2019 NBA Draft

[Nathan S]

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.

That's helpful...I'm still not sold, but I had been thinking of Porter as sort of a similar prospect to Langford, but less highly touted out of highschool and with less of a track record in college, which bumped him a tier below Langford. Then I factor in the character red flags and bump him down another tier, at which point he's down and out of the range where I'd be interested in taking a serious look at him. Still tend to think you're reading too much into flashes when the big picture is much less encouraging (dare I say people did the same thing with Preston, albeit there people were looking at HS highlights).

 

[Nathan S]

In other news...Clarke is clearly Gonzaga's best player when it comes down to it. It's incredible that anyone believes otherwise.

 

[3 Ball...GOT IT]

That's helpful...I'm still not sold, but I had been thinking of Porter as sort of a similar prospect to Langford, but less highly touted out of highschool and with less of a track record in college, which bumped him a tier below Langford. Then I factor in the character red flags and bump him down another tier, at which point he's down and out of the range where I'd be interested in taking a serious look at him. Still tend to think you're reading too much into flashes when the big picture is much less encouraging (dare I say people did the same thing with Preston, albeit there people were looking at HS highlights).

Yeah they've got some differences. I wouldn't say Porter wasn't a highly touted recruit though... a late bloomer, but he was a five star that went from unranked in September 2017 all the way to #32 in January 2018 on Rivals and then ending up at #16 on their 2018 recruits list.

He wasn't invited to any of the HS All Star Events, and then ended up being a late invite to the USA U18 camps in June 2018 where he went and apparently shit on everyone.

There's a chance that I am overvaluing the flashes he's shown I agree, but I think I'm okay with it. It all comes back to what his on-court weaknesses are... and in my opinion they are ALL very workable.

Billy Preston's issue is that he is as dumb as a box of rocks and cannot shoot. I never liked him. Trust me, I'm the last person that will fall for the hoop-mixtapes and highlights and whatnot. I try not to give an opinion on things unless I feel like I'm informed on it.

 

[I'mWithDan]

Yeah they've got some differences. I wouldn't say Porter wasn't a highly touted recruit though... a late bloomer, but he was a five star that went from unranked in September 2017 all the way to #32 in January 2018 on Rivals and then ending up at #16 on their 2018 recruits list.

He wasn't invited to any of the HS All Star Events, and then ended up being a late invite to the USA U18 camps in June 2018 where he went and apparently shit on everyone.

There's a chance that I am overvaluing the flashes he's shown I agree, but I think I'm okay with it. It all comes back to what his on-court weaknesses are... and in my opinion they are ALL very workable.

Billy Preston's issue is that he is as dumb as a box of rocks and cannot shoot. I never liked him. Trust me, I'm the last person that will fall for the hoop-mixtapes and highlights and whatnot. I try not to give an opinion on things unless I feel like I'm informed on it.

Can you or @Nathan S remember someone like him who has succeeded? It could be prior to 2011.

He really has no ballpark comp from what I see in my draft data. I mean, look at his splits.....I exposed some other categories here that I look at as well (PPFGA, 3P/PTS) just to get a sense for scoring efficiency and the % contribution of points from 3PFGM.

He’s generally cool / awful in everything but the red flag, to me, is the 3PT number.......what I mean by that is 43% is high.....and especially so for an inefficient scorer who doesn't seem to contribute elsewhere. But set aside the efficiency portion for a second....the 3P/PTS metric slots him with:

Jordan Poole
Matisse Thybulle
Cam Reddish
Mikal Bridges
Nik Stauskas
Buddy Hield
Klay Thompson
Etc...

Do you see what I am getting at? If his sell is ISO play this number historically tells you the player being referenced is likely not a great ISO creator.....and instead relies on 3PT shooting to provide offensive scoring value.

True offensive creators / ISO projection players of the past 8 or so drafts....

Kyrie Irving
Victor Oladipo
Jason Tatum
Dame Lillard
Kemba Walker
Etc...

They all fell in the 25-35% range in 3P/PTS.....which makes sense.....because you should be having more scoring opportunities inside AND you should produce FT's at a pretty high rate, dragging that number down. The higher range (35%) is someone like Lillard, who lacks either size / or finishing creativity of a Kyrie, so he leans a little more on 3's.....the lower end (25%) tends to be guys with overwhelming athletic or dribble gifts, who can really attack the rim relentlessly.

There are a few exceptions, notably Donovan Mitchell, if you are looking for a rangy SG type but it is just uncommon. And obviously Mitchell's metrics look very, very different than Porter's.

Mitchell profiled as an All-Star almost across the board. Positive player on both ends, right at the All-Star median range for NET and DIFF and then he had immense physical gifts. The only moderate concern was his scoring efficiency.

That is the main reason I really struggle having any confidence in Porter panning out. Is his Synergy ISO data good?

 

[Nathan S]

Can you or @Nathan S remember someone like him who has succeeded? It could be prior to 2011.

He really has no ballpark comp from what I see in my draft data. I mean, look at his splits.....I exposed some other categories here that I look at as well (PPFGA, 3P/PTS) just to get a sense for scoring efficiency and the % contribution of points from 3PFGA.

The red flag, to me, is the 3PT number.......what I mean by that is 43% is high.....and especially so for an inefficient scorer who doesn't seem to contribute elsewhere. But set aside the efficiency portion for a second....the 3P/PTS metric slots him with:

Jordan Poole
Matisse Thybulle
Cam Reddish
Mikal Bridges
Nik Stauskas
Buddy Hield
Klay Thompson

Do you see what I am getting at? This number historically tells you the player being referenced is likely not a great ISO creator.....and instead relies on 3PT shooting to provide offensive value.

True offensive creators / ISO projection players of the past 8 or so drafts....

Kyrie Irving
Victor Oladipo
Jason Tatum
Dame Lillard
DeAaron Fox
Kemba Walker

They all fell in the 25-35% range in 3P/PTS.....which makes sense.....because you should having more scoring opportunities inside AND you should produce FT's at a pretty high rate, dragging that number down. The higher range (35%) is someone like Lillard, who lacks the size / finishing creativity of a Kyrie, so he leans a little more on 3's.....the lower end (25%) tends to be guys with overwhelming athletic or dribble gifts, who can really attack the rim relentlessly.

There are a few exceptions, notably Donovan Mitchell, if you are looking for a rangy SG type but it is just uncommon. And obviously Mitchell's metrics look very, very different than Porter's.

Mitchell profiled as an All-Star almost across the board. Positive player on both ends, right at the All-Star median range for NET and DIFF and then he had immense physical gifts. The only moderate concern was his scoring efficiency.

That is the main reason I really struggle having any confidence in Porter panning out. Is his Synergy ISO data good?

Barely half of his threes are assisted, in contrast with the other guys you listed. If anything, I'd say it's a weakness that he doesn't really have great instincts as an off-ball floor spacer, so (sort of like Langford) he'll have to be a really good 1-on-1 scorer in the NBA to add any sort of value. And opinions differ, clearly, on how likely he is to be a really good 1-on-1 scorer

 

[I'mWithDan]

Barely half of his threes are assisted, in contrast with the other guys you listed. If anything, I'd say it's a weakness that he doesn't really have great instincts as an off-ball floor spacer, so (sort of like Langford) he'll have to be a really good 1-on-1 scorer in the NBA to add any sort of value. And opinions differ, clearly, on how likely he is to be a really good 1-on-1 scorer

For sure. It takes some more digging beyond that number, it’s just usually a red flag that a potential NBA ISO scorer would be profiling the way Porter does.

Even the most extreme volume case (Trae Young) was at 40% in that metric, still percentage points under Porter......and Porter isn’t in the same universe as a creator. So it just sets off alarm bells that a player would be labeled an ISO scorer, with his frame and athletic gifts and contribute more like an off the ball floor spacer. It’s usually not a good sign and especially with how little he seems to impact everywhere else.

I don’t have his ISO data, so it’s possible he’s an exception to many of these sanity checks....but this many flags is just typically a prospect death sentence. Even if he pans out, this broader view of him says that you’d just be incredibly lucky if that were actually the case.

 

[Nathan S]

For sure. It takes some more digging beyond that number, it’s just usually a red flag that a potential NBA ISO scorer would be profiling the way Porter does.

Even the most extreme volume case (Trae Young) was at 40% in that metric, still percentage points under Porter......and Porter isn’t in the same universe as a creator. So it just sets off alarm bells that a player would be labeled an ISO scorer and contribute more like an off the ball floor spacer. It’s usually not a good sign and especially with how little he seems to impact everywhere else.

I don’t have his ISO data, so it’s possible he’s an exception to many of these sanity checks....but this many flags is just typically a prospect death sentence. Even if he pans out, this broader view of him says that you’d just be incredibly lucky if that were actually the case.

Referring back to @3 Ball...GOT IT 's post:

"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."

I tend to think that, as is the case for most guys who "settle" for jumpers when they "should" drive, this reflects a lack of ballhandling confidence and ability. Which is of course a big problem if you're hoping for him to ultimately be a great 1-on-1 scorer.

So yeah, I'm not saying he has a great projection as an ISO scorer. I'm just saying he projects even worse as, e.g, a 3&d wing, in spite of having (on paper) decent skills for that role.

 

[I'mWithDan]

Barely half of his threes are assisted, in contrast with the other guys you listed. If anything, I'd say it's a weakness that he doesn't really have great instincts as an off-ball floor spacer, so (sort of like Langford) he'll have to be a really good 1-on-1 scorer in the NBA to add any sort of value. And opinions differ, clearly, on how likely he is to be a really good 1-on-1 scorer

I forgot the expand on this but I think you mention the guy who people should be on here (Langford), if you want to bet on a wing with scoring potential at the next level.

To me, he looks more like what everyone thinks Porter is...

Langford is scoring pretty efficiently at the college level and he's not leaning on 3PM to do it......so that intimates that he's a pretty decent slasher right now and most likely draws a lot of fouls or additionally contributes in transition, both plusses.....also more translatable skills for someone who might be a good ISO wing player. And if he does learn to shoot, there's a pretty nice leveling up to his scoring potential.

The combination of his PPFGA + his FTR is something I'd much rather bet on, even though I'm not a huge believer in his range. But range is a more easily acquired skill IMO......vs. projecting a player like Porter will completely change his style of play in the NBA (if he's even capable of doing so). Even a small tweak to Langford's shot distribution, with an average shooting improvement, projects him as a promising scorer.

I personally think Langford will see his prospect profile raise in the post season evaluation period but currently, he's one of the guys who I think has the best chance to bounce back from a decent but not great freshman year. I guess we'll see. I don't love him but he looks like one of the more projectable guys to me.....if you're asking who you should bet on out of that more under performing wing group.

 

[3 Ball...GOT IT]

Can you or @Nathan S remember someone like him who has succeeded? It could be prior to 2011.

He really has no ballpark comp from what I see in my draft data. I mean, look at his splits.....I exposed some other categories here that I look at as well (PPFGA, 3P/PTS) just to get a sense for scoring efficiency and the % contribution of points from 3PFGM.

He’s generally cool / awful in everything but the red flag, to me, is the 3PT number.......what I mean by that is 43% is high.....and especially so for an inefficient scorer who doesn't seem to contribute elsewhere. But set aside the efficiency portion for a second....the 3P/PTS metric slots him with:

Jordan Poole
Matisse Thybulle
Cam Reddish
Mikal Bridges
Nik Stauskas
Buddy Hield
Klay Thompson
Etc...

Do you see what I am getting at? If his sell is ISO play this number historically tells you the player being referenced is likely not a great ISO creator.....and instead relies on 3PT shooting to provide offensive scoring value.

True offensive creators / ISO projection players of the past 8 or so drafts....

Kyrie Irving
Victor Oladipo
Jason Tatum
Dame Lillard
Kemba Walker
Etc...

They all fell in the 25-35% range in 3P/PTS.....which makes sense.....because you should having more scoring opportunities inside AND you should produce FT's at a pretty high rate, dragging that number down. The higher range (35%) is someone like Lillard, who lacks either size / or finishing creativity of a Kyrie, so he leans a little more on 3's.....the lower end (25%) tends to be guys with overwhelming athletic or dribble gifts, who can really attack the rim relentlessly.

There are a few exceptions, notably Donovan Mitchell, if you are looking for a rangy SG type but it is just uncommon. And obviously Mitchell's metrics look very, very different than Porter's.

Mitchell profiled as an All-Star almost across the board. Positive player on both ends, right at the All-Star median range for NET and DIFF and then he had immense physical gifts. The only moderate concern was his scoring efficiency.

That is the main reason I really struggle having any confidence in Porter panning out. Is his Synergy ISO data good?

I love the 3PT to ISO figure, that’s really an excellent way of explaining KPJs number one concern... wouldn’t have thought to look at that. And yea, I really cannot recall a guy with a similar shot profile with the ISO heavy volume off the top of my head.

But even in understanding that issue, do you feel like that’s fixable? I don’t really worry about his ability to score in ways besides the step back, it’s just a change in style of play that must happen. USC doesn’t run a whole ton of P&R, maybe that can get him downhill more often? I feel like you can improve that. The open lanes he creates will be even more open with the added spacing.

It really is just an odd projection to try to make. I understand the hesitancy fully.

On @Nathan S post with ball handling confidence, id almost say he’s TOO confident in his handle lol. With that said he may have the best handle in the draft. Maybe he doesn’t like to play into contact at the rim? Idk... he doesn’t lack physicality on defense.

Hopefully I’m not coming off as too much of a dick with Porter lmao, I gotta Stan for my guy lol. It’s one of the few instances where some of the numbers don’t line up to my overall opinion of a guy.

 

[I'mWithDan]

I love the 3PT to ISO figure, that’s really an excellent way of explaining KPJs number one concern... wouldn’t have thought to look at that. And yea, I really cannot recall a guy with a similar shot profile with the ISO heavy volume off the top of my head.

But even in understanding that issue, do you feel like that’s fixable? I don’t really worry about his ability to score in ways besides the step back, it’s just a change in style of play that must happen. USC doesn’t run a whole ton of P&R, maybe that can get him downhill more often? I feel like you can improve that. The open lanes he creates will be even more open with the added spacing.

It really is just an odd projection to try to make. I understand the hesitancy fully.

On @Nathan S post with ball handling confidence, id almost say he’s TOO confident in his handle lol. With that said he may have the best handle in the draft. Maybe he doesn’t like to play into contact at the rim? Idk... he doesn’t lack physicality on defense.

Hopefully I’m not coming off as too much of a dick with Porter lmao, I gotta Stan for my guy lol. It’s one of the few instances where some of the numbers don’t line up to my overall opinion of a guy.

I always remind people that numbers are just that....they aren’t absolute judge and jury but they are certainly good litmus tests.

You really need to make a compelling case for a player that profiles like Porter, to believe he can pan out in the face of a lot of data that says it is really unlikely. I couldn’t tell you what that case is......just that history says you better be able to explain why this player is different from all the similar profiles who washed out.

I haven’t watched any of his film and I draw this conclusion based on a lot of numbers I trust when trying to confidently bet on a prospect. That’s all this is to me......in terms of board philosophy. Who has the best mix of projectable outcome, paired with college performance. I don’t doubt Porter has projectable outcomes but he’s so bad in the metrics I care about at the college level, that I’d rather invest theoretical draft capital in players that are far more likely to reach a good-plus ceiling......vs. ones who are far, far less likely to be the best higher ceiling version of whatever Porter Jr is.

 

[Nathan S]

On @Nathan S post with ball handling confidence, id almost say he’s TOO confident in his handle lol. With that said he may have the best handle in the draft. Maybe he doesn’t like to play into contact at the rim? Idk... he doesn’t lack physicality on defense.

Don't see how this adds up...if he has the best handle in the draft, and he's extremely confident in it, he should be dunking all over the P12. It probably comes down to the difference between handling in space (and in pure 1-on-1 perimeter situations) vs. handling in traffic. Some guys are good at one but not the other...but really both are essential for a wing scorer. Reddish, for instance, looks like a perfectly good ballhandler in space, but is comically bad in traffic. I doubt Porter is quite that bad, but I also doubt that a simple change in mentality could transform him into an elite high-volume finisher.

 

[Smooth]

The thing I worry about Kevin Porter Jr. is that it truly it's 100% a pick based off talent, projection and there's a lot of risk involved in that.. There's really nothing he's shown, or been able to show being in and out of the lineup, in college consistently that makes you think he will be an successful talent..

There's flashes of athleticism, or being able to create or showing his perimeter range, but nothing that makes you confident in picking him..

More than anyone else, he's going to need to go to a team that has the infrastructure and system in place where they can afford to be patient and not rush his development.. There's no doubt he has the talent but he's also very raw as a prospect and putting him right into a 20mpg role right away would be a mistake...

 

[3 Ball...GOT IT]

The thing I worry about Kevin Porter Jr. is that it truly it's 100% a pick based off talent, projection and there's a lot of risk involved in that.. There's really nothing he's shown, or been able to show being in and out of the lineup, in college consistently that makes you think he will be an successful talent..

There's flashes of athleticism, or being able to create or showing his perimeter range, but nothing that makes you confident in picking him..

More than anyone else, he's going to need to go to a team that has the infrastructure and system in place where they can afford to be patient and not rush his development.. There's no doubt he has the talent but he's also very raw as a prospect and putting him right into a 20mpg role right away would be a mistake...

I will be very interested to see if whoever selects Porter, if they sign Jamal Crawford on the minimum. He's supposedly been a father figure for him for a long time. Porter's father was murdered when he was younger I believe. Crawford certainly won't have a long list of suitors, and I know he's stated his desire to continue playing.

 

[DeeThree]

Who are the guys in the 4-8 range?

 

[Smooth]

I know you guys touched on it prior but RJ Barrett's efficiency, or lackthereof, is particularly concerning..

His age (19 at draft time), rebounding (7+ for a wing) and ability to be secondary facilitator, all drag you back in...

He's barely shooting +30% from 3, on nearly six attempts per game, and is only shooting 66% from the line, which makes me concerned how good of a shooter he truly is..

May be a weird question, but is his skillset just not prone to being a good shooter?

Look back at wings to average 7+ rebs and 4+ asts per game and it's an interesting result.
You get guys like--Luke Jackson, Ben Simmons, Andre Iguodala, Terrance Williams, Kyle Anderson, Penny Hardaway, Bonzi Wells, Bob Sura, Evan Turner and Deandre Bembry; none of them really went on to be highly efficient shooters, in general or from deep...

Are we hoping RJ Barrett becomes a better shooter but % wise and history wise might suggest otherwise?

I don't have any correlation to back up my claim but just some interesting data to consider...