Wizards 2019 Draft Thread - Part II

[nate33]

I've answered your question, Doc, though it took me some time to reduce it to the question you were really asking, which was: "if you take this list of 8 people off the board, who is the best prospect in the draft?"

Now I've got one for you. Lets see whether you answer it & what your answer is. Lets say that your list of the first 8 picks in accurate, but that when our #9 pick comes around, a trade down scenario is available -- 2 of them in fact --

1. Our # 9 pick for the Celtics #20 & #22 picks.

2. Our #9 pick for the Nets #17 & #27 picks.

Do you take Samanic? Or one of the trade down scenarios? If so, which one?

You're under-estimating the trade value of the 9th pick in both cases, imo. The trade with the Celtics is especially bad considering they have the 14th pick - you should at least be able to get 14 and 22 for 9.

I don't think he is.

Kevin Pelton put together a draft pick trade value to estimate the relative value of each pick. The #14 and #22 have way more value than the #9 in the abstract. On a scale of 100, the #9 is worth about 46 points, the #14 is worth about 33 points, and the #22 is worth about 21 points.

Obviously, in the real world, a team can fall in love with a player and overpay in a trade-up, but that doesn't seem that likely in this draft given the lack of separation between picks 9-20. Heck, even PIF's two scenarios slightly favor us. The 20 + 22 and the 17 + 27 each have a higher point value than the #9, but not by much.

[dckingsfan]

doubletap

who'd you kill?

[Ruzious]

I've answered your question, Doc, though it took me some time to reduce it to the question you were really asking, which was: "if you take this list of 8 people off the board, who is the best prospect in the draft?"

Now I've got one for you. Lets see whether you answer it & what your answer is. Lets say that your list of the first 8 picks in accurate, but that when our #9 pick comes around, a trade down scenario is available -- 2 of them in fact --

1. Our # 9 pick for the Celtics #20 & #22 picks.

2. Our #9 pick for the Nets #17 & #27 picks.

Do you take Samanic? Or one of the trade down scenarios? If so, which one?

You're under-estimating the trade value of the 9th pick in both cases, imo. The trade with the Celtics is especially bad considering they have the 14th pick - you should at least be able to get 14 and 22 for 9.

I don't think he is.

Kevin Pelton put together a draft pick trade value to estimate the relative value of each pick. The #14 and #22 have way more value than the #9 in the abstract. On a scale of 100, the #9 is worth about 46 points, the #14 is worth about 33 points, and the #22 is worth about 21 points.

Obviously, in the real world, a team can fall in love with a player and overpay in a trade-up, but that doesn't seem that likely in this draft given the lack of separation between picks 9-20. Heck, even PIF's two scenarios slightly favor us. The 20 + 22 and the 17 + 27 each have a higher point value than the #9, but not by much.

I'll choose the real world. With Boston having the 14th pick, you'd have to be a fool to settle for the 20th and 22nd in this draft, imo.

[doclinkin]

I've answered your question, Doc, though it took me some time to reduce it to the question you were really asking, which was: "if you take this list of 8 people off the board, who is the best prospect in the draft?"

Now I've got one for you. Lets see whether you answer it & what your answer is. Lets say that your list of the first 8 picks in accurate, but that when our #9 pick comes around, a trade down scenario is available -- 2 of them in fact --

1. Our # 9 pick for the Celtics #20 & #22 picks.

2. Our #9 pick for the Nets #17 & #27 picks.

Do you take Samanic? Or one of the trade down scenarios? If so, which one?

Slight edge to the Celts picks for me. But first try to squeeze future picks out of the Nets deal. I'd rather have 17 and a future lotto protected pick from the Nets than load up on this years crop. The NBA draft is a volatile market. Some years have franchise changing talents. Some years don't. Some years have them deep. Seems to me you want a chance at a higher pick in a future year rather than load up in any particular year. Two late draft picks in any one year don't have as much value to me as one pick this year and picks in future years that may have a higher draft slot. The higher pick has more value since it represents more players and more trade down opportunities.

I think Samanic will be good. I don't think he will last to 17. But I would be okay with being 'forced' to select a couple prospects that are more raw or are currently undervalued positions like Center. Teams are going to need Centers though. Marc Gasol was a key aquisition in helping Toronto advance. Ebiid is a force in the East. Giannis does better with more room to operate underneath. If I got Bruno and Herro I'd be okay. If I had surplus Bigs that other teams coveted as trade prospects, I'd feel like we could afford to do something with them.

[payitforward]

I've answered your question, Doc, though it took me some time to reduce it to the question you were really asking, which was: "if you take this list of 8 people off the board, who is the best prospect in the draft?"

Now I've got one for you. Lets see whether you answer it & what your answer is. Lets say that your list of the first 8 picks in accurate, but that when our #9 pick comes around, a trade down scenario is available -- 2 of them in fact --

1. Our # 9 pick for the Celtics #20 & #22 picks.

2. Our #9 pick for the Nets #17 & #27 picks.

Do you take Samanic? Or one of the trade down scenarios? If so, which one?

You're under-estimating the trade value of the 9th pick in both cases, imo. The trade with the Celtics is especially bad considering they have the 14th pick - you should at least be able to get 14 and 22 for 9.

I don't think he is.

Kevin Pelton put together a draft pick trade value to estimate the relative value of each pick. The #14 and #22 have way more value than the #9 in the abstract. On a scale of 100, the #9 is worth about 46 points, the #14 is worth about 33 points, and the #22 is worth about 21 points.

Obviously, in the real world, a team can fall in love with a player and overpay in a trade-up, but that doesn't seem that likely in this draft given the lack of separation between picks 9-20. Heck, even PIF's two scenarios slightly favor us. The 20 + 22 and the 17 + 27 each have a higher point value than the #9, but not by much.

You can see it either way. Pelton's ratings -- assuming they're empirical -- are presumably the result of looking at lots of trades, some of better trade downs than his results would warrant, others not as good.

In any case, this is theoretical; I'm just interested in Doc's response. &, of course, it would be perfectly fair of him to say he'd do one of the deals & not the other, or that he'd do one of the deals with a little modification of one or another kind. Both of those responses, assuming they're specific, would answer my question.

[payitforward]

I've answered your question, Doc, though it took me some time to reduce it to the question you were really asking, which was: "if you take this list of 8 people off the board, who is the best prospect in the draft?"

Now I've got one for you. Lets see whether you answer it & what your answer is. Lets say that your list of the first 8 picks in accurate, but that when our #9 pick comes around, a trade down scenario is available -- 2 of them in fact --

1. Our # 9 pick for the Celtics #20 & #22 picks.

2. Our #9 pick for the Nets #17 & #27 picks.

Do you take Samanic? Or one of the trade down scenarios? If so, which one?

Slight edge to the Celts picks for me. But first try to squeeze future picks out of the Nets deal. I'd rather have 17 and a future lotto protected pick from the Nets than load up on this years crop. The NBA draft is a volatile market. Some years have franchise changing talents. Some years don't. Some years have them deep. Seems to me you want a chance at a higher pick in a future year rather than load up in any particular year. Two late draft picks in any one year don't have as much value to me as one pick this year and picks in future years that may have a higher draft slot. The higher pick has more value since it represents more players and more trade down opportunities.

I think Samanic will be good. I don't think he will last to 17. But I would be okay with being 'forced' to select a couple prospects that are more raw or are currently undervalued positions like Center. Teams are going to need Centers though. Marc Gasol was a key aquisition in helping Toronto advance. Ebiid is a force in the East. Giannis does better with more room to operate underneath. If I got Bruno and Herro I'd be okay. If I had surplus Bigs that other teams coveted as trade prospects, I'd feel like we could afford to do something with them.

You've answered my question, thanks. That is, I take it you are saying you'd do the Celtics deal, but first you'd try to use that fact to squeeze a little more out of the Nets. Sure!

Plus, of course, in a real-world situation I'd propose 14 & 20 the Celtics (not 20 & 22). & I'd propose 17, 27 & 31 to the Nets. Then, depending on how hot either of them is for that guy they want at #9, try to get the sweetest deal you can get!

I.e. the Celtics also have the #51 pick -- that might bring us Darius Bazley or Dedric Lawson or who knows else -- so if 14 & 20 didn't work, & 14 & 22 didn't work, then maybe 20, 22 & 51 would work?

Main point is: you would be willing to give up the absolute certainty of Samanic at #9 to take the chance on a trade down. I also think that would be the better path.

[youngWizzy]

Hello everybody,

This is a project that I've been working on for a little bit now. Essentially what I wanted to create was a tool that would generate similar statistical profiles for any given college player in comparison to any player drafted in the NBA. The database contains all players who were drafted from 2003-2018 and contains all prospects on the mock draft on the tankathon.com website for the 2019 class. The comparisons are generated using the Euclidean distance algorithm to find the closest statistical comparison for each player.

The tool: https://nbadraftcomp.herokuapp.com/

Please let me know if there are any other players that you would like me to add to the database.

Also, this is really my first attempt at website development in years and thus any feedback both negative and positive are welcome.

[youngWizzy]

Hello everybody,

This is a project that I've been working on for a little bit now. Essentially what I wanted to create was a tool that would generate similar statistical profiles for any given college player in comparison to any player drafted in the NBA. The database contains all players who were drafted from 2003-2018 and contains all prospects on the mock draft on the tankathon.com website for the 2019 class. The comparisons are generated using the Euclidean distance algorithm to find the closest statistical comparison for each player.

The tool: https://nbadraftcomp.herokuapp.com/

Please let me know if there are any other players that you would like me to add to the database.

Also, this is really my first attempt at website development in years and thus any feedback both negative and positive are welcome.

[payitforward]

That's cool, Wizzy. I don't understand how the Euclidean distance algorithm is being used given how many different statistical data points there are. Plus, the comps -- I only input one name, Brandon Clarke -- don't make a huge amount of sense to me.

[youngWizzy]

That's cool, Wizzy. I don't understand how the Euclidean distance algorithm is being used given how many different statistical data points there are. Plus, the comps -- I only input one name, Brandon Clarke -- don't make a huge amount of sense to me.

Thanks!

Every player's record in the database consists of the following numbers:

FG, FGA, FG%, 2P, 2PA, 2P%, 3P, 3PA, 3P%, FT, FTA, FT%, ORB, DRB, TRB, AST, STL, BLK, TOV, PF, PTS,TS%, and WS.

The Euclidean distance algorithm basically measures the distance of one record (or array in computer terms) from another. The records with the smallest distance to the target player are the most similar statistical profiles to the given player. You can compute the Euclidean distance between two arrays using a method I used from here (https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.spatial.distance.euclidean.html#scipy.spatial.distance.euclidean).

You mentioned Brandon Clarke, who had the following record:

6.9, 10.1, 0.687, 6.8, 9.7, 0.705, 0.1, 0.4, 0.267, 2.9, 4.2, 0.694, 3.1, 5.5, 8.6, 1.9, 1.2, 3.2, 1.5, 2.1, 16.9, 0.699, 8.8

The closest record to Clarke based on the Euclidean distance algorithm was Channing Frye:

6.1, 11.1, 0.554, 6.1, 10.6, 0.57, 0.1, 0.5, 0.176, 3.4, 4.1, 0.83, 2.8, 4.8, 7.6, 1.9, 0.9, 2.3, 1.7, 2.6, 15.8, 0.605, 7.4

Others included Harrell, Taj Gibson, and you're right that they are not the best "comparisons" for Clarke but they do have very similar statistical profiles.

Essentially, the whole purpose of the tool is to find the most similar statistical profiles to any given player and not necessarily to draw comparisons. The tool serves as more of a guide to observe "who put up similar numbers before entering the draft" if that makes sense.

[closg00]

The Ringer likes Goga for us

Watch on YouTube

[payitforward]

That's cool, Wizzy. I don't understand how the Euclidean distance algorithm is being used given how many different statistical data points there are. Plus, the comps -- I only input one name, Brandon Clarke -- don't make a huge amount of sense to me.

Thanks!

Every player's record in the database consists of the following numbers:

FG, FGA, FG%, 2P, 2PA, 2P%, 3P, 3PA, 3P%, FT, FTA, FT%, ORB, DRB, TRB, AST, STL, BLK, TOV, PF, PTS,TS%, and WS.

The Euclidean distance algorithm basically measures the distance of one record (or array in computer terms) from another. The records with the smallest distance to the target player are the most similar statistical profiles to the given player. You can compute the Euclidean distance between two arrays using a method I used from here (https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.spatial.distance.euclidean.html#scipy.spatial.distance.euclidean).

You mentioned Brandon Clarke, who had the following record:

6.9, 10.1, 0.687, 6.8, 9.7, 0.705, 0.1, 0.4, 0.267, 2.9, 4.2, 0.694, 3.1, 5.5, 8.6, 1.9, 1.2, 3.2, 1.5, 2.1, 16.9, 0.699, 8.8

The closest record to Clarke based on the Euclidean distance algorithm was Channing Frye:

6.1, 11.1, 0.554, 6.1, 10.6, 0.57, 0.1, 0.5, 0.176, 3.4, 4.1, 0.83, 2.8, 4.8, 7.6, 1.9, 0.9, 2.3, 1.7, 2.6, 15.8, 0.605, 7.4

Others included Harrell, Taj Gibson, and you're right that they are not the best "comparisons" for Clarke but they do have very similar statistical profiles.

Essentially, the whole purpose of the tool is to find the most similar statistical profiles to any given player and not necessarily to draw comparisons. The tool serves as more of a guide to observe "who put up similar numbers before entering the draft" if that makes sense.

IOW, every column is given the same weight? I.e. if A gets 3 more assists, but 3 fewer rebounds, than B, then in that case at least in Euclidean distance calculation so far they look the same? No... that would make no sense.... A PG could look close to a C.

Looking at the page on scypy.org, obviously it's nothing like that at all.

Yet... in no sense did Channing Frye "put up similar numbers" to Brandon Clarke "before entering the draft." Clarke's 15% better TS%, 25% more rebounds per 40 minutes, 50% more blocks, 40% more steals, etc. render the phrase "similar statistical profiles" meaningless.

The quantitative value of their numbers overall (weighting a few things differently from others -- e.g. defensive boards & assists have half the value of offensive boards or steals. Fouls have half the negative value of turnovers) is also enormously different. Brandon Clarke was a way way better player than Frye "before entering the draft."

Doesn't seem like I learn anything at all from an exercise of this kind based on Euclidean Distance. But... keep at it!

[tontoz]

The Knicks are considering trading the No. 3 pick to the Atlanta Hawks for Nos. 8 and 10.

I hope this deal happens. I think the Knicks would be less likely to take someone we want. I think the Knicks are more in win now mode, thinking they will sign a couple of max players.

I could definitely see the Hawks taking Sekou at 8.

[youngWizzy]

That's cool, Wizzy. I don't understand how the Euclidean distance algorithm is being used given how many different statistical data points there are. Plus, the comps -- I only input one name, Brandon Clarke -- don't make a huge amount of sense to me.

Thanks!

Every player's record in the database consists of the following numbers:

FG, FGA, FG%, 2P, 2PA, 2P%, 3P, 3PA, 3P%, FT, FTA, FT%, ORB, DRB, TRB, AST, STL, BLK, TOV, PF, PTS,TS%, and WS.

The Euclidean distance algorithm basically measures the distance of one record (or array in computer terms) from another. The records with the smallest distance to the target player are the most similar statistical profiles to the given player. You can compute the Euclidean distance between two arrays using a method I used from here (https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.spatial.distance.euclidean.html#scipy.spatial.distance.euclidean).

You mentioned Brandon Clarke, who had the following record:

6.9, 10.1, 0.687, 6.8, 9.7, 0.705, 0.1, 0.4, 0.267, 2.9, 4.2, 0.694, 3.1, 5.5, 8.6, 1.9, 1.2, 3.2, 1.5, 2.1, 16.9, 0.699, 8.8

The closest record to Clarke based on the Euclidean distance algorithm was Channing Frye:

6.1, 11.1, 0.554, 6.1, 10.6, 0.57, 0.1, 0.5, 0.176, 3.4, 4.1, 0.83, 2.8, 4.8, 7.6, 1.9, 0.9, 2.3, 1.7, 2.6, 15.8, 0.605, 7.4

Others included Harrell, Taj Gibson, and you're right that they are not the best "comparisons" for Clarke but they do have very similar statistical profiles.

Essentially, the whole purpose of the tool is to find the most similar statistical profiles to any given player and not necessarily to draw comparisons. The tool serves as more of a guide to observe "who put up similar numbers before entering the draft" if that makes sense.

IOW, every column is given the same weight? I.e. if A gets 3 more assists, but 3 fewer rebounds, than B, then in that case at least in Euclidean distance calculation so far they look the same? No... that would make no sense.... A PG could look close to a C.

Looking at the page on scypy.org, obviously it's nothing like that at all.

Yet... in no sense did Channing Frye "put up similar numbers" to Brandon Clarke "before entering the draft." Clarke's 15% better TS%, 25% more rebounds per 40 minutes, 50% more blocks, 40% more steals, etc. render the phrase "similar statistical profiles" meaningless.

The quantitative value of their numbers overall (weighting a few things differently from others -- e.g. defensive boards & assists have half the value of offensive boards or steals. Fouls have half the negative value of turnovers) is also enormously different. Brandon Clarke was a way way better player than Frye "before entering the draft."

Doesn't seem like I learn anything at all from an exercise of this kind based on Euclidean Distance. But... keep at it!

Well, could that essentially be a testament as to how good of a player Clarke is?

Ill ask you this, find me a player drafted between 2003 and 2018 who has a statistical profile closest to Clarke.

Now to your point about point guards who could draw results to a center. Are you saying that blocks, steals, turnovers, should be weighted higher? I agree and think that's actually pretty interesting and something I'm going to try. There is indeed an option to weigh each column differently for the Euclidean distance algorithm. How would you weigh each category?

[Illmatic12]

The Knicks are considering trading the No. 3 pick to the Atlanta Hawks for Nos. 8 and 10.

I hope this deal happens. I think the Knicks would be less likely to take someone we want. I think the Knicks are more in win now mode, thinking they will sign a couple of max players.

I could definitely see the Hawks taking Sekou at 8.

Yes I expect Sekou will be taken at #8. He’s getting Pascal Siakam comparisons

In that case I’d trade down from #9 if possible. But sadly Wiz will likely be stuck with Nassir Little.

[nate33]

Thanks!

Every player's record in the database consists of the following numbers:

FG, FGA, FG%, 2P, 2PA, 2P%, 3P, 3PA, 3P%, FT, FTA, FT%, ORB, DRB, TRB, AST, STL, BLK, TOV, PF, PTS,TS%, and WS.

The Euclidean distance algorithm basically measures the distance of one record (or array in computer terms) from another. The records with the smallest distance to the target player are the most similar statistical profiles to the given player. You can compute the Euclidean distance between two arrays using a method I used from here (https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.spatial.distance.euclidean.html#scipy.spatial.distance.euclidean).

You mentioned Brandon Clarke, who had the following record:

6.9, 10.1, 0.687, 6.8, 9.7, 0.705, 0.1, 0.4, 0.267, 2.9, 4.2, 0.694, 3.1, 5.5, 8.6, 1.9, 1.2, 3.2, 1.5, 2.1, 16.9, 0.699, 8.8

The closest record to Clarke based on the Euclidean distance algorithm was Channing Frye:

6.1, 11.1, 0.554, 6.1, 10.6, 0.57, 0.1, 0.5, 0.176, 3.4, 4.1, 0.83, 2.8, 4.8, 7.6, 1.9, 0.9, 2.3, 1.7, 2.6, 15.8, 0.605, 7.4

Others included Harrell, Taj Gibson, and you're right that they are not the best "comparisons" for Clarke but they do have very similar statistical profiles.

Essentially, the whole purpose of the tool is to find the most similar statistical profiles to any given player and not necessarily to draw comparisons. The tool serves as more of a guide to observe "who put up similar numbers before entering the draft" if that makes sense.

What might be worthwhile would be to examine which stats tend to translate in the pro's and which stats do not. For example, defensive rebounding is well known to transfer, but 3P% does not. (Indeed, college FT% is a better indicator of pro 3P% than college 3P% is.)

Also, I strongly suggest you use per possession numbers and not per game numbers. The college game has much wider variations in team pace so the box score numbers for a slow paced team looks much worse than they do for a fast paced team.

Finally, how are you handing age? Are you factoring that a college freshman is likely to improve a good deal more than a college senior?

[nate33]

The Knicks are considering trading the No. 3 pick to the Atlanta Hawks for Nos. 8 and 10.

I hope this deal happens. I think the Knicks would be less likely to take someone we want. I think the Knicks are more in win now mode, thinking they will sign a couple of max players.

I could definitely see the Hawks taking Sekou at 8.

Yes I expect Sekou will be taken at #8. He’s getting Pascal Siakam comparisons

In that case I’d trade down from #9 if possible. But sadly Wiz will likely be stuck with Nassir Little.

Nassir Little? Yuck!

Have you seen anything that makes you believe the Wizards are leaning that way? There is very little in his track record to suggest he is top 10 draft material. He's a pretty good rebounder, but other than that, he's not a very good player. If he had enough length to play PF, one could overlook his poor shooting and basketball instincts, but he is a SF.

[youngWizzy]

Thanks!

Every player's record in the database consists of the following numbers:

FG, FGA, FG%, 2P, 2PA, 2P%, 3P, 3PA, 3P%, FT, FTA, FT%, ORB, DRB, TRB, AST, STL, BLK, TOV, PF, PTS,TS%, and WS.

The Euclidean distance algorithm basically measures the distance of one record (or array in computer terms) from another. The records with the smallest distance to the target player are the most similar statistical profiles to the given player. You can compute the Euclidean distance between two arrays using a method I used from here (https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.spatial.distance.euclidean.html#scipy.spatial.distance.euclidean).

You mentioned Brandon Clarke, who had the following record:

6.9, 10.1, 0.687, 6.8, 9.7, 0.705, 0.1, 0.4, 0.267, 2.9, 4.2, 0.694, 3.1, 5.5, 8.6, 1.9, 1.2, 3.2, 1.5, 2.1, 16.9, 0.699, 8.8

The closest record to Clarke based on the Euclidean distance algorithm was Channing Frye:

6.1, 11.1, 0.554, 6.1, 10.6, 0.57, 0.1, 0.5, 0.176, 3.4, 4.1, 0.83, 2.8, 4.8, 7.6, 1.9, 0.9, 2.3, 1.7, 2.6, 15.8, 0.605, 7.4

Others included Harrell, Taj Gibson, and you're right that they are not the best "comparisons" for Clarke but they do have very similar statistical profiles.

Essentially, the whole purpose of the tool is to find the most similar statistical profiles to any given player and not necessarily to draw comparisons. The tool serves as more of a guide to observe "who put up similar numbers before entering the draft" if that makes sense.

What might be worthwhile would be to examine which stats tend to translate in the pro's and which stats do not. For example, defensive rebounding is well known to transfer, but 3P% does not. (Indeed, college FT% is a better indicator of pro 3P% than college 3P% is.)

Also, I strongly suggest you use per possession numbers and not per game numbers. The college game has much wider variations in team pace so the box score numbers for a slow paced team looks much worse than they do for a fast paced team.

Finally, how are you handing age? Are you factoring that a college freshman is likely to improve a good deal more than a college senior?

Interesting point about the per possession numbers. Ill try that. I haven't considered age because I think projecting a freshman's stats as a senior would add more variability and flux. Really the whole purpose of the tool is to find similar statistical seasons for any given player regardless of age.

[nate33]

A guy for the Wizards to consider as an undrafted walk-on is Jordan Bone. I haven't seen him show up in any of the mocks.

He's the best athlete of the draft, with an insane lane agility of 9.97 (the best score in the past 10 years of NBA.com's database). He has a 36" standing vertical and a 42" max vertical, the fastest shuttle run, and the 4th fastest 3/4 sprint. He's short, but not too short for a PG. He's 6-3 with a 6-3 wingspan (about Steph Curry's size).

As a player, he showed a very impressive improvement on a yearly basis. These are per possession numbers. Improving that much on a per-possession basis is extremely tough to do:



He has worked his way into being a very good shooter and passer, and a reliable ball handler with minimal turnovers. The biggest blemish is the lack of free throw attempts.

A guy with that much athleticism who works that hard on his game is the kind of guy I'd like at the end of the bench as a practice player with the potential to break his way into the league.

[Illmatic12]

I hope this deal happens. I think the Knicks would be less likely to take someone we want. I think the Knicks are more in win now mode, thinking they will sign a couple of max players.

I could definitely see the Hawks taking Sekou at 8.

Yes I expect Sekou will be taken at #8. He’s getting Pascal Siakam comparisons

In that case I’d trade down from #9 if possible. But sadly Wiz will likely be stuck with Nassir Little.

Nassir Little? Yuck!

Have you seen anything that makes you believe the Wizards are leaning that way? There is very little in his track record to suggest he is top 10 draft material. He's a pretty good rebounder, but other than that, he's not a very good player. If he had enough length to play PF, one could overlook his poor shooting and basketball instincts, but he is a SF.

The NBCWash guys who were at the Chicago combine were hyping him up and made it seem like the team was interested in him or they had scheduled some sort of special meeting with him. Hopefully it was just due diligence and they aren’t actually considering him