I also liked Tyler Herro and Keldon Johnson.

Samanic is earning his way back onto the Spurs with solid defense and good all around game.

Watch on YouTube

I liked DeAndre Hunter and Darius Garland as well. But they were gone before our pick.

[DCZards]

The players I wanted the Zards to target in the 2019 draft were Garland (who I expected to be gone before 9); DeAndre Hunter (who I thought might be there at 9); PJ Washington; and Nassir Little.

[payitforward]

I doubt there are many drafts in which there weren't at least 3 guys taken after the #9 pick who turned out better than the guy picked #9.

In fact, forget about "I doubt..." -- I just looked: going back to 2008 the only examples are 2009 (Demar Drozan) & 2010 (Gordon Hayward -- & in this case, Paul George went right after Hayward).

These are both interesting ideas but in very different ways. I.e. they are not about the same thing at all. Taking them in reverse order of when posted:

I look at the pick and the next 4 guys pick after. If the guy you picked is the best among those 5, then you did a good job....

This makes perfect sense within its limits -- i.e. ignoring trade-ups, trade-downs, etc. It's a good self-check.

I suppose, therefore, that in this instance you mean that if Rui turns out to be better than Reddish, Johnson, Washington, Herro & Langford, then we "did a good job" picking Rui.

Quick suggestion on comparing value of picks.
I like to use the pick before and after the one I'm referencing as it could be an outlier. Hell, sometime even two picks on either side. I.E. If you want to compare how good of a player you can draft at 9 vs 20, you dont look at 9 vs 20 over the last 5-10 years. You look at 8-10 vs 19-21.

I just think this gives you a better idea of the talent level available.

This is much more complex, & the way it's expressed doesn't seem to take into account any number of things, e.g.:

1. A #9 pick buys you both a #20 & a #21 pick. Or some other combination of picks -- possibly 3 of them, e.g. 26, 27 & 28. Or, as I was advocating in a deal with Boston this year, #14, #26 & #47. Thus, if you are looking at #8-10 on the one hand, you have to look at much more than simply #19-21.

2. Even if, looking back, the best player in a particular draft went #15 & the second best player went #30, nonetheless if I can only have one pick, I want the highest one possible. & if I have 2 picks, I want the 2 highest picks I can get. Given a choice between owning the #9 pick in a draft & owning the #10 pick in that same draft, obviously I want the #9. Similarly if it's the #59 vs. the #60.

3. There is no such thing as "the talent level available" at a particular pick. Not at #9, not at # 20. "Talent level" is an abstraction. Only players, human beings, are available. Kawhi Leonard was available at #2 in 2011, but Derrick Williams was the choice. Kawhi Leonard was available at #3 in 2011, but Enes Kanter was the choice. Kawhi Leonard was available at #4 in 2011, but Tristan Thompson was the choice. Kawhi Leonard was available at #5 in 2011, but Jonas Valanciunas was the choice. Kawhi Leonard was available at #6 in 2011, but Jan Vesely was the choice. Rinse & repeat until you get to the next year, 2012. Off the top of your head, w/o looking it up, do you know who went #5 that year? I assume you can answer correctly without hesitation. But, please tell me true -- did you have to look it up? It wasn't Draymond; he went #35.

2. Why are you trying to correct for "outliers?" We are not attempting to determine an average! We *want* an outlier. &, that's one advantage of multiple picks, even if lower -- they put luck on your side. They make it more likely you get an outlier -- after all, if teams knew a guy would be an outlier at #20, he'd be picked earlier! Duh.

Can you get a better player at #9 than at #29? Of course you can! You can get any player who wasn't picked from 1-4. That fact is obvious & irrelevant. E.g. in 2011, you could have gotten Kawhi. Or Jimmy Butler. Only... that's not who was picked there, is it?

[pcbothwel]

PIF... Id dont want to get bogged down on this. My point is simple. You cant look strictly at 9 vs 20 (Lets stick with these for now). You could look back over the last decade and see overall that #20 has been better than 9. But then what if you do the same analysis and see that 10 has been much better than 19. Its a flawed analysis. The reason for the "range" is to cover you on both ends.
Its broad enough to cover a range of players and not simply catch outliers (BTW. "outliers" was in reference to an instance above. where a single pick has historically hit at a much higher rate than the picks surrounding it.)

Its also narrow enough that the latter pick cant take the field. I dont think its fair to assume that pick 20 + 25 in a draft is far better value than say 5 because the best player in the draft was drafted in the mid 2nd. Therefore, you could of gotten said player at 20 and another player at 25. Think Jimmy Butler.

The reason to use the surrounding picks is to get an idea of league valuation. Anyway, it was a suggestion. but whatever.

[WallToWall]

https://www.landofbasketball.com/draft/2019_nba_draft_stats.htm
I dont think we did bad, if we're judging by numbers, and where we picked.
One can certainly make a case for picking Washington, Herro, Clarke, Keldon Johnson, or Porter Jr.
I wanted us to find a way back into the late 1st round to get Porter.

[pcbothwel]

https://www.landofbasketball.com/draft/2019_nba_draft_stats.htm
I dont think we did bad, if we're judging by numbers, and where we picked.
One can certainly make a case for picking Washington, Herro, Clarke, Keldon Johnson, or Porter Jr.
I wanted us to find a way back into the late 1st round to get Porter.

Porter Jr. was a bad college player, a bad NBA player, cut by a bottom 5 franchise in the league, who has already punched a women in the face, and crashed a car with weed in the car and felony gun charge.

Hey end up being a player... but there is ZERO case for wanting him over Rui

[WallToWall]

https://www.landofbasketball.com/draft/2019_nba_draft_stats.htm
I dont think we did bad, if we're judging by numbers, and where we picked.
One can certainly make a case for picking Washington, Herro, Clarke, Keldon Johnson, or Porter Jr.
I wanted us to find a way back into the late 1st round to get Porter.

If I recall correctly, I wanted to us to get into the bottom of the 1st round (while keeping out #9 which ended up being Rui), in order to get PorterJr. He was someone i was willing to take a chance on. Who knows if it would have worked out for us the same...environment plays a factor in the success of any player.

[payitforward]

PIF... Id dont want to get bogged down on this. My point is simple. You cant look strictly at 9 vs 20 (Lets stick with these for now). You could look back over the last decade and see overall that #20 has been better than 9. But then what if you do the same analysis and see that 10 has been much better than 19. Its a flawed analysis. The reason for the "range" is to cover you on both ends.
Its broad enough to cover a range of players and not simply catch outliers (BTW. "outliers" was in reference to an instance above. where a single pick has historically hit at a much higher rate than the picks surrounding it.)

Its also narrow enough that the latter pick cant take the field. I dont think its fair to assume that pick 20 + 25 in a draft is far better value than say 5 because the best player in the draft was drafted in the mid 2nd. Therefore, you could of gotten said player at 20 and another player at 25. Think Jimmy Butler.

The reason to use the surrounding picks is to get an idea of league valuation. Anyway, it was a suggestion. but whatever.

No problem -- I misunderstood you. & in any case, there is as you say no single pick number to focus on. No magic number in any range of the draft that routinely gets you a better player than a guy picked e.g. one up or one down from there.

To understand how little ability there is to really know in advance how good a set of players will be in the league -- which is what you'd need in order to arrive at a draft where guys are actually picked in the "right" order based on results -- all you need to do is look at this list:

Michael Beasley, Hasheem Thabeet, Evan Turner, Derrick Williams, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Victor Oladipo, Jabari Parker, D'Angelo Russell, Brandon Ingram, Lonzo Ball, Marvin Bagley III.

Those are the guys picked second in the draft from 2008-2018.

One of the only 2 outstanding players on that list is Oladipo. But, was he better than the guys taken later? Not exactly. 2013 was a very weak draft overall, but it's easy to find 4 or 5 much better players than Oladipo who were taken way way later: CJ McCollum, Steven Adams, Giannis, Dieng & Rudy Gobert for starters. & you could make an argument for a few others as well.

And that's in a year where a good player not a bad one was chosen second in the draft!

[The Consiglieri]

My fav options at the time were something along the lines of:
1. Brandon Clarke-Take at slot or via trade down
2. Rui Hachimura-Take at slot
3. Cam Reddish-Take at slot, and trade
4.Sekou-Take via trade down
5. NAW-Take via trade down
6. Bol Bol
7. Thybulle-Take via trade down
8. Nasir Little-Take via trade down

The only guys I thought were real value there were probably Clarke, Hachimura, Reddish and probably that's it, and like many others, I didn't really want Reddish, his uneven at best college performance made me very leery but I thought we could flip him in a trade down. My preference was probably Clarke and Rui at slot, I was also into the other guys mentioned if we moved down a bit, but the only guys I thought could be justified at slot were Clarke, Rui and Reddish in terms of tradable draft capital.

I never really understood the hatred for Rui. He was a mild reach at the time, but generally speaking, ignoring outliers on either end, Rui went more or less within a pick or 2 or 3 of right where most predicted him to go, somewhere between 8 and 13, so he wasn't a steal, but at that point in the draft, much like in '20, the bottom had fallen out, and most people had the guys after the big 3, tiered out as 3-15 or 3-20 or so. You could pick your poison, it was a trade down, or draft upside kind of draft. They went with upside, and so far, he does seem like a better choice than plenty of guys taken ahead of him and after. Nothing proven yet, but people outside of many posters here, tend to value him.

[Ruzious]

The players I wanted the Zards to target in the 2019 draft were Garland (who I expected to be gone before 9); DeAndre Hunter (who I thought might be there at 9); PJ Washington; and Nassir Little.

Hunter would have been such a good pick for the Wiz. I also was very high on Garland. I actually wanted Doumbouya (with Hunter gone), so I can't complain about getting Rui. Good call by Doc on Samanic. SA has been letting him develop slowly, and it looks like it's working. Gotta wonder how Doumbouya would have developed if a team like SA drafted him. Maybe the same as with Detroit, but maybe a lot better.