BillyGM wrote:Rapsfan07 wrote:Tortiglioni wrote:
How about asking for some actual basketball skills. Ranking prospects based solely on physical measurements is a quick way to draft a bust.
Don't get me wrong, I like the potential of Inglis. But he is not going to be draft at #20.
Agreed. I love Inglis' potential but at #20, he's a massive reach. I think we gotta take a skilled guy at #20 (Payne, Payton, Anderson, Hairston etc) and leave the gem mining til the second round.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
How is Inglis a massive reach and Capela isn't?
The biggest difference is that Capela has shown more while still being young. You'd have no argument from me if you were talking about Capela at 18 turning 19 last year vs Inglis at 19 this year. But Capela made substantial strides this year and was very productive over the 22 minutes that he played to give people more to go off than just his physical upside. Inglis is still largely physical upside. You have to extract his per minute production over a smaller sample size just as you would have had to do with Capela if he had declared last year.
Capela played 7 more minutes per game and was highly productive over the entire 22 minutes he played. We all know the limitations of PER but here, in the same league, it's probably as good as any way to quickly highlight the productive box score differences on a per minute basis between the two young players. Capela had a PER of 23.7 in the French league and a PER of 26.8 in Eurocup. Inglis had a PER of 14.4 and didn't play in Eurocup.
I like Inglis' upside, and I understand the logic in suggesting that Inglis is a better prospect at this age than Capela was last year at the same age but Capela didn't declare last year. He's coming out now and this year he gave scouts some highly productive minutes in both the regular season and tournaments to suggest he's taken that next step that you'd still only be hoping for Inglis to take. Upside with productivity to fall back on vs upside. That's the difference.
