2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread

[smittybanton]

The reason why we have a good chance at getting MAVS17(Okafor) and BKN/BOS17(Noel) is the same reason Ian Mahinmi, Bismack Biyombo and Timofey Mozgov got a boatload of money this past summer, because the only other options for 2017-2018 for a team like Dallas who needs a starting center are:

Brook Lopez (trade), Nikola Vucevic (trade), Greg Monroe (trade), Harry Giles (draft), Edrice Adebayo (draft), Kelly Olynyk (RFA), Andrew Bogut (UFA), Mason Plumlee (RFA), Javale McGee (UFA), Roy Hibbert (UFA), ALex Len (RFA), Zaza Pachulia (UFA), or Jeff Withey (UFA).

By far, Nerlens is the best defender of that group. He is the #1 rated center on the free agent market. And to the extent Lopez or Monroe or Vucevic are currecntly better than Okafor, Jahlil is much cheaper, which allows the team who acquires him to use their cap space for something else (defense). All that's before we consider adding future first round picks to sweeten the deal.

So if allowed my pipe dream, Tankathon just gave us #1 Lonzo Ball (PHI), #2 Josh Jackson (BKN), #5 Jayson Tatum/Miles Bridges (MAVS), and #6 Jonathan Isaac (BKN/BOS).

Ben Simmons, Stauskas/TLC, Robert Covington, Dario Saric, Joel Embiid
v.
Lonzo Ball, Josh Jackson, Bridges/Tatum, Jonathan Isaac, Joel Embiid

If Nerlens wants to stay, I'd pay him. Another spin of the Tankathon wheel with MAVS17, PHI/SAC17, and LAL17(x3) yields #3 Lonzo Ball, #5 Jonathan Isaac, and #6 Bridges/Tatum

Ben Simmons, Nik Stauskas, Robert Covington, Dario Saric, Joel Embiid
v.
Lonzo Ball, Timothe Luwawu-C, Bridges/Tatum, Jonathan Isaac, Nerlens Noel

[Slizeezyc]

I'm not sure why Ball seems to be treated with a bunch of skepticism by many people. He should be recognized as elite.

Two things that make people underestimate him I think are his ridiculous shooting form that just seems like it shouldn't work, and that he has been SO damn good that it seems too good to be true.

I mean he had high school stats that were so good that people assumed that they over estimated his talent, and thought that he couldn't continue with that production as he moves up to the next level. The stats are down in college, but still show the same elite skills.

I think that if people just judge him fairly with their eyes that he is clearly a special talent.

He is in the same ballpark as Simmons when it comes to passing and vision, and you can never have enough of that on the floor.

On top of that, he competes, and is a terrific spot up shooter. He is definitely capable of playing off the ball, and he can defend both back court spots.

I think that he is an excellent fit with our team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Simmons was on the level with Embiid/Towns/Davis/KD etc. as one of the best prospects in the past 10 years if you encapsulated all the more in-depth stats etc. (Fultz was on pace to be on that level as well earlier in the season, but I haven't checked as of late. I imagine he's still relatively close as I think he's only had one explicitly bad game as of late.)

Ball is not on that same level as Simmons and a couple others (at least not overall on a stats level) due to the entirety of his game (FT rate, usage, etc.), but I saw a Stockton offensive comparison the other day, and that was really intriguing and made sense on various levels looking at it. They are not the same player type, but seeing the numbers presented, it made the case quite well. Also, don't take that as me saying I don't think Ball can be as a good a pro or better than Simmons, just if we're going by the college numbers there is a gap in totality.

I feel like most who are defending Ball are taking things said as "criticisms" when they're really not criticisms. It's more like a couple "wait and see" things. Like, for example, he didn't shoot well at the few camps he went to, but he's shot well in college. I'm much more likely to take his college shooting numbers as real than the bad shooting numbers at camps.

To point out a low free-throw rate and lack of driving in the halfcourt are not criticisms, they're just realities right now. They can mean a couple different things still, it's just worth monitoring them. I also don't think saying "he needs the right system" is a criticism as most every player but like a top 10 player needs a system that works with them, rather than making the system on his own. Pointing these things out, isn't meant to diminish what he is elite at, more just to not lose sight of at least looking out for them.

On a couple other points, he has not shown he can defend the one. You can say he projects to be able to, but he's not been some stud guarding point of attack, pick and rolls and point guards. However, again, it's not really a big criticism. He's shown good team defensive instincts (he was literally never asked to play defense a day in his life before getting to UCLA), he should have an ability to switch late in the clock either way due to his size, and there's not much doubt he can at least guard a wing if the point guard thing doesn't work out. In other words, the floor is still high, so it's not worth overestimating his prowess right now when the floor is already solid in either case.

Either way, once again he's a great fit with the Sixers and with Simmons (and Embiid) by all accounts. He's a great kid, great competitor, has changed the UCLA culture, has intangibles out the ass, and has elite vision, passing skills and range.

[JojoSlimbiid]

Glad some of you aren't our talent evaluator's. Fultz is clearly the best prospect in the country, like is bizarre how people can watch him play compared to the other prospects and come to any other conclusion.

In your opinion, what is it that makes Fultz the best prospect?

He is the only player this college season that has consistently made NBA caliber plays offensively. His body control,skill around the rim, and ability hit contested jump shots(which he's doing at an absurd rate) is enough to sell me on him. Everything he does is something I can point to a high quality NBA player right now that makes similar moves.

His defense is suspect but outside of Josh Jackson(my #2) most of these prospects have suspect defense. He's just impressed me going back to the U-18 games and everything.

[smittybanton]

The reason why we have a good chance at getting MAVS17(Okafor) and BKN/BOS17(Noel) is the same reason Ian Mahinmi, Bismack Biyombo and Timofey Mozgov got a boatload of money this past summer, because the only other options for 2017-2018 for a team like Dallas who needs a starting center are:

Brook Lopez (trade), Nikola Vucevic (trade), Greg Monroe (trade), Harry Giles (draft), Edrice Adebayo (draft), Kelly Olynyk (RFA), Andrew Bogut (UFA), Mason Plumlee (RFA), Javale McGee (UFA), Roy Hibbert (UFA), ALex Len (RFA), Zaza Pachulia (UFA), or Jeff Withey (UFA).

By far, Nerlens is the best defender of that group. He is the #1 rated center on the free agent market. And to the extent Lopez or Monroe or Vucevic are currecntly better than Okafor, Jahlil is much cheaper, which allows the team who acquires him to use their cap space for something else (defense). All that's before we consider adding future first round picks to sweeten the deal.

So if allowed my pipe dream, Tankathon just gave us #1 Lonzo Ball (PHI), #2 Josh Jackson (BKN), #5 Jayson Tatum/Miles Bridges (MAVS), and #6 Jonathan Isaac (BKN/BOS).

Ben Simmons, Stauskas/TLC, Robert Covington, Dario Saric, Joel Embiid
v.
Lonzo Ball, Josh Jackson, Bridges/Tatum, Jonathan Isaac, Joel Embiid

If Nerlens wants to stay, I'd pay him. Another spin of the Tankathon wheel with MAVS17, PHI/SAC17, and LAL17(x3) yields #3 Lonzo Ball, #5 Jonathan Isaac, and #6 Bridges/Tatum

Ben Simmons, Nik Stauskas, Robert Covington, Dario Saric, Joel Embiid
v.
Lonzo Ball, Timothe Luwawu-C, Bridges/Tatum, Jonathan Isaac, Nerlens Noel

TJ Maxx, Andre Igoudala (FA1), Tyreke Evans (FA2), Ersan Ilyasova (FA3), Richaun Holmes
D-League: Devonte Graham (Det2d), Furkan Korkmaz (2016)

[SelfishPlayer]

This is a quirky draft. Fultz would make much more sense as a player if he were 6'7". If only Ball didn't have the weird mechanics that people correlate to his lack of midrange, and why does Fox have to be such a historically bad college 3 point shooter? Josh Jackson is projected as a ball handling NBA SF, but he spends time at center for his college team while the many guards dominate the basketball. Monk, a short shooting guard... Jayson Tatum, a safe pick, although not exciting. Dennis Smith Jr. appears the least flawed to me right now as an individual. Ball and Fox look like two winners.

[Slizeezyc]

Glad some of you aren't our talent evaluator's. Fultz is clearly the best prospect in the country, like is bizarre how people can watch him play compared to the other prospects and come to any other conclusion.

In your opinion, what is it that makes Fultz the best prospect?

He is the only player this college season that has consistently made NBA caliber plays offensively. His body control,skill around the rim, and ability hit contested jump shots(which he's doing at an absurd rate) is enough to sell me on him. Everything he does it something I can point to a high quality NBA player right now that makes similar moves.

His defense is suspect but outside of Josh Jackson(my #2) most of these prospects have suspect defense. He's just impressed me going back to the U-18 games and everything.

Yeah this sort of encapsulates how I generally judge college players (sans feeling like he's the "only" one making NBA caliber plays on offense so far). I'm not too concerned about how the team does, I'm more just looking at translatable skills. It's why I have Fultz and Jackson 1 and 2 still. Fultz's ability to both get to the line, make tough shots, use body control and still put up relatively efficient numbers is worth a lot to me (plus how young he is, and how quickly he's come on as a prospect the last 3 years). I probably then go Ball 3 and then Smith 4, and then Isaac 5 at this point on a general big board. Even changing the order, or even who is in that top 5 depending on preferences, this still remains a really sick top 10 in terms of depth (but probably not "stars").

If I'm going pure upside, it's Fultz then Smith.

If I'm going team fit, it's probably Ball then Fultz then Jackson, but it's crazy close.

[Kobblehead]

There are different ways to get things done. Saying Ball isn't an elite prospect because he doesn't draw fouls as a slasher, is ignoring a whole bunch of his game. He shoots 3 FTS per game. So what. Curry and Thompson shot like 4 FTS per game until they were Juniors in college.

And let's be real, when we look at it from a free throw attempt generated per Usage perspective, Ball is operating at the same exact pace as the rest of these guys.

He's getting to the line 3+ times a game with a 17% usage. They're getting to the line 6+ times a game with usages up to and over 30.

It's like he's a victim of his own low-maintenance, proficient ways.

[Slizeezyc]

There are different ways to get things done. Saying Ball isn't an elite prospect because he doesn't draw fouls as a slasher, is ignoring a whole bunch of his game. He shoots 3 FTS per game. So what. Curry and Thompson shot like 4 FTS per game until they were Juniors in college.

And let's be real, when we look at it from a free throw attempt generated per Usage perspective, Ball is operating at the same exact pace as the rest of these guys.

He's getting to the line 3+ times a game with a 17% usage. They're getting to the line 6+ times a game with usages up to and over 30.

It's like he's a victim of his own low-maintenance, proficient ways.

I agree, on the whole, but usage does matter in terms of evaluating workloads and such both for efficiency and if that would actually mean more free throws and so on. It's why it's not an inherent negative for Ball, as I've mentioned, but it's still worth monitoring as it makes certain projections harder.

But I agree that, for the most part, it's out of his control. It's also sort of like Isaac vs. Tatum in that I think everyone wants to see Isaac do more, but the role is the role, and so he just doesn't get as many chances as Tatum, and so it's hard to do anything but project whether Isaac can handle more or not.

[LloydFree]

Glad some of you aren't our talent evaluator's. Fultz is clearly the best prospect in the country, like is bizarre how people can watch him play compared to the other prospects and come to any other conclusion.

In your opinion, what is it that makes Fultz the best prospect?

He is the only player this college season that has consistently made NBA caliber plays offensively. His body control,skill around the rim, and ability hit contested jump shots(which he's doing at an absurd rate) is enough to sell me on him. Everything he does is something I can point to a high quality NBA player right now that makes similar moves.

His defense is suspect but outside of Josh Jackson(my #2) most of these prospects have suspect defense. He's just impressed me going back to the U-18 games and everything.

OK. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. Assessing Body control is subjective, so I won't argue other than to say he doesn't seem to have elite body control to me. He seems to have below average lateral quickness. He's not the quick twitch athlete that you usually associate with being a star player. He does seem to have elite shooting potential though. And he has a good handle for a guy with long arms. Basically, when I hear that a prospect is clearly on a tier higher than everyone, I expect that prospect to have pretty clear elite level tools in multiple areas. In Fultz I see shooting and length as his elite attributes. He's not elite in any other aspect. He's a good prospect though.

[SelfishPlayer]

How is usage calculated for PG's? It doesn't seem possible. Ball will drive the lane to pass in scenarios where Fultz, and Smith would attempt to score/get fouled. Is that not tabulated as "use" for Ball? It's the same scenario but one type of guard has a score first mentality and the other would rather set up a teammate.

[Slizeezyc]

How is usage calculated for PG's? It doesn't seem possible. Ball will drive the lane to pass in scenarios where Fultz, and Smith would attempt to score/get fouled. Is that not tabulated as "use" for Ball? It's the same scenario but one type of guard has a score first mentality and the other would rather set up a teammate.

Usage is calculated the same way for any player.

I'll use the Basketball Reference definition as it's easiest to see:

Usg%

Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor.

I do get what you're trying to say in terms of finding stuff that encapsulates both assists and scoring, and that's more easily found in a base "offensive rating" though you can also use usage with something like an assist percentage as well if you want to keep it a little cleaner.

[SelfishPlayer]

How is usage calculated for PG's? It doesn't seem possible. Ball will drive the lane to pass in scenarios where Fultz, and Smith would attempt to score/get fouled. Is that not tabulated as "use" for Ball? It's the same scenario but one type of guard has a score first mentality and the other would rather set up a teammate.

Usage is calculated the same way for any player.

I'll use the Basketball Reference definition as it's easiest to see:

Usg%

Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor.

I do get what you're trying to say in terms of finding stuff that encapsulates both assists and scoring, and that's more easily found in a base "offensive rating" though you can also use usage with something like an assist percentage as well if you want to keep it a little cleaner.

Yeah that's flawed for such a name. A player can go one on one dribbling out the shot clock, drive into the paint, throw a bail out jump pass while only 18" away from the rim, just to have his teammate catch the basketball with one second left on then shot clock. That doesn't get calculated as usage for the first player, but in reality the player intended to lay the ball up but the defense made him throw a bail out pass. Usage doesn't work for PGs, but it's the same for everyone as you stated so if you value usage then... It's a garbage stat.

[Sixers2125]

Yeah Noel or Okafor could not fetch a lottery pick let alone a top 5 pick. Zero shot this happens. Those players got a big deals because the cap went way up and teams did not know what to do with all the extra cap space.

[Kobblehead]

In your opinion, what is it that makes Fultz the best prospect?

He is the only player this college season that has consistently made NBA caliber plays offensively. His body control,skill around the rim, and ability hit contested jump shots(which he's doing at an absurd rate) is enough to sell me on him. Everything he does is something I can point to a high quality NBA player right now that makes similar moves.

His defense is suspect but outside of Josh Jackson(my #2) most of these prospects have suspect defense. He's just impressed me going back to the U-18 games and everything.

OK. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. Assessing Body control is subjective, so I won't argue other than to say he doesn't seem to have elite body control to me. He seems to have below average lateral quickness. He's not the quick twitch athlete that you usually associate with being a star player. He does seem to have elite shooting potential though. And he has a good handle for a guy with long arms. Basically, when I hear that a prospect is clearly on a tier higher than everyone, I expect that prospect to have pretty clear elite level tools in multiple areas. In Fultz I see shooting and length as his elite attributes. He's not elite in any other aspect. He's a good prospect though.

Still think his outlook is silly. Ignoring the high talent wings for a second, Fultz hasn't even pulled away from the other top Gs in this draft, as of now. And that was before Dennis Smith was even in the equation. He might wind up passing everyone.

[Slizeezyc]

How is usage calculated for PG's? It doesn't seem possible. Ball will drive the lane to pass in scenarios where Fultz, and Smith would attempt to score/get fouled. Is that not tabulated as "use" for Ball? It's the same scenario but one type of guard has a score first mentality and the other would rather set up a teammate.

Usage is calculated the same way for any player.

I'll use the Basketball Reference definition as it's easiest to see:

Usg%

Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor.

I do get what you're trying to say in terms of finding stuff that encapsulates both assists and scoring, and that's more easily found in a base "offensive rating" though you can also use usage with something like an assist percentage as well if you want to keep it a little cleaner.

Yeah that's flawed for such a name. A player can go one on one dribbling out the shot clock, drive into the paint, throw a bail out jump pass while only 18" away from the rim, just to have his teammate catch the basketball with one second left on then shot clock. That doesn't get calculated as usage for the first player, but in reality the player intended to lay the ball up but the defense made him throw a bail out pass. Usage doesn't work for PGs, but it's the same for everyone as you stated so if you value usage then... It's a garbage stat.

Well, kind of, but you're sort of reading it wrong. Team turnover percentage, free throw attempts and such are still going to grab some of that sort of noise.

Going by past interactions I've read with you, I think you generally take a lot of stats as garbage, and that's fine. Usage isn't something you use on its own, you use it in tandem with a whole bunch of other things to then show an overarching point. Hence why usage is then used in addition to efficiency or usage is used with assist percentages and all that to better figure out what the player is doing based on his position. So when people talk about usage, it's sometimes with the thought in mind that they are looking to see if that player takes "bad" shots and such because it's going to reflect in other areas.

Also, to just use one very specific example and then say "well, duh, clearly a bad stat see" is overly simplistic and not a great way to go about judging any stat. And I'm sorry you think "usage" is a bad name.

[Slizeezyc]

He is the only player this college season that has consistently made NBA caliber plays offensively. His body control,skill around the rim, and ability hit contested jump shots(which he's doing at an absurd rate) is enough to sell me on him. Everything he does is something I can point to a high quality NBA player right now that makes similar moves.

His defense is suspect but outside of Josh Jackson(my #2) most of these prospects have suspect defense. He's just impressed me going back to the U-18 games and everything.

OK. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. Assessing Body control is subjective, so I won't argue other than to say he doesn't seem to have elite body control to me. He seems to have below average lateral quickness. He's not the quick twitch athlete that you usually associate with being a star player. He does seem to have elite shooting potential though. And he has a good handle for a guy with long arms. Basically, when I hear that a prospect is clearly on a tier higher than everyone, I expect that prospect to have pretty clear elite level tools in multiple areas. In Fultz I see shooting and length as his elite attributes. He's not elite in any other aspect. He's a good prospect though.

Still think his outlook is silly. Ignoring the high talent wings for a second, Fultz hasn't even pulled away from the other top Gs in this draft, as of now. And that was before Dennis Smith was even in the equation. He might wind up passing everyone.

I would say this is more an issue with guards than anything Fultz has done. If you think about the past X drafts, there hasn't been a guard who is a consensus number one, and very rarely is a guard a consensus number one. With a big, or even a "special" forward like Simmons in terms of size to skills, it's really easy to use the stats + what he's doing at his size, and say "slam dunk" for this dude being number one. To put it another way, if the player isn't "unique" in terms of size for position or a skill for the position, then he has less intrigue for being the first pick. Like, if Simmons puts up the numbers he did as just a 6-5 SG he's still a great prospect, but he's not the slam dunk first pick.

With guards, it's rarely that easy to say he's head and shoulders above the other guards if there's clearly other good ones also around. It's like the Deron Williams/Chris Paul stuff etc. when they were coming out.

I think it's really cool that's the case though because it makes scouting more fun for guards. I also think the "lead guard" is like the most important thing beyond "have best player in NBA regardless of position" in terms of NBA success, but figuring out who ends up as the lead guard is hard to decipher.

I think Smith and Fultz are the only two "lead guards" in terms of creating and finishing right now based purely on their body of work. But that's sort of based on the idea of archetypes that Cole Zwicker (https://capstrategist.com/draft-frameworkplayer-archetypes/los-angeles-lakers/category-3-offensive-scheme-changers/) talks about.

[LloydFree]

He is the only player this college season that has consistently made NBA caliber plays offensively. His body control,skill around the rim, and ability hit contested jump shots(which he's doing at an absurd rate) is enough to sell me on him. Everything he does is something I can point to a high quality NBA player right now that makes similar moves.

His defense is suspect but outside of Josh Jackson(my #2) most of these prospects have suspect defense. He's just impressed me going back to the U-18 games and everything.

OK. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. Assessing Body control is subjective, so I won't argue other than to say he doesn't seem to have elite body control to me. He seems to have below average lateral quickness. He's not the quick twitch athlete that you usually associate with being a star player. He does seem to have elite shooting potential though. And he has a good handle for a guy with long arms. Basically, when I hear that a prospect is clearly on a tier higher than everyone, I expect that prospect to have pretty clear elite level tools in multiple areas. In Fultz I see shooting and length as his elite attributes. He's not elite in any other aspect. He's a good prospect though.

Still think his outlook is silly. Ignoring the high talent wings for a second, Fultz hasn't even pulled away from the other top Gs in this draft, as of now. And that was before Dennis Smith was even in the equation. He might wind up passing everyone.

I mean it's all opinion, and he's a good player, so I won't crucify anyone who believes Fultz is the best prospect. I just don't get this notion that he is "clearly the best prospect". It's not clear to me at all. I see at least 5 players right now that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were better NBA players than Fultz. A guy that is considered clearly better than everyone should at least either be physically dominant over his peers or have multiple tools that are elite. I don't see it with Fultz. He has good tools, not NBA elite tools.

[Negrodamus]

I'm actually expecting Frank Ntilikina to push many of these guards in the months approaching the draft. He has shown that he can use his length defensively, is a massive guard, and has shown an improving three point shot.

[Kobblehead]

@Slizeezyc, I'm saying very specifically that Fultz has not played well enough to pass any of these other Gs.

Three years ago, Marcus Smart was clearly the best guard prospect in the draft.
Two years ago, D'Angelo Russell was clearly the best guard prospect in the draft.
Last year, Kris Dunn was clearly the best guard prospect in the draft.

From an age-to-excellence and performance perspective, how can anyone say Markelle Fultz has been better than (let alone well ahead of the pack of) Lonzo Ball, Malik Monk or De'Aaron Fox? From a skillset perspective, how can anyone say Markelle Fultz is clearly ahead of Dennis Smith Jr.?

To me, Markelle Fultz is very much within the pack and not pulling ahead of any of these guys. And in terms of projecting skillsets, Dennis Smith ticks every box Fultz does with even better physical ability and grit.

[Kobblehead]

Anyone watching ESPNU? Dennis Smith is going off tonight in a close game against Georgia Tech. 20 points (3 threes, 7 free throw makes), 3 boards, 3 assists at halftime.