I just don't know how you can basically say "dude's ceiling is a better version of a top 10-15 player of all time" with a straight face. The odds are just so incredibly astronomically low. It makes the definition of "ceiling" kind of meaningless because it becomes so detached from reality. I like Sheppard. I'm good with picking him. I just think some of this kind of talk is getting far too extreme
It's like the forum is experiencing some weird mass-hysteria event. Let's all say it together "THIS IS THE WEAKEST DRAFT IN A VERY LONG TIME." Nobody is a "better version of a HOF player," none of them. If they were, they'd be the number 1 pick with no debate. ****ing "Half Nash Half Curry" and "CP3 with a more lethal shot" are people actually serious? And people think they hate Jalen Green, wait til they try and hold players with half of the talent to twice the expectations...
@AroundTheWorld did not say reed would be the next Curry. He said that is is his ceiling based on his shooting ability.
There’s nothing wrong with imaginary ceilings talk. Sure, things get a bit out of hand around every draft with all the baby-Jordan’s, baby-Lebrons, baby-Jokic etc., I can see how it can overwhelm you. OTOH, however, if we follow your Debbie Downer attitude, nobody should ever say “A fat kid from Serbia may one day become a 3-time MVP" or "a skinny Greek teenager will be a 2-time MVP" or a "small unathletic shooter from a mid-major college will be the main guy on a dynasty team" These " ceilings" keep your mind open.
I think you're misunderstanding the data bro. That data is about how he did in his section of college with a decent amount of minutes against bench units. You're treating it as if it's data from his NBA rookie season where he started 82 games. You have to distinguish between these two in your analysis. There are things that carry over and things that don't. Shooting carries over. Defensive effort carries over. Unselfishness carries over. His handle will not carry over to an NBA halfcourt game. His strength and athleticism will become comparatively average instead of excellent. His height is going to matter a lot more. Obviously assessments are needed otherwise we'd just pick the player with the best stats. Further you also gave to compare him to international prospects who often do not have equivalent statistical standards. So for draft positioning, subjective assessments are necessary. There are MENTAL things the stats don't tell you and it's not all about hard work. How do you quantify that? I don't know why you're arguing this. A computer can't make this decision and scouts are wrong a couple of times in every ten picks every year. I have no doubt he has great advanced stats, but that's not the end of the analysis.
I mean, it's nice attempt at reframing what I'm saying, but don't try and spin me thanks, I'm good. Fact remains, you're all overhyping kids who would not be top picks in any of the last 3 drafts, not even remotely. You're doing those players a disservice, because they're almost certainly not going to live up to anything near the hype. "CP3 with a more lethal shot" is an actual quote. That's not just wishful thinking, it's grounds for a mental evaluation.
There isn’t a single player in this draft that would be top 3 in the last 3 drafts. That has nothing to do with anything at all. You evaluate the draft based on the talent in said draft. Sheppard is arguably the best prospect in this draft with a high floor and a much higher ceiling than his detractors are saying.
Yes, I know he called it his ceiling. My point was that describing a player's ceiling as a "more athletic version of Steph Curry" is such an over-the-top statement that it makes the whole concept of players having "ceilings" meaningless.
IMO Steph would not be Steph if he had a 43 Vertical and could dunk all over. He would not run off to vacant spots. The HOF Ceilings are useless because it never shows you the Grind and the Path of those players.
I go on the record saying that you are not a dectractor if you have reservations about a player....lol. You got to have NBA data......shooting 50% in College is fine as hell, does he shoot 50% in the NBA and that every year?
Teams are going to have to make a choice: 1) place a great defender on Sheppard and allow the star player to run wild, 2) sag off Sheppard to contain star and let him kill them, 3) try to do the in between of 1 and 2 such that Sheppard likely performs well enough in the NBA offensively such that questions on his offense prior to the draft are shown to be ludicrous, 4) Pray that Sheppard really flops in the NBA. 5) Beat Sheppard up so bad on defense (assuming they have the personnel) that the offense doesn't matter. (I think Sheppard will be more than fine off ball, but if a team gets the right matchup, they will be able to push him around at the POA) I'd say 3 and 5 are the most likely outcomes and it is just a matter of which happens more often. I don't think he'll shoot 50% from behind the arc aginst NBA defenders, but think it is more likely than not that he enters the NBA as a Top 10 shooter or is there in a year once he adjusts to the speed.
Just for fun, and can't believe it has to be said, the odds of Reed becoming Nash or Curry like, HOF and GOAT level point guards is extremely low. I like him and think he can be a good player and there is a chance he can exceed expectations and be unique, and would be okay with taking him if he's BPA on the board, but not comparing him to guys like that using only a few plays or arbitrary stats. Reed had a poor first game in the NCAA tournament as a freshman, Curry dropped 30 pts, was the star lead player on offense for his team and had a skill set Reed doesn't in college. Nash had a terrible freshman NCAA tournament, on par with Reed (and worse freshman numbers), but his team won the first round and he also had different skills. Curry and Nash developed shot creation, taking guys off the dribble, they had a better first step to blow by their defender, Curry had better handles, Curry had a much higher three point volume which will lower your percentages as the alpha offensive player with all the defensive attention focused on you. Reed could take a role player role and let Dillingham or Antonio Reeves run the offense at Kentucky.
He's positive on the players, but I don't think he's super high on them (e.g., no number 1 guy like Paolo, and I think he even likes Brandon Miller over all the guys). For Green, his play late in the year definitely impressed Sam, but think it was more of a "step" than a "leap" for him. It's not like he'd willingly give him the max or even close to it at this point (sounded like he wanted to offer something in the 20s, but then realized that would probably offend Jalen). He likes Amen too, but I think he definitely has concerns about his on-ball future (hence why he threw him out as a possible Aaron Gordon glue guy if that doesn't work out). Anyway this isn't super relevant. I just interpreted his read of these guys more as cautiously optimistic vs all in on their futures (which is pretty much where I'm at). A couple of things: 1) I like Topic too actually, and I still need to do a deep(er) dive on him. That said, you bring up some things that would limit Reed which would also 100% limit Topic too (IMO). I still think Amen has the best PG upside of those guys, so yeah he'd still get the bulk of those minutes under your analysis (with Jalen, Cam, etc getting other minutes). Unlike Reed, I'm not sure you can really throw out Amen *and* Topic together as I'm not sure if Topic is as effective in an off-ball role. I don't think any shooting weakness is *easy* to fix, and I certainly would be cautious in expecting great shooting from Topic to start his career. Maybe agree to disagree here. 2) There will be a minutes crunch for sure (at least if or until some moves are made). But I think the advantage of Reed is his ability to play on and off ball. You can throw him out there with any combination of Jalen, Cam, or Amen. Or put them all together. I mentioned this earlier, but when you have highly skilled guys who can dribble, pass, and shoot (plus IMO defend well enough), you can find ways to make it work. Of course it also helps that Amen and Cam can defend multiple positions (possibly Jalen too, though ideally he's more on guards). Also keep in mind that if Reed just got the Aaron Holiday minutes (total), that would put him at more minutes than Cam this year and almost as many as Amen.
Reed is the analytics darling of his draft like Sengun was for his. I think that alone merits a #3 pick gamble.
I'd just point out that Clingan is probably up there with Reed if not more highly rated by analytics guys. I'd also think Holland does well with analytics departments as he probably will grade well in defensive chaos and getting to the line (i.e., he's got a ton of upside if he gets his shot to average).
I am banking on that ....yeah....and I do think the Ignite was a failed show that did not hire the best shooting coaches while the G League is similarly spamming 3s. I cannot think of another reason that everyone from Jalen Green, Kuminga, Scoot Henderson down to Holland and Buzelis are shooting bad numbers...... Cannot be a mere coincidence. Has to be a borderline terrible shooting program.
Yeah IIRC Kevin Pelton had Clingan and Reed at the top, though I forget if one was above the other in one model (stats only) vs the other (stats+projection). Holland didn't rate very well though (but that's the Ignite for you). Holland is probably a guy that pops more from a scouting perspective vs raw numbers. I don't have access to Pelton's article (though I remember details of it somewhere), but found this summary from Reddit:
