2019 NBA Draft

[Nathan S]

Looking at both his data and film.....if you were a GM, could you take Reddish in the lottery? Today? And if so, where would you feel comfortable?

I just look at the landscape of players, production and potential and am I crazy to think no mock draft should have him in the top 10? And it’s a semi stretch to keep him in the lottery?

In the context of all drafts since 2011, it is horrifically bad on all levels. I have 393 prospects charted.....I’m still missing around half of the also ran second rounders from 2016-18 but every possession data 1st and 2nd rounder from 2011-2016....All 1st rounders from 2017-2018.....these are his actual, honest to god ranks.....

Per 100 possessions:

Game score: 387/393
NET game score: 371/393
Positional difference: 359/393

I get he has interesting physical gifts but how do people who fill out mock drafts ignore the above? He is historically bad statistically on a per 100 possession basis.

There are some high picks in those ballpark areas above and none have broken through to be much at the NBA level......

Lottery picks in that lower tier of game score ranks:

Austin Rivers, Jaylen Brown, Marquesse Chriss, Zach LaVine, Brandon Knight, Harrison Barnes, Kevin Knox, Nik Stauskas.....and shield your eyes, Collin Sexton.

It’s just a huge red flag, based on the drafts available with college possession data. It’s only 10 ish players but it’s 10 players from only 112 possible lottery selections (9%) and the best case is pretty ugly out of that group. Reddish has more unique circumstances, so maybe he bucks that trend but on a possession data basis, my calculation honestly rates him near an UDFA. He won’t be that but it speaks to how unwilling some people are to change their mind about someone, even in the face of a player completely flaming out as a freshman and then going pro.

I see Reddish as a late first early second kind of guy at this point. I think he has real potential to be a useful 3&D guy, but with basically no creation upside on offense and limited versatility on defense (he doesn't have the mental makeup to play the 4 defensively), it would be crazy to use a lottery pick on him.

 

[I'mWithDan]

I think I have 7 guys who are pretty solidly in my top-10 at this point...by tier,

1: Zion (duh)
2: Morant, Barrett
3: Williams, THT, Bitadze, Jontay Porter

After that things get really tough. All the guys you mention could make a case to join that 3rd tier, as could many others. I'm going to take my sweet time to decide

I went on a Cam rant and didn't respond to this.

My rankings say these are the top 10 players and here are the tiers I would slot them in:

Tier 1: Zion
Tier 2: Morant
Tier 3: Williams, Bol Bol, Hayes, Hunter, Barrett
Tier 4: Culver, Alexander-Walker, Hachimura (least confident)

At #11 I have Goga.

Vying for 12-14 in the lottery:

**Tier 5: White, Garland, Fernando, Clarke, THT, Jontay Porter.

**At this point I probably consider one of the flame out wings too..... Langford, Little.

My ratings are a little harder on Barrett at seasons end, so I bumped him down a tier. I would still have a top 3 of Zion, Barrett and Morant but a little cooler on RJ than mid-season.

Morant rates out better than Lillard and slots just behind Kyrie and Lonzo in overall PG prospect ranks. There's possibly an argument there, pending athletic testing, that he's a tier 1 player. Assuming he doesn't have 50 turnovers in an NCAA game, he grades out in the top 5 PG prospects of the last 8 years with Lonzo, Kyrie, Trae Young and Lillard......and he does so taking a big hit (like Lillard) for SOS.

EDIT: Rui is the toughest player for me out of that top 10 group. He has a mix of great physical tools and production but his lack of range really terrifies me. But with all the wings just shitting the bed, it's tough for me to not slot him there. I wouldn't love taking him in the top 10 but he's the only player who has produced enough, to make me feel comfortable betting on his physical tools producing a better than average #10 pick ceiling.

 

[Nathan S]

I went on a Cam rant and didn't respond to this.

My rankings say these are the top 10 players and here are the tiers I would slot them in:

Tier 1: Zion
Tier 2: Morant
Tier 3: Williams, Bol Bol, Hayes, Hunter, Barrett
Tier 4: Culver, Alexander-Walker, Hachimura (least confident)

At #11 I have Goga.

Vying for 12-14 in the lottery:

**Tier 5: White, Garland, Fernando, Clarke, THT, Jontay Porter.

**At this point I probably consider one of the flame out wings too..... Langford, Little.

My ratings are a little harder on Barrett at seasons end, so I bumped him down a tier. I would still have a top 3 of Zion, Barrett and Morant but a little cooler on RJ than mid-season. Morant rates out better than Lillard and slots just behind Kyrie and Lonzo in overall PG prospect ranks. There's possibly an argument there, pending athletic testing, that he's a tier 1 player. Assuming he doesn't have 50 turnovers in an NCAA game, he grades out in the top 5 PG prospects of the last 8 years with Lonzo, Kyrie, Trae Young and Lillard......and he does so taking a big hit (like Lillard) for SOS.

Fun question: would Murray State be better or worse if you replace Morant with Barrett?

 

[I'mWithDan]

Fun question: would Murray State be better or worse if you replace Morant with Barrett?

I think Barrett would produce ungodly stats but the team would not go 27-4. I operate under the at least 20% more philosophy. So Barrett would conservatively average 28, 9 and 5 in the OVC.

I like Barrett, more than the average person on this forum but I'm still unsure he is an alpha player. Morant has the mentality of a true #1 option and without that, it is really, really, really hard to carry a team.....even at lower levels.

RJ's physical talent and size would be overwhelming at the OVC level but he'd also get fouled a lot more (forced to shoot FT's late in games), he'd have less space to operate off the bounce and worse teammates to convert assist opportunities. It's possible he could average 15 rebounds though.

I guess what I'm getting at is it takes a very specific type of player to not only be a true elite level NBA prospect at the mid-major level and to also drag dead weight, over the course of 30+ games and come out the other side. Murray State really had no business beating Belmont, who was just a better team (IMO) but they did simply because JA was a flat out stud 9 out of every 10 games to get them to that point and then a stud in the championship.

I'd still take RJ #2, if forced to decide right now but if JA did 2 things......killed atheltic testing (in combination with the functional athleticism he has shown in games) and shot the ball well during drills, it seems defensible to me that a team could pass on Barrett.....and especially so if that team needs a PG.

 

[Nathan S]

I think Barrett would produce ungodly stats but the team would not go 27-4. I operate under the at least 20% more philosophy. So Barrett would conservatively average 28, 9 and 5 in the OVC.

I like Barrett, more than the average person on this forum but I'm still unsure he is an alpha player. Morant has the mentality of a true #1 option and without that, it is really, really, really hard to carry a team.....even at lower levels.

RJ's physical talent and size would be overwhelming at the OVC level but he'd also get fouled a lot more (forced to shoot FT's late in games), he'd have less space to operate off the bounce and worse teammates to convert assist opportunities. It's possible he could average 15 rebounds though.

I guess what I'm getting at is it takes a very specific type of player to not only be a true elite level NBA prospect at the mid-major level and to also drag dead weight, over the course of 30+ games and come out the other side. Murray State really had no business beating Belmont, who was just a better team (IMO) but they did simply because JA was a flat out stud 9 out of every 10 games to get them to that point and then a stud in the championship.

I'd still take RJ #2, if forced to decide right now but if JA did 2 things......killed atheltic testing (in combination with the functional athleticism he has shown in games) and shot the ball well during drills, it seems defensible to me that a team could pass on Barrett.....and especially so if that team needs a PG.

I hear you...I can definitely see the case for Morant at #2 (though it's close enough that his inability to play alongside Sexton is a serious consideration). But since he's older than Barrett and smaller than Barrett, his case depends strongly on the fact that he's a better all-around basketball player than Barrett right now. And I'm not completely confident in that.

 

[I'mWithDan]

Here's where my amateur assessment bore out after the regular season. Board rank is how I would take them. AGG# is Hoopshype aggregate ranks. NET CH. is net game score change since early / mid FEB....just to see how players played over the roughest portion of the conference schedule.

Key omissions:

Keldon Johnson
KZ Okpala
Kevin Porter Jr.

I'm willing to be proven wrong by any of them.

My "Sure, I'll take that bet" players:

Grant Williams
Coby White
Talen Horton-Tucker

"I'll probably regret it but fine"

Rui Hachimura
Nassir Little

And here are some stats and colors to look at (hot = red / orange / yellow.....cool= blue/purple):

I don't know the NCAA tourney will change much for me, so it's likely guys only get shuffled post combine and measurements. Hopefully someone finds this mildly interesting.

EDIT: In the Cavs case, I probably pass on JA and take Barrett.....but it's a tougher than average choice.

I think I have explained it before but GS/ADJ is a calculation that tries to assess a players contribution minus points. A high GS/ADJ and low GS/NET is historically a bad sign (ala Tre Jones)....those players usually wash out unless you can project their offense. A high GS/ADJ and mid-good GS/NET is historically a sign of a good role player candidate (ala Okeke, Thybulle). Good numbers in all 3 categories (ADJ, NET, DIFF) indicates the prospect is likely part of the pool of players who could most likely be an all-star, based on possession data from 2011-2018 NBA prospects. Players with good numbers in GS/NET and POSS. DIFF can still be All-Stars but at roughly half the rate of players who surpass benchmarks in all 3.

Negative values in GS/ADJ indicate that a player has a perceived weakness in an important NBA skill.....someone like Barrett really gets drug down by his miserable STL/BLK rates, indicating he really needs his offense and creation skills to impact a game at the next level......because it is unlikely he will do so on defense.

 

[Nathan S]

Here's where my amateur assessment bore out after the regular season. Board rank is how I would take them. AGG# is Hoopshype aggregate ranks. NET CH. is net game score change since early / mid FEB....just to see how players played over the roughest portion of the conference schedule.

Key omissions:

Keldon Johnson
KZ Okpala
Kevin Porter Jr.

I'm willing to be proven wrong by any of them.

My "Sure, I'll tale that bet" players:

Grant Williams
Coby White
Talen Horton-Tucker

"I'll probably regret it but fine"

Rui Hachimura
Nassir Little

And here are some stats and colors to look at (hot = red / orange / yellow.....cool= blue/purple):

I don't know the NCAA tourney will change much for me, so it's likely guys only get shuffled post combine and measurements. Hopefully someone finds this mildly interesting.

EDIT: In the Cavs case, I probably pass on JA and take Barrett.....but it's a tougher than average choice.

I think Hunter's interesting, but I have the same problem with him that I had with Bridges last year. If at age 21 he's still more of a roleplayer than a star at the college level, how is he ever going to be a star at the NBA level? Granted, upside is hard to come by in this draft...but even then...

 

[I'mWithDan]

I think Hunter's interesting, but I have the same problem with him that I had with Bridges last year. If at age 21 he's still more of a roleplayer than a star at the college level, how is he ever going to be a star at the NBA level? Granted, upside is hard to come by in this draft...but even then...

The median All-Star profile is blindly someone like Kawhi..... I think Kawhi's profile is an MVP level candidate (like him) 1 out of 30 times but still, I think Hunter probably has more upside than given credit for.

He's a better shooter than Kawhi, he draws more fouls, turns it over half as much, scores more efficiently and while not Kawhi on defense, has a chance to be a plus defender. Hunter is not really in a system and on a team where he would really pop statistically, in ways people would get excited about but he's a pretty safe bet to be a + NBA starter......and in the middle of this lottery, I'm taking it. He is older than Kawhi was but scoring efficiency, with Hunter's shooting upside, is not an easily obtained skill, even for a younger player.

I think the result of missing 4-8 is really damaging. You likely are picking there again the following year with nothing to show for it....i.e the Cavs. Maybe harsh on Collin but it is what it is. And as I have said before, all the data I look at indicates how often teams just make really dumb decisions in this area of the draft. So I value guys like Culver, Hunter and NAW a bit more than average because I think you look back a year from now and say "we could have done a lot worse". In a draft full of players who could just self combust, I think that needs to be your mindset......and there's at least a decent amount of historical data that it is reasonable that it should be. In a typical draft, or good (like 2018) where players like Jackson, Young, Bamba and Carter are in the 4-7 range, well then no. But this year? It feels that way.

You mentioned Mikal Bridges. I think his ceiling is low but he's the #4 VORP player (1.4) from this past draft. Would you rather have him or Knox a year later? I think it's still Knox but you have more pause than you did at the draft. Bridges is a positive DRPM defender as a rookie with shooting upside. Knox is generally a train wreck.....but younger. That's always the tough part of those decisions. Seeing 80 games of Knox......how good does his offense need to become to be more valuable than a 22 year old 3 and D wing? Pretty good right?

 

[Cavatt]

I think Hunter's interesting, but I have the same problem with him that I had with Bridges last year. If at age 21 he's still more of a roleplayer than a star at the college level, how is he ever going to be a star at the NBA level? Granted, upside is hard to come by in this draft...but even then...

After the first 3 I think you are looking for solid roleplayers. I don't think Hunter is a star either. He can be an Otto Porter type.

 

[Nathan S]

The median All-Star profile is blindly someone like Kawhi..... I think Kawhi's profile is an MVP level candidate (like him) 1 out of 30 times but still, I think Hunter probably has more upside than given credit for.

He's a better shooter than Kawhi, he draws more fouls, turns it over half as much, scores more efficiently and while not Kawhi on defense, has a chance to be a plus defender. Hunter is not really in a system and on a team where he would really pop statistically, in ways people would get really excited about but he's a pretty safe bet to be a + NBA starter......and in the middle of this lottery, I'm taking it. He is older than Kawhi was but scoring efficiency, with Hunter's shooting upside, is not an easily obtained skill, even for a younger player.

I think the result of missing 4-8 is really damaging. You likely are picking there again the following year with nothing to show for it....i.e the Cavs. And as I have said before, all the data I look at indicates how often teams just make really dumb decisions in this area of the draft. So I value guys like Culver, Hunter and NAW a bit more than average because I think you look back a year from now and say "we could have done a lot worse". In a draft full of players who could just self combust, I think that needs to be your mindset......and there's at least a decent amount of historical data that is reasonable that it should be. In a typical draft, or good (like 2018) where someone players like Jackson, Young, Bamba and Carter are in the 4-7 range, well then no.

You mentioned Mikal Bridges. I think his ceiling is low but he's the #4 VORP player (1.4) from this past draft. Would you rather have him or Knox a year later? I think it's still Knox but you have more pause than you did at the draft. Bridges is a positive DRPM defender as a rookie with shooting upside. Knox is generally a train wreck.....but younger. That's always the tough part of those decisions. Seeing 80 games of Knox......how good does his offense need to become to be more valuable than a 22 year old 3 and D wing? Pretty good right?

I despised Knox in last year's draft so that last argument doesn't work against me

But to be clear, I'm fully aware that Bridges looks very solid. I think Hunter will be solid too, hence the comparison, but where we're picking I want some kind of elite upside. I'd argue that Bitadze, Williams, and perhaps NAW offer that upside while being nearly as safe as Hunter.

As for Kawhi, he was always an outlier physically, and his skills developed meteorically from age 18-19 to 20-21 or so. As a 20-year-old rookie he was starting in the WCF...which is crazy. 21-year-old Kawhi would dominate NCAA competition and eat 21-year-old Hunter for lunch. Barring rare exceptions like Jimmy Butler, guys who have superstar upside usually show it pretty clearly by that age, and Hunter simply hasn't.

 

[I'mWithDan]

I despised Knox in last year's draft so that last argument doesn't work against me

But to be clear, I'm fully aware that Bridges looks very solid. I think Hunter will be solid too, hence the comparison, but where we're picking I want some kind of elite upside. I'd argue that Bitadze, Williams, and perhaps NAW offer that upside while being nearly as safe as Hunter.

As for Kawhi, he was always an outlier physically, and his skills developed meteorically from age 18-19 to 20-21 or so. As a 20-year-old rookie he was starting in the WCF...which is crazy. 21-year-old Kawhi would dominate NCAA competition and eat 21-year-old Hunter for lunch. Barring rare exceptions like Jimmy Butler, guys who have superstar upside usually show it pretty clearly by that age, and Hunter simply hasn't.

LOL on Knox....

I agree with what you are saying.....I just think it's a little more complicated when projecting players like Hunter. Is it likely he is just a good starter? Yes.....but I think guys like him have better star potential than most people give them credit for.

If you look at the 17 All-Star players since 2011......these guys were all past 21 years old at the midway point of their rookie years:

Damian Lillard
Jimmy Butler
Klay Thompson
Draymond Green
Isaiah Thomas
Kemba Walker
Nikola Vicevic
Khris Middleton

From a volume perspective, far more of these guys wash out (certainly) but it honestly was surprising to me how many "older" players have succeeded since the 1-and-done era took hold.

None of those guys had stats that would completely blow you away at an age similar to Hunter (except for Lillard, who dominated lesser competition) but they all (save Middelton) fell in to that similar profile of player.....even contribution across the board with specific redeeming qualities at the NBA level. Statistically, this game score model spits out that Hunter is the generic all-star NBA2K wing.

I agree Hunter probably doesn't have elite upside but few players in this draft do.....and I think we are actually in agreement here, given the players you mention and where I additionally have them ranked. I didn't highlight that I placed a dotted line between picks 4-9.....that included Williams, NAW, etc....I was just grouping those guys together as "take your pick here". At 11 I had Goga. I think they all profile as prospects that would be really nice mid lottery selections.....and then you swing at guys like THT, White at the end of the lottery.....where I think it makes sense to just draft purely for ceiling.

Not everyone agrees with the strategy above.....but the reason guys like Kemba, Klay, George, Hayward, etc. slide to the end of the lottery is because teams are irrationally betting on upside in the middle of the lottery, that just tends to not work, based on what I have seen.

 

[Nathan S]

LOL on Knox....

I agree with what you are saying.....I just think it's a little more complicated when projecting players like Hunter. Is it likely he is just a good starter? Yes.....but I think guys like him have better star potential than most people give them credit for.

If you look at the 17 All-Star players since 2011......these guys were all past 21 years old at the midway point of their rookie years:

Damian Lillard
Jimmy Butler
Klay Thompson
Draymond Green
Isaiah Thomas
Kemba Walker
Nikola Vicevic
Khris Middleton

From a volume perspective, far more of these guys wash out (certainly) but it honestly was surprising to me how many "older" players have succeeded since the 1-and-done era took hold.

None of those guys had stats that would completely blow you away at an age similar to Hunter (except for Lillard, who dominated lesser competition) but they all (save Middelton) fell in to that similar profile of player.....even contribution across the board with specific redeeming qualities at the NBA level. Statistically, this game score model spits out that Hunter is the generic all-star NBA2K wing.

I agree Hunter probably doesn't have elite upside but few players in this draft do.....and I think we are actually in agreement here, given the players you mention and where I additionally have them ranked. I didn't highlight that I placed a dotted line between picks 4-9.....that included Williams, NAW, etc....I was just grouping those guys together as "take your pick here". At 10 I had Goga. I think they all profile as prospects that would be really nice mid lottery selections.....and then you swing at guys like THT, White at the end of the lottery.....where I think it makes sense to just draft purely for ceiling.

Not everyone agrees with the strategy above.....but the reason guys like Kemba, Klay, George, Hayward, etc. slide to the end of the lottery is because teams are irrationally betting on upside in the middle of the lottery, that just tends to not work, based on what I have seen.

Agree that we're actually not too far apart on this. Honestly it's just hard to fill in those 4/5/6 slots. Everyone you could put there feels like a reach.

 

[3 Ball...GOT IT]

Re: Ty Jerome

Don't have the Synergy numbers, but whenever I've watched I have been pretty impressed with his floater game - which should alleviate some of the finishing questions a touch.

I still wouldn't ever trust him to be much of a creator at the NBA level. I'm hoping a team that runs a lot of guys off screens and uses split cuts drafts him. I'd be surprised if he goes in the first though... his measurables will kill his stock.

 

[Nathan S]

Re: Ty Jerome

Don't have the Synergy numbers, but whenever I've watched I have been pretty impressed with his floater game - which should alleviate some of the finishing questions a touch.

I still wouldn't ever trust him to be much of a creator at the NBA level. I'm hoping a team that runs a lot of guys off screens and uses split cuts drafts him. I'd be surprised if he goes in the first though... his measurables will kill his stock.

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?

 

[I'mWithDan]

Re: Ty Jerome

Don't have the Synergy numbers, but whenever I've watched I have been pretty impressed with his floater game - which should alleviate some of the finishing questions a touch.

I still wouldn't ever trust him to be much of a creator at the NBA level. I'm hoping a team that runs a lot of guys off screens and uses split cuts drafts him. I'd be surprised if he goes in the first though... his measurables will kill his stock.

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.

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.