2024 NBA Draft Thread

[FarBeyondDriven]

Embiid, JJJ and Barnes are some of the strongest performing freshman analytically in the last 10 years. Stats draft guys were higher on them than consensus/eye test guys

they had underwhelming production and nobody would have cared (and probably didn't back when Embiid and JJJ were playing since evaluators weren't obsessed with advanced stats like they are now) about their analytics if not for the fact that they all possess elite, translatable physical and athletic traits. They were really starting to go overboard with advanced stats when Barnes came out but loved Barnes mostly because he was a 6'8" wing with a near 7'3" WS that had ball skills and played great defense.

Yeah, no. They were outliers analytically due to their production, the idea they didn't produce when on the court is not based in reality. Embiid and JJJ both had 10+ BPM as freshman, this is elite freshman box score productivity, and historically a very, very strong indicator of NBA success.
I mean there were literally stat draft guys saying JJJ was one of the best prospects in recent years based off his freshman production. You are correct in saying the elite physical traits in combination with elite advanced numbers helps to solidify peoples thoughts.

As for Barnes, he was a 6'8 wing with a 7+ BPM (11 BPM vs t100 teams), 30+ AST%, positive A:TO and elite STOCKS, any decent draft model would have him ranked in top 5 based on that production.

The only freshmen in this class who are actually anywhere near the production level of the guys you listed are Sheppard and McCain.

If you want to talk about guys who actually had garbage production/poor analytic measures but some elite physical traits (which is more in line with a lot of the freshman/internationals the mainstream is pushing in this class), you should've used examples like Jaylen Brown, Jaden McDaniels, Dejounte Murray or Zach Lavine. These are some of the few guys who actually overcame their awful pre-draft production

yeah, no. And I'm talking actual production, I dgaf about analytics for college players so not sure why that keeps getting brought up

Embiid put up 11-8-1 at Kansas and nobody apparently gaf about his production and brought it up when evaluating him like they're doing with guys from this class. And not that it's relevant, nobody cared about Embiid's advanced stats back then either This was way before nerds who never played the game started believing they could evaluate prospects better based on arbitrary, cherry picked stats devoid of context, most of which they don't even understand btw. He was highly touted because of his size, athleticism and skill for a center and despite his limited production was considered an elite prospect.

JJJ put up a whopping 11-6-1 at MSU. Nobody gaf about advanced stats and nobody brought up the paltry production pre-draft They cared about his 6'11" frame and 7'5" wingspan and ability to space the floor, block shots and defend out to the perimeter. Him only ever being a 3 and D wasn't held against him like it is with guys from this class.

Again, nobody gaf about Barnes' production or the advanced stats after he put up 10-4-4 shooting 27% from three and 62% FT . Unlike with prospects from this class he was given grace for his numbers not being special because there was context as he was forced to come off the bench and he was young so of courser his shooting would improve. He was 6'8" with incredible length, ball skills with great defense. Those are the things that should matter.

the grace you all gave these players for underwhelming numbers in college or overseas, that they deserved btw as things should be taken in context, or their limited roles in the NBA (3 and D) is missing for this class. It's obvious and agenda driven.

[The Moose]

they had underwhelming production and nobody would have cared (and probably didn't back when Embiid and JJJ were playing since evaluators weren't obsessed with advanced stats like they are now) about their analytics if not for the fact that they all possess elite, translatable physical and athletic traits. They were really starting to go overboard with advanced stats when Barnes came out but loved Barnes mostly because he was a 6'8" wing with a near 7'3" WS that had ball skills and played great defense.

Yeah, no. They were outliers analytically due to their production, the idea they didn't produce when on the court is not based in reality. Embiid and JJJ both had 10+ BPM as freshman, this is elite freshman box score productivity, and historically a very, very strong indicator of NBA success.
I mean there were literally stat draft guys saying JJJ was one of the best prospects in recent years based off his freshman production. You are correct in saying the elite physical traits in combination with elite advanced numbers helps to solidify peoples thoughts.

As for Barnes, he was a 6'8 wing with a 7+ BPM (11 BPM vs t100 teams), 30+ AST%, positive A:TO and elite STOCKS, any decent draft model would have him ranked in top 5 based on that production.

The only freshmen in this class who are actually anywhere near the production level of the guys you listed are Sheppard and McCain.

If you want to talk about guys who actually had garbage production/poor analytic measures but some elite physical traits (which is more in line with a lot of the freshman/internationals the mainstream is pushing in this class), you should've used examples like Jaylen Brown, Jaden McDaniels, Dejounte Murray or Zach Lavine. These are some of the few guys who actually overcame their awful pre-draft production

Embiid put up 11-8-1 at Kansas and nobody apparently gaf about his production and brought it up when evaluating him like they're doing with guys from this class.

And not that it's relevant, nobody cared about Embiid's advanced stats back then either

false, just because you didn't doesn't mean others didn't

This was way before nerds who never played the game started believing they could evaluate prospects better based on arbitrary, cherry picked stats devoid of context, most of which they don't even understand btw. He was highly touted because of his size, athleticism and skill for a center and despite his limited production was considered an elite prospect.
JJJ put up a whopping 11-6-1 at MSU. Nobody gaf about advanced stats and nobody brought up the paltry production pre-draft They cared about his 6'11" frame and 7'5" wingspan and ability to space the floor, block shots and defend out to the perimeter. Him only ever being a 3 and D wasn't held against him like it is with guys from this class.

false again

Again, nobody gaf about Barnes' production or the advanced stats after he put up 10-4-4 shooting 27% from three and 62% FT .

and false again

Unlike with prospects from this class he was given grace for his numbers not being special because there was context as he was forced to come off the bench and he was young so of courser his shooting would improve. He was 6'8" with incredible length, ball skills with great defense. Those are the things that should matter.

the grace you all gave these players for underwhelming numbers in college or overseas, that they deserved btw as things should be taken in context, or their limited roles in the NBA (3 and D) is missing for this class. It's obvious and agenda driven.

I think you're getting lost a bit in this production/advanced numbers argument, most people who care about the numbers care far more about the advanced numbers than the raw box score production. The irony in all the examples you chose is that all of them were guys that the advanced numbers actually screamed were elite prospects DESPITE what you call 'underwhelming production'.

By your logic the 'nerds' would be low on Sheppard because he only averaged 12-4-4, but obviously that is not the case, in fact its the complete opposite. The analytic models and advanced numbers are telling you Reed is an elite prospect, and it's the 'EYE TEST ONLY, NUMBERS ARE FOR NERDS' people who dislike him the most.

The players that I (I can only speak for myself, I'm not sure who you are addressing when you say "you all") gave grace to for what you consider 'underwhelming numbers' were given so because they score out very impressively analytically.

Conversely, a lot of the guys who are being pushed at the top of this draft by the mainstream draft media and people like yourself are NCAA guys who have bad production and bad advanced numbers or were role playing/bench internationals, and this is why I'm personally not giving them the same grace.

The 'agenda' I presume you are talking about is the weak draft narrative. But I don't even subscribe to that narrative so you're barking up the wrong tree. There are good prospects in this class, its just that most of them are being mocked outside of the top 10

[RyugaFan]

That's what concerns me, that there isn't much there. If it weren't for him shooting 40% from three, there wouldn't be any justifiable reason for anyone to be discussing his NBA stock. There are tons of college freshmen that performed to the same level that have length, marginal athleticism, but perhaps shot 37% or 38% from three, no one would be discussing them.

I tested your hypothesis. Ran all the freshman who were at least 6'6, had at least 100 attempts and shot 35%. The top 4 are Furphy, Momcilovic, Kyshawn and Cam Christie, the rest were mid majors. https://barttorvik.com/playerstat.php?link=y&sIndex=53&minGP=15&min3P=0.35&minht=78&minthreepa=100&yvalue=Fr&year=all&start=-11101&end=all0501

So even when hamstringing Kyshawn's numbers, it's an elite group of NBA prospects.

I think you'll need to adjust some things, 38% will be fine but 100 threes is significant for a freshman so let's reduce it to 80 attempts. The amount Isaiah Collier had. Kyshawn only had 190 field goal attempts, 130 of those were three points attempts. That's an absurd percentage of field goal attempts being threes.

Well then they wouldn't be comparable. 50 attempt difference in 3s is huge. Yes Kyshawn took a lot of 3s, that's the point, he's an extremely high level 3 point shooter.

[SelfishPlayer]

I tested your hypothesis. Ran all the freshman who were at least 6'6, had at least 100 attempts and shot 35%. The top 4 are Furphy, Momcilovic, Kyshawn and Cam Christie, the rest were mid majors. https://barttorvik.com/playerstat.php?link=y&sIndex=53&minGP=15&min3P=0.35&minht=78&minthreepa=100&yvalue=Fr&year=all&start=-11101&end=all0501

So even when hamstringing Kyshawn's numbers, it's an elite group of NBA prospects.

I think you'll need to adjust some things, 38% will be fine but 100 threes is significant for a freshman so let's reduce it to 80 attempts. The amount Isaiah Collier had. Kyshawn only had 190 field goal attempts, 130 of those were three points attempts. That's an absurd percentage of field goal attempts being threes.

Well then they wouldn't be comparable. 50 attempt difference in 3s is huge. Yes Kyshawn took a lot of 3s, that's the point, he's an extremely high level 3 point shooter.

That's an overstatement. Leave some space for Reed Sheppard's 144 freshman three point attempts off the bench at 52% and Rob Dillingham's 144 freshman three point attempts off the bench at 44%. Leave some space...

[RyugaFan]

I think you'll need to adjust some things, 38% will be fine but 100 threes is significant for a freshman so let's reduce it to 80 attempts. The amount Isaiah Collier had. Kyshawn only had 190 field goal attempts, 130 of those were three points attempts. That's an absurd percentage of field goal attempts being threes.

Well then they wouldn't be comparable. 50 attempt difference in 3s is huge. Yes Kyshawn took a lot of 3s, that's the point, he's an extremely high level 3 point shooter.

That's an overstatement. Leave some space for Reed Sheppard's 144 freshman three point attempts off the bench at 52% and Rob Dillingham's 144 freshman three point attempts off the bench at 44%. Leave some space...

Yeah small guards(Also wtf they took the same exact number of 3s lol)

[FarBeyondDriven]

they had underwhelming production and nobody would have cared (and probably didn't back when Embiid and JJJ were playing since evaluators weren't obsessed with advanced stats like they are now) about their analytics if not for the fact that they all possess elite, translatable physical and athletic traits. They were really starting to go overboard with advanced stats when Barnes came out but loved Barnes mostly because he was a 6'8" wing with a near 7'3" WS that had ball skills and played great defense.

Yeah, no. They were outliers analytically due to their production, the idea they didn't produce when on the court is not based in reality. Embiid and JJJ both had 10+ BPM as freshman, this is elite freshman box score productivity, and historically a very, very strong indicator of NBA success.
I mean there were literally stat draft guys saying JJJ was one of the best prospects in recent years based off his freshman production. You are correct in saying the elite physical traits in combination with elite advanced numbers helps to solidify peoples thoughts.

As for Barnes, he was a 6'8 wing with a 7+ BPM (11 BPM vs t100 teams), 30+ AST%, positive A:TO and elite STOCKS, any decent draft model would have him ranked in top 5 based on that production.

The only freshmen in this class who are actually anywhere near the production level of the guys you listed are Sheppard and McCain.

If you want to talk about guys who actually had garbage production/poor analytic measures but some elite physical traits (which is more in line with a lot of the freshman/internationals the mainstream is pushing in this class), you should've used examples like Jaylen Brown, Jaden McDaniels, Dejounte Murray or Zach Lavine. These are some of the few guys who actually overcame their awful pre-draft production

Embiid put up 11-8-1 at Kansas and nobody apparently gaf about his production and brought it up when evaluating him like they're doing with guys from this class.

And not that it's relevant, nobody cared about Embiid's advanced stats back then either

false, just because you didn't doesn't mean others didn't

This was way before nerds who never played the game started believing they could evaluate prospects better based on arbitrary, cherry picked stats devoid of context, most of which they don't even understand btw. He was highly touted because of his size, athleticism and skill for a center and despite his limited production was considered an elite prospect.
JJJ put up a whopping 11-6-1 at MSU. Nobody gaf about advanced stats and nobody brought up the paltry production pre-draft They cared about his 6'11" frame and 7'5" wingspan and ability to space the floor, block shots and defend out to the perimeter. Him only ever being a 3 and D wasn't held against him like it is with guys from this class.

false again

Again, nobody gaf about Barnes' production or the advanced stats after he put up 10-4-4 shooting 27% from three and 62% FT .

and false again

Unlike with prospects from this class he was given grace for his numbers not being special because there was context as he was forced to come off the bench and he was young so of courser his shooting would improve. He was 6'8" with incredible length, ball skills with great defense. Those are the things that should matter.

the grace you all gave these players for underwhelming numbers in college or overseas, that they deserved btw as things should be taken in context, or their limited roles in the NBA (3 and D) is missing for this class. It's obvious and agenda driven.

I think you're getting lost a bit in this production/advanced numbers argument, most people who care about the numbers care far more about the advanced numbers than the raw box score production. The irony in all the examples you chose is that all of them were guys that the advanced numbers actually screamed were elite prospects DESPITE what you call 'underwhelming production'.

By your logic the 'nerds' would be low on Sheppard because he only averaged 12-4-4, but obviously that is not the case, in fact its the complete opposite. The analytic models and advanced numbers are telling you Reed is an elite prospect, and it's the 'EYE TEST ONLY, NUMBERS ARE FOR NERDS' people who dislike him the most.

The players that I (I can only speak for myself, I'm not sure who you are addressing when you say "you all") gave grace to for what you consider 'underwhelming numbers' were given so because they score out very impressively analytically.

Conversely, a lot of the guys who are being pushed at the top of this draft by the mainstream draft media and people like yourself are NCAA guys who have bad production and bad advanced numbers or were role playing/bench internationals, and this is why I'm personally not giving them the same grace.

The 'agenda' I presume you are talking about is the weak draft narrative. But I don't even subscribe to that narrative so you're barking up the wrong tree. There are good prospects in this class, its just that most of them are being mocked outside of the top 10

due to the myriad of circumstances this year's crop of prospects from Ignite, international and NCAA, found themselves in (injuries, minutes, roles, competition, etc.) that differentiate themselves from past draft classes, evaluating them based on advanced stats/production isn't effective as it fails to address those circumstances. This has led many, especially those who rely soley or mostly on production/advanced stats when evaluation prospects, to view this class in a negative light and thus deem the class weak.

Of course those past great draft prospects also had great advanced stats. They were gifted athletes with elite traits and playing against college kids. Comparing their advanced stats to this year's players is a fool's errand as it's not apples to apples.

Sheppard is a great example of the grace that is arbitrarily applied to some but not others. He's an advanced stats darling and these people give him grace when it comes to his physical and athletic short-comings because they care more about production/advanced stats. These same people seem incapable of understanding why "eye test" guys give grace to guys who lack production/advanced stats due to circumstances out of their control, because they emphasize having elite physical/athletic/skill traits over stats. It really is that simple.

I'll let my evaluation skills speak for themselves when we collectively look back on this draft and its prospects in 4 years after everyone has had the opportunity to develop and either establish themselves as NBA prospects or not. We'll see what's what.

[JustBuzzin]

Dalton Knecht feels like the he's going to have the most impact as a rookie. The age is concerning, but his ability to score the ball and him being one of the better athletes in this draft tells me he's not going to be a bust.

I think a lot of teams will regret not taking him.

[BlazersBroncos]

Dalton Knecht feels like the he's going to have the most impact as a rookie. The age is concerning, but his ability to score the ball and him being one of the better athletes in this draft tells me he's not going to be a bust.

I think a lot of teams will regret not taking him.

Lazy take on my part but think he can be Wally Z level from the jump.

[BigGargamel]

Dalton Knecht feels like the he's going to have the most impact as a rookie. The age is concerning, but his ability to score the ball and him being one of the better athletes in this draft tells me he's not going to be a bust.

I think a lot of teams will regret not taking him.

He's my early ROY pick. Not that he'll be the best from this class, but he'll make the most impact right away. He should have a Jaquez like role.

[SeattleJazzFan]

What's Tyler Smith's role in the league?

An athletic 4 who can shoot, rim run, run in transition, and has some (limited) self-creation potential. Good at getting putbacks on offensive rebounds. Defensively he's a bit of a mess, but his development has been pretty fast so I feel like with his physical tools he can become passable. I think he's a better prospect than PJ Washington, but it isn't the worst comp (Smith is bigger).

I don't think he's quick enough or has good enough ball skills to play the 4. If I'm drafting a role player and they're a tweener/don't have a defined role I'm not taking them top 20.

why ask the question if you've already made up your mind?

hey what is is role going to be? mind you, before you answer, i don't give a crap what you say as i've already formed my own opinion.

had you done that you may have saved him some typing.

[RyugaFan]

An athletic 4 who can shoot, rim run, run in transition, and has some (limited) self-creation potential. Good at getting putbacks on offensive rebounds. Defensively he's a bit of a mess, but his development has been pretty fast so I feel like with his physical tools he can become passable. I think he's a better prospect than PJ Washington, but it isn't the worst comp (Smith is bigger).

I don't think he's quick enough or has good enough ball skills to play the 4. If I'm drafting a role player and they're a tweener/don't have a defined role I'm not taking them top 20.

why ask the question if you've already made up your mind?

hey what is is role going to be? mind you, before you answer, i don't give a crap what you say as i've already formed my own opinion.

had you done that you may have saved him some typing.

Have you considered people ask questions to see if opinions differ? Do you expect people who ask you questions to share the same take as you? Also why does disagreeing with someone mean I don't care about their opinion lol?

[JMAC3]

Better prospect? McDermott or Knecht?

https://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=dalton-knecht--doug-mcdermott

[BigGargamel]

Better prospect? McDermott or Knecht?

https://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=dalton-knecht--doug-mcdermott

Without digging into any real analysis or anything like that, Knecht seems like a better defender and athlete than McDermott was coming out of college.

[SeattleJazzFan]

Better prospect? McDermott or Knecht?

https://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=dalton-knecht--doug-mcdermott

Without digging into any real analysis or anything like that, Knecht seems like a better defender and athlete than McDermott was coming out of college.

yup. mcdermott was probably a better college player, but knecht may have a game better suited to become a star in the league due to his superior athleticism.

[SelfishPlayer]

Knecht is physically strong, so with his skills he can immediately benefit a team that's already competing but isn't yet contending for a championship. The Kings IMO would be an ideal team for him.

[BlazersBroncos]

Knetch is much more athletic.

STOCKS are often overvalued but they can also be a litmus test for a minimum athletic floor. McDermott was a career 0.2 SPG and 0.1 BPG guy in college...playing for a non-elite school. Those numbers are huge red flags to me.

Dalton at 0.6 BPG playing against alot of quality talent is a nice indicator of his athleticism IMO. He is one of the most NBA ready guys to come out in years. His body is developed, he has average functional NBA athleticism at minimum - and near elite testing numbers, he has a well developed 3 level offensive game.

I can see him as a Keldon Johnson caliber 6th man as a rookie - but w/ better 3PT% and defense. I love his fit in OKC off the bench as they have a gaggle of specialist role players but not really a bench guy that can create points - Dalton can do that while also offering excellent off ball shooting if / when playing with the high usage starters.

[clyde21]

Dalton Knecht feels like the he's going to have the most impact as a rookie. The age is concerning, but his ability to score the ball and him being one of the better athletes in this draft tells me he's not going to be a bust.

I think a lot of teams will regret not taking him.

He's my early ROY pick. Not that he'll be the best from this class, but he'll make the most impact right away. He should have a Jaquez like role.

yea pretty easy early choice for ROY candidate, will probably like the Brogdon year where an older guy will win it (Simmons was injured, Ingram/Brown were way too raw to be good immediately)

[JustBuzzin]

Good to see in not the only one who thinks Knecht will be at the top for ROTY.

I think he's a 15ppg from day 1.

[SelfishPlayer]

Sarr looks like strictly a big man to me that can never be a full time perimeter player so I'm not #1 overall pick high on him. He looks like he can be an Al Horford kind of guy, maybe a JJJ. Holland and Dillingham excite me the most at the top of the draft. Talk of Reed Sheppard not being a PG would mean to me that his stock is lower, because that sort of undersized combo guard (secondary ball handler) potential defensive liability is a worthless player. I see him absolutely as a full time PG (if max value is ever to be achieved out of him). If he has trouble beating defenders off the dribble then I will give him a ton of pick and rolls like Stockton, Mark Price, and Nash. I think that level and type of PG would be a goal if you draft him top 5.

[Pattycakes]

I think Knecht will get exposed when forced to play strong man to man d but otherwise will be a very effective player, and maybe even 3rd fiddle on a really good team.