• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

2019 NBA Draft

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Half kidding with this, but the measureable people should care about is his 3-point range. He's one of those guys who provides ridiculous floor spacing because he's dangerous well out beyond NBA range. How many guys at the college level can hit this three:


and make this pass?


Yea about once a game you’ll see him completely catch the D off guard with a deep 3 because they’re not used to guarding out that high. I’ll be curious to see where his shots of dribble % is at the end of the year. I don’t recall seeing him attempt a lot of pull-ups.

Please take this back. Unless you really want to entertain the Ty Jerome Warriors death lineup timeline, where we’ll all want to drink hand sanitizer. :chuckle:

I agree it is likely he tests as “yeah, pretty sure this guy can’t atheletically survive in the NBA” but out of all the guys getting aggregate mock love late first, his stats really pop. If he tests out even a tick below average athletically, he seems like an interesting big backup PG option for a playoff team.

Lol hey, they could probably use some added bench shooting. But yeah I really really like him too. Most definitely going to be a guy that I have ranked higher than where he will be picked. Maybe UVA makes a nice tourney run that boosts his stock.
 
Yea about once a game you’ll see him completely catch the D off guard with a deep 3 because they’re not used to guarding out that high. I’ll be curious to see where his shots of dribble % is at the end of the year. I don’t recall seeing him attempt a lot of pull-ups.



Lol hey, they could probably use some added bench shooting. But yeah I really really like him too. Most definitely going to be a guy that I have ranked higher than where he will be picked. Maybe UVA makes a nice tourney run that boosts his stock.

Unassisted NBA-range 3's so far this season (according to thestepien):

Ponds - 16
THT - 15
Jerome - 12
Culver - 11
White - 11
Reddish - 8
Barrett - 6
NAW - 4
Thybulle - 2
Hunter - 1
Okeke - 1
Jones - 1
Johnson - 1
Little - 0
Hachimura - 0

Some surprises in there. But I think that does accurately reflect, more or less, to what extent these guys will be comfortable pulling up from deep at the next level (though, not necessarily to what extent they'll be accurate).

Also notable: Markus Howard has made 52 so far. That is a lot. And I didn't include Morant because thestepien doesn't have data on shot locations for most of his games.
 
I have updated my dream list for the Cavs 1st rounders this year.

First pick - Zion or Barrett.. I'm ecstatic with either

Hou pick - Hopefully Kevin Porter slides. Kid has a future in the NBA if he can keep his head on right. I feel like we have the locker room (Nance, Love, etc) that this kid wouldn't be able to be a knucklehead.

Porter can FILL IT UP
 
Unassisted NBA-range 3's so far this season (according to thestepien):

Ponds - 16
THT - 15
Jerome - 12
Culver - 11
White - 11
Reddish - 8
Barrett - 6
NAW - 4
Thybulle - 2
Hunter - 1
Okeke - 1
Jones - 1
Johnson - 1
Little - 0
Hachimura - 0

Some surprises in there. But I think that does accurately reflect, more or less, to what extent these guys will be comfortable pulling up from deep at the next level (though, not necessarily to what extent they'll be accurate).

Also notable: Markus Howard has made 52 so far. That is a lot. And I didn't include Morant because thestepien doesn't have data on shot locations for most of his games.

Howard is the one sub 6'0 player that seems to be defying the odds this year, in terms of positioning himself as a player that should get drafted in the top 45 picks.

My calculation says you roll the dice on him roughly between 40-45. That is kind of the cliff I get on second round pick data. There are a handful of UDFA guys I would push in to the 2nd, that might kick Howard down some, but even with his defensive short comings.....his offensive value, even as a bench floor spacer is pretty undeniable at this point. He probably can't play a lot of minutes but it seems like a good team in the middle of the 2nd would be wise to snag him and play him 8-12 minutes a game in spot PG duty and ride him if he gets hot.

The one second half development that is pretty significant for his prospect profile is he has just moved off the below average ADJ/game score cutoff .....and he now falls in the large below average band for prospects (bottom 20% of that but still a positive). That's not to say he isn't a huge liability but he's closer to Kemba Walker in that stat now vs. someone like Jimmer Feddette.
 
I have updated my dream list for the Cavs 1st rounders this year.

First pick - Zion or Barrett.. I'm ecstatic with either

Hou pick - Hopefully Kevin Porter slides. Kid has a future in the NBA if he can keep his head on right. I feel like we have the locker room (Nance, Love, etc) that this kid wouldn't be able to be a knucklehead.

Porter can FILL IT UP

Maybe I haven't watched enough of Porter, but I think it's crazy to use a first rounder on a knucklehead scorer type who's averaging just 9ppg with a career high of 15. Seems like he's years of development away from being a viable NBA player.
 
Maybe I haven't watched enough of Porter, but I think it's crazy to use a first rounder on a knucklehead scorer type who's averaging just 9ppg with a career high of 15. Seems like he's years of development away from being a viable NBA player.

Well I'm also hoping (praying) that we hire a good coach that will be able to develop these young guys.
 
Maybe I haven't watched enough of Porter, but I think it's crazy to use a first rounder on a knucklehead scorer type who's averaging just 9ppg with a career high of 15. Seems like he's years of development away from being a viable NBA player.
That's what I was saying earlier in the year when there was talk about him as a potential top 5 pick.

I feel like people were trying way too hard to find the next under the radar freshman.
 
Maybe I haven't watched enough of Porter, but I think it's crazy to use a first rounder on a knucklehead scorer type who's averaging just 9ppg with a career high of 15. Seems like he's years of development away from being a viable NBA player.

Pretty much where I am at.

The only thing I will add is SG seems to be a more random position. PG, SF, PF and to a lesser degree C, all tend to be positions where guys generally have no chance to stick in the league below certain possession based threshold calculations.

SG/Combo though has a decent number of guys who just look like bad prospects, who stick in the league and are generally productive.

I have 71 SG's charted since 2011.......the top 1/3rd makes sense:

Oladipo, McCollum, Hield, Beal, Mitchell, etc.

But the bottom 3rd is just all over the place.....

Guys like Nik Stauskas but then also players like Devin Booker, Tim Hardaway Jr., Snell, Lamb, Norman Powell, Clarkson (if you consider him a combo).

It slotted those 6 players: Lamb, Booker, THJ, Snell and then a more distant tie for Powell / Clarkson.

I guess it is doing its' job to a large degree......in terms of identifying more one dimensional players like the above but it was much cooler on Booker and THJ, in relation to their position than a comparable PG, C, SF and PF might be.....with their same profile. SG seems to rely a bit more on traditional scouting practices to decide if any of the players in that bottom tier could possibly overcome their deficiencies and stick. The outcomes are still a large majority of bad ones in that bottom tier but PG, C, SF and PF just don't have 4-6+ guys, like SG/Combo does, that pan out in that lower tier of rankings. Will 1 random one crop up? Sure but SG seems like it could be a position where the line is a little blurrier.

With all that said, I still don't take Porter :chuckle: but it is just a tidbit of information if, at the end of the draft, anyone who actively follows the draft likes a SG more than his numbers or mock draft warrant. It's the only position I'd be more comfortable taking a flier on later in the draft (given the randomness of outcomes in the bottom tier), purely based on scoring or shooting potential, something Porter theoretically has. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Mid second is where I'd start to talk myself in to him.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much where I am at.

The only thing I will add is SG seems to be a more random position. PG, SF, PF and to a lesser degree C, all tend to be positions where guys generally have no chance to stick in the league below certain possession based threshold calculations.

SG/Combo though has a decent number of guys who just look like bad prospects, who stick in the league and are generally productive.

I have 71 SG's charted since 2011.......the top 1/3rd makes sense:

Oladipo, McCollum, Hield, Beal, Mitchell, etc.

But the bottom 3rd is just all over the place.....

Guys like Nik Stauskas but then also players like Devin Booker, Tim Hardaway Jr., Snell, Lamb, Normal Powell, Clarkson (if you consider him a combo).

It slotted those 6 players: Booker, Lamb, THJ, Snell and then a more distant tie for 3rd Powell / Clarkson.

I guess it is doing its' job to a large degree......in terms of identifying more one dimensional players like the above but it was much cooler on Booker and THJ, in relation to their position than a comparable PG, C, SF and PF might be.....with their same profile. SG seems to rely a bit more on traditional scouting practices to decide if any of the players in that bottom tier could possibly overcome their deficiencies and stick. The outcomes are still a majority of bad ones but PG, C, SF and PF just don't have 3-4 guys, like SG does, that pan out in that lower tier of rankings. Will 1 random one crop up? Sure but SG seems like it could be a position where the line is a little blurrier.

With all that said, I still don't take Porter :chuckle: but it is just a tidbit of information if, at the end of the draft, anyone who actively follows the draft likes a SG more than his numbers or mock draft warrant. It's the only position I'd be more comfortable taking a flier on later in the draft, purely based on scoring or shooting potential, something Porter theoretically has. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess my thing is, if you're one dimensional, you better at least be elite at that one thing. Quite a difference between 29.3 points per 100 on 60% true shooting (Booker) and 23.9 points per 100 on 54% true shooting (Porter). If this was a situation where Porter was a top-5 recruit coming out of highschool and just fell on his face in college, I'd be kind of intrigued at the thought of snagging him with a late first. But this seems like more of a Billy Preston situation where I'd give him a chance on a 2-way contract if he insists on going pro this year, but wouldn't invest a draft pick or guaranteed money in him.
 
I'd just strongly recommend everyone watch more KPJ, rather than looking at his counting numbers on 21.5 mpg or a TS% that's being tanked by a FT number that's on 38 attempts.

Not to mention that literally half of his shot attempts come via 1-on-1 ISOs. I've brought up his situation a number of times, but for whatever reason that seems to get ignored a lot for some prospects but not others.

Only a two-way contract on him or a mid-2nd is just batshit crazy (especially in this draft). Watch the tape.
 
I'd just strongly recommend everyone watch more KPJ, rather than looking at his counting numbers on 21.5 mpg or a TS% that's being tanked by a FT number that's on 38 attempts.

Not to mention that literally half of his shot attempts come via 1-on-1 ISOs. I've brought up his situation a number of times, but for whatever reason that seems to get ignored a lot for some prospects but not others.

Only a two-way contract on him or a mid-2nd is just batshit crazy (especially in this draft). Watch the tape.

What film would you even have me watch? I'm not going to go watch highlight reels, because that's silly, I'm not going to extrapolate wildly from a couple of good ISO possessions in an otherwise bad game against Texas Tech, and I'm not putting any stock in 6/7 shooting in a season-opener blowout against Robert Morris. There just aren't many (any?) impressive games in his resume at all.
 
What film would you even have me watch? I'm not going to go watch highlight reels, because that's silly, I'm not going to extrapolate wildly from a couple of good ISO possessions in an otherwise bad game against Texas Tech, and I'm not putting any stock in 6/7 shooting in a season-opener blowout against Robert Morris. There just aren't many (any?) impressive games in his resume at all.

USC has had a lot of games on ESPN plus and watch ESPN (the latter I think you can get just by logging in through your TV provider). It's basically my go-to for all NCAA right now since you can get through a full game in under an hour, rewind, etc. I've watched very little NCAA actually live this year, but have watched an insane amount more overall just by doing this.

And USC I'm only watching for Porter if there's no opposing prospects, so his games you can usually watch in < 30 minutes.

He is probably the top guy where reputation does not = what I've watched for this year I'd say, especially defensively.
 
USC has had a lot of games on ESPN plus and watch ESPN (the latter I think you can get just by logging in through your TV provider). It's basically my go-to for all NCAA right now since you can get through a full game in under an hour, rewind, etc. I've watched very little NCAA actually live this year, but have watched an insane amount more overall just by doing this.

And USC I'm only watching for Porter if there's no opposing prospects, so his games you can usually watch in < 30 minutes.

He is probably the top guy where reputation does not = what I've watched for this year I'd say, especially defensively.

How would you say he compares to Langford (ignoring possible attitude/off court issues)?
 
How would you say he compares to Langford (ignoring possible attitude/off court issues)?

I like Porter's shooting projection better of course, so that's huge. Langford is far more polished as far as understanding his own game... as opposed to Porter, who is the opposite. You'll see him not attack in the correct situations and settle for jumpers far too often. One of his biggest offensive weaknesses is he'll have open lanes but bails out his defender and takes a step back.

Both are good finishers. Hoop-Math has Porter at 66.7% and Langford at 64.1% at the rim. Langford just does a far better job of getting there, reading his defender, getting the angle on his guy, etc. With that said, Porter's projection is safer I think just because of how much better of an athlete he is than Langford... he's had some absurd finishes with both hands this year.

Both guys are ball-stoppers for sure as well... but Porter won't kill your offense off-ball like Langford's lack of shooting could end up doing. Porter really needs to work on his off ball activity on offense though... his low scoring totals are a product of primarily that I think. He disappears far too often on that end if he doesn't have the ball. USC's offense is very "your turn-my turn", so that could partially be a product of that too.

To me neither are great passers.

I like both of their upsides on D. I've not watched Langford in awhile, but his off ball D was horrendous early on.. though I've heard it's improved of late. He just falls asleep on that end a lot from what I saw. Porter is the opposite... he really lacks control on D. He's extremely active, which you wouldn't expect given his supposed apathy for practice lol... his foul rate is pretty high I believe. But I've been REALLY impressed with Porter on-ball in the rare couple of moments he's guarded ISOs. He's just a top end athlete.

As usual so much of Porter's projection will come down to where his shooting #s are at the end of the year. I expect the 3PT% to decline, while the FT% improves. IIRC he was like a 45/35/65 splits guy in EYBL. His release is very low and across his body, but he gets to it pretty quickly and obviously has the handle to create enough space for it.

For Langford it's pretty much as simple as how much his lack of shooting will tank his career. His form is so unorthodox that I don't think his shot will ever be average. The things I'd want to see Porter fix on the court are all improvable, and that's why I still like him a lot. He already has some of the stuff that you see guys struggle to add to their games.

He has feel issues I think, but they're not THAT bad to me... you're not going to see him look just completely lost out there from time to time like you see with others. He just plays out of control at times. It's fixable.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top