2024 NBA Draft Thread

[JPB]

As always, they totally ignore foreign players in their early mock drafts... Risacher is top 5, if not higher.

Stumbled about this own sept. 2023 post when Givony posted an early mock draft with Risacher (and Topic) out of his top 10 and the season hadn't really started.

If any NBA franchise is reading this, you can PM me. I'm listening to offers. I know I missed Sarr, but who cares? I'm a genius.

PM: I'm close with Kevin Tran agent.

[MultiTroll]

Anhyone got an autograph they must have?

I'll be in Chitown on Draft order day.

[spurraider21]

You are in the minority in the statements you make in your second paragraph and you know it. There are mountains of posts on here of guys saying they have very low to no expectations from players selected outside the lottery. Even the ones drafted in late lottery people think there’s no hope for them. Half of the all stars this year were selected after the 10th pick, which tells you again that writers are often wrong about how they evaluate prospects. You may say, “mock drafts are meant to give a preview…” and that fans don’t use it as a means to rank talent but that’s again off base because you have people wanting to trade up in the draft year after year which tells you they think those players mocked at the top are of greater talent then talent picked later.

its about degrees of certainty. obviously, we expect the player taken at 10 to be a better player than the player taken at 20. otherwise, teams would go take the player at 20 instead of the guy at #10. you take the guy you believe will be better. the draft pundits do their part to approximate how the NBA will view these guys to give us a preview of what to expect at the draft.

but nobody pretends there are strong degrees of certainty. everyone knows that the drafts arent exact sciences. we see busts all the time, even in top 2-3 selections. and we'll see second round megastars like jokic. it happens. tom brady was very famously a 6th round pick. whereas something like half the qb's in the first round wind up busts.

if your favorite player in this draft is Castle, you probably believe he will be an NBA player than Johnny Furphy. if 6 years later Castle is on the bottom of some roster while Furphy has a legit 6th man role somewhere, it wouldnt be some earth shattering upset. it could happen. i dont think its particularly likely, but its within the realm of possibility. we all acknowledge that.

but if im a mock drafter, im trying to accurately project when a player will be drafted, im not necessarily out there mapping out player's future successes. if im a GM actually making the pick, then im obviously making the pick based on their anticipated success

tl;dr

GM's make selections based on who they think will be better. mock drafters make their picks based on where they think the players will be drafted. those two do correlate

some mock drafters will outright say "this draft is what I would do if I was GM"... but mostly they're trying to predict how the draft will go

[Ef-man]

I hear this guy is available, come to terms.

[scott]

Again, I acknowledged that extensive effort in any of those activities hasn’t prevented a team from drafting the wrong player and pointed to that being a personnel problem. One team or several having no success with drafting compared to mock draft writers repeatedly doesn’t mean the process is pointless and that all teams should throw their hands up in the air and surrender their pay to mock draft writers.

If a scout/GM are constantly, repeatedly and predictably outperformed by mock draft writers, you are right... it doesn't mean the process is pointless. It just means something in the process is not working correctly or the scout/GM sucks at their job. In which case, yeah... they should surrender their paycheck. Not to mock draft writers, but someone who can perform better in that role. This seems pretty obvious and straight forward, and my guess is that this is the point Ariel is trying to make.

[scott]

I see no reason why the Spurs wouldn't draft a guard. If that's the player who they think is good, why on earth not? This team needs talent. Reaching for a SF just because they need one isn't a good practice.

I don't dislike Risacher. I'd be happy with him with the Toronto pick. If he's all they get out of this draft, I'll gag. Or, at least, if they take him top 4. I suppose if they drop and only have their pick, maybe he's the best available.

Reaching for a G just because they need one isn't any better of a practice. If the Spurs think a guard is the best, right player when they pick... yeah they should take that one. If the Spurs think a SF is the best, right player when they pick... yeah they should take that one. Like... duh?

You stated you see no reason why the Spurs wouldn't draft a guard... I think think of a good reason: they don't think the guard choices are the best, right players when they are picking. In that regard, I agree with Vienna, the Spurs are not bound to draft a guard in this draft. This should seem obvious to all of us, and if the Spurs do draft a guard (or SF, or any other position) solely because they think they need one (which we'll never know) - then we should all hope that whomever is making that decision is swiftly replaced in the FO.

[Dejounte]

If a scout/GM are constantly, repeatedly and predictably outperformed by mock draft writers, you are right... it doesn't mean the process is pointless. It just means something in the process is not working correctly or the scout/GM sucks at their job. In which case, yeah... they should surrender their paycheck. Not to mock draft writers, but someone who can perform better in that role. This seems pretty obvious and straight forward, and my guess is that this is the point Ariel is trying to make.

Ariel’s point was for teams to use mock drafts by writers (or the consensus of them) as a point of reference for success/ failure for teams and I’m disagreeing with that and believe the success/ failure of a team’s scouting should be placed in the actual outcomes of players that come out of the draft (a much different list than the consensus).

[scott]

Ariel’s point was for teams to use mock drafts by writers (or the consensus of them) as a point of reference for success/ failure for teams and I’m disagreeing with that and believe the success/ failure of a team’s scouting should be placed in the actual outcomes of players that come out of the draft (a much different list than the consensus).

Certainly Ariel can fight their own battles, but when they said:

My point is that's the bare minimum standard any should measure themselves against. If you get consistently outperformed by consensus mock drafts, then you might as well be replaced by a 5 liner bot.

I very much interpreted this to mean that if a scout/GM is consistently being outperformed by consensus mock drafts in terms of the outcomes of the players (because I don't know how else you would evaluate the picks over time), then there is no point in paying that scout/GM because you can just listen to a mock draft instead (as in, you should fire that Scout/GM and hire one who isn't outperformed by a bot). Basically, if every single year your GM is picking Primo when the obvious pick is Sengun... you should probably fire that GM. However, if every single year, your GM is picking Jokic when the consensus sas to take Nik Stauskas. On Draft Day, your GM will score some Ds and Fs on the media's grades, but in reality you'd have the best drafting GM by an objective methodology (such as my favorite that I frequently post: https://towardsdatascience.com/which-nba-teams-are-best-at-drafting-20070ccd1702)

[Ariel]

Ariel’s point was for teams to use mock drafts by writers (or the consensus of them) as a point of reference for success/ failure for teams and I’m disagreeing with that and believe the success/ failure of a team’s scouting should be placed in the actual outcomes of players that come out of the draft (a much different list than the consensus).

Obviously I failed at making my point accross. I don't think outperforming a random mock draft signals success, but rather underperforming them (systematically, not ocassionally) should signal failure for a team (time to change scouts) / professional scout (time to change jobs). To put it more bluntly: if your job is to predict something (anything) and you're no better than a blindfolded monkey shooting darts at the available options (hyperbole, obviously), you should change careers / staff.

[Dejounte]

Certainly Ariel can fight their own battles, but when they said:



I very much interpreted this to mean that if a scout/GM is consistently being outperformed by consensus mock drafts in terms of the outcomes of the players (because I don't know how else you would evaluate the picks over time), then there is no point in paying that scout/GM because you can just listen to a mock draft instead (as in, you should fire that Scout/GM and hire one who isn't outperformed by a bot). Basically, if every single year your GM is picking Primo when the obvious pick is Sengun... you should probably fire that GM. However, if every single year, your GM is picking Jokic when the consensus sas to take Nik Stauskas. On Draft Day, your GM will score some Ds and Fs on the media's grades, but in reality you'd have the best drafting GM by an objective methodology (such as my favorite that I frequently post: [/COLOR]https://towardsdatascience.com/which-nba-teams-are-best-at-drafting-20070ccd1702)

These are much different playing fields though. A scout/ GM has one or two chances (in the first round) to get their selection right using their big board. We never get to see their big board. If we did, we’d compare their big board to a writer’s big board (or mock draft, if you wanted). Saying that the mock draft writer has a leg up on the team that drafted Primo over Sengun is plain unfair if you consider that those mock drafts had scrubs like Ziaire Williams before Sengun… so the Spurs should have drafted Ziaire over Primo? It’s not apples to apples at all.

[scott]

These are much different playing fields though. A scout/ GM has one or two chances (in the first round) to get their selection right using their big board. We never get to see their big board. If we did, we’d compare their big board to a writer’s big board (or mock draft, if you wanted). Saying that the mock draft writer has a leg up on the team that drafted Primo over Sengun is plain unfair if you consider that those mock drafts had scrubs like Ziaire Williams before Sengun… so the Spurs should have drafted Ziaire over Primo? It’s not apples to apples at all.

At the end of the day, the results are what matter - right? We aren't talking about a GM picking Primo over Sengun one time... we're talking about it happening repeatedly and predictably. If a GM is going to consistently go off-reservation and make perceived reaches, then he/she better be hitting some Jokic and Manu picks, and not just consistently coming up Primo. If doesn't matter how else the GM had his big board laid out, the fact is he/she repeatedly fails in their picks and would have been better off at just making the obvious "consensus" pick. Fire that GM as soon as you figure this out.

EDIT: And I'd propose the methodology I previously linked would be the proper one to evaluate this by, and continued bad reaches will make themselves apparent in the data and a GM who does that will shoot straight to the bottom of such rankings. For all the reasons you mentioned, an NBA scouting department SHOULD be better than the media at evaluating players. If they aren't fire them and move on.

[Mr. Body]

Reaching for a G just because they need one isn't any better of a practice. If the Spurs think a guard is the best, right player when they pick... yeah they should take that one. If the Spurs think a SF is the best, right player when they pick... yeah they should take that one. Like... duh?

You stated you see no reason why the Spurs wouldn't draft a guard... I think think of a good reason: they don't think the guard choices are the best, right players when they are picking. In that regard, I agree with Vienna, the Spurs are not bound to draft a guard in this draft. This should seem obvious to all of us, and if the Spurs do draft a guard (or SF, or any other position) solely because they think they need one (which we'll never know) - then we should all hope that whomever is making that decision is swiftly replaced in the FO.

Yes, obviously if they prefer a player who is a guard they will take a guard. If they prefer a player who is a sf, they will take a sf. The poster I was responding to said there's no way the Spurs are going to take a guard. I don't see any case where that's a truism. But I guess you agree and think they would draft a worse player just for positional fit. If this draft had an A- guard or two and only B- small forwards, they would take the small forwards. I don't see any way that's the right way to go.

[scott]

Yes, obviously if they prefer a player who is a guard they will take a guard. If they prefer a player who is a sf, they will take a sf. The poster I was responding to said there's no way the Spurs are going to take a guard. I don't see any case where that's a truism. But I guess you agree and think they would draft a worse player just for positional fit. If this draft had an A- guard or two and only B- small forwards, they would take the small forwards. I don't see any way that's the right way to go.

Maybe Vienna said that somewhere else, but the post you responded to only said "The Spurs aren't bound to take a guard". That does not mean "there's no way the Spurs are going to take a guard" - it means the Spurs aren't married/obligated to taking a guard, which is obvious. It's not "riveting stuff", it's obvious stuff that unfortunately needs to be said out loud because your reading comprehension sucks.

[Mr. Body]

Maybe Vienna said that somewhere else, but the post you responded to only said "The Spurs aren't bound to take a guard". That does not mean "there's no way the Spurs are going to take a guard" - it means the Spurs aren't married/obligated to taking a guard, which is obvious. It's not "riveting stuff", it's obvious stuff that unfortunately needs to be said out loud because your reading comprehension sucks.

It's still a high level of certainty that the Spurs aren't going to take a guard. Why wouldn't they?

Gets back to the BPA vs positional need/fit sorts of discussions. Only way I can see them not take who they think is BPA is if they're convinced that player cannot share the floor with Wembanyama. If their BPA is a guard, they'll take a guard.

[scott]

It's still a high level of certainty that the Spurs aren't going to take a guard. Why wouldn't they?

Is it? Says who?

Gets back to the BPA vs positional need/fit sorts of discussions. Only way I can see them not take who they think is BPA is if they're convinced that player cannot share the floor with Wembanyama. If their BPA is a guard, they'll take a guard.

In case you haven't noticed, the Spurs need a guard and they need a SF. They also need other things. They'll take what they (not anyone else) perceive as the BPA that fits the team. Seems like we all agree here.

This doesn't take away from the fact that Vienna never said that the Spurs wouldn't take a guard. They only said the Spurs aren't bound (obliged/determined/required/resolved/married to) taking a guard. Which is true. And obvious. But, here we are.

[Ariel]

These are much different playing fields though. A scout/ GM has one or two chances (in the first round) to get their selection right using their big board. We never get to see their big board. If we did, we’d compare their big board to a writer’s big board (or mock draft, if you wanted). Saying that the mock draft writer has a leg up on the team that drafted Primo over Sengun is plain unfair if you consider that those mock drafts had scrubs like Ziaire Williams before Sengun… so the Spurs should have drafted Ziaire over Primo? It’s not apples to apples at all.

It's true that we (as outsiders) don't have the whole picture. Mark Cuban recently said in an interview with Draymond Green that his own scouting team had Luka BEHIND Ayton (not their analytics departments, though) and they look like geniuses rather than morons because events unfolded in a way that the available pick had Ayton already taken. But teams do know.

Also, just because you don't have ALL the data, doesn't mean you can't use the sample you have to draw conclusions. We're all judged in the same way, by concrete results in the particular situations that fate tasked us with, and scouts are no different. But yes, teams are in a better position to do that evaluation than we are, I'll give you that. But maybe that's also why they're hiring random media scouts, though

[BatManu20]

We need shooters. Why not bring Jimmer back tbh.

[Bruno]

I've looked at Nikola Topic's last couple of games and the main issue is that he doesn't look 100% healthy. He hasn't the same explosive first step he had before his injury and it's problematic with his game being based a lot on drives. We'll see if he gets better in the remaining games of his season but, right now, it's a red flag to me.

[CGD]

This is an excellent piece on how to think about point guard archetypes:

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2024/4...4-nba-playoffs

What PG archetype do we need?

[NASpurs]

What PG...

Yes

[spurraider21]

I've looked at Nikola Topic's last couple of games and the main issue is that he doesn't look 100% healthy. He hasn't the same explosive first step he had before his injury and it's problematic with his game being based a lot on drives. We'll see if he gets better in the remaining games of his season but, right now, it's a red flag to me.

guy coming back from injury doesnt look like his old self right away isnt really a red flag to me. he'd have an offseason to get rest and back up to 100%

[Ef-man]

We need shooters. Why not bring Jimmer back tbh.

Praise the prophets!

The Blue Santa of Alternate Lifestyles need to listen to you.

[rjv]

I've looked at Nikola Topic's last couple of games and the main issue is that he doesn't look 100% healthy. He hasn't the same explosive first step he had before his injury and it's problematic with his game being based a lot on drives. We'll see if he gets better in the remaining games of his season but, right now, it's a red flag to me.

if that's the case, he'll almost certainly be available by mid to late lottery.

[Bruno]

guy coming back from injury doesnt look like his old self right away isnt really a red flag to me. he'd have an offseason to get rest and back up to 100%

In most cases, I would agree with you but there are some strange cir stances here:
- He should have been out 4 to 6 weeks and he missed 15 weeks.
- They never communicated on what specific knee injury he had.
- The owner of his team said there were torn ligaments and that he was surprised he could be healed without surgery.

That's worrying to me, careers can be wasted because of knee issues.

[Mugen]

In most cases, I would agree with you but there are some strange cir stances here:
- He should have been out 4 to 6 weeks and he missed 15 weeks.
- They never communicated on what specific knee injury he had.
- The owner of his team said there were torn ligaments and that he was surprised he could be healed without surgery.

That's worrying to me, careers can be wasted because of knee issues.

They'll get his medical report pre draft though, no?