2019 NBA Draft

[Nathan S]

This is pretty interesting for sure.

After thinking on what I was initially trying to do, I finalized a game score calculation that is far easier to calculate on a per possession basis. Unfortunately the same problem, in that the per 100 data only goes back to 2011 but it sets some benchmarks. If a player is missing, he's injured and won't accumulate enough games to matter.

GS/100/HAAS - This calculation considers age, height / athleticism relative to position, SOS...that is what HAAS stands for (Height/Athleticism/Age/SOS). 1.000 is, generally, an average height, average age, average athleticism prospect. The further above that number, the better mix of size, athleticism, age.......the further below, a prospect is less than ideal height, age or athleticism. "Height" includes length, I just chose to use that word.....meaning someone like Horton-Tucker is not tall but he is freakishly long, so he scores far better on the height metric than a typical undersized positional player.

SOS is a calculation that is shaved off the final HAAS number and it is intended to force a prospect to really counteract competition level with extreme production. Typically, the only players that survive a SOS evaluation, for the purposes of NBA prospects, are ones who are at least above the positional median, edging towards the top 1/3rd.....Lillard, Siakam, Morant, McCollum, etc. guys with NBA measurables and production, that even with a pretty severe penalty, still rate highly in game score /100 production. For example, Lillard was the #1 PG in this metric prior to SOS ding and remained #1 after the adjustment, he also posted the second best raw GS/100 since 2011 and the #5 GS/HAAS/100 (factoring in his schedule).

GS/100/ADJ - what effect a player has minus points. There is also an adjustment for shooting projection based on 3PT attempts per/100, as that has positive projection indicators for prospects. There seems to be a very clear bar prospects need to meet on this metric specifically, where only 2 NBA prospects who scored at the NBA cutoff or below turned in to above average to good NBA players (Middelton, Tobias Harris)....both SF's. I'll add more data to this but it included prospects drafted since 2011, that ranked 150 or better in game score /100 (top 1/3rd of the NBA) in either of the last 2 years. They aren't all in their yet but this initial data set was a minimum of 10 per position. Generally speaking.....if it isn't blue or purple, it doesn't seem to limit someone......if it is better than average (white), it is a positive indicator. Stat for current players (in college) is a lot nosier until players get to a typical number of games.

Barrett actually falls in this NBA cutoff area but has a much better NBA projection than either of the two (Middelton, Tobias Harris). Barrett is specially really drug down in this metric by his pedestrian STL and FTM rates. If he was more average at both, he'd move off that cutoff. He specially has shot much better in conference play from the FT line, so it is likely he moves off that cutline, if he continues boost that number (like he has in ACC play).

GS/NET - is simply GS/100/HAAS + GS/100/ADJ..... it's taking contribution scoring, contribution without scoring and adding them together.

POS DIFF - performance above or below the NBA prospect positional median they are projected to play.

This list is sorted by POS DIFF but it isn't necessarily how you would take these players. What it is trying to assess is, how they produce vs. the median NBA prospect at their position. So, someone like Ponds is #9 based on positional difference but you wouldn't necessarily take him (a PG) over Barrett or Culver, two wings that are rated as "good" NBA wings, by prospect standards. Someone can argue with me if they choose, that a very good PG prospect is more valuable than a good wing.

In comparison to historical possession data (Hot to cold):

Red - All Time
Orange - Elite
Yellow - Very Good
Green - Good
Gray - Average
White - Below Average
Blue - NBA cutoff
Purple - Very unlikely

I'd imagine the polarizing guys on this list are:

Bruno Fernando
Matisse Thybulle
Chuma Okeke
Brandon Clarke

The only thing I will point out with them specifically (especially Thybulle and Okeke) is that their GS/100/ADJ score.....contribution without scoring, are both just incredibly high. If you think their scoring prospects at the NBA level are average to maybe even below average, they are potentially sleepers in this draft. Past data intimates that this metric is what most reliably determines ceiling, since 2011 in this calculation.....surrounded by #1 Anthony Davis, #2 Oladipo, #3 KAT, #4 Simmons, #5 Beal, #7 Mitchell, #8 Draymond, #9 Butler, #10 DAngelo Russell. The only potential star players not in the top 50% of GS/100/ADJ, since 2011, are Tatum and Fox. So guys can still do it but it is less likely.

Fernando.....I don't really have an opinion on. The data is the data.

With Clarke, he's breaking this projection. He's older than Draymond, has one of the lowest Height/Athleticism/Age/SOS scores (mainly due to his age) and he is rating out at 1.5x of Draymond's college per/100 net game score rating....and he's just head and shoulders above both Williams and Washington, even with his severe adjustment penalty.......I'm not sure what the hell to make of that. He's easily the the single strangest outlier in all of this data.

Hopefully someone finds this interesting.

/novel

A lot to respond to here obviously, but I'm wondering in particular how you came up with the "bars" for different positions. In particular, the bar for PF is way higher than for SF or C...which seems impossible given how blurry the line is between those positions at the NBA level (i.e. it's hard to point to a player who's strictly a PF in the same way that some guys are strictly PGs).

 

[I'mWithDan]

A lot to respond to here obviously, but I'm wondering in particular how you came up with the "bars" for different positions. In particular, the bar for PF is way higher than for SF or C...which seems impossible given how blurry the line is between those positions at the NBA level (i.e. it's hard to point to a player who's strictly a PF in the same way that some guys are strictly PGs).

A true NBA PF, to me, is someone who doesn't have the athleticism to play the 3 and also doesn't have any point forward ability. When using that criteria, the bar seems to be really steep for guys at the NBA level.....because they are typically tweeners. Small for PF, even smaller for C.

I think this is where opinion on big men specifically can drastically shift their ratings.....and I honestly just took consensus ranks here and used them. If it was my opinion, there would be some tweaks. For example, I'd rate Zion as more of a point forward, given his skillset, which would shift his rating upward even higher. Or if you think Williams or Washington have point forward potential, they would jump up as well.

In general, in this system (like in basketball), if a player is multi-positional, it boosts their rating (which makes sense to me). If they are more like Washington, for example.....slightly undersized, a little older, not really an AST generator.......he's going to get swallowed up next to guys like John Collins, helping to set that PF benchmark.

Maybe that isn't totally fair.....to have a PF category and not just a Forward or Big Man category......but if someone were to say "I believe this PF is either a PF/C or a PF/SF", then their rating would increase pretty substantially in this dataset.

But there are guys like Washington that are caught a bit in no man's land when trying to project them.....they aren't a PF/SF and they are probably too small to play center. So you use the comparisons to make it hard on tweeners, to see who comes out in the wash. I didn't do that intentionally but that appears to be what this setup does.....seeing guys like Clarke, Draymond, etc. survive that wringer, maybe intimates that is a good way to evaluate them......or it could just mean they are both outliers.

It's honestly hard to say with how much the NBA has changed and with the players that are just outside the range (2011) of this data, that might give you a bit more confidence.

EDIT: In terms of benchmarks, I also am not sure how much to try to manipulate that......for example, AD is a PF.....but he certainly can play center.....does his rating count in both? And does that possibly make each positions median too high? Ditto for Ben Simmons? Where does he go? SF? PG? PF? All 3? He can technically play any of them. Again, maybe someone has figured out the above already or you possibly have an opinion on it.....but it gets a little fuzzy (to me) if you start slotting players in all the categories they can play, in order to move benchmarks one way or the other.

 

[Nathan S]

A true NBA PF, to me, is someone who doesn't have the athleticism to play the 3 and also doesn't have any point forward ability. When using that criteria, the bar seems to be really steep for guys at the NBA level.....because they are typically tweeners. Small for PF, even smaller for C.

I think this is where opinion on big men specifically can drastically shift their ratings.....and I honestly just took consensus ranks here and used them. If it was my opinion, there would be some tweaks. For example, I'd rate Zion as more of a point forward, given his skillset, which would shift his rating upward even higher. Or if you think Williams or Washington have point forward potential, they would jump up as well.

In general, in this system (like in basketball), if a player is multi-positional, it boosts their rating (which makes sense to me). If they are more like Washington, for example.....slightly undersized, a little older, not really an AST generator.......he's going to get swallowed up next to guys like John Collins, helping to set that PF benchmark.

Maybe that isn't totally fair.....to have a PF category and not just a Forward or Big Man category......but if someone were to say "I believe this PF is either a PF/C or a PF/SF", then their rating would increase pretty substantially in this dataset.

But there are guys like Washington that are caught a bit in no man's land when trying to project them.....they aren't a PF/SF and they are probably too small to play center. So you use the comparisons to make it hard on tweeners, to see who comes out in the wash. I didn't do that intentionally but that appears to be what this setup does.....seeing guys like Clarke, Draymond, etc. survive that wringer, maybe intimates that is a good way to evaluate them......or it could just mean they are both outliers.

It's honestly hard to say with how much the NBA has changed and with the players that are just outside the range (2011) of this data, that might give you a bit more confidence.

EDIT: In terms of benchmarks, I also am not sure how much to try to manipulate that......for example, AD is a PF.....but he certainly can play center.....does his rating count in both? And does that possibly make each positions median too high? Ditto for Ben Simmons? Where does he go? SF? PG? PF? All 3? He can technically play any of them. Again, maybe someone has figured out the above already or you possibly have an opinion on it.....but it gets a little fuzzy (to me) if you start slotting players in all the categories they can play, in order to move benchmarks one way or the other.

What's lacking is an understanding of what kind of penalty you pay for playing guys out of position. Like, in a vacuum (and possible age corrections aside), Clarke is most definitely a better offensive and defensive player than Fernando. But at least according to conventional wisdom, if you have a 4-man lineup that's missing a center, it's better to complete the lineup with Fernando than with Clarke because he's a better fit with the other four players.

One of my big research projects, which I've temporarily put on hold, was to try to quantify these interaction effects, i.e. how a player's value depends on the other players on the court. It's a long story, but tend to think teams worry more about fit and guys playing "out of position" than they probably should (though that seems to be changing).

 

[3 Ball...GOT IT]

Jackson Hoy dropped a new top-100 today. Big surprise is Talen Horton-Tucker up at #4, headlining an enormous 3rd tier stretching all the way down to Bol Bol at 17. Don't agree with 100% of his board, obviously, but appreciate that he's a smart guy who does his own scouting and isn't a slave to the mainstream big board echo chamber.

Jackson is as good as anyone with draft stuff right now. The lone consistent thing I think he does incorrectly is overvaluing age. A lot of times it just feels like you could order guys based on their age and it lines up with his rankings pretty closely lol.

I can’t stress enough though how knowledgeable he is. I agree with him almost always, but I think he tends to initially over-rank guys before settling in on a more rational place . I think we had a pretty similar top 10 last year.

IIRC I think he had Zhaire Smith like #2 or #3 last year at some point in that loaded class.

I like a lot of his rankings though. Im glad to see someone else is high on Goga besides us @Nathan S haha.

 

[Nathan S]

Jackson is as good as anyone with draft stuff right now. The lone consistent thing I think he does incorrectly is overvaluing age. A lot of times it just feels like you could order guys based on their age and it lines up with his rankings pretty closely lol.

I can’t stress enough though how knowledgeable he is. I agree with him almost always, but I think he tends to initially over-rank guys before settling in on a more rational place . I think we had a pretty similar top 10 last year.

IIRC I think he had Zhaire Smith like #2 or #3 last year at some point in that loaded class.

I like a lot of his rankings though. Im glad to see someone else is high on Goga besides us @Nathan S haha.

Don't think he ever had Zhaire #2 because he was always a solid Doncic/JJJ guy at 1/2...but #3, possibly, yeah. Definitely love that he comes up with his rankings from scratch rather than simply taking an established big board and shuffling guys up and down based on who he likes and dislikes, even if it leads to him occasionally overrating super sleeper types.

 

[I'mWithDan]

Jackson is as good as anyone with draft stuff right now. The lone consistent thing I think he does incorrectly is overvaluing age. A lot of times it just feels like you could order guys based on their age and it lines up with his rankings pretty closely lol.

I can’t stress enough though how knowledgeable he is. I agree with him almost always, but I think he tends to initially over-rank guys before settling in on a more rational place . I think we had a pretty similar top 10 last year.

IIRC I think he had Zhaire Smith like #2 or #3 last year at some point in that loaded class.

I like a lot of his rankings though. Im glad to see someone else is high on Goga besides us @Nathan S haha.

For age specifically.....in assessing game score data from above, the average Age at Jan 1 of a players NBA rookie season was 21.02.

I think most people would be really surprised by that..... I still need to enter around 25% of player data, so that could change but it’s a lot more age friendly than I would have guessed.

Most would consider guys like Lillard and Kemba old as prospects, but they were less than .5 years from that average mark....and even 4 year players like McCollum, if born later in the year, were within 1.25 years of average.

Even with age adjustments, some severe, the top 10 adjusted game score seasons had an average age of 20.93....thats a difference of .004% from the average age of all prospects...which is minuscule. 4 of the 10 scores were Lillard, McCollum, Siakam and Kemba.....all old by traditional prospect standards.

When I started, I would have lost a lot of money on a bet like that.....thinking most high performing guys, in an age adjusted metric, would be far younger on average.

That’s not to say age doesn’t matter but it can be a vehicle for all of us to talk ourselves in to someone we should not not like as much.....or talk us out of someone we should.

 

[ajz20]

I think Tucker has some nice traits, but he is way too raw to be considered the 4th best prosciect as of today. He also has limited ball handeling skills and is only 6”4 and is an okay athlete but nothing special and he also does not seem like he has developed great instincts for the game as of yet.

I would def consider him at 21, based on the potential of a wing that can defend and hit open jumpers, if he comes out but not a chance at 4 with the first pick. He seems like he might be better off playing another year in college. I don’t think he is ready for NBA minutes, certainty not worthy of a top 5 pick.
I recall Ohio state had some interest in him and his HS tape was interesting. I think there is a very good chance he is sitting there at 21, if he declares. I could also see him sliding to end of the first early second round territory.

The two guys from UK Washington and Herro could be very decent options at 21.

 

[Sir'Dom Pointer]

Mitchell Robinson is the best defender in the league.

@Los216 was right.

 

[Derek]

Mitchell Robinson is the best defender in the league.

@Los216 was right.

I've never been a proponent of trading down in the NBA draft, but last year all I wanted (After it was apparent that we were going to miss out on the higher lotto guys) was to trade down so we could pick up a later lotto guy plus Mitchell Robinson.

I know Knox has been mostly bad this year, but I really liked what the Knicks did in the draft last year.

 

[3 Ball...GOT IT]

For age specifically.....in assessing game score data from above, the average Age at Jan 1 of a players NBA rookie season was 21.02.

I think most people would be really surprised by that..... I still need to enter around 25% of player data, so that could change but it’s a lot more age friendly than I would have guessed.

Most would consider guys like Lillard and Kemba old as prospects, but they were less than .5 years from that average mark....and even 4 year players like McCollum, if born later in the year, were within 1.25 years of average.

Even with age adjustments, some severe, the top 10 adjusted game score seasons had an average age of 20.93....thats a difference of .004% from the average age of all prospects...which is minuscule. 4 of the 10 scores were Lillard, McCollum, Siakam and Kemba.....all old by traditional prospect standards.

When I started, I would have lost a lot of money on a bet like that.....thinking most high performing guys, in an age adjusted metric, would be far younger on average.

That’s not to say age doesn’t matter but it can be a vehicle for all of us to talk ourselves in to someone we should not not like as much.....or talk us out of someone we should.

Yea I’m the same boat as you with it. The age debate is something I’m just never going to feel like I have a good grasp on.

I’d just say it comes down to a case by case basis. Looking at a player’s weaknesses and determining which are likely to improve with more development vs which ones aren’t (like most physical traits).

Plus I know I brought it up with Mikal Bridges a lot last year, but not everyone is on the same development curve too. He wasn’t a highly touted recruit and made huge jumps in his game at an older age than most do.

I know I’ve bugged @Nathan S on multiple occasions with his draft model as far as where a guy would be without the age input included haha.

I admittedly need to watch more THT, but the types of improvements I’d expect him to make as he ages are far less impactful than the improvements I’d expect a guy like Jaxson Hayes to make - who is also very young.

 

[Nathan S]

I admittedly need to watch more THT, but the types of improvements I’d expect him to make as he ages are far less impactful than the improvements I’d expect a guy like Jaxson Hayes to make - who is also very young.

Why, though? As Jackson is always eager to point out, THT seems like one of the rare guys who has genuine physical/athletic upside, and he has the fundamental dribble-pass-shoot skillset that you rarely see in a wing at that age. If he's able to steadily improve in those areas, what's holding him back?

 

[3 Ball...GOT IT]

Why, though? As Jackson is always eager to point out, THT seems like one of the rare guys who has genuine physical/athletic upside, and he has the fundamental dribble-pass-shoot skillset that you rarely see in a wing at that age. If he's able to steadily improve in those areas, what's holding him back?

I just disagree that he has athletic upside. I’ll watch more though.

 

[Nathan S]

I just disagree that he has athletic upside. I’ll watch more though.

He'll never be a jump-out-of-the-gym guy, but like any kid his age (he's the 4th-youngest guy in D1) he'll get leaner, quicker, and stronger over the next year or two. And he's already a pretty good athlete considering his length...e.g. the dunk around 3:00 in this video is not how a typical 6'4" guy finishes:

 

[I'mWithDan]

I just disagree that he has athletic upside. I’ll watch more though.

I'm somewhere in the middle on THT......I like him a lot more if his shooting is a blip. Nathan mentioned earlier he was a better shooter in HS....but regardless, you should have an open mind on guys like him....

For example......Nickeil Alexander-Walker seems to be a guy who is almost universally liked as an NBA wing.......and Nassir Little is maybe not universally liked but still pretty high on draft boards.

THT is 10 months younger than Little and a full 2 years younger than NAW. 2 years from now, how good could THT be?

His per 100 data already says he has more non scoring effect than NAW (GS/100/ADJ) and significantly more than Little. (The more positive the number, the better.....THT in gray indicates average, where NAW/Little are below average). Only 7 of the 21 wing prospects in 2019 are average or better when assessing non scoring effect. And even with his poor shooting this season, he's still a better game score NET player than Little per 100. If you think his shooting will improve and that will in turn give him a bump to his scoring rate, he's going to see a big increase in the possible positive outcomes as a prospect.

Again, I don't have a strong opinion on THT, some people REALLY like him.....but the above illustrates some of the mock draft bias here.

And then you can also look at historical data in his range that shows someone similar in college:

OG went #23 overall......and in these rankings, THT is being evaluated as a SG/SF.....which is actually a slightly higher bar, since there are a lot more talented SG's the last 8 drafts.

Anyway, just something to think about. I can see why guys like him, considering his non scoring impact right now and how simply seeing a shooting correction would have a massive swing in his value......if he improves in both shooting and another area, his ceiling is incredibly high given his age. THT is 17 months younger than OG was as a draft eligible prospect.

 

[Nathan S]

I'm somewhere in the middle on THT......I like him a lot more if his shooting is a blip. Nathan mentioned earlier he was a better shooter in HS....but regardless, you should have an open mind on guys like him....

For example......Nickeil Alexander-Walker seems to be a guy who is almost universally liked as an NBA wing.......and Nassir Little is maybe not universally liked but still pretty high on draft boards.

THT is 10 months younger than Little and a full 2 years younger than NAW. 2 years from now, how good could THT be?

His per 100 data already says he has more non scoring effect than NAW (GS/100/ADJ) and significantly more than Little. (The more positive the number, the better.....THT in gray indicates average, where NAW/Little are below average). Only 7 of the 21 wing prospects in 2019 are average or better when assessing non scoring effect. And even with his poor shooting this season, he's still a better game score NET player than Little per 100. If you think his shooting will improve and that will in turn give him a bump to his scoring rate, he's going to see a big increase in the possible positive outcomes as a prospect.

Again, I don't have a strong opinion on THT, some people REALLY like him.....but the above illustrates some of the mock draft bias here.

And then you can also look at historical data in his range that shows someone similar in college:

OG went #23 overall......and in these rankings, THT is being evaluated as a SG/SF.....which is actually a slightly higher bar, since there are a lot more talented SG's the last 8 drafts.

Anyway, just something to think about. I can see why guys like him, considering his non scoring impact right now and how simply seeing a shooting correction would have a massive swing in his value......if he improves in both shooting and another area, his ceiling is incredibly high given his age. THT is 17 months younger than OG.

Nearly identical 3-point volume and percentage to RJ, for what it's worth. If we're penciling in RJ as a guy who'll definitely be able to shoot it at the next level, we should do the same for THT. Not saying that puts him top-4, let alone ahead of RJ, but I think the hype is legit.