2018 NBA Draft

[Marcus]

How is this so complicated? Fultz would look bigger and more skilled playing against high school players; Porter would look not as big or skilled had he had been a college freshman this year.

lol. so you know that for a fact?

Yes, I know for a fact that college players are bigger and more skilled than high school players, so one looks more skilled relative to the competition when playing against high schoolers.

So there's no way possible any of what Porter does on the court translates to the college game?

[reanimator]

You very well may be right. Not the point I was making though.

Are teams taking Harrison Barnes over Steph Curry? Paul George over Harden?

Dunno depends on the team.

Teams took Darko and Bosh over D-Wade. Definitely took Thabeet over Harden and Curry. Reaches and poor decisions are made in the draft. This is a known thing. Porter presents physical gifts over Fultz that may influence teams and scouts into thinking he's the better prospect. Not a foreign concept.

Ah gotcha, you're arguing from the perspective of a GM rather than personal opinion. My initial post was a personal opinion, not what could happen given the decision making of GMs and scouts.

[Marcus]

Are teams taking Harrison Barnes over Steph Curry? Paul George over Harden?

Dunno depends on the team.

Teams took Darko and Bosh over D-Wade. Definitely took Thabeet over Harden and Curry. Reaches and poor decisions are made in the draft. This is a known thing. Porter presents physical gifts over Fultz that may influence teams and scouts into thinking he's the better prospect. Not a foreign concept.

Ah gotcha, you're arguing from the perspective of a GM rather than personal opinion. My initial post was a personal opinion, not what could happen given the decision making of GMs and scouts.

I figured that's where we were butting heads. I was just piggybacking off of something I mentioned a few pages back.

I still need to see a lot from Porter to be completely sold on him. Defense is questionable, doesn't ever look to be moving at full speed, will need to develop that post game some more if he's playing the 4 in the league, and as much as I applaud him for his shot making ability I still feel his rise and release is a bit slow. I like the kid and I see the intrigue but I'm waiting for next year to make any real decision on him. Definitely not a case like how I felt about Josh or Dennis coming into this year.

[nolang1]

lol. so you know that for a fact?

Yes, I know for a fact that college players are bigger and more skilled than high school players, so one looks more skilled relative to the competition when playing against high schoolers.

So there's no way possible any of what Porter does on the court translates to the college game?

Thanks for that strawman. There's a 100% possibility that what Fultz does on the court translates to the college game because it already did. There is less than a 100% possibility for something that hasn't already happened. There's also a possibility that Porter's numbers next year are even better than Fultz's, but as I and others have pointed out they'd have to be quite a bit better for Porter to be considered a better prospect since he'll be almost a year older relative to the competition than Fultz was.

I don't put a lot of stock into what anonymous NBA scouts are saying on the record the week before the draft, let alone a year before a player can even be chosen. An anonymous NBA scout has every incentive to say he'd choose Porter Jr. over Fultz because if he can make a bad team be less confident in the quality of players at the top of this year's draft, it would make trading up easier. It's not like he has to put his money where his mouth is and actually make that selection. Worst case scenario, Porter disappoints relative to those made-up expectations because he's merely really good rather than Kevin Durant-level.

[The-Power]

[...] but as I and others have pointed out they'd have to be quite a bit better for Porter to be considered a better prospect since he'll be almost a year older relative to the competition than Fultz was.

I consider Fultz a better prospect for what it's worth but your argument is flawed. You can be a better prospect even if you're not as good as another player at the same age or just as good while being older. It's the main reason why scouting and projections are so important - and not only impact analysis. I guess this is also the direction Marcus is coming from (of course I can't speak for him).

[Marcus]

[...] but as I and others have pointed out they'd have to be quite a bit better for Porter to be considered a better prospect since he'll be almost a year older relative to the competition than Fultz was.

I consider Fultz a better prospect for what it's worth but your argument is flawed. You can be a better prospect even if you're not as good as another player at the same age or just as good while being older. It's the main reason why scouting and projections are so important - and not only impact analysis. I guess this is also the direction Marcus is coming from (of course I can't speak for him).

It's exactly ALL I've been saying. Maybe how you worded it will make more sense though.

[nolang1]

[...] but as I and others have pointed out they'd have to be quite a bit better for Porter to be considered a better prospect since he'll be almost a year older relative to the competition than Fultz was.

I consider Fultz a better prospect for what it's worth but your argument is flawed. You can be a better prospect even if you're not as good as another player at the same age or just as good while being older. It's the main reason why scouting and projections are so important - and not only impact analysis. I guess this is also the direction Marcus is coming from (of course I can't speak for him).

It does in addition to the other things I pointed out. Fultz and Porter both have very good size and athleticism for combo guards/combo forwards without being absolute outliers. Both players need to get bigger and stronger, so it's not like Fultz just developed early and I only think more highly of him because he has an NBA body at this age and Porter doesn't.

Beyond that, the only other thing I could think of that would make me consider a player who's worse than another player the same age to be a better prospect would be their team situation. From Fultz's perspective it would be difficult to have worse teammates/coaching than what he had at UW, while it remains to be seen what Porter can do if he's the only player on his team good enough to play at the next level.

Anything else quickly delves into wishful thinking along the lines of "Fultz is already an excellent ball-handler so he can't get much better there, but if Porter gets as good at it as Fultz is now he'll be truly unstoppable because he's taller." That sort of thinking is endemic to bad GMs because it provides them with a ready-made excuse ("they didn't put in the work") if a player doesn't somehow manage to turn a weakness into a strength.

[Duke4life831]

Im not the biggest Porter fan and I wouldnt have him 1st overall in this draft (dont have him 1st overall next draft) but I can see why many GMs would. The dude is a very bouncy 6'10 forward that has an extremely promising jumper with deep range. Again when I watch him I see a lot of similarities with his flaws that Harrison Barnes had, more of a stiff athlete, he doesnt seem to have the most fluid of movement laterally, doesnt have that tight of a handle. When you add those two things up, you can have a guy that struggles to create his own shot. But if a GM thinks that they can tighten up his handle or can get him being a little more fluid that he can be a superstar in his prime.

[EvanZ]

Porter is a better shooting, longer version of Blake Griffin. Has much more potential on both sides of the ball.

[Marcus]

Porter is a better shooting, longer version of Blake Griffin. Has much more potential on both sides of the ball.

You think Porter has that kind of explosion off the floor?

[EvanZ]

Porter is a better shooting, longer version of Blake Griffin. Has much more potential on both sides of the ball.

You think Porter has that kind of explosion off the floor?

I mean, he might be 90% of what Blake has, but that really doesn't matter much does it? It never seemed to help BG on defense, and it certainly hasn't made him a great shooter.

[PLO]

Porter will be getting KD comparisons at stages next season.

[nolang1]

Porter will be getting KD comparisons at stages next season.

Yeah, and Ben Simmons got LeBron comparisons. People are lazy.

[PLO]

Porter will be getting KD comparisons at stages next season.

Yeah, and Ben Simmons got LeBron comparisons. People are lazy.

No doubt.

[GimmeDat]

I don't think there's anything necessarily lazy about making comparisons. If you're making a blanket comparison, sure, because it lacks nuance, but to say 'the nature in which Simmons facilitates from the point forward position and commands the open floor is extremely similar to LeBron' isn't a lazy comparison at all. I think having an in-league reference for certain qualities is great when projecting play at the next level.

[No-Man]

Porter is a better shooting, longer version of Blake Griffin. Has much more potential on both sides of the ball.

You think Porter has that kind of explosion off the floor?

I mean, he might be 90% of what Blake has, but that really doesn't matter much does it? It never seemed to help BG on defense, and it certainly hasn't made him a great shooter.

Doesnt? he isnt the same type of athlete in general, not only in terms of explosion, Griffin had easily 30lbs on Porter and moved much better, Porter has a quick jump, 2nd jump too, and a really good first step, he is smooth in mid-air, other than that I wouldn't classify his athleticism as elite, he is kind of stiff, doesnt bend his knees and lacks strength.

I don't see it much, it's difficult to find a right comp for Porter honestly just because the shooting isnt as good as some of the elite shooters for his position, he is a bit in between all those guys, I think a 6'10 Rudy Gay is the closest to reality, but Gay got also to be much stronger than him.

[The-Power]

I don't think there's anything necessarily lazy about making comparisons.

I also don't believe that specific comparison is lazy or off. If I was asked who Porter reminds me of, then I'd probably say a less athletic Durant. There are some striking similarities in terms of skillset and playing style and common areas of improvement (especially at the young age). So instead of accusing people of being lazy when comparing these players I'd like to know why this one is supposed to be far off. Or is this about comparisons in general? Which would be odd since it's in the nature of humans to compare and thereby simplify reality in order to get a quick, rough understanding of something or someone.

[nolang1]

I don't think there's anything necessarily lazy about making comparisons.

I also don't believe that specific comparison is lazy or off. If I was asked who Porter reminds me of, then I'd probably say a less athletic Durant. There are some striking similarities in terms of skillset and playing style and common areas of improvement (especially at the young age). So instead of accusing people of being lazy when comparing these players I'd like to know why this one is supposed to be far off. Or is this about comparisons in general? Which would be odd since it's in the nature of humans to compare and thereby simplify reality in order to get a quick, rough understanding of something or someone.

At Michael Porter's current age, Kevin Durant had already completed the best freshman season in the history of college basketball. Maybe Porter weighs a little more than Durant did at that stage. Maybe Porter has more of a floater package which Durant didn't need to develop because his superior length and athleticism allowed him to simply dunk on people.

Other than that I can't think of another aspect of the game where Durant would not have a significant edge. So comparing him to Durant is setting him up to fail (much like how people think Andrew Wiggins is some huge bust mostly in response to people hyping him up with the Maple Jordan nickname/LeBron comparisons) but saying he's Durant without as much length, skill, athleticism, etc. does nothing on its own because it applies to everyone who's ever existed.

I would offer something along the lines of Keith Van Horn with Rudy Gay's athleticism (with better shot selection than either because we're no longer in the mid-range era). I can see how Barnes comes up somewhat regularly because both had the size, athleticism, and shotmaking ability to simply rise and fire over high school defenders even if their lack of handle meant they weren't creating as much space as they could be.

[The-Power]

At Michael Porter's current age, Kevin Durant had already completed the best freshman season in the history of college basketball.

This not all that relevant when the comparison is about whom a player resembles the most. Of course you don't want to compare a great player to a bad one because most likely the similarities are just superficial if that. But a player can be worse at most aspects and still be similar to the player he's compared to as long as their profiles match relatively well (strenghts, weaknesses, playing style, physical built, mentality). Kobe and Jordan are an often-used example.

Other than that I can't think of another aspect of the game where Durant would not have a significant edge. So comparing him to Durant is setting him up to fail (much like how people think Andrew Wiggins is some huge bust mostly in response to people hyping him up with the Maple Jordan nickname/LeBron comparisons) but saying he's Durant without as much length, skill, athleticism, etc. does nothing on its own because it applies to everyone who's ever existed.

Again, just because I think a less athletic Durant is an apt comparison doesn't mean I expect him to reach Durant's level. Not at all. This will depend on many factors and it will be tough. Comparisons and expectations are distinct in my view. The last sentence is just odd as it implies that Porter and Durant have not more in common than most players and that stance would be pretty hard to back up obviously.

Porter and Durant are both scorers first. They can shoot from anywhere on the floor and over people, get to the rim and draw fouls. Both players don't have the most advanced handles and this can be an issue against certain match-ups or strategies. Both are lean, long and have great size for their position. Both have some defensive potential as rebounders and shot blockers but haven't focused on it at a younger age. Both players create primarily off being a scoring threat, i.e. both aren't natural playmakers but can make plays for others.

Athletic ability is the most glaring difference. The fact that Durant was more advanced in other areas where they are similar as well and the fact that Durant went on to improve greatly in the NBA doesn't mean that the comparison isn't worthwhile.

[EvanZ]

Athletic ability is the most glaring difference. The fact that Durant was more advanced in other areas where they are similar as well and the fact that Durant went on to improve greatly in the NBA doesn't mean that the comparison isn't worthwhile.

They seem like very different body types to me. Porter's frame is much bigger than Durant, like I said above, it's more like Blake Griffin at this stage. Porter is going to bulk up considerably by the time he gets to the NBA. Hopefully for his sake he doesn't lose his bounce in doing so. Durant is much longer than Porter.