Hoopshype Executive Survey: Top Players Under 25 to Build Around

[BK_2020]

SGA probably leads the Mid Players Under 25 to Build Around list.

[Clay Davis]

1 Luka (unaminous #1 pick)
2 Tatum (11 of 15 second place votes)
3 Morant (4 second place votes)
4 Mobley
5 Ant Edwards
6 Zion
7 Scottie Barnes
8 Lamelo
9 Trae
10 Garland
11 Cade
12 Jalen Green
T-13 SGA
T-13 Haliburton

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-poll-top-players-to-build-around-luka-doncic-jayson-tatum-ja-morant-zion-williamson-lamelo-ball/

What do we think?

SGA should definitely be ahead of Green, Cade, Garland, Lamelo and has an argument vs others. He just put up 30/6/7 in the second half of the season on 49/39 shooting despite being the second most doubled player in the NBA. Is this a joke?

Mobley is amazing, but he isn’t a shot creator really. He’s an elite defensive anchor with pick and pop potential. Is that more valuable than a guy who should be a consistent 25 ppg player and lead playmaker, that can get a shot anytime he wants in 2022?

SGA on a good team would have done every bit as well as Ja or Trae. He’s top 4-5 here with Ant, Morant, Tatum, Trae group. Zion IF he is who they thought he’d be, but we don’t have enough sample size yet

Mobley could wind up being the best defensive player in NBA history.

A lot of things have to go right in his development. It's practically the hardest thing for any player to do. AD had the same things said about him and, while he turned out to arguably be the best defensive player in the league in numerous years, he isn't arguably the best defender of all time.

[Vampirate]

Green and Cade have shown nothing close to SGA to deserve this nod. Also his ceiling is definitely not 2nd/3rd team. He won’t ever be MVP, but I can definitely see him with multiple 2nd team and maybe a 1st in one season. He’s got top 5-10 player potential for his peak seasons.

Not in the Luka, Embiid, Jokic, Giannis tier.. but the next tier. Booker finished top 3 in MVP as a worse player to give you an idea. He’s in the same tier with him and Tatum IMO. Garland is nice, but not in this tier. Nothing tells me these guys have MVP potential you’re mentioning.

Cade 17/5 isn’t that great to me (but his metrics are impressive for his age in terms of playmaking). 17 ppg today is equal to 12 ppg a decade ago, and it’s not hard to score now. If you put up 17 ppg now, even as a rookie it’s very meh.

Lamelo I do think has top 10 player peak potential as well, so I won’t bash him or say he doesn’t have a great argument. My only point was SGA should be in the top 7 here, maybe top 4-5. He’s definitely nowhere near 13.

Look beyond scoring here.

First of all Tatum is easily a better player than SGA is. Tatum is a better rebounder, defender and scorer (we need to account for Tatums post season resume). SGA is the better passer.

Lamelo is one of the best passing players in the NBA, if his scoring/efficiency takes a leap year 3 than he's basically surpassed SGA as he's also a better rebounder and already a better facilitator (easily).

Cade and Green were rookies, it's like you are comparing current SGA with rookie SGA, it can go either way.

SGA atm is pretty much in the Bulls version of Zach Levine tier (who btw, is an excellent scorer).

Atm, SGA just isn't multi faceted enough in what he's good-elite at to be put into the Tatum tier (neither is Booker btw)

Dude, are we playing opposites? SGA has less holes in his game than almost all of these guys. It’s not just scoring. He’s a fantastic playmaker, solid defender, super clutch. He’s not only a 3 level scorer but not as weak in playmaking and defense as many of these guys. He’s arguably the least one dimensional player on the list.

We'll lets go back to your original comment.

"SGA should be in the top 7 here, maybe top 4-5. He’s definitely nowhere near 13."

Luka, Tatum, Ja and Zion are pretty untouchable no?

This means at best he's #5

But then you'd have to make the argument going forwards he's better than Mobley, Barnes, Cade, Green (all from 1 draft lol).

You'd also have to make the argument he's going to be better than Ant and Lamelo.

Keep in mind, a lot of projections are based on the players potential growth, and those players (yes all 6) have Superstar ceilings, though I have no idea who will reach theirs.

Trae is Trae.

If you want to put SGA over Garland that's fine, but Garland is only 22 years old and just put up 21 points on 46/38/89 splits while averaging 8.6 assists and 3.6 turnovers.

It's not really a knock on SGA, it's just that the top 10 is a very tough bunch to crack. Who really knows what next years list will be.

[JonFromVA]

<snip> If you want to put SGA over Garland that's fine, but Garland is only 22 years old and just put up 21 points on 46/38/89 splits while averaging 8.6 assists and 3.6 turnovers. <snip>

It's really not fine.

Garland at +12.1 and Tatum at +13.8 are the only players out of this entire group with superstar level On-Off +/-.

We can even go back a year and look Zion's On-Off +/- and while +5.6 would put him behind those two, it's not up in the superstar level.

[Vampirate]

<snip> If you want to put SGA over Garland that's fine, but Garland is only 22 years old and just put up 21 points on 46/38/89 splits while averaging 8.6 assists and 3.6 turnovers. <snip>

It's really not fine.

Garland at +12.1 and Tatum at +13.8 are the only players out of this entire group with superstar level On-Off +/-.

We can even go back a year and look Zion's On-Off +/- and while +5.6 would put him behind those two, it's not up in the superstar level.

It's all about potential here.

And if you are using Garland, then you have to compare him when he was a rookie vs everyone else.

Here's the facts, no one really looks that great as a rookie. There are very few exceptions.

Comparing a player in year 3 to a rookie is an unfair comparison. You are basically comparing year 3 Garland to rookie Garland.

If you don't believe anyone in the 6 (Cade, Mobley, Barnes, Green, Ant, LaMelo) has the potential to put up a superstar impact by year 3 then I don't know what to tell you.

[toooskies]

Mobley could wind up being the best defensive player in NBA history.

I'd say SGA is probably in the same tier of Garland/Cade/LaMelo at best but I definitely wouldn't say he's clearly better. Trae and Garland have shown similar potential in the context of a winning team. LaMelo turned 21 last month and already has a season of 20/6/7 under his belt and Cade put up 17/5/6, Green 17/3/3 at their age SGA put up 11/3/3 (and then 19/6/3 the year after).

Not a diss at all on SGA. He's much higher on the list in terms of current level of play. But he's also older than most of the guys on the list and his ceiling probably isn't MVP-level. He's probably in the 2nd or 3rd team all-NBA ceiling range-- although Cade and Green might have MVP ceilings, but lower floors than SGA, too.

Green and Cade have shown nothing close to SGA to deserve this nod. Also his ceiling is definitely not 2nd/3rd team. He won’t ever be MVP, but I can definitely see him with multiple 2nd team and maybe a 1st in one season. He’s got top 5-10 player potential for his peak seasons.

Not in the Luka, Embiid, Jokic, Giannis tier.. but the next tier. Booker finished top 3 in MVP as a worse player to give you an idea. He’s in the same tier with him and Tatum IMO. Garland is nice, but not in this tier. Nothing tells me these guys have MVP potential you’re mentioning.

Cade 17/5 isn’t that great to me (but his metrics are impressive for his age in terms of playmaking). 17 ppg today is equal to 12 ppg a decade ago, and it’s not hard to score now. If you put up 17 ppg now, even as a rookie it’s very meh.

Lamelo I do think has top 10 player peak potential as well, so I won’t bash him or say he doesn’t have a great argument. My only point was SGA should be in the top 7 here, maybe top 4-5. He’s definitely nowhere near 13.

OK, so you're higher on SGA than most of the league, who hasn't really considered SGA for any league-wide awards, whether that's the all-star game or all-NBA. It's fine to have that evaluation, just know that you're nowhere near the consensus.

Garland and Trae are all-stars. LaMelo is an all-star. Cade and Green are headed in that direction after their rookie years.

SGA didn't sniff the all-star game. Disregarding player voting (13th) and media voting (no votes), he landed 7th in the west in the backcourt among player votes this year, which if you believe that the players know best is very good. Garland was 5th in the east, Trae T-3rd. No evidence that I'm being anything but gracious having SGA in their tier.

In terms of potential... SGA is already 24. He hasn't made an all-star game. He put up his stats on a bad team. That's not his fault, but he's also not good enough for OKC to grab a Murray or Mitchell or KD with their mountain of picks to pair with him and take off straight towards contention, along with all their young developing players.

SGA is only a year younger than Booker with many fewer accolades, so I don't consider their ceilings to be similar. I also see a lot of guards that are in SGA's age range (Ja, Luka, Booker, Garland, Mitchell, Trae, Murray, Murray, LaMelo, Brown, Edwards, Green, and more) who are going to be competing for all-NBA in the years that SGA might compete for it. Expecting SGA to be better than all but one of those guys at some point is... a very high estimation of SGA's ability. Not wrong necessarily because it's predicting the distant future, but pretty hard to justify being among the best of that group.

[BlzMwt]

I'd say SGA is probably in the same tier of Garland/Cade/LaMelo at best but I definitely wouldn't say he's clearly better. Trae and Garland have shown similar potential in the context of a winning team. LaMelo turned 21 last month and already has a season of 20/6/7 under his belt and Cade put up 17/5/6, Green 17/3/3 at their age SGA put up 11/3/3 (and then 19/6/3 the year after).

Not a diss at all on SGA. He's much higher on the list in terms of current level of play. But he's also older than most of the guys on the list and his ceiling probably isn't MVP-level. He's probably in the 2nd or 3rd team all-NBA ceiling range-- although Cade and Green might have MVP ceilings, but lower floors than SGA, too.

Green and Cade have shown nothing close to SGA to deserve this nod. Also his ceiling is definitely not 2nd/3rd team. He won’t ever be MVP, but I can definitely see him with multiple 2nd team and maybe a 1st in one season. He’s got top 5-10 player potential for his peak seasons.

Not in the Luka, Embiid, Jokic, Giannis tier.. but the next tier. Booker finished top 3 in MVP as a worse player to give you an idea. He’s in the same tier with him and Tatum IMO. Garland is nice, but not in this tier. Nothing tells me these guys have MVP potential you’re mentioning.

Cade 17/5 isn’t that great to me (but his metrics are impressive for his age in terms of playmaking). 17 ppg today is equal to 12 ppg a decade ago, and it’s not hard to score now. If you put up 17 ppg now, even as a rookie it’s very meh.

Lamelo I do think has top 10 player peak potential as well, so I won’t bash him or say he doesn’t have a great argument. My only point was SGA should be in the top 7 here, maybe top 4-5. He’s definitely nowhere near 13.

OK, so you're higher on SGA than most of the league, who hasn't really considered SGA for any league-wide awards, whether that's the all-star game or all-NBA. It's fine to have that evaluation, just know that you're nowhere near the consensus.

Garland and Trae are all-stars. LaMelo is an all-star. Cade and Green are headed in that direction after their rookie years.

SGA didn't sniff the all-star game. Disregarding player voting (13th) and media voting (no votes), he landed 7th in the west in the backcourt among player votes this year, which if you believe that the players know best is very good. Garland was 5th in the east, Trae T-3rd. No evidence that I'm being anything but gracious having SGA in their tier.

In terms of potential... SGA is already 24. He hasn't made an all-star game. He put up his stats on a bad team. That's not his fault, but he's also not good enough for OKC to grab a Murray or Mitchell or KD with their mountain of picks to pair with him and take off straight towards contention, along with all their young developing players.

SGA is only a year younger than Booker with many fewer accolades, so I don't consider their ceilings to be similar. I also see a lot of guards that are in SGA's age range (Ja, Luka, Booker, Garland, Mitchell, Trae, Murray, Murray, LaMelo, Brown, Edwards, Green, and more) who are going to be competing for all-NBA in the years that SGA might compete for it. Expecting SGA to be better than all but one of those guys at some point is... a very high estimation of SGA's ability. Not wrong necessarily because it's predicting the distant future, but pretty hard to justify being among the best of that group.

How (or rather why) do you expect SGA to make an allstar game when OKC is obviously tanking? Even All-NBA nods don't typically go to players on losing teams like the Thunder.

Also I believe there was a stat indicating that SGA was one of the most double teamed players in the league. How would his play improve (when it's already stellar) and the perception of him as a player if OKC had another legit threat of a playmaker or scorer to help him?

[Vampirate]

Green and Cade have shown nothing close to SGA to deserve this nod. Also his ceiling is definitely not 2nd/3rd team. He won’t ever be MVP, but I can definitely see him with multiple 2nd team and maybe a 1st in one season. He’s got top 5-10 player potential for his peak seasons.

Not in the Luka, Embiid, Jokic, Giannis tier.. but the next tier. Booker finished top 3 in MVP as a worse player to give you an idea. He’s in the same tier with him and Tatum IMO. Garland is nice, but not in this tier. Nothing tells me these guys have MVP potential you’re mentioning.

Cade 17/5 isn’t that great to me (but his metrics are impressive for his age in terms of playmaking). 17 ppg today is equal to 12 ppg a decade ago, and it’s not hard to score now. If you put up 17 ppg now, even as a rookie it’s very meh.

Lamelo I do think has top 10 player peak potential as well, so I won’t bash him or say he doesn’t have a great argument. My only point was SGA should be in the top 7 here, maybe top 4-5. He’s definitely nowhere near 13.

OK, so you're higher on SGA than most of the league, who hasn't really considered SGA for any league-wide awards, whether that's the all-star game or all-NBA. It's fine to have that evaluation, just know that you're nowhere near the consensus.

Garland and Trae are all-stars. LaMelo is an all-star. Cade and Green are headed in that direction after their rookie years.

SGA didn't sniff the all-star game. Disregarding player voting (13th) and media voting (no votes), he landed 7th in the west in the backcourt among player votes this year, which if you believe that the players know best is very good. Garland was 5th in the east, Trae T-3rd. No evidence that I'm being anything but gracious having SGA in their tier.

In terms of potential... SGA is already 24. He hasn't made an all-star game. He put up his stats on a bad team. That's not his fault, but he's also not good enough for OKC to grab a Murray or Mitchell or KD with their mountain of picks to pair with him and take off straight towards contention, along with all their young developing players.

SGA is only a year younger than Booker with many fewer accolades, so I don't consider their ceilings to be similar. I also see a lot of guards that are in SGA's age range (Ja, Luka, Booker, Garland, Mitchell, Trae, Murray, Murray, LaMelo, Brown, Edwards, Green, and more) who are going to be competing for all-NBA in the years that SGA might compete for it. Expecting SGA to be better than all but one of those guys at some point is... a very high estimation of SGA's ability. Not wrong necessarily because it's predicting the distant future, but pretty hard to justify being among the best of that group.

How (or rather why) do you expect SGA to make an allstar game when OKC is obviously tanking? Even All-NBA nods don't typically go to players on losing teams like the Thunder.

Also I believe there was a stat indicating that SGA was one of the most double teamed players in the league. How would his play improve (when it's already stellar) and the perception of him as a player if OKC had another legit threat of a playmaker or scorer to help him?

He needs to average something like 25PPG on 48/38/80 splits while averaging 7 boards and 7 assists.

If he has that in him, he'll move up the rankings.

[JonFromVA]

<snip> If you want to put SGA over Garland that's fine, but Garland is only 22 years old and just put up 21 points on 46/38/89 splits while averaging 8.6 assists and 3.6 turnovers. <snip>

It's really not fine.

Garland at +12.1 and Tatum at +13.8 are the only players out of this entire group with superstar level On-Off +/-.

We can even go back a year and look Zion's On-Off +/- and while +5.6 would put him behind those two, it's not up in the superstar level.

It's all about potential here.

And if you are using Garland, then you have to compare him when he was a rookie vs everyone else.

Here's the facts, no one really looks that great as a rookie. There are very few exceptions.

Comparing a player in year 3 to a rookie is an unfair comparison. You are basically comparing year 3 Garland to rookie Garland.

If you don't believe anyone in the 6 (Cade, Mobley, Barnes, Green, Ant, LaMelo) has the potential to put up a superstar impact by year 3 then I don't know what to tell you.

lol, Garland was dismissed as a rookie and few people wanted to hear about his potential on a losing team.

So, the rooks, SGA, and the rest can get in line and wait until they prove they can deliver the sort of team uplift that Garland and Tatum delivered last season on winning teams.

At least as far as I'm concerned.

[MrGoat]

Right now I might actually take Barnes. Though Cade could easily make things clear with a jump. Mobley too for that matter.

[Rapsin6]

A lot depends on the team and how management thinks it can win. Toronto wants to have a team full of long versatile players so Barnes and Mobley are their kind of guys. In Cleveland though, I think Garland is going to be their most important player. For me, if I knew Zion would be healthy for 10+ years, I’d go that route. He’s the one guy I can see at this point being able to totally dominate. I would never build around a point guard. It worked for Golden State, but that’s rare. It’s gonna be interesting watching the next group of stars come into their own.

[FreeThrowLine]

If Zion was healthy and not a red flag for my future I’d have him number 1, but it’s not a risk I’d be willing to take unfortunately

My top 5 would be

1. Morant
2. Doncic
3. Tatum
4. Williamson
5. Edwards

[ocelot17]

I don’t know why so many people are high on Edwards but not Green. They both had very similar rookie seasons.

In the last eight games of the season, Green averaged an effortless 28 ppg without wood and Gordon in the lineup. He struggled the first couple of months, but he really started figuring it out in the second half of the season.

I really think Green has the potential to be the SG version of Ja Morant.

[yoyoboy]

1. Doncic
2. Tatum
3. Garland
4. Young
5. Morant
6. Williamson
7. Edwards
8. Mobley
9. Barnes
10. Cunningham

That would be my list personally.

[Vampirate]

I don’t know why so many people are high on Edwards but not Green. They both had very similar rookie seasons.

In the last eight games of the season, Green averaged an effortless 28 ppg without wood and Gordon in the lineup. He struggled the first couple of months, but he really started figuring it out in the second half of the season.

I really think Green has the potential to be the SG version of Ja Morant.

It's really about build, Ant is built like a tank, so he'll be able to absorb contact better, get better spacing, has a higher ceiling on defense. Jalen has incredible athleticism no doubt which can allow him to be a plus defender, but his physical tools are a limitation (height and strength) in terms of overall defensive impact.

There's no doubt people think Green has the potential to average 28+ PPG sometime in the future, however there are questions related to the rest of his game (defense, rebounding, passing) about his slim frame and height.

[DAcReator]

1. Doncic
2. Tatum
3. Garland
4. Young
5. Morant
6. Williamson
7. Edwards
8. Mobley
9. Barnes
10. Cunningham

That would be my list personally.

I respect that it’s your opinion. But garland above all those guys is quite insane. He will never be the best player on a championship team.. cant whereas I can see some below him

[Vampirate]

1. Doncic
2. Tatum
3. Garland
4. Young
5. Morant
6. Williamson
7. Edwards
8. Mobley
9. Barnes
10. Cunningham

That would be my list personally.

I respect that it’s your opinion. But garland above all those guys is quite insane. He will never be the best player on a championship team.. cant whereas I can see some below him

It's pretty much a the top 7 have shown to have an All Star season at the least, the bottom 3 needs to prove it list.

[DreamTeam09]

<snip> If you want to put SGA over Garland that's fine, but Garland is only 22 years old and just put up 21 points on 46/38/89 splits while averaging 8.6 assists and 3.6 turnovers. <snip>

It's really not fine.

Garland at +12.1 and Tatum at +13.8 are the only players out of this entire group with superstar level On-Off +/-.

We can even go back a year and look Zion's On-Off +/- and while +5.6 would put him behind those two, it's not up in the superstar level.

You're gonna bring up +/- stats as a negative to SGA when he plays on **** teams... +/- stats has something to do with the players you play with as well

[DreamTeam09]

SGA is better than garland, at the very least they're = but I'm taking SGA 10x outta 10. I'm always gonna go with the bigger player if I find their skill level =

SGA has just been in a crap situation, replace garland with Sga and clv still has the same outlook or even better. I'd like a SGA Mitchell backcourt over a Garland + Mitchell backcourt. Keep in mind I think Garland is amazing too, definitely a franchise lead guard regardless

[Hoop Heavy]

For reference, In January of this year the same survey came up with...

1 Luka
2 Tatum
3 Morant
4 Lamelo
5 Trae
6 Mobley
7 Zion
8 SGA
T-9 Ant
T-9 Adebayo
11 Ingram
12 Jamal Murray
13 Cade
T-14 Ayton
T-14 MPJ

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-execs-poll-luka-doncic-top-young-player-zion-williamson-lamelo-ball-evan-mobley/

... and in the background ...

the meteoric rise of one S Barnes continues. Not even mentioned in the January poll ... today RealGM has him sixth ahead of the much hyped Zion. Look for him to pass at least Trae, Lamelo and Mobley in the next six months.