2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread IV

[76ciology]

There were far less arguments when we were looking at drafting Jonathan Isaac with the 4th pick. Mo money mo problemz

[LloydFree]

Jackson can take the little man or the big man off the drive, all of the way to the basket. Can go right or left. And if you clog the lane and double him, has the awareness to get it to the big man... Plus he made over 45% of his open catch and shoot 3 pointers.

Spoiler:

... and on the fast break...

Wait.. Regarding the first gif.. You mean to say he can create off De Aaron Fox' ELITE PERIMETER defense?

Naaaw. He only gets to the basket because he dribbles past the Power Forwards that guard him...

[SelfishPlayer]

Jackson can take the little man or the big man off the drive, all of the way to the basket. Can go right or left. And if you clog the lane and double him, has the awareness to get it to the big man... Plus he made over 45% of his open catch and shoot 3 pointers.

Spoiler:

... and on the fast break...

Wait.. Regarding the first gif.. You mean to say he can create off De Aaron Fox' ELITE PERIMETER defense?

Naaaw. He only gets to the basket because he dribbles past the Power Forwards that guard him...

That's the sort of wing player people want to draft #3? A guy that gets his numbers by out quicking the college PFs and Cs he's strategically matched up against? All while shooting under 60% from the FT stripe on top of being turnover prone? People want him to be a playmaker here? I can see it now, "Hack-a-Jack"

[LloydFree]

Here's a big board from dean on draft. Pretty interesting list.

https://deanondraft.com/2017/05/25/big-board-update-525/

I liked him better when he just based his board purely on his statistical projections. He now incorporates the draft sites opinions, so his board won't look so out of whack. I'm not a big fan of projecting prospects by statistics, because the College game is so different than the pro game. Additionally, the differences in coaching and levels of competition influences the numbers too much. But if statistical projection is his thing, he should've​ stuck to his guns regardless of how his board looked in comparison to everyone else's.

[HankTheTank]

http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/2017/03/10/college-prospect-rating-cpr-version-3/

Stumbled upon this, "college prospect rating," and find it pretty fascinating. Forgive me if someone else cited this and I just missed it.

The most glaring thing, it has Monk as one of the best prospects of the last 5 years, and pretty much a can't miss. Admittedly I've been pretty dismissive of Monk. I have a hard time with his size, and the fact that he doesn't bring much to the table outside of shooting. I would be glad to be wrong.

The rating of 2014 prospects was pretty accurate.

I think his analysis of Swanigan is spot on. I think he's a safe bet to have a long career as a backup 4/5.

Josh Jackson's FT% dooms him in any advanced stat rating. I'm chalking it up to an anamoly. He does everything else well, and while pretty raw defensively, has great potential.

[76ciology]

https://fansided.com/2017/05/19/nylon-calculus-projecting-3-point-shooting-2017-nba-draft-prospects/



Big difference a guy shooting 32% and 35%?

[Unbreakable99]

http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/2017/03/10/college-prospect-rating-cpr-version-3/

Stumbled upon this, "college prospect rating," and find it pretty fascinating. Forgive me if someone else cited this and I just missed it.

The most glaring thing, it has Monk as one of the best prospects of the last 5 years, and pretty much a can't miss. Admittedly I've been pretty dismissive of Monk. I have a hard time with his size, and the fact that he doesn't bring much to the table outside of shooting. I would be glad to be wrong.

The rating of 2014 prospects was pretty accurate.

I think his analysis of Swanigan is spot on. I think he's a safe bet to have a long career as a backup 4/5.

Josh Jackson's FT% dooms him in any advanced stat rating. I'm chalking it up to an anamoly. He does everything else well, and while pretty raw defensively, has great potential.

Thanks. That's good info. The most updated model has Monk first and Tatum 2nd.

http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/

[Negrodamus]

https://fansided.com/2017/05/19/nylon-calculus-projecting-3-point-shooting-2017-nba-draft-prospects/



Big difference a guy shooting 32% and 35%?

37% on the third highest rate of the chart? Also plays elite defense? I'd like that guy!

[Ericb5]

You mean someone is going to quote my Josh Jackson resembles Scottie Pippen remark.

There are guys who post here, that argued vehemently that Julius Randle was a better prospect than Embiid and Okafor was a better prospect than Towns. Even the lost souls who thought Buddy Hield was a good prospect, still post here confidently. Everyone will just say "I was wrong... so sue me" and go on posting.

Very few people say I am/ was wrong. But they still go on posting.

I'm ashamed to say I liked Brandon Ingram more than Simmons much of the year before. Didn't think any team would allow Simmons to run point forward, which IMO, was the only way to maximize him. He couldn't shoot, so he couldn't be a stretch 4 and he doesn't have the length to be a terror on defense at the 4. It took a friend of mine to point out, after the lottery, that the 76ers can't pass up on Simmons. Because if you let the Lakers get him and he becomes Magic Johnson, you won't be able to live with yourself. That convinced me. I was looking at the whole thing wrong and the fact I was more concerned about Simmons going to the Lakers than Ingram, proved I WAS WRONG.

I was on Simmons over Ingram from day one, and Embiid over everyone that year, but I was also much more optimistic about Okafor than has shown to be justified.

I was one of the only people on this board that argued for Porzingis over Russell, which has proved to be right, but of course I wanted Okafor more than both of them. Lol

Being wrong about prospects happens to everyone, but as long as you can be wrong without being abusive and dismissive first then it really never needs to come up again. Plus when you turn out to be wrong about a prospect you learn from it.

I learned a hell of a lot when Tim Thomas didn't turn into the beast that he should have been. That taught me that competitive desire is a prerequisite of great players. Thomas would have been a superstar if his elevator went all the way to the top floor, and he wanted it bad enough.

He wasn't lazy like Derek Coleman. He was disinterested.

This year I have been on Jackson all year and am still there, but any of the top 10 this year could probably end up the best player in the group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Negrodamus]

Watch on YouTube

This stretch against an Alabama team with great guard defense, Fox plays pretty phenomenally. He pretty much does whatever he wants on offense. The shot was starting to fall at this point in the season. If he can get to 200 lbs, he could be the best player in this draft. I think the jumper will be real at the next level.

[eagereyez]

This draft is going to create so many I told you so's and people are going to refer back to the takes lol. We have 4 player stats who people have firm takes on prospects and are taking sides. We have people who don't think Fultz is the top prospect and is not as good as the many outlets make. And some think he's the perfect player for us and he's the missing piece. We have people who don't trust Jackson and say he's the best player and others who think he's overrated. We have some who think Tatum is just not going to be good and hate Duke players and some who think he has a high upside. And then there is Ball. Some think he's the top player or better than Fultz and some who don't think he will be that good. I have a feeling people are going to get quoted a lot from this thread whenthe season starts up to 3 years later lol.

You mean someone is going to quote my Josh Jackson resembles Scottie Pippen remark.

There are guys who post here, that argued vehemently that Julius Randle was a better prospect than Embiid and Okafor was a better prospect than Towns. Even the lost souls who thought Buddy Hield was a good prospect, still post here confidently. Everyone will just say "I was wrong... so sue me" and go on posting.

I think there are only a few people here who actually go back and quote what others said 3+ years ago.

Everyone makes mistakes. The best thing you can do is try to learn from your mistakes. If you don't learn from your mistakes then you are doomed to repeat them over and over. And the first step in that process is admitting when you are wrong.

"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self."- Hemingway

[cksdayoff]

i was wrong about devin booker, i thought he would be a super sub, a bobby jackson type to come off the bench. i still think buddy hield becomes a star. his jumpshot is legit, his range is legit. his athleticism has been getting underrated imo.

[HankTheTank]

This draft is going to create so many I told you so's and people are going to refer back to the takes lol. We have 4 player stats who people have firm takes on prospects and are taking sides. We have people who don't think Fultz is the top prospect and is not as good as the many outlets make. And some think he's the perfect player for us and he's the missing piece. We have people who don't trust Jackson and say he's the best player and others who think he's overrated. We have some who think Tatum is just not going to be good and hate Duke players and some who think he has a high upside. And then there is Ball. Some think he's the top player or better than Fultz and some who don't think he will be that good. I have a feeling people are going to get quoted a lot from this thread whenthe season starts up to 3 years later lol.

You mean someone is going to quote my Josh Jackson resembles Scottie Pippen remark.

There are guys who post here, that argued vehemently that Julius Randle was a better prospect than Embiid and Okafor was a better prospect than Towns. Even the lost souls who thought Buddy Hield was a good prospect, still post here confidently. Everyone will just say "I was wrong... so sue me" and go on posting.

March 20 @ 10:17pm you will see my comparison to Pippen, but it's a closed thread I can't bump. I'm going down with you...

[LloydFree]

This draft is going to create so many I told you so's and people are going to refer back to the takes lol. We have 4 player stats who people have firm takes on prospects and are taking sides. We have people who don't think Fultz is the top prospect and is not as good as the many outlets make. And some think he's the perfect player for us and he's the missing piece. We have people who don't trust Jackson and say he's the best player and others who think he's overrated. We have some who think Tatum is just not going to be good and hate Duke players and some who think he has a high upside. And then there is Ball. Some think he's the top player or better than Fultz and some who don't think he will be that good. I have a feeling people are going to get quoted a lot from this thread whenthe season starts up to 3 years later lol.

You mean someone is going to quote my Josh Jackson resembles Scottie Pippen remark.

There are guys who post here, that argued vehemently that Julius Randle was a better prospect than Embiid and Okafor was a better prospect than Towns. Even the lost souls who thought Buddy Hield was a good prospect, still post here confidently. Everyone will just say "I was wrong... so sue me" and go on posting.

March 20 @ 10:17pm you will see my comparison to Pippen, but it's a closed thread I can't bump. I'm going down with you...

Oh man. I could really set myself up for some sig-worthy quotes if I really let loose on what I think of Markelle Fultz. But since there is still a decent chance he becomes a 76er, I've held back.

[PhilBlackson]

I think Fox would be a poor fit here.

I wouldn't pass on a clearly superior player over "fit" and I actually think Jackson is the superior player to Fox but Fox isn't a good jumpshooter and needs to be the primary ballhandler to be successful or to at least look good. Then you're either choosing him or Ben to play off the ball and neither are great that way and while Fox is good with the ball, Ben is great. Fox won't be nearly as effective as a secondary ballhandler and therefore a waste. Jackson actually does a good job cutting in open lanes or finding the open spot and beyond that he finds multiple ways to effect the game with his rebounding, defence and just in general on court intangibles ie/ hustle, energy, leadership and natural competitive spirit.

[HankTheTank]

You mean someone is going to quote my Josh Jackson resembles Scottie Pippen remark.

There are guys who post here, that argued vehemently that Julius Randle was a better prospect than Embiid and Okafor was a better prospect than Towns. Even the lost souls who thought Buddy Hield was a good prospect, still post here confidently. Everyone will just say "I was wrong... so sue me" and go on posting.

March 20 @ 10:17pm you will see my comparison to Pippen, but it's a closed thread I can't bump. I'm going down with you...

Oh man. I could really set myself up for some sig-worthy quotes if I really let loose on what I think of Markelle Fultz. But since there is still a decent chance he becomes a 76er, I've held back.

That's an even riskier take than me essentially making Monk out to be the second coming of Isaiah Canon (but with a worse defense, handle and lower bball iq).

[eagereyez]

i was wrong about devin booker, i thought he would be a super sub, a bobby jackson type to come off the bench. i still think buddy hield becomes a star. his jumpshot is legit, his range is legit. his athleticism has been getting underrated imo.

I'm still cautiously, perhaps irrationally hopeful for Hield. His shooting is real and it came around later in the season. He has all the intanibles ticked off and has a shooters mentality. I don't think he'll bust out of the league but I also think his projection needs to be lowered given current data.

[cksdayoff]

to take monk at #3 is to believe he'll be an elite scorer because he doesn't do much of anything else. i can picture many off nights, i can picture him not showing up for a quarter, for a half. i can picture him hitting game winners, scoring in bunches, scoring 20-30 points in a quarter. Possible reality of the situation is that he won't be an elite scorer, that he could be a better version of Lou Will, minus the handles. And is that worth the #3 pick, just because he fits the Sixers current needs

i feel like i'm contradicting myself because i'm praising buddy hield and i'm being overly negative on monk. i think i have a bias view of hield as a shooter/scorer, while i see monk as just a scorer.

[Mik317]

Yall need to get on my level of always being wrong.

The Turner draft I just know I said some dumb ass ****

[LloydFree]

to take monk at #3 is to believe he's a generational type of scorer because he doesn't do much of anything else. i can picture many off nights, i can picture him not showing up for a quarter, for a half. i can picture him hitting game winners, scoring in bunches, scoring 20-30 points in a quarter. Probable reality of the situation is that he isn't a generational scorer, that he might be a better version of Lou Will, minus the handles. And is that worth the #3 pick, just because he fits the Sixers current needs

i feel like i'm contradicting myself because i'm praising buddy hield and i'm being overly negative on monk. i think i have a bias view of hield as a shooter/scorer, while i see monk as just a scorer.

Malik Monk is a better prospect than Buddy Hield. Monk doesnt have the handle or instincts to play PG, but he can dribble a basketball. Buddy Hield can't dribble a basketball. He's a run-of-the-mill spot up shooter. He was never worthy of a lottery pick.