2019 NBA Draft

[I'mWithDan]

It likes Massenburg a lot actually: +3.7 offense, -1.1 defense, +2.6 overall. Of course, he's benefiting a lot from a weak strength of schedule (e.g. a triple-double against a D-II team earlier this year), but still seems like a legit prospect. At a glance, his rebound rate (especially offensive rebound rate) really jumps off the page for a player his size. Suggests that he'll be able to hold his own against NBA athletes.

Poole's in a really tricky team situation because he not only has to compete with Brazdeikis and Matthews for shots, he also has to compete with Simpson for ballhandling opportunities...and since Simpson is an utterly worthless off-ball player, there's hardly any opportunity for Poole to try his hand at running the offense. Long story short, 99% of the time a guy who's only 3rd on his team in usage in college is never going to be a #1 or #2 option in the pros. But if you had to pick an exception, it'd be a guy like Poole.

Thanks on CJ......I'm really curious what NBA teams do with a guy like him. Ultra efficient, really nice progression in his career and good size if you view him as a PG. Certainly his shooting ability allows him to be a smaller combo guard too and his rebounding tends to intimate he players bigger than his listed height.

Yeah, I think Poole being a #1 option ceiling is like a 1 in 1000 shot but I do think he can be a really productive NBA scorer and possibly #2 option. More just interested to see how his prospect profile raises or lowers as the season goes on.

 

[Nathan S]

I'm a little bit surprised that Ponds isn't generally considered a lottery pick at this point. 37 points, 6 assists, and 4 steals in an OT win over Georgetown on Saturday, which has to be among the best individual performances by any player this year. Lots of highlights, of course, but my favorite is his steal at 3:20 in the video below. Anticipates well and shows some surprising quick-twitch athleticism to intercept the pass cleanly, then immediately recognizes the fast break opportunity and flings a pass the other way, leading to an alley-oop (cut off in this video, unfortunately). Huge four-point swing that arguably decided the game.

 

[3 Ball...GOT IT]

In the post above about Poole......NCAA ranks, Min 75 3 PT attempts, 25 rim attempts.

Palmer is #3 in the NCAA on that list in FTR too.

He's also currently pacing at a really solid 2.2 BLK+STL.

Palmer does lag as a shooter a bit but his FTR still makes him a pretty efficient scorer.

There's actually a lot of interesting Jr and Sr NBA prospects this season.

I'll be curious to see where these guys fall as later bloomers.

Palmer has an interesting jumpshot. His shooting elbow starts flared out, but gets back under the ball as he releases it. Honestly, it may be conducive to shooting off movement to his right from the little bit that I saw. He took some tough shots in the amount that I watched, which may be affecting the percentage. The 3pt attempt rate is a positive sign as well, along with the continually improvement year over year with his shooting overall.

I think he'll be knocking on the door of the first round by the end of the season. His tools are enough to help him surpass the majority of other backcourt seniors if he keeps it up.

 

[Nathan S]

Palmer has an interesting jumpshot. His shooting elbow starts flared out, but gets back under the ball as he releases it. Honestly, it may be conducive to shooting off movement to his right from the little bit that I saw. He took some tough shots in the amount that I watched, which may be affecting the percentage. The 3pt attempt rate is a positive sign as well, along with the continually improvement year over year with his shooting overall.

I think he'll be knocking on the door of the first round by the end of the season. His tools are enough to help him surpass the majority of other backcourt seniors if he keeps it up.

My draft rater likes him a lot, especially on offense where he has a well-rounded game built around his incredibly high free throw rate. What's your assessment of his defense?

 

[3 Ball...GOT IT]

My draft rater likes him a lot, especially on offense where he has a well-rounded game built around his incredibly high free throw rate. What's your assessment of his defense?

In my opinion he's a little bit above average. Def awareness is hit or miss, but by no means is it bad. His length really plays... the 1.5 stl and 0.7 blk aren't a fluke or anything. Wouldn't want to have him as your primary on-ball guy though, as I don't think he's the best laterally. He really gives me Spencer Dinwiddie vibes lol.

Where does your model have him defensively?

 

[Nathan S]

In my opinion he's a little bit above average. Def awareness is hit or miss, but by no means is it bad. His length really plays... the 1.5 stl and 0.7 blk aren't a fluke or anything. Wouldn't want to have him as your primary on-ball guy though, as I don't think he's the best laterally. He really gives me Spencer Dinwiddie vibes lol.

Where does your model have him defensively?

Palmer checks in at +3.6 offense, -2.3 defense, +1.3 overall. I think that's probably too bullish on offense, too bearish on defense, but roughly speaking as a 22/23 year old prospect you have to be among the very best in the NCAA to project above par at the NBA level. Palmer's among the very best offensively, but fairly pedestrian defensively. Still would be a nice grab in the second round for sure, though maybe better on a team with a solid defensive system in place.

 

[3 Ball...GOT IT]

Palmer checks in at +3.6 offense, -2.3 defense, +1.3 overall. I think that's probably too bullish on offense, too bearish on defense, but roughly speaking as a 22/23 year old prospect you have to be among the very best in the NCAA to project above par at the NBA level. Palmer's among the very best offensively, but fairly pedestrian defensively. Still would be a nice grab in the second round for sure, though maybe better on a team with a solid defensive system in place.

With your model, what are the most predictive variables for the defensive projection? If you don't mind me asking, I'm curious. There's really no great content out there for learning about that sort of stuff lol.

 

[Nathan S]

With your model, what are the most predictive variables for the defensive projection? If you don't mind me asking, I'm curious. There's really no great content out there for learning about that sort of stuff lol.

-Offensive rebounds matter a lot, much more than defensive rebounds. I think this is probably because defensive rebounds are mostly uncontested, while getting offensive rebounds usually involves a lot of hustle and physicality that ultimately translates on the defensive end in the NBA.

-Assists, especially relative to turnovers, matter a lot. I can think of two main reasons for this...one, which you've probably heard me say before, is that assist:TO ratio is the only box score measure we have for basketball IQ, and that matters a lot on both ends of the court. The other is that, from a plus/minus standpoint, live-ball turnovers are not only a bad offensive play, but also a bad defensive play. You can have an elite shot-blocking center, but if he keeps fumbling away the ball on offense, his overall defensive impact could actually be negative.

-Fouls matter a lot, and they actually help a player's defensive projection. This took me a while to wrap my head around, but after watching prospects for a few years, it's making more and more sense. Players who commit a lot of fouls are usually playing very physical, energetic defense. They're not shying away from contact, and they'd rather commit a foul than give up an easy bucket. Players who commit very few fouls are standing around, not bothering to fight through screens, not helping when they need to, etc. At the NBA level, it's easy for a coach to work with a guy who's highly motivated and just needs to dial back the intensity a little and improve his fundamentals. It's hard to work with a guy who's coasted on defense his whole life.

There are obviously exceptions to this rule...there are players who commit a lot of fouls because they're, frankly, stupid and klutzy defenders. There are also players who commit few fouls because they're extremely polished and disciplined defenders who've mastered the art of playing gritty, physical defense without fouling. But both types are pretty rare.

-Steals and blocks matter some, but not quite as much as the above factors.

-Height and age matter some, with younger, taller prospects doing better than older, shorter prospects.


This seems like an unconventional formula, but the results look surprisingly ordinary at the end of the day. This year, the players with +3 or better defensive projections (excluding minor-conference guys) are Jaxson Hayes, Zion Williamson, Jalen Smith, Moses Brown, Chuma Okeke, Xavier Tillman, Nicolas Claxton, Dhamir Cosby-Roundtree, Kylor Kelley, and Garrison Brooks. Some of those guys won't be drafted because they're super hopeless offensive players, but the others are generally considered among the best defensive prospects in the draft.


EDIT: Oh yeah, minutes are also a mild positive, which serves as a little bit of a check on players who foul so much that they can't stay on the court.

 

[DeeThree]

That palmer kid seems slow. Crazy performance though. My favorite part was the steal too.

 

[I'mWithDan]

As I have mentioned, I spent some time doing tech work at sorts data company, so I have few interesting data science friends who shoot me projects from time to time. One of my friends put together an advanced stats dashboard for NCAA players......and it has some pretty interesting results.

All he cares about in the draft is assessing a players' star potential.......he's done some research / testing and generally speaking, his calculation is most accurate at projecting which players have the chance to be difference makers at the next level (to a reasonable degree....this isn't full proof). He also noted it's not necessarily good at projecting anything else because of the adjustments he makes. So he couldn't tell you who the 30 1st round picks are but he tries to identify who has the profile to make the leap and lead a team at the NBA level.

Hopefully that was a good enough elevator explanation. I'll try to prod him a little more to explain what he specifically is looking at......but here are the players his system likes this year, through half a season.

Potential Franchise Players (1a on a title team)

None

Potential Stars (1B on a title team)

Zion Williamson (Confidence - Max)
Ja Morant (Confidence - Medium to Low)
RJ Barrett (Confidence - Low)

Sleepers

Markus Howard (Confidence - High)
Grant Williams (Confidence - Medium to High)

Again, he is not saying these players absolutely will shake out this way but his system measures a variety of things....Interestingly, he does not care about age. That kind of flies in the face of what I personally believe but his explanation is that for star players, the characteristics defy age and age matters far more for really raw projectable players, which his system just doesn't care about... because historically speaking, you'd be better off taking someone like Ponds than you would Sexton, who's prospect clock started 1.5-2 years younger. He stated his system is measuring things that cannot be reasonably attained in age gaps that small (in his scientific opinion).

His system rates Zion's floor as a #2 option on a title team, which he said is a generally absurd worse case scenario on a prospect.....but he doesn't feel (through half a college season) that his numbers indicate that he can effect a game enough on the offensive end to be a true best player on a title team.

On Howard - "Markus Howard is one of the most underrated players my system has seen (system rating vs. consensus prospect rating). He is a near perfect offensive prospect with his AST% and FTR spike. His usage has increased every season and his efficiency has held in all the metrics I care about. That is just incredibly, incredibly rare for a major conference player. He's also graded out as a wash to a slight positive on defense, which is also a very interesting development this season. If he can merely be a below average NBA defender, my system says he is grossly underrated."

Unfortunately he tends to think this is a 1 player draft at this point. Morant and Barrett exhibit enough to be on this list but his system doesn't love either guy as even a #2 option. A lot can change over the next few months but generally speaking most any player could go probably 4-15 at this point. He's generally confident that the top 3 will be Zion, Barrett, Morant......after that, he said no one really stands out from the pack.

 

[Nathan S]

As I have mentioned, I spent some time doing tech work at sorts data company, so I have few interesting data science friends who shoot me projects from time to time. One of my friends put together an advanced stats dashboard for NCAA players......and it has some pretty interesting results.

All he cares about in the draft is assessing a players' star potential.......he's done some research / testing and generally speaking, his calculation is most accurate at projecting which players have the chance to be difference makers at the next level (to a reasonable degree....this isn't full proof). He also noted it's not necessarily good at projecting anything else because of the adjustments he makes. So he couldn't tell you who the 30 1st round picks are but he tries to identify who has the profile to make the leap and lead a team at the NBA level.

Hopefully that was a good enough elevator explanation. I'll try to prod him a little more to explain what he specifically is looking at......but here are the players his system likes this year, through half a season.

Potential Franchise Players (1a on a title team)

None

Potential Stars (1B on a title team)

Zion Williamson (Confidence - Max)
Ja Morant (Confidence - Medium to Low)
RJ Barrett (Confidence - Low)

Sleepers

Markus Howard (Confidence - High)
Grant Williams (Confidence - Medium to High)

Again, he is not saying these players absolutely will shake out this way but his system measures a variety of things....Interestingly, he does not care about age. That kind of flies in the face of what I personally believe but his explanation is that for star players, the characteristics defy age and age matters far more for really raw projectable players, which his system just doesn't care about... because historically speaking, you'd be better off taking someone like Ponds than you would Sexton, who's prospect clock started 1.5-2 years younger. He stated his system is measuring things that cannot be reasonably attained in age gaps that small (in his scientific opinion).

His system rates Zion's floor as a #2 option on a title team, which he said is a generally absurd worse case scenario on a prospect.....but he doesn't feel (through half a college season) that his numbers indicate that he can effect a game enough on the offensive end to be a true best player on a title team.

On Howard - "Markus Howard is one of the most underrated players my system has seen (system rating vs. consensus prospect rating). He is a near perfect offensive prospect with his AST% and FTR spike. His usage has increased every season and his efficiency has held in all the metrics I care about. That is just incredibly, incredibly rare for a major conference player. He's also graded out as a wash to a slight positive on defense, which is also a very interesting development this season. If he can merely be a below average NBA defender, my system says he is grossly underrated."

Unfortunately he tends to think this is a 1 player draft at this point. Morant and Barrett exhibit enough to be on this list but his system doesn't love either guy as even a #2 option. A lot can change over the next few months but generally speaking most any player could go probably 4-15 at this point. He's generally confident that the top 3 will be Zion, Barrett, Morant......after that, he said no one really stands out from the pack.

I'd be interested to hear more about his methodology...as you note, not accounting for age is pretty unorthodox. Also interested to hear how Howard grades out as a "wash to a slight positive on defense" as my rating system has him as one of the worst defensive prospects in the draft. And what makes him better overall than, e.g., Carsen Edwards, another guy who my draft rater considers an elite offensive prospect but too weak defensively to survive in the NBA?


EDIT: To add, if I sort by "ceiling" (raw projection + uncertainty), my draft rater mostly agrees with his assessment: Zion, Morant, Ponds, and Williams would be my top-4 (ignoring minor-conference guy Jalen Pickett). Somewhat lower on Barrett, and way lower on Howard.

 

[I'mWithDan]

I'd be interested to hear more about his methodology...as you note, not accounting for age is pretty unorthodox. Also interested to hear how Howard grades out as a "wash to a slight positive on defense" as my rating system has him as one of the worst defensive prospects in the draft. And what makes him better overall than, e.g., Carsen Edwards, another guy who my draft rater considers an elite offensive prospect but too weak defensively to survive in the NBA?

EDIT: To add, if I sort by "ceiling" (raw projection + uncertainty), my draft rater mostly agrees with his assessment: Zion, Morant, Ponds, and Williams would be my top-4 (ignoring minor-conference guy Jalen Pickett). Somewhat lower on Barrett, and way lower on Howard.

His stump on age is it matters less with the 1 and done rule in place. Generally speaking, that (1 and done) tends to devalue upperclassmen when there isn't a great correlation between NBA stardom and age past a certain point (when most guys end their rookie years at 20/21 now). For elite NBA prospects, most meaningful player development happens from 17-19, from a prospect grade standpoint......and players not playing against NBA caliber competition until age 20 just matters a lot less than someone like Kobe playing NBA minutes at 18 years old.

If your draft rater considers Edwards offense elite, I think that is what he's getting at with Howard.

Howard's ranks vs. Edwards:

FTR: +9.5
TS%: +1.8
3P%: +2.6
AST%: +5.3
USG: -2.9

Achieving those numbers on such a high volume of 3PT shots and year over year usage increases is I believe what has Howard pegged as such a sleeper and is given the nod over someone like Edwards. Howard also self creates roughly 9% more 3's and 8% more rim attempts.....which for smaller players tends to matter more.

Defensively, he measures worth on a play type basis only. So in the college play-by-play data he gets, he ignores a large portion of it. He assigns a defensive confidence rating based on how a certain position will have to guard at the next level and whatever that rating is, he thinks he can possibly be a below average player at the next level. He doesn't love college defensive data and thinks play type specific data is better but it's still really hard to confidently project guards especially....because of the stress they defend under at the NBA level. His statement was more "if Howard can just barely carry water on defense, he's talented enough to play in the NBA for a really long time as a meaningfully impactful offensive player who will probably be drafted late". He just pegs him as a player that he thinks has a very large gap in possible player outcomes and current draft grade.

Edit: Just got a reply. One more note in his play-by-play assessment data......he pulls the opposing player out of that data as well.....so he is trying to measure defensive output vs. player quality. Again, he said this isn't perfect but Howard has a handful of performances against quality college guards where his play type data has shown he was the defender of record where the player across from him performed below baseline. The one caveat here is that he is a bit leery of Howard's defensive data for projection purposes because of the stress his offensive game puts on opposing guards.....and that it is unlikely that he'll play enough minutes at the NBA level to zap the energy out of opposing guards (spilling over in to their offense), like he's capable of doing on most nights in college.

 

[Nathan S]

His stump on age is it matters less with the 1 and done rule in place. Generally speaking, that (1 and done) tends to devalue upperclassmen when there isn't a great correlation between NBA stardom and age past a certain point (when most guys end their rookie years at 20/21 now). For elite NBA prospects, most meaningful player development happens from 17-19, from a prospect grade standpoint......and players not playing against NBA caliber competition until age 20 just matters a lot less than someone like Kobe playing NBA minutes at 18 years old.

If your draft rater considers Edwards offense elite, I think that is what he's getting at with Howard.

Howard's ranks vs. Edwards:

FTR: +9.5
TS%: +1.8
3P%: +2.6
AST%: +5.3

Achieving those numbers on such a high volume of 3PT shots and year over year usage increases is I believe what has Howard pegged as such a sleeper and is given the nod over someone like Edwards. Howard also self creates roughly 9% more 3's and 8% more rim attempts.....which for smaller players tends to matter more.

Defensively, he measures worth on a play type basis only. So in the college play-by-play data he gets, he ignores a large portion of it. He assigns a defensive confidence rating based on how a certain position will have to guard at the next level and whatever that rating is, he thinks he can possibly be a below average player at the next level. He doesn't love college defensive data and thinks play type specific data is better but it's still really hard to confidently project guards especially....because of the stress they defend under at the NBA level. His statement was more "if Howard get just barely carry water on defense, he's talented enough to play in the NBA for a really long time as a meaningfully impactful offensive player who will probably be drafted late". He just pegs him as a player that he thinks has a very large gap in possible player outcomes and current draft grade.

The spiel on age sounds fine on paper, but NBA stat geeks have studied player development for a long time, and at this point the presence of an aging curve of some sort is universally accepted. It's steepest in the teens, of course, but still plays a significant role into the early 20's. Pick pretty much any college player, and you'll see major development from freshman to senior year.

My draft rater does actually prefer Howard (on offense) to Edwards, mainly because it values 3-pointers and free throw rate a lot (apparently, this is another similarity between us). Edwards is, however, scoring at a significantly higher rate overall, and qualitatively seems pretty identical as a pint-sized scoring machine.

I agree that if Howard can tread water on defense he'll probably be a very good NBA player, but how in the world is he going to manage that? He's absolutely tiny, and unlike some other small PGs like Ponds, he doesn't make up for it by getting bushels of steals. Is there any precedent for such a small player with such poor defensive box score stats in college making it in the NBA?

EDIT to add, I don't know how much stock to put in play-by-play data like you describe. For one, sample sizes are usually small...but more importantly, stopping any player, and especially a guard, is a team effort. So attributing a poor offensive performance by an opposing guard to a great defensive performance by his counterpart always seems like hocus pocus to me.

 

[I'mWithDan]

The spiel on age sounds fine on paper, but NBA stat geeks have studied player development for a long time, and at this point the presence of an aging curve of some sort is universally accepted. It's steepest in the teens, of course, but still plays a significant role into the early 20's. Pick pretty much any college player, and you'll see major development from freshman to senior year.

He doesn't disagree but his data tells him that the development curve experiences a very steep drop off with the one and one rule in place. He just sees a negligible difference in star outcomes between a 20 year old NBA player with 1 year experience and a 21 year old NBA rookie with none, in that smaller sample of draft data.

McCollum, Lillard, Curry, Kemba, Butler, Draymond, Klay, Dragic, Millsap, Gasol, Thomas all played as rookies at 21 / 22 or older as All-Star level players. Those are just guys off the top of my head recently and those guys are generally devalued (to some degree) because of age, is his argument. It mattered more in years where 18 year old kids could be drafted, less when most are late 19's /20.

EDIT: That is probably why Barrett tends to stay afloat on a little more underwhelming play. He won't be 19 until June.....so he'll remain a teen through his NBA rookie year....but he and Zion are the age exception in most 1-and-done years.

I agree that if Howard can tread water on defense he'll probably be a very good NBA player, but how in the world is he going to manage that? He's absolutely tiny, and unlike some other small PGs like Ponds, he doesn't make up for it by getting bushels of steals. Is there any precedent for such a small player with such poor defensive box score stats in college making it in the NBA?

I think the answer is that there's so few 40/90 college players on the volume Howard is shooting at. I think the college database only has like 5 or 6 players and if memory serves me Reddick was the only other major college guy.

Generally speaking, I don't believe so ( a lot of NBA precedent) but he's also shooting at just such a crazy clip, as a major college player......even more so if you pull out his NBA range and deep contested 3 numbers.

It's not just that he is THAT efficient shooting, it is that he is that efficient while shooting against significant defensive pressure. In his system, his percentages are almost unaffected over his last 50 games when looking at varying degrees of contest, so his offense seems pretty bulletproof jumping upward.

I'm not on the Howard bandwagon, I just found his name interesting, as he just wasn't really even on my radar.....but then you dig through all his stats and advanced numbers and they are insane. I' bet against him doing anything but he is rated as a much better than typical guy in the 45-undrafted range....and Williams is rated as a much better than typical guy in the 15-30 range....that is why they were called out.

 

[Nathan S]

He doesn't disagree but his data tells him that the development curve experiences a very steep drop off with the one and one rule in place. He just sees a negligible difference in star outcomes between a 20 year old NBA player with 1 year experience and a 21 year old NBA rookie with none, in that smaller sample of draft data.

McCollum, Lillard, Curry, Kemba, Butler, Draymond, Klay, Dragic, Millsap, Gasol, Thomas all played as rookies at 21 / 22 or older as All-Star level players. Those are just guys off the top of my head recently and those guys are generally devalued (to some degree) because of age, is his argument. It mattered more in years where 18 year old kids could be drafted, less when most are late 19's /20.

EDIT: That is probably why Barrett tends to stay afloat on a little more underwhelming play. He won't be 19 until June.....so he'll remain a teen through his NBA rookie year....but he and Zion are the age exception in most 1-and-done years.

Pretty much agree. Was gonna say, Barrett falls off a cliff from pretty good to completely mediocre if I add a couple years to his age.

I think the answer is that there's so few 40/90 college players on the volume Howard is shooting at. I think the college database only has like 5 or 6 players and if memory serves me Reddick was the only other major college guy.

Generally speaking, I don't believe so ( a lot of NBA precedent) but he's also shooting at just such a crazy clip, as a major college player......even more so if you pull out his NBA range and deep contested 3 numbers.

It's not just that he is THAT efficient shooting, it is that he is that efficient while shooting against significant defensive pressure. In his system, his percentages are almost unaffected over his last 50 games when looking at varying degrees on contest, so his offense seems pretty bulletproof jumping upward.

I'm not on the Howard bandwagon, I just found his name interesting, as he just wasn't really even on my radar.....but then you dig through all his stats and advanced numbers and they are insane. I' bet against him doing anything but he is rated as a much better than typical guy in the 45-undrafted range....and Williams is rated as a much better than typical guy in the 15-30 range.

Mostly agree, although my rater prefers guys like Ponds and Winston who have better PG credentials than Howard. The only other guy in this class who's a similar level of outlier as a scorer is Kaleb Wesson, who's sort of breaking my draft rater with how high his free throw rate is