Reed Sheppard - 2024 NBA Draft Prospect

[timvp]

https://www.spurstalk.com/reed-sheppard-spurs-draft-lottery/

Spurs Ceiling Comparison: Smaller, More Aggressive Brent Barry

Spurs Floor Comparison: Stubbier Bryn Forbes

BFoDTzEt1rQ

[spursparker9]

His shooting stroke is very consistent.

Kinda resemble those great shooters such as Peja, Nash, Stockton.

[onechance87]

Wouldnt mind him at all....Would be a upgrade over branham,And should mean branham should be gone.

[kobyz]

Spurs comparison is Terry Porter

[Ocotillo]

Ugh, that floor......

[Vienna]

I don't think he will be picked top 3, as some mocks suggest, but I'm also not sure that he will be there at 8. he makes to much sense with the Hornets, my guess is, they will pick him.
Payton Pritchard is currently doing fine with the C's and Sheppard seems like a rich man's version of PP.

if the Spurs somehow end up picking Castle at 4 and Sheppard at 8, this might work nice in a future back court, as both might be able balance each others weakness.

[Mr. Body]

John Stockton if John Stockton was good.

[PhantomDashCam]

So torn on this kid.
I personally love him. Shooting, smarts, effort. He’s a coach’s dream.

The concerns though…

The Spurs should have more than enough data available to determine what kind of a shooter he really is and how he compares to touted prospects prior such as Desmond Bane and Corey Kispert.

One funny (useless?)tidbit I saw on him when watching the 2023 McDonalds All-American game was he doesn’t play any video games. Almost unheard of in this day and age. Not sure if that changed when he went to College but I doubt it.

[Brazil]

John Stockton if John Stockton was good.

:lol

[objective]

I don't think his standing reach deserves the attention that it gets, just like the exact vertical number

Just about everyone at the combine suggested be was gaming his vertical numbers by intentionally under stretching on the reach measurement to give a bogus inflated vertical to 'win' the narrative.

[Ariel]

I don't agree with his characterization as an average passer. He's a really good passer, you can see this in transition where he had incredible passes that show advanced court vision and accurate delivery. The problem is when the defense is set, he doesn't create much (for himself or others) because he is an underwhelming ball handler with little burst, he can't shake his man off easily, and that makes things difficult for him.

This in stark contrast to Dillingham who excels at it, which is why a lot of the time Kentucky found themselves in a close, halfcourt game, you'd see Sheppard struggle to get anything going and it would be Dillingham who'd make things happen. This is critical to me, and as a result I'd rather go with Dilly, in spite of all of his defensive limitations (as long as the FO has a reasonable belief he'll be commited to put effort into it).

[rascal]

Not athletic enough to create his offense when the defense is set like Ariel says above. Underwhelming ball handler. Spurs don't need more of this on the roster.

He isn't anything more than a set shooter, a player who comes off the bench as a role player shooter. Spurs do need to add shooting but not at the expense of the other areas.

[BatManu20]

Forbes was a traffic cone defensively. Sheppard will almost certainly be a much better defender than Forbes ever was. His defensive metrics were off the charts this year at Kentucky, though his lack of size and length will no doubt hinder him at the next level. I see a slightly shorter Kirk Hinrich -- a very good, high-IQ role player who's a great shooter and a plus defender.

[thOOdee]

Thanks for the write up!

I would have to agree fully, and reading between the lines, I’m guessing it’s a no from timvp, atleast w the 4th pick. To have to pigeon hole sheppard into the point guard spot to me looks like putting too many eggs in one basket, and something i dont think the spurs can afford to gamble when every move matter in keeping victor for the long run. Would be great if we got castle at 4 and sheppard at 8, and see who sticks.

[The Truth #6]

Supercharged Jon Sunvold.

[R. DeMurre]

The "controversy" about whether or not Sheppard fully extended on the standing reach test is interesting. I just read a thread on reddit where a bunch of guys self tested and found the difference would generally be about 3" if you hold your arm straight up as opposed to maximum stretching. So let's assume Reed did that, shortening his standing reach by 3" while also adding 3" to his max vertical leap. His adjusted numbers would then be a standing reach of 8' 1/2" and a vertical of 39".

For comparison's sake, note that Dillingham's standing reach measured at 7'11", and I haven't seen a single mention of that in any analysis of his game. Dillingham's standing reach is identical to that of Patty Mills.


https://www.nba.com/stats/draft/combine-anthro?dir=A&sort=STANDING_REACH

[jjspur]

The spurs have valued length, youth and untapped upside in recent drafts, and other than Wemby and Devin, maybe its time to go in a different direction by going with the pick based on talent rather than on potential. We've been pretty much at the bottom with that strategy. Maybe by going with a safer pick we can finally move up in the standings.

Sheppard could easily push Branham or Wesley to the 3rd string or completely off the team. Even with his short comings (which all players in this draft have) , he would improve our team. We need a decent guard in the worst way. We have a golden opportunity to improve our team. Lets not blow it by drafting some guy that's years away from contributing. I doubt Wemby wants to be in this same position next year - and his voice will count for something.

[Notorious H.O.P.]

Rich man's Oscar Robertson.

I see his ceiling as a solid, rotation quality role player and there is nothing wrong with that. Every successful team needs several of them. Pop would probably dust off the old Forbes playbook to get Sheppard clean looks off of multiple screens. But he likely won't be there at 8 so do you use 4 on this type of possibly limited ceiling? I'm not a pro scout and he may prove me wrong but do we go one safe pick and one high risk/reward or do we take two moon shots since we may be able to get our role players in free agency?

[Mr. Body]

Gaming the standing reach was genius. For the rest of his career he'll be described as this great leaper every single game.

[Guru of Nothing]

Church Lady version of White Chocolate, White White.

[Knoxxx]

I don't think his standing reach deserves the attention that it gets, just like the exact vertical number

Just about everyone at the combine suggested be was gaming his vertical numbers by intentionally under stretching on the reach measurement to give a bogus inflated vertical to 'win' the narrative.

Come on man, he is not going to be a dunker in the NBA.

[TD 21]

Although he obviously might not get to 4, if he does he's the no brainer pick. A malleable player who stands a good chance of at least being a quality 6th man, which is more than I can say for any of the other realistic options at 4.

[aissagholi7981]

No thanks. He's tiny and he's white. WTF are we going to do with a 6 foot shooter?

[LeBowen]

No thanks. He's tiny and he's white. WTF are we going to do with a 6 foot shooter?

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/20/44/55/4344659/4/rawImage.jpg

[TrainOfThought5]

I don't think his standing reach deserves the attention that it gets, just like the exact vertical number

Just about everyone at the combine suggested be was gaming his vertical numbers by intentionally under stretching on the reach measurement to give a bogus inflated vertical to 'win' the narrative.

200 IQ as well?!?!

[Bruno]

Sheppard is clearly the top 10 prospect I like the least. I have a hard time at viewing him being more than a decent bench player in the NBA. Do not want.

[aissagholi7981]

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/20/44/55/4344659/4/rawImage.jpg

Exactly LOL. Wont be a bad pick for 15+ range though!

[RC_Drunkford]

that's exactly what I thought too: Why waste #4 on Patty Mills 2nd coming? Sheppard doesn't create shots for himself, Dillingham does. He was better defensively, but won't do much on that end in the NBA cause he's too small.

[R. DeMurre]

It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out in a few years, but my worry with Dillingham is he'll need to be ball dominant in order to match his college production, where he had a usage rate of 30%... do you want an undersized ball dominant guy who isn't much of a defender to pair with Wemby? it's kinda the Trae Young debate all over again, though Dilly's small sample size on shooting is better.

[Mr. Body]

Yeah, Dillingham being ball dominant is a serious question.

Givony is starting to think Reed Sheppard at #4.

[aissagholi7981]

We are either getting Topic or Castle with the 4th pick, after that, who knows

[BatManu20]

Yea I'm not taking Sheppard at 4 personally. Much rather have Castle. But at 8 he becomes a real consideration if he's still on the board imo, depending on who else is available of course.

[mo7888]

Yea I'm not taking Sheppard at 4 personally. Much rather have Castle. But at 8 he becomes a real consideration if he's still on the board imo, depending on who else is available of course.

Just try and get Charlotte to give you 6 for 8 + their pick back and take both. They may very well compliment each other better than any pair we could pick.

[Mr. Body]

Sheppard makes sense next to a big point guard, or someone who can take some point duties who can cover for his lack of size on defense. One reason why Houston is potentially a fit, with Amen.

A Castle-Sheppard selection makes sense in the same way. They can both run actions and Castle covers for Reed's inability to be a lock-down defender, bringing out Reed's off-ball defense.

I'm not in love with the pick (if that's something we'd see) but it makes sense esp in this draft.

[BackHome]

Sheppard is clearly the top 10 prospect I like the least. I have a hard time at viewing him being more than a decent bench player in the NBA. Do not want.

I see Sheppard and Dilly as both really great bench players for a playoff team

[R. DeMurre]

that's exactly what I thought too: Why waste #4 on Patty Mills 2nd coming? Sheppard doesn't create shots for himself, Dillingham does. He was better defensively, but won't do much on that end in the NBA cause he's too small.


I don't see the Mills comparison at all. Sheppard had a better 2pt%, a better 3pt%, and significantly more assists, rebounds, steals, and blocks in fewer minutes. Sochan was a 6'9" PG for part of last season, but that's where the Magic Johnson comparisons end.

[RC_Drunkford]

It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out in a few years, but my worry with Dillingham is he'll need to be ball dominant in order to match his college production, where he had a usage rate of 30%... do you want an undersized ball dominant guy who isn't much of a defender to pair with Wemby? it's kinda the Trae Young debate all over again, though Dilly's small sample size on shooting is better.

Dillingham shared ball handling duties with Sheppard and does well on catch and shoot 3s. He's able to play off the ball. He's also very good at relocating.

[rjv]

i absolutely agree that the spurs value length which is why i'm baffled that LJ would put dillingham on top of their draft board. i would rather that the spurs have, and draft for, length as well, just so that they can matchup better against the other teams with great length-such as the t-wolves and OKC.

[Mr. Body]

i absolutely agree that the spurs value length which is why i'm baffled that LJ would put dillingham on top of their draft board. i would rather that the spurs have, and draft for, length as well, just so that they can matchup better against the other teams with great length-such as the t-wolves and OKC.

Because Dillingham has categories where he is exceptional.

[cd98]

I don't know. Teams pick apart these guys that don't meet this measurement or that metric and then they come in and play well in the NBA. This is all a crapshoot for the most part, but I'm sure Reed will likely be a solid player.

[baseline bum]

i absolutely agree that the spurs value length which is why i'm baffled that LJ would put dillingham on top of their draft board. i would rather that the spurs have, and draft for, length as well, just so that they can matchup better against the other teams with great length-such as the t-wolves and OKC.

I really hope they don't. Lotta good Branham's exceptional wingspan does when he's arguably the worst in the league defensively among guards getting rotation minutes.

[jjspur]

Although he obviously might not get to 4, if he does he's the no brainer pick. A malleable player who stands a good chance of at least being a quality 6th man, which is more than I can say for any of the other realistic options at 4.

As a comparison - Steve Kerr. Sure he was slow, small and scrawny, but he could shoot really really well. He wasn't the most important player on the team, but he sure came in awfully handy during our championships. A role player, but a very important one. All teams need players like him.

[rjv]

I really hope they don't. Lotta good Branham's exceptional wingspan does when he's arguably the worst in the league defensively among guards getting rotation minutes.

branham wasn't a terrible pick considering where he went at; i don't know if the warning signs about his atrocious defense were that apparent back then. but there's no doubt that the spurs place value on length. just how much value in this draft is a question i guess we'll have the answer to soon enough.

[rjv]

As a comparison - Steve Kerr. Sure he was slow, small and scrawny, but he could shoot really really well. He wasn't the most important player on the team, but he sure came in awfully handy during our championships. A role player, but a very important one. All teams need players like him.

he was also a proven winner and NBA champion.

[T Park]

yeah no thanks . good shooter but has to be slightly more dimensional.

Way more a fan of getting Castle and Knecht as the two picks and moving assets around after that.

Really REALLY think Castle might be the guy and with his defense, ability to move off the ball, facilitation, when the shot improves, and it will the form is good, then the game follows from there.

Knecht really is BPA, and think at worst hes a 6MOTY guy.

[jesterbobman]

Reed doesn't have length, but from the number of blocks and steals, he clearly has quick reactions and hands. Wingspan is one tool, hand speed and reflexes are another.

I'm a fan as I think he has outs to be someone like Haliburton (the book coming out of the draft on Hali was a great, careful (low turnover) secondary creator with an ugly shot that went in (Reed's shot isn't ugly, but it goes in), people thought he'd have almost no chance to be a primary PG). He'll be hunted on D as a man defender, but a 52% 3 point shooter running inverted pick and rolls with Vic is scary, steals / deflections are really valuable.
https://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=reed-sheppard--tyrese-haliburton

I think I'd go Castle 4 if both are on the board (I'm a semi believer in Castle getting to 36% from 3 over time and other attributes as a strong wing with a decent handle get to low level Jimmy Butler / Jrue Holiday), but I'd be fine with Reed at 4.

[024]

Actually like picking Sheppard at #4. Don't need a strong or traditional playmaking PG with Wemby already looking like he can be the hub on offense. What the Spurs do need though is someone who can shoot the 3 reliably. They are bottom 5 in the league in 3 pt shooting despite being above average in attempts. They also need someone who will not be a net negative on defense and Sheppard can at least get some steals here and there.

[jjspur]

If Castle or Sheppard are available at 4, its going to be a real hard decision....either pick would be good. However I would bet that both are gone by pick 8. Castle & Sheppard would be 2 great picks, if the draft breaks the spurs way. :lobt2:

[SpursBills]

branham wasn't a terrible pick considering where he went at; i don't know if the warning signs about his atrocious defense were that apparent back then. but there's no doubt that the spurs place value on length. just how much value in this draft is a question i guess we'll have the answer to soon enough.

Branham had some very concerning defensive metrics pre-draft I think. It's just that his eye test was so good with how effortless he was able to score especially toward the end of the season that it probably outweighed any concerns about his defense.

I wasn't as numbers oriented at this time last year compared to this year, but looking back at his statistical profile:

defensive BPM/BPR of 0.4/0.28 is atrociously bad - for comparison - Trae Young 0.8/0.49, Bryn Forbes 0.4/0.97 (as a senior), Cam thomas -1.2/-0.39 (lol)
anemic steal rate (1.6)
average to poor rebounding rate relative to size and wingspan suggesting he plays small and has a lower motor

None of the above in isolation is a death knell for him, but taken together they do paint the picture of a poor low motor defender. He's still young and has time to turn it around and in time his offense may make up for his defense if he develops well, but the defensive indicators were definitely there early I think.

[benefactor]

I'm very skeptical anybody we pick at number four in this draft will be a starter. Perhaps Castle if you can get his shooting fixed.

As others have said, I'm fine with Reed or Castle at 4. They're very different players but they both provide things that this team really needs. You either get a good role playing defender who has some scoring ability or you get a lights out shooter who might make that 3-pointer you need at a very important time in a very important game.

[SpursBills]

I'm very high on Sheppard personally, but even more importantly I'm more curious to see how his career pans out than I am of other prospects because he represents such an extreme case of stats based analysis vs poor physical tools / poor mold to the point that we may be at an inflection point.

Over the years (I'm talking about general public opinion, as I realize that there were many opinions that were different here on Spurstalk):

2009 - Steph curry - generational shooting prospect, godlike statistical profile with almost unprecedented combination of 3 point efficiency and volume, other statistical indicators of goodness (high STL%, high AST% as a jr), "can a shooting guard that small succeed in the NBA"?

2018 - Luka Doncic - generational Euro prospect, godlike statistical profile for his age, best player on the best team in the second best basketball league in the world, "can he still get his shot off against NBA athleticism"?

2021 - Chet Holmgren - elite offensive and defensive impact, top 5 freshman BPM in history, shot 84% on non-dunk rim attempts, 39% on 3s, "he's going to break in half when he goes against Embiid, a 195 pound guy can't be a big in the NBA, 'thin shoulders'"

2021 - Alperen Sengun - elite offensive production in Turkish BSL, a top 5 basketball league in the world at age 18, "sieve on defense, offensive impact won't translate against NBA level defenders"

I'm listing these examples not to say that Sheppard is going to be anywhere close to the above 4, but more to give examples of past concerns of a poor mold overriding obvious statistical goodness.

Sheppard's statistical impact is elite - highly unusual combination of elite STL% and elite 3 point shooting translating to elite impact on winning at such as a young age. To get a feel for how absurd 52% on 144 3's is, consider this - if Sheppard decided to chuck up another 2-3 contested 3s per game at sub-30% efficiency (highly conservative estimate considering his prowess as a shooter), he's still a 43-44% shooter on 220 3s on the season. Synergy has his points per possession ranking in the 100th percentile as a spot up shooter with 31% of his possessions and 93rd percentile as a PNR ball handler with 22% of his possessions. I also saw somewhere that his on/off was something like +30 per 100 possessions (+16 offensive/+13 defense), which is absurd even when you compare it against other talented draft prospects like his teammate Dilly.

I agree with a lot of his detractors though, that his mold is so, so poor. 6'2" shooting guard with a +1 wingspan who can't create his own shot against a set defense is just about the worst mold I can think of, even more than the non-shooting offensive big who can't defend the paint or perimeter.

So it comes down to how much you trust the numbers and the statistical impact. So far, I generally adhere to the rule that the best (not only) predictor of NBA success is being good at basketball, and being good at basketball is reflected by high multifaceted production against similar age or older, more physically developed opponents. For that reason, I'm obviously very high on Sheppard. However at some point, a prospect's statistical impact is not quite going to be good enough and his mold is going to be so poor, that his physical warts really outweigh his statistical production. Sheppard's really interesting because I wonder if he represents something close to the inflection point where the warts do start to outweigh the statistical goodness in the end.

[SpursBills]

John Stockton if John Stockton was good.

I think probably wrong jazz guard, but his backcourt partner might not be a bad comp

[TDMVPDPOY]

remember when the spurs fo wasted multiple years draft picks looking for that enrique backup and they all failed... are they doing that shit again looking for a starter PG or someshit for wendy?

[BackHome]

I think probably wrong jazz guard, but his backcourt partner might not be a bad comp

Sheppard is never going to get close to Stockton to me he is more like Mark Price..

[SpursBills]

Sheppard is never going to get close to Stockton to me he is more like Mark Price..

Was thinking a slightly worse hornacek when I wrote that personally

[rascal]

Sheppard is never going to get close to Stockton to me he is more like Mark Price..

He is neither.

He doesn't have the pg dribbling skills that either Stockton or Price have.

[CGD]

Sheppard is never going to get close to Stockton to me he is more like Mark Price..

Dude, go back and research Mark Price. Reed is nowhere close.

[CGD]

Jimmer went in the lottery right?

[Mr. Body]

The Stockton thing was a joke.

Sheppard's high end outcome is something like Mark Price. He doesn't have the court vision of Stockton, but Price is possible. In the right defensive setting, his speed can be overcome and become a strong team defender. He develops better handles and shiftiness and learns to become a strong pick and roll player.

But to me he's more like Steve Kerr. Same stature, same physical and athletic profile. Kerr shot .573 from deep in college (albeit his senior year). Neither is/was good at high-end shot creation. Sheppard projects to be much better on defense and better at least with secondary connection. So, he's like a Steve Kerr with more playmaking upside, more rebounds, much better hands and disruptive.

His advanced stats were absurd, but I rarely thought Sheppard was taking over games or was even the best player on the floor. Maybe because his usage was pretty low (18%), but I don't think that changes in the pros.

Such an odd disconnect between the stats and the eye test.

[alfahdlan]

Jimmer went in the lottery right?

Usage Rate:
Sheppard, Freshman=18
Fredette, Senior=37.8

No Comparison.

[alfahdlan]

Wemby-Spurs play best when they play fast and what triggers fast basketball are rebounds, steals and blocks. I i remember one of the first Wemby highlights of Wemby where Sochan stole the ball, passed to Wemby and the latter Euroed and dunked the ball. That was exciting basketball. If you can give a wing or guard prospect with high rebound/steal/block rate then I'm all for it. I'll trust the numbers. Always did.

[BackHome]

That is my only question with Castle he plays good defense but he really doesn’t give you steals or blocks which I would think an elite defender would produce.

[alfahdlan]

That's what early Kawhi gave us and that's was good.

[Spursfanfromafar]

Well written, SpursBills.

Reed has a very good feel for the game that is unlike Bryn Forbes who was toast against PGs or SGs on the defensive end and was very one dimensional on the offensive end. Reed has decent finishing ability and an in between game to go along with elite three point ability.

[playblair]

The spurs have valued length, youth and untapped upside in recent drafts, and other than Wemby and Devin, maybe its time to go in a different direction by going with the pick based on talent rather than on potential. We've been pretty much at the bottom with that strategy. Maybe by going with a safer pick we can finally move up in the standings.

Sheppard could easily push Branham or Wesley to the 3rd string or completely off the team. Even with his short comings (which all players in this draft have) , he would improve our team. We need a decent guard in the worst way. We have a golden opportunity to improve our team. Lets not blow it by drafting some guy that's years away from contributing. I doubt Wemby wants to be in this same position next year - and his voice will count for something.

brain wrong will not change his draft strategy.......... here are his pistons picks as gm........same archetype same results........



2016 (https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2016.html)
NBA (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2016.html)
1
18
Henry Ellenson (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ellenhe01.html)
Marquette (https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/draft.fcgi?college=marquette)
83
787
342
206
49
.371
.336
.773
9.5
4.1
2.5
0.6
0.4
.023
-3.7
-0.3


2016 (https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2016.html)
NBA (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2016.html)
2
49
Michael Gbinije (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gbinimi01.html)
Syracuse (https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/draft.fcgi?college=syracuse)
9
32
4
3
2
.100
.000
1.000
3.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
-0.1
-0.136
-12.1
-0.1


Year
Lg
Rd
Pk
Player
College
G
MP
PTS
TRB
AST
FG%
3P%
FT%
MP
PTS
TRB
AST
WS
WS/48
BPM
VORP


2015 (https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2015.html)
NBA (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015.html)
1
8
Stanley Johnson (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsst04.html)
Arizona (https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/draft.fcgi?college=arizona)
449
8879
2806
1404
679
.391
.305
.748
19.8
6.2
3.1
1.5
6.9
.037
-2.7
-1.6


2015 (https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2015.html)
NBA (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015.html)
2
38
Darrun Hilliard (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hillida01.html)
Villanova (https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/draft.fcgi?college=villanova)
91
859
295
85
71
.377
.304
.747
9.4
3.2
0.9
0.8
0.3
.016
-4.7
-0.6


Year
Lg
Rd
Pk
Player
College
G
MP
PTS
TRB
AST
FG%
3P%
FT%
MP
PTS
TRB
AST
WS
WS/48
BPM
VORP


2014 (https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2014.html)
NBA (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2014.html)
2
38
Spencer Dinwiddie (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/dinwisp01.html)
Colorado (https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/draft.fcgi?college=colorado)

[spurraider21]

Love timvp but citing his age as a concern is weird. Dude was a freshman in college.

[Spursfanfromafar]

Sheppard is clearly the top 10 prospect I like the least. I have a hard time at viewing him being more than a decent bench player in the NBA. Do not want.

I am surprised you say that. Because all the tape (including the couple of full games of college basketball) that I saw shows a player with a tremendous feel for the game. Yes, he has physical disadvantages that makes him vulnerable against bigger guards, but he has tremendous off-ball awareness plus instincts that help in some match-ups one-on-one. On offense, I think he has been underutilised by his coach John Calipari because he seems to bring a lot to the table besides outstanding shooting ability.

Check this for e.g. - https://x.com/Sam_Vecenie/status/1791616930115375313

I think, under the tutelage of the right coach, a player who brings so much ability and feel for the game can be maximized. I am afraid that he wont be available at 4 for the Spurs. The effing Rockets got the third pick and their analytics-minded FO will pick him. He is a great fit for them too. They need shooting to complement their strong young wing core in Amen Thompson, Tari Eason and Cam Whitmore (besides experienced wings like Dillon Brooks and Jae'Sean Tate). And Sheppard will be a great back-up to Van Vleet (who has a similar physical profile and also outmatched his scouts' evaluation. He wasn't drafted in 2016 and then turned out to be an all-Star player later) and can eventually replace him too.

If the Spurs get lucky (and dont get their first target Zacharie Risacher).. they should pounce on him for sure. I think he is a better prospect than his colleague Rob Dillingham because of what he brings on the defensive end. And he is better off than Castle, because of the latter's poor shooting. And better than Topic who has too many red flags with his injuries and lack of defense. The Spurs can then try to pick a wing at 8 or even Clingan as a back-up to Wemby.

I still feel that the Spurs have to look into the trades market for a star-upgrade and not this year's draft.

[onechance87]

That is my only question with Castle he plays good defense but he really doesn’t give you steals or blocks which I would think an elite defender would produce.

i dont think kawhi had good block or steals in college either.Think they kinda simalar stat wise.Obviously kawhi was more
atheletic and more longer.But i think castle can have the same potential as kawhi.

[AFBlue]

Sheppard seems like the safest, surest fit next to Wemby that won't be available at 8. Even if he never develops as a lead guard, he can be an elite shooter, connector and occasional disruptor defensively.

I wouldn't mind the pick at 4 if he's there, then the Spurs can go upside at 8...or go crazy and opt for more shooting with Knecht.

[SouthernFryd]

I like Reed. I like Dalton Knecht even more.

I could definitely live with those 2 :)

Which means Pop will take Topic and Salaun for the tank. lol

[CGD]

The Stockton thing was a joke.

Sheppard's high end outcome is something like Mark Price. He doesn't have the court vision of Stockton, but Price is possible. In the right defensive setting, his speed can be overcome and become a strong team defender. He develops better handles and shiftiness and learns to become a strong pick and roll player.

But to me he's more like Steve Kerr. Same stature, same physical and athletic profile. Kerr shot .573 from deep in college (albeit his senior year). Neither is/was good at high-end shot creation. Sheppard projects to be much better on defense and better at least with secondary connection. So, he's like a Steve Kerr with more playmaking upside, more rebounds, much better hands and disruptive.

His advanced stats were absurd, but I rarely thought Sheppard was taking over games or was even the best player on the floor. Maybe because his usage was pretty low (18%), but I don't think that changes in the pros.

Such an odd disconnect between the stats and the eye test.

You see a 4X NBA all star, and 4X NBA all-team selection (1 first team) player in Reed?

I’m not saying don’t draft him, just these historical comps seem a little bold to me. That or unimaginative (hey a white guy!)

This is not a knock at all, but probably comp is finished product Forbes+ some playmaking/defense. That’s not a bad starting floor IMO.

[mo7888]

You see a 4X NBA all star, and 4X NBA all-team selection (1 first team) player in Reed?

I’m not saying don’t draft him, just these historical comps seem a little bold to me. That or unimaginative (hey a white guy!)

This is not a knock at all, but probably comp is finished product Forbes+ some playmaking/defense. That’s not a bad starting floor IMO.

He's closer to Price than he is Forbes without a doubt.

[Mr. Body]

You see a 4X NBA all star, and 4X NBA all-team selection (1 first team) player in Reed?

I’m not saying don’t draft him, just these historical comps seem a little bold to me. That or unimaginative (hey a white guy!)

This is not a knock at all, but probably comp is finished product Forbes+ some playmaking/defense. That’s not a bad starting floor IMO.

No, I'm saying he's a Steve Kerr on offense with more playmaking and Steve Kerr in the Steve Kerr game in the 2003 playoffs on defense.

[Bruno]

I am surprised you say that. Because all the tape (including the couple of full games of college basketball) that I saw shows a player with a tremendous feel for the game.

I just don't see him doing well in the NBA. I think at the NBA level he will be stuck as a very undersized SG who will be a below average defender.
He just doesn't have the skillset to be a primary playmaker and what he does defensively won't translate well against better opponents.

Off course, it's just my opinion and I might be wrong. It would make me damn cocky to say otherwise. There are reasons why he is viewed as a good/great prospect by a lot of people.

[jjspur]

I look at it this way, could any of these top draft picks replace our starters on day 1 ? Risacher ...might get a start but that's pop experimenting again- probably not. Sarr ... maybe but would not replace Wemby. Clingan ... he's probably a reserve until year 2 or three. Its not that they aren't talented - they are, they just still have a ways to go to get to NBA starter level. Now Sheppard won't replace Vassell either , but would definitely be the first or second guy off the bench if Trey was starting - or let them duke it out to see who starts. I'm pretty sure that Sheppard is better than Wesley or Branham at 3 pt. shooting, dribbling, passing, layups or just about anything else. He looks to have skills that those two don't quite possess, even after two years of NBA experience. I'm not saying he'll be an all star or anything, but he would clearly be better than either of those two knuckleheads.

Bench players usually play an important role on a winning team. This draft isn't about getting a prime starter, there just aren't hardly any there. If you need a really good player off the bench this is the draft to get one. Why not get two, to replace our lackluster bench. Next year is the really interesting draft.

[RC_Drunkford]

I don't understand why people want to waste the #4 pick on a bench player. How about swinging for somebody with a little more potential?

[SouthernFryd]

I look at it this way, could any of these top draft picks replace our starters on day 1 ?

Dalton Knecht could replace Champagnie on day 1...and would pretty much guarantee us 10-15 more wins.

If "replacing a starter on day 1" is a determining factor...than there's your #4 pick. Immediate impact.

https://youtu.be/4WhUyjfkp0Q?si=EYfx_niClk22b9mH

[alfahdlan]

Dalton Knecht could replace Champagnie on day 1...and would pretty much guarantee us 10-15 more wins.

If "replacing a starter on day 1" is a determining factor...than there's your #4 pick. Immediate impact.

https://youtu.be/4WhUyjfkp0Q?si=EYfx_niClk22b9mH

That pick plus a shooting point guard. Welcome post season.

[alfahdlan]

I just don't see him doing well in the NBA. I think at the NBA level he will be stuck as a very undersized SG who will be a below average defender.
He just doesn't have the skillset to be a primary playmaker and what he does defensively won't translate well against better opponents.

Off course, it's just my opinion and I might be wrong. It would make me damn cocky to say otherwise. There are reasons why he is viewed as a good/great prospect by a lot of people.

You could ask basketball analyst Dick Vitale about that

https://www.espn.ph/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39471627/dick-vitale-super-six-best-men-college-basketball-point-g treeuards-2023-24

[024]

Dalton Knecht could replace Champagnie on day 1...and would pretty much guarantee us 10-15 more wins.

If "replacing a starter on day 1" is a determining factor...than there's your #4 pick. Immediate impact.

https://youtu.be/4WhUyjfkp0Q?si=EYfx_niClk22b9mH
I don't know about that. Even adding Wemby didn't add 10-15 more wins. In fact Wemby + a healthy Vassell added zero wins vs last season which means the rest of the team regressed.

[T Park]

I don't know about that. Even adding Wemby didn't add 10-15 more wins. In fact Wemby + a healthy Vassell added zero wins vs last season which means the rest of the team regressed.

not that cut and dry.

wemby's mins restricted, vassell missed games in November.

record would've been better had both been full go from day 1

[RC_Drunkford]

not that cut and dry.

Pop's senile line ups. Needing 2 months to figure out starting Tre Jones at PG is the right move.

record would've been better if we had a different coach

FIFY

[jjspur]

Dalton Knecht could replace Champagnie on day 1...and would pretty much guarantee us 10-15 more wins.

If "replacing a starter on day 1" is a determining factor...than there's your #4 pick. Immediate impact.

https://youtu.be/4WhUyjfkp0Q?si=EYfx_niClk22b9mH

I agree Knecht could easily replace Champ, but then on what other team would Champ be starting ? Champ was a nice pickup but was a starter mostly due to circumstance or lack of overall team talent. Knecht could replace him no doubt. At #8 Knecht would be a decent pick, at #4 I don't know.

[exstatic]

he was also a proven winner and NBA champion.

He wasn’t when he was drafted by Phoenix.

[dbestpro]

Jimmer went in the lottery right?

Jimmer never passed the ball.

[dbestpro]

Sheppard has a 42-inch verticle. The same as Dominique Wilkens and one inch more than Julius Erving and Allen Iverson. Let that sink in for a moment.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Sheppard has a 42-inch verticle. The same as Dominique Wilkens and one inch more than Julius Erving and Allen Iverson. Let that sink in for a moment.

I like him but dude blatantly cheated tbh

[SpursBills]

I like him but dude blatantly cheated tbh

Agree. Realistically, he's probably got an 8'1" standing reach and a 38-39 inch vertical.

[R. DeMurre]

Whatever the situation with the standing reach test, it's still the case that Sheppard has hops. Same thing happened with Podziemski last year-- most of the initial scouting reports questioned his athleticism, and then he recorded a 39" vertical... and then made the All NBA Rookie First Team. At this point, you gotta take a lot of the Eye Tests with a grain of salt, as they often amount to nothing more than repeating cliches.

[Mr. Body]

Sheppard has a 42-inch verticle. The same as Dominique Wilkens and one inch more than Julius Erving and Allen Iverson. Let that sink in for a moment.

This shit is going to be repeated until the end of time.

The Sheppard camp with genius level work there.

[RC_Drunkford]

Whatever the situation with the standing reach test, it's still the case that Sheppard has hops. Same thing happened with Podziemski last year-- most of the initial scouting reports questioned his athleticism, and then he recorded a 39" vertical... and then made the All NBA Rookie First Team. At this point, you gotta take a lot of the Eye Tests with a grain of salt, as they often amount to nothing more than repeating cliches.

Podziemski is also 3 inches taller and has a 2.5 inches longer wingspan. Completely different story if you're 6'4'' with a 6'5.5'' wingspan instead of 6'1'' with a 6'3'' wingspan

[R. DeMurre]

Podziemski is also 3 inches taller and has a 2.5 inches longer wingspan. Completely different story if you're 6'4'' with a 6'5.5'' wingspan instead of 6'1'' with a 6'3'' wingspan


True, but I'm just talking about athleticism, not size. Lots of pre-draft analyses went with the standard "they lack athleticism" trope on both of them. Also, Podz is playing SG, and Sheppard in his best case scenario would play PG.

[R. DeMurre]

Podziemski is also 3 inches taller and has a 2.5 inches longer wingspan. Completely different story if you're 6'4'' with a 6'5.5'' wingspan instead of 6'1'' with a 6'3'' wingspan


It's kinda funny that you're fudging the numbers in both directions to make your point. Podz measured 6'3.75" and you're calling it 6'4", while Sheppard measured 6'1.75" and you're calling it 6'1".

[Chomag]

Do yall think his ceiling maybe along the lines of a Brent Barry or nah?

[baseline bum]

Dalton Knecht could replace Champagnie on day 1...and would pretty much guarantee us 10-15 more wins.

If "replacing a starter on day 1" is a determining factor...than there's your #4 pick. Immediate impact.

https://youtu.be/4WhUyjfkp0Q?si=EYfx_niClk22b9mH

I don't see it, he's a lesser Doug McDermott. 10-15 win improvement from one player would require getting someone like Cooper Flagg in 25 or AJ Dybantsa in 26.

[Kevin]

Really warming on Castle. His size, defense and ability to get to the hoop give him a very high two way floor. His two floor is arguably the best in the draft.

[Mr. Body]

Victor didn't even get us 10-15 more wins but Dalton Knecht will.

[RC_Drunkford]

It's kinda funny that you're fudging the numbers in both directions to make your point. Podz measured 6'3.75" and you're calling it 6'4", while Sheppard measured 6'1.75" and you're calling it 6'1".

to be fair I didn‘t look up Sheppard‘s measurements when I posted this, I just went from memory. Y‘all should use the metric system, it’s much easier :lol

[R. DeMurre]

to be fair I didn‘t look up Sheppard‘s measurements when I posted this, I just went from memory. Y‘all should use the metric system, it’s much easier :lol

:lol

[heyheymymy]

This shit is going to be repeated until the end of time.

The Sheppard camp with genius level work there.

As Churchill said: 'A lie gets halfway around the world before truth puts on its boots.'

Honestly I'm not even mad, wonder if that kinda savvy translates on the court

[heyheymymy]

I don't see it, he's a lesser Doug McDermott. 10-15 win improvement from one player would require getting someone like Cooper Flagg in 25 or AJ Dybantsa in 26.

Thank you, Dalton is Doug. ST hated Doug. Doug was worth a second and ballast. Knecht was a fantastic shooter and I think he will do fine in the NBA but if SA wants to spend premium draft capital on Knecht why not keep Doug/Champ and just go with that and spend the pick on a different need?

Maybe SA likes Knecht as an Doug upgrade but that's a hard sell at top 10 imho

[Ariel]

As Churchill said: 'A lie gets halfway around the world before truth puts on its boots.'

Honestly I'm not even mad, wonder if that kinda savvy translates on the court
Such extreme awareness on how measurements are perceived give me pause, I'm wondering how much of his otherworldly college stats are explained by these gimmicks (i.e., avoiding shots the team needs but would hurt his individual stats, gambling on defense for steals, etc.).

[heyheymymy]

Such extreme awareness on how measurements are perceived give me pause, I'm wondering how much of his otherworldly college stats are explained by these gimmicks (i.e., avoiding shots the team needs but would hurt his individual stats, gambling on defense for steals, etc.).

shit good call

it could be a double edged sword as such scheming could go against the grain of Spurs team first mentality

[ducks]

8 pick no brainer

[Dejounte]

Such extreme awareness on how measurements are perceived give me pause, I'm wondering how much of his otherworldly college stats are explained by these gimmicks (i.e., avoiding shots the team needs but would hurt his individual stats, gambling on defense for steals, etc.).


shit good call

it could be a double edged sword as such scheming could go against the grain of Spurs team first mentality

When something’s hard to believe… speculate? This line of thinking is downright scary and usually goes down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories that no longer make sense. When does it stop? It doesn’t. People just start to ignore the evidence in front of them and worse yet, start to believe the speculation is truth because it’s a chain effect from person to person.

the next post after heyheymymy is…. “Oh Reed has character issues, he’s not Spurs material” then the guy after that will be like… “i don’t know where that came from, but he makes it sound like fact so it must be true!”

[SpursBills]

When something’s hard to believe… speculate? This line of thinking is downright scary and usually goes down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories that no longer make sense. When does it stop? It doesn’t. People just start to ignore the evidence in front of them and worse yet, start to believe the speculation is truth because it’s a chain effect from person to person.

the next post after heyheymymy is…. “Oh Reed has character issues, he’s not Spurs material” then the guy after that will be like… “i don’t know where that came from, but he makes it sound like fact so it must be true!”

:lol I like and generally agree with many of your posts man, but come on now we're discussing spurs draft prospects, not destabilizing society here, I think 'scary thinking' might be overselling it. Ariel brought up a legitimate question, it's ok for them to have questions when Reed clearly gamed his combine measurements. If this isn't the place for out of the box thinking, where is? I still remember when I came up with "better brother theory" for Cody williams.

I think that the counter to Ariel's question though is that (I think) advanced stats such as BPM/BPR are calculated based on how much a team wins while said player is on the floor in addition to box score metrics, and Reed's statistical impact in these metrics were dominant independent of what teammates he shared the floor with. So while it's possible to game your percentages by taking more selective shots, if it's really causing your team to lose more, your +/- is probably going to go down and your BPM/BPR is not going to be affected that much. Could be wrong, it's a legitimate point.

[Dejounte]

:lol I like and generally agree with many of your posts man, but come on now we're discussing spurs draft prospects, not destabilizing society here, I think 'scary thinking' might be overselling it. Ariel brought up a legitimate question, it's ok for them to have questions when Reed clearly gamed his combine measurements. If this isn't the place for out of the box thinking, where is? I still remember when I came up with "better brother theory" for Cody williams.

I think that the counter to Ariel's question though is that (I think) advanced stats such as BPM/BPR are calculated based on how much a team wins while said player is on the floor in addition to box score metrics, and Reed's statistical impact in these metrics were dominant independent of what teammates he shared the floor with. So while it's possible to game your percentages by taking more selective shots, if it's really causing your team to lose more, your +/- is probably going to go down and your BPM/BPR is not going to be affected that much. Could be wrong, it's a legitimate point.

“Clearly gamed” - I just respectfully disagree. People are paid to do a damn job. Do we really believe that the guys doing the measurements are so incompetent that they wouldn’t spot a player cheating their measurement or that they don’t have a standard operating procedure for taking measurements? I don’t think it’s that cut and dry but it’s so unbelievable that it’s easier to talk out of our asses than believe there are competent professionals in the NBA.

[Mr. Body]

“Clearly gamed” - I just respectfully disagree. People are paid to do a damn job. Do we really believe that the guys doing the measurements are so incompetent that they wouldn’t spot a player cheating their measurement or that they don’t have a standard operating procedure for taking measurements? I don’t think it’s that cut and dry but it’s so unbelievable that it’s easier to talk out of our asses than believe there are competent professionals in the NBA.

Are you talking about the people who posted Devin Carter's measurements as Stephon Castle's?

[Dejounte]

Are you talking about the people who posted Devin Carter's measurements as Stephon Castle's?
There’s a difference in people taking the measurements the right way vs the data being put in the right way.

My point is that if someone could do it, then anybody could do it and all of it is pointless.

[mo7888]

“Clearly gamed” - I just respectfully disagree. People are paid to do a damn job. Do we really believe that the guys doing the measurements are so incompetent that they wouldn’t spot a player cheating their measurement or that they don’t have a standard operating procedure for taking measurements? I don’t think it’s that cut and dry but it’s so unbelievable that it’s easier to talk out of our asses than believe there are competent professionals in the NBA.

I'm with you on this topic. It's been a silly talking point based on biases for whoever someone's preferred target is.

[alfahdlan]

Tankathon Blocks:

Sheppard = 0.9
Carter = 1.0

That's your measurement manifested in games.

Narrative:

Before measurement, "He ia not athletic."
Measurement taken, "He game his standing reach."

Remember up to this time it is still official measurement.

[Mr. Body]

There’s a difference in people taking the measurements the right way vs the data being put in the right way.

My point is that if someone could do it, then anybody could do it and all of it is pointless.

Bro, no one cares about standing reach. It's easy to pull your arms a few inches, which he did.

[Ariel]

When something’s hard to believe… speculate? This line of thinking is downright scary and usually goes down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories that no longer make sense. When does it stop? It doesn’t. People just start to ignore the evidence in front of them and worse yet, start to believe the speculation is truth because it’s a chain effect from person to person.

the next post after heyheymymy is…. “Oh Reed has character issues, he’s not Spurs material” then the guy after that will be like… “i don’t know where that came from, but he makes it sound like fact so it must be true!”

“Clearly gamed” - I just respectfully disagree. People are paid to do a damn job. Do we really believe that the guys doing the measurements are so incompetent that they wouldn’t spot a player cheating their measurement or that they don’t have a standard operating procedure for taking measurements? I don’t think it’s that cut and dry but it’s so unbelievable that it’s easier to talk out of our asses than believe there are competent professionals in the NBA.

There’s a difference in people taking the measurements the right way vs the data being put in the right way.

My point is that if someone could do it, then anybody could do it and all of it is pointless.
On the surface that sounds like a very sensible reply. "do we really believe that the guys doing the measurements are so incompetent that they wouldn’t spot a player cheating their measurement or that they don’t have a standard operating procedure for taking measurements?" these people are professionals hired to do a very specific job, why would you not trust them to do their job correctly? Anyone questioning them must be "talking out of their asses".

Problem is, that reasoning is nothing but assumptions based on prejudice, in this case, that the measurements MUST be right because of who took them. A better way to "not speak out of our asses" (one way or the other) so would be to check how consistent combine measurements are between players that were measured in different years. So I went ahead and took a look at the past 3 drafts (you're welcome to do the work yourself if you want to go farther), and there are 13 players with more than one measurement: Adem Bona, Coleman Hawkins, DaRon Holmes II, Drew Timme, Harrison Ingram, Julian Strawther, Leonard Miller, Nikola Djurisic, Reece Beekman, Terquavion Smith, Terrence Shannon Jr., Trey Alexander and Zach Edey.

Looking at the standing reach measurements for the same player, 3 cases were the same (Leonard Miller, Terquavion Smith, Trey Alexander), in 4 cases difference was 0.5" (Strawther, Djurisic, Beekman and Edey), 3 times they came 1" apart (DaRon Holmes, Drew Timme and Harrison Ingram), once 1.5" apart (Coleman Hawkins), once 2" apart (Terrence Shannon), and once 2.5" apart (Adem Bona). A possible explanation would be natural growth but most actually recorded a lesser standing reach, but all of those who experienced an increase in standing reach (Drew Timme, Djurisic and Strawther) their wingspan actually shrank.

So as you can see, these standing reach measurements aren't anywhere near as consistent as you claimed they were, and they are subject to variation that can't be explained by natural growth. As to why focus on Sheppard and not everyone else, it's because he is the most obvious outlier, in that his standing reach came far below expected and his max vertical jump came off the charts, and given the relationship between both you can either:
a) take combine measurements as gospel and believe he's an alien (you) or
b) use logic to try to come to a reasonable explanation for what could have happened ("conspiracy" types? :lol).

As far as intent, even if there was an honest mistake he could have easily came out and made it right, yet he didn't and let the hype work in his favor, so I have to doubt there was no intention behind it. Of course even in the face of the data, everyone can go by the explanation they deem most likely. But I would say, I don't know that there's a more "out of your ass" notion than that of "measurements as gospel".

[alfahdlan]

https://huddlecourt.com/what-is-standing-reach/https://huddlecourt.com/what-is-standing-reach/https://huddlecourt.com/what-is-standing-reach/

This is the protocol of measuring standing reach. The facilitator will pull your arms up. Now tell, how can one pull his arm down while the other one pull it up. It is not reaching up independently, facilitator will pull it up.

[John B]

I had with our PG (and any player for that matter) who can’t shoot. Reed is a knockdown shooter and more. At worst he could our SG and he would be great at it. I’m not against drafting Castle and Reed if both available. This draft really defends who’s available. Risacher/Dilly, Risacher/Castle, Reed/Holland. As long as we get a shooter and a PG from this draft would be great. The thing I like about Reed is he seems to be an overachiever. TP comes to mind, the smallest in the room but who thinks he is the best. Another thing is when Reed said he could be the water boy as long as the team’s winning. It’s all about the team. He prides himself on defense. I think Pop would love this kid.

[ambchang]

I would be happy with reed at 4, then trade 8 down to the early mid teens for salaun. Don’t mind holland or castle either.

[pad300]

He's a flawed diamond that I see very limited ways to make function at the NBA level. He has strong positives: a very high BBIQ (both passing and help defense), and a great shooter.

But his flaws magnify. He doesn't have the handle to be a primary creator (ie the ability to attack a set defense with the ball in his hand, so as to create advantage). So he can't be your PG, unless there is another player who's going to be primary creator. (Primary creator is not Wemby, at least not yet; he is not Jokic/prime Durant. This is one of the issues with why things did not work well when we played Wemby as the 4 early last season.) The Spurs don't have that guy currently...

Further, as an individual defender (ie straight up, not help), Reed has issues with college guards. In the NBA he can't defend anyone but PG's effectively (and possibly not even that). Teams will hunt him on switches, just to be able to go at him: it both minimizes the impact of his help defense and gives them an easy target to go after. (He saw a lot less of this in college; there is much less game planning in college. No 7 game playoff series.)

Maybe a the spurs could live with that off the bench, but as a starter? I don't see how to make it work without players we don't currently have.

[z0sa]

He reminds me a bit of JJ Redick but with some defensive chops, just going off highlights. I'd be ok with it, but at #4 or even #8 we really can't do better? This draft, yo.

[spurraider21]

I don't understand why people want to waste the #4 pick on a bench player. How about swinging for somebody with a little more potential?
Because people disagree that he’s a bench player?

[spurraider21]

People making a huge deal about him allegedly gaming the vert as though him jumping 38 instead of 42 would be a huge difference maker and that 38 would just be written off as a pedestrian number

[Ariel]

Sheppard on PG13's podcast: https://youtu.be/cP4uZk3usGw?t=2579

Interviewer: "Reed, during the NBA combine you recorded one of the top max vertical leaps at 42" and I don't know many white guys that have a vertical leap of 42 inches, but I'm a little confused because you said that you didn't expect it, so why were you surprised? did you not know you that you had bounce? or, like, walk me through that"

Reed Sheppard; "I know I can jump, but I didn't know I was going to have the highest vertical in the NBA but, you know, I got to give a lot of credit to my guy Ryan at proactive you know, he kind of helped us out with a little arm trick (makes the motion of raising his arm) so I was able to get a couple more inches but, you know, it was all fun and I did, I looked up at the board and when I saw 42 inches it kind of made me laugh because I wasn't expecting it, and I know no one else was expecting it, so it was a funny time"

[Ariel]

People making a huge deal about him allegedly gaming the vert as though him jumping 38 instead of 42 would be a huge difference maker and that 38 would just be written off as a pedestrian number
That wasn't the issue, 38" vertical would have been perfect, the thing that I pointed out is that this guy seems obsessed with maximizing individual stats to make himself look better, when they have no influence whatsoever on the actual game. So it kind of made me wonder if there's a pattern there.

[spurraider21]

That wasn't the issue, 38" vertical would have been perfect, the thing that I pointed out is that this guy seems obsessed with maximizing individual stats to make himself look better, when they have no influence whatsoever on the actual game. So it kind of made me wonder if there's a pattern there.
The combine is literally about numbers and teams use that info. Players training to maximize combine numbers is common and smart. Like nfl players training specifically for the 40 yard dash with technique, hand usage, etc

its not concerning. The end result is Sheppard has a better vert than most expected and whether his true very is 42 or 37 that rings true

[Ariel]

The combine is literally about numbers and teams use that info. Players training to maximize combine numbers is common and smart. Like nfl players training specifically for the 40 yard dash with technique, hand usage, etc

its not concerning. The end result is Sheppard has a better vert than most expected and whether his true very is 42 or 37 that rings true
No, Sheppard doesn't have a better max vertical leap thab expected, he has the same vertical leap he had prior to the combine (whatever the actual number may be) but just happened to artificially inflate it so that it'd look better on paper. And though It for sure happens, the degree to which he played the system wasn't so common, since he's the one that was clearly left off side (football reference). Of course you should watch out your weight, perform as best you can athletically, and gain every inch possible, and maybe you haven't watched him play, but the guy is clearly super conscious of counting stats, and you might not be concerned and take his stats as gospel, but to me it's one small detail that matches what the eye test told me.

[spurraider21]

No, Sheppard doesn't have a better max vertical leap thab expected, he has the same vertical leap he had prior to the combine (whatever the actual number may be) but just happened to artificially inflate it so that it'd look better on paper. And though It for sure happens, the degree to which he played the system wasn't so common, since he's the one that was clearly left off side (football reference). Of course you should watch out your weight, perform as best you can athletically, and gain every inch possible, and maybe you haven't watched him play, but the guy is clearly super conscious of counting stats, and you might not be concerned and take his stats as gospel, but to me it's one small detail that matches what the eye test told me.
However much you think he inflated his vert by, say 4 inches, the result of him having a 38 inch vert is better than most thought he would get coming in

[rankingtear]

Reed overdid it with the standing reach. Teams would remeasure it on workouts. It generated a lot of buzz and served its purpose. Players game the combine all the time, Trae came in at 177lbs when his playing weight is 164. A lot of prospects have questionable standing reach like Carter and Carrington. It is more crucial for centers and maybe forwards.

[DAF86]

The most underrated aspect of Sheppard's game is his outlet passing. Just as sure a bet to translate to the NBA game as his three point shooting, and it would be a perfect fit with Wemby's maniac floor running as a bigman, tbh.

[DAF86]

That wasn't the issue, 38" vertical would have been perfect, the thing that I pointed out is that this guy seems obsessed with maximizing individual stats to make himself look better, when they have no influence whatsoever on the actual game. So it kind of made me wonder if there's a pattern there.

Where did you get this from? Is there a quote, an article or anything that indicates that? Even if he did, it doesn't take away from the "impresiveness" of his numbers. I mean, even if he was super picky with his shot selection, he still shot fifty fucking two percent from the 3 pt line on good volume. :lol

Also, your claim that his stats "have no influence whatsoever on the actual games" is simply a flat out lie, given that he posted historic impact metrics.

Regarding the vertical leap, folks training and doing special things specifically for the combine isn't anything new. It happens in the NBA and in the NFL constantly. The quote you posted about the "trick arm" is something that pretty much every player does. Neither Reed nor that Ryan guy from "Proactive" invented anything, tbh.

[SouthernFryd]

I don't see it, he's a lesser Doug McDermott. 10-15 win improvement from one player would require getting someone like Cooper Flagg in 25 or AJ Dybantsa in 26.

Or a Wemby? Didn't happen. Why?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSw6OxNBNMopXZyGTxquN-5U2rzDTdlYsVKQw&s

No, Half of the 10-15 game improvement comes from getting rid of Champagnie...the worst starting player in the NBA. The other half comes from Knecht. And I look at him as a McDermott as well...with a lot more offensive driving ability.

[R. DeMurre]

That wasn't the issue, 38" vertical would have been perfect, the thing that I pointed out is that this guy seems obsessed with maximizing individual stats to make himself look better, when they have no influence whatsoever on the actual game. So it kind of made me wonder if there's a pattern there.


I guess I just don't see a guy "obsessed" with maximizing individual stats at all. I see a team player with an 18% usage rate and lots of assists, and so when he passes up, say, a three point shot where he's closely guarded, I think he's just playing smart... do you think he's avoiding tougher shots because he's consciously thinking about his percentages and putting those percentage concerns ahead of the desire to win? That would be an fascinating psychological observation, if true... but I'm not seeing it. Do you think there are guys in the NBA now that do this?

[Dejounte]

News at 9: competitive basketball player seeking advice on how to reach best possible outcome

somehow this is spun as a player “too focused on counting stats”

when it could very well a sign of a player who pays attention to details and executes it to near perfection. It’s no wonder he’s a good shooter, the way his brain is wired he probably counts in his head the milliseconds it requires to release the ball from his hands when he shoots.

When MJ played coin toss with that security guard, what do people think was going on in his head to try to beat the guard? Do people think he was relying on luck? Or that his competitiveness was trying to calculate the ways he could toss the coin in order to win?

this is way overblown that I can’t believe we are talking about this at this level of scrutiny

[rascal]

News at 9: competitive basketball player seeking advice on how to reach best possible outcome

somehow this is spun as a player “too focused on counting stats”

when it could very well a sign of a player who pays attention to details and executes it to near perfection. It’s no wonder he’s a good shooter, the way his brain is wired he probably counts in his head the milliseconds it requires to release the ball from his hands when he shoots.

When MJ played coin toss with that security guard, what do people think was going on in his head to try to beat the guard? Do people think he was relying on luck? Or that his competitiveness was trying to calculate the ways he could toss the coin in order to win?

this is way overblown that I can’t believe we are talking about this at this level of scrutiny

It also shows a player who doesn't believe in his own TRUE merits and abilities to be a top draft pick without trying to scam the system.

[Dejounte]

It also shows a player who doesn't believe in his own TRUE merits and abilities to be a top draft pick without trying to scam the system.

Jumping in game and jumping to get the highest possible vert are two different things

players jump only as far as they need to in a game

you put a measuring stick in front of them, they’re all going to compete for the highest because that’s what people do. I remember those days competing to get the highest possible jump in high school. This isn’t rocket science.

[rascal]

Jumping in game and jumping to get the highest possible vert are two different things

players jump only as far as they need to in a game

you put a measuring stick in front of them, they’re all going to compete for the highest because that’s what people do. I remember those days competing to get the highest possible jump in high school. This isn’t rocket science.

Competing is one thing scamming the results is another. You must be a believer if you’re not cheating you aren’t trying.

[Dejounte]

Competing is one thing scamming the results is another. You must be a believer if you’re not cheating you aren’t trying.

It wasn’t scamming. Not going to entertain this low IQ nonsense further.

[scott]

Weird that preparation is now being viewed as "scamming results".

[jesterbobman]

Like, he definitely cheated the results, but it probably means his standing reach is 3-4 inches higher and his max vert is 3-4 inches lower. Most of the time actual length is more important that maximum jump as you're mostly on the ground when playing basketball, it doesn't really matter.

Reed uses vertical athleticism on the court (Incredibly good block rate for a guard). Not too surprising that it was decent.

[TimmyBuckets]

The more it's looking like Spurs might draft 2 guards if they don't trade the picks or move up. If thats the case, Sheppard and Sheppard and Topic would be nice. Maybe Sheppard and Castle too.

[Knoxxx]

The only issue I see in drafting Sheppard/Dilly/Topic AND Castle is that Castle stated he wants to play PG only. That means we’d be drafting Castle + a wing or other position such as PF/C.

Also throw in that the Spurs allegedly don’t like Topic but are keen on foreign prospects with Risacher and Sarr likely gone, that only leaves Buzelis and Salaun as conceivable overseas prospects.

As far as Sheppard gaming the vertical, I look at max vertical by adding standing + vertical. Anyone who can reach 12 feet is a super athlete. Sheppard with a max vertical of about 11 foot is nothing special, he probably will dunk in a game about as often as TP or Tre Jones. At least he can though. What is elite about Sheppard is his stocks as is being discussed. That means he’s a baller with a high BBIQ.

[scott]

The only issue I see in drafting Sheppard/Dilly/Topic AND Castle is that Castle stated he wants to play PG only. That means we’d be drafting Castle + a wing or other position such as PF/C.

Also throw in that the Spurs allegedly don’t like Topic but are keen on foreign prospects with Risacher and Sarr likely gone, that only leaves Buzelis and Salaun as conceivable overseas prospects.

As far as Sheppard gaming the vertical, I look at max vertical by adding standing + vertical. Anyone who can reach 12 feet is a super athlete. Sheppard with a max vertical of about 11 foot is nothing special, he probably will dunk in a game about as often as TP or Tre Jones. At least he can though. What is elite about Sheppard is his stocks as is being discussed. That means he’s a baller with a high BBIQ.

Had a snarky, joke comment about how Buzelis cut his teeth in overseas leagues no one has every heard of... but am deciding to more maturely point out that Matas was born in Chicago and has spent his entire life in the United States. He played prep school ball in Chicago, New Hampshire and Kansas. He's not an overseas prospect. His parents are Lithuanian, thus his foreign-sounding name, but Matas is as American as apple pie, with a small sliver of tinginys on the side.

[Knoxxx]

Had a snarky, joke comment about how Buzelis cut his teeth in overseas leagues no one has every heard of... but am deciding to more maturely point out that Matas was born in Chicago and has spent his entire life in the United States. He played prep school ball in Chicago, New Hampshire and Kansas. He's not an overseas prospect. His parents are Lithuanian, thus his foreign-sounding name, but Matas is as American as apple pie, with a small sliver of tinginys on the side.

That seems to reinforce my point either way.

[SpursBills]

I think that the fact that Sheppard is being characterized as "low ceiling, high floor" is actually a point in his favor. In general, the number of things that have to go right for high floor players to hit their upside tail is far, far less than the number of things that have to go right for "high ceiling, low floor" guys.

Consider the example of Reed Sheppard vs Ron Holland, to draw an example between 2 opposites

To become an above average starter, Holland has to:
1. Turn a horrendous jumper to a league average jumper
2. Turn a terrible handle into a functional handle
3. Improve his defensive IQ
4. Improve his passing and decision making with the ball
5. Learn to play off-ball
6. Improve defensive fundamentals
7. Improve his functional strength

Basically, Holland has above average athleticism and a high motor in an excellent frame going for him, but he needs to actually learn how to play efficient basketball. And I actually like Holland, don't even get me started on Salaun.

Conversely, to become an above average starter, Sheppard needs
1. To turn a functional handle into a great handle
2. Improve his defensive fundamentals and stop ball watching
3. Improve his functional strength

Nothing's guaranteed to translate, but we can reasonably expect his jumper to be good since he's got good touch based on his shooting metrics, he'd been an 85-90% FT shooter all through HS. His superpower is that he reads the game well and is an elite level decision maker, so the "basketball IQ" will probably translate. He's got great off-ball instincts already and world-class hands. The most common complaint about him is he can't create his own shot against a set defense (completely true), but the primary skill that requires is significant improvements in his handle. If Holland improves everything in his list, he turns into...current Jonathan Kuminga? Early career Jalen Brown? Whereas Reed improving everything on his list turns him into...mid-career Mike Conley?

If you could assign rough percentages to each one of the above skills translating, which list would have a higher probability of occurring? As a very rough exercise just to appreciate how much of an effect a longer list has on the odds of success, let's just say that each one of the above scenarios is a coin-flip to happen. The difference between having 3 and 7 things go right is 13% vs 0.8%. You can play this same game with any of your favorite prospects to see.

Additionally, if someone is being described as "high floor", he already has enough requisite skills to most likely a) be useful in a regular season rotation and b) not get played off the floor in a regular NBA game. Normally when we think of "low ceiling high floor" types, it's used to describe older prospects later in their development - Chris Duarte, Keegan Murray are probably the poster-children for this. But if you use that term to describe freshman/young sophomore-aged prospects still early in their development, that's a huge green flag to me, as it gives the a significant runway to develop fewer skills.

The best examples for this are Tyrese Haliburton and Franz Wagner, both of whom shared similar "high floor low ceiling" labels first coming out, both of whom were statistical darlings in college and were solid at most aspects of the game, but lacked "upside" because they couldn't create their own shot, weren't outlier athletes, etc. etc. Both were in relative low usage roles as young sophomores (Franz 19 USG, Haliburton 21 USG) with questions of whether their low usage efficiency could translate into a higher usage role in the NBA. A few years later, a couple things hit and they have significant outperformed their draft stock. Reed, in spite of his physical limitations, has similar strengths in that he has a rock-solid statistical profile with a solid foundation of skills in a low-usage role. Basically, being "high floor, low ceiling" at a young age should not be viewed as a negative for Sheppard but rather as a positive.

EDIT:
Just to clarify, I am not saying that Sheppard is going to turn into Haliburton, nor am I saying that he's going to have outlier development. For all we know, he never develops his handle and is stuck as a small shooting guard like Seth curry or Luke Kennard who's a bench role player. All I'm saying is that the term "high floor low ceiling" is not a negative especially when it pertains to young players, and especially when there are no "high floor, high ceiling" players in this draft. Upside tail usually hits from unexpected or outlier development, and it's a better bet to only require that development to occur in a few areas than many.

[Spursfanfromafar]

I think that the fact that Sheppard is being characterized as "low ceiling, high floor" is actually a point in his favor. In general, the number of things that have to go right for high floor players to hit their upside tail is far, far less than the number of things that have to go right for "high ceiling, low floor" guys.

Consider the example of Reed Sheppard vs Ron Holland, to draw an example between 2 opposites

To become an above average starter, Holland has to:
1. Turn a horrendous jumper to a league average jumper
2. Turn a terrible handle into a functional handle
3. Improve his defensive IQ
4. Improve his passing and decision making with the ball
5. Learn to play off-ball
6. Improve defensive fundamentals
7. Improve his functional strength

Basically, Holland has above average athleticism and a high motor in an excellent frame going for him, but he needs to actually learn how to play efficient basketball. And I actually like Holland, don't even get me started on Salaun.

Conversely, to become an above average starter, Sheppard needs
1. To turn a functional handle into a great handle
2. Improve his defensive fundamentals and stop ball watching
3. Improve his functional strength

Nothing's guaranteed to translate, but we can reasonably expect his jumper to be good since he's got good touch based on his shooting metrics, he'd been an 85-90% FT shooter all through HS. His superpower is that he reads the game well and is an elite level decision maker, so the "basketball IQ" will probably translate. He's got great off-ball instincts already and world-class hands. The most common complaint about him is he can't create his own shot against a set defense (completely true), but the primary skill that requires is significant improvements in his handle. If Holland improves everything in his list, he turns into...current Jonathan Kuminga? Early career Jalen Brown? Whereas Reed improving everything on his list turns him into...mid-career Mike Conley?

If you could assign rough percentages to each one of the above skills translating, which list would have a higher probability of occurring? As a very rough exercise just to appreciate how much of an effect a longer list has on the odds of success, let's just say that each one of the above scenarios is a coin-flip to happen. The difference between having 3 and 7 things go right is 13% vs 0.8%. You can play this same game with any of your favorite prospects to see.

Additionally, if someone is being described as "high floor", he already has enough requisite skills to most likely a) be useful in a regular season rotation and b) not get played off the floor in a regular NBA game. Normally when we think of "low ceiling high floor" types, it's used to describe older prospects later in their development - Chris Duarte, Keegan Murray are probably the poster-children for this. But if you use that term to describe freshman/young sophomore-aged prospects still early in their development, that's a huge green flag to me, as it gives the a significant runway to develop fewer skills.

The best examples for this are Tyrese Haliburton and Franz Wagner, both of whom shared similar "high floor low ceiling" labels first coming out, both of whom were statistical darlings in college and were solid at most aspects of the game, but lacked "upside" because they couldn't create their own shot, weren't outlier athletes, etc. etc. Both were in relative low usage roles as young sophomores (Franz 19 USG, Haliburton 21 USG) with questions of whether their low usage efficiency could translate into a higher usage role in the NBA. A few years later, a couple things hit and they have significant outperformed their draft stock. Reed, in spite of his physical limitations, has similar strengths in that he has a rock-solid statistical profile with a solid foundation of skills in a low-usage role. Basically, being "high floor, low ceiling" at a young age should not be viewed as a negative for Sheppard but rather as a positive.

EDIT:
Just to clarify, I am not saying that Sheppard is going to turn into Haliburton, nor am I saying that he's going to have outlier development. For all we know, he never develops his handle and is stuck as a small shooting guard like Seth curry or Luke Kennard who's a bench role player. All I'm saying is that the term "high floor low ceiling" is not a negative especially when it pertains to young players, and especially when there are no "high floor, high ceiling" players in this draft. Upside tail usually hits from unexpected or outlier development, and it's a better bet to only require that development to occur in a few areas than many.

Very well said. The numbers don't lie. One can't have such high efficiency stats and be good at a number of things and then not improve. There is a high probability of Sheppard being better at handling the ball and learning to run an offense while retaining all his strengths and converting them in the NBA to success.

[buttsR4rebounding]

One of Sheppard’s strengths that I think might be supercharged with Wemby behind him is his steal rate. From 2 perspectives: 1. His incredibly fast hands combined with a green light to sell out for the steal because Wemby is there to cut off penetration should lead to a plethora of swipes. 2. We have all seen how many players won’t challenge Wemby when they are in the lane. This leads to one of 2 types of reactions. The first is turn away from Wemby to dribble out. I believe a player like Sheppard would learn to play that motion for steal attempts. The second is a pass from the paint to the perimeter which also can result in a steal if properly anticipated. Sheppard seems to be a natural for taking advantage of some of the advantages that Wemby creates.

[PhantomDashCam]

1795700399477006450

[SouthernFryd]

Reed Sheppard at 4. Dalton Knecht at 8.

You want offense?

Sheppard, Vassell, Knecht, Wemby...and MAMU. There ya go.

Defense? Well...have to work on that a bit. But, at least they'll be fun to watch again. That alone is worth it :)

[Darkwaters]

Reed Sheppard at 4. Dalton Knecht at 8.

You want offense?

Sheppard, Vassell, Knecht, Wemby...and MAMU. There ya go.

Defense? Well...have to work on that a bit. But, at least they'll be fun to watch again. That alone is worth it :)

Knecht would probably be a solid player for us. Limited in some areas for sure, but he brings the one skill we need most in absolute spades.

He's just not the type of player the Spurs have prioritized drafting. As much as I might like him personally, I don't think it's the path the Spurs seem to be on.

[mo7888]

Knecht would probably be a solid player for us. Limited in some areas for sure, but he brings the one skill we need most in absolute spades.

He's just not the type of player the Spurs have prioritized drafting. As much as I might like him personally, I don't think it's the path the Spurs seem to be on.

I'd probably be fine with him at 8, but Manu's comment that we intend to be competing in 2-3 years + the fact that's there radio silence from the FO about him makes me think he's pretty high on our board.

[Knoxxx]

1795700399477006450

Separated at birth, no doubt!

A few months ago we had no idea Sheppard was even going pro. Now we are worried about the Rockets taking him at 3 in front of us. That’s actually a pretty lucky break. But now that he’s an option we don’t want him as much. Human nature. Except that HOU could take him a pick before us so we want him more. Crazy stuff.

[rascal]

Reed Sheppard at 4. Dalton Knecht at 8.

You want offense?

Sheppard, Vassell, Knecht, Wemby...and MAMU. There ya go.

Defense? Well...have to work on that a bit. But, at least they'll be fun to watch again. That alone is worth it :)

Fun?

The fun will be from the other teams running over this team with superior athleticism.

[Pauleta14]

Austin Rivers and another dude seem to see Reed as the obvious pick for the Spurs (from 9'40)
+ keeps it a 100 about Vassel and the rest of the roster


https://youtu.be/OzQ7XzGxHck?si=91ZaBbVOk-w36R49

[SouthernFryd]

Tho I may agree with him on Sheppard...I turned it off when he stated the Keldon was the only other good player outside of Wemby on the Spurs.

Wtf? lol

[ChumpDumper]

Fun?

The fun will be from the other teams running over this team with superior athleticism.He'll be tickled to have two white players.

[cd98]

Houston is taking Sheppard.

[AFBlue]

Houston is taking Sheppard.

Probably. But the pick could also be moved. I think the Spurs still go Castle over Sheppard if they're both on the board, but the shooting is tough to pass up.

[Pauleta14]

Tho I may agree with him on Sheppard...I turned it off when he stated the Keldon was the only other good player outside of Wemby on the Spurs.

Wtf? lol

Keldon is put in a tough situation being a 6th man. Not a fan of his BBIQ and decisions but he's a dog and Spurs fans are taking him for granted.

They didn't say he was an allsatr either tho

Always interesting to have an outside perspective, as always there'll be cliches. No one can follow 30 teams closely

The more time goes the more Sheppard and Castle seem to be the 2 best choices

Edit/ You turned it off a few sec before the end? :lol

[Uriel]

ESPN came out with an article today listing this guy’s upside as Steve Nash. I’m sold. Where do I sign up? :lol

[DPG21920]

I want and would be very happy with Reed tbh

His shooting, tenacity and overall processing seems solid so I like that type of player. He would be fun off of Wemby and worst case is a turbo charged Forbes.

[SpursBills]

Projecting Sheppard to guys like Nash, Mark Price, Stockton, etc. essentially pure point guards requires a level of projection for his handles and court vision that I'm really not comfortable making.

Best realistic optimistic outcome for him that I've seen is probably Jeff Hornacek:

-similar dimensions (6'3" vs 6'4 in shoes, 6'3.5 vs 6'5 wingspan) - Horny was slightly bigger, Reed more athletic
-similar playstyle - Hornacek could toggle back and forth between the point and 2 guard position - played 2 guard next to KJ in Phoenix and Stockton in Utah, but also played point guard full time later in Phoenix, averaged 5-7 AST/game for 8 seasons in a row
-similar strengths - Hornacek was supremely efficient as a shooter, a 3 point contest winner, had a good midrange game, could put up these weird floaters that always seemed to go in, flirted with multiple 50/40/90 seasons
-not the best defender due to athletic/size limitations, but not bad either and put up good steal numbers - Hornacek averaged 1.5-2 ST/g in 8 separate seasons
-white

I'm not sure Sheppard needs a ton of outlier development to get to that level, and Hornacek was a 1 time all-star and I'd say his career is firmly in the hall of very good, as the third best player on several contending teams and who can fit on just about any team. Pretty consistently a 15/5/4 guy on good efficiency. If that seems boring for a high lottery pick, it probably is. But that's an outcome that still doesn't require outlier level improvement and I'd rather take that realistic outcome than try and bank on multiple unlikely developmental skills in a raw prospect like Holland or Buzelis.

[AFBlue]

Hornacek is a great comp. Reed is probably the safest pick if he's still there at 4.

[The Truth #6]

I've come around to accepting Reed at 4, though may be gone by then anyway. Would do better playing with a tall point guard otherwise probably will come off the bench. Not sure about him as a point guard though.

[LeBowen]

Out of all the prospects mentioned as realistic Spurs picks, Sheppard is at the bottom of my list, tbh.
Everyone has huge red flags, but also has a big upside if they actually live up to their potential.
Sheppard will always be an undersized shooting guard that doesn't do much else.

He can't be POA defender for star guards.
He can't be an actual point guard, he's an undersized shooting guard. Has no self-creation or handles to be a point guard.
Unless you want to push Devin to SF or find a point forward somewhere, Sheppard-Vassell guard combo just doesn't work. (For example he'd be a great fit next to 6'6 Cade as primary playmaker.)
Tre-Sheppard doesn't work, either. Both lack size and we'd get killed on defense.

Finding undersized shooters that don't do much else is the easiest part of roster construction.
There's not a single reason to pick Sheppard over Dillingham.
Dillingham will be an atrocious defender while Sheppard is just subpar, but at least he fills both shooting and playmaking needs.
While Dillingham's finishing at the rim is a huge question mark, Sheppard just doesn't attack the rim.


Shots at the Rim for each
Collier 154 (in 27 games)
Castle 149 (34 games)
Topic 121 (in 12 games)
Dillingham 113 (in 34 games)
Sheppard 60 (in 33 games)

Sheppard had 65 free throws vs
Collier 156
Castle 110
Dillingham 98
Topic 55 (AGAIN in 12 games)

[R. DeMurre]

Shots at the Rim for each

Collier 154 (in 27 games)
Castle 149 (34 games)
Topic 121 (in 12 games)
Dillingham 113 (in 34 games)
Sheppard 60 (in 33 games)



Interesting... If you extrapolate Topic's shots at the rim out to 34 games, that would be 343-- which would be roughly equivalent to the combined totals of Dillingham + Sheppard + Collier. What do you make of that number?

[Mr. Body]

Interesting... If you extrapolate Topic's shots at the rim out to 34 games, that would be 343-- which would be roughly equivalent to the combined totals of Dillingham + Sheppard + Collier. What do you make of that number?

Personally, from what I've seen of Topic's games, his opponents sucked. The defenders he faced were like grannies with walkers.

[R. DeMurre]

^^^ fyi, Topic's averages are from about 33 mpg, while Dilly & Sheppard were at ~23 & 29 mpg.

[Mr. Body]

Out of all the prospects mentioned as realistic Spurs picks, Sheppard is at the bottom of my list, tbh.
Everyone has huge red flags, but also has a big upside if they actually live up to their potential.
Sheppard will always be an undersized shooting guard that doesn't do much else.

He can't be POA defender for star guards.
He can't be an actual point guard, he's an undersized shooting guard. Has no self-creation or handles to be a point guard.
Unless you want to push Devin to SF or find a point forward somewhere, Sheppard-Vassell guard combo just doesn't work. (For example he'd be a great fit next to 6'6 Cade as primary playmaker.)
Tre-Sheppard doesn't work, either. Both lack size and we'd get killed on defense.

Finding undersized shooters that don't do much else is the easiest part of roster construction.
There's not a single reason to pick Sheppard over Dillingham.
Dillingham will be an atrocious defender while Sheppard is just subpar, but at least he fills both shooting and playmaking needs.
While Dillingham's finishing at the rim is a huge question mark, Sheppard just doesn't attack the rim.

A long time ago I posted a video of Sheppard vs. Tennessee that tagged his defensive possessions. They were troublesome. I'll try to find it.

[LeBowen]

Interesting... If you extrapolate Topic's shots at the rim out to 34 games, that would be 343-- which would be roughly equivalent to the combined totals of Dillingham + Sheppard + Collier. What do you make of that number?

His finishing at the rim is very good, but it won't matter much in the NBA if he doesn't have any range.
Reliable mid-range pull up from FT line would be the difference maker.

Imo, there's no middle ground with him.
Either he becomes one of the best playmakers in the league and a great third scoring option for a playoff team or he's out of the league due to his defense, lack of shooting and injury issues.



A long time ago I posted a video of Sheppard vs. Tennessee that tagged his defensive possessions. They were troublesome. I'll try to find it.

Whenever I watched his scout reports, it was all about being a good team defender, quick hands, playing the passing lanes, etc.
Everyone with solid IQ and a bit of athleticism can do that.
If you're the guy opposing scorers want to switch on and attack, you're not a positive defender.

[spurraider21]

Austin Rivers and another dude seem to see Reed as the obvious pick for the Spurs (from 9'40)
+ keeps it a 100 about Vassel and the rest of the roster


https://youtu.be/OzQ7XzGxHck?si=91ZaBbVOk-w36R49
interesting takes he has on Vessell and Kelvin Johnson

[RC_Drunkford]

interesting takes he has on Vessell and Kelvin Johnson

wow haven't heard people talk about Suns legend Kelvin Johnson in a minute

[rjv]

dude can't even pronounce devin's name right, seriously though, it's just another podcast validated only by the presence of an ex-NBA player. other than that, there are youtubers that are just fans who have better takes.

[Tyronn Lue]

interesting takes he has on Vessell and Kelvin Johnson
All these washed up pseudo stars have an opinion now. I'd never give much thought to the opinion of a guy who cannot criticize Doc because that's his dad.

[LeBowen]

The only relevant Austin Rivers video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0LAgNwNmrc

[Mr. Body]

Austin Rivers' dad couldn't even keep him in the league. Austin Rivers is like if Danny Green always stayed bad.

[R. DeMurre]

His finishing at the rim is very good, but it won't matter much in the NBA if he doesn't have any range.
Reliable mid-range pull up from FT line would be the difference maker.



He's been a consistently great FT shooter for three straight years, shooting between 86% and 89%. Do you think it's a stretch to imagine him having a reliable midrange pull up from there? For the record, I don't at all.

(talking about Topic here, not Sheppard)

[z0sa]

My completely irrelevant final decision is to take Dillingham over Sheppard. Dillingham seems like a creator in the half court, which is exactly what we need. His size will be an obvious flaw and his ceiling is limited by it, but with Wemby behind him and a supposedly GOAT coach, he's the one I'd roll the dice on for a PG-esque creator. Topic was my original pick, but I wouldn't risk anything on him now (in the lottery).

[KobesAchilles]

Can he shoot? Can he do a pocket pass? Runs pick n roll at a high level? Can he throw a lob? Whomever answers yes to all of that is who I want to draft

[Mr. Body]

My completely irrelevant final decision is to take Dillingham over Sheppard. Dillingham seems like a creator in the half court, which is exactly what we need. His size will be an obvious flaw and his ceiling is limited by it, but with Wemby behind him and a supposedly GOAT coach, he's the one I'd roll the dice on for a PG-esque creator. Topic was my original pick, but I wouldn't risk anything on him now (in the lottery).

If Dillingham hits on offense -- and I don't mean learning Chris Paul level game management and manipulation, I mean the best Rob Dillingham possible...

The offense will be incredibly hard to handle. Wemby will occupy most of the defensive attention while you now have a significant self-creating, dynamic threat. Dillingham hit 54.5% on spot-up threes. He shot 47.7% on catch-and-shoot (moving into a pass and shooting). He's a good passer on the move, especially in spotting his big men as they roll.

If he's that good of a shooter, then teams will have to pay attention to him. If his quickness pays off, then defenses will have to be concerned with staying in front of him. This makes attending to Wembanyama harder. If Dillingham breaks a defense down and Wembanyama is near the basket, this is really problematic. Especially since Dillingham, in his best configuration, is an instant advantage creator.

So... potentially have two guys who are constantly creating advantages. One of them, the little guy, is potentially exceptional shooting but also putting the ball up for his center. He also tends to make snap decisions.

This puts Vassell in less of a need to self-create and more feast off advantages the others create. Attacking weak-sides, hitting pass-outs.

[z0sa]

If Dillingham hits on offense -- and I don't mean learning Chris Paul level game management and manipulation, I mean the best Rob Dillingham possible...

The offense will be incredibly hard to handle. Wemby will occupy most of the defensive attention while you now have a significant self-creating, dynamic threat. Dillingham hit 54.5% on spot-up threes. He shot 47.7% on catch-and-shoot (moving into a pass and shooting). He's a good passer on the move, especially in spotting his big men as they roll.

If he's that good of a shooter, then teams will have to pay attention to him. If his quickness pays off, then defenses will have to be concerned with staying in front of him. This makes attending to Wembanyama harder. If Dillingham breaks a defense down and Wembanyama is near the basket, this is really problematic. Especially since Dillingham, in his best configuration, is an instant advantage creator.

So... potentially have two guys who are constantly creating advantages. One of them, the little guy, is potentially exceptional shooting but also putting the ball up for his center. He also tends to make snap decisions.

This puts Vassell in less of a need to self-create and more feast off advantages the others create. Attacking weak-sides, hitting pass-outs.

This is exactly what we need, especially the bolded. I just worry he gets the fuck bullied out of him on defense, especially if we become a play-in team or basketball gods forbid, a playoff one. But it is what it is. The regular season at least would be a lot more fun.

[Uriel]

Analytics models have listed this guy as the #1 prospect in the draft, and these analytics models have hit on Jokic, Haliburton, Sengun, etc. If he’s available at #4, shouldn’t he be the pick?

[SpursFan86]

Analytics models have listed this guy as the #1 prospect in the draft, and these analytics models have hit on Jokic, Haliburton, Sengun, etc. If he’s available at #4, shouldn’t he be the pick?

Castle vs. Sheppard is a very tough decision IMO. Would maybe lean Sheppard but I go back and forth on it.

[lefty20]

Analytics models have listed this guy as the #1 prospect in the draft, and these analytics models have hit on Jokic, Haliburton, Sengun, etc. If he’s available at #4, shouldn’t he be the pick?

Sounds like it's due for a miss. /s

He's the obvious choice at 4 for me as well. I just don't see him falling there, assuming Rockets keep their pick.

[Extra Stout]

Analytics models have listed this guy as the #1 prospect in the draft, and these analytics models have hit on Jokic, Haliburton, Sengun, etc. If he’s available at #4, shouldn’t he be the pick?
Yeah, so he’s a high-volume 51% three-point shooter who is also multi-skilled, but he’s kind of short! He’ll likely make at least 2000 three-pointers in his career, but is he a point-of-attack defender?

[onechance87]

Analytics models have listed this guy as the #1 prospect in the draft, and these analytics models have hit on Jokic, Haliburton, Sengun, etc. If he’s available at #4, shouldn’t he be the pick?

Would be a huge upgrade over branham.I would take at 4 if castle is gone.

[The Truth #6]

Dillingham improves the team, for sure. I guess the question is if the Spurs want to invest 3 years in developing any point guard or just want to find complementary players with upside and get a point guard through trade.

[drpill]

Dillingham improves the team, for sure. I guess the question is if the Spurs want to invest 3 years in developing any point guard or just want to find complementary players with upside and get a point guard through trade.

Why not both tbh.

[spurraider21]

Analytics models have listed this guy as the #1 prospect in the draft, and these analytics models have hit on Jokic, Haliburton, Sengun, etc. If he’s available at #4, shouldn’t he be the pick?
which model are you talking about, specifically?

[Uriel]

which model are you talking about, specifically?
Kevin Pelton.

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

[rascal]

Castle vs. Sheppard is a very tough decision IMO. Would maybe lean Sheppard but I go back and forth on it.

Castle all the way

Castle has a more unique skill set

[PhantomDashCam]

Castle all the way

Castle has a more unique skill set

So a 6 ft 3 guard who averaged 2.5 steals, .7 blocks in 29 minutes per game, is an advanced stats darling, shooting dynamo, who also happens to be white, doesn’t have the more unique skill set?

This is no slight to Castle btw, who I like (and who may ultimately be the better Pro), but come on man. Reed is one of the more unique prospects we’ve ever seen.

[Anonymous Cowherd]

Reed vs Castle dilemma is a good issue to have given one of these is guaranteed available at 4 (unless one of Sarr and Risacher is, which is also just fine)

[heyheymymy]

Agreed, you're getting one of Sarr, Risacher, Castle or Sheppard and that kinda puts me at peace

[z0sa]

Castle all the way

Castle has a more unique skill set

The problem is Wemby getting the paint packed on him every possession because Sochan and Castle can't shoot. You're not making the play-in unless you can shoot it straight most nights.

I'd take Dillingham over Sheppard, and I'd take either over Castle at #4. Castle has a great skillset but he's not what we need right now for our guys to grow. Another season of opponents packing the paint on Wemby and I fear he'll be injured or just gassed all the time again, which leads to injury.

That said, if Castle could shoot outside at even a halfway decent clip (say 35%) by his sophomore season, not picking him would have been a mistake. Tough, tough choices ahead.

[rascal]

The problem is Wemby getting the paint packed on him every possession because Sochan and Castle can't shoot. You're not making the play-in unless you can shoot it straight most nights.

I'd take Dillingham over Sheppard, and I'd take either over Castle at #4. Castle has a great skillset but he's not what we need right now for our guys to grow. Another season of opponents packing the paint on Wemby and I fear he'll be injured or just gassed all the time again, which leads to injury.

That said, if Castle could shoot outside at even a halfway decent clip (say 35%) by his sophomore season, not picking him would have been a mistake. Tough, tough choices ahead.

Spurs aren't making the playoffs next year. Castle is the better player long term for team build.
Spurs still have a need to add a perimeter defender and this is the draft to do it as next year's draft is stacked to high offensive players.

[TD 21]

Spurs aren't making the playoffs next year. Castle is the better player long term for team build.
Spurs still have a need to add a perimeter defender and this is the draft to do it as next year's draft is stacked to high offensive players.

There is no more such thing as "defensive" and "offensive" players if you want to build a team that can succeed in the playoffs and eventually win a championship.

Tony Allen's and Andre Roberson's are extinct.

You're either competent at both or you're played off the floor.

[LeBowen]

There is no more such thing as "defensive" and "offensive" players if you want to build a team that can succeed in the playoffs and eventually win a championship.

Tony Allen's and Andre Roberson's are extinct.

You're either competent at both or you're played off the floor.

Exactly.
Then we think about if it's more likely for Sheppard to be a decent enough defender with his lack of size or Castle to become a solid enough shooter.

[Mr. Body]

There is no more such thing as "defensive" and "offensive" players if you want to build a team that can succeed in the playoffs and eventually win a championship.

Tony Allen's and Andre Roberson's are extinct.

You're either competent at both or you're played off the floor.

This has been disproven so many fucking times it's getting annoying.

[TD 21]

This has been disproven so many fucking times it's getting annoying.

You either don't watch much basketball or don't know what you're watching.

At that level, the only function these types can have on offense is essentially as a small ball big, where they're the roll man/play out of the dunker spot and that requires four out spacing and someone who can do a passable job masquerading as a center in terms of rim protection/defensive rebounding.

[baseline bum]

Reed vs Castle dilemma is a good issue to have given one of these is guaranteed available at 4 (unless one of Sarr and Risacher is, which is also just fine)

Yeah Castle and Sheppard are who I want at 4. Not sure which I'd pick if both are available. Leaning Castle but Reed should have a long and productive career also.

[baseline bum]

The problem is Wemby getting the paint packed on him every possession because Sochan and Castle can't shoot. You're not making the play-in unless you can shoot it straight most nights.

I'd take Dillingham over Sheppard, and I'd take either over Castle at #4. Castle has a great skillset but he's not what we need right now for our guys to grow. Another season of opponents packing the paint on Wemby and I fear he'll be injured or just gassed all the time again, which leads to injury.

That said, if Castle could shoot outside at even a halfway decent clip (say 35%) by his sophomore season, not picking him would have been a mistake. Tough, tough choices ahead.

Castle to me is an upside swing with high motor and good work ethic, who will still probably be a very solid bench player in the worst case that he never develops a respectable three point shot. Though I'm going to bet on improvement from him. You always hope for a surer thing at #4 but not really happening this draft. Though I like Sheppard a lot here too since he should have a very respectable floor. Glad to be at #4 where the Spurs can get one of them instead of #7 where they'd get neither.

[fafo]

If both Castle and Sheppard are both available, I'm inclined to think that it's better to take Sheppard and see if Castle slides to 8. Sheppard has qualities that make it much easier for the teams 5-7 to draft him. Hoping Castle drops to 8 is also a long shot (I think Charlotte has the strongest odds of biting) but I think a worthy gamble.

I say this knowing that I go back and forth on Castle's shooting potential. If I was a stronger believer in his improvement there, I'd easily take him instead.

[scott]

Out of curiosity, what is the historical results of a 50% college 3P shooter translating to the NBA? 50% is such an astronomical number and if someone could put that up reliably in the NBA they’d be an unstoppable weapon and would easily justify #1.

I’m unable to look right now but I’d be curious at other college players who shot 50% from 3 on similar volume and how they ended up doing in the NBA

[z0sa]

Castle to me is an upside swing with high motor and good work ethic, who will still probably be a very solid bench player in the worst case that he never develops a respectable three point shot. Though I'm going to bet on improvement from him. You always hope for a surer thing at #4 but not really happening this draft. Though I like Sheppard a lot here too since he should have a very respectable floor. Glad to be at #4 where the Spurs can get one of them instead of #7 where they'd get neither.

The mind goes back and forth between the likely options. I like Castle in every other aspect but his attitude about only playing PG and his outside shot. I want to believe! But this last regular season has me doubting a lot of other factors I never did before. Example, how we were able to turn hard working players with iffy jumpshots into shooters with an ace assistant coach, like we did with TP and even moreso Kawhi. Running plays through our best players repeatedly like we did during the Tim Duncan and end of the Kawhi era, et cetera. There's too much up in the air to feel confident even with hard work, we'll be the "right place" (unfortunately) to turn Castle into a player with true triple threat potential. Again, I want to believe, not be negative.

Our defense would be a lot better than with Dillingham, though, of course. Probably Castle would impact more on the defensive side of the court than Reed, as well, though he (Reed) obviously grades out at a high level despite his size. And if Castle develops a shot, he's the pick (if Risacher et al aren't available). It's so tough. Hard to go all-in on anyone.

[BatManu20]

Agreed, you're getting one of Sarr, Risacher, Castle or Sheppard and that kinda puts me at peace

Until PATFO outsmart themselves and take Salaun at 4 in fear that he won't be there at 8 :lol

[Mr. Body]

Out of curiosity, what is the historical results of a 50% college 3P shooter translating to the NBA? 50% is such an astronomical number and if someone could put that up reliably in the NBA they’d be an unstoppable weapon and would easily justify #1.

I’m unable to look right now but I’d be curious at other college players who shot 50% from 3 on similar volume and how they ended up doing in the NBA

A player has shot over .500 from range only eight seasons in NBA history and Steve Kerr is three of them.

[SpursBills]

Out of curiosity, what is the historical results of a 50% college 3P shooter translating to the NBA? 50% is such an astronomical number and if someone could put that up reliably in the NBA they’d be an unstoppable weapon and would easily justify #1.

I’m unable to look right now but I’d be curious at other college players who shot 50% from 3 on similar volume and how they ended up doing in the NBA

Hard to say just because of the rarity of his shooting season.

Bart Jorvik query - >50% from 3, >130 3s attempted, >80% FT comes up with 1 guy who was drafted - John Diebler drafted in 2011 achieved this during his senior year

Relaxing the query a little bit - >45% from 3, >130 3s attempted, >80 FT sorted by BPM:
11 hits among drafted players - senior Cam Johnson, senior Buddy Hield, senior John Diebler, junior Doug McDermott as your top 4
Below that you have specialty shooters like senior Jack McClinton, sophomore Sam Merrill, and sophomore Doron Lamb

Rating by BPM, Sheppard would be 3rd on this list sandwiched between senior year Hield and jr year McDermott

[Mr. Body]

Of all those plus-.500 from three seasons, the most recent is from 2009-2010 (Kyle Korver), almost fifteen years ago. The most recent overall is Luke Kennard in 2022-2023. He shot .4944. Then you get another Kyle Korver year 2014-2015.

Then you go down to 28th place to find a year that was relatively recent, 2020-2021 with Joe Harris, who shot .4752.

Dell Curry has a better single season percentage than Steph Curry. Steph Curry's best single seasons appear as 71st and 72nd on the list, at a touch above 45%, and those are 2011-2012 and 2015-2016. His next one is 2012-2013. They're all ancient. For the most part, the top 100 seasons are dominated by years before the pace and space era really took off. A ton of shooters in the 1990s.

Of course this is impacted by volume. Pre-Warriors and Pre-Harden, threes were still a specialty, shot when open and at the end of certain plays or actions. After a certain point, the three-point shot diet changed completely and the point was to jack up as many as possible.

[Mr. Body]

Steve Kerr shot .573 from deep in his senior year at Arizona.

[DPG21920]

Of all those plus-.500 from three seasons, the most recent is from 2009-2010 (Kyle Korver), almost fifteen years ago. The most recent overall is Luke Kennard in 2022-2023. He shot .4944. Then you get another Kyle Korver year 2014-2015.

Then you go down to 28th place to find a year that was relatively recent, 2020-2021 with Joe Harris, who shot .4752.

Dell Curry has a better single season percentage than Steph Curry. Steph Curry's best single seasons appear as 71st and 72nd on the list, at a touch above 45%, and those are 2011-2012 and 2015-2016. His next one is 2012-2013. They're all ancient. For the most part, the top 100 seasons are dominated by years before the pace and space era really took off. A ton of shooters in the 1990s.

Of course this is impacted by volume. Pre-Warriors and Pre-Harden, threes were still a specialty, shot when open and at the end of certain plays or actions. After a certain point, the three-point shot diet changed completely and the point was to jack up as many as possible.

That part that makes Reed unique is not just the shooting, but if you put in their his steal rate on top of the shooting? I would venture you would not get a single player maybe ever that pops up beside Reed.

[DPG21920]

Im pretty firmly in the “my dream scenario” is Reed + Holland draft. I would love to get a third pick for a shot at Castle/Carter/Bub/Dillingham as well

[R. DeMurre]

It is kinda crazy to think that even allowing for a variance of ~10% downward, Sheppard would still be shooting 42% from three and 50% from two, with something like a 63% TS%.

[R. DeMurre]

That part that makes Reed unique is not just the shooting, but if you put in their his steal rate on top of the shooting? I would venture you would not get a single player maybe ever that pops up beside Reed.


Yeah, and steal rates tend to be one of the most translatable stats when comparing NCAA and NBA outcomes.

[SouthernFryd]

Sheppard at 4...Knecht at 8

If sheppard is gone by 4, take knecht at 4 then Best available PG at 8. There should be a few of them still around...

[SpursBills]

That part that makes Reed unique is not just the shooting, but if you put in their his steal rate on top of the shooting? I would venture you would not get a single player maybe ever that pops up beside Reed.

Reed combines elite shooting, good playmaking, and high steals generation - so basically a guy with playmaking vision with elite shooting and high bball IQ for steal generation. His thresholds are pretty high, but interestingly enough this type of prospect is relatively common this year.

So setting thresholds a little more conservatively - >40% 3P% minimum 125 attempts, >80% FT, >2.5 STL%, >2:1 AST:TO gives you senior Payton Pritchard of past draftees
This year, there are 3 guys like this: Sheppard, Cam Spencer, and KJ Simpson - all three of whom I'm higher than consensus on
Weird thing about Reed is he's doing this as a freshman as opposed to a jr/sr, whether or not you think that matters - Cam Spencer is 24, KJ Simpson is turning 22, and Sheppard is turning 20

[Vienna]

Out of curiosity, what is the historical results of a 50% college 3P shooter translating to the NBA? 50% is such an astronomical number and if someone could put that up reliably in the NBA they’d be an unstoppable weapon and would easily justify #1.

I’m unable to look right now but I’d be curious at other college players who shot 50% from 3 on similar volume and how they ended up doing in the NBA

Sam Hauser had a season that was close to 50%.

and yeah……Bryn Forbes was a career 47% shooter in college.

[DPG21920]

Reed combines elite shooting, good playmaking, and high steals generation - so basically a guy with playmaking vision with elite shooting and high bball IQ for steal generation. His thresholds are pretty high, but interestingly enough this type of prospect is relatively common this year.

So setting thresholds a little more conservatively - >40% 3P% minimum 125 attempts, >80% FT, >2.5 STL%, >2:1 AST:TO gives you senior Payton Pritchard of past draftees
This year, there are 3 guys like this: Sheppard, Cam Spencer, and KJ Simpson - all three of whom I'm higher than consensus on
Weird thing about Reed is he's doing this as a freshman as opposed to a jr/sr, whether or not you think that matters - Cam Spencer is 24, KJ Simpson is turning 22, and Sheppard is turning 20

Nice - thanks for that data

[objective]

I know some people knock Sheppard for not having a high enough usage or shooting enough. I wonder if the weird Kentucky guard situation played into that, with 2 lotto picks forced to come off the bench due to starting promises by the now former coach.

In the one game Dillingham missed, Sheppard took 12 fga (still as a reserve) instead of his season average of 8.

I also checked out the games he started (5 as starter, 28 off the bench)

as a starter he averaged 13.8 fga (5 starts) compared to just 6.75 fga as a reserve

As a starter he averaged 18.4 pts, 5.0 assists, 6.6 rebounds, 2.0 steals, 1.4 blocks in 37 mpg shooting 42.8% from 3

I do wonder what kind of numbers he could have put up had he just been a starter on a team without so many big time recruits jumbled together demanding attention and oxygen.

[scott]

Thanks for the data SpursBills. Definitely piques my interest in Sheppard even more, maybe to the point where he is the only Guard I’d take at 4. I like Dillingham (and I’d say I like him rather a lot), but I’d rather take a wing at 4 and hope Dillingham is there at 8. Sheppard on the other hand, I have no hope he’ll be there at 8 (and may not even be there at 4)

[SpursBills]

Thanks for the data SpursBills (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=18470). Definitely piques my interest in Sheppard even more, maybe to the point where he is the only Guard I’d take at 4. I like Dillingham (and I’d say I like him rather a lot), but I’d rather take a wing at 4 and hope Dillingham is there at 8. Sheppard on the other hand, I have no hope he’ll be there at 8 (and may not even be there at 4)

I think the thing that you really have to believe in for Sheppard if you dig into the numbers is how he affects winning even if he's not putting up counting stats. The shooting is great and everything, but that's not his true appeal to me. For me, his superpower is being able to read the game at an elite level. My eye test is not good enough to figure out exactly how he has such a huge differential in on/off compared to everyone else on his team (+30/100 possessions), and whether that's noise or something that's translatable to the pros. Usually when something like that is the case, you think collinearity or some kind of confounding factor due to playing in more talented lineups or with another star player, but for Sheppard it's regardless of who he's playing with. That suggests that he's probably doing a lot of the little things, recognizing advantages created by opponent double teams, mismatches, knowing where to be for rebounds, making correct rotations in advance, things that probably don't show up in the box score that nonetheless have a huge effect on winning small margins.

If that's the case, that's the kind of thing that translates exceptionally well to the pros. Cam Spencer also does a ton of this which makes me higher on him than consensus, except Reed is like 4.5 years younger so he has a much longer runway to work on his two primary weaknesses: 1) a handle that is merely adequate as opposed to great, and 2) a poor ability to respond to contact on either end - he gets swallowed up by long/physical defenders and picks up his dribble or turns it over, or he dies on a screen where he is otherwise positionally very solid

He can't be a primary initiator because he is unable to make something from nothing, but he is smart enough to recognize tiny advantages on both ends and capitalize on them instantly. THat's a very powerful skill when you pair that with the soon to be best two way advantage creator in the game.

[jesterbobman]

I think the thing that you really have to believe in for Sheppard if you dig into the numbers is how he affects winning even if he's not putting up counting stats. The shooting is great and everything, but that's not his true appeal to me. For me, his superpower is being able to read the game at an elite level. My eye test is not good enough to figure out exactly how he has such a huge differential in on/off compared to everyone else on his team (+30/100 possessions), and whether that's noise or something that's translatable to the pros. Usually when something like that is the case, you think collinearity or some kind of confounding factor due to playing in more talented lineups or with another star player, but for Sheppard it's regardless of who he's playing with. That suggests that he's probably doing a lot of the little things, recognizing advantages created by opponent double teams, mismatches, knowing where to be for rebounds, making correct rotations in advance, things that probably don't show up in the box score that nonetheless have a huge effect on winning small margins.

If that's the case, that's the kind of thing that translates exceptionally well to the pros. Cam Spencer also does a ton of this which makes me higher on him than consensus, except Reed is like 4.5 years younger so he has a much longer runway to work on his two primary weaknesses: 1) a handle that is merely adequate as opposed to great, and 2) a poor ability to respond to contact on either end - he gets swallowed up by long/physical defenders and picks up his dribble or turns it over, or he dies on a screen where he is otherwise positionally very solid

He can't be a primary initiator because he is unable to make something from nothing, but he is smart enough to recognize tiny advantages on both ends and capitalize on them instantly. THat's a very powerful skill when you pair that with the soon to be best two way advantage creator in the game.

Like you, a big fan (I think he's 2nd overall on my board behind Sarr, but there's a big jumble at the top).

Without digging into it too much (I don't know where to look)...

I think the big +/- data is a mix of:
Obvious things (shooting % and shooting gravity, secondary creation, steals),
Luck, and
I think he does a lot of the things that Lowry / Lonzo have had a lot of value in, as guys who just push the ball ahead in semitransition, which transforms efficiency up as a team, both by increasing transition opportunities, and by setting up the half court attack to be more full of mismatches. Steals play a big part in this too.
As he's so efficient, the loop of allowing his team to set up defense more often has the opposite effect on opponents, who have fewer transition opportunities as a result.

I think those things will still exist at the NBA level.

The downside is basically is the 1:1 defense is bad enough to cancel those out and make him unplayable at high levels, where he'd get matchup hunted to death.

I'd still make the bet at 4.

[z0sa]

I think the thing that you really have to believe in for Sheppard if you dig into the numbers is how he affects winning even if he's not putting up counting stats. The shooting is great and everything, but that's not his true appeal to me. For me, his superpower is being able to read the game at an elite level. My eye test is not good enough to figure out exactly how he has such a huge differential in on/off compared to everyone else on his team (+30/100 possessions), and whether that's noise or something that's translatable to the pros. Usually when something like that is the case, you think collinearity or some kind of confounding factor due to playing in more talented lineups or with another star player, but for Sheppard it's regardless of who he's playing with. That suggests that he's probably doing a lot of the little things, recognizing advantages created by opponent double teams, mismatches, knowing where to be for rebounds, making correct rotations in advance, things that probably don't show up in the box score that nonetheless have a huge effect on winning small margins.

If that's the case, that's the kind of thing that translates exceptionally well to the pros. Cam Spencer also does a ton of this which makes me higher on him than consensus, except Reed is like 4.5 years younger so he has a much longer runway to work on his two primary weaknesses: 1) a handle that is merely adequate as opposed to great, and 2) a poor ability to respond to contact on either end - he gets swallowed up by long/physical defenders and picks up his dribble or turns it over, or he dies on a screen where he is otherwise positionally very solid

He can't be a primary initiator because he is unable to make something from nothing, but he is smart enough to recognize tiny advantages on both ends and capitalize on them instantly. THat's a very powerful skill when you pair that with the soon to be best two way advantage creator in the game.

Is he going to be the guy who can create offense when it's NOT running, though? He might affect winning, but he was on a winning team with a great system. The Spurs suck. How's he going to be when the offense is disjointed and he's forced to make some plays? That's why I take Dillingham. Just saying.

[SpursBills]

Is he going to be the guy who can create offense when it's NOT running, though? He might affect winning, but he was on a winning team with a great system. The Spurs suck. How's he going to be when the offense is disjointed and he's forced to make some plays? That's why I take Dillingham. Just saying.

Yeah, I don't think he's going to be able to create something from nothing like Dillingham can, just two totally different types of players. It's really about what you feel this team needs more of, and how well you think each of those players can play that role.

[z0sa]

Yeah, I don't think he's going to be able to create something from nothing like Dillingham can, just two totally different types of players. It's really about what you feel this team needs more of, and how well you think each of those players can play that role.

Fair enough. I don't have the confidence you do that we'll be able to do without an actual playmaker. I hope you're right, because Sheppard should bring it on both sides of the court as opposed to Dillingham essentially being guaranteed to have a target on his back.

[SpursGuy91]

People seem to ignore the fact he’s not actually a fundamentally sound defender setting aside his physical limitations. The guy had an exceptional number of steals because he was constantly gambling and putting himself out of position and consistently leaving shooters open for uncontested jumpers. As a POA defender, he was also poor - halfway out of stance and lazily sliding his feet consistently, mediocre college players often getting the better of him. All of hat coupled with his below average ball handling skills makes me wonder how on earth he’s being considered for a top 5 selection, this archetype should be going in the late lottery at best.

[DAF86]

People seem to ignore the fact he’s not actually a fundamentally sound defender setting aside his physical limitations. The guy had an exceptional number of steals because he was constantly gambling and putting himself out of position and consistently leaving shooters open for uncontested jumpers. As a POA defender, he was also poor - halfway out of stance and lazily sliding his feet consistently, mediocre college players often getting the better of him. All of hat coupled with his below average ball handling skills makes me wonder how on earth he’s being considered for a top 5 selection, this archetype should be going in the late lottery at best.

That's simply not true.

[buttsR4rebounding]

Is he going to be the guy who can create offense when it's NOT running, though? He might affect winning, but he was on a winning team with a great system. The Spurs suck. How's he going to be when the offense is disjointed and he's forced to make some plays? That's why I take Dillingham. Just saying.

Kentucky did not have a great system. Caiipari is an elite recruiter, but quite frankly a below-average X’s and O’s guy. That’s why Dillingham was so important to the team because the offense frequently stagnated when it couldn’t overwhelm the defense with superior talent alone.

[z0sa]

Kentucky did not have a great system. Caiipari is an elite recruiter, but quite frankly a below-average X’s and O’s guy. That’s why Dillingham was so important to the team because the offense frequently stagnated when it couldn’t overwhelm the defense with superior talent alone.

Interesting, thanks for letting me know this.

[spurraider21]

i still dont have it in me to cleanly decide between Reed and Dilly as my PG1 in this draft (though both are cleanly above Castle to me). ive leaned one way or another for a couple of months now and still cant make my mind up. id be thrilled with either at 4.

[Mugen]

i still dont have it in me to cleanly decide between Reed and Dilly as my PG1 in this draft (though both are cleanly above Castle to me). ive leaned one way or another for a couple of months now and still cant make my mind up. id be thrilled with either at 4.

Sheppard at 4 is a no brainer if he's there IMO. The only other guy I'm realistically drafting over him that might also be at 4 is Risacher.

[LeBowen]

Sheppard at 4 is a no brainer if he's there IMO. The only other guy I'm realistically drafting over him that might also be at 4 is Risacher.

My biggest issue with him is his playmaking.
I don't expect him to become an all-time great floor general, but I've been trying to convince myself that he can become good enough to be an actual point guard.

Feels like one of Risacher, Sheppard or Castle being at #4 is a guarantee.

[Mugen]

My biggest issue with him is his playmaking.
I don't expect him to become an all-time great floor general, but I've been trying to convince myself that he can become good enough to be an actual point guard.

Feels like one of Risacher, Sheppard or Castle being at #4 is a guarantee.

I just don't think the team sees the need for a "true" PG alongside Wemby tbh. Whether you agree/disagree with that line of thinking is another story but hoping for them to draft a Nash type or trade for Young might be a fruitless exercise.

Once you look at it from that lens, Sheppard seems like a non brainer with the lights out shooting, playmaking and BBIQ that he'd provide in theory. Like he'd probably already be a top 3 passer on the team next season.

I also think the '25 draft just has much better lead guard prospects in Traore and Harper so I'm not too worried about drafting the PG of the future in this one. I think they'll get enough lead guard creation from Vassell next season. The Spurs need better passers and playmaking period, doesn't necessarily have to be from the PG spot.

[jjspur]

After careful deliberating, I've come to this conclusion:

1. If Sarr or Risacher drop to 4 draft either one.
2. Reed Sheppard if both of the above are gone. He can give more immediately than most anyone left, even as a backup.
3. Castle if Sheppard is gone. Same as above.

Anyone else isn't worth the #4 pick in this so so draft. I have a feeling the 8 pick will be a reach. Either that or the spurs trade the pick for a player & something in 2029 draft. They always play silly mind games so who really knows.

[benefactor]

Sheppard at 4 is a no brainer if he's there IMO. The only other guy I'm realistically drafting over him that might also be at 4 is Risacher.
Absolutely. Shooting is just too valuable in today's NBA and with what we are looking at in this draft he's the best shooter. I think a lot of people are overthinking it.

[Obstructed_View]

Seems like there are four guys who are worth taking at 4. Nice problem to have. 8 will be the fun one to watch.

[spurraider21]

My biggest issue with him is his playmaking.
I don't expect him to become an all-time great floor general, but I've been trying to convince myself that he can become good enough to be an actual point guard.

Feels like one of Risacher, Sheppard or Castle being at #4 is a guarantee.
i mean sure but i dont necessarily see castle at 4 as some prize

[benefactor]

Seems like there are four guys who are worth taking at 4. Nice problem to have. 8 will be the fun one to watch.
This I agree with. I don't want Castle over Shepperd, but if it happens I'm not going to be pissed off. I just think shooting is more valuable the way the team is currently constructed. It will be very interesting to see where they go with number 8

[LeBowen]

I just don't think the team sees the need for a "true" PG alongside Wemby tbh. Whether you agree/disagree with that line of thinking is another story but hoping for them to draft a Nash type or trade for Young might be a fruitless exercise.

Once you look at it from that lens, Sheppard seems like a non brainer with the lights out shooting, playmaking and BBIQ that he'd provide in theory. Like he'd probably already be a top 3 passer on the team next season.

I also think the '25 draft just has much better lead guard prospects in Traore and Harper so I'm not too worried about drafting the PG of the future in this one. I think they'll get enough lead guard creation from Vassell next season. The Spurs need better passers and playmaking period, doesn't necessarily have to be from the PG spot.

We definitely don't need a Nash type, but I'd like someone who can take the ball and create something when the offense goes stagnant.
Kind of how Steph doesn't really play the traditional point guard role, but can do it when needed. I'm not saying Sheppard will be even close to Steph, just comparing those hybrid roles.

Another thing is his defense. He's got great IQ and decision making for team defense, but we'd still need a POA defender.
Devin isn't one and sliding two of them down a position would inevitably create a lot of unfavorable matchups for us.

I guess we can't fix everything at once.

[benefactor]

i mean sure but i dont necessarily see castle at 4 as some prize
No one in this draft is a prize at number 4. Like I said, people are overthinking it. But isn't that what we do here?:lol

[benefactor]

I guess we can't fix everything at once.
You said everything with this one statement.

It becomes about what part of the deficiencies of this team you would like to fix right now. There are no complete players where we are picking. I would prefer the elite shooter. I'm not going to be upset with the good defender. There are a few good options to fix some part of something. Then you work everything out later on.

[Obstructed_View]

This I agree with. I don't want Castle over Shepperd, but if it happens I'm not going to be pissed off. I just think shooting is more valuable the way the team is currently constructed. It will be very interesting to see where they go with number 8
I think shooting is more valuable too, but having an elite defender who can run the offense is a nice consolation prize. Coming out if the draft with a bunch of sabermetric boxes checked for Vic will be nice.

[Mugen]

My ideal scenario has been:

Risacher or Sheppard at #4 and Castle at #8. Unlikely but I don't think it's that far fetched especially if Clingan goes Top 3 like I hope he will.

[SpursFan86]

More I think about it, the more I have a more definitive stance on Sheppard > Castle. I’ll definitely be disappointed if Sheppard goes at #3 right before we pick.

Hoping Houston ends up trading the pick tbh…feel like a team in full-on rebuild might chase one of these other guys (I.e. Clingan or Buzelis) over Sheppard.

[NASpurs]

Reading over what everyone here thinks and wants, I'm going to laugh so hard when the Spurs select Salaun with the 4th pick.

[benefactor]

I think shooting is more valuable too, but having an elite defender who can run the offense is a nice consolation prize. Coming out if the draft with a bunch of sabermetric boxes checked for Vic will be nice.
Think about how many times the Spurs lost games and Popovich said they made shots and we didn't. Remind me again how you fix that?

[DAF86]

My biggest issue with him is his playmaking.
I don't expect him to become an all-time great floor general, but I've been trying to convince myself that he can become good enough to be an actual point guard.

Feels like one of Risacher, Sheppard or Castle being at #4 is a guarantee.

The only real issue with Sheppard is how much he can hang on defense. If he can somehow prove not to be a complete liability, I'm taking him without thinking twice. On offense he will be fine, he doesn't need to be prime Iverson. With the type of elite shooting he provides, I'm fine with him being a Kirck Hinrich type that brings the ball up, plays some basic pick and rolls and can make an entry pass.

[Mugen]

The only real issue with Sheppard is how much he can hang on defense. If he can somehow prove not to be a complete liability, I'm taking him without thinking twice. On offense he will be fine, he doesn't need to be prime Iverson. With the type of elite shooting he provides, I'm fine with him being a Kirck Hinrich type that brings the ball up, plays some basic pick and rolls and can make an entry pass.

He'd be fine on defense. Would survive an entire playoff series being targeted on defense a lot better than Dillingham obviously. Think Conley/Jamal Murray in terms of being able to hide him and still have a good D tbh.

[spurraider21]

The only real issue with Sheppard is how much he can hang on defense. If he can somehow prove not to be a complete liability, I'm taking him without thinking twice. On offense he will be fine, he doesn't need to be prime Iverson. With the type of elite shooting he provides, I'm fine with him being a Kirck Hinrich type that brings the ball up, plays some basic pick and rolls and can make an entry pass.
as limited as he may be physically, at least he's a smart and active defender. he may get torched but should make enough heady plays over the course of a game to justify him being out there. and even if he gamed the vert for a few inches (which means his standing reach is better than listed, anyway), he still has pretty good explosion when he can gather to go up and challenge a shot

[The Truth #6]

The challenge with Reed at 4 is not a high ceiling. He's a statistical darling and I'm not against him at 4, but very curious how his intangibles carry over. If not, could be too close to a Jared McCain.

[Obstructed_View]

Think about how many times the Spurs lost games and Popovich said they made shots and we didn't. Remind me again how you fix that?

Remind the coaching staff. Evidently they think it was just a coincidence that guys had their worst shooting nights against Bruce Bowen.

[Obstructed_View]

Seems like the big divider in a lot of outcomes is desire. Jimmy Butler, SGA, Anthony Edwards, even going back to Kawhi. Those guys are great because they relentlessly worked to improve. There are NBA players with more talent who barely crack rotations. Maybe that is what the Spurs should be looking for other than guys with freakishly long arms.

[Degoat]

Reading over what everyone here thinks and wants, I'm going to laugh so hard when the Spurs select Salaun with the 4th pick.

Obviously not a fan of that, but I’m really starting to think thats the direction they go lol he’s repped by the same agent as wemby, from all accounts he’s a hard worker- Destined to be a a spur.