FanPost

My Current Big Board: Tiers 1-4

This will serve as a more formal version of the various big boards that I have posted on LB comment sections and Twitter and whatnot over the months. Part of this will involve documenting which players score out as future stars according to my two models. Model #2 is completely not ready for public consumption, and while better, the data on the google document for model #1 is messy. I will post a link where you can access the data for model #1, but do note that the list of players tested over the years is by no means comprehensive, and that some of the data may involve minor computational errors.


Here is the link to model #1.


While it isn’t ready for public consumption, model #2 essentially looks for ten statistical traits in prospects. These are: a good length and athleticism combo (this means that either they have elite athleticism with okay length for position or elite length with okay athleticism for position, with an important note that they do not qualify if they are below average in either one of the two), passing, baseline shooting thresholds, defense, free-throw percentage, true-shooting percentage, two-point percentage, steals per 40, and two-point attempts per game and per 40 (typically one comes with the other but not always). If a given player gets eight out of these ten traits (defined right now by kind of nebulous cutoffs, I’m working on that), they get counted as future "stars".


Okay, onto tiers 1-4 of my big board!


Key:

(Y/N) = Rated as future star by first model and not by second

(N/Y) = Rated as future star by second model and not first

Etc….




Tier 1:


1. Zion Williamson (Y/Y) - Zion’s defensive profile by itself would make him the best prospect in this draft class. He compares very well as a defensive prospect to prospect Andre Roberson, with them posting similar stock numbers (2.4 steals and 2.0 blocks/40 for freshman Roberson, 2.8 steals and 2.4 blocks/40 for freshman Zion), similar rebound numbers (14.0 rebounds/40 for Roberson, 11.8 rebounds/40 for Zion), and similar physical dimensions (Zion is 6’7" with a 6’10" wingspan while Roberson is 6’7" with a 6’11" wingspan). However, there are some notable differences: Zion was a full year younger in his freshman season, was shouldering a much larger offensive load, and might be one of the best basketball athletes ever versus Roberson who is "just" a really good athlete. The fact that all of this is true for Zion while he is also an absolutely dominant, generational offensive prospect makes him the slam-dunk #1 prospect in this draft.


Tier 2:


(gap)


Tier 3:


2. Ja Morant (Y/Y) - Ja Morant will enter the NBA as both one of the most athletic point guards in the NBA and as one of the best dribblers in the NBA. He is an absolutely elite, intuitive passing prospect, both by numbers and by watching 5 minutes of pretty much any Murray State game. Despite weird, unorthodox shooting mechanics, he statistically grades out as both a solid shooting prospect (34% from three and 81% from the line) and an improving one (went from 30% from three and 27% from midrange in his freshman season to 36% from three and 39% from midrange in his sophomore season). There are some concerns: his lack of strength makes his athleticism less functional than Westbrook/Rose types, and his defense has been truly horrendous in both his freshman and sophomore seasons. That being said, there is often a tendency among draft twitter types to overly nitpick obviously special talents, and at the end of the day Morant has some of the most promising strengths that you will see in this draft class, or any draft class really. He belongs at #2.


3. Bol Bol (Y/Y) - Bol Bol is one of the weirdest prospects to come along in a while. It’s hard to even articulate without watching him play. He ranks up there with Andrew Wiggins, Reggie Jackson, and Andrew Bogut on my least favorite players to watch ever list. Evaluating this contextually is difficult, because while most players who suck to watch also suck, this isn’t always the case. Prime Bogut was a player who arguably brought star impact to his respective teams, and there have been other stars over the years who have had unaesthetic games (Jimmy Butler, DeMarcus Cousins, John Wall). And trait wise Bol Bol is super promising. He’s a massive (7’3" with 7’8" wingspan), mobile, fluid, athletic big man with elite shot-blocking instincts (and just shot-blocking generally), elite touch around the rim, and good odds of becoming a high-level shooter in the pros. He’s extremely contact averse - which almost certainly plays into the "no fun to watch" thing - but that combination of traits alone gives him super high upside. Barring health, it is very hard to see how a player like that does not succeed in the modern NBA in some fashion, and if the frame/strength/physicality fixes itself over time you have a player that could be truly special.


Tier 3.5:


4. Grant Williams (Y/Y) - Grant Williams is another unorthodox, difficult evaluation. Detractors look at a kind of fat, unathletic power forward with a listed height of 6’5" who is a career 29% three-point shooter on low volume, and whose college dominance is largely explainable by him bullying weaker, less developed guys out of the mid-post. This misses some things. For one, the shooting is coming: he has taken massive strides as both a midrange and a free-throw shooter in his college career, shooting 52% from midrange and 82% from the line in his most recent season. For another, the importance of athleticism is often overrated on defense, with Kyle Anderson being an example of how team defensive instincts usually outweigh individual "stopper" equity when talking about defensive impact. Finally, the ability to take and make difficult shots as a skill: Grant Williams isn’t going to be bullying guys out of the midpost in the pros, but the fact that he can take and make those difficult shots, and was able to do so against college competition as an 18 year old freshman, indicates that he has the skills and inherent feel necessary to evolve into a player who self-creates in a different capacity in the pros. Which ultimately leaves us with a player who, with his effort, feel, and strength, will be at least a decent defender in the pros (probably good), is a good bet to shoot in the pros, potentially even at a high-level, and has the type of shot-making profile which could theoretically indicate self-creation equity in the pros if he reshaped his body and play-style to be more like that of a wing. Which is a pretty nice prospect.


Tier 4: (Note: this tier is pretty much interchangeable for me right now, and which player goes where is pretty much subject to my mood on any given day)


5. Goga Bitadze (N/N) - This, comparatively, is a pretty easy evaluation. Goga is going to be a good center in the pros. Goga might end up being a very good center in the pros (see: Nurkic, Jusuf). He is super strong, finishes and blocks shots against pretty solid competition, and shows inklings of perimeter skill (shoots 2.2 threes/40 and averages 1.9 asts/40). When you look at center prospects through the years with high two-point percentages, the ones that also pass and/or block shots very rarely fail. One of the things that the rise of Jusuf Nurkic and Nikola Vucevic in the eyes of adjusted plus/minus stats should have taught us during this past season is the importance of strength at the center position. Centers who can self-create some, deter drivers at the rim, do the lunch-pail type things we associate with the center position (screening, boxing out, hard fouling, etc..), and are strong as fuck have proven their value lately. Which means that with Goga you get a nice high-floor option with quite a bit of feasible star upside, albeit with a player type that most observers do not traditionally think of as stars.


6. Brandon Clarke (Y/N) - Clarke is an interesting player, and one that I am a little more lower on than most draft twitter observers. Let’s start with the most obvious draw first: Clarke is going to be a super good defender in the pros, one that at least makes a few all-defensive teams and at best one that rivals the Robersons and Robert Covingtons of the world as the best non-center defender in the NBA. He is also a skilled passer, a high-level athlete, and posts an overlooked offensive skill package, giving his respective teams a nice combination of midrange shooting, cutting, and even some off-the-dribble stuff he has developed over the years. The main counterpoint to these positives is obvious: he really can’t shoot (career 25% from three and 62% from the line). Beyond that, his high-volume creation upside beyond that is somewhat suspect: he isn’t that long, and he was a pretty low-volume offensive player as a 19 year old without any other indicators in his stat profile that season which indicates untapped creation upside (aka how Jimmy Butler had like a 1.000 ftr on low usage as a 19 year old freshman). All of this makes the final ranking difficult: on one hand you have a future elite defender who even with a passable shot could become some version of what Siakam is now on offense in his prime (and is smart, and I didn’t even touch on how the midrange shooting + shot overhaul he underwent in his year off may indicate latent three-point shooting upside), on the other hand you have a player who is 23 years old and can’t shoot without a ton of hidden primary creator upside. 6 is my low confidence ranking for now.


7. Shamorie Ponds (Y/Y) - There is a chance that my bullishness on Ponds looks inane and idiotic 4 years from now. He’s a tiny point guard who is not an elite or even an above average athlete, he is a poor defender, and he is a career 33% three-point shooter. The highest that any mainstream-esque draft twitter evaluator has had him is #12, and that was from a big board released in January written by a guy who specializes in hot takes (and who also just generally sucks, although I didn’t know that at the time). But the draft is about upside, and Shamorie has it. He smashes my statistical models and scores well on lots of others despite being almost universally faded by consensus, which many of those models assuredly incorporate. He is a great passer and one that has improved there every season of his college career. He is a high-volume, high-difficulty three-point shot-taker whose free-throw percentage indicates that his college three-point percentage drastically undersells his current shooting ability. He can really dribble, innately understands how to use said handle and pace to manipulate defenses, and has always been physical and has had enough shot-making ability to do well inside the arc. He was stunningly impactful as an 18 year old freshman point guard, especially given the history of even stars flaming out in college in that role at the same age (18 year old Russ, Lowry, Lillard, etc..). The physical tools and efficiency might not be there, but if consensus is wrong and it is, many people are going to look back at their 2019 big boards with much sorrow. That is not a risk I am willing to take.


8. Jarrett Culver (N/Y) - Ehhhh. Ranking Jarrett Culver is hard for me. He’s the type of prospect that I would theoretically adore, but there are two factors that consistently stand in the way of that. One, the shooting concerns me. He is a career 34% shooter from three, 68% from the free-throw line, and 33% from midrange. Which potentially destroys the potential floor for a prospect that is always going to be more valuable as a floor/median outcome type guy than a ceiling one. Two, he was not that productive as a freshman before taking a massive jump as a sophomore. One could interpret this as either an indictment of his sophomore year production (stars tend to command possessions and show clear indicators of future star equity from 19 and under) or just as a representation of the fact that he played on a loaded Texas Tech team as a freshman with a fellow NBA draft prospect (Zhaire Smith) and a star college point guard (Keenan Evans). And that doesn’t even factor in the fact that he might have underwent a growth spurt between his freshman and sophomore season. At the risk of writing too much, where I land on Culver is something like this: he’s more boom/bust than most think. If the shot works out, and he’s able to translate as someone who can attack closeouts and self-create some, he might not be a traditional star, but some iteration of Khris Middleton who is as good on defense as people think Middleton is is incredibly valuable. But if he doesn’t shoot, and the passing/defense translate below expectations, he could be disappointing.


9. RJ Barrett (Y/N) - RJ! RJ! All of the negativity I see about RJ makes me sad. He can self-create inside the arc! He’s an okay shooter! Despite the frequent tunnel vision and chucking, he has quite good passing stats for a wing! And has surprisingly good vision within offensive sets when he tries to use it! Getting shots up consistently against college competition is a valuable heuristic both in terms of skill and in terms of what college coaches think about a given player. The fact that he did it at 18, and was able to shoot 53% on twos in the season that be did it, is pretty impressive, and that combined with the asts/40 as a wing as an 18 year old and you get a pretty good looking prospect. Now, there are some pretty large concerns. The lack of steals/stocks is both worrying in terms of his prospects as a defender in the pros and as a latent indicator of feel which he may not have (which is supported by the poor shot selection that was/is pretty much unavoidable when watching RJ). Furthermore, he’s not really elite at anything: he’s a below average shooter, a mediocre midrange shooter, not super athletic or long, doesn’t have a great handle, and doesn’t have the strength right now to project as a very promising shooter. I ultimately tend to look at him in a similar light as Culver: his odds of shooting aren’t really much lower than Culver’s - their shooting profiles are pretty similar (34/33/68 for Culver, 31/37/67 for RJ) - and an RJ that does legitimately have a chance to be a genuinely impactful offensive player, and one that with effort + decent tools emerges as competent on the other end. Which sounds something like a version of pre-injury Chandler Parsons who is better at creating separation and has better tools. I think. Lots of non-talent variables here to take into account as well (will he willingly change style of play? should he get bump for potential trade value?).


10. Jaxson Hayes (N/N) - Jaxson Hayes continues the string of players who are complicated, difficult evaluations in this class. I miss the 2018 class, where everybody was good. That was easy! Even "disappointments" from that class like Mo Bamba and Collin Sexton have shown skills to where they could easily emerge as positive, impactful players even three to four years from now. The only genuine busts from that lottery right now look like Kevin Knox and Jerome Robinson, who virtually everybody knowledgeable about the draft pegged as such the moments the picks were announced. Okay, I digress. Let’s talk about Hayes. First, the positive. Hayes is an absolute incredible play-finisher, a skill which given his athleticism and fluidity should definitely translate to the pros. He’s an effective shot-blocker and really functionally uses his elite physical tools on the defensive end, and in many ways you can tell that he’s very much growing as a player. He has a 75% free-throw percentage which does indicate potentially untapped shooting potential on his end in the pros. In many ways he reminds me of a slightly less offensively fluid Marvin Bagley who can actually protect the rim, which of course by itself would merit a top-5 pick. However, a few things are preventing me from getting there. First, I know that Texas does suppress passing stats some, but 0.5 assists/40 is a truly awful number which both immediately removes self-creation potential and suggests some feel concerns. You would like to have a big who can pass out of plays as a roll-man when the defense doubles off corner shooters to them in the paint, and the current numbers we have suggest Hayes does not have the ability to do that. Secondly, remember the strength point I brought up earlier? Yeah, Hayes doesn’t have that. He has low rebounding numbers for a big (RJ Barrett averages the same number of rebs/40 as him) and is not very strong nor functionally physical, and in a league where virtually all of the top bigs are built and strong, that is a problem (to clarify, this is not just about Hayes’s ability to defend stronger bigs, but also a point about the importance of strength when bringing impact as a team defender, the strength here is important to multiple aspects of game, not just defending other strong players). There have been some bigs that have succeeded without that strength (Camby, Nerlens’s defense, KP if he played the five, etc..) but Hayes does not have the elite defensive instincts or offensive skill of those guys. Now, to be fair, there have been bigs who have added strength level in the pros (Vucevic, Gobert), and I have fallen in the trap of assuming that all prospects must have stars they compare to in the pros in order to be future stars themselves, but I do think that there is a sizeable chance that prime Hayes is more in the Willie Cauley-Stein/Poeltl ballpark than a legitimate star. But there is a chance that I am wrong, and the upside with Hayes if I am may be more enticing than that with Culver/Barrett, even when adjusting for position (centers are generally less valuable than wings). Maybe. I’m not sure. I’ll have to think about it.




A user-created LB joint. The Liberty Ballers staff does not contribute to FanPosts.