2025 NBA Draft Discussion Part 6

[tsherkin]

There are players who came into the NBA fairly raw and turned into superstars with development. Giannis, Kawhi, Butler, Tatum, Gobert, it's not uncommon for players with fantastic physicals to be something special at the next level even if they don't have the skill part of the game down yet.

It ever happens. That said, a lot of those guys had certain skills already which were just underutilized. Also, Gobert isn't a superstar, and blows chunks at anything that isn't spoon-fed to him on offense, so he isn't a particularly salient example for the sake of offense. Of course, he developed as a defender, for sure.

Giannis developed. He had elite physical tools, including raw size, and by his second season at the latest you could see where his arc was likely taking him. Kawhi was an elite defender with high-end physical tools who had a pretty reasonable jumper to start with. He probably would have looked different on any team other than the Spurs early, too. But San Antonio had their O in place and had him develop a little more slowly. Tatum had physical tools and shooting ability right from the word go. Butler hit the league in the lockout year as the 30th overall pick, and got 8.5 mpg as a rookie, and even then you could see his ability to draw contact and the foul. All-Defensive by his 3rd season. Took him a while to figure out offense because he wasn't much of a shooter but he also sorted himself out at the FT line in atypical fashion. He's been an 85% FT shooter from his 4th season onward.

Anyway, these guys are exceptions more than the rule. And we should be learning our lesson a little: it's okay to look for skilled guys who aren't elite athletes as well. Not "instead of," but additionally. We've been seeing for some time that those guys can have impact in today's game. Drafting athletes who aren't skilled is one route, for sure, but it would be really nice to have guys who could already play.

I think by the time the back part of the draft rolls around there is more value in undersized but skilled players that other teams pass over, we've seen Masai draft undersized guys or "normal" size players with late first round, second round picks, or even undrafted and do well there, but that's mostly an acknowledgement that the later draft picks are more likely to be fringe starter or bench level types where size and physicals aren't as important to expectations.

Yeah, especially later in the draft, that approach makes a lot of sense, for sure. But late in the first round and into the second round, that's the time for reaches and experiments, right? Your EV on those picks is totally different than for a top 10 pick, so it makes a lot of sense to just screw around and try stuff.

[HangTime]

Nah you need size to compete. We’d be crushing teams inside with him and Poeltl. Plus he can hit free throws above 70 percent. Star though, yeah I don’t see it he’s more Rudy Gobert type.

Maluach would be an excellent PNR partner for Scottie.

Scottie can already throw really creative passes. If he has a big lob target, I imagine 2-3 lobs every game above his defenders.

Imagine doing a PNR with a guard and Scottie to get a switch. Scottie can easily pass above most guards. The whole floor would open up so much.

People are forgetting that Maluach shot 76% from FT. That’s a SUPER foundation to build on.

As if Barnes has a pull up 3.

The reason it does not work with Poeltl, because Barnes is not a shooting threat, where teams just switch between them or go under. And against switch, Barnes does not have a quickness to beat the big man off the dribble nor take that pull up, and of course, he cannot bully someone bigger.

I think we no longer have Barnes creating off PnR once Quickley was back, the stats also backed the fact his PnR handler is not very good. Neither the stats for Barnes being the roll man, all we had Barnes at the end of the season was the corner 3 man. Maybe you can watch the games.

Being a corner 3 man at the end of the season is to give the other guys confidence, with the star being on the floor. It's part of the sacrifice.
The thing that helped that along was the hurt hand.

I think Scottie will have a respectable pull up three next season.

The early misses this year was with eye, and ankle injuries. But he kept taking them just to keep that rhythm, more of a mental thing than than a make or miss thing.

[Grew]

Nah you need size to compete. We’d be crushing teams inside with him and Poeltl. Plus he can hit free throws above 70 percent. Star though, yeah I don’t see it he’s more Rudy Gobert type.

Rudy G with the 27 and 24 game on 80% fg last night to eliminate the lakers, who have one of the GOATS and one of the most skilled guys in the league right now. It almost doesn't matter how much skill you have if you don't also have that size to balance it.

I was waiting for Mal to have a game like that in college. If he had a few 20/20 games we probably wouldn't be talking about him being in our range if we stay at 7. If Queen and Fears are gone at 7, I think we might have to roll the dice on Khaman.

I think Queen and Fears are surely gone by 7. They are types that dominate in skills and workouts. It’s possible VJ drops to us if he underwhelms here in the skills stuff and he measures out at like 6’3” and 6’7” wingspan as rumoured. But I’d probably lean towards taking Mal over him even.

VJ might not measure well but I think he convince teams he has more on ball juice than he showed in college through the workouts, I don't see him falling, and I would be kind of choked if we passed on him if he did. I would understand the why though. It would be a lot like the Scottie Barnes pick for me, where Scottie was 1st on my board at 7 but I would have drafted Suggs when we moved up. Mal over VJ would feel similar.

[ciueli]

That saddens me, though, because that really isn't typically how player development goes in a guy's 20s. There are exceptions, but man. You generally look to have that in place BEFORE they hit the league.

There are players who came into the NBA fairly raw and turned into superstars with development. Giannis, Kawhi, Butler, Tatum, Gobert, it's not uncommon for players with fantastic physicals to be something special at the next level even if they don't have the skill part of the game down yet.

I think by the time the back part of the draft rolls around there is more value in undersized but skilled players that other teams pass over, we've seen Masai draft undersized guys or "normal" size players with late first round, second round picks, or even undrafted and do well there, but that's mostly an acknowledgement that the later draft picks are more likely to be fringe starter or bench level types where size and physicals aren't as important to expectations.

Tatum was not raw, Leonard was not a freshman, Gorbert was 21 years old, and Giannis played guard.
None of them you mentioned is fairly raw.

Where does it say anything about needing to be a freshman? I was talking about prospects in general.

Tatum was drafted 3rd over two guys who wound up not close to him in NBA success level, he was definitely a great physicals guy with some skill question marks, here's a sample scouting report: https://www.nbadraft.net/players/jayson-tatum/ where most of the strengths are physicals based and the weaknesses are things like shooting, defence, ball handling, and shot creation.

Giannis was definitely very raw, there's a reason he went 15th in an extremely weak draft, he was viewed as a gamble a player with freakish physicals but a lot he needed to improve upon.

Gobert was barely drafted in the first round in spite of being absolutely huge with insane wingspan, there were strong questions about how he would translate to the NBA as he was just a tall, long shot blocker + rebounder type.

Kawhi was viewed as mostly a defender, didn't have the shooting, shot creation, or ISO game. There's a reason he wasn't drafted in the lottery in spite of his ridiculous hand size and wingspan.

All of these guys managed to leverage their fantastical physical advantages to be better than expected at the NBA level, that's the point of what I'm saying and that's why Masai favours these types with high draft picks.

[Grew]

Read on Twitter

Fears looks a little juicy here, the guy is definitely going to fill out and have an NBA body sooner than later. He will be a + defender IMO, it might not be as a rookie but I think he has some dog in him. Shooting looks good, I always believed in it. The one negative is he is listed at 6'5 some places and he looks the same size as Fland who is 6'2 listed. The size might be the one thing that actually allows him to make it to our pick if we stay at 7.

[tsherkin]

Tatum was drafted 3rd over two guys who wound up not close to him in NBA success level, he was definitely a great physicals guy with some skill question marks, here's a sample scouting report: https://www.nbadraft.net/players/jayson-tatum/ where most of the strengths are physicals based and the weaknesses are things like shooting, defence, ball handling, and shot creation.

Tatum hit the league shooting over 43% from 3, nearly 83% at the line, and shooting quite well inside the arc from 10+ feet. He'd been a nearly 85% FT shooter in college. And of course, his handle was very far from a problem. Like, he had more mid-range game as a rookie than he's used in years. He had tight, fast in-and-outs into pull-up Js and everything. That scouting report is, frankly, bonkers inaccurate.

(EDIT: I can't stress enough how horribly inaccurate was that remark about Tatum's handles)

Gobert was barely drafted in the first round in spite of being absolutely huge with insane wingspan, there were strong questions about how he would translate to the NBA as he was just a tall, long shot blocker + rebounder type.

That... is exactly what he is. Obviously, the magnitude of his play is different from expectations, but the style is on-point.

Kawhi was viewed as mostly a defender, didn't have the shooting, shot creation, or ISO game. There's a reason he wasn't drafted in the lottery in spite of his ridiculous hand size and wingspan.

But again, his shooting was certainly there already. And with basically all these guys, there were plenty of signs that there was more to them than just their physical tools.

[mtcan]

Read on Twitter

Fears looks a little juicy here, the guy is definitely going to fill out and have an NBA body sooner than later. He will be a + defender IMO, it might not be as a rookie but I think he has some dog in him. Shooting looks good, I always believed in it. The one negative is he is listed at 6'5 some places and he looks the same size as Fland who is 6'2 listed. The size might be the one thing that actually allows him to make it to our pick if we stay at 7.

He's definitely not 6'5. He's more like 6'2...maybe 6'1 barefoot. I don't think he has a positive wingspan either.

[Jadoogar]

Yeah they seem to prefer more raw physical tools and potential over stuff like ball handling and shot creation which they feel can develop later.

That saddens me, though, because that really isn't typically how player development goes in a guy's 20s. There are exceptions, but man. You generally look to have that in place BEFORE they hit the league.

There are players who came into the NBA fairly raw and turned into superstars with development. Giannis, Kawhi, Butler, Tatum, Gobert, it's not uncommon for players with fantastic physicals to be something special at the next level even if they don't have the skill part of the game down yet.

I think by the time the back part of the draft rolls around there is more value in undersized but skilled players that other teams pass over, we've seen Masai draft undersized guys or "normal" size players with late first round, second round picks, or even undrafted and do well there, but that's mostly an acknowledgement that the later draft picks are more likely to be fringe starter or bench level types where size and physicals aren't as important to expectations.

This is survivor bias, of course you remember the players who ended up making it (although i don't believe Tatum or Gobert fit your example).

There's far more player that were drafted for their physical tools that never put it together. For every Giannis, there's Joey Graham, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Harrison Barnes, Anthony Bennet, Ben Simmons. Or even being more charitable, someone like Aaron Gordon. He's good role player but he was drafted 4th, i'm sure the magic wanted something more than a role player.

[OhCanada]

Rudy G with the 27 and 24 game on 80% fg last night to eliminate the lakers, who have one of the GOATS and one of the most skilled guys in the league right now. It almost doesn't matter how much skill you have if you don't also have that size to balance it.

I was waiting for Mal to have a game like that in college. If he had a few 20/20 games we probably wouldn't be talking about him being in our range if we stay at 7. If Queen and Fears are gone at 7, I think we might have to roll the dice on Khaman.

I think Queen and Fears are surely gone by 7. They are types that dominate in skills and workouts. It’s possible VJ drops to us if he underwhelms here in the skills stuff and he measures out at like 6’3” and 6’7” wingspan as rumoured. But I’d probably lean towards taking Mal over him even.

VJ might not measure well but I think he convince teams he has more on ball juice than he showed in college through the workouts, I don't see him falling, and I would be kind of choked if we passed on him if he did. I would understand the why though. It would be a lot like the Scottie Barnes pick for me, where Scottie was 1st on my board at 7 but I would have drafted Suggs when we moved up. Mal over VJ would feel similar.

If by on ball juice what you mean is the abillity to break down defences one on one that was not a big part of VJ's game and should not be immediately in the NBA. Where he will thrive and what he didn't get to showcase at Baylor is his abillity to dominate in transition and create turnovers for a team that wants to gamble. Toronto's a good fit, I'm not saying he's who we should target but his skillset fits our identity and If the team that picks him prioritizes creating transition oppurtunities he will do very well immediately.

[ciueli]

Tatum was drafted 3rd over two guys who wound up not close to him in NBA success level, he was definitely a great physicals guy with some skill question marks, here's a sample scouting report: https://www.nbadraft.net/players/jayson-tatum/ where most of the strengths are physicals based and the weaknesses are things like shooting, defence, ball handling, and shot creation.

Tatum hit the league shooting over 43% from 3, nearly 83% at the line, and shooting quite well inside the arc from 10+ feet. He'd been a nearly 85% FT shooter in college. And of course, his handle was very far from a problem. Like, he had more mid-range game as a rookie than he's used in years. He had tight, fast in-and-outs into pull-up Js and everything. That scouting report is, frankly, bonkers inaccurate.

(EDIT: I can't stress enough how horribly inaccurate was that remark about Tatum's handles)

Gobert was barely drafted in the first round in spite of being absolutely huge with insane wingspan, there were strong questions about how he would translate to the NBA as he was just a tall, long shot blocker + rebounder type.

That... is exactly what he is. Obviously, the magnitude of his play is different from expectations, but the style is on-point.

Kawhi was viewed as mostly a defender, didn't have the shooting, shot creation, or ISO game. There's a reason he wasn't drafted in the lottery in spite of his ridiculous hand size and wingspan.

But again, his shooting was certainly there already. And with basically all these guys, there were plenty of signs that there was more to them than just their physical tools.

Tatum's shooting was not there, he shot 34.2% from 3 in college on 4 attempts per game. It wasn't a strength, certainly no one would have assumed he would become the feared 3 point shooter he is in the NBA today, if teams knew that he'd have been a surefire first overall pick the way Cooper Flagg is. There's a reason Fultz and Lonzo went above him in the draft, their overall numbers were both much better than Tatum's, both over 40% 3 point shooters on higher volume, it was definitely a weakness of Tatum's relative to those two and it was a big surprise that first season that Tatum was way ahead of them in 3 point shooting as a rookie, he improved his 3 point shooting by close to 10% from college to NBA which is crazy.

Kawhi shot 25% from 3 in college on a very low number of attempts, so no his shooting was not already there as you say it was. He improved from year 1 to year 2, but he was still below 30% in year 2, there was no guarantee he would ever be a good 3 point shooter in the NBA, certainly not the 39% career 3 point shooter he has been.

[Tripod]

I think we all agree that if we stay where we are, there are like 10 guys that you can see the positives in taking them....but they all have reasons so go another direction.

[tsherkin]

Tatum's shooting was not there, he shot 34.2% from 3 in college on 4 attempts per game. It wasn't a strength, certainly no one would have assumed he would become the feared 3 point shooter he is in the NBA today, if teams knew that he'd have been a surefire first overall pick the way Cooper Flagg is. There's a reason Fultz and Lonzo went above him in the draft, their overall numbers were both much better than Tatum's, both over 40% 3 point shooters on higher volume, it was definitely a weakness of Tatum's relative to those two and it was a big surprise that first season that Tatum was way ahead of them in 3 point shooting as a rookie, he improved his 3 point shooting by close to 10% from college to NBA which is crazy.

I mean, it was heavily backed by corner 3pt shooting, but that assumes that 3pt shooting is all that counts for "shooting." He crushed it from 10-23 feet.

Kawhi shot 25% from 3 in college on a very low number of attempts, so no his shooting was not already there as you say it was. He improved from year 1 to year 2, but he was still below 30% in year 2, there was no guarantee he would ever be a good 3 point shooter in the NBA, certainly not the 39% career 3 point shooter he has been.

Again, assuming 3pt shooting is all that matters. Kawhi's middie was there by year 2, and that (plus his rim threat) has been a much larger feature of his game. And, like Tatum, he smashed corner 3s to develop himself from 3.

[ciueli]

That saddens me, though, because that really isn't typically how player development goes in a guy's 20s. There are exceptions, but man. You generally look to have that in place BEFORE they hit the league.

There are players who came into the NBA fairly raw and turned into superstars with development. Giannis, Kawhi, Butler, Tatum, Gobert, it's not uncommon for players with fantastic physicals to be something special at the next level even if they don't have the skill part of the game down yet.

I think by the time the back part of the draft rolls around there is more value in undersized but skilled players that other teams pass over, we've seen Masai draft undersized guys or "normal" size players with late first round, second round picks, or even undrafted and do well there, but that's mostly an acknowledgement that the later draft picks are more likely to be fringe starter or bench level types where size and physicals aren't as important to expectations.

This is survivor bias, of course you remember the players who ended up making it (although i don't believe Tatum or Gobert fit your example).

There's far more player that were drafted for their physical tools that never put it together. For every Giannis, there's Joey Graham, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Harrison Barnes, Anthony Bennet, Ben Simmons. Or even being more charitable, someone like Aaron Gordon. He's good role player but he was drafted 4th, i'm sure the magic wanted something more than a role player.

I'm not saying it works 100% of the time, nothing does. I'm saying this is the type of player Masai prefers and this is the reason why, there's a lot of players who outperform expectations due to their physical advantages. Most of the players you listed actually had significant success in the NBA, Harrison Barnes, Ben Simmons, and Aaron Gordon have all had solid NBA careers. Joey Graham was not really a great physicals guy (didn't have the incredible wingspan), he was just a fantastic athlete in the combine results, so I wouldn't consider him a counterexample.

[tsherkin]

I'm not saying it works 100% of the time, nothing does. I'm saying this is the type of player Masai prefers and this is the reason why, there's a lot of players who outperform expectations due to their physical advantages. Most of the players you listed actually had significant success in the NBA, Harrison Barnes, Ben Simmons, and Aaron Gordon have all had solid NBA careers. Joey Graham was not really a great physicals guy (didn't have the incredible wingspan), he was just a fantastic athlete in the combine results, so I wouldn't consider him a counterexample.

Sure. Sometimes it works. And Masai has pulled it off before, no doubt.

What I'm saying is that we have a need for some skill, and it wouldn't hurt to do something ELSE, rather than just going for project athletes with a long timeline ahead of them all the time.

Aaron Gordon reinvented himself with Jokic. Ben Simmons is a massive disappointment. Harrison Barnes was okay. If we're talking a pick in the 20s, then sure, I'd be THRILLED with a player of their caliber. If we're talking about this incoming lotto pick, though, I"d be really, really annoyed that we once again came up short on a high pick. We have to go back to Bosh to find a top pick we REALLY hit on. DeRozan, if you lower the bar a little, and I really don't want to wait most of a decade for a player to become worth our while again any time soon.

[ciueli]

Tatum's shooting was not there, he shot 34.2% from 3 in college on 4 attempts per game. It wasn't a strength, certainly no one would have assumed he would become the feared 3 point shooter he is in the NBA today, if teams knew that he'd have been a surefire first overall pick the way Cooper Flagg is. There's a reason Fultz and Lonzo went above him in the draft, their overall numbers were both much better than Tatum's, both over 40% 3 point shooters on higher volume, it was definitely a weakness of Tatum's relative to those two and it was a big surprise that first season that Tatum was way ahead of them in 3 point shooting as a rookie, he improved his 3 point shooting by close to 10% from college to NBA which is crazy.

I mean, it was heavily backed by corner 3pt shooting, but that assumes that 3pt shooting is all that counts for "shooting." He crushed it from 10-23 feet.

Kawhi shot 25% from 3 in college on a very low number of attempts, so no his shooting was not already there as you say it was. He improved from year 1 to year 2, but he was still below 30% in year 2, there was no guarantee he would ever be a good 3 point shooter in the NBA, certainly not the 39% career 3 point shooter he has been.

Again, assuming 3pt shooting is all that matters. Kawhi's middie was there by year 2, and that (plus his rim threat) has been a much larger feature of his game. And, like Tatum, he smashed corner 3s to develop himself from 3.

3 point shooting is largely what matters for shooting in this day and age, that's why it's the metric I shouldn't even have to go into this. I guarantee Kawhi goes much higher in the draft if teams knew he would shoot 37.6% from 3 his first season, that's worlds different that shooting 29% his 2nd season in college.

With respect to Tatum, I've already linked to an example of what was thought of him and his game coming out of college and didn't even mention his brutal 2.1 APG to 2.6 TOV in college, at some level you have to admit that there were skill issues when looking at him as a prospect, it wasn't clear he was going to a serious shot creator or shooter at the next level.

[Dalek]

I would just like to say I made the Devin Booker comp with Tre Johnson early on so maybe Givony read RealGM!

I just see a lot of similarities with the size, shooting splits, playmaking and athleticism between Book and Tre.

Read on Twitter

[tsherkin]

3 point shooting is largely what matters for shooting in this day and age, that's why it's the metric I shouldn't even have to go into this.

No. It is A metric which matters. And if the person is good at shooting the middie and at the FT line, then there's a reasonably good chance that they can at least learn how to smash from the corners. That does matter.

With respect to Tatum, I've already linked to an example of what was thought of him and his game coming out of college and didn't even mention his brutal 2.1 APG to 2.6 TOV in college, at some level you have to admit that there were skill issues when looking at him as a prospect, it wasn't clear he was going to a serious shot creator or shooter at the next level.

I mean, I watched him. He didn't magically develop that handle between college and the NBA.

[Grew]

I think Queen and Fears are surely gone by 7. They are types that dominate in skills and workouts. It’s possible VJ drops to us if he underwhelms here in the skills stuff and he measures out at like 6’3” and 6’7” wingspan as rumoured. But I’d probably lean towards taking Mal over him even.

VJ might not measure well but I think he convince teams he has more on ball juice than he showed in college through the workouts, I don't see him falling, and I would be kind of choked if we passed on him if he did. I would understand the why though. It would be a lot like the Scottie Barnes pick for me, where Scottie was 1st on my board at 7 but I would have drafted Suggs when we moved up. Mal over VJ would feel similar.

If by on ball juice what you mean is the abillity to break down defences one on one that was not a big part of VJ's game and should not be immediately in the NBA. Where he will thrive and what he didn't get to showcase at Baylor is his abillity to dominate in transition and create turnovers for a team that wants to gamble. Toronto's a good fit, I'm not saying he's who we should target but his skillset fits our identity and If the team that picks him prioritizes creating transition oppurtunities he will do very well immediately.

I don't think he got much chance to do the on ball stuff in college. His team was a bunch of shot happy guards. He looked to have a bit more to his game in that regard during the olympic qualifier. I do think he has an elite first step, and in NBA spacing he will be a problem. He might not be on ball a ton as a rookie but I think he has alot of upside as an advantage creator with the ball in his hands. I hope he goes to a team that believes in that part of his game and let's him develop it.

[WuTang_CMB]

On the overall, Masai has the right approach of targeting physically gifted players with a good foundation of skill and you hope with development they absolutely pop. In the top 10, you need to strike that balance of great physical tools with a high skill level. You can't draft based on tools in the top 10 since so many guys have bust - theres too many to name (Thon Maker, Mo Bamba, etc).

I fully expect us to draft a guy with great length and solid skill to build on.

[WuTang_CMB]

Here we go lol

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=0YpMScWXY2zRUqR8fH-usg

Read on Twitter