2025 NBA Draft (2)

[Mik317]

I am okay with Ace. Think some are too harsh on him

however....just preaching about his upside and how he is a better fit don't match the current reality imo. Advertised as a shooter but is a shaky ft guy and shoots the same as VJ. Built like a baby deer atm so the ready to play asap thing I don't feel like it stacks. And has not shown the ability to take a step back and do the little things. As much as you may want us to go scorched earth and clean house and allow him to get all of the shots he can dream of...its not happening. Team owes a pick next year (top 4 protected) and the east will be even weaker to the point that even if Biid is cooked, we will probably trip into the playoffs. That doesn't sound like a team that will put up with the growing pains that Ace will probably require.

Its my catchphrase but I think the idea of Ace is not close to the reality of Ace atm. Doesn't mean he sucks and will always suck either but when I hear "he is just going to come in and be MPJ in terms of role" I question where did they get that from the tape.

[Iverson Armband]

Ace sucks and will always suck

Ace is 18.. I'm not trading down for two rookies , a vet like cam johnson nor drafting a player who I think can play right now like VJ over upside. VJ is redundant and is not offensively gifted like that. He's 3 and D right now not Wade level prospect maybe Olidipo.? lol.... We are lucky to have the third pick. Draft highest upside Cooper, Harper or Ace.... I'm not getting cute with this pick bc everything is a crapshoot. Stop overating this team tryna find players like Jrue, white and bs that the Celtics won a chip with because we aint them. They built through the draft with Tatum and Brown. We are a lottery team with two old injury prone players on max contracts with multiyears left ...

Redundant with who? I don't see any guards that fit the profile on the team.

Grimes, easily. Except Grimes is exponentially better offensively currently.

[Mik317]

only Maxey and McCain should even come close to dictating who we pick atm....and even then maybe only one of them lol.

Grimes may not even be back and even then did his damage when the season was already over.

Plus again, idk if anyone we take will be in for big minutes out the gate. Need 4 guards anyway and Grimes and VJ can play the 3 in small doses especially over the course of 82 games. The two finals teams play like 4- 5 guards in their rotations for example.

[LeonJordanJr24]

Ace is far superior upside prospect after cooper and harper. This team needs a forward with size like Ace. Not a undersized wing like VJ.

[Negrodamus]

https://nikoza2.substack.com/p/ace-in-the-hole?r=avi2&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
The final boss of Ace Derangement Syndrome

Gotta love a guy that tries to mask his lack of experience by vaguely stating he has experience in 3 separate sports organizations while omitting 2 of them were as a 3 month intern where he probably mostly fetched coffee.

As for his hack job article...

In his "Sources of Edge" word salad article he actually admits it would be a better indicator to incorporate not just college but pre-college shooting data to give a larger sample size...BUT when he decides to chainsaw Ace, guess what he decides not to do? Yup, pull his high school data, especially free throws which he goes on to repeatedly bring up as being a sign of a poor shooter.

His entire article is a generic broad sweep using only shooting % without context. Doesn't take into account situational shooting. Ace often found himself on the short-end of a shot clock hand grenade and had to put it up. It ignores Ace's strengths and good shooting %'s in C&S and guarded C&S (43.9%) (something I think is grossly understated in his evaluation by these experts) and off-screen C&S 3's (40.7%). He also declares Ace having low IQ; yet if you actually watch his games he shows elements of advanced IQ especially as it involves reading cuts and timing them; reading defensive rotations and relocating to the open spots.

Then we get to his, I guess we call it a paragraph about defense kinda? He just blanket discusses Ace as an on-ball defender and then baldly declares his lack of IQ probably makes him a bad team defender. His exact statement:

"It is plausible that Ace’s lack of basketball IQ will also seep into his play on the defensive end of the floor, particularly off the ball."

I mean wow, seriously? You want to post an article about how smart you are and how you use numbers "ooooo" and then you make that dumb as sh** statement? Rutgers relied on Ace to be their defacto rim protector from a weak side help. He was quite successful at it too given the shooting percentages of opponents when he got involved near the rim (I believe it was 40% or such). Ace has enough tape to show he is anything but a low IQ player and he provides A LOT of value as an off-ball defender. Yes he had lapses, so do many of these other prospects and even most pros do, that doesn't make him low IQ.

Look, I want people to challenge and question Ace as a player; I can't tell you how many times comments from 76, Negro and others have made me stop and go back to recheck what I saw versus how they see it. That's the best kind of soundboarding we can do with each other. What I can't stand, is guys who state in their analytical article they use X,Y,Z formula and then the first article they write they don't follow their own formula or he drops analytics altogether and starts pontificating about personal "presumptions" he makes based not on what he has seen or data he has; but based on what he's heard/read others have said (which by the way is literally the definition of group think).

I am being earnest when I ask this, and this is totally Ace aside, but why do you think HS FT percentage matters? I just did a stroll down the list of top scorers in the league who went to college:

Name (college FT%)
1) SGA (81.7%)
2) Ant (77.2%)
3) Tatum (84.9%)
4) Booker (82.8%)
5) Trae (86.1%)
6) Herro (93.5%)
7) Cade (84.6%)
8) Harden (75.6%)
9) KAT (81.3%)
10) LaVine (69.1%)
11) Curry (87.6%)
12) DeRozan (64.6%)
13) Mitchell (78.8%)
14) Brunson (82%)
15) Durant (81.6%)
16) JJJ (79.7%)
17) Siakam (71.1%)
18) Garland (75%)
19) Coby White (80%)
20) Jalen Williams (78%)

So the outliers are LaVine, DeRozan, and Siakam. Three out of 20 had below 75% FT. Siakam is not surprising (and hasn't really improved all that much), the other two dropped in their respective drafts because of shooting concerns. The rest I doubt you can find their HS FT% because it wasn't important. I've been looking up Jaylen Brown, Fultz, LaVine HS FT% and can't find anything. So what is the benchmark in determining if a HS FT% has any importance at all?

[Black Mage]

Question for the board, if Spurs do not go after Giannis, 1) do you want to go for Giannis and 2) what are you prepared to put into the package?

[76ciology]

https://nikoza2.substack.com/p/ace-in-the-hole?r=avi2&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
The final boss of Ace Derangement Syndrome

Gotta love a guy that tries to mask his lack of experience by vaguely stating he has experience in 3 separate sports organizations while omitting 2 of them were as a 3 month intern where he probably mostly fetched coffee.

As for his hack job article...

In his "Sources of Edge" word salad article he actually admits it would be a better indicator to incorporate not just college but pre-college shooting data to give a larger sample size...BUT when he decides to chainsaw Ace, guess what he decides not to do? Yup, pull his high school data, especially free throws which he goes on to repeatedly bring up as being a sign of a poor shooter.

His entire article is a generic broad sweep using only shooting % without context. Doesn't take into account situational shooting. Ace often found himself on the short-end of a shot clock hand grenade and had to put it up. It ignores Ace's strengths and good shooting %'s in C&S and guarded C&S (43.9%) (something I think is grossly understated in his evaluation by these experts) and off-screen C&S 3's (40.7%). He also declares Ace having low IQ; yet if you actually watch his games he shows elements of advanced IQ especially as it involves reading cuts and timing them; reading defensive rotations and relocating to the open spots.

Then we get to his, I guess we call it a paragraph about defense kinda? He just blanket discusses Ace as an on-ball defender and then baldly declares his lack of IQ probably makes him a bad team defender. His exact statement:

"It is plausible that Ace’s lack of basketball IQ will also seep into his play on the defensive end of the floor, particularly off the ball."

I mean wow, seriously? You want to post an article about how smart you are and how you use numbers "ooooo" and then you make that dumb as sh** statement? Rutgers relied on Ace to be their defacto rim protector from a weak side help. He was quite successful at it too given the shooting percentages of opponents when he got involved near the rim (I believe it was 40% or such). Ace has enough tape to show he is anything but a low IQ player and he provides A LOT of value as an off-ball defender. Yes he had lapses, so do many of these other prospects and even most pros do, that doesn't make him low IQ.

Look, I want people to challenge and question Ace as a player; I can't tell you how many times comments from 76, Negro and others have made me stop and go back to recheck what I saw versus how they see it. That's the best kind of soundboarding we can do with each other. What I can't stand, is guys who state in their analytical article they use X,Y,Z formula and then the first article they write they don't follow their own formula or he drops analytics altogether and starts pontificating about personal "presumptions" he makes based not on what he has seen or data he has; but based on what he's heard/read others have said (which by the way is literally the definition of group think).

I am being earnest when I ask this, and this is totally Ace aside, but why do you think HS FT percentage matters? I just did a stroll down the list of top scorers in the league who went to college:

Name (college FT%)
1) SGA (81.7%)
2) Ant (77.2%)
3) Tatum (84.9%)
4) Booker (82.8%)
5) Trae (86.1%)
6) Herro (93.5%)
7) Cade (84.6%)
8) Harden (75.6%)
9) KAT (81.3%)
10) LaVine (69.1%)
11) Curry (87.6%)
12) DeRozan (64.6%)
13) Mitchell (78.8%)
14) Brunson (82%)
15) Durant (81.6%)
16) JJJ (79.7%)
17) Siakam (71.1%)
18) Garland (75%)
19) Coby White (80%)
20) Jalen Williams (78%)

So the outliers are LaVine, DeRozan, and Siakam. Three out of 20 had below 75% FT. Siakam is not surprising (and hasn't really improved all that much), the other two dropped in their respective drafts because of shooting concerns. The rest I doubt you can find their HS FT% because it wasn't important. I've been looking up Jaylen Brown, Fultz, LaVine HS FT% and can't find anything. So what is the benchmark in determining if a HS FT% has any importance at all?

It’s harder to be good at free throws in high school when you’re also stressing about who to take to prom. In college, things are a bit more relaxed.

[Black Mage]

Spoiler:

https://nikoza2.substack.com/p/ace-in-the-hole?r=avi2&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
The final boss of Ace Derangement Syndrome

Gotta love a guy that tries to mask his lack of experience by vaguely stating he has experience in 3 separate sports organizations while omitting 2 of them were as a 3 month intern where he probably mostly fetched coffee.

As for his hack job article...

In his "Sources of Edge" word salad article he actually admits it would be a better indicator to incorporate not just college but pre-college shooting data to give a larger sample size...BUT when he decides to chainsaw Ace, guess what he decides not to do? Yup, pull his high school data, especially free throws which he goes on to repeatedly bring up as being a sign of a poor shooter.

His entire article is a generic broad sweep using only shooting % without context. Doesn't take into account situational shooting. Ace often found himself on the short-end of a shot clock hand grenade and had to put it up. It ignores Ace's strengths and good shooting %'s in C&S and guarded C&S (43.9%) (something I think is grossly understated in his evaluation by these experts) and off-screen C&S 3's (40.7%). He also declares Ace having low IQ; yet if you actually watch his games he shows elements of advanced IQ especially as it involves reading cuts and timing them; reading defensive rotations and relocating to the open spots.

Then we get to his, I guess we call it a paragraph about defense kinda? He just blanket discusses Ace as an on-ball defender and then baldly declares his lack of IQ probably makes him a bad team defender. His exact statement:

"It is plausible that Ace’s lack of basketball IQ will also seep into his play on the defensive end of the floor, particularly off the ball."

I mean wow, seriously? You want to post an article about how smart you are and how you use numbers "ooooo" and then you make that dumb as sh** statement? Rutgers relied on Ace to be their defacto rim protector from a weak side help. He was quite successful at it too given the shooting percentages of opponents when he got involved near the rim (I believe it was 40% or such). Ace has enough tape to show he is anything but a low IQ player and he provides A LOT of value as an off-ball defender. Yes he had lapses, so do many of these other prospects and even most pros do, that doesn't make him low IQ.

Look, I want people to challenge and question Ace as a player; I can't tell you how many times comments from 76, Negro and others have made me stop and go back to recheck what I saw versus how they see it. That's the best kind of soundboarding we can do with each other. What I can't stand, is guys who state in their analytical article they use X,Y,Z formula and then the first article they write they don't follow their own formula or he drops analytics altogether and starts pontificating about personal "presumptions" he makes based not on what he has seen or data he has; but based on what he's heard/read others have said (which by the way is literally the definition of group think).

I am being earnest when I ask this, and this is totally Ace aside, but why do you think HS FT percentage matters? I just did a stroll down the list of top scorers in the league who went to college:

Name (college FT%)
1) SGA (81.7%)
2) Ant (77.2%)
3) Tatum (84.9%)
4) Booker (82.8%)
5) Trae (86.1%)
6) Herro (93.5%)
7) Cade (84.6%)
8) Harden (75.6%)
9) KAT (81.3%)
10) LaVine (69.1%)
11) Curry (87.6%)
12) DeRozan (64.6%)
13) Mitchell (78.8%)
14) Brunson (82%)
15) Durant (81.6%)
16) JJJ (79.7%)
17) Siakam (71.1%)
18) Garland (75%)
19) Coby White (80%)
20) Jalen Williams (78%)

So the outliers are LaVine, DeRozan, and Siakam. Three out of 20 had below 75% FT. Siakam is not surprising (and hasn't really improved all that much), the other two dropped in their respective drafts because of shooting concerns. The rest I doubt you can find their HS FT% because it wasn't important. I've been looking up Jaylen Brown, Fultz, LaVine HS FT% and can't find anything. So what is the benchmark in determining if a HS FT% has any importance at all?

It's a matter of sample sizes, especially when it comes to free throws which are a static shot. If Ace shot 80 or 90% in his entire H.S. career and has his Rutgers year it's more likely the Rutgers data is an aberration. And vice versa, if Ace was awful in high school and then suddenly shot 90% in 1 yr at Rutgers we'd still be concerned Rutgers was an aberration and not the norm.

H.S. numbers not being tracked is simple to explain. Times have changed and as the business of scouting becomes more mainstream and you have kids being scouted out of middle school; it's only natural these basketball schools are going to start recording and producing the stats. Go back and look at some early 2000's guys, there's a lot of advance metrics that weren't tracked or recorded.

[76ciology]

these were the most efficient half-court finishers among guards in the 2025 draft this past season (>55%):

dylan harper - 65.6%
kam jones - 65.3%
jase richardson - 63.8%
kasparas jakucionis - 61.8%
javon small - 57.3%
nolan traore - 56.6%

[zaz102]

https://nikoza2.substack.com/p/ace-in-the-hole?r=avi2&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
The final boss of Ace Derangement Syndrome

Gotta love a guy that tries to mask his lack of experience by vaguely stating he has experience in 3 separate sports organizations while omitting 2 of them were as a 3 month intern where he probably mostly fetched coffee.

As for his hack job article...

In his "Sources of Edge" word salad article he actually admits it would be a better indicator to incorporate not just college but pre-college shooting data to give a larger sample size...BUT when he decides to chainsaw Ace, guess what he decides not to do? Yup, pull his high school data, especially free throws which he goes on to repeatedly bring up as being a sign of a poor shooter.

His entire article is a generic broad sweep using only shooting % without context. Doesn't take into account situational shooting. Ace often found himself on the short-end of a shot clock hand grenade and had to put it up. It ignores Ace's strengths and good shooting %'s in C&S and guarded C&S (43.9%) (something I think is grossly understated in his evaluation by these experts) and off-screen C&S 3's (40.7%). He also declares Ace having low IQ; yet if you actually watch his games he shows elements of advanced IQ especially as it involves reading cuts and timing them; reading defensive rotations and relocating to the open spots.

Then we get to his, I guess we call it a paragraph about defense kinda? He just blanket discusses Ace as an on-ball defender and then baldly declares his lack of IQ probably makes him a bad team defender. His exact statement:

"It is plausible that Ace’s lack of basketball IQ will also seep into his play on the defensive end of the floor, particularly off the ball."

I mean wow, seriously? You want to post an article about how smart you are and how you use numbers "ooooo" and then you make that dumb as sh** statement? Rutgers relied on Ace to be their defacto rim protector from a weak side help. He was quite successful at it too given the shooting percentages of opponents when he got involved near the rim (I believe it was 40% or such). Ace has enough tape to show he is anything but a low IQ player and he provides A LOT of value as an off-ball defender. Yes he had lapses, so do many of these other prospects and even most pros do, that doesn't make him low IQ.

Look, I want people to challenge and question Ace as a player; I can't tell you how many times comments from 76, Negro and others have made me stop and go back to recheck what I saw versus how they see it. That's the best kind of soundboarding we can do with each other. What I can't stand, is guys who state in their analytical article they use X,Y,Z formula and then the first article they write they don't follow their own formula or he drops analytics altogether and starts pontificating about personal "presumptions" he makes based not on what he has seen or data he has; but based on what he's heard/read others have said (which by the way is literally the definition of group think).

I am being earnest when I ask this, and this is totally Ace aside, but why do you think HS FT percentage matters? I just did a stroll down the list of top scorers in the league who went to college:

Name (college FT%)
1) SGA (81.7%)
2) Ant (77.2%)
3) Tatum (84.9%)
4) Booker (82.8%)
5) Trae (86.1%)
6) Herro (93.5%)
7) Cade (84.6%)
8) Harden (75.6%)
9) KAT (81.3%)
10) LaVine (69.1%)
11) Curry (87.6%)
12) DeRozan (64.6%)
13) Mitchell (78.8%)
14) Brunson (82%)
15) Durant (81.6%)
16) JJJ (79.7%)
17) Siakam (71.1%)
18) Garland (75%)
19) Coby White (80%)
20) Jalen Williams (78%)

So the outliers are LaVine, DeRozan, and Siakam. Three out of 20 had below 75% FT. Siakam is not surprising (and hasn't really improved all that much), the other two dropped in their respective drafts because of shooting concerns. The rest I doubt you can find their HS FT% because it wasn't important. I've been looking up Jaylen Brown, Fultz, LaVine HS FT% and can't find anything. So what is the benchmark in determining if a HS FT% has any importance at all?

My argument is that there isn't a difference between taking a free throw in high school from college and college was a small sample size (30 games).

Compare to Brandon Ingram, who shot a worse free throw percentage in college than Bailey (68.2%) and is a career 79% free throw shooter. He's shot 62.2% to 87.8% free throws throughout his career.

If the high school percentage is true, it might not be 90% in the NBA, but should be significantly better than 69.2%.

[Negrodamus]

Spoiler:

Gotta love a guy that tries to mask his lack of experience by vaguely stating he has experience in 3 separate sports organizations while omitting 2 of them were as a 3 month intern where he probably mostly fetched coffee.

As for his hack job article...

In his "Sources of Edge" word salad article he actually admits it would be a better indicator to incorporate not just college but pre-college shooting data to give a larger sample size...BUT when he decides to chainsaw Ace, guess what he decides not to do? Yup, pull his high school data, especially free throws which he goes on to repeatedly bring up as being a sign of a poor shooter.

His entire article is a generic broad sweep using only shooting % without context. Doesn't take into account situational shooting. Ace often found himself on the short-end of a shot clock hand grenade and had to put it up. It ignores Ace's strengths and good shooting %'s in C&S and guarded C&S (43.9%) (something I think is grossly understated in his evaluation by these experts) and off-screen C&S 3's (40.7%). He also declares Ace having low IQ; yet if you actually watch his games he shows elements of advanced IQ especially as it involves reading cuts and timing them; reading defensive rotations and relocating to the open spots.

Then we get to his, I guess we call it a paragraph about defense kinda? He just blanket discusses Ace as an on-ball defender and then baldly declares his lack of IQ probably makes him a bad team defender. His exact statement:

"It is plausible that Ace’s lack of basketball IQ will also seep into his play on the defensive end of the floor, particularly off the ball."

I mean wow, seriously? You want to post an article about how smart you are and how you use numbers "ooooo" and then you make that dumb as sh** statement? Rutgers relied on Ace to be their defacto rim protector from a weak side help. He was quite successful at it too given the shooting percentages of opponents when he got involved near the rim (I believe it was 40% or such). Ace has enough tape to show he is anything but a low IQ player and he provides A LOT of value as an off-ball defender. Yes he had lapses, so do many of these other prospects and even most pros do, that doesn't make him low IQ.

Look, I want people to challenge and question Ace as a player; I can't tell you how many times comments from 76, Negro and others have made me stop and go back to recheck what I saw versus how they see it. That's the best kind of soundboarding we can do with each other. What I can't stand, is guys who state in their analytical article they use X,Y,Z formula and then the first article they write they don't follow their own formula or he drops analytics altogether and starts pontificating about personal "presumptions" he makes based not on what he has seen or data he has; but based on what he's heard/read others have said (which by the way is literally the definition of group think).

I am being earnest when I ask this, and this is totally Ace aside, but why do you think HS FT percentage matters? I just did a stroll down the list of top scorers in the league who went to college:

Name (college FT%)
1) SGA (81.7%)
2) Ant (77.2%)
3) Tatum (84.9%)
4) Booker (82.8%)
5) Trae (86.1%)
6) Herro (93.5%)
7) Cade (84.6%)
8) Harden (75.6%)
9) KAT (81.3%)
10) LaVine (69.1%)
11) Curry (87.6%)
12) DeRozan (64.6%)
13) Mitchell (78.8%)
14) Brunson (82%)
15) Durant (81.6%)
16) JJJ (79.7%)
17) Siakam (71.1%)
18) Garland (75%)
19) Coby White (80%)
20) Jalen Williams (78%)

So the outliers are LaVine, DeRozan, and Siakam. Three out of 20 had below 75% FT. Siakam is not surprising (and hasn't really improved all that much), the other two dropped in their respective drafts because of shooting concerns. The rest I doubt you can find their HS FT% because it wasn't important. I've been looking up Jaylen Brown, Fultz, LaVine HS FT% and can't find anything. So what is the benchmark in determining if a HS FT% has any importance at all?

It's a matter of sample sizes, especially when it comes to free throws which are a static shot. If Ace shot 80 or 90% in his entire H.S. career and has his Rutgers year it's more likely the Rutgers data is an aberration. And vice versa, if Ace was awful in high school and then suddenly shot 90% in 1 yr at Rutgers we'd still be concerned Rutgers was an aberration and not the norm.

H.S. numbers not being tracked is simple to explain. Times have changed and as the business of scouting becomes more mainstream and you have kids being scouted out of middle school; it's only natural these basketball schools are going to start recording and producing the stats. Go back and look at some early 2000's guys, there's a lot of advance metrics that weren't tracked or recorded.

I get your reasoning, but what data backs it up if there’s no data available, at least to us, prior to recent draft prospect? I’m willing to dismiss a bad FT% for a season if there’s data to suggest doing so.

[sodmoraes]

https://clutchpoints.com/nba/nba-stories/2025-nba-draft-big-board-3-0-rising-stars-top-10

Bailey can be a primary playmaker on the wing for his team, and he isn't scared of big moments against any opponent.

[x]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=bJcUtOCSwzTqqyZgysWpbQ[/x]

Thats his mamba mentality talking

[Stanford]

Ace is far superior upside prospect after cooper and harper.

It's true if you say so, I guess.

[zaz102]

Spoiler:

I am being earnest when I ask this, and this is totally Ace aside, but why do you think HS FT percentage matters? I just did a stroll down the list of top scorers in the league who went to college:

Name (college FT%)
1) SGA (81.7%)
2) Ant (77.2%)
3) Tatum (84.9%)
4) Booker (82.8%)
5) Trae (86.1%)
6) Herro (93.5%)
7) Cade (84.6%)
8) Harden (75.6%)
9) KAT (81.3%)
10) LaVine (69.1%)
11) Curry (87.6%)
12) DeRozan (64.6%)
13) Mitchell (78.8%)
14) Brunson (82%)
15) Durant (81.6%)
16) JJJ (79.7%)
17) Siakam (71.1%)
18) Garland (75%)
19) Coby White (80%)
20) Jalen Williams (78%)

So the outliers are LaVine, DeRozan, and Siakam. Three out of 20 had below 75% FT. Siakam is not surprising (and hasn't really improved all that much), the other two dropped in their respective drafts because of shooting concerns. The rest I doubt you can find their HS FT% because it wasn't important. I've been looking up Jaylen Brown, Fultz, LaVine HS FT% and can't find anything. So what is the benchmark in determining if a HS FT% has any importance at all?

It's a matter of sample sizes, especially when it comes to free throws which are a static shot. If Ace shot 80 or 90% in his entire H.S. career and has his Rutgers year it's more likely the Rutgers data is an aberration. And vice versa, if Ace was awful in high school and then suddenly shot 90% in 1 yr at Rutgers we'd still be concerned Rutgers was an aberration and not the norm.

H.S. numbers not being tracked is simple to explain. Times have changed and as the business of scouting becomes more mainstream and you have kids being scouted out of middle school; it's only natural these basketball schools are going to start recording and producing the stats. Go back and look at some early 2000's guys, there's a lot of advance metrics that weren't tracked or recorded.

I get your reasoning, but what data backs it up if there’s no data available, at least to us, prior to recent draft prospect? I’m willing to dismiss a bad FT% for a season if there’s data to suggest doing so.

I generally agree with you. It was reported by MaxPreps that he had a FT% of 89.7% in high school. Is this true? I don't know, but I would hope that Morey and the Sixers scouting department can verify.

[Black Mage]

Spoiler:

I am being earnest when I ask this, and this is totally Ace aside, but why do you think HS FT percentage matters? I just did a stroll down the list of top scorers in the league who went to college:

Name (college FT%)
1) SGA (81.7%)
2) Ant (77.2%)
3) Tatum (84.9%)
4) Booker (82.8%)
5) Trae (86.1%)
6) Herro (93.5%)
7) Cade (84.6%)
8) Harden (75.6%)
9) KAT (81.3%)
10) LaVine (69.1%)
11) Curry (87.6%)
12) DeRozan (64.6%)
13) Mitchell (78.8%)
14) Brunson (82%)
15) Durant (81.6%)
16) JJJ (79.7%)
17) Siakam (71.1%)
18) Garland (75%)
19) Coby White (80%)
20) Jalen Williams (78%)

So the outliers are LaVine, DeRozan, and Siakam. Three out of 20 had below 75% FT. Siakam is not surprising (and hasn't really improved all that much), the other two dropped in their respective drafts because of shooting concerns. The rest I doubt you can find their HS FT% because it wasn't important. I've been looking up Jaylen Brown, Fultz, LaVine HS FT% and can't find anything. So what is the benchmark in determining if a HS FT% has any importance at all?

It's a matter of sample sizes, especially when it comes to free throws which are a static shot. If Ace shot 80 or 90% in his entire H.S. career and has his Rutgers year it's more likely the Rutgers data is an aberration. And vice versa, if Ace was awful in high school and then suddenly shot 90% in 1 yr at Rutgers we'd still be concerned Rutgers was an aberration and not the norm.

H.S. numbers not being tracked is simple to explain. Times have changed and as the business of scouting becomes more mainstream and you have kids being scouted out of middle school; it's only natural these basketball schools are going to start recording and producing the stats. Go back and look at some early 2000's guys, there's a lot of advance metrics that weren't tracked or recorded.

I get your reasoning, but what data backs it up if there’s no data available, at least to us, prior to recent draft prospect? I’m willing to dismiss a bad FT% for a season if there’s data to suggest doing so.

Per MaxPreps site, he shot 89% FT.

[Negrodamus]

Spoiler:

It's a matter of sample sizes, especially when it comes to free throws which are a static shot. If Ace shot 80 or 90% in his entire H.S. career and has his Rutgers year it's more likely the Rutgers data is an aberration. And vice versa, if Ace was awful in high school and then suddenly shot 90% in 1 yr at Rutgers we'd still be concerned Rutgers was an aberration and not the norm.

H.S. numbers not being tracked is simple to explain. Times have changed and as the business of scouting becomes more mainstream and you have kids being scouted out of middle school; it's only natural these basketball schools are going to start recording and producing the stats. Go back and look at some early 2000's guys, there's a lot of advance metrics that weren't tracked or recorded.

I get your reasoning, but what data backs it up if there’s no data available, at least to us, prior to recent draft prospect? I’m willing to dismiss a bad FT% for a season if there’s data to suggest doing so.

I generally agree with you. It was reported by MaxPreps that he had a FT% of 89.7% in high school. Is this true? I don't know, but I would hope that Morey and the Sixers scouting department can verify.

No, I’m not talking about Ace, I’m talking about in total. Who are the HS +80% FT shooters who **** the bed in college only to rebound with a great FT% in the NBA? Ace will be the first with tangible evidence to my knowledge in the event he does.

I remember the Fultz conversation and taking the same stance that his FT was disqualifying only to be told by Fischella or done other draft guy that he was actually a good FT shooter in HS. No real data to back it up other than “trust me bro”. Completely different situation to Ace (at least I hope he’s not freestyling his shot improvements this off-season), but only other situation I can recall like this.

[youngcrev]

Ace is 18.. I'm not trading down for two rookies , a vet like cam johnson nor drafting a player who I think can play right now like VJ over upside. VJ is redundant and is not offensively gifted like that. He's 3 and D right now not Wade level prospect maybe Olidipo.? lol.... We are lucky to have the third pick. Draft highest upside Cooper, Harper or Ace.... I'm not getting cute with this pick bc everything is a crapshoot. Stop overating this team tryna find players like Jrue, white and bs that the Celtics won a chip with because we aint them. They built through the draft with Tatum and Brown. We are a lottery team with two old injury prone players on max contracts with multiyears left ...

Redundant with who? I don't see any guards that fit the profile on the team.

Grimes, easily. Except Grimes is exponentially better offensively currently.

Sort of I guess. I don't think he's anywhere near the athlete or playmaker on the defensive end.

We'll see offensively. I realize Grimes had a hell of a scoring run here, but I'm not really a believer given the circumstance.

He could very well be gone this summer anyway (I'd prefer that if someone is willing to give him a deal above MLE money).

[zaz102]

I get your reasoning, but what data backs it up if there’s no data available, at least to us, prior to recent draft prospect? I’m willing to dismiss a bad FT% for a season if there’s data to suggest doing so.

I generally agree with you. It was reported by MaxPreps that he had a FT% of 89.7% in high school. Is this true? I don't know, but I would hope that Morey and the Sixers scouting department can verify.

No, I’m not talking about Ace, I’m talking about in total. Who are the HS +80% FT shooters who **** the bed in college only to rebound with a great FT% in the NBA? Ace will be the first with tangible evidence to my knowledge in the event he does.

I remember the Fultz conversation and taking the same stance that his FT was disqualifying only to be told by Fischella or done other draft guy that he was actually a good FT shooter in HS. No real data to back it up other than “trust me bro”. Completely different situation to Ace (at least I hope he’s not freestyling his shot improvements this off-season), but only other situation I can recall like this.

Brandon Ingram:

HS SR Year: 79%
College: 68.2 %
NBA Career: 78.8%

[ProcessDoctor]

these were the most efficient half-court finishers among guards in the 2025 draft this past season (>55%):

dylan harper - 65.6%
kam jones - 65.3%
jase richardson - 63.8%
kasparas jakucionis - 61.8%
javon small - 57.3%
nolan traore - 56.6%

I have to use the phrase.

People are overthinking Jase Richardson. He’s a future All-Star.

[ProcessDoctor]

I generally agree with you. It was reported by MaxPreps that he had a FT% of 89.7% in high school. Is this true? I don't know, but I would hope that Morey and the Sixers scouting department can verify.

No, I’m not talking about Ace, I’m talking about in total. Who are the HS +80% FT shooters who **** the bed in college only to rebound with a great FT% in the NBA? Ace will be the first with tangible evidence to my knowledge in the event he does.

I remember the Fultz conversation and taking the same stance that his FT was disqualifying only to be told by Fischella or done other draft guy that he was actually a good FT shooter in HS. No real data to back it up other than “trust me bro”. Completely different situation to Ace (at least I hope he’s not freestyling his shot improvements this off-season), but only other situation I can recall like this.

Brandon Ingram:

HS SR Year: 79%
College: 68.2 %
NBA Career: 78.8%

Paul George’s freshman year was also 69.7%. He then came back as a sophomore and shot 90%. No idea what his HS numbers were though.

Edit: Jk, looks like he shot 75% as a HS senior.