2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery

[cjbulls]

Hallelujah. Somebody gets it. Thank you. Spot on.

Or two guys who get it wrong. The mileage theory seems to have no bearing when you consider the longevity of players like Kobe, Garnett, Nowitzki, Tony Parker, LeBron. We can all pick examples that support either side.

Playing a longer college career allows you to better evaluate floor and ceiling because the prospect growth path is generally the same. If they haven't achieved X by date Y, they are less likely to do so. It's very far from a perfect science, but it is a good shorthand. Just like saying player X has missed Y number of games every year is good shorthand for how many injuries they will have in the NBA.

It's fair to say that Rui is three years older and still hasn't improved his 3pt shooting enough. That's a bad sign. It can be mitigated by saying unlike most basketball player's typical growth path, Rui didn't even start practicing 3's until college, so he may have more opportunity to grow.

It's not fair to say because he went to school for three years, he is at some sort of NBA advantage or more likely to be an effective player for a longer window in the NBA.

But you're picking out all time greats and guys known for their long careers. You're right we can do the same for both sides.

and Rui's 3 pt shooting went from .286 to .192 to .417. He improved a LOT. On fairly low volume but he showed he can make the shot and has a nice stroke.

And people need to stop saying he's 3 years older. He's not even a year and a half older than most draft prospects. He just has more experience. He's a very young junior. Like I said he's not even a year and a half older than Cam Reddish.

He shot 1 3pt attempt per game. And they were all dead wide open. There isn't much to make of that data. And again, I would look at Rui and see that he started playing late and he's at least getting better so I'd have more confidence than I would in a typical college prospect.

I think the years of experience matter more than the age. So playing three years of college ball means more than having a few more birthdays. You get better from the amount of time spent at each respective level. Brandon Clarke is older than Lauri Markkanen, who do you think is further ahead in their NBA development?

[Duke4life831]

But one thing you kind of expect from guys who started the game late is massive leaps in improvement in their game. Where is that with Rui? He seems to have had a normal collegiate progression. More minutes over the years with slight progression in some areas. His shooting inside the arc is the same, his FT% dropped 6%, he has gotten worse as a rebounder, his facilitating is the same, his 3pt% improved, but again we are talking about a very small sample size, but I will give him some credit there. Defensively he was as much of a liability this year as last year. Its not like an Embiid thing where you watch him prior to Kansas, then you see the huge growth at the start of the year, and the huge growth by the end of the year when he went down with his injury. That was a guy late to the game and you could see a crazy fast progression.

I don't hate Rui as an NBA prospect, again I think he can be a stronger TJ Warren. I think taking Rui mid 1st on in this draft is a solid pickup. But if we are talking top 10, I just cant see a case made for him.

All good points. We'll just have to wait and see. I have a pretty decent track record picking guys like him out though. Like I said, I like his chances. I think the things he needs to improve on are things he will improve on with basketball being his full time job and NBA coaching. He has the physical tools to do whatever he wants.

I disagree that he didn't improve over his college career. His per 40 numbers went up every year in PP40, his rebounds were about the same the last two seasons. I'm not going to ding him for going from 9.1 to 8.6...Nor am I going to for his FT% which was minimal drop but a huge improvement shooting the ball in all areas from two years ago. .528- .568- .591 from the field with double the volume from a year ago... .192- .417 from 3 pt. I know he only took 1.4 per 40 but his stroke looks great. His assists went from nothing to 2 per. He played almost double the minutes and improved quite a bit. He was fairly static in rebounds but improved in the important things like efficiency. His PER went from 24.4 to 28.6 his TS from .603 to .635. And those are big numbers.

His 1st year he was essentially a walk on, he played 130 minutes, that is what most guys play in 4 games. From last year to this year, looking at his per 40, there is essentially 2 differences. He took 2 more shots inside the arc (at the same efficiency) and he made 10 more 3s on the season. Either than taking a couple more shots, there really isn't much growth. Im not saying he didn't improve, he kept the same 2pt% while practically doubling his attempts. No doubt there was improvement. But all Im saying is he has the typical collegiate growth. Im not seeing the he started basketball late so he's just catching up progression we usually see from players like that.

TJ Warren as a sophomore had very similar stats as Rui as a junior, TJ played against much better competition. TJ didn't shoot as well from the line and from 3 (but he took a lot more 3s). So Rui had the better TS% and WS, while TJ had the better PER and BPM. I honestly just don't see the big difference between the 2 of them. Both 6'8 sub par athletes that are money in the mid range but non proven from 3. Both are horrible defenders and basically bring nothing when it comes to facilitating. I think Warren from this past year is what I expect Rui to be. 18/4/1.5 on 48/43/81 shooting (56 TS%) with horrible defense. And that is projecting that Rui's 3pt shot improves like TJ's did. I just don't see what else Rui will bring that TJ doesn't in the NBA.

[bearadonisdna]

There's a saying basketball players don't grow on trees.
, your getting a new batch of players,and comparing him to a batch that has been around already.
Using my car analogy, and even the board verbiage(regarding mileage.)
The rui car has been driven around for 3 years
The 1 and done for only 1 year.
All things being equal, it's easy to go with the car with less usage.

[Mech Engineer]

Or two guys who get it wrong. The mileage theory seems to have no bearing when you consider the longevity of players like Kobe, Garnett, Nowitzki, Tony Parker, LeBron. We can all pick examples that support either side.

Playing a longer college career allows you to better evaluate floor and ceiling because the prospect growth path is generally the same. If they haven't achieved X by date Y, they are less likely to do so. It's very far from a perfect science, but it is a good shorthand. Just like saying player X has missed Y number of games every year is good shorthand for how many injuries they will have in the NBA.

It's fair to say that Rui is three years older and still hasn't improved his 3pt shooting enough. That's a bad sign. It can be mitigated by saying unlike most basketball player's typical growth path, Rui didn't even start practicing 3's until college, so he may have more opportunity to grow.

It's not fair to say because he went to school for three years, he is at some sort of NBA advantage or more likely to be an effective player for a longer window in the NBA.

But you're picking out all time greats and guys known for their long careers. You're right we can do the same for both sides.

and Rui's 3 pt shooting went from .286 to .192 to .417. He improved a LOT. On fairly low volume but he showed he can make the shot and has a nice stroke.

And people need to stop saying he's 3 years older. He's not even a year and a half older than most draft prospects. He just has more experience. He's a very young junior. Like I said he's not even a year and a half older than Cam Reddish.

He shot 1 3pt attempt per game. And they were all dead wide open. There isn't much to make of that data. And again, I would look at Rui and see that he started playing late and he's at least getting better so I'd have more confidence than I would in a typical college prospect.

I think the years of experience matter more than the age. So playing three years of college ball means more than having a few more birthdays. You get better from the amount of time spent at each respective level. Brandon Clarke is older than Lauri Markkanen, who do you think is further ahead in their NBA development?

We don't know. You think Lauri is ahead because you have NBA data. What has Lauri really done? He has just played 2 years of horrible team basketball. I wonder if he had spent the last 2 years in college, maturing and coming out this year would have made him a lesser player at age 28/29? I doubt it. Just because somebody is scoring in the NBA means nothing if it is empty stat scoring which is what it has been with Lauri.

[CoreyVillains]

Deandre Hunter "Game Tape"

Watch on YouTube

[cjbulls]

Hallelujah. Somebody gets it. Thank you. Spot on.

Or two guys who get it wrong. The mileage theory seems to have no bearing when you consider the longevity of players like Kobe, Garnett, Nowitzki, Tony Parker, LeBron. We can all pick examples that support either side.

Playing a longer college career allows you to better evaluate floor and ceiling because the prospect growth path is generally the same. If they haven't achieved X by date Y, they are less likely to do so. It's very far from a perfect science, but it is a good shorthand. Just like saying player X has missed Y number of games every year is good shorthand for how many injuries they will have in the NBA.

It's fair to say that Rui is three years older and still hasn't improved his 3pt shooting enough. That's a bad sign. It can be mitigated by saying unlike most basketball player's typical growth path, Rui didn't even start practicing 3's until college, so he may have more opportunity to grow.

It's not fair to say because he went to school for three years, he is at some sort of NBA advantage or more likely to be an effective player for a longer window in the NBA.

Kobe was practically worthless in his last 3 years. It was a $hitshow. Tony Parker has been useless for a long time. The last time the Spurs won a championship, it was Patty Mills going crazy more than Parker showing some flashes here and there. Guys like Nowitzki, LeBron, Garnett are all time greats....and I said that some players put up stats at any age. You are right there is always examples for both arguments. That's why I said you need a better comparative study.

What you are wrong is saying the growth can be evaluated for a longer college career player. Both are unknowns. They cannot develop their game in college as much as in the NBA but they can get mentally mature in college to adjust to the rigors of learning in the NBA. The bottom line is assuming most NBA juniors/seniors are in anyway done developing and a freshman would reach a better ceiling at a junior age because of some stat is what has made the NBA draft such a bust process.

Just as in the case of business, everyone is not a Bill Gates who can drop out of college and become a superstar businessman. Most NBA 1 and done kids are just wasting time in the league learning the league because they are mentally not mature to understand the league/advanced NBA game. The same kid has a better chance if they spend a few years in college to mentally mature even if they remain the same in basketball stats. Most college kids whether they are NBA prospects or normal average Joes are not mentally ready to embrace the business world 1 year removed from high school.

Yes, there will be prospects who stay three years and are successful in the NBA because they waited and were not mentally mature at age 18. There are other players for which it would have been a big waste of time. It is random. Staying longer, by itself, is not an advantage. It just gives more time to follow the development curve to make better judgment on pro success.

The draft is essentially dealing with probabilities and the probabilities become more accurate as time passes. It is the same reason we can feel pretty good the Kris Dunn is not going to be an effective PG. It still could happen, he could still develop a 3pt shot, but we know that if he hasn't developed it by this age and this year of experience, it's a longshot.

The reason HSers bust is because we don't have enough information about their floor and ceiling. Look at the top 10 HS prospects every year for the last 30 (that way you encompass the years when players stayed in college for all 4 years) and look at who made it and who didn't. It's completely random.

[cjbulls]

But you're picking out all time greats and guys known for their long careers. You're right we can do the same for both sides.

and Rui's 3 pt shooting went from .286 to .192 to .417. He improved a LOT. On fairly low volume but he showed he can make the shot and has a nice stroke.

And people need to stop saying he's 3 years older. He's not even a year and a half older than most draft prospects. He just has more experience. He's a very young junior. Like I said he's not even a year and a half older than Cam Reddish.

He shot 1 3pt attempt per game. And they were all dead wide open. There isn't much to make of that data. And again, I would look at Rui and see that he started playing late and he's at least getting better so I'd have more confidence than I would in a typical college prospect.

I think the years of experience matter more than the age. So playing three years of college ball means more than having a few more birthdays. You get better from the amount of time spent at each respective level. Brandon Clarke is older than Lauri Markkanen, who do you think is further ahead in their NBA development?

We don't know. You think Lauri is ahead because you have NBA data. What has Lauri really done? He has just played 2 years of horrible team basketball. I wonder if he had spent the last 2 years in college, maturing and coming out this year would have made him a lesser player at age 28/29? I doubt it. Just because somebody is scoring in the NBA means nothing if it is empty stat scoring which is what it has been with Lauri.

There's plenty of data to show, in life, let alone the NBA, that growth in a skill is directly related to the hours perfecting that skill. And Lauri got more practice time, professional attention, and actual game experience in the NBA than he would have in college.

What is empty stat scoring? So now playing for a losing team is automatically a negative? Players shouldn't come out unless they can get drafted outside of the lottery? Someone should alert Zion to go back to college.

[kingkirk]

Again, you keep saying words like "probability" or "percentages" and I just want to know what percentages or probability you're using. What data are you evaluating as important in being predictive of future success in the NBA? What does your "probabilities" say about Hunter vs say Reddish, Culver, Garland, or Little?

Barnes v Hunter would be a terrible comparison since Barnes entered the league after two middling years as a former top 5 recruit at UNC where as Hunter spent three years at Virginia getting drastically better year one to year two and then getting better again year two to year three.

If you want to know what I look for in terms of predicting future success, if a guy stayed in college then I look to see how much better he got throughout his time there. Every guy you draft you want to get better, regardless of position. I tend to think the ability to improve your game is as much ability as raw abilities like shooting or passing are. When you think of some of the greater draft hits of the past several decades, most were players that flashed some skills and deficiencies in other areas but then improved those weaknesses while keeping their strengths.

And the last thing about players and their trajectory: the variance on any one individual player makes trying to "predict" what a player will do as essentially meaningless. There is value in saying "50 players who were drafted this profile ended up X value Y% of the time" but if you had to pick just one player at random, the variance of said selection would render it impossible to judge.

I don’t feel like I’m saying anything controversial though your tone and annoyance suggests I am.

There’s a heap of variables I consider, including those you mentioned. Age, skills shown, skills needed, role in system, projected role in NBA, a players numbers in respect to role etc.

Throw it all together and you have a general idea of what the player is and will be. From there, I ask myself questions about the likelihood a player becomes A, B or C.

Based on what I’ve seen from Hunter and my own subjective analysis, I think it’s great more likely that like Harrison Barnes, his best role will be a floor spacing forward who slots in as the 3rd-4th option on a team while providing versatility to give his team interesting options defensively, particularly in smaller units.

It’s far more likely he becomes a role player than a star based on everything I’ve evaluated. That’s what I suggest when talking probabilities. That isn’t to say I can’t be wrong or he can’t be something more (or less). I just think when you weigh it all up, he’s more likely to be a productive role player than a star. I don’t think that’s a nuts take.

But, again, based on your tone and annoyance, you seemingly have a problem with method, despite it being fairly common and mundane.

I’ll assume that’s the case because you’re especially high on Hunter and don’t like hearing otherwise.

[taj2133]

Read on Twitter

[taj2133]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[HomoSapien]

Are there credible rumors of RJ falling past 3? I remember hearing early on that some people on the Knicks liked Culver, but I'd still be shocked if RJ fell past them. If it's an option, I'd very much be open to trading Culver (assuming he drops to 7) and our future 1st round pick for RJ.

[bearadonisdna]

Are there credible rumors of RJ falling past 3? I remember hearing early on that some people on the Knicks liked Culver, but I'd still be shocked if RJ fell past them. If it's an option, I'd very much be open to trading Culver (assuming he drops to 7) and our future 1st round pick for RJ.

Since I have been following the Knicks very closely, I have to imagine it's smokescreen.
Being on their board frequently, I can tell you there is nobody on the radar for the 3rd pick but rj .

The culver rumor came out around the same time the reddish hype started.
Culver solidifying himself into the top 5 would almost insure cam drops to us. At some point, even if cam isn't the pick, if he is available and the bulls draft better than cam they will be doing good for themselves.

[Red Larrivee]

There's a saying basketball players don't grow on trees.
, your getting a new batch of players,and comparing him to a batch that has been around already.
Using my car analogy, and even the board verbiage(regarding mileage.)
The rui car has been driven around for 3 years
The 1 and done for only 1 year.
All things being equal, it's easy to go with the car with less usage.

This is a really bad analogy. Cars are upgraded every year; players aren't. There are players with 3+ years of college experience who are becoming NBA stars.

[bearadonisdna]

There's a saying basketball players don't grow on trees.
, your getting a new batch of players,and comparing him to a batch that has been around already.
Using my car analogy, and even the board verbiage(regarding mileage.)
The rui car has been driven around for 3 years
The 1 and done for only 1 year.
All things being equal, it's easy to go with the car with less usage.

This is a really bad analogy. Cars are upgraded every year; players aren't. There are players with 3+ years of college experience who are becoming NBA stars.

It's not that bad.
Actually its really practical.
Players can upgrade during the off-season.

This draft thread is where ppl get an Inflated sense of their perspective highroad and i just don't get.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

It'd be pretty surprising if Garland isn't the Lakers pick, especially after reading the article about the Lakers today where it shows how much influence Rich Paul has on the team. Garland is the only rookie hanging out with a pro non-stop right now.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I just don’t get how Garland fits with that team. They just drafted Ball. I don’t think either Ball or Garland are guys that will be that effective with the ball not in their hands. Then you add LeBron, and the fit seems even weirder.

I think Hunter makes more sense for them.

[Red Larrivee]

It's not that bad.
Actually its really practical.
Players can upgrade during the off-season.

This draft thread is where ppl get an Inflated sense of their perspective highroad and i just don't get.

You literally just compared players to cars and said that you would rather have a player with 1 year of experience than one with multiple. That's a ridiculously empty analogy and comparison.

[bearadonisdna]

It's not that bad.
Actually its really practical.
Players can upgrade during the off-season.

This draft thread is where ppl get an Inflated sense of their perspective highroad and i just don't get.

You literally just compared players to cars and said that you would rather have a player with 1 year of experience than one with multiple. That's a ridiculously empty analogy and comparison.

If we are talking cars, there would be implied depreciation.

Regarding players,there is a reason why 3rd yr players arent valued as highly in NBA circles.

The main logic being, if the player was better, he would be doing NASCAR not drag races.

[bearadonisdna]

Oh and i just came back from the Knicks board and they are talking culver all of a sudden.
As recently as last night there was nothing.

[Red Larrivee]

If we are talking cars, there would be implied depreciation.

Regarding players,there is a reason why 3rd yr players arent valued as highly in NBA circles.

The main logic being, if the player was better, he would be doing NASCAR not drag races.

Yes, really good freshmen are valued highly. It's perhaps the ultimate value in the draft. It doesn't mean all freshmen are valued the same.

[RedBulls23]

It'd be pretty surprising if Garland isn't the Lakers pick, especially after reading the article about the Lakers today where it shows how much influence Rich Paul has on the team. Garland is the only rookie hanging out with a pro non-stop right now.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I just don’t get how Garland fits with that team. They just drafted Ball. I don’t think either Ball or Garland are guys that will be that effective with the ball not in their hands. Then you add LeBron, and the fit seems even weirder.

I think Hunter makes more sense for them.

I think they have every intention of trading Ball, and I think it will be to the Bulls.