Prospect Thread: James Wiseman

[JMAC3]

I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince this group. I am a very analytical thinker, probably because I study poker odds everyday.

At the end of the day I care about winning, and more importantly winning in the playoffs. In poker there is a term called implied odds (meaning that if a certain outcome occurs then it will actually be a more profitable outcome then the numbers look at first glance).

If I draft a top 5 center in the league that’s awesome, but as we can see it doesn’t really guarantee much. If I land a top 5 wing in the draft I’m going to be a contender every year.

Circling back to implied odds- let’s say for fun there is a 10 percent chance a wing in this draft becomes a superstar and a 25 percent chance a big man becomes a superstar.

At first glance it looks like I’m better off taking a center, but in reality the 10% of the time I draft a wing and he becomes a superstar I come out winning more then when I get the center so therefore it is the more valuable play.

(Poker lesson) let’s say there is 500 dollars in the pot and my opponent bets 500. I have to pay 500 to win 1000 so I need a 50% to win the pot. If I have a flush draw I have 25% chance to get it (need 1 out of 4 suits). So you would think fold at first glance... but let’s say my opponent has 1000 left in his stack, I know he has a good hand and will have to call my all in if I hit the flush. So therefore I have a 25% chance to win the 1000 in the pot and the 1000 in his stack so it’s really 500 to win 2000 and therefore I have the right odds to call.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

this probably sounded amazing in your head but i promise it didn't come across that way

Thats fine, you probably just didn’t follow my thought process.

Analytics aren’t for everyone, there is a reason that other sports have shifted to positional value being super important. Basketball will eventually get there.

There is a reason it’s bad to draft a RB in the first round of the NFL draft, why you don’t draft relief pitchers in the first round of the MLB draft..

The writing is on the wall why you don’t draft a big man in the top 5 in the NBA draft, but it’s not an unwritten rule yet.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[DY_nasty]

k

[JMAC3]

I just need more than “well none of the wings look good, so we should take him”.

Show me some advanced stats that say centers are important.

Show me a player who he compares favorably to that is successful in the NBA.

Show me a team that has won big with a player of his archetype.

Show me stats on replacement level centers being way worse than the top 5 guys.

Show me some draft history that supports drafting a center in the top 7.

Show me how much better centers drafted in the top 5 compare to centers taken outside the lottery.

Show me something...

But instead I have gotten clips on him crossing over a guy who played D2, him making a jumpshot in high school saying he could shoot threes, film of him playing division mid majors that weren’t even good mid majors and tons of excuses as to why bigs haven’t been successful in the NBA.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[316Hornets]

“I’m trying to gain some weight and keep my body healthy,” Wiseman said. “I study a lot of film. Anthony Davis. Dirk Nowitzki. Karl-Anthony Towns. A lot of players who can shoot the ball at my height. I’m working on my shooting mechanics, trying to get my shot right, Wiseman said per ESPN’s Adrian Wojnarowski.


Don't compare us to teams like Lakers, Celtics, etc. We aren't going to be fielding a team with talent all over where plugging in any old center will do. If you think Cody Zeller or Willy Hernangomez is good enough, then have fun tearing your hair out on missed rebounds in crunched time.

[yosemiteben]

"You just aren't smart enough to get what I'm saying" is never a great look.

[JMAC3]

"You just aren't smart enough to get what I'm saying" is never a great look.

Probably right but he hit me with the “ I know you think that was an amazing post but i promise it wasn’t” comment.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[JMAC3]

I also don’t get the logic of you guys saying well of course the rockets/clippers/Celtics/warriors don’t need good centers because they have good wings argument...

Well how do you think they got good wings? They prioritized it and built there team around them on purpose. It’s not like they just magically got those players ...


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[yosemiteben]

You can keep talking about how other views are wrong and you're just more into analytics and you get it.

Maybe you're right.

It's just not an interesting discussion.

[Diop]

I get we're you're coming from JMAC but I'm not going to totally rule out drafting a big either.
If I think a centre is the best chance of being a great player, I'm taking him.

not getting into the specifics of this draft, I don't know enough, I mean just in general.

[JMAC3]

You can keep talking about how other views are wrong and you're just more into analytics and you get it.

Maybe you're right.

It's just not an interesting discussion.

Basketball analytics aren’t interesting? Or looking at recent draft history isn’t relevant?

Just look at 2017 draft
Lottery picks
Ayton-Bagley-Doncic-JJJ-Trae-Bamba- WCJ-Sexton- Knox- Bridges-SGA-Bridges- Robinson- MPJ

4 centers in top 6 picks. Redraft and the top 4 today are probably Doncic- Trae- SGA-MPJ then maybe JJJ.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[luciano-davidwesley]

Centers are worthless even if they are much better prospects as players than the wings in the draft. Got it.

[amcoolio]

I would be disappointed if we took Wiseman over Okongwu, but if we did, I wouldn't fret because next year's draft is loaded with wings that are way better than this year's set. Wiseman at least raises the floor in terms of regular season wins, and you have to win in the regular season to get to the playoffs.

[LofJ]

The fact that some of the best bigs in the league today weren't drafted in the top of the lottery isn't evidence that they shouldn't be drafted high. If anything it's evidence that the position has become undervalued. If a redraft was held you're kidding yourself if you don't think Gobert would go 2nd or 3rd, Jokic would go 1st or 2nd after Embiid (another big), Bam would go top 5, and so on...

I get that wings are worth more in today's league, but using that logic to not even consider taking a big higher in the draft doesn't make sense.

[wilson115]

This:

78. Malik Fitts

Fitts projects to be undrafted because he turned 23 in July and he’s merely a good but not great player. He started his career as a 3* recruit for South Florida, and after an underwhelming freshman year he transferred to Saint Mary’s where he played well for two seasons.

He is 6’8″ with 6’11.5″ wingspan, a good body and athleticism, and he rebounds fairly well. He also has the mobility to defend the perimeter and a solid steal rate, which suggests good potential for versatile NBA defense.

He also is a good shooter, making 40.7% from 3 and 78.6% FT in his two years at Saint Mary’s. And he can handle, and is capable of getting to the rim and finishing.

It’s not that he just slightly checks the boxes, he clearly is a competent handler and shooter and has physical tools to defend multiple positions in the NBA. Those are the 3 most important qualities for a role playing wing, and Fitts brings them all to the table.

Even we compared him in these 3 areas to top 5 prospect Deni Avdija, Fitts is clearly better in all 3. Deni is 3.5 years younger and could surpass Fitts handling and shooting longterm, but Fitts current advantages are so significant he should be considered the favorite to be more skilled longterm. And Fitts physical tools will always be a notch better than Deni.

This significant IQ/vision advantage for Deni makes him the overall better prospect, but Fitts’ edges in skill and tools makes it much closer than an UDFA should be to a top 5 prospect.

For an undrafted player, Fitts’ flaws aren’t backbreaking. IQ and vision are slippery to assess– interestingly he had a better assist rate as a freshman for South Florida when the rest of his game was much weaker. Perhaps his vision is fine, and NBA coaching is able to mitigate his mistakes in which case he should be a solid role playing wing.

Fitts’ age inhibits his upside, he’s not going to be a slam dunk steal of the draft. But his upside doesn’t seem all that much lower than the younger and similarly flawed players that are currently getting lottery hype.

https://deanondraft.com/2020/08/28/more-round-2-hidden-gems/

[316Hornets]

Traditional Bigs are definitely not worth a top pick, I will agree with that 100%.

Bigs are transforming their game though. Look at all the 7 footers hoisting up 3s at a decent clip. Jokic, AD, Porzingis, Towns, Embiid.

When those guys stretch the floor, it opens the middle for guards to attack. How good would Devonte be if we had a guy that could bring out the other team's shot blocker?

I'm not saying Wiseman is going to start shooting 3s at a decent clip, but his form is solid and he's made comment that he's working on it. If he can shoot 3s, he's just as valuable as a Wing.

[DY_nasty]

shooting 3s is very small part of what makes each of those guys special

i get it being a nice addition to a skill set, but its incredibly over emphasized

[BigSlam]

If Cody Z can take and make 3’s as he has been the last season or so then there’s no reason to think that Wiseman can’t as well.

Then on top of that Wiseman adds so many pluses - like size, length, agility, mobility and rim protection as well.

But, like DY suggested above, a big shooting 3’s is a “nice to have” for me.

I’d prioritize a big being able to quickly recognize a double team and make quick and effective passes to open team mates and a big who promotes/facilitates ball movement Vs being a black hole much higher than I would a big being able to drain 3’s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rich4114]

This entire thread and conversation has been so much about position when it has been made clear as day the organization is not factoring in position to this unless they view talent as equal. It's going to come down to who has the most talent and potential and position will come well after that. I'm no expert, but everything I've seen suggests the best talent is Edwards, Ball and Wiseman and the order depends on who you ask.

So out of those three guys, we have taller Malik Monk (Edwards), we have playmaking MKG (Ball) and we have Wiseman who has physical tools that are much more rare. I would embrace any of them as our pick (and we may not get a choice depending on what happens with #1 and #2), but everything I've seen from Wiseman reminds me of really good centers over the last 20 years much more than mediocre or poor ones. Factor in his youth, the fact he's had minimal air time, college season cut short, etc. and I like the odds that he at the very least, turns into a good center. He is raw, he will need coaching, development and to expand his game (like pretty much any prospect that young) but I will be ecstatic if we end up with Wiseman.

[James Gatz]

@Rich I'd argue Ball's skill set combined with physical tools is more of a rarity than a big like Wiseman.

Over the last few years we've had a number of coordinated bigs with large wingspans: Jaxson Hayes, Ayton, Bamba

Wiseman isn't the same as any of these players but they all fall into a similar type of rim running bigs, with 7'4+ wingspans, with projected upside to be able to hit outside shots.

[Rich4114]

@Rich I'd argue Ball's skill set combined with physical tools is more of a rarity than a big like Wiseman.

Over the last few years we've had a number of coordinated bigs with large wingspans: Jaxson Hayes, Ayton, Bamba

Wiseman isn't the same as any of these players but they all fall into a similar type of rim running bigs, with 7'4+ wingspans, with projected upside to be able to hit outside shots.

Fair point, I guess if I knew Ball could be a better shooter my perspective/excitement around him would be much greater. I guess if that were the case, he'd be the consensus number 1 though.

For Wiseman, what do we think his low-end projection comparison is vs the high end? Low-end to me seems like a Tyson Chandler. He seems to have coordination, work ethic and a personality vs others who have had physical stats but not coordination, work ethic, personality.