Player Comparisons Thread

[David Worthy]

Haven't seen someone doing this comparison, but the ultimate potential for Jahil Okafor is... Tim Duncan. If you check how Duncan was when he was coming to the NBA, he was very similar to Jahil: very good post player, 60% FT shooter, mediocre mid range shot. But of course Timmy, with the help of the Spurs, became a 80% FT shooter and developed a great mid range shot.

Of course this is the best scenario possible which probably won't happen.

More realistically, Okafor can become a Al Jefferson/Brook Lopez/Monroe type player.

[Barnsey]

Tim Duncan was a 1,000,000,000 x the defender Okafor was coming in. Also was a much better passer. Okafor is a bit one dimensional

[LloydFree]

D'angelo Russell
Best: Stephen Curry
Midd: Deron Williams
Worst: OJ Mayo

Karl Towns:
Best: Rasheed Wallace
Midd: Bogut
Worst: Raef Lafrentz

Jahlil Okafor:
Best: Tim Duncan (with no defense)
Midd: Brook Lopez(w better passing, less range)
Worst: Eddie Curry

Emmanuel Mudiay:
Best: Derrick Rose (w less speed)
Midd: J'rue Holiday
Worst: Antonio Daniels

Justise Winslow:
Best: Gerald Wallace
Midd: Gerald Henderson (stronger)
Worst: George Lynch

Willie Caulie-Stein:
Best: Tyson Chandler
likely: Sam Dalembert
Worst: Javalle Mghee

[Xanadu]

A lot of these comps are crazy optimistic even the medium ones. But whatever I am not even going try but please stop comparing guys to rookies or player not even close to being developed yet. Like the Towns Hortford comparison though. Makes a lot of sense.

[Westbreezy]

Tim Duncan was a 1,000,000,000 x the defender Okafor was coming in. Also was a much better passer. Okafor is a bit one dimensional

Duncan was also 21 when he was drafted while Okafor is only 19. Not gonna pretend like I knew what kind of prospect Duncan was coming in, but wasn't he not super impressive as a freshman? I remember reading that it wasn't until his sophomore year that people were projecting him to be one of the top picks in the draft even though he decided to stay until he graduated

[LloydFree]

Tim Duncan was a 1,000,000,000 x the defender Okafor was coming in. Also was a much better passer. Okafor is a bit one dimensional

Duncan was also 21 when he was drafted while Okafor is only 19. Not gonna pretend like I knew what kind of prospect Duncan was coming in, but wasn't he not super impressive as a freshman? I remember reading that it wasn't until his sophomore year that people were projecting him to be one of the top picks in the draft even though he decided to stay until he graduated

Duncan was 1,000x more athletic as a Freshman. Much thinner, and much more spring than Okafor. Duncan was not nearly as hyped as Okafor as a Freshman, because coming into his Freshman year, Rasheed Wallace was the top big man in the country in HS, and Joe Smith out-produced both of them as Freshmen. Duncan was hyped as a sophomore, but Kevin Garnett was a HS senior by then, and the best HS prospect in over a decade. So no, Duncan wasnt as hyped as Okafor as a prospect at the same stage, but he was a much better athlete and he had much more competition for hype.

[No-Man]

competition for hype, helluva of a concept

[BoutPractice]

Any mass comparison is going to be both overly optimistic and overly pessimistic.

But one thing is for certain: the track record overwhelmingly shows that most safe, 'medium' comparisons turn out to be wrong. In the high lottery, you can actually find a Stephen Curry... just as you can find a Johnny Flynn.

That's because any draft produces a random combination of megastars (low odds in a pool of 100ish NBA worthy players), perennial all-stars, all-stars, role players, chuckers/head cases, injured "what ifs", roster filler, and horrific busts who will be out of the league in 3 years... and it's not clear in advance who will be what.

In other words, the NBA quickly magnifies differences between prospects, to the extent that they're no longer even in the same category of effectiveness. Therefore the average outcome is only a product of extremes. For example, it may seem right now that Justise Winslow and Stanley Johnson are relatively comparable prospects... 7 years from now, I can almost guarantee that won't be the case. Maybe one will be a perennial all-star and the other a role player (but which one?)...

Because a general 'medium scenario' comparison is always wrong (more precisely, the consensus rank of prospects is always wrong), you are much more likely to be right in your prediction if you state something truly bold. It is more likely, for instance, that the number 1 pick will be a superstar and the number 2 pick a bust, or vice versa, than it is that both picks will be somewhat good.

As for the implication when it comes to upper and lower bound, it means that people shouldn't be afraid to put a 'megastar' as their best case comparison... but also that they shouldn't be afraid to put 'out of the league' as their worst case scenario. Another implication, perhaps, is the need to be creative in assumptions - the real story will be chaotic and unpredictable, not neat and perfect. It helps to ask yourself strange "what if" questions and see if they hold up, questions like (and I'm not saying I believe those things): what if Towns turns out to be the superior offensive player and Okafor the superior defensive player? or: what if Mudiay is a shooting guard?