2024 Draft Thread - Part III

[TGW]

Unless someone trades up, but that should not be us. We let this play out and select 2 or trade back and pick up an asset.

I would rather be in our position than Atlanta's.. at least for this draft.

Whoa whoa whoa. You're not just gonna slide up in here, post, then go back to the shadows. Where the heck have you been?

[nate33]

Terrence Shannon looks really good to me. He's a 5th year senior so his draft stock is impacted accordingly, but the dude averages 23 game on a .622 TS%. He lives at the FT line (8.6 attempts shooting 80%). He can run some pick and roll. He defends. He is long and athletic: 6-5 tall with a 6-9 wingspan. He has improved every year. He has the 10th highest BPM in college basketball.

Tankathon has him at 26th and the Ringer has him 28th.

I'd love to find a way to leave this draft with Sarr, Shannon and KJ Simpson.

[machu46]

My mind cannot accept the consensus mocking of Risacher as the #1 pick in this draft.

Both Wasserman and Givony are saying that Risacher tops the internal draft board of nearly every NBA team.

That doesn't mean it's true, but I figure at least some of the teams that are out of the lottery don't mind sharing their honest opinions about the top of the draft.

Givony said he asks team for their “mock top 5”. I think most every team expects Risacher to go #1, not necessarily that he’s #1 on their big boards, but it’s unclear at best.

Givony has been pushing Risacher propaganda all year.

He said both. Said everyone expects Risacher to go #1 and followed it up saying most teams have him #1 on their big boards as well.

I agree though; I don’t get it personally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NatP4]

This is wild:

Read on Twitter

[joshuacf]

I also don't buy the significantly weaker competition thing; Mobley was (the best player) on a very good USC team that made the Elite 8 and had, according to SportsRef, the 19th hardest schedule in the entire NCAA.

The bottom NBL team has rotational guys who would be a top 3 player at minimum on *every* NCAA team. The NCAA is more top heavy, but overall its VERY weak compared to the top 5 or so pro leagues.

Please identify for me which of South East Melbourne's rotational guys would have been top 3 players on UConn, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina or Duke this season.

The absolute best NBL players (e.g. our very own Xavier Cooks) are end-of-the-bench players in the NBA. The NCAA has guys each and every year who come in and average double figures in the NBA, and many more who play roles in the NBA right away.

The NCAA as a whole is obviously way worse than the top pro leagues, because it includes low and mid majors. The best P5 teams are a very high level of competition.

[joshuacf]

Mobley's numbers as a freshman were significantly higher across the board than Sarr's in the NBL. 16.4 ppg, 8.7 rbds, 2.9 blcks, 2.4 asts for Mobley versus 9.4ppg, 4.3 rbds, 1.5 blks, 0.9 asts for Sarr.

This is really basic stuff. Mobley played 34 mpg, Sarr played 18 mpg.

Per36:

Mobley(age 19, NCAA): 17.4 points 9.2 rebounds 2.5 assists 3.1 blocks 0.8 steals 2.4 turnovers 62% TS

Sarr(age 18, NBL): 19.2 points 9.0 rebounds 2.1 assists 3.1 blocks 0.9 steals 2.1 turnovers 57% TS

NBL is significantly tougher competition than NCAA. Should not even be a discussion.

As everyone with a brain understands, it's ridiculously easier to maintain strong PER36 averages while playing 18 minutes as the 3rd option on a team than it is while playing 36 minutes as the number 1 option.

[doclinkin]

The Cavs and Knicks playing 7 footers doesn't mean they're built around 7 footers, that makes no sense. The Cavs were carried by their best player Donovan Mitchell. Donovan Mitchell had 31.4% usage and Garland had 25.3%. Third on the team was Carius Levert at 23.1% and then all the way down at 20.6% was Mobley.

The Knicks are even more profound. Brunson was at 32.5%, Randle at 29.9%. Your two examples of "monsters in the middle" Robinson & Hartenstein had a very impressive 12% and 10% utilitization respectively. Clear the Knicks are really living and dying on big man play with stats like that.

Sure. Teams were quaking in terror of Caris Levert. And the Cavs tiny mighty back line scorers. No doubt the strength of that Cavs team must have been their 16th ranked offense.

But consider it's possible the real force of that team was:

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/defensive-impact?SeasonType=Regular%20Season&dir=A&sort=DEF_RIM_FG_PCT

Their league-wide 5th best rim defense.

New York is a little more balanced with a top 10 offense and defense both.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/advanced?SeasonType=Regular%20Season&dir=A&sort=DEF_RATING

But where they excel at both ends is in rebounding, particularly on the offensive end:

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/advanced?SeasonType=Regular%20Season&dir=A&sort=REB_PCT

One out of every 3 misses is snatched. So their size up front contributes to their offensive dominance. It feeds the usage percentage of Brunson in particular, since distinct from most team philosophies when they re-collect the ball their philosophy is not to go back up with it but to kick it to an open shooter at the 3pt line.

New York had 3 players in the top 25 Offensive rebounders this year (Hartenstein, Achiuwa, Robinson).

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/offensive-rebounding?PerMode=Totals&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&dir=D&sort=OREB_CONTEST

You're talking about usage, I'm talking about the possession game. And efficiency. That more and more we are seeing teams start to go sneaky big, and concentrate on paint scoring or defense instead of trying to go quick and snipe from outside. In the small ball era teams were trying to win the speed war and transition game. Some teams figured out they couldn't compete with that and decided to emphasize rebounding and starve out the high variance 3pt gunning teams. We saw it first with the Kawhi Raptors championship. A team that emphasized rebounding, slowdown pace, and 2pt scoring was able to snuff out the quicker outside gunning teams that were the riding the crest of the small ball wave.

Ideally you want tall ball. I agree, it is useful to have all your players being long and skilled and efficient and able to shoot from outside. Celtics, say. But dominant interior scoring and rebounding and defense look to me to be on the uptick. A market inefficiency to exploit while people are still looking the other way. You won't get an Edey lower down in a few years. I think. Could be wrong. It's what I'm seeing.

Show me how many games Purdue lost due to Edey's inability to shoot 3's.
Otherwise defend why it is relevant for him to have shot them in games.

Zero. And Illinois didn't lose any games because Cockburn couldn't shoot 3's, and Zaga didn't lose any because Timme couldn't shoot 3's, and Kentucky didn't lose any because Oscar T. couldn't shoot 3's....

It's pretty unbelievable that you don't understand that the college-style offense of feeding the ball in the post to bigs who overpower inferior compeition isn't how the NBA operates anymore. The size and skill advantage Edey had in college is going to go away in the NBA. The best NBA bigs (Jokic, Embiid, Sabonis, AD, KAT, soon to be Wemby) all have the abilty to put the ball on the floor from the perimiter and shoot 3's. They aren't lumbering bigs that camp in the low post.

Nobody heard me argue on behalf of Kofi or Timme. I did argue for TJD, and he turned out well. But Edey is a distinctly different case. The size and skill advantage he has will not go away at the next level. He is the biggest and most skilled player in college and will instantly be the biggest and one of the most skilled low post scorers at the next level. Show me any NBA big he has faced in the NCAAs and he has dominated them.

Used the right way my belief is that by himself he will be a gravity well that bends defenses towards him. That by himself he influences both the possession game (offensive rebounding) and scoring efficiency (rim scoring, forcing fouls). That he will be a load to handle, especially if he gets a tall perimeter player to work with him in the Pick and Roll game and to feed him on post entry passes. When he starts scoring he will command double teams, if not the triple and quadruple teams he saw in college. Some shooter is going to be wide open.

And yeah, if he shows himself to be a proficient shooter that opens up even more options. His gravity well follows him, since he will be a threat in both the roll and the pick and pop. But it should be terrifying to other teams that he has levels to his game that are yet to be exploited. His smooth easy shot he showed at the combine (both years) is clearly repeatable and does not need much tweaking. And it is not like he gets rattled. No reason his shot won't fall, he can take his time, with that standing reach nobody is jumping up to block it.

[doclinkin]

The bottom NBL team has rotational guys who would be a top 3 player at minimum on *every* NCAA team. The NCAA is more top heavy, but overall its VERY weak compared to the top 5 or so pro leagues.

Please identify for me which of South East Melbourne's rotational guys would have been top 3 players on UConn, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina or Duke this season.

The absolute best NBL players (e.g. our very own Xavier Cooks) are end-of-the-bench players in the NBA. The NCAA has guys each and every year who come in and average double figures in the NBA, and many more who play roles in the NBA right away.

The NCAA as a whole is obviously way worse than the top pro leagues, because it includes low and mid majors. The best P5 teams are a very high level of competition.

Full agreement on this. The best NBA players still come thru major NCAA programs. A few slip in from Euro leagues where they have been in pro academies since grade school, but even so, many of those players end up in the NCAAs before they go pro.

[closg00]

This is wild:

Read on Twitter

Wow, at-least someone is breaking-away from the herd, I expect the actual draft results to workout to be some version of this.

[Mizerooskie]

The bottom NBL team has rotational guys who would be a top 3 player at minimum on *every* NCAA team. The NCAA is more top heavy, but overall its VERY weak compared to the top 5 or so pro leagues.

Please identify for me which of South East Melbourne's rotational guys would have been top 3 players on UConn, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina or Duke this season.

The absolute best NBL players (e.g. our very own Xavier Cooks) are end-of-the-bench players in the NBA. The NCAA has guys each and every year who come in and average double figures in the NBA, and many more who play roles in the NBA right away.

The NCAA as a whole is obviously way worse than the top pro leagues, because it includes low and mid majors. The best P5 teams are a very high level of competition.

Full agreement on this. The best NBA players still come thru major NCAA programs. A few slip in from Euro leagues where they have been in pro academies since grade school, but even so, many of those players end up in the NCAAs before they go pro.

You think it's easy to produce when you have to enter the hallowed confines of the MyState Bank Arena in Hobart and play in front of 4,000 raucous JackJumpers fans?

IMO, I don't see how Sarr playing in the NBL can be considered a good thing for his prospect profile. Josh Giddey and LaMelo Ball are by far the best NBA players the league has produced. It's not a league full of former All-Conference players.

[doclinkin]

Please identify for me which of South East Melbourne's rotational guys would have been top 3 players on UConn, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina or Duke this season.

The absolute best NBL players (e.g. our very own Xavier Cooks) are end-of-the-bench players in the NBA. The NCAA has guys each and every year who come in and average double figures in the NBA, and many more who play roles in the NBA right away.

The NCAA as a whole is obviously way worse than the top pro leagues, because it includes low and mid majors. The best P5 teams are a very high level of competition.

Full agreement on this. The best NBA players still come thru major NCAA programs. A few slip in from Euro leagues where they have been in pro academies since grade school, but even so, many of those players end up in the NCAAs before they go pro.

You think it's easy to produce when you have to enter the hallowed confines of the MyState Bank Arena in Hobart and play in front of 4,000 raucous JackJumpers fans?

IMO, I don't see how Sarr playing in the NBL can be considered a good thing for his prospect profile. Josh Giddey and LaMelo Ball are by far the best NBA players the league has produced.

Right. There's a reason an Aussie kid like Johnny Furphy played at Kansas instead of staying home and playing in the NBL. The exposure is better, so the better talents come here.

[wewillnevertank]

Tankathon has the per 36 numbers:



The shooting percentages look pretty bad for Sarr, but most of it is because he takes too many 3-pointers. (That's bad for statistical production, but probably good from a developmental perspective). Their 2P% is .577 for Sarr and .608 for Mobley.

The basic PER 36 numbers would certainly imply relatively similar production. I would contend, though, that Mobley's significantly better FTA rate, DRTG and overall PER suggest Mobley's game was much further along at both ends.

[nate33]

Tankathon has the per 36 numbers:



The shooting percentages look pretty bad for Sarr, but most of it is because he takes too many 3-pointers. (That's bad for statistical production, but probably good from a developmental perspective). Their 2P% is .577 for Sarr and .608 for Mobley.

The basic PER 36 numbers would certainly imply relatively similar production. I would contend, though, that Mobley's significantly better FTA rate, DRTG and overall PER suggest Mobley's game was much further along at both ends.

I don't disagree. My main point was that the per 36 numbers provide a more accurate comparison than the raw numbers provided by joshuacf.

I'm not sure how to compare the DRTG and PER numbers because those numbers depend on the strength of their respective teams as well as league strength. That said, I think it's pretty fair to say that Mobley had a better overall team impact on defense. And Mobley certainly looks better in metrics like FTA rate and 2P%.

The biggest difference in favor of Sarr is that he is almost a full year younger. Also, I don't know whether the Australian league is better than the NCAA, but I'm reasonably sure that it's full of bigger and stronger grown men, which presumably makes things more difficult for a slight-framed guy like Sarr. It's possible that Sarr would have fared better in the NCAA's based on that issue alone.

[nate33]

I can completely buy doclinkin's thesus that Edey might in fact be an exceptionally good NBA player.

My main concern about Edey is that he will have a unique play style that won't fit in well with a lot of teams, at least not at first. If you draft him you need to put the right system and personnel around him. You won't really want to pair him with a slashing PG like a Ja Morant because he will muck up the driving lanes. If you are going to run him in pick and roll, you want to pair him with a guy who can pull up from midrange like Brunson or Jamaal Murray. And you are going to want guards who fight through screens on defense. And you definitely want all 4 players around him to shoot the 3-ball well so you can post him up and give him clear passing lanes.

I don't think he'd be a good fit with Deni, for example. Jordan Poole might work very well with him (on offense, at least).

[Pitbull]

Unless someone trades up, but that should not be us. We let this play out and select 2 or trade back and pick up an asset.

I would rather be in our position than Atlanta's.. at least for this draft.

Whoa whoa whoa. You're not just gonna slide up in here, post, then go back to the shadows. Where the heck have you been?

Nowhere, everywhere, and more than a few places in between. In all honesty, I don't have a particularly compelling reason for my hiatus. I have lurked though... and will make a concerted effort not to go another 8 years before I post again.

[doclinkin]

I can completely buy doclinkin's thesus that Edey might in fact be an exceptionally good NBA player.

My main concern about Edey is that he will have a unique play style that won't fit in well with a lot of teams, at least not at first. If you draft him you need to put the right system and personnel around him. You won't really want to pair him with a slashing PG like a Ja Morant because he will muck up the driving lanes. If you are going to run him in pick and roll, you want to pair him with a guy who can pull up from midrange like Brunson or Jamaal Murray. And you are going to want guards who fight through screens on defense. And you definitely want all 4 players around him to shoot the 3-ball well so you can post him up and give him clear passing lanes.

I don't think he'd be a good fit with Deni, for example. Jordan Poole might work very well with him (on offense, at least).

Personally I think all you need is Dan Hurley. Slot Edey into the Clingan role and I think UConn wins.

Same principles apply here. Motion shooter who plays well off of screens, ranged power forward, big two way players at guard, behemoth in the middle. You have to execute quicker in the NBA, many of their sets took a lot of time off the clock, but the Castle to Edey interior passing would have been stellar.

Here I actually think the new improved Deni would work great with Edey, though he would play the Castle role: feed the post, opportunistic cuts, hit open shots. Kispert as Spencer. Vuk as Karaban. Upgrade each as better players are drafted.

I do think it all works better when Edey shows he can hit an open J.

[PaulinVA]

But zero evidence that she can shoot the three??!!

Read on Twitter

[J-Ves]

But zero evidence that she can shoot the three??!!

Read on Twitter

That’s game breaking

[joshuacf]

But zero evidence that she can shoot the three??!!

Read on Twitter

Yeah because a 7'5 female basketball player and a 7'4 male basketball player are in any way comparable.

[payitforward]

YODA isn't infallible....

I've seen no evidence that YODA has a significant statistical correlation to any results -- tho of course that doesn't mean it has no such correlation or even that evidence doesn't exist -- I just haven't seen it.

YODA is a roll-up of box score stats per 40 minutes (or 36 minutes or whatever) with the significance of each activity given a positive or negative weight. In that sense it's like PER, WS40, etc.

The difference is in the weighting -- what's calculated & how much significance is it given. Used on NBA players, the closer the correlation between the results for all the players on a team & & that team's wins/losses the better the roll-up, although no such formula will translate 100% to a player's positive/negative effect on a team's wins & losses.

As well, it is necessary to compare results for players at the same position; otherwise the results don't mean anything.

WS40, for example, adds points, rebounds, steals, & 1/2 of assists & blocks -- all per 40 minutes. From the resulting number, it subtracts the total of FGAs, turnovers, & 1/2 of FTAs & fouls. The resulting number is that player's WS40. If you compare a bunch of point guards, for example, guys who've played a lot of minutes, you expect to see the best of them have the best WS40s.

In the case of WS40, what would give you confidence in its significance is the claim is that the result for all the players on a team (adjusted for overall minutes played) correlates to 93% with that team's wins. I.e. if you calculated the team WS40 for all 30 NBA teams & then listed them from highest to lowest, the order would correlate that strongly with the order of teams by their wins from most to least.

Does this tell you a lot? Uh huh. It's a useful tool.
Does it tell you everything you need to know? No, obviously.