RealGM

Cooper Flagg earned a consensus projection of 5.3 WARP, ranking as the third-best draft prospect since 2005 in statistical analysis that combines NCAA performance with expert rankings.

Flagg trails only Zion Williamson (5.5) and Luka Doncic (5.4) in the comprehensive database covering college players since 2005. The projections incorporate performance in NCAA Division I, G League, and select European leagues, plus age factors.

The 19-year-old stands as the only player in this year's draft without statistical weaknesses. Flagg projects within 15% of the average NBA-bound college prospect at his position across all 10 key evaluation categories.

Flagg ranks No. 1 in both ESPN's top 100 prospects and pure statistical projections. His well-rounded profile features six statistical strengths compared to four for Sacramento's Keegan Murray, the only other recent draftee without weaknesses.

The Dallas Mavericks hold the No. 1 pick and are positioned to compete immediately. Flagg's NBA-ready skill set aligns with the franchise's win-now mentality following their recent playoff success.

His versatility as a forward addresses multiple positional needs for Dallas. The consensus projections, which combine statistical analysis with expert rankings, have proven more accurate than pure performance metrics in predicting NBA success.

Via Kevin Pelton/ESPN

Wemby?

pookenstein wrote:Wemby?

"The projections incorporate performance in NCAA Division I, G League, and select European leagues"

the french League likely is Not incorpoated i would Guess? Luka played euroleague.

LOL so ESPN Historical Draft Projections are pretty hit and miss.

Jakay wrote:LOL so ESPN Historical Draft Projections are pretty hit and miss.

The draft is hit and miss in general.

Luka was the 3rd pick crazy

Pickled Prunes wrote:

Jakay wrote:LOL so ESPN Historical Draft Projections are pretty hit and miss.

The draft is hit and miss in general.

Kinda what I was getting at. This prediction model means nothing.

Jakay wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:

Jakay wrote:LOL so ESPN Historical Draft Projections are pretty hit and miss.

The draft is hit and miss in general.

Kinda what I was getting at. This prediction model means nothing.

My comment was based on you singling out ESPN when they do about as well as anyone. But the models do mean something... they just lack information. There is no model (yet) for how seriously a player will take their training once they reach the NBA. And of course, long term health will always be a question.Will these players dig into their weaknesses? Will Westbrook develop a 3pt; will Harden work on his cardio or just hit the clubs; will Lillard learn to split a double; will Ben Simmons work on anything? Most of these issues pop up years after the draft.

Pickled Prunes wrote:

Jakay wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:The draft is hit and miss in general.

Kinda what I was getting at. This prediction model means nothing.

My comment was based on you singling out ESPN when they do about as well as anyone. But the models do mean something... they just lack information. There is no model (yet) for how seriously a player will take their training once they reach the NBA. And of course, long term health will always be a question.Will these players dig into their weaknesses? Will Westbrook develop a 3pt; will Harden work on his cardio or just hit the clubs; will Lillard learn to split a double; will Ben Simmons work on anything? Most of these issues pop up years after the draft.

Of course I singled out ESPN lol. ITS LITERALLY THE HEADLINE

But thanks for telling me no one knows the future. Very good use of both our time.

Jakay wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:

Jakay wrote:
Kinda what I was getting at. This prediction model means nothing.

My comment was based on you singling out ESPN when they do about as well as anyone. But the models do mean something... they just lack information. There is no model (yet) for how seriously a player will take their training once they reach the NBA. And of course, long term health will always be a question.Will these players dig into their weaknesses? Will Westbrook develop a 3pt; will Harden work on his cardio or just hit the clubs; will Lillard learn to split a double; will Ben Simmons work on anything? Most of these issues pop up years after the draft.

Of course I singled out ESPN lol. ITS LITERALLY THE HEADLINE

But thanks for telling me no one knows the future. Very good use of both our time.

You seem upset; maybe you should take a minute...

I was responding to you, not the headline. Sometimes people have conversations in here that go beyond the headlines. Sometimes that's too much too expect.

Pickled Prunes wrote:

Jakay wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:My comment was based on you singling out ESPN when they do about as well as anyone. But the models do mean something... they just lack information. There is no model (yet) for how seriously a player will take their training once they reach the NBA. And of course, long term health will always be a question.Will these players dig into their weaknesses? Will Westbrook develop a 3pt; will Harden work on his cardio or just hit the clubs; will Lillard learn to split a double; will Ben Simmons work on anything? Most of these issues pop up years after the draft.

Of course I singled out ESPN lol. ITS LITERALLY THE HEADLINE

But thanks for telling me no one knows the future. Very good use of both our time.

You seem upset; maybe you should take a minute...

I was responding to you, not the headline. Sometimes people have conversations in here that go beyond the headlines. Sometimes that's too much too expect.

What do you hope to accomplish here. I said the prediction model isn't a good predictor. You are making this go somewhere personal after pointing out in your own circuitous way that this was true.

Jakay wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:

Jakay wrote:
Of course I singled out ESPN lol. ITS LITERALLY THE HEADLINE

But thanks for telling me no one knows the future. Very good use of both our time.

You seem upset; maybe you should take a minute...

I was responding to you, not the headline. Sometimes people have conversations in here that go beyond the headlines. Sometimes that's too much too expect.

What do you hope to accomplish here. I said the prediction model isn't a good predictor. You are making this go somewhere personal after pointing out in your own circuitous way that this was true.

What do I hope to accomplish with this conversation or on RealGM in general?

Obviously, this conversation is pretty hopeless, so I have little hope of getting anything out of it. You're correct, I agreed with you in a way by saying that the draft is hit and miss, but disagree that the modelling is worthless. The difficulty in the draft is why modelling is so valuable and Kevin Pelton at ESPN is pretty good at what he does.

That said, I find myself in great conversations about BB on RealGM everyday. Agree or disagree, it's all good. If you feel that responding to someone is a waste of time then don't. No need to come back angry, acting all frustrated with the ALL CAPS. That does seem like a waste of time. Just chill man... converse!

Pickled Prunes wrote:No need to come back angry, acting all frustrated with the ALL CAPS.

Ah, I see. Yeah, all caps isn't any part frustration. I think you either get why they're funny or not. ITS BASICALLY SAYING DUH REALLY LOUDLY IN THIS CONTEXT.

As for the worthless part, I don't know if I'd say they're worthless, just not worth much. That's why I'm making fun of it.To me this headline reads "UNRELIABLE MODEL MAKES BOLD NEW PREDICTION" like it's being marketed to us rather than really having any useful insight.

Also funny that the two other players it picked have had weight/conditioning issues.

Would be REALLY funny to see it be right and suddenly Flagg chunks up.

Three uses of all caps too. All different contexts. Like I said you get it or you don't, but it's not a judgment thing.

Jakay wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:No need to come back angry, acting all frustrated with the ALL CAPS.

Ah, I see. Yeah, all caps isn't any part frustration. I think you either get why they're funny or not. ITS BASICALLY SAYING DUH REALLY LOUDLY IN THIS CONTEXT.

As for the worthless part, I don't know if I'd say they're worthless, just not worth much. That's why I'm making fun of it.To me this headline reads "UNRELIABLE MODEL MAKES BOLD NEW PREDICTION" like it's being marketed to us rather than really having any useful insight.

Also funny that the two other players it picked have had weight/conditioning issues.

Would be REALLY funny to see it be right and suddenly Flagg chunks up.

Three uses of all caps too. All different contexts. Like I said you get it or you don't, but it's not a judgment thing.

See, now you're asking me to be inside your head. That isn't how I read the headline at all. I read it as saying what it actually says which was: The ESPN model ranked Flagg higher than KD, AD, KAT, Tatum, Ant, Wemby etc... That surprised me.

I didn't get that you were calling out Luka and Zion as busts. I would agree that (to varying degrees) health/fitness has held them back from maximizing their potential, but all that health stuff needs to be put aside. None of that is in the ESPN model. Zion's heath could have been forecasted (and was) but Luka's Twizzlers addiction was impossible to predict. When healthy, Luka and Zion are both dominant forces in the NBA. The ESPN model seems on point in that respect.

Pickled Prunes wrote:[
I didn't get that you were calling out Luka and Zion as busts.

I wouldn't say they're busts. Luka especially has time to reign in his conditioning. Zion... his style of play of play and size was always a concern, but his talent was too tantalizing to pass on. But those were obvious concerns for both (Luka less so but still). Any model that ignores obvious tings like that is inherently flawed.

I mean it seems like all the model really predicted is how well rounded they are as players, NO PUN INTENDED

Jakay wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:[
I didn't get that you were calling out Luka and Zion as busts.

I wouldn't say they're busts. Luka especially has time to reign in his conditioning. Zion... his style of play of play and size was always a concern, but his talent was too tantalizing to pass on. But those were obvious concerns for both (Luka less so but still). Any model that ignores obvious tings like that is inherently flawed.

I mean it seems like all the model really predicted is how well rounded they are as players, NO PUN INTENDED

The model Pelton uses at ESPN is statistical in nature. I believe it assumes health. But the teams obviously look at health histories as well.

With Luka, it's a choice. He chooses not to do cardio over the summer and to play himself into game shape.
With Zion, he's just huge; he's going to carry a lot of weight, be it fat or muscle. As you said, it was a known risk. But you can't count on these things. Tatum and Hali just went down with major injuries and nobody is going to point to those guys as being out of shape. Who in the NBA is in better shape than AD?