Why did Jokic drop all the way to the 2nd round?

[HadAnEffectHere]

You can get lucky over a season worth of data.

Derrick Williams was a terrible shooter who got lucky for a year and got drafted 2nd because of that.

[SA37]

The Draft is a treacherous place where teams get a lot wrong because so much attention is given to measurements that don't really matter or they get hyper-focused on some detail like "can this guy get his shot off" or they get enamored with how many positions a guy can play. What's funny is teams are usually willing to gamble on something that is not measurable -- talent -- even after they've analyzed and measured everything to death.

Lack of athleticism is probably why Doncic didn't go #1, why Steph Curry wasn't picked higher, and why Jalen Brunson also fell to the second round.

[JonFromVA]

Was he not expected to be good? and was a rare one that actually kept improving after being drafted? or what. Anyone have the details, as to why he was not like a top 10 pick.

Lack of athleticism, slow and fat, no trust that his offense would translate to the NBA (especially as back then many thought that a big would still need to play with the back to the basket most of the time), many doubts about his defense.

Here's an article with many assessments of Jokic by many scouts prior to the draft.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/nikola-jokic-draft-scouting-reports-proved-experts-wrong/l8ofma2jt2huy5b53gooxrkr

One of the names in that article was Steven Petrovic who created nbadraft.net's profile for Jokic.

It's worth reading his entire report because while nbadraft.net gave Jokic only an 85, they actually nailed some very important traits about him like very high IQ, team player, work ethic, shooting, hard worker, great length, winning attitude, competes hard, doesn't drink or smoke, self starter, late arrival to basketball training, etc, etc,.

Foot speed and explosiveness aren't going to change a ton, but strength certainly can, foot work can, skills can, and defense too.

https://www.nbadraft.net/players/nikola-jokic/

And it never hurts when looking at a player in a much older league to dial back to how they did against players their own age like DraftExpress did in this report:

https://www.draftexpress.com/article/2014-Nike-Hoop-Summit-International-Practice-Day-Three-4441/

What'd NBA scouts and executives actually think? Who knows, but I think more are learning to look harder for character traits rather than just athletic markers.

[zero rings]

Jokic should have every scout reevaluating what they think they know about athleticism. He’s not explosive at all, but he is remarkably fluid for a big man and has the softest touch I’ve ever seen. From any player at any position.

These aren’t normally considered athletic traits, but they should be. You can’t teach those things in a gym.

[Sgt Major]

The Jokic that was drafted was not the Jokic that came into the NBA btw, I don't think a lot of people acknowledge this. He was stashed for a season. The version that was drafted was in worse shape than the earlier versions of Jokic who people still called out of shape.

Jokic took a big leap the year after he was drafted, not just production, but also in being in better shape (probably went hand in hand). If Jokic went into the draft a year later he would have gone much higher.

The version that was drafted averaged 11.3 / 6.3 / 2
5 and shot 65.6% FT in the Adriatic.

The next season before he came to the NBA, he averaged 16.7 / 9.2 / 3.2, 1.4 stl, 1.0 blk, though still only 69% FT. His first NBA season, he shot 81% FT, so something obviously gave a nice boost there.

Guys like Frank Kaminski were drafted in the lottery, so it's not like teams don't value skill that is paired with height and size, but they need more data than what they had with Jokic.

Steven Adams though athletic was a one and done lottery pick who averaged 7/6 and shot 44% FT because he had size.

Aesthetically, his various shots looked absolutely terrible for the time and scouts didn't buy his percentages at all as they thought he was just getting lucky.

Ball handling centers were also not really a thing back then either.

So it was unclear how he would utilize any of his passing (and he was always viewed as an elite passer) and he had major question marks about his defense.

Playmaking C's have been a thing in the NBA for probably it's whole history, coming in and out of vogue now and then.

Noah the year Jokic was drafted was actually 4th in MVP voting due to defense and being a ball handling/playmaking C. Of course we also had many in the recent past, not going too far back, Diaw technically in the small ball C role, both Gasol's, Bogut, Divac, Brad Miller, Duncan himself liked to push and make passes in the open court (Magic was just favorite player growing up).

I don't know if any scouts would conclude that a player is getting lucky over seasons worth of data lol, if it was one game, sure.

Kaminsky now plays for the Serbian I root for and HE'S **** ATROCIOUS. Like I've never seen a center that bad on defense as him. It's unwatchable, it's ridiculous, it's beyond comprehension. Every single scout that had him over Jokic in that draft should resign ASAP.

[ChipotleWest]

Jokic should have every scout reevaluating what they think they know about athleticism. He’s not explosive at all, but he is remarkably fluid for a big man and has the softest touch I’ve ever seen. From any player at any position.

These aren’t normally considered athletic traits, but they should be. You can’t teach those things in a gym.

No need, there'll never be another player like him.

[og15]

You can get lucky over a season worth of data.

Derrick Williams was a terrible shooter who got lucky for a year and got drafted 2nd because of that.

Definitely can get lucky with shooting variance, especially over a not so large sample size (eg: under 100 attempts) , and for Derrick Williams of course that was college 3PT too, so that doesn't directly translate.

Aminu shot 40.5% 3PT on his first 84 or so 3PA, he then finished the season at 31.5% (19.7% the rest of the way)

I don't think we generally say a guy just got lucky over a whole season of shots inside the paint though. Now, if people question how something might translate, that's reasonable, but luck wouldn't really explain interior finishing very accurately, I think that would be a bad scouting conclusion.

Is there some legitimate scout out there who suggested that who you are referring to? Curious to know what that would have been.

Spoiler:

The Jokic that was drafted was not the Jokic that came into the NBA btw, I don't think a lot of people acknowledge this. He was stashed for a season. The version that was drafted was in worse shape than the earlier versions of Jokic who people still called out of shape.

Jokic took a big leap the year after he was drafted, not just production, but also in being in better shape (probably went hand in hand). If Jokic went into the draft a year later he would have gone much higher.

The version that was drafted averaged 11.3 / 6.3 / 2
5 and shot 65.6% FT in the Adriatic.

The next season before he came to the NBA, he averaged 16.7 / 9.2 / 3.2, 1.4 stl, 1.0 blk, though still only 69% FT. His first NBA season, he shot 81% FT, so something obviously gave a nice boost there.

Guys like Frank Kaminski were drafted in the lottery, so it's not like teams don't value skill that is paired with height and size, but they need more data than what they had with Jokic.

Steven Adams though athletic was a one and done lottery pick who averaged 7/6 and shot 44% FT because he had size.

Aesthetically, his various shots looked absolutely terrible for the time and scouts didn't buy his percentages at all as they thought he was just getting lucky.

Ball handling centers were also not really a thing back then either.

So it was unclear how he would utilize any of his passing (and he was always viewed as an elite passer) and he had major question marks about his defense.

Playmaking C's have been a thing in the NBA for probably it's whole history, coming in and out of vogue now and then.

Noah the year Jokic was drafted was actually 4th in MVP voting due to defense and being a ball handling/playmaking C. Of course we also had many in the recent past, not going too far back, Diaw technically in the small ball C role, both Gasol's, Bogut, Divac, Brad Miller, Duncan himself liked to push and make passes in the open court (Magic was just favorite player growing up).

I don't know if any scouts would conclude that a player is getting lucky over seasons worth of data lol, if it was one game, sure.

Kaminsky now plays for the Serbian I root for and HE'S **** ATROCIOUS. Like I've never seen a center that bad on defense as him. It's unwatchable, it's ridiculous, it's beyond comprehension. Every single scout that had him over Jokic in that draft should resign ASAP.

To be fair to him, he did also have a lot of injuries that slowed him down.

[jkvonny]

The Jokic that was drafted was not the Jokic that came into the NBA btw, I don't think a lot of people acknowledge this. He was stashed for a season. The version that was drafted was in worse shape than the earlier versions of Jokic who people still called out of shape.

Jokic took a big leap the year after he was drafted, not just production, but also in being in better shape (probably went hand in hand). If Jokic went into the draft a year later he would have gone much higher.

The version that was drafted averaged 11.3 / 6.3 / 2
5 and shot 65.6% FT in the Adriatic.

The next season before he came to the NBA, he averaged 16.7 / 9.2 / 3.2, 1.4 stl, 1.0 blk, though still only 69% FT. His first NBA season, he shot 81% FT, so something obviously gave a nice boost there.

Guys like Frank Kaminski were drafted in the lottery, so it's not like teams don't value skill that is paired with height and size, but they need more data than what they had with Jokic.

Steven Adams though athletic was a one and done lottery pick who averaged 7/6 and shot 44% FT because he had size.

Aesthetically, his various shots looked absolutely terrible for the time and scouts didn't buy his percentages at all as they thought he was just getting lucky.

Ball handling centers were also not really a thing back then either.

So it was unclear how he would utilize any of his passing (and he was always viewed as an elite passer) and he had major question marks about his defense.

Playmaking C's have been a thing in the NBA for probably it's whole history, coming in and out of vogue now and then.

Noah the year Jokic was drafted was actually 4th in MVP voting due to defense and being a ball handling/playmaking C. Of course we also had many in the recent past, not going too far back, Diaw technically in the small ball C role, both Gasol's, Bogut, Divac, Brad Miller, Duncan himself liked to push and make passes in the open court (Magic was just favorite player growing up).

I don't know if any scouts would conclude that a player is getting lucky over seasons worth of data lol, if it was one game, sure.

Kaminsky now plays for the Serbian I root for and HE'S **** ATROCIOUS. Like I've never seen a center that bad on defense as him. It's unwatchable, it's ridiculous, it's beyond comprehension. Every single scout that had him over Jokic in that draft should resign ASAP.

I remember he was a solid player for the Hornets and Suns.
Maybe he fell off a lil? He had the injuries, too. Especially with his knee.

[Doctor MJ]

Was he not expected to be good? and was a rare one that actually kept improving after being drafted? or what. Anyone have the details, as to why he was not like a top 10 pick.

It takes a lot to get drafted at all so it's not like his talent was utterly unrecognized, but it's certainly the case that his talent was underrated, and not just from a potential perspective. Unlike virtually all other future superstars, Jokic showed signs of huge capacity for impact as a matter of course from day 1 as a rookie.

So what's going on? Prospect scouting is far better at evaluating stuff that can be simply measured than stuff that can't. Height, reach, weight, speed, etc. That stuff is easy. Basketball feel? Not so much. Oh scouts will talk about guys having great feel as they scout them, but without anything quantifiable there's nothing keeping those assertions honest.

For example, Jokic was a rookie in the same season as another guy who was hyped as a generational passer named D'Angelo Russell. In retrospect we know that Russell is nothing like a generational passer and Jokic was even better than a generational passer (he's the best in the history of the game), but at the time, the hype was what it was.

[iLLmatic860]

Same as Why Tom Brady dropped to 6 rounds 199

This is the best comparison that i've seen about Jokic

[Cavsfansince84]

Sometimes people try way too hard to not understand the downsides to players when they are only 18/19/20. No one knows how these kids will develop. Even with Wemby, some people were saying how he looked like nothing special after 30 games playing in the nba and was being over way overhyped and he's easily the guy with the biggest upside I've seen since at least LeBron or maybe Kareem.

[JShuttlesworth]

Because he's white and built like a bag of milk

[BlackThought]

Jokic wasn't given that much playmaking duties when he was in Europe. If you take the playmaking part away from his game, he's not that much different than any unathletic big that had success at lower levels simply by being bigger than everyone else.

If I'm a scout and I saw a slow big that can't protect the rim chances are I wouldn't think too highly of him either.

[JonFromVA]

The Jokic that was drafted was not the Jokic that came into the NBA btw, I don't think a lot of people acknowledge this. He was stashed for a season. The version that was drafted was in worse shape than the earlier versions of Jokic who people still called out of shape.

Jokic took a big leap the year after he was drafted, not just production, but also in being in better shape (probably went hand in hand). If Jokic went into the draft a year later he would have gone much higher.

The version that was drafted averaged 11.3 / 6.3 / 2
5 and shot 65.6% FT in the Adriatic.

The next season before he came to the NBA, he averaged 16.7 / 9.2 / 3.2, 1.4 stl, 1.0 blk, though still only 69% FT. His first NBA season, he shot 81% FT, so something obviously gave a nice boost there.

Guys like Frank Kaminski were drafted in the lottery, so it's not like teams don't value skill that is paired with height and size, but they need more data than what they had with Jokic.

Steven Adams though athletic was a one and done lottery pick who averaged 7/6 and shot 44% FT because he had size.

Aesthetically, his various shots looked absolutely terrible for the time and scouts didn't buy his percentages at all as they thought he was just getting lucky.

Ball handling centers were also not really a thing back then either.

So it was unclear how he would utilize any of his passing (and he was always viewed as an elite passer) and he had major question marks about his defense.

Playmaking C's have been a thing in the NBA for probably it's whole history, coming in and out of vogue now and then.

Noah the year Jokic was drafted was actually 4th in MVP voting due to defense and being a ball handling/playmaking C. Of course we also had many in the recent past, not going too far back, Diaw technically in the small ball C role, both Gasol's, Bogut, Divac, Brad Miller, Duncan himself liked to push and make passes in the open court (Magic was just favorite player growing up).

I don't know if any scouts would conclude that a player is getting lucky over seasons worth of data lol, if it was one game, sure.

Kaminsky now plays for the Serbian I root for and HE'S **** ATROCIOUS. Like I've never seen a center that bad on defense as him. It's unwatchable, it's ridiculous, it's beyond comprehension. Every single scout that had him over Jokic in that draft should resign ASAP.

The fun part of this is that there are always exceptions, but Frank was a 4 year college player who was a nothing burger his freshman season at Wisconsin. That season is so important in the NCAA because otherwise you rarely get a glimpse of a prospect playing some guys at his level and in addition some guys with more experience and physical development.

Some guys break out their sophomore season, but not so much with Frank. He didn't even start dropping 3pters at a decent clip until his Junior year.

[JonFromVA]

Was he not expected to be good? and was a rare one that actually kept improving after being drafted? or what. Anyone have the details, as to why he was not like a top 10 pick.

It takes a lot to get drafted at all so it's not like his talent was utterly unrecognized, but it's certainly the case that his talent was underrated, and not just from a potential perspective. Unlike virtually all other future superstars, Jokic showed signs of huge capacity for impact as a matter of course from day 1 as a rookie.

So what's going on? Prospect scouting is far better at evaluating stuff that can be simply measured than stuff that can't. Height, reach, weight, speed, etc. That stuff is easy. Basketball feel? Not so much. Oh scouts will talk about guys having great feel as they scout them, but without anything quantifiable there's nothing keeping those assertions honest.

For example, Jokic was a rookie in the same season as another guy who was hyped as a generational passer named D'Angelo Russell. In retrospect we know that Russell is nothing like a generational passer and Jokic was even better than a generational passer (he's the best in the history of the game), but at the time, the hype was what it was.

I've learned over the years to pay more attention to the weaknesses that the scouting reports point out than the strengths, because the strengths do not always convey, but the weaknesses almost always do unless something happens to eliminate them.

Here's Russell's for instance from nbadraft.net:

Weaknesses: Still unproven as point guard, so the question is how long it will take him to become effective and productive on the NBA level at the lead guard position … Not a bigtime athlete. His length helps him to defend but he’s a below average run/jump athlete by NBA standards … Needs to develop a better intensity level at the defensive end … Shot is good, although he may need to tweak his release slightly, in order to extend his range out to NBA 3. He tends to turn into his shot slightly, and should work on ironing out his form … Also needs to sustain a level of consistency through an entire college season … Has trouble finishing in transition, change of speed and added strength (particularly his legs) would help this tremendously, lack of explosiveness has hurt his efficiency in this area … Like most young guards, can use some work on his off hand and shot selection … Decision making is good, but a bit turnover prone at this stage …

Some of that stuff can be reasonably improved upon, but unproven as a PG? Intensity and consistency questions? Trouble finishing? Off hand? Those are troubling for a lead guard who isn't going to wreck the league with speed or strength.

[luciano-davidwesley]

It has been shown time and time again analysts and scouts vastly overrate measurables and athleticism and vastly underrate basketball IQ, intangibles and feel for the game when assessing players.

That's why you see college bench sophomores that don't produce anything even at NCAA level regularly get drafted in the lottery and bust. Meanwhile guys that can't jump out of the gym and don't have plus hand width/wing span measurements but actually know how to play the game at a high level (Brunson, Jokic) get drafted in the second round and go on to be great players.

[zeebneeb]

Jokic(besides many others)is the exact reason why scouts should have "game feel" "bball IQ" "Court awareness", whatever you want to call it, at the top of their list.

Not athleticism. When you get both combined you get players like LeBron/Kobe/MJ/KD, but it has become painfully obvious, that "bball IQ" should be A#1 when drafting.

[ChiTownHero1992]

Looks were a big part of it...big slow euro player...no one wanted Darko 2.0...

[azcatz11]

babyjax had a first round draft grade on him...

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=1291291&p=37883962&hilit=jokic#p37883962

[Silvie Lysandra]

It has been shown time and time again analysts and scouts vastly overrate measurables and athleticism and vastly underrate basketball IQ, intangibles and feel for the game when assessing players.

That's why you see college bench sophomores that don't produce anything even at NCAA level regularly get drafted in the lottery and bust. Meanwhile guys that can't jump out of the gym and don't have plus hand width/wing span measurements but actually know how to play the game at a high level (Brunson, Jokic) get drafted in the second round and go on to be great players.

It's also that some aspects of functional athleticism get overlooked. Fluidity. Touch. Body control. Handles. Strength. Also its hard to project drastic improvement because the intangibles aren't measurable by defintion.