2025 Draft Thread - Part 2

[SUPERBALLMAN]

14th pick looks really good, 12th pick not so much. I wonder if the pickers were flipped if the results would flip as well.

Either way, it seems like you want to stay in the top 10. 18 for 26 & 27 would be nice.

Yeah. The Roland Beech study ^^^ was from 2009 so the chart isn't really current. But in general over the various studies I've seen the tiers have been:

#1 overall.
Top 5.
Lottery.
Then the curve tends to flatten out in a steady decline into the 30's before it drops off a cliff again the rest of the 2nd round.

You can get useful players at any particular pick in the draft. Bench guys and role players. There are outliers in every draft who outperform most of the guys ahead of them. Every year somebody falls. Overall though you are looking at a thicker cloud of standout players the higher up you go. It's not absolute. Mistakes are made. It is a reasonable argument to say you'd rather drop down a few spots and get extra picks if there are a cluster of guys you rate similarly. But Dawkins has been doing the exact opposite and so far I appreciate his results.

And like I said, if I'm dropping back I'd rather get a future pick than 2+ guaranteed lower ones. At some point the NIL market shakes out and we get better seasoned better skilled players coming out in addition to the one-and-done talent. The draft class won't be this small every year. Future drafts will have added value.

In a sense, NIL will negate some studies moving forward (IMO). Either way, what you are positing stands. I would also add that there is a variable involved that I haven't seen accounted for - who is making the picks. SA had a really good run making great picks later in the draft (for example). Others, not so much.

Trading back makes sense if the player you want at your pick gets taken ahead of you and is off the board. Otherwise you stay where you are and get the guy you want.

For example, if the Wizards are eyeing Sorber and Fleming at 18 and Sorber goes at 12 and Fleming is gone at 14... Then maybe pursue a trade back to 26 & 27 and get Penda AND Yang.

[doclinkin]

In a sense, NIL will negate some studies moving forward (IMO). Either way, what you are positing stands. I would also add that there is a variable involved that I haven't seen accounted for - who is making the picks. SA had a really good run making great picks later in the draft (for example). Others, not so much.

Memphis also. I don't know that they've missed yet. Or much anyway. OKC does well too. Golden State is better with late picks than the lotto, but they've done pretty well when they're winning. Well run organizations are successful for a reason.

[payitforward]

PIF, from my standpoint, you’re looking at this all wrong....

Hey, that's happened too!

It’s not who was taken at 18, it’s who was available at 18 who was not available at 26. This is the basis for my belief that this Zards FO believes, rightfully or wrongfully, in its ability to identify talent and is very unlikely to trade back 8 picks....

I see your point. If I am able to identify the best guy at any spot, then I am always better off with a higher pick -- for better or worse the guy might be gone 8 picks down.

Of course this thinking is entirely based on the very assumption -- the better guys go higher -- which I'm challenging. I.e. it's circular. Actual history tells me that there's virtually always better players "available" than the guy who's taken.

To stick with Singleton...

....2011 – The 18th pick was Chris Singleton but you also could have drafted Tobias Harris or Reggie Jackson, neither of whom were available at 26....

OTOH, 11 of the 12 guys taken after Singleton, to finish out R1 that year, were better than him. But not in any particular order, & the last guy on that list of 12 was the best or 2d best player drafted that night. A HOF player was taken at 30, a player who was better than every single other player taken that night with a single exception -- & that single exception didn't go high either! He went at 15.

The guy available at 15 was one of the ten best players drafted in the decade. So was the guy available at 30. The #1 pick that year wasn't as good as either of those guys.

& you know what? 50 of the 60 guys taken that night weren't as good as the guy who was available at #60.

That's just the way it is. The 5 best players taken that year went at 1, 15, 20, 30, & 60.

2013 – The 18th pick was Shane Larkin but you also could have drafted Tim Hardaway Jr., who was not available at 26....

Of course, if you draft at 26 instead of 18, there will be 7 more guys off the board -- not "available." But, they won't be the 7 best guys.

That year you could have drafted Rudy Gobert at 26. Or Andre Roberson. For that matter, 2013 was a weak draft, yet there were players taken in the middle of R2 who were better than Larkin!

& it's the same every single year E.g.

...2014 – The 18th pick was Tyler Ennis but you also could have drafted Clint Capella, who was not available at 26....

But Bogdan Bogdanovic was. Kyle Anderson was. Joe Harris. Spencer Dinwiddie. Jerami Grant. Glenn Robinson III, Nikola Jokic, Dwight Powell, Jordan Clarkson. H@ll, Jordan McRae went at 58 -- he was better than Tyler Ennis!
...& so on through the years....

...Of course, I have no way of knowing for sure, but I believe this Zards FO would have drafted Anunoby, Tyrese Maxey, and Jalen Johnson, who I’m sure you recall I absolutely loved coming out of Duke.

Hope so! Because, if they can reliably pick the best player available at their slots, they will have done what no other FO has ever done reliably!

...Jalen Johnson, who I’m sure you recall I absolutely loved coming out of Duke.

Yes, you & I both liked Jalen Johnson -- & the knock on him was that he behaved like a jerk -- not uncommon among 18 year olds! -- which turned out to be no problem whatever.

Same with Robert Williams in 2018, another guy you liked a whole lot who got dinged for being a "behavior problem" & then turned out to be terrific.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I spoke with Kevin Broom for the first time in ages. He's doing well.

We both remember Kevin Pelton from way back. (I'll leave that convo for Kevin to divulge if he lurks or cares to). Long before Pelton's ESPN Insider days, he was a RealGM Seattle Supersonic fan.

https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/teams/Seattle_SuperSonics/27/news/www.realgm.com

I can say Kevin told me that he hasn't evaluated any 2025 draft picks.

Did something happen to Kevin Broom?

He's alive and well.

[doclinkin]

I see where we are talking past each other. The argument on the one hand is: your chance of catching a good player at the top of the draft is generally better. Your bust rate is lower. Your miss rate is less. Historical studies show that over time you have a better chance of catching a star in those early picks. Even if in any given year there are exceptions. The upside of those at the very very top tends to be higher. Not always. But more often.

And. Also. However.

There is often a player lower down who is also really good. Commonly more than one. Given the whole field of players there will consistently be at least one guy who is even better than most or all of the guys taken ahead of him. And after all this is competition. You want the best of the better not the higher chance of good.

Now ok. Yes. There are many more busts lower down. But with the benefit of hindsight, or perfect scouting, you could field an awesome team with the guys who slip through the cracks.

So. If you can draft more than one guy you have 2 chances out of 60 to catch that elusive better guy. And if 2 out of 60 is better then 4 or 5 chances are double plus better.

Nevermind limited roster spots. Or minutes. That’s a future problem. You don’t want to miss the best player in the whole draft by squandering your chances and only using one pick. That guy is out there. What’s the best way to find him. More chances!

Dawkins seems to think the best way is to go the opposite direction. Trade up to ensure you get the guy you like. Trade into the first round. Spend as many 2nd round picks as needed to bring back 1st rounders in trade. Trade up on draft day if a guy you like is within reach.

So far we haven’t seen him trade back. But he liberally spends 2nd rounders in trades. So clearly he values 1st rounders more.

I like the picks he’s made. But we are losing. There aren’t many he has missed where later picks are clearly better. But we still suck. I’d say the jury is still out on whose strategy is smarter.

[doclinkin]

Personally my favorite picks are more in line with the Memphis model. And frankly the PIF method. I’m not an upside maven. I like a track record.


The recent adjustment to that for me has been to give higher credit to youth. If a player produces well when young then I pad the evaluation of that kid compared to guys who fill the box score more effectively. The younger a kid is who shows he can do the job, the higher I rate him.

For young players I look at their track record against better competition. Then check whether they generally improved over the season. A kid who puts up his best numbers against ranked schools is a guy I want. If he plays poorly in one game but his numbers jump in the rematch, he can play on my team.

That player is probably going in the lottery though. You may get less production out of him early on, but his top end is higher.

Which is where I think the trade back method will begin to bear fruit in the next few years. You get a discount nowadays picking upperclassmen. Auburns Johni is going to have a career in the league. You’ll be able to steal him in the late 1st or early 2nd. As the NIL era prolongs college careers those late 1sts are going to be skilled fundamentally sound experienced players. Box score heroes. They will give you good value for their rookie contract.

I think we are still in the phase of grasping for stars right now. Home run swings not hitting doubles. But in future seasons I think we can go full Memphis and consider taking players who have consistently shown what they can do instead of looking for the heavily scouted upside guys at the top of the draft.

I’m giving Dawkins the benefit of the doubt. Curious how he pivots after our lotto picks are no longer in jeopardy. Does the strategy change once we land some star talent.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

14th pick looks really good, 12th pick not so much. I wonder if the pickers were flipped if the results would flip as well.

Either way, it seems like you want to stay in the top 10. 18 for 26 & 27 would be nice.

Yeah. The Roland Beech study ^^^ was from 2009 so the chart isn't really current. But in general over the various studies I've seen the tiers have been:

#1 overall.
Top 5.
Lottery.
Then the curve tends to flatten out in a steady decline into the 30's before it drops off a cliff again the rest of the 2nd round.

You can get useful players at any particular pick in the draft. Bench guys and role players. There are outliers in every draft who outperform most of the guys ahead of them. Every year somebody falls. Overall though you are looking at a thicker cloud of standout players the higher up you go. It's not absolute. Mistakes are made. It is a reasonable argument to say you'd rather drop down a few spots and get extra picks if there are a cluster of guys you rate similarly. But Dawkins has been doing the exact opposite and so far I appreciate his results.

And like I said, if I'm dropping back I'd rather get a future pick than 2+ guaranteed lower ones. At some point the NIL market shakes out and we get better seasoned better skilled players coming out in addition to the one-and-done talent. The draft class won't be this small every year. Future drafts will have added value.

In the 2024 draft, Dillon Jones was a more seasoned player. I liked him a lot. OKC drafted him.

In this draft, obviously, Nique Clifford is highly rated. So is Joni Broome. Some other players seasoned that deserve mention and IMO would improve the Wizards are Kam Jones, Eric Dixon, John Tonje, and Bruce Thornton, and Vadislav Goldin.

I just know the B1G upperclassmen.

[dckingsfan]

I do think that there isn't ONE way to go about drafting. Take your seconds or multiple firsts and move up or trade down. It really depends on who is on your board and the specific draft. What is also clear is that certain teams (doc mentions them above) draft well. And that is going to skew any probability theory you bring into play.

And now with NIL it is going to be even more mixed up. I think that NIL benefits the better teams as older players will fall and be able to immediately contribute to those better teams. It is not a good time to be a sucky team.

And yes, you could be a sucky team and intentionally tank and do anything you can to move up to get a star. And you could also be a good team and trading down makes lots of sense.

So, not magic bullet. But we are getting the #1 pick - so it doesn't matter for us in this draft. Wait... damn we still have 18 we can debate about.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I see where we are talking past each other. The argument on the one hand is: your chance of catching a good player at the top of the draft is generally better. Your bust rate is lower. Your miss rate is less. Historical studies show that over time you have a better chance of catching a star in those early picks. Even if in any given year there are exceptions. The upside of those at the very very top tends to be higher. Not always. But more often.

And. Also. However.

There is often a player lower down who is also really good. Commonly more than one. Given the whole field of players there will consistently be at least one guy who is even better than most or all of the guys taken ahead of him. And after all this is competition. You want the best of the better not the higher chance of good.

Now ok. Yes. There are many more busts lower down. But with the benefit of hindsight, or perfect scouting, you could field an awesome team with the guys who slip through the cracks.

So. If you can draft more than one guy you have 2 chances out of 60 to catch that elusive better guy. And if 2 out of 60 is better then 4 or 5 chances are double plus better.

Nevermind limited roster spots. Or minutes. That’s a future problem. You don’t want to miss the best player in the whole draft by squandering your chances and only using one pick. That guy is out there. What’s the best way to find him. More chances!

Dawkins seems to think the best way is to go the opposite direction. Trade up to ensure you get the guy you like. Trade into the first round. Spend as many 2nd round picks as needed to bring back 1st rounders in trade. Trade up on draft day if a guy you like is within reach.

So far we haven’t seen him trade back. But he liberally spends 2nd rounders in trades. So clearly he values 1st rounders more.

I like the picks he’s made. But we are losing. There aren’t many he has missed where later picks are clearly better. But we still suck. I’d say the jury is still out on whose strategy is smarter.

We suck because the Wizards draft athletic specimens instead of winners.

Gary Williams didn't have McDonald's All-Americans. He recruited winners.

Juan Dixon was a shot maker. Steve Blake was a floor general. Lonny Baxter was a bull near the basket. Chris Wilcox was the one Dawkins specimen. Byron Mouton was a poor man's Kawhi Leonard. Collectively, those guys went to consecutive Final Fours. They were winners.

The Wizards will cease to suck if they draft a go-to guy like Queen. They could use a Bruce Thornton or Walter Clayton Jr.

Bleep the measurables and switchability, and give those guys the ball.

[doclinkin]

We suck because the Wizards draft athletic specimens instead of winners.

Gary Williams didn't have McDonald's All-Americans. He recruited winners.

Juan Dixon was a shot maker. Steve Blake was a floor general. Lonny Baxter was a bull near the basket. Chris Wilcox was the one Dawkins specimen. Byron Mouton was a poor man's Kawhi Leonard. Collectively, those guys went to consecutive Final Fours. They were winners.

The Wizards will cease to suck if they draft a go-to guy like Queen. They could use a Bruce Thornton or Walter Clayton Jr.

Bleep the measurables and switchability, and give those guys the ball.

Johnny Davis was an athletic specimen? Corey Kispert was a winner. Not long and switchable. The Wizards suck because other teams have better players. Period. Some of that is athleticism. Not because they don’t draft the entire squad of whatever team wins the NCAA.

I get it you like DQ He’s got nice skills. It’s reasonable to note he’s older than other freshmen, so is farther along in his development. It’s also reasonable to wonder if he’s going to be able to defend the rim against bigger taller faster players at the next level. Or forecast if he can he make up in offense what he gives back on defense. He might. He’s skilled. Maybe he gets quicker with trainers.

Of the Terps you cited only Steve Blake did a damn thing in the NBA. Lonny Baxter makes the point against DQ. Solid ground bound center who didn’t amount to anything at the next level.

Fair to say there’s a steep hill to climb from NCAA winner to NBA dominance. I like DQ. But he’s got some work to do before he’s reliable at both ends. Not saying he can’t or won’t. Just saying I’m reading reports 2 years ago people were talking bout the same “if” about his defense. Hasn’t happened yet and he’s 2 years older than most freshmen so maybe it isn’t as likely to change.

I do think he’s a better fit here next to Alex than on teams without as much length in perimeter defense.We need his rebounding. Maybe Marcus Smart gets in his ear on positional defense. Motivates him to commit to the weight room. Because it sounds a little like his trainers at UMD needled him for taking it easy a little bit in the conditioning department.

[dobrojim]

Amen Thompson looking good. Will Edgecomb be
this good in 2 years? Mathurin also with a solid
game tonight.

[9 and 20]

Unsaid so far on Queen (I think) - Wiz could have 2 guys with the 90's look long sleeve t shirts under their jersey with Bub and Dairy Queen. To me, that screams championship. Way more than fluffy pink sweaters.

[closg00]

One week to til we get our lucky balls

[payitforward]

I see where we are talking past each other. The argument on the one hand is: your chance of catching a good player at the top of the draft is generally better. Your bust rate is lower. Your miss rate is less. Historical studies show that over time you have a better chance of catching a star in those early picks. Even if in any given year there are exceptions. The upside of those at the very very top tends to be higher. Not always. But more often. ...

True for 1-3. Not true for 4 or lower. Period.

Amazing the way facts just don't seem to matter in discussing this subject.

Here are the #4 picks of 11 straight drafts from 2010-2020

Wes Johnson, Tristan Thompson, Dion Waiters, Cody Zeller, Aaron Gordon, KP, Dragan Bender, Josh Jackson, JJJ, De’Andre Hunter, Patrick Williams.

5 of the 11 were utterly terrible -- Wes Johnson, Dion Waiters, Dragan Bender, Josh Jackson, & Patrick Williams.

4 were ok players of varying degrees of meh-ness -- Tristan Thompson, Cody Zeller, Aaron Gordon, & De'Andre Hunter.

2 have been good in some sense:

KP -- but he did nothing for the team that drafted him, missed several years of his career, & brought next to nothing in two trades.

JJJ, who was the one consistently terrific player (at least defensively) in the entire group of 11.

The point is NOT that you don't have a better chance at a good player high in the draft than you do lower in the draft -- of course you do! Just not a much better chance.

The point is that trades even out the value! You don't trade #4 for #10 - you trade it for, e.g., #10 & #25.

[Dat2U]

I see where we are talking past each other. The argument on the one hand is: your chance of catching a good player at the top of the draft is generally better. Your bust rate is lower. Your miss rate is less. Historical studies show that over time you have a better chance of catching a star in those early picks. Even if in any given year there are exceptions. The upside of those at the very very top tends to be higher. Not always. But more often. ...

True for 1-3. Not true for 4 or lower. Period.

Amazing the way facts just don't seem to matter in discussing this subject.

Here are the #4 picks of 11 straight drafts from 2010-2020

Wes Johnson, Tristan Thompson, Dion Waiters, Cody Zeller, Aaron Gordon, KP, Dragan Bender, Josh Jackson, JJJ, De’Andre Hunter, Patrick Williams.

5 of the 11 were utterly terrible -- Wes Johnson, Dion Waiters, Dragan Bender, Josh Jackson, & Patrick Williams.

4 were ok players of varying degrees of meh-ness -- Tristan Thompson, Cody Zeller, Aaron Gordon, & De'Andre Hunter.

2 have been good in some sense:

KP -- but he did nothing for the team that drafted him, missed several years of his career, & brought next to nothing in two trades.

JJJ, who was the one consistently terrific player (at least defensively) in the entire group of 11.

The point is NOT that you don't have a better chance at a good player high in the draft than you do lower in the draft -- of course you do! Just not a much better chance.

The point is that trades even out the value! You don't trade #4 for #10 - you trade it for, e.g., #10 & #25.

This is the part of the draft I'm not a fan of. The yearly back-and-forth about which pick is more valuable when in reality it's all about who's making the pick & who's available. I don't care who was specifically drafted at 10 vs who was specficially drafted at 4. Why? It's incomplete picture unless I know who was also drafted between 5-9. Trading the 4th pick isn't just passing up on the 4th guy drafted. It's passing up options 4-9 if your trading down to 10. So 6 guys were removed from your board by trading down, not just one.

Instead of just looking at 4 & 10 picks, tell me about the guys drafted 5 through 9 as well - so the whole picture is there. Then you can have a real discussion about pick value.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

I see where we are talking past each other. The argument on the one hand is: your chance of catching a good player at the top of the draft is generally better. Your bust rate is lower. Your miss rate is less. Historical studies show that over time you have a better chance of catching a star in those early picks. Even if in any given year there are exceptions. The upside of those at the very very top tends to be higher. Not always. But more often. ...

True for 1-3. Not true for 4 or lower. Period.

Amazing the way facts just don't seem to matter in discussing this subject.

Here are the #4 picks of 11 straight drafts from 2010-2020

Wes Johnson, Tristan Thompson, Dion Waiters, Cody Zeller, Aaron Gordon, KP, Dragan Bender, Josh Jackson, JJJ, De’Andre Hunter, Patrick Williams.

5 of the 11 were utterly terrible -- Wes Johnson, Dion Waiters, Dragan Bender, Josh Jackson, & Patrick Williams.

4 were ok players of varying degrees of meh-ness -- Tristan Thompson, Cody Zeller, Aaron Gordon, & De'Andre Hunter.

2 have been good in some sense:

KP -- but he did nothing for the team that drafted him, missed several years of his career, & brought next to nothing in two trades.

JJJ, who was the one consistently terrific player (at least defensively) in the entire group of 11.

The point is NOT that you don't have a better chance at a good player high in the draft than you do lower in the draft -- of course you do! Just not a much better chance.

The point is that trades even out the value! You don't trade #4 for #10 - you trade it for, e.g., #10 & #25.

This is the part of the draft I'm not a fan of. The yearly back-and-forth about which pick is more valuable when in reality it's all about who's making the pick & who's available. I don't care who was specifically drafted at 10 vs who was specficially drafted at 4. Why? It's incomplete picture unless I know who was also drafted between 5-9. Trading the 4th pick isn't just passing up on the 4th guy drafted. It's passing up options 4-9 if your trading down to 10. So 6 guys were removed from your board by trading down, not just one.

Instead of just looking at 4 & 10 picks, tell me about the guys drafted 5 through 9 as well - so the whole picture is there. Then you can have a real discussion about pick value.

What about this??

I know we all LOVE our rookies this year!

But would we be better off if instead of Sarr and Bub we had instead drafted Castle and Yves Missi ??

[payitforward]

Trading back makes sense if the player you want at your pick gets taken ahead of you and is off the board. Otherwise you stay where you are and get the guy you want....

How would it be possible to disagree with this, amigo? If you want the guy that's there, & you think he won't be on the board at the lower spot you can trade for, then... duh... you take him!

...For example, if the Wizards are eyeing Sorber and Fleming at 18 and Sorber goes at 12 and Fleming is gone at 14... Then maybe pursue a trade back to 26 & 27 and get Penda AND Yang.

To put it slightly differently, if when you're at 18, there are 9 guys on the board, all of whom you have on the same tier, then it would make sense to trade down 8 spots.

Why yes, yes, that is certainly correct.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

One more week!!!!!

[payitforward]

This is the part of the draft I'm not a fan of. The yearly back-and-forth about which pick is more valuable when in reality it's all about who's making the pick & who's available. I don't care who was specifically drafted at 10 vs who was specficially drafted at 4. Why? It's incomplete picture unless I know who was also drafted between 5-9. Trading the 4th pick isn't just passing up on the 4th guy drafted. It's passing up options 4-9 if your trading down to 10. So 6 guys were removed from your board by trading down, not just one.

Instead of just looking at 4 & 10 picks, tell me about the guys drafted 5 through 9 as well - so the whole picture is there. Then you can have a real discussion about pick value.

So, if 1 of those 5 guys was better than the guy picked at 4 & the guy picked at 10, then that means the guy who picked at 4 should be happy?

Here's a fact: after pick 3, players are never taken in an order that approximates how good they wind up being in the league. The word I used was "never," & there is no counter-example. Period. Not even if you say, how about just the next 7 guys -- 4-10. Never.

Ok, how about just the next 3 guys? 4, 5 & 6. No more than that...?

Never. In no draft, were the best guys taken at 4, 5 & 6 the best players taken after 3. Is that clear? Not best in the order 4>5>6 & not in any other order. Claro?

Find me a single exception. You can't. Not one.

[payitforward]

Instead of just looking at 4 & 10 picks, tell me about the guys drafted 5 through 9 as well - so the whole picture is there. Then you can have a real discussion about pick value.

Pick a draft. Any draft.

How about 2018: 14 of the 21 players taken from 10-30 were better than the guys taken at 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9.

Maybe you'd prefer 2017: the guys taken at 4, 8 & 9 haven't been as good as at least 10 of the players taken in R1 after them. H$ll, they haven't been as good as the guy taken at 45 or the guy taken at 51.

2016 same story. 2015 same story. 2014 same story.... Get the drift?