23' draft steals/ hidden gems with high end potential being overlooked??

[Wizop]

But 1st rounders get a guaranteed roster spot - you typically only see 2nd rounders get stashed overseas.

if the lottery has the Spurs jump the Rockets in the first, then the Rockets pick in the second is the 32nd and goes to the Pacers. otherwise the top Pacer second falls to the 50th. we also have the 55th. it's unclear when the CBA changes to allow 3 two way deals. Kendall Brown should stay on a two way for another year so we have at least one open spot there if not two. 32nd is high for a two way. 50th is not.

Pacers real need is a 3-4 not a 4-5 but I hope we get that need filled in the lottery.

[clyde21]

Answer these two questions for me first and then I will make my point.

Is Leonard Miller points per 100 possession higher if he played against college competition?

And if so what would you expect his per 36 numbers to be in college?

lol - no, ofc it isn't...unless again you think playing Norfolk and Nicholls St. is a tougher assignment than actual actual NBA players in the GL. in which I can't really help you at that point.

You are contradicting yourself here then. So you are saying his pts per 100 would be lower in college? I am generally confused by your response.

i mean that unless you think a schedule that includes schools like Nicholls St and Norfolk St. is tougher than the GL which is full of NBA players or future NBA players, then of course it'll be easier for Miller.

how are we still having this conversation?

[clyde21]

Answer these two questions for me first and then I will make my point.

Is Leonard Miller points per 100 possession higher if he played against college competition?

And if so what would you expect his per 36 numbers to be in college?

lol - no, ofc it isn't...unless again you think playing Norfolk and Nicholls St. is a tougher assignment than actual actual NBA players in the GL. in which I can't really help you at that point.

so miller is comparable to those guys in terms of points per 100 while playing against actual nba players. would he be averaging 36 pp 100 in college? 40? 45?

i think it's very possible after two years in the GL you drop Leonard Miller in college and he's dropping 32 points per 100 yes.

[JMAC3]

lol - no, ofc it isn't...unless again you think playing Norfolk and Nicholls St. is a tougher assignment than actual actual NBA players in the GL. in which I can't really help you at that point.

so miller is comparable to those guys in terms of points per 100 while playing against actual nba players. would he be averaging 36 pp 100 in college? 40? 45?

i think it's very possible after two years in the GL you drop Leonard Miller in college and he's dropping 32 points per 100 yes.

LOL... so you think if he played another full year in gleague then went to college he could increase per 100 scoring by 4 whole points? Doesn't seem like a very large difference to me. Pretty weak stance after you went on and on about how much easier college is.

Also, weird that you praise Scoot for putting up such good numbers in the Gleague but yet Miller is putting up comparable numbers at the same age and you don't have him in your top 20.

[clyde21]

so miller is comparable to those guys in terms of points per 100 while playing against actual nba players. would he be averaging 36 pp 100 in college? 40? 45?

i think it's very possible after two years in the GL you drop Leonard Miller in college and he's dropping 32 points per 100 yes.

LOL... so you think if he played another full year in gleague then went to college he could increase per 100 scoring by 4 whole points? Doesn't seem like a very large difference to me. Pretty weak stance after you went on and on about how much easier college is.

Also, weird that you praise Scoot for putting up such good numbers in the Gleague but yet Miller is putting up comparable numbers at the same age and you don't have him in your top 20.

because ranking prospects is not just about numbers - I know, crazy idea.

and I once again made the mistake of engaging your **** takes but that'll be the last time for sure. it's such a ridiculous premise to begin with that Nicholls St. would be a tougher assignment for Leonard Miller than the GL that there is not even a basis for discussion to be hand.

[JMAC3]

i think it's very possible after two years in the GL you drop Leonard Miller in college and he's dropping 32 points per 100 yes.

LOL... so you think if he played another full year in gleague then went to college he could increase per 100 scoring by 4 whole points? Doesn't seem like a very large difference to me. Pretty weak stance after you went on and on about how much easier college is.

Also, weird that you praise Scoot for putting up such good numbers in the Gleague but yet Miller is putting up comparable numbers at the same age and you don't have him in your top 20.

because ranking prospects is not just about numbers - I know, crazy idea.

and I once again made the mistake of engaging your **** takes but that'll be the last time for sure. it's such a ridiculous premise to begin with that Nicholls St. would be a tougher assignment for Leonard Miller than the GL that there is not even a basis for discussion to be hand.

"NiChOlS sTaTe is the only college team I can bring up" .... you really think that is real analysis? That is the definition of a strawman argument lol.

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument

You have fought tooth and nail that the Gleague is so much more difficult to put up numbers than it is college. Discredited 25 examples I gave for reason a or b. Then I show an example of a guy the same age doing roughly the same numbers and now your going to shift gears and say well it's not all about numbers. You have no consistent logic when it comes to prospects, yet when others disagree we are all just flat wrong.

[clyde21]

LOL... so you think if he played another full year in gleague then went to college he could increase per 100 scoring by 4 whole points? Doesn't seem like a very large difference to me. Pretty weak stance after you went on and on about how much easier college is.

Also, weird that you praise Scoot for putting up such good numbers in the Gleague but yet Miller is putting up comparable numbers at the same age and you don't have him in your top 20.

because ranking prospects is not just about numbers - I know, crazy idea.

and I once again made the mistake of engaging your **** takes but that'll be the last time for sure. it's such a ridiculous premise to begin with that Nicholls St. would be a tougher assignment for Leonard Miller than the GL that there is not even a basis for discussion to be hand.

"NiChOlS sTaTe is the only college team I can bring up" .... you really think that is real analysis? That is the definition of a strawman argument lol.

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument

You have fought tooth and nail that the Gleague is so much more difficult to put up numbers than it is college. Discredited 25 examples I gave for reason a or b. Then I show an example of a guy the same age doing roughly the same numbers and now your going to shift gears and say well it's not all about numbers. You have no consistent logic when it comes to prospects, yet when others disagree we are all just flat wrong.

lmao - you can go down the fkn list of any of these players' schedules and see the schools they play...here is Keyonte's: Mississippi Valley State, Norfolk State, Northern Colorado, McNeese, Tartleton St., Nicholls St., and you can keep going. if you think this schedule is tougher for any player than playing against present and future NBA players in the GL you're more than welcome to keep holding a hilariously embarrassing take.

and you don't show the same numbers - that's why you keep weaseling back to per minute stats instead of per 100 when comping college to the GL because you know your argument gets blown out of the water every time when someone points out the per 100 metrics.

you're just recycling the same nonsense from the Scoot thread where you spent 20 pages embarrassing yourself. put this one down and walk away.

[JMAC3]

because ranking prospects is not just about numbers - I know, crazy idea.

and I once again made the mistake of engaging your **** takes but that'll be the last time for sure. it's such a ridiculous premise to begin with that Nicholls St. would be a tougher assignment for Leonard Miller than the GL that there is not even a basis for discussion to be hand.

"NiChOlS sTaTe is the only college team I can bring up" .... you really think that is real analysis? That is the definition of a strawman argument lol.

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument

You have fought tooth and nail that the Gleague is so much more difficult to put up numbers than it is college. Discredited 25 examples I gave for reason a or b. Then I show an example of a guy the same age doing roughly the same numbers and now your going to shift gears and say well it's not all about numbers. You have no consistent logic when it comes to prospects, yet when others disagree we are all just flat wrong.

lmao - you can go down the fkn list of any of these players' schedules and see the schools they play...here is Keyonte's: Mississippi Valley State, Norfolk State, Northern Colorado, McNeese, Tartleton St., Nicholls St., and you can keep going. if you think this schedule is tougher for any player than playing against present and future NBA players in the GL you're more than welcome to keep holding a hilariously embarrassing take.

and you don't show the same numbers - that's why you keep weaseling back to per minute stats instead of per 100 when comping college to the GL because you know your argument gets blown out of the water every time when someone points out the per 100 metrics.

you're just recycling the same nonsense from the Scoot thread where you spent 20 pages embarrassing yourself. put this one down and walk away.

Do you need me to move on to the definition of cherry picking? Nobody is showcasing highlights or talking about a time Brandon Miller scored 50 on McNeese. Hell, half the time prospects play these big schools they are blowing them out and don't even play but half the game. I don't get the infatuation for you trying to downplay college basketball by selecting their 5 worst opponents instead of the other 25 teams they played. Which is what 99% of people will point to when they bring up a performance for a top college player.

I guess if you would rather be known as a mockery for straw manning and cherry-picking data instead of actually being open minded then you do you man.

[Jamaaliver]

Hidden Gem:

Read on Twitter

[EvanZ]

He is like the opposite of a hidden gem at this point, if he's going anywhere near the first round.

[EvanZ]

You guys want a real hidden gem? That's someone like Taevion Kinsey who is a nuclear athlete and special playmaker who can't shoot. If that kid ever figures out how to put the ball in the basket from a distance he's going to be special. Think he's worth a second round flier in this draft to see if he can do it.

[CP3nthusiast]

Leonard Miller, 6'9 with a 7'2 wingspan, great ball handling, speed and vertical for his size. He's a project and it'll take at least 3-4 years for him to start to become an effective player but I'm impressed by how much he's improved from last year.

I'm honestly shocked at how often he's mocked behind guys like Coulibaly and Hood-Schifino. Higher floor and ceiling, in my opinion.

[babyjax13]

You guys want a real hidden gem? That's someone like Taevion Kinsey who is a nuclear athlete and special playmaker who can't shoot. If that kid ever figures out how to put the ball in the basket from a distance he's going to be special. Think he's worth a second round flier in this draft to see if he can do it.

Completely agree on Kinsey. With all the buzz about Amen Thompson and Bilal Coulibaly, who are both raw, extremely good athletes who can cut and have varying degrees of passing ability (Amen clearly better in that regard), it seems odd that Taevion isn't getting buzz toward the top of the second round (and I say this as I have him going undrafted in my own mock). His FT shooting improved a lot over his college career, and his playmaking obviously has.

[Saints14]

On the other side of the spectrum I'm still super high on Jalen Pickett as an athletically limited basketball genius that analytics models love, and who could make an impact despite his unconventional game. He's projected as late 2nd round to undrafted but for my money he's got the best passing vision and IQ in the draft. Of course he could just not be able to hang athletically, and his overall shooting touch is not where you'd like it to be, but with his overall feel for the game I would not rule out him being a starting PG someday

[treefi]

On the other side of the spectrum I'm still super high on Jalen Pickett as an athletically limited basketball genius that analytics models love, and who could make an impact despite his unconventional game. He's projected as late 2nd round to undrafted but for my money he's got the best passing vision and IQ in the draft. Of course he could just not be able to hang athletically, and his overall shooting touch is not where you'd like it to be, but with his overall feel for the game I would not rule out him being a starting PG someday

Pickett reminds me of Denzel Valentine. I was a believer.

[Saints14]

On the other side of the spectrum I'm still super high on Jalen Pickett as an athletically limited basketball genius that analytics models love, and who could make an impact despite his unconventional game. He's projected as late 2nd round to undrafted but for my money he's got the best passing vision and IQ in the draft. Of course he could just not be able to hang athletically, and his overall shooting touch is not where you'd like it to be, but with his overall feel for the game I would not rule out him being a starting PG someday

Pickett reminds me of Denzel Valentine. I was a believer.

Honestly that's not a bad comp. I was a Denzel believer too

[SeattleJazzFan]

Leonard Miller, 6'9 with a 7'2 wingspan, great ball handling, speed and vertical for his size. He's a project and it'll take at least 3-4 years for him to start to become an effective player but I'm impressed by how much he's improved from last year.

I'm honestly shocked at how often he's mocked behind guys like Coulibaly and Hood-Schifino. Higher floor and ceiling, in my opinion.

nah, with the way he dominated the g league, give him minutes he can step right in and be productive. he's shown he can dominate pros as a 19 year old. with one more year under his belt, he can at least justify rotation minutes in the league. best thing about miller is that he isn't a project, but he still has a ton of upside. leonard miller is the rare high floor, high ceiling prospect. and to think you can get that dude in the mid-first. yowza.

[EvanZ]

What position is he? Curious because I really like him but unless he shoots he pretty much has to be a 5.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[clyde21]

how is Kinsey a hidden gem? we've literally been talking about him for like 4 years lol.

[Tha King]

Marcus Sasser (I think he'll be one of the better players in the draft)
Mouhamed Gueye
Jalen Slawson