The following is a reader submission (and annual tradition) from Kings Herald community member SPTSJUNKIE.
My grandpa always said there are only three things you can depend on – death, taxes, and the Sacramento Kings picking in the lottery. To be fair, by the end, he could only remember the last 15 years.
The good news is that while our beloved Kings are almost always picking in the lottery, we do have an impeccable record of making the best selection possible [Note: find a source before sending Greg, if no source, just hope that TKH doesn’t fact-check articles].
Just kidding. Actually, since we passed on both Steph Curry and Klay Thompson, the two Warriors now have 168.7 career win shares. In that same time, all 16 Kings first round picks have a combined total of 168.7 career win shares.
For those of you not familiar with how my draft projection models work, the short answer is they let computers do math that would take me years. They look at everything from basic box score stats, impact metrics (i.e., Box Score Plus Minus), efficiency statistics (i.e., true shooting percentage), scouting variables (do scouts describe a player as “a high feel player”) combine measurements, and more to try to figure out what makes a college player more likely to be successful in the NBA.
Then they use those metrics to predict how well this year’s prospects will do in their careers and we can see what metrics they used to determine that prediction. Over the years, I’ve expanded the models to include international and G-League prospects as well (though not EYBL or OT Elite yet).
Because there are many ways to approach the problem – I do 5 models every year:
Original model: The base model I’ve always done with all statistics and scouting variables dating back to 2005
No impact stats model: Eliminates variables like Box Score Plus Minus (BPM), Win Shares, and Net Rating – as the impact stats are very predictive, but can hide some of the metrics driving them which are interesting for us to learn
Positional Model: This model evaluates each position separately, which allows the algorithm to “discover” metrics that are very important for say a PG, but not for PF
Humble: Adds actual draft order and “mock draft order” (average of ESPN / Ringer / Athletic) as a variable to see if there’s additional wisdom scouts have that is not emerging in the other draft metrics and also to discover what metrics scouts maybe underrating
Position Humble: Evaluates each position individually, but also incorporates draft order as an additional variable
As I caution every year, these models are great for learning, but no credible front office would simply use a model as their draft order. They are another tool to combine with what we see on film, our intuition, and outside factors.
The models are great to not only understand what players are analytically sound and may project well, but also to re-think some of your preconceived notions and maybe go take a 2nd look at the film of a player the models like or dislike a lot more you do.
Finally, remember the models are based on performance data – they can’t tell if a coach misused a player, had so much talent that a player’s skills were hidden, or had no shooters and a player was swarmed on every drive. So these models should serve as a point of discussion versus the final word that serves to shut down the conversation.
With that said, below are links to two different resources that I have put together for fellow Kings Herald readers.
For anyone just wanting to quickly look at the data, here is an easy-to-read Google Sheets version of the outputs of the 5 models, rankings by model, and overall averages:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gAQbBD5xGafZXScKI0VqfspcG5BesNBWW51bmRlBsv8/edit?usp=sharing
And here is SPTSJUNKIE’s full 2022 draft guide with the models, player profiles, Synergy statistics, projections, and my recommended picks for the Kings:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zsqJ4-h_pSzkrycxNwY_BS2lb7RT3VmKYYJ9pbWtfDg/edit?usp=sharing
I look forward to some discussion and your thoughts and am happy to answer any questions below.
Oooh, baby, I can’t wait to dig into this. You’ve made Monday tolerable, as ever, thank you SPTSJUNKIE!
*Sits down and opens full draft model and guide as sees it is 118 pages long…pours another cup of coffee.
Let’s do this!
As you can guess, brevity is one of my strengths.
Great work ! Hope the Kings FO studies these charts and evaluations .
I’m sure the answer is obvious and I just missed it, but I’m a bit confused how the rankings seem to clearly favor Chet, but in the write up you say Banchero (6th by model average) and Smith (2nd), are #1 and #2.
It’s called reading. 🙂
Doh, you’re right. I just expected the tiers to follow the models a bit more.
How long you been reading Junkie’s models? LOL
Mostly I just like validation for my own hot takes. Chet #1. Daniels high. Ivey WAY down the list (though even I wouldn’t put him where the models do).
Don’t we all like validation? LOL
I’d be pretty surprised if Chet went #1, but I’ve been wrong before. You and I disagree about his shot creating ability, but I suspect that’s where teams might agree with me and not you on this particular one.
We’ll see, as always!
Chet at #1 isn’t a hugely hot take. Depending on your definition of high, Daniels going high wouldn’t necessarily be a hot take.
That’s why it’s not called SPTSJUNKIE’s Hot Take Model & Guide.
Here’s your answer BHE:
Sorry, technical issue this morning, KG21 already gave the short answer, but…
The models are only one tool in evaluation. The write ups are my personal draft tiers based on the models, hours of games and film, and other factors such as placing more value on offensive engines and swichable wings versus non-shooting, rim running centers (not saying Chet is that, but obviously some of the models like guys like Duren / Williams / Kessler with very defined, but less valuable roles).
I personally like Paolo and Jabari the best as they are two players who could be the #1 offensive weapon on a top team if they work out. I think that’s the rarest and hardest to find piece. If I was forced to pick one for a generic team with no knowledge of their roster, I like Paolo’s feel and all around skill set, as it’s a bit easier to build with and you see more top options with it than Jabari who has a strong path towards a poor man’s KD / Rashard Lewis type of player who can also be a #1 option, just a bit of a trickier path. But this is the closest year yet to me and for some teams, I would absolutely take Smith #1, which has not been the case in past years, where I tended to have a definitive top option.
I think this is also how NBA GM’s think and certainly fans to some degree. I did a completely unscientific poll on Twitter where I asked people to choose agnostic to age / contract, which player they would rather have: https://twitter.com/SPTSJUNKIE/status/1534206513887125506
We can debate some of the pairings, but the premise was literally pairing members of the All Defensive Team, who other than Thybulle are also all pretty solid to good offensive players with counterparts on their team who were arguably considered primary ball handlers (except for Maxey, but had to downgrade a bit due to Thybulle’s limitations on offense) and were all solid to good defenders. In 5 of the 6 pairs, people chose the offensive player. And we see NBA teams do this as well.
What I don’t know and want to research more for next year is if that’s actually a good decision. Are offensive engines indeed more valuable and linked to winning (and worth the risk) or is it actually a market inefficiency that a smart GM (or TKH’s own Bryant West) would exploit Moneyball style). Would love any thoughts from yourself or others, because I don’t pretend to have the answer there.
Without knowing the answer, because it is entirely subjective, I think teams tend to lean towards the notion that shot creation is the most valuable skill in basketball for a reason: You have to score more points than the other team to win the game. That’s always been true. It doesn’t necesarily matter how you get there, and you need other things to win a championship, say, but winning a singular game means you have to score more than the other team. The trick is having the ability to do so repeatedly. And of course easier said than done.
Zooming a bit further in, I don’t think anyone in this draft is a #1 option on a championship contender, and I’d be a bit surprised if Banchero or Smith Jr end up as a #2 option in that regard. Same with Ivey, for that matter. I don’t see Holmgren being capable of that either, unless it’s with a Kobe Bryant/Michael Jordan/Allen Iverson/LeBron James/Russell Westbrook type as the #1 option.
Could it be that simple? Yeah, possibly. There could be more layers of complexity, but as long as you need more points than the other team to win, shot creation will always be the singular most important skill in basketball.
I agree. I think more GMs and coaches, while they love elite defenders and will always want a Chet, Bridges, Smart, Gobert, etc. on their team, they probably believe with good team defenders and schemes, they can manufacture a really good defense, arguably like the Warriors did this year. Not that Green and Looney aren’t very good defenders, but Brown’s schemes worked with Curry, Poole, Wiggins, and a lot of guys not considered plus defenders even when Draymond was hurt. I think teams probably believe they can manufacture that type of team defense more than they can manufacture consistent buckets against a good, set defense with a team of solid offensive players.
Probably right, but teams will still gamble. While not all #1s are on the same level as Jordan and LeBron, a lot of guys arguably good enough to be the #1 on a championship team weren’t considered that during their draft. Harden, Curry, Tatum, and even Doncic all slid a bit. Guys like Giannis and Leonard even more, tough they have also developed substantially. I think teams want to find an archetypal player like a Edwards, Ball, Cade, Green, etc. who “could be” one of those players and gamble they can develop them. When in doubt, I think most will choose that “million dollar scratcher ticket” over the $10,000 in the bank.
It’s a difficult sell for me to believe that a guy slides to the 1:3 pick as Harden, Tatum and Doncic all did. Obviously you can make an argument that, Tatum and Doncic especially, are already the easy top players from their draft (I’d argue that) so they of course slid but only two spots.
Curry is a different matter for reasons already discussed. He has the worst 4 year beginning to a star level players career, EVER. Not in the last 20 years, EVER. Nobody has ever started that poorly on the court as he did (and it was also not necessarily his fault either) between injuries and poor performance. And year 4 was the year they made the playoffs under Mark Jackson for the first time. If there’s ever been an outlier of outliers, Stephen Curry is precisely it. Arguably, the only other guy who even comes close to that, is Giannis Antetokounmpo because of how poorly his career started, too. And he was drafted, as you note, 8 slots lower than Steph was in his draft in 2013 (Steph was taken 1:7 in 2009, Giannis 1:15 in 2013 for those who don’t know).
I never really did understand why Kawhi Leonard dropped to 1:15 in 2011. Or why Isaiah Thomas ended up being the 2:60. Still a bit whomper jawed at both of those things. It was a very odd draft, to say the least.
Having said all that, your point here:
100% agreed with. Harden wasnt seen as the #1 option coming out of ASU in 2009, Tatum wasn’t seen that way coming out of Duke either, and really until Curry was #1 option he wasn’t really a #1 option. Same with Kawhi Leonard. Faith had a lot to do with those guys hitting those levels they did, and certainly faith from those organizations to give those guys the chances to be the stars they became. It’s hard for me to imagine that James Harden wins a MVP anywhere but a Daryl Morey led team, for example.
Dating back to 2019, if I could take any player from the 2019-21 drafts (and I have 3 from each draft to choose from), I’d probably go like this:
1) Anthony Edwards (skills + physical tools matter & AE got lotsa both)
2) Cade Cunningham (He’s a better conditioned Luka IMO)
3) Ja Morant (his injuries are just too much for me which is why he’s here)
4) Evan Mobley (needs more scoring to move up at least a spot)
5) Scottie Barnes (needs better shooting but we knew that)
6) LaMelo Ball (I doubt he moves higher than this despite his popularity)
7) Zion Williamson (just because he’s truly gifted if healthy)
8) Tyrese Haliburton
9) Darius Garland (injuries again hurt here)
Amongst these 9, there’s a clear tier of 5, and a second tier of 4. Edwards, Cunningham and Williamson were all 1:1’s. Morant was a 1:2. Mobley and Ball were 1:3’s. Garland and Barnes were both 1:5’s. Haliburton of course was the 1:12. The only guy I see moving from the bottom 4 into the top 5 is Ball and that’s because he does in fact play. But there’s a lot to clean up there.
You get my point, I’m sure. Drafts are easier to prognostitcate looking backward (what isn’t?) than looking forward. But when I look at these 9 guys and the top players in the ’22 draft, I’m not sure there’s a single one in the 2022 draft I’d take over any of those 9 if injuries aren’t an issue (which with Zion they obviously are). And hell, in Zion Williamson’s case, you could argue he’s at worst 3 on this list perfectly healthy. He’s a dynamic dominate player even if he’s not a big man archetype who tilts towards the defensive end.
And that’s what I think might make it tough on McNair to consider trading down in this draft if teams feel that way. I don’t know what’s going to happen, and I don’t think anyone else does either. There’s a lot of uncertainty because there’s….a lot uncertain. How good is Holmgren, Ivey, Banchero or Smith? That’s a matter of opinion. It’s why I say you don’t always get lucky by jumping in the lottery, you also get lucky in how the order ends up working out for you as well. I suspect the ’22 draft will be no different in that regard.
Well said and totally agree. And slip was also probably the wrong word – just meant more that there’s a relatively handful of LeBrons and Shaqs who are true #1s where everyone knows they are true #1s and they go first in the draft, no questions asked.
A lot of the other guys who are in that broader #1 conversation had some of the same (not saying identical) types of questions that Banchero, Smith, and Ivey have. Now all three might wind up secondary or tertiary options. But people didn’t peg a lot of those past guys who were not LeBrons or Zions (if he can stay healthy) to be a true #1 and not someone who projected to be more of a high-end secondary option.
So you get a lot of gambling. Though, for most of the guys, even if they don’t wind up #1s, they will still be very useful. Even if the Chets of the world may surpass their value if they are only complementary to another star.
Thanks for the response. All that makes perfect sense. I totally agree that offensive engines are perceived as (and most likely are) the most valuable archtype/role in the NBA, and therefore drive draft decisions. I think my big differing opinion is that I don’t agree Smith is more likely to be an offensive engine than Holmgren.
Part of that is that I think Chet has a lot more of that in his present bag than he was asked to show at Gonzaga. But equally…
I don’t think Smith has the handle, creation, or passing ability to be a #1 option on a good team. Even in examples of Smith’s “creation” it’s usually a single straight dribble into a pump fake/pull-up that doesn’t create any space. Heck, he rarely even gets a bump to create space. He’s tall with a high release and is able to make the resultant contested shots at a decent clip. But that package without multi-moves, counter moves, anything going to the basket, etc. doesn’t make me confident that he can be an engine for a good offensive team against NBA defenders. Based on observation, I think “off-the-dribble” numbers for him are misleading because of the vast difference in the nature of his “off-the-dribble” events than, say, Bancheros. His off-the-dribbles are almost always straight, unchallenged dribbles stepping into a jumper.
Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s a VERY good prospect. I think he’ll be an excellent shooter and average to above average defender at multiple positions. He has as high a floor as anything we’ve seen in a while. The chances that he’s Rashard Lewis are extremely high and that’s a very good and useful player. A guaranteed Rashard Lewis is probably well worth a top pick to the right team, IMO. I just think the chances that he’s much more than Rashard Lewis aren’t all that high. He is and, I believe, will be dependent on others creating for him for at least a number of years. If not the vast majority of his career. Ultimately, I think a ceiling of tall Klay is also pretty good call based on how he’ll be most effectively used. But neither of them are guys you just give the ball to or build an offense around.
I think all of this is fair.
You are certainly not the only person to say this and this could be a miss by me if in fact Chet gets to the NBA and after adapting for a year or so, really becomes even a high-level secondary creator. I didn’t see it personally, I think his handles are good for his size and he can even post opportunistically against switches and has enough post-creation that a team like the Clippers can’t just guard him with Mann / Batum like they did Gobert once he’s developed his body a bit more. But I could obviously be wrong here.
Obviously, you said a lot more and I agree. Smith was hard for me and part of why I had him at #2 was that it took a leap of faith by me and some growth trying to step out of my comfort zone with prospects to elevate a player like Smith. In the sense that I love a good, high feel, on-ball creator more than a pure gravity shooter, who may never be a traditional primary ball handler. I’ve just seen the value that a Durant (whose ceiling I do not see him reaching, Durant was much better at the same age). But even Lewis with plus defense (instead of negative defense) would be huge in today’s NBA. And if Smith falls somewhere between Durant and Lewis (even closer to Lewis) on offense, there’s just a touch more upside there for a different type of offensive engine (he’s the electric car to Banchero’s traditional engine).
But I 100% see the concern and even aside from being polite or not thinking I have all the answers, even within my own universe of rankings and tiers, I 100% see the argument for Chet over one or both of those two. And don’t think it’s a wild argument.
Without knowing what any team is thinking necessarily, it wouldn’t surprise me if there are teams out there that have like 1 guy above the other 3 in the top 4. It’s just that kind of draft. All of them have notable strengths and weaknesses.
What I do find interesting is that it’s being suggested by BHE (and you Junkie) that Holmgren was a bit held back by his role at Gonzaga, but I’ve also seen that argument (from Vecenie) about Smith and his role at Auburn. Curious your thoughts on that one.
Venecie’s recent Podcast with Matt Pennie talks about Chet having more than we saw at Gonzaga. I haven’t heard him say the same about Smith, but I’d be interested to.
100%. I heard that and Pennie has followed Chet for awhile, which is both a blessing as he has seen some moves in the gym we have not. And it’s a curse, because listening to him, he is extremely far from impartial – which I get, he’s watched Chet develop and talks about him like a proud father would, which is not always great for neutral evaluation.
That said, believe Pennie that Chet has some skills that work in certain gym settings. But as I said in the longer answer to KG21, I don’t think Coach Few eschewed letting Chet use moves that would have given Gonzaga a material advantage in winning. I think some of those moves simply weren’t ready to be used consistently in the NCAA and if they ever emerge as a consistent NBA weapon, will take a few years of work.
I have no trouble believing Holmgren has upside. But I have no trouble believing that in Smith, Banchero, Ivey or a lot of other guys either. If guys didn’t have upside teams believed in, why draft them at all?
While I can see how Holmgren was limited by his role at Gonzaga, my OP to Junkie (maybe a bit muddled) was that so was Smith, arguably. And I’ve seen Vecenie make that argument. How convinced anyone else is making it, or how often Vecenie is now I don’t know.
I’m always a bit more dubious of those arguments. I think Chet has some skills that were used opportunistically at Gonzaga. And I think there are times a team is so stacked and a player plays out of position (e.g., Kentucky teams or some old UCLA teams) that talents are hidden.
But I think most college coaches are smart and tend to get the most out of their players. They want to win and will find ways to maximize their players strengths and minimize their weaknesses. Now there are some bad coaches, but I think everyone would agree Mark Few is one of the best.
I think there’s a fair argument that Chet may have some very preliminary or cursory abilities (e.g., his handles as a 7 foot center) that didn’t get used frequently and Gonzaga did not dedicate possessions to developing as they were trying to win. If he had gone to say UOP or Oakland, they might have let him practice or develop on the court more consistently even if it didn’t always help the team win.
But I think it’s more the case with Chet that those skills are currently not good enough for Chet to use them consistently at even the NCAA level and Coach Few knew that – but that there is at least some probability they grow in the NBA. I don’t think that Chet had an amazing ability that could have provided Gonzaga a material advantage in the NCAA, but Coach Few didn’t let him use it in order to run more through Timme and Nembhard (somewhat reasonable) and Strather, Bolton, and Watson (much more unreasonable).
At most, I do think that Timme’s presence probably prevented Chet from playing a bit more in the post, which with Chet’s touch, could have upped his points a bit.
For what it’s worth, I think Lewis was closer to an average defender. And I expect Smith to be pretty close to that edge as well. I think Smith on defense will look a lot like Barnes in terms of impact and effectiveness. Not special, providing good value by being able to be average or slightly above at multiple positions.
I sure hope you’ve found a way to monetize your skills!
Thank you. Right now it’s a labor of love and welcome break from some of the more mundane things I am paid for. But I also realize Google Docs is a bit limiting, so may have to consider if there is something better (though not about the monetization).
Monetizing your skills and robbing me of this valuable content is a stabbable offense, FYI.
Why isn’t Ivey in the tier of players w/potentially fatal flaws? The write-up notes his potentially fatal flaws & he doesn’t do well in the models. For me, the models & the write-up further solidified my opinion that Murray’s a better prospect than Ivey.
Fair question, that level was for All Stars with potentially fatal flaws. I think Ivey has higher potential. He really could wind up a star and by that measure could push for the first tier, but he just has more downside and a lower probability in my opinion of hitting stardom than Paolo or Jabari.
But even setting aside descriptive names, at 4, I would definitively take him over the players in Tier 3 regardless of fit or other potential tie breakers, so I do think he’s a tier up. But understand completely if people think he belongs with Murray and others.
Thanks. I’m more skeptical of Ivey than Murray b/c Ivey’s much less skilled IMO. I think Ivey would have to develop a lot of skills to become a star. While the models seem a bit too low on Ivey, I think they’re right about Murray being better than Ivey.
SPTSJunkie, thank you so much for creating this and sharing with us. As Kings fans, a draft guide has an importance that other fans just can’t relate to!
I agree with your assessment of Ivey, he looks like a special Ja-level talent, where the skills far outweight the potential flaws. So much quickness, and the body-control and creativity at the hoop. Really interesting how the eye-test rates him so much differently than the models. I think the skills the eye-test shows are more innate and harder to learn than what the weaknesses might be.
When I watch Murray, it feels like NBA footage from the 70’s. Everything is very controlled and fundamentally sound, but nothing very explosive or surprising. This is probably some kind of bias or blind spot, but it just doesn’t impress me that much, and may not stand up to size and talent at the next level.
Thank you. And I could be 100% wrong on Ivey, but there is also data that backs the observations. He shot 62% at the hoop with only 20% of his shots assisted. And this is with every college coach knowing he was going to the hoop and desperately trying to stop him.
Now that will be harder in the NBA. And he will need to improve his midrange and outside shooting. And he’ll need to be smarter with his passing. Otherwise, he’ll be a limited role player. And for some people that’s going to be too many things he needs to improve. But for me, the ceiling justifies some of the risk.
Murray, I would say is a probably a bit of a blind spot in my opinion. He’s very skilled and smart. His passing was also disappointing and doesn’t really get talked about enough (except for Bryant West, who did talk about it) and he also needs to expand his midrange game. But his shooting, driving, touch, and defense are all very good. There’s no guarantees in the draft, but he really should be a good player.
The models & SPTSJUNKIE’s opinion based on the film & the models are different. Ivey seems to be the most extreme example this year. Personally, I don’t understand how Ivey isn’t in the tier of players w/potentially fatal flaws. The write-up notes his potentially fatal flaws & he doesn’t do well in the models.
No idea how long it’s going to take me to get through all this (if I ever do), but I appreciate the time and effort Junkie. As always.
One thought already Junkie: Any possibilty that somebody like Presti (who has a history of taking players higher than expected) would see Ivey as a tier 1`guy? Or Holmgren for that matter?
Like, maybe, not necessarily a possible tier 1 guy but more like a tier 1.5 guy? Because I can see a lot of teams feeling that way about Smith/Holmgren/Banchero/Ivey right now.
Thank you in for the first post (I assume at 118 pages, a lot of people will CTRL-F guys they are interested in or whoever Monte actually drafts).
On the second, I think it’s 100% possible. Beyond me not having the ego to think my tiers are perfect or how every GM sees them, I think that right or wrong (explain more in the response to BTE where I link the fan Twitter poll) even real GMs tend to favor or swing for offensive engines over even great defensive players who they think will be more role players on offense. It’s why Stone took Green over Mobley.
Maybe that’s a market inefficiency and a mistake in their (and my) mental models. But it’s a real phenomena and one we see in that fan poll too. People mentally favor the really strong offensive players over guys who were literally on the All Defensive Team and outside of Thybulle, were good offensive players as well.
I actually think if some other teams had jumped in the lottery, it would be a bit more likely, as OKC for example has SGA and Giddey, which I think makes Chet a bit more likely / a better fit. But it’s certainly possible that Presti swings for pure upside and cares less about fit even within his draft tiers as he made the Finals with Durant, Harden, and Westbrook – which is certainly a bit of an odd trio, but talent carried them far.
Thanks sptsjunkie!
If the Kings had as much talent as this community’s writers do, they’d never miss the playoff.
Great job as always! I look forward to your contribution every year!
Random note but does anyone remember NBrans from the old site? I recall he used to provide good draft insight as well.
This comment is so underrated, well played sir.
Remember Dalt99?
Please excuse my poor command of vocabulary and use of vulgar colloquialisms:
HOLY SHIT! THIS IS FREAKIN’ AWESOME!
I am going to take my time and wallow in this collection of information. This AND Bryant West on TKH! Heavenly.
This kind of language is wholly inappropriate, and should result in a permanent ban from TK
(disappears forever)
Geez! I was worried enough. It’s just the nice blend of maybe he means it, and I know he doesn’t (or does he?). Thanks a lot!
Me: Man, I want them to draft Ivey if he’s there
Me: (after reading this):
These models are both hot AND voluminous!
Thanks, SPTSJunkie. Now get a life again. 😀
Thank you. Now I am going to have to find something else to stay up and watch after my SO falls asleep before me. Maybe time to dive back into Stranger Things or The Boys.
You’ve probably finished Ozark, but I finally managed to get to the last episode today. I have no idea when I watch it though.
Visited my parents for Father’s Day and he was actually watching this Netflix show Love, Death, and Robots. Netflix had recommended it before, but thought it was more of an anime series. Actually a bunch of 10-20 minute shorts that are almost like an animated / CGI mini-Black Mirror. Hopefully holds me over till I pick something else.
Respect!
Wow. Just, wow.
Thank you sir!
Just curious: with scores that are divided into tiers, I’m curious how you decided that 12.0 is considered “superstar” tier. Are you calculating a “ground-truth” score for current NBA players and then using regression to predict the scores of prospects?
That’s actually a great question and something I need to work on. I’d like to tell you it’s based on a detailed, analytical analysis. But the real answer is STR used to have a member Dalt who did something at least vaguely similar. I don’t think his ratings were these types of models, but were scores based off of a sum of categories he created. He had scores that delineated the difference between the level where you saw more superstars, all stars, plus starters, etc.
So the first couple of years I did mine, I looked at all of the retrodictions (basically the same cross-validated model that is used to predict the draft class can be used to predict the performance of prior draft classes – so the retrodictions are basically how would the models have predicted the performance of prior draft classes where we know). From the retrodictions, I basically eyeballed the player predictions and saw where the players at those levels were. I haven’t really re-adjusted for a few years, but they seem approximately right and like that it provides for example some easy color coding of the model outputs under each player.
But yes, at some point, I need a better classification model or to revisit at least where those lines are. But they have always been more of a general guide versus a definitive “if a player is over 12, he is going to be a superstar.” Just he has a score that most superstars surpass. Or on the other end, once you get below a 4, it’s basically a list of marginal end of bench players and guys who never made the league.
two things jump out to me: Ivey (gulp) and Dyson D
Sptsjunkie validates my idea of trading down to get two of Daniels, Eason, sochan, Murray, etc. 😉
Awesome work…but which model factors in making me hungry for Taco Bell?
Oh crap you did compare Mathurin to KCP lol !!! I was looking at these models thinking man, Mathurin is the KCP in this draft and Ivey is looking like the Mclemore!!! He probably won’t be as bad as Ben, but it’s not looking good for Ivey (the Kings are drafting him, aren’t they? Ah F…)
If you go back and look at their college stats and some of the scouting around KCP, there are a lot of similarities. Now, Mathurin could easily wind up better. But KCP is probably a pretty average outcome for a middle of the lottery pick (as much as we all want stars).
FWIW, Mathurin is one of the prospects I am most on the fence with in terms of his tier, I keep going back and forth between 3-4 with him. He should at least be a role player, because he has size, tools, and can shoot and obviously, he could develop into more. But his mix of meh handles, struggles scoring inside/in-traffic, and just theoretical defense are holding me back. As an off ball shooter and tertiary ball handler, he will score and finish just fine. But there’s some physical limitations there and a lot he needs to improve to have that potential to be a secondary ball handler and raise his realistic ceiling.
It’s close. I’m trying not to be swayed by Kuminga being on that same borderline for me last year and probably placing him one tier too low 🙂
Enjoyed the gushing praise Jerry gave you on the recent podcast . Agree with him that it’s well deserved .
Thank you for the heads up. Was going to listen on the plane tomorrow, but ended up listening tonight. Appreciate you pointing that out (and feeling it’s deserved).
One large bag of Cheetos. Check.
Lazy Boy Recliner. Check.
Surround sound and Direct TV remotes. Check.
Ipad. Check.
Jumbo TV set to ESPN and NBA TV. Check.
Two twenty ounce bottles of Orange Nehi. Check.
One snack size box of Hostess Twinkies. Check.
Four, maybe five, Large Slim Jim’s. Check.
Noise cancelling Bluetooth Ear Bud’s. Check.
Roll of tums. Check.
iPhone out in the garage in the trunk of the car, inside a tarp. Check.
2nd bag of Cheetos, Flaming Hot style. Check.
Joeseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” for any TV coverage of the lakers. Check.
Sports Junkie’s 2022 NBA Analysis at my side at 5 PM EST, manning the Lazy Boy tomorrow evening. Thank you for the hundreds of hours this report and analysis takes to research, draft, proofread and imbedded with video clips.
Excellent, excellent works Sports J. Thank you. A thoroughly enjoyable read and reference for all the entire draft.
Badge Legend