2025 Draft Class Strength?

[EMG518]

Yeah still not making sense to me, maybe I am the only one though.

An example, everyone thought 2011 draft was bad coming into draft day. Top 10 was actually bad as well looking back but the draft itself years later would not be considered a bad draft. The consensus was wrong. We got Kyrie, Kawhi, Klay, Butler. 4 HOF guys and all nba guys. We got Kemba, Vuecevic,, Tobias Harris, Valanciunas. We got the Morris twins, Tristan Thompson, Parsons, Reggie Jackson, Faried, Cory Joseph etc. This draft may be looked at one way coming in, and you may think it will be looked at the same way 5 years later and that's fine. What the exercise is though is not asking for the consensus on the draft now but what it would ultimately look like in the future. I personally don't see a lot of All nba potential in this draft, think it winds up being about above avg. Have a few guys I like but those guys I like I see as NBA players and not stars outside of a couple. You said 3rd best in the past 15 years so you obviously think differently.

Top 10
Kyrie Irving
Derrick Williams
Enes Kanter
Tristan Thompson
Jonas Valanciunas
Jan Vesely
Bismack Biyombo
Brandon Knight
Kemba Walker
Jimmer Fredette

[CptCrunch]

I think some of you are getting pulled away from the initial exercise.

How is this draft going to be viewed 5 years from now, not how does it compare at the time of the draft to other drafts. So it should take into consideration your projections from these players, what they look like 5 years from now and how does it compare to how past drafts ended up.

We have had plenty of drafts we went into thinking we're weak and turned out good and vice versa.

If we view the draft class as strong today, why would we have a different opinion on how the class will be viewed in 5 years? Shouldn't those be the same thing at this point? If anything giving the class 5 years instead of 2-3 should make it even stronger considering this class is so young which will give them even more time to fully develop.

Also, the OP specifically compared it to a previous class, so that is probably causing some of the confusion if we are all missing the point of the exercise.

Giving a class time, whether its 2-3 years, or 5 years, only allows for us to see how things play out. It doesn't automatically make it stronger because players are young and have time to develop. The development doesn't always go as planned, players under achieve their projections and there is more risk with a young player development wise.

If you're just going to go with the consensus and what is already projected, no point to post. This draft has a real #1 compared to this other draft, etc etc. We all already know what the consensus is and who is projected to go where and how they are viewed.

What do you think though this draft looks like 5 years from now compared to how other drafts turned out. Other drafts didn't have x and y in the top 5 but they wound up being in the draft later and drafts turned out good.

If you just are going chalk, everyone turns out how they are projected and is picked where they should that's fine as well. 5 years from now the draft is exactly what it was expected today and all the players turned out as expected so we can already know how this draft looks compared to other drafts aster 5 years.

You are not making sense at all

The point of evaluation to assess the unconditional expectation of the class at current point of time pre draft. No you don't get to look into the future or look backward retrospectively years later and make hindsight judgement.

No we don't compare the expectation of this class right now against the realized results of the past classes. That's now how scouting works, that's not show science works, that's not how forecasting works.

[EMG518]

If we view the draft class as strong today, why would we have a different opinion on how the class will be viewed in 5 years? Shouldn't those be the same thing at this point? If anything giving the class 5 years instead of 2-3 should make it even stronger considering this class is so young which will give them even more time to fully develop.

Also, the OP specifically compared it to a previous class, so that is probably causing some of the confusion if we are all missing the point of the exercise.

Giving a class time, whether its 2-3 years, or 5 years, only allows for us to see how things play out. It doesn't automatically make it stronger because players are young and have time to develop. The development doesn't always go as planned, players under achieve their projections and there is more risk with a young player development wise.

If you're just going to go with the consensus and what is already projected, no point to post. This draft has a real #1 compared to this other draft, etc etc. We all already know what the consensus is and who is projected to go where and how they are viewed.

What do you think though this draft looks like 5 years from now compared to how other drafts turned out. Other drafts didn't have x and y in the top 5 but they wound up being in the draft later and drafts turned out good.

If you just are going chalk, everyone turns out how they are projected and is picked where they should that's fine as well. 5 years from now the draft is exactly what it was expected today and all the players turned out as expected so we can already know how this draft looks compared to other drafts aster 5 years.

You are not making sense at all

The point of evaluation to assess the unconditional expectation of the class at current point of time pre draft. No you don't get to look into the future or look backward retrospectively years later and make hindsight judgement.

No we don't compare the expectation of this class right now against the realized results of the past classes. That's now how scouting works, that's not show science works, that's not how forecasting works.

That's actually 100% what you should be doing. If you aren't looking at the results and then looking back at what the forecasts were initially you are learning nothing and just repeating the exact same patterns of mistakes.

You aren't making any sense.

If you just agree with the mocks and the consensus that's your prerogative. If you don't feel that you have the bandwidth to look outside the consensus and state whether you think this draft will fair better than the realized results of others that's your own lack of projection and short comings.

[tmorgan]

Ok, I’ll try.

To me, it currently looks weak in the lottery starting at 3, but picks up due to depth. I think the consensus lottery picks are a complete mess, and a bunch of teams are going to make stupid picks.

But… since I think there are way more guys than usual with starter potential outside the projected lottery, in five years I’d expect this to be a significantly above-average draft in terms of total minutes produced by the draftees. I think a whole bunch of guys picked 15-35 or so are going to have significant careers.

[CptCrunch]

Giving a class time, whether its 2-3 years, or 5 years, only allows for us to see how things play out. It doesn't automatically make it stronger because players are young and have time to develop. The development doesn't always go as planned, players under achieve their projections and there is more risk with a young player development wise.

If you're just going to go with the consensus and what is already projected, no point to post. This draft has a real #1 compared to this other draft, etc etc. We all already know what the consensus is and who is projected to go where and how they are viewed.

What do you think though this draft looks like 5 years from now compared to how other drafts turned out. Other drafts didn't have x and y in the top 5 but they wound up being in the draft later and drafts turned out good.

If you just are going chalk, everyone turns out how they are projected and is picked where they should that's fine as well. 5 years from now the draft is exactly what it was expected today and all the players turned out as expected so we can already know how this draft looks compared to other drafts aster 5 years.

You are not making sense at all

The point of evaluation to assess the unconditional expectation of the class at current point of time pre draft. No you don't get to look into the future or look backward retrospectively years later and make hindsight judgement.

No we don't compare the expectation of this class right now against the realized results of the past classes. That's now how scouting works, that's not show science works, that's not how forecasting works.

That's actually 100% what you should be doing. If you aren't looking at the results and then looking back at what the forecasts were initially you are learning nothing and just repeating the exact same patterns of mistakes.

You aren't making any sense.

If you just agree with the mocks and the consensus that's your prerogative. If you don't feel that you have the bandwidth to look outside the consensus and state whether you think this draft will fair better than the realized results of others that's your own lack of projection and short comings.

Got it; making hindsight judgements after the draft is what you are advocating.

We are here making a call on how good/bad 2025 is. You are echoing your smart opnions on prior drafts because you actually saw how these players turned out. It's not like everyone else on these forums cannot read stats.

Tip 1: when comparing objects/people/things, compare them in the same frame of reference in this case pre-draft for every draft class.

Tip 2: when making a forecasting on anything including NBA prospects, stock prices, the weather tomorrow, make that forecast without future data.

[EMG518]

You are not making sense at all

The point of evaluation to assess the unconditional expectation of the class at current point of time pre draft. No you don't get to look into the future or look backward retrospectively years later and make hindsight judgement.

No we don't compare the expectation of this class right now against the realized results of the past classes. That's now how scouting works, that's not show science works, that's not how forecasting works.

That's actually 100% what you should be doing. If you aren't looking at the results and then looking back at what the forecasts were initially you are learning nothing and just repeating the exact same patterns of mistakes.

You aren't making any sense.

If you just agree with the mocks and the consensus that's your prerogative. If you don't feel that you have the bandwidth to look outside the consensus and state whether you think this draft will fair better than the realized results of others that's your own lack of projection and short comings.

Got it; making hindsight judgements after the draft is what you are advocating.

We are here making a call on how good/bad 2025 is. You are echoing your smart opnions on prior drafts because you actually saw how these players turned out. It's not like everyone else on these forums cannot read stats.

Tip 1: when comparing objects/people/things, compare them in the same frame of reference in this case pre-draft for every draft class.

Tip 2: when making a forecasting on anything including NBA prospects, stock prices, the weather tomorrow, make that forecast without future data.

How do you think models are made if not using existing data to model out future outcomes?

Youre going to ignore all the data after the drafts and just look at only data predraft to make predictions?

Genius idea, smh.

[CptCrunch]

That's actually 100% what you should be doing. If you aren't looking at the results and then looking back at what the forecasts were initially you are learning nothing and just repeating the exact same patterns of mistakes.

You aren't making any sense.

If you just agree with the mocks and the consensus that's your prerogative. If you don't feel that you have the bandwidth to look outside the consensus and state whether you think this draft will fair better than the realized results of others that's your own lack of projection and short comings.

Got it; making hindsight judgements after the draft is what you are advocating.

We are here making a call on how good/bad 2025 is. You are echoing your smart opnions on prior drafts because you actually saw how these players turned out. It's not like everyone else on these forums cannot read stats.

Tip 1: when comparing objects/people/things, compare them in the same frame of reference in this case pre-draft for every draft class.

Tip 2: when making a forecasting on anything including NBA prospects, stock prices, the weather tomorrow, make that forecast without future data.

How do you think models are made if not using existing data to model out future outcomes?

Youre going to ignore all the data after the drafts and just look at only data predraft to make predictions?

Genius idea, smh.

Missing the core nuiance in all of this. If you don't have a strong quantiative background, you probably wouldn't be able to grasp the difference here.

[EMG518]

Got it; making hindsight judgements after the draft is what you are advocating.

We are here making a call on how good/bad 2025 is. You are echoing your smart opnions on prior drafts because you actually saw how these players turned out. It's not like everyone else on these forums cannot read stats.

Tip 1: when comparing objects/people/things, compare them in the same frame of reference in this case pre-draft for every draft class.

Tip 2: when making a forecasting on anything including NBA prospects, stock prices, the weather tomorrow, make that forecast without future data.

How do you think models are made if not using existing data to model out future outcomes?

Youre going to ignore all the data after the drafts and just look at only data predraft to make predictions?

Genius idea, smh.

Missing the core nuiance in all of this. If you don't have a strong quantiative background, you probably wouldn't be able to grasp the difference here.

Yes, I am clearly missing a core nuance as to why you think the only way to look at things would be to compare players pre draft to other players pre draft.

We should definitely ignore all of the results we have already seen post draft, and it's definitely not possible to make a prediction about how this group pre draft will look 5 years from now compared to other groups post draft.

[brackdan70]

Flagg and Harper are number one picks in 90% of drafts.
3 through 7 or 8 feel pretty typical. Down to 15 or so feels better than average but not fantastic. Through the rest of the first and maybe into the second seems strong to me. Lots of guys to like in that range. Later in the second feels weak.
Over all I think the draft is in the top 75% of drafts.

[FarBeyondDriven]

I think some of you are getting pulled away from the initial exercise.

How is this draft going to be viewed 5 years from now, not how does it compare at the time of the draft to other drafts. So it should take into consideration your projections from these players, what they look like 5 years from now and how does it compare to how past drafts ended up.

We have had plenty of drafts we went into thinking we're weak and turned out good and vice versa.

yeah, unfortunately this happened last year too. I'm not asking to compare draft classes as they were thought of on draft night. I'm asking to project forward 5 years when all players are developed and we know how strong it is and compare it to past drafts that we likewise have that info on as well.

it's too difficult to pin down what the consensus was for past draft classes going into drafts. But we can determine draft strengths for draft classes that enough time has elapsed to allow everyone to develop into the player they're going to be.

I like doing these exercises because it's funny to me that seemingly every year the consensus by "experts" and on here has been wrong. If the class is thought of as strong it ends up weak and vice versa. That has been the pattern since 2015 (not counting the obviously loaded no-brainer 2017 and 2018 classes everyone seemed to agree on) and 2023 looks to be holding serve though it's early. It's too early for 2024 of course as well.

[FarBeyondDriven]

I think the top 25 are looking quite good. Very good top 2 but the lottery isn't as great as I thought initially and does not look comparable to the best drafts in recent years but still above average IMO. Later depth seems pretty poor due to NIL money, though. All in all, above average seems about right.

That said, a draft class can be good coming in and still not be considered good down the road. It takes just a couple players not working out, for a host of reasons, to fundamentally shape the outcome. The same is true the other way around. Thus, assessing the strength of the draft class at the time of the draft is not the same as predicting with certainty how it will pan out (even though I'm sure this thread is intended to create ‘gotcha’ moments down the road).

that's exactly what it's intended for but since I'm also providing my opinion I could be the one that gets got. I'm not a afraid to defend my opinions.

[FarBeyondDriven]

I think some of you are getting pulled away from the initial exercise.

How is this draft going to be viewed 5 years from now, not how does it compare at the time of the draft to other drafts. So it should take into consideration your projections from these players, what they look like 5 years from now and how does it compare to how past drafts ended up.

We have had plenty of drafts we went into thinking we're weak and turned out good and vice versa.

If we view the draft class as strong today, why would we have a different opinion on how the class will be viewed in 5 years? Shouldn't those be the same thing at this point? If anything giving the class 5 years instead of 2-3 should make it even stronger considering this class is so young which will give them even more time to fully develop.

Also, the OP specifically compared it to a previous class, so that is probably causing some of the confusion if we are all missing the point of the exercise.

It IS confusing I admit. Every draft class has a consensus strength based on opinions from analysts, scouts, experts, fans, etc. pre-draft. Let's use 2018 and 2024 as examples. 2018 was widely considered very good going into it. 2024 was widely considered very weak going into it. This exercise allows for a detachment from the groupthink. Like if I asked the board this in 2018 and people said elite/all-time instead of great/good/average/weak than they'd be more right. When I asked this last year overwhelmingly most had 2024 as being weak or very weak so if it's average or above, those guessing that would be more right.

I watch an absurd amount of videos pertaining to the NBA draft and have read most sites mocks and Big Boards so I know this 2025 class is considered great according to the consensus. I just want to see where people stand.

Why? Well, most think they know better than others and this can either help prove they do or prove that they don't. If enough evidence piles up to show someone is really good at this then their opinions should be respected and elevated. But if enough evidence piles up to show someone is clueless then it's justifiable to take their opinions with a grain of salt.

But really, it's mostly about having a record we can point to to remind ourselves of our takes. I know I look back and find faulty reasoning and biases clouding my judgement and seeing it hopefully prevents it from happening again (it never does )

[FarBeyondDriven]

Worst since 2015, you're smoking something. It's better than last year.

I would say it ends up between Avg and Good, closer to Avg.

I know I've got a very different opinion about last year's class. Opened myself up for deserved ridicule taking a strong stance seemingly opposed to everyone.

[EvanZ]

The front end of this draft is still very strong. The back part of it has become absurdly dismal with all these kids going back for NIL money (which to be clear is probably a good move for most).

[CptCrunch]

Second round this year may be complete garbage. We only have like 75 declared entrants?

I want to see a team draft a player who has not declared but has become automatically eligible this year, like an undeclared senior who has exhausted eligibilities.

[BigGargamel]

I want to say below average, but I think Flagg pushes it to at least average. He's not generational, but it's hard to call a draft below average when you have a potential multi time All Star available at the top. He's in that Derrick Rose/Blake Griffin/Anthony Davis/Karl-Anthony Towns tier for me.

The depth is what's hurting this draft. The NIL has sucked almost all of those late 1st/2nd round guys out of this draft. Tankathon has the following sophomores/juniors ranked in their top 50

Collin Murray-Boyles
Rasheer Fleming
Danny Wolf
Tyrese Proctor
Yanic Konan Niederhauser

That's it! FIVE sophomores/juniors!

So you still have quite a few freshmen, a decent amount of seniors, and a good mix of foreign players, but the complete lack of sophomores and juniors available really destroy the untapped talent you can get in the second round. Not to mention, in past years you could choose a few second round freshmen in hopes that they turn into something, but Drake Powell literally looks like the only freshman that could fall out of the first round. If I was to do a full two round mock I'd struggle to fill out all 59 slots. I can't remember ever seeing a full class this shallow. It's pretty crazy.

Flagg keeps this class from being a dud, but the complete lack of depth kills the second round. I'll be conservative and say "average".

[Chuck Everett]

Will be interesting to see if the latter half of the first round has a run on international players to draft and stash them (and thus give another year of development before starting the rookie contract clock).

[Dat2U]

As a Wizards fan, i see the draft weak at the top and in star quality but with extremely good depth and opportunity to find starter quality guys later in the 1st round.

I hate having the 6th pick
I love having the 18th pick.

Top 4 ish and draft becomes completely flat for next 20 picks or so. Because of the guys that returned to school, the draft loses alot of steam around pick 40 or so.

[JMAC3]

I think players pulling out for NIL has hurt the depth of the class is really overrated. Zero Lottery players pulled out of the draft, it is mostly guys ranked 25-50 at best. Yaxel Landebourg, Tahaad Pettiford, LaBaron Philon and Alex Condon maybe were going in the 25-35 range in their best outcomes IMO. Then Otega Oweh, Myles Byrd, Karter Knox, Darrion Williams, Mackenzie Mgbako and Milos Uzan all had cases to go in the 2nd round.

None of these guys are shifting the draft landscape from good to bad draft.

Last year CMB and Proctor went back to school as possible late firsts.
Year before that Clingan and Filipowski went back to school as possible lotterry picks.
Cody Zeller and Miles Bridges were probably lottery picks that went back to school in the past.

I would argue that any of those is bigger factor than Alex Condon and LaBaron Philon going back to school.

[Chokic]

This years draft overall is good better than last year but lottery is very meh and 2nd rd depth is very shallow due to so many withdrawals. Mid to late 1st rd of 2025 has some gems. Next year's draft is loaded.

1. Nate Ament
2. Darryn Peterson
3. Aj Dybantsa
4. Chris Cenac jr
5. Cam Boozer
6. Caleb Wilson
7. Jayden Quaintance
8. Koa Peat
9. Flory Bidunga
10. Alijah Arenas
11. Donnie Freeman
12. Tahaad Pettiford
13. Karter Knox
14. Ian Jackson
15. Jt Toppin
16. Labaron Philon
17. Boogie Fland
18. Yaxel Landeborg
19. Tounde Yessofou
20. Dame Sarr
21. Kanon Catchings
22. Mikel Brown Jr
23. Silas Demary jr
24. Dash Daniels
25. Darius Acuff
26. Karim Lopez
27. Brayden Burries
28. Xaivian Lee
29. Tomislav ivisic
30. Mackenzie Mgbako

Jahlil Bethea
Meleek Thomas
Alex Karaban
Dj Wagner
Otega Oweh
Alex Condon
Joson Sanon
Adrian Wooley
Kam Williams
Bennett Stirz
Richie Saunders
Pj Haggerty
Patrick Nongba
Milos Uzan
Jojo Tugler
Braden Smith
Donovan Dentt