RealGM

HadAnEffectHere wrote:

The Moose wrote:Some interesting notes on this class from Pelton -

“Clingan and Edey are among four prospects with a consensus projection of 3.0 wins above replacement player (WARP) or better per season at the NBA level. Only the acclaimed 2014 draft (five) featured more such prospects dating back to 2012.”

The four in reference are Clingan, Sheppard, Sarr and Edey

Top 5 on his stats model:

1. Sheppard
2. Edey
3. Clingan
4. Sarr
5. Furphy

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/39906470/nba-draft-2024-projecting-30-best-prospects

Pelton's model very much does not believe in 5th year JUCO transfer Dalton Knecht, lol.

(Cody Williams rating so badly isn't really a surprise either. Williams currently is nowhere close to an NBA player. He needs huge athleticism gains that are very uncommon, but may happen for him since his body is so clearly underdeveloped)

People will trash Pelton's model on here, not unexpected, given there are a lot of 'just trust the flashes bro' eye test evaluators here, but for Clingan and Sheppard especially, projecting that strongly on that model has a pretty good track record.
3.7 WARP is not a nothingburger, especially as an NCAA prospect.

Only 13 NCAA guys have projected 3.7+ WARP since Pelton started in 2006:
1. Anthony Davis - 2012
2. Zion Williamson -2019
3. Kevin Love -2008
4. Chet Holmgren -2022
5. Blake Griffin - 2009
6. James Harden -2009
7. Kyrie Irving -2011
8. DeMarcus Cousins - 2010
9. Steph Curry - 2009
10. Kevin Durant -2007
11. Michael Beasley -2008
12. Kenneth Faried - 2011
13. Dejuan Blair - 2009

So 8 are multi-all nba stars, and 2 potential future ones in Zion and Chet.

If we include non ncaa prospects:

1. Victor Wembanyama- 2023
2. Chet Holmgren - 2022
3. Alperen Sengun - 2021
4. Lamelo Ball - 2020
5. Zion Williamson -2019
6. Luka Doncic - 2018
7. Anthony Davis - 2012
8. Kyrie Irving -2011
9. Kenneth Faried - 2011
10. DeMarcus Cousins - 2010
11. James Harden -2009
12. Blake Griffin -2009
13. Steph Curry - 2009
14. Ricky Rubio - 2009
15. Dejuan Blair - 2009
16. Kevin Love - 2008
17. Michael Beasley - 2008
18. Kevin Love - 2007

Seems like decent company for Clingan and Sheppard

nice twitter thread, synergy metrics on a number of prospects

clyde21 wrote:nice twitter thread, synergy metrics on a number of prospects

Read on Twitter

14/49 on unguarded catch and shoot threes is not nice at all for Ron Holland actually.

BlazersBroncos wrote:Ya I think Holland could be closer to 6'5. Matas looked way bigger than him out there.

6'5 with that skillset just isnt going to be a wining combo for Holland. Shades of RHJ.

I'm expecting Holland to measure out similar to Mathurin.

babyjax13 wrote:I'm curious how high Dink Pate can go if he were allowed an exception to be in the draft.

As a starting point, I think he'd go a few spots higher than Jakobe Walter. Probably later lottery. He might flirt with #9 or #10, imo. If he blows people away in workouts like Shaedon Sharpe did, then maybe a bit higher.

Seems like people's opinion of Pate is a bit higher than I expected. Admittedly, what I saw of the Ignite was early in the season so I actually have not seen him play substantial minutes.

The Moose wrote:

Spoiler:

HadAnEffectHere wrote:

The Moose wrote:Some interesting notes on this class from Pelton -



The four in reference are Clingan, Sheppard, Sarr and Edey

Top 5 on his stats model:

1. Sheppard
2. Edey
3. Clingan
4. Sarr
5. Furphy

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/39906470/nba-draft-2024-projecting-30-best-prospects

Pelton's model very much does not believe in 5th year JUCO transfer Dalton Knecht, lol.

(Cody Williams rating so badly isn't really a surprise either. Williams currently is nowhere close to an NBA player. He needs huge athleticism gains that are very uncommon, but may happen for him since his body is so clearly underdeveloped)

People will trash Pelton's model on here, not unexpected, given there are a lot of 'just trust the flashes bro' eye test evaluators here, but for Clingan and Sheppard especially, projecting that strongly on that model has a pretty good track record.
3.7 WARP is not a nothingburger, especially as an NCAA prospect.

Only 13 NCAA guys have projected 3.7+ WARP since Pelton started in 2006:
1. Anthony Davis - 2012
2. Zion Williamson -2019
3. Kevin Love -2008
4. Chet Holmgren -2022
5. Blake Griffin - 2009
6. James Harden -2009
7. Kyrie Irving -2011
8. DeMarcus Cousins - 2010
9. Steph Curry - 2009
10. Kevin Durant -2007
11. Michael Beasley -2008
12. Kenneth Faried - 2011
13. Dejuan Blair - 2009

So 8 are multi-all nba stars, and 2 potential future ones in Zion and Chet.

If we include non ncaa prospects:

1. Victor Wembanyama- 2023
2. Chet Holmgren - 2022
3. Alperen Sengun - 2021
4. Lamelo Ball - 2020
5. Zion Williamson -2019
6. Luka Doncic - 2018
7. Anthony Davis - 2012
8. Kyrie Irving -2011
9. Kenneth Faried - 2011
10. DeMarcus Cousins - 2010
11. James Harden -2009
12. Blake Griffin -2009
13. Steph Curry - 2009
14. Ricky Rubio - 2009
15. Dejuan Blair - 2009
16. Kevin Love - 2008
17. Michael Beasley - 2008
18. Kevin Love - 2007

Seems like decent company for Clingan and Sheppard

This is worth considering. However, I'd add a couple notes of caution:
** The NBA game is different from the NCAA. The NCAA tends to be dominated by guards and bigs, while the NBA is dominated by athletic and versatile wings.
** Some of the youngest prospects in the draft had limited roles in college or overseas. This is why someone like Bilal Coulibali can get drafted at #7.

babyjax13 wrote:Seems like people's opinion of Pate is a bit higher than I expected. Admittedly, what I saw of the Ignite was early in the season so I actually have not seen him play substantial minutes.

He's young. He's an upside play. A team drafting him would need to be patient in developing him. Drafting him would be a bit similar to drafting Joshua Primo a few years back, though I think Dink is more versatile than Primo.

RyugaFan wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

RyugaFan wrote:Kyshawn George not being a consensus lottery pick is laughable to me. You could argue the size and shooting alone should put him there, but him being one of the smartest passers and team defenders in the draft makes it a no brainer.

I might be absolutely nuts but I have him first on my big board now I think he and Cody Williams are probably going to end up as the top prospects for me, but obviously going to be watching more games before the draft.

George reminds me a lot of Joe Ingles...but something that can happen with these lanky young wings is that they look slow in college and then by year 3 in the NBA are physically developed and look a lot better. Ingram is the most obvious example of this.

And to maybe add a bit more, this isn't a great draft relative to recent drafts, but if you are looking for a wing - which is the most valuable player in the league - there are more guys than usual who could be rotation caliber wings.

You know ball lol those two are my guys. And yeah, Kyshawn absolutely has untapped athleticism with how much he physically grew in the last few years.

Yeah the 20 year old freshman with below average production should be #1 lol.

He is incredibly 1 dimensional, shot under 50% from inside the arc despite being very low volume, not a good sign.
Did not get to Ft line at all.

Risacher was more productive for example in a tougher league despite being over a full year younger.

JMAC3 wrote:

RyugaFan wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:I might be absolutely nuts but I have him first on my big board now I think he and Cody Williams are probably going to end up as the top prospects for me, but obviously going to be watching more games before the draft.

George reminds me a lot of Joe Ingles...but something that can happen with these lanky young wings is that they look slow in college and then by year 3 in the NBA are physically developed and look a lot better. Ingram is the most obvious example of this.

And to maybe add a bit more, this isn't a great draft relative to recent drafts, but if you are looking for a wing - which is the most valuable player in the league - there are more guys than usual who could be rotation caliber wings.

You know ball lol those two are my guys. And yeah, Kyshawn absolutely has untapped athleticism with how much he physically grew in the last few years.

Yeah the 20 year old freshman with below average production should be #1 lol.

He is incredibly 1 dimensional, shot under 50% from inside the arc despite being very low volume, not a good sign.
Did not get to Ft line at all.

Risacher was more productive for example in a tougher league despite being over a full year younger.

I think so. George looks pretty physically underdeveloped to me, much in the same way that Hayward was. He also grew into a larger role as the season progressed. I see very few prospects that can handle the ball + shoot + make plays for others and who have the potential to develop into guys that can generate their own shot. Every single prospect that might fit that description has some major red flag: for George it is his physical development.

I think it's also useful to break out some splits, too.

Starter: 10p/4r/3a/1.2s on 42/41/79 shooting (16 games)
Reserve: 5p/2r/1a/.5s on 44/39/75 shooting (15 games)

I feel pretty confident that how he played as a starter was sustainable. Now, it is certainly underwhelming for the first pick in the draft, but I think he has the skill level to be impactful. He reminds me a lot of Joe Ingles, and I think peak Joe Ingles was a really good player. If Joe had a bit more athletecism he would have been a very highly regarded player (more than he was), and that's my hope for George.

FWIW I don't think he will go first, either, he's just first on my board.

babyjax13 wrote:

JMAC3 wrote:

RyugaFan wrote:You know ball lol those two are my guys. And yeah, Kyshawn absolutely has untapped athleticism with how much he physically grew in the last few years.

Yeah the 20 year old freshman with below average production should be #1 lol.

He is incredibly 1 dimensional, shot under 50% from inside the arc despite being very low volume, not a good sign.
Did not get to Ft line at all.

Risacher was more productive for example in a tougher league despite being over a full year younger.

I think so. George looks pretty physically underdeveloped to me, much in the same way that Hayward was. He also grew into a larger role as the season progressed. I see very few prospects that can handle the ball + shoot + make plays for others and who have the potential to develop into guys that can generate their own shot. Every single prospect that might fit that description has some major red flag: for George it is his physical development.

I think it's also useful to break out some splits, too.

Starter: 10p/4r/3a/1.2s on 42/41/79 shooting (16 games)
Reserve: 5p/2r/1a/.5s on 44/39/75 shooting (15 games)

I feel pretty confident that how he played as a starter was sustainable. Now, it is certainly underwhelming for the first pick in the draft, but I think he has the skill level to be impactful. He reminds me a lot of Joe Ingles, and I think peak Joe Ingles was a really good player. If Joe had a bit more athletecism he would have been a very highly regarded player (more than he was), and that's my hope for George.

FWIW I don't think he will go first, either, he's just first on my board.

Yeah starter or not he still had virtually no game inside the arc, no ability to draw fouls and overall his production just wasn't all that good for his age. I can see him as a Cam Johnson type of snipper if a team wants to say he can be a late lotto pick sure but the chances of him just breaking out as a star in the league at this point feel pretty low to me.

Brandon Miller for example was told his production was less valuable because he was 20 last year and he averaged nearly 19ppg vs 8 ppg for George.

JMAC3 wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

JMAC3 wrote:
Yeah the 20 year old freshman with below average production should be #1 lol.

He is incredibly 1 dimensional, shot under 50% from inside the arc despite being very low volume, not a good sign.
Did not get to Ft line at all.

Risacher was more productive for example in a tougher league despite being over a full year younger.

I think so. George looks pretty physically underdeveloped to me, much in the same way that Hayward was. He also grew into a larger role as the season progressed. I see very few prospects that can handle the ball + shoot + make plays for others and who have the potential to develop into guys that can generate their own shot. Every single prospect that might fit that description has some major red flag: for George it is his physical development.

I think it's also useful to break out some splits, too.

Starter: 10p/4r/3a/1.2s on 42/41/79 shooting (16 games)
Reserve: 5p/2r/1a/.5s on 44/39/75 shooting (15 games)

I feel pretty confident that how he played as a starter was sustainable. Now, it is certainly underwhelming for the first pick in the draft, but I think he has the skill level to be impactful. He reminds me a lot of Joe Ingles, and I think peak Joe Ingles was a really good player. If Joe had a bit more athletecism he would have been a very highly regarded player (more than he was), and that's my hope for George.

FWIW I don't think he will go first, either, he's just first on my board.

Yeah starter or not he still had virtually no game inside the arc, no ability to draw fouls and overall his production just wasn't all that good for his age. I can see him as a Cam Johnson type of snipper if a team wants to say he can be a late lotto pick sure but the chances of him just breaking out as a star in the league at this point feel pretty low to me.

Brandon Miller for example was told his production was less valuable because he was 20 last year and he averaged nearly 19ppg vs 8 ppg for George.

I don't have George as the same caliber prospect that Miller was. Miller would easily go first in this draft, and I'm not sure anyone in this draft would even go top 5 last year. A spaced court and more physical development may make George a much better pro than college player. Obviously if it doesn't, his role will be exactly what you say - as a spot up shooter.

Matas shooting less than 25% on unguarded spotup threes is extremely funny.

(The less than 60% at the rim in the G-League as a pure PF is even more alarming)

He didn't produce at all, his team went 2-32, he flashed 0 times, his tools are below average, he moped constantly... Even in this draft, he's clearly not a top 20 guy.

Catchall wrote:

The Moose wrote:

Spoiler:

HadAnEffectHere wrote:
Pelton's model very much does not believe in 5th year JUCO transfer Dalton Knecht, lol.

(Cody Williams rating so badly isn't really a surprise either. Williams currently is nowhere close to an NBA player. He needs huge athleticism gains that are very uncommon, but may happen for him since his body is so clearly underdeveloped)

People will trash Pelton's model on here, not unexpected, given there are a lot of 'just trust the flashes bro' eye test evaluators here, but for Clingan and Sheppard especially, projecting that strongly on that model has a pretty good track record.
3.7 WARP is not a nothingburger, especially as an NCAA prospect.

Only 13 NCAA guys have projected 3.7+ WARP since Pelton started in 2006:
1. Anthony Davis - 2012
2. Zion Williamson -2019
3. Kevin Love -2008
4. Chet Holmgren -2022
5. Blake Griffin - 2009
6. James Harden -2009
7. Kyrie Irving -2011
8. DeMarcus Cousins - 2010
9. Steph Curry - 2009
10. Kevin Durant -2007
11. Michael Beasley -2008
12. Kenneth Faried - 2011
13. Dejuan Blair - 2009

So 8 are multi-all nba stars, and 2 potential future ones in Zion and Chet.

If we include non ncaa prospects:

1. Victor Wembanyama- 2023
2. Chet Holmgren - 2022
3. Alperen Sengun - 2021
4. Lamelo Ball - 2020
5. Zion Williamson -2019
6. Luka Doncic - 2018
7. Anthony Davis - 2012
8. Kyrie Irving -2011
9. Kenneth Faried - 2011
10. DeMarcus Cousins - 2010
11. James Harden -2009
12. Blake Griffin -2009
13. Steph Curry - 2009
14. Ricky Rubio - 2009
15. Dejuan Blair - 2009
16. Kevin Love - 2008
17. Michael Beasley - 2008
18. Kevin Love - 2007

Seems like decent company for Clingan and Sheppard

This is worth considering. However, I'd add a couple notes of caution:
** The NBA game is different from the NCAA. The NCAA tends to be dominated by guards and bigs, while the NBA is dominated by athletic and versatile wings.
** Some of the youngest prospects in the draft had limited roles in college or overseas. This is why someone like Bilal Coulibali can get drafted at #7.

NBA game is for sure different from the NCAA, wings are far more prominent in the NBA. If an nba sized wing does stand out analytically in the NCAA then that is definitively noteworthy. However I'm not sure I would go that far to say the league is dominated by them. There is an equal amount of bigs and guards dominating the league right now.

Dominant wings are probably the most valuable archetype if you can get one, but I think in the draft process that leads to them being overvalued and overdrafted. The logic that I see a lot is that in the nba, good wings > good bigs, good guards for versatility reasons.

A lot of draft people would rather take swings on bad or mediocre wing prospects than good big prospects but I'm not convinced its the best strategy and I think good bigs, in particular, are still undervalued in the market.

I would guess there's only like a 10% chance Donovan Clingan ends up better than Walker Kessler and you can probably get Walker Kessler pretty easily.

Any team that bothered could easily get Nic Claxton who will Sarr will probably never be better than.

A starting caliber SF/PF is just much harder to get than a starting caliber C. You can get these guys for extremely cheap because only one traditional big can play at a time and none can play if your PF can't shoot.

Like, Ausar Thompson (on your team) is basically only ever going to succeed if he gets to play next to a center with massive perimeter gravity (so basically just one of Embiid, Jokic, Wemby, Chet, or Porzingis).

Superstar centers are extremely valuable, but just OK starting centers aren't very valuable.

Jarrett Allen is basically the best traditional center in the league who isn't a star and the Cavs are basically forced to trade him because Mobley is also a traditional center and their offense chokes.

HadAnEffectHere wrote:I would guess there's only like a 10% chance Donovan Clingan ends up better than Walker Kessler and you can probably get Walker Kessler pretty easily.

Any team that bothered could easily get Nic Claxton who will Sarr will probably never be better than.

A starting caliber SF/PF is just much harder to get than a starting caliber C. You can get these guys for extremely cheap because only one traditional big can play at a time and none can play if your PF can't shoot.

Like, Ausar Thompson (on your team) is basically only ever going to succeed if he gets to play next to a center with massive perimeter gravity (so basically just one of Embiid, Jokic, Wemby, Chet, or Porzingis).

Superstar centers are extremely valuable, but just OK starting centers aren't very valuable.

Jarrett Allen is basically the best traditional center in the league who isn't a star and the Cavs are basically forced to trade him because Mobley is also a traditional center and their offense chokes.

I mean, I think Clingan has a much higher chance than that at being than Kessler. Kessler was an amazing shot blocker but Clingan is another level as an overall rim protector and defender, and has more juice offensively, he's easily a better prospect than Kessler was.

Just as a basic reference point in their difference defensively, UCONN opponents shot 43% at the rim this year when Clingan was on the court and 50% at the rim when he was off.
Last year UCONN opponents shot 44% at the rim when Clingan was on, and 54% at the rim when he was off.

These are huge differences, and two straight seasons holding opponents at this percentage basically puts him at the top of any rim protecting prospect list. The next closest in recent years would be Chet. For reference, Auburn opponents shot 50% at the rim when Kessler was on the court, vs 51% when he was off.

Also, Clingan has led the nation in each of the last two seasons in team efficiency margin, he takes a very good team in UConn to historically great when he's on the court.

With all this being said, Kessler was clearly underdrafted, he easily goes top 10 in a redraft, and fraud, bad wing prospects like Dieng are obvious examples of overdrafting.

And yeah, I get the scarcity and versatility argument, and why teams chase after any wing prospects with a pulse, but I still think from a team building and asset accumulation perspective in the draft, good centers are undervalued and teams can definitely stand to sharpen their process.

HadAnEffectHere wrote:I would guess there's only like a 10% chance Donovan Clingan ends up better than Walker Kessler and you can probably get Walker Kessler pretty easily.

Any team that bothered could easily get Nic Claxton who will Sarr will probably never be better than.

A starting caliber SF/PF is just much harder to get than a starting caliber C. You can get these guys for extremely cheap because only one traditional big can play at a time and none can play if your PF can't shoot.

Like, Ausar Thompson (on your team) is basically only ever going to succeed if he gets to play next to a center with massive perimeter gravity (so basically just one of Embiid, Jokic, Wemby, Chet, or Porzingis).

Superstar centers are extremely valuable, but just OK starting centers aren't very valuable.

Jarrett Allen is basically the best traditional center in the league who isn't a star and the Cavs are basically forced to trade him because Mobley is also a traditional center and their offense chokes.

dog all you do is talk **** about every player

you do know teams have to pick someone, right? they can't just say "ill save my pick for next year".

at this point you should be ignored by the entire board until you post your lotto.

clyde21 wrote:

HadAnEffectHere wrote:I would guess there's only like a 10% chance Donovan Clingan ends up better than Walker Kessler and you can probably get Walker Kessler pretty easily.

Any team that bothered could easily get Nic Claxton who will Sarr will probably never be better than.

A starting caliber SF/PF is just much harder to get than a starting caliber C. You can get these guys for extremely cheap because only one traditional big can play at a time and none can play if your PF can't shoot.

Like, Ausar Thompson (on your team) is basically only ever going to succeed if he gets to play next to a center with massive perimeter gravity (so basically just one of Embiid, Jokic, Wemby, Chet, or Porzingis).

Superstar centers are extremely valuable, but just OK starting centers aren't very valuable.

Jarrett Allen is basically the best traditional center in the league who isn't a star and the Cavs are basically forced to trade him because Mobley is also a traditional center and their offense chokes.

dog all you do is talk **** about every player

you do know teams have to pick someone, right? they can't just say "ill save my pick for next year".

at this point you should be ignored by the entire board until you post your lotto.

I have Sarr #1 and Clingan #2, I'm just saying they probably aren't very valuable players. I think there's some small chance Clingan develops enough mobility to be the best defender in the league other than Wemby, but I think it's pretty small due to his weight and injury history. I would expect neither player to make more than 15% of the cap in their prime even if they hit.

My board is currently

1. Sarr
2. Clingan
3. Holland
4. Risacher
5. Topic (man, do I hate that this guy ducked playing in Euroleague, but this class just sucks)
6. Sheppard
7. Cody Williams
8. Castle
9. Filipowski
10. Collier
11. Knecht
12. Missi
13. McCain
14. JaKobe Walter

I think no player in this draft realistically projects as a building block though Clingan, Topic, Cody Williams, Filipowski, Collier, and Missi each have a small shot at stardom.

Do people on this board really disagree that Sarr probably is hard limited to Nic Claxton (a guy no team in the NBA has shown any interest in)?

Like, offensively, Sarr is just actually bad. His shot creation and shooting are terrible and his finishing is nowhere near as good as you'd hope.

And yet he's #1 as getting Nic Claxton #1 is probably the best you can do.

JMAC3 wrote:

RyugaFan wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:I might be absolutely nuts but I have him first on my big board now I think he and Cody Williams are probably going to end up as the top prospects for me, but obviously going to be watching more games before the draft.

George reminds me a lot of Joe Ingles...but something that can happen with these lanky young wings is that they look slow in college and then by year 3 in the NBA are physically developed and look a lot better. Ingram is the most obvious example of this.

And to maybe add a bit more, this isn't a great draft relative to recent drafts, but if you are looking for a wing - which is the most valuable player in the league - there are more guys than usual who could be rotation caliber wings.

You know ball lol those two are my guys. And yeah, Kyshawn absolutely has untapped athleticism with how much he physically grew in the last few years.

Yeah the 20 year old freshman with below average production should be #1 lol.

He is incredibly 1 dimensional, shot under 50% from inside the arc despite being very low volume, not a good sign.
Did not get to Ft line at all.

Risacher was more productive for example in a tougher league despite being over a full year younger.

What your saying is completely valid. But this is one of those situations where I'm sort of just ignoring the noise and buying into this prospect no matter what because of what I see lmfao.

Clingan will go top 5 just for the fact he's a big body to throw at Wemby the next 10 years. Wemby does most of his damage at the rim where near 30% of his attempts come from, converting them at a 70% clip. Outside of 3 feet, he drops to 46%. So if you're in the west at least, these numbers are what you're looking at.