2015 Draft Thread - Part 1

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Wood's more error-prone and takes more bad shots than both Looney and Portis - especially Portis. Wood turned it over 3.0 times per 40 minutes compare to Portis' 1.9 even though Portis scores about 3 more points per 40. Looney turned it over only 1.5, but that's not as impressive as Portis, because Looney didn't score a lot. None of these guys are going to do much as far as setting up their teammates - another thing that sets Kaminsky apart from them.

It sure would be neat to be in a position to draft Kaminsky.

[payitforward]

I have no Idea how any one can say that Looney is significantly better than Wood. Wood is a better Scorer, a better rebounder, and a better defender! He was on a bad team, put him with wall and he will get much much better. You can at least make a case for Portis being better.

Looney's numbers this Freshman year are about as good as Wood's numbers as a Sophomore. Compare those 2 sets of numbers, and you're right -- you can't give Looney much of an edge.

But Looney is a year younger than Wood. So, it's unfair to compare Looney's Freshman numbers to Wood's Sophomore numbers and conclude Wood is better than Looney at anything.

Wood's numbers as a Freshman are nowhere near as good as Looney's numbers this year. For example, they don't show he's a better rebounder; they show he's not as good a rebounder.

Yet, Wood only played 13 minutes a game as a Freshman. A small sample size -- so it's also a little unfair to make too much of those meh Freshman numbers.

All the same, Looney has had outstanding numbers for a Freshman PF -- he sticks out as a prospect in a way Wood doesn't.

It's about making bets. No one knows for sure whether either of them will be any good! Or Portis, for that matter.

[Sluggerface]

Sluggerface, I gotta watch scouting video on Wood and many, many others. I used to prefer to use statistics and intangibles like strength of competition, background information, and big games like the NCAA Tournament to shape my evaluation. I didn't like the eye tests that relied on measurables small or how I guy looked in one game.

For exsmple, back in the day Jared Jeffries was rated well above Carlos Boozer on draft night. Everything I evaluated said Boozer is better. Jeffries was the lottery pick. Boozer is still in the NBA. (I also had Boozer way ahead of Mike Dunleavy Jr. Stats proved me right.) Stats worked out on a LOT of other pospects. I busted on Morris Almond.

Now I have to give videos a look to do due diligence. Christian Wood might look better if I actually watch video footage of him playing. The DX videographer might be biased at times. I will also check out youtube.

Same of course on Looney, Portis. McCullogh, and others.

I am now convinced Tyus Jones is a good pick--kid has winning gene, big time! His stats aren't real impressive but his intangibles are way impressive.

I use them both. I've never subscribed to the notion that since the eye test is biased, it's a poor evaluator of talent. You have to have basketball knowledge to realize what a player is doing well in the heat of the moment and the ability to visualize how that's going to play out in a 100 different scenarios, a 1000 different scenarios, etc. At the same time, stats help. Many people don't have the time to break down every single game that is being played at the collegiate level. For me, it's the other half of the information that is required to evaluate a player.

[Sluggerface]

I have no Idea how any one can say that Looney is significantly better than Wood. Wood is a better Scorer, a better rebounder, and a better defender! He was on a bad team, put him with wall and he will get much much better. You can at least make a case for Portis being better.

Looney's numbers this Freshman year are about as good as Wood's numbers as a Sophomore. Compare those 2 sets of numbers, and you're right -- you can't give Looney much of an edge.

But Looney is a year younger than Wood. So, it's unfair to compare Looney's Freshman numbers to Wood's Sophomore numbers and conclude Wood is better than Looney at anything.

Wood's numbers as a Freshman are nowhere near as good as Looney's numbers this year. For example, they don't show he's a better rebounder; they show he's not as good a rebounder.

Yet, Wood only played 13 minutes a game as a Freshman. A small sample size -- so it's also a little unfair to make too much of those meh Freshman numbers.

All the same, Looney has had outstanding numbers for a Freshman PF -- he sticks out as a prospect in a way Wood doesn't.

It's about making bets. No one knows for sure whether either of them will be any good! Or Portis, for that matter.

Looney is only 6 months younger than Wood. Looney also played on a far better team. We've already went over this.

[theboomking]

I know this is a dead horse, I still really want a big this year. The Wizards are looking gret in the playoffs, but a lot of that has been Pierce and Gooden, and that isn't sustainable over time. Gortat will probably last a while, but also isn't a Spring chicken, and Nene looks like he has lost a lot. We need some youth in the frontcourt, and there seems to be more frontcourt depth than usual in this draft.

I like Myles Turner best, but think he is going to go fairly far above our draft range. I like Kaminsky less, but he is also going to go too high. I'm not a big fan of Looney or Wood.

I have posted multiple times on the board about how much of a fit I think Portis would be. In his scouting video below, he looks like he could be an immediate fit on offense, and also looks like he could contribute to team defense despite not being a great rim protector. His FT% looks good, and I think he can stretch the floor a bit, but I don't think his 3 point shooting, which was over .460 this year, will hold up in the NBA. HIs form is too unorthodox. It also looks like Portis is a good passer, which would allow him to mesh well with Wall, Beal, Porter and Gortat.

Bobby Portis
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyxfkgW6jzo[/youtube]


Trey Lyles also could be available. He looks like you would have to hide him a bit on defense, but his offensive skill level looks excellent. He didn't shoot a high percentage from 3 this year, but his FT% is good and the form on his shot is beautiful. He is only 19, and just as Portis improved his 3 point shooting between year 1 and 2, I think Lyles is likely to improve from distance as well.

Trey Lyles
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwJxp46V1Do[/youtube]

[gambitx777]

I don't like that line of thinking. they OH but hes younger thing. I don;t care about that. I want to know what the kid can do. and Looney does not jump out at me like Portis and Wood do. Those kids have great size, They are pretty mobile and they are both really good defenders, Wood more so than Portis. Wood Can shoot better than Looney, defend better, rebounds better and he moves better. Plus the entire season he did it all with out help! He was not on a good team, Meaning the other teams were focused on him and he progressed and had a great season anyway.

[Rafael122]

I don't think Nene has lost it, I think the pace and opponents are dictating his playing time. He's going to be a very expensive bench player next season.

[Ruzious]

One player who was initially way overrated and then fell completely out of favor so he's now underrated is Andrew Harrison - the PG half of the Harrison twins. He failed to meet expectations, but he really wasn't that bad and showed some good qualities - he got to the line at a good rate and he had a good assist/to rate for a college PG. And he's a 6' freaking 6" 215 lb PG - and that's a solid 215. What he should be doing is making himself versatile enough to play the 2 as well as the 1. Lock himself in a gym and shoot at least 1,000 3's a day. His twin has a solid 3 ball. He's currently 47th on draftexpress' s mock (Wiz pick 49th) and not drafted on nbadraft.net - which has Aaron being drafted late.

[payitforward]

I have no Idea how any one can say that Looney is significantly better than Wood. Wood is a better Scorer, a better rebounder, and a better defender! He was on a bad team, put him with wall and he will get much much better. You can at least make a case for Portis being better.

Looney's numbers this Freshman year are about as good as Wood's numbers as a Sophomore. Compare those 2 sets of numbers, and you're right -- you can't give Looney much of an edge.

But Looney is a year younger than Wood. So, it's unfair to compare Looney's Freshman numbers to Wood's Sophomore numbers and conclude Wood is better than Looney at anything.

Wood's numbers as a Freshman are nowhere near as good as Looney's numbers this year. For example, they don't show he's a better rebounder; they show he's not as good a rebounder.

Yet, Wood only played 13 minutes a game as a Freshman. A small sample size -- so it's also a little unfair to make too much of those meh Freshman numbers.

All the same, Looney has had outstanding numbers for a Freshman PF -- he sticks out as a prospect in a way Wood doesn't.

It's about making bets. No one knows for sure whether either of them will be any good! Or Portis, for that matter.

Looney is only 6 months younger than Wood. Looney also played on a far better team. We've already went over this.

That's a pretty good point, actually -- and it's 4 1/2 months not 6! But it doesn't matter whether he was on a better team, and it does matter that Wood has had an extra year of coaching and high-level experience.

Truth be told, all the same, it's impossible to say with much certainty that either will wind up better than the other.

[payitforward]

Sluggerface, I gotta watch scouting video on Wood and many, many others. I used to prefer to use statistics and intangibles like strength of competition, background information, and big games like the NCAA Tournament to shape my evaluation. I didn't like the eye tests that relied on measurables small or how I guy looked in one game.

For exsmple, back in the day Jared Jeffries was rated well above Carlos Boozer on draft night. Everything I evaluated said Boozer is better. Jeffries was the lottery pick. Boozer is still in the NBA. (I also had Boozer way ahead of Mike Dunleavy Jr. Stats proved me right.) Stats worked out on a LOT of other pospects. I busted on Morris Almond.

Now I have to give videos a look to do due diligence. Christian Wood might look better if I actually watch video footage of him playing. The DX videographer might be biased at times. I will also check out youtube.

Same of course on Looney, Portis. McCullogh, and others.

I am now convinced Tyus Jones is a good pick--kid has winning gene, big time! His stats aren't real impressive but his intangibles are way impressive.

I use them both. I've never subscribed to the notion that since the eye test is biased, it's a poor evaluator of talent. You have to have basketball knowledge to realize what a player is doing well in the heat of the moment and the ability to visualize how that's going to play out in a 100 different scenarios, a 1000 different scenarios, etc. At the same time, stats help. Many people don't have the time to break down every single game that is being played at the collegiate level. For me, it's the other half of the information that is required to evaluate a player.

I assume that it's this deep basketball knowledge that you have that makes you so absolutely sure Wood is a much better prospect than Looney?

Is that it? Don't hold back...

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Tyus Jones ... not if Cameron Payne is on the board ....

[fishercob]

Which of Towns, Okafor, Winslow, Mudiay, and Russell has the highest bust potential?

[Rafael122]

Which of Towns, Okafor, Winslow, Mudiay, and Russell has the highest bust potential?

Honestly I think Okafor. He has the most polished offensive game of him and Towns, but Okafor can't shoot free throws and he's a defensive liability which makes him useless as of now in late game situations. He's basically All Jefferson, can get you 20 and 10 with ease, but will probably give up just as many points if not more.

Towns shoots something like 80% from the free throw line, can play defense, block and rebound. Offensive game needs work but he can be a Tyson Chandler right now.

I don't know too much about Mudiay and I think Russell will have success in the pros. Winslow is more of a "if he can't get a consistent jump shot watch out" type of player.

[AFM]

Mudiay has the most superstar potential IMO

[stevemcqueen1]

I don't think Okafor will bust but I do agree he might have the lowest ceiling of those players. Al Jefferson is a very good player. But he's also not going to turn your franchise around. In the first two or three picks, you probably have to swing for upside to get the most value from the pick.

This is a draft where I would probably rather have pick three or four than two. That way I don't feel compelled to pick Okafor and then have Deangelo Russell haunt me for the rest of his career.

[Ruzious]

When Mudiay hurt his ankle - rather than waiting for him to heal, his China team cut him and replaced him with... Will Bynum. That - and the fact that I saw him play only once - in a HS all-star game - would make me vote for Mudiay.

[Severn Hoos]

Which of Towns, Okafor, Winslow, Mudiay, and Russell has the highest bust potential?

So, not to be pedantic or anything, but I do think the answer depends on what you have in mind when you say "bust". If "bust" includes "mildly disappointing relative to draft position but still a functional player" (think MKG, Tristan Thompson, OJ Mayo), then Winslow might be the guy. I think he'll be an effective player, but may be one that doesn't live up to the expectations that tend to come with being a Top 5 pick.

But if you're talking "bust" on the Anthony Bennett, Hasheem Tahbeet, Thomas Robinson level (there I did it again...) - then I don't think any of them are at all likely to fall into that category. I'd probably pick Mudiay, but only on the thinnest of reasons - in that I still have some lingering questions about maturity, etc. when he decided he'd rather play in China than at SMU. (I'm sure others will offer more background to the decision, and I hold this judgement very lightly.) Since Brandon Jennings is really the only other top prospect to take this route and has not exactly set the world on fire, the precedent is not a good one.

Towns will be very solid - excellent defender and an improving offensive game. I'd take him #1 by a hair over Okafor. Okafor will be a prolific scorer in the NBA, but won't have the same immense size advantage he did in most of his college games. His weaker defense is what would cause me to drop him behind Towns and could lead to a mild disappointment over the course of his career. And I expect Russell to have an impact at least that of Beal, Oladipo, and other SGs picked in the top 5 in recent drafts.

And with all that said - as much as I'd love to get one of those guys on the Wiz, I am much happier watching Paul Pierce & our young guys rip the hearts out of the Eastern Conference, just hope they can keep it up!

[nate33]

Looney's numbers this Freshman year are about as good as Wood's numbers as a Sophomore. Compare those 2 sets of numbers, and you're right -- you can't give Looney much of an edge.

But Looney is a year younger than Wood. So, it's unfair to compare Looney's Freshman numbers to Wood's Sophomore numbers and conclude Wood is better than Looney at anything.

Wood's numbers as a Freshman are nowhere near as good as Looney's numbers this year. For example, they don't show he's a better rebounder; they show he's not as good a rebounder.

Yet, Wood only played 13 minutes a game as a Freshman. A small sample size -- so it's also a little unfair to make too much of those meh Freshman numbers.

All the same, Looney has had outstanding numbers for a Freshman PF -- he sticks out as a prospect in a way Wood doesn't.

It's about making bets. No one knows for sure whether either of them will be any good! Or Portis, for that matter.

Looney is only 6 months younger than Wood. Looney also played on a far better team. We've already went over this.

That's a pretty good point, actually -- and it's 4 1/2 months not 6! But it doesn't matter whether he was on a better team, and it does matter that Wood has had an extra year of coaching and high-level experience.

Truth be told, all the same, it's impossible to say with much certainty that either will wind up better than the other.

I guess the good news is that there are several stretch four prospects who could be on the board when we pick. I don't know which one is best. I just know that I'm going to complain loudly when EG screws it up!

[Ruzious]

To sort of piggy back on what Sev said, Winslow reminds me of Andre Iguodola when he came out of school - real good defender, strong player with a questionable 3 point shot. He's much better in transition than in half court. If he doesn't have a consistent jumper than he could be a slightly poor man's Iggy - not really a bust but not what you want in a high 1st rounder.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I have no Idea how any one can say that Looney is significantly better than Wood. Wood is a better Scorer, a better rebounder, and a better defender! He was on a bad team, put him with wall and he will get much much better. You can at least make a case for Portis being better.

Looney's numbers this Freshman year are about as good as Wood's numbers as a Sophomore. Compare those 2 sets of numbers, and you're right -- you can't give Looney much of an edge.

But Looney is a year younger than Wood. So, it's unfair to compare Looney's Freshman numbers to Wood's Sophomore numbers and conclude Wood is better than Looney at anything.

Wood's numbers as a Freshman are nowhere near as good as Looney's numbers this year. For example, they don't show he's a better rebounder; they show he's not as good a rebounder.

Yet, Wood only played 13 minutes a game as a Freshman. A small sample size -- so it's also a little unfair to make too much of those meh Freshman numbers.

All the same, Looney has had outstanding numbers for a Freshman PF -- he sticks out as a prospect in a way Wood doesn't.

It's about making bets. No one knows for sure whether either of them will be any good! Or Portis, for that matter.

Looney had other good rebounders on his UCLA team. He's probably a much more prolific rebounder than stats show.