I listen to KOC and I might respect your opinion more than him, he just has opinions like everybody else and is not much of an expert, he is just a superfan that gets to talk about the NBA for a living. What exactly is legit NBA media.
I think he has the skill to do it, but I don't know if he can physically do it at crunch time or wants to take on that burden and will just be happy to let it come to him. He is my biggest question mark but I don't think will ever be as big an impact offensively as Banchero.
There is no complaint. I was just commenting on the fact that I also don't think big men win in this league anymore. As the 4 best 7 footers have all been eliminated from the playoffs. But even so 0 chance this years team was better than last years nets. Joe Harris loss was huge. Jeff green was huge. Landry Shamet. All played key roles in last years playoffs and they got replaced with guys 6ft and under.
Jalen Green looks like he wants the ball in the clutch. And he made big shots last year. Only one person can take those shots late game and we may already have that dude.
Its curious. Chet obviously is listening to his PR team and I dont blame him. Go out there and tell the world you are the best and will be the best I can dig it. I've seen an assortment of plays where Chet puts the ball on the floor. Its not fast or athletic, but if its effective then thats all that matters. Its not a big part of his game, but when HE does it seems like people enjoy the aesthetic of a guy so lanky being able to make the move. Even more curious is that you have a guy who's similar in height and MUCH bigger doing way more with the ball, but people ignore that because of perceived issues with defense? Seems convenient. Mobley has a similar movement to BAnchero in his ISO game where he will jab and shimmy to the bucket. Seems natural and effortless, but Chet is really robotic and uncomfortable looking, but yeah lets amplify his defense which nobody disputes and project best case scenario from his offense because - why not? Its been quite the wonder to see how far some have gone during this cycle. A complete disregard for the eye test only to hold on to the stat sheet. Wasnt the analytics movement supposed to SUPPORT the eye test? Funny how that works when people start debating favorites. One guy taking 8-9 shots per game and another taking 13-14 as a hub for the team involved in every aspect of a successful offensive possessions being docked for defense and criticized for efficiency! Then on the other hand a careless assumption to say that their own preference will check all of his boxes and reach his ceiling, but not the guy whom they would least like to see on the team? Convenient. Im with you - Chet will never be a guy who can lead a team offensively. He doesnt have the court vision or instinct to be that type of player and he does not have a natural control of the ball as a handler. He will hit his open shots. He will try to go coast to coast on you and will be a very good defender. There is a reason why most think he has the biggest boom or bust potential. He is not the consensus and has alot to prove himself both physically and skill wise. As they all do. Funny enough even if Banchero WERE to be touted as some defensive whiz something tells me that ego and self importance would still be doing its thing in here. These playoffs should show anyone that you need multiple bucket getters. IF Stone thinks after putting him through his workout that Chet can be that type of player and he can go win you games with his own ISO package and shot creation for others then lets go. I trust Stone more than any random nobody from this platform or twitter. No offense to anyone, and the results from these playoffs may even indicate that all of these big guys could be a liability in critical moments on defense - Chet included. Should be fun to see where the ROX land at the lottery tonight imagine all this bickering only to select Shaedon Sharpe at 5! LOL
Their defense has always been trash I like Joe Harris but he isn't doing anything for that. Green is good especially for leadership but c'mon. They added Curry(<50% on 3s in playoffs... Wtf), Dragic, Drummond. You're really underating Seth if you are even mentioning Shamet. Cam Thomas alone is better. Giannis won last year playing through an injury.. dudes knee bent the wrong way. Injuries to stars have occured every year let's not discount what the Bucks did because people don't like big men.
So you think Curry is better than Harden? i didn't mention the guys in the trade cuz as a sum they aren't as good as Harden. And building a team is about fit. You can't have 5 pgs and play them all at the same time like the nets tried to do. Green Harris Harden gave them better lineups for matchups.
When the most ardent Paolo diehards are willing to jump ship onto Chet bandwagon something must be going down.
https://theathletic.com/3317217/2022/05/18/nba-draft-2022-top-20-prospects/ Spoiler Are you watching the playoffs? Are you watching them and thinking about what they might mean for this year’s draft? We’re in a little bit of a weird place, right? The consensus top three players are fours and fives, but all the value is in big wings. Unlike a year ago, there isn’t an easy pathway to sorting out the top of the draft based on positional value. That ballhandling, playmaking 6-7 wing every team craves isn’t out there at the top of this draft. Maybe a Cade Cunningham or Scottie Barnes is hiding in the weeds, but if so, it’s much less obvious this time around. Similarly, we have some good bigs in this draft, but we don’t have an Evan Mobley-type, whose switchability is so obvious that it would allay concerns about the decreasing value of centers in the postseason. Conversely, in a world where either having a P.J. Tucker-type body or just being a 6-6 guy who doesn’t suck has exponentially more value in the games that matter most, a lot of energy must necessarily tilt toward finding those types of players in the draft. The top three players in this draft are bigs, with one being a true rim-protecting five. At least two other traditional centers are on every lottery board, and if you made a consensus mock draft right now, you’d see a generous sprinkling of players shorter than 6-5 as well. With centers in particular, we run into issues of diminishing returns. You can play one center, but never more; meanwhile, you can play as many 6-7 guys as you want in today’s NBA, provided at least one of them can dribble. Despite that, teams continue to overvalue taking big centers at the top of the draft. We’ve had 18 centers drafted in the top six picks since 2002; only three of them have played in an All-Star Game, and in the case of Chris Kaman, we’re defining this term extremely broadly. Should Mobley and Deandre Ayton eventually make it, we’ll be at five. Woohoo. Mobley proves the exception to the rule — a 7-foot center who plays as a perimeter player, particularly on defense. Meanwhile the best offensive center in the league (Nikola Jokić) was picked 46th, the best defensive center (Rudy Gobert) was picked 27th, and this year’s other 7-foot All-Stars (Jarrett Allen and Joel Embiid) were picked 22nd and third respectively. On the flip side, we’ve had a perimeter All-Star selected in the top five of every draft since 2010, if we assume one of Cunningham or Barnes breaks through soon. And we’re on a stretch of 20 straight drafts in the top six. A couple of them stretch the definition of “All-Star” a bit (Andrew Wiggins was voted in, and Devin Harris and D’Angelo Russell each made it once), but most were legit. Overall, we’re talking about 27 All-Star perimeter players from 19 drafts, and 23 of them were no-doubt-about-it, All-Star-caliber players. Despite the zest for size at the top of the draft, most of these stars weren’t that big; only Kevin Durant, LeBron James, Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram were taller than 6-7. So … do you want to pick from the bin that provided 27 All-Stars or the bin that gave us three? I bring this up for two fairly obvious reasons. First, I think teams are still guilty of overdrafting centers — James Wiseman, Mo Bamba, Dragan Bender and Jahlil Okafor would be recent examples. Second, the consensus top three players in this particular class are all bigs, with perhaps the most highly touted one a 7-1 center. So here’s the question … is Chet Holmgren (or Jabari Smith or Paolo Banchero) such an advantage at their positions that you’d prefer taking them to the chance of getting an All-Star perimeter player? The flip side of this, of course, is what All-Star perimeter player? Have you been scouting some other NCAA, Hollinger? Teams would feel better about following my big-shunning strategy if there were wart-free wing options. This is, perhaps, not that kind of draft. Particularly in that sweet spot around 6-6 or 6-7, the talent pool is not safe for diving. Wait, it gets worse. Two other issues underlie this year’s draft. First, this is one of the worst international draft classes in memory. Only two players have a realistic chance of going in the top 20, and neither played well even in relatively weak overseas leagues. Second, there is an absolutely staggering number of meh shooting guards for teams to sort through. We may set some kind of record for 6-4 guys who end up in France; several of them have been getting lottery buzz, for some reason, but I don’t have more than a couple in my top 20. Nonetheless, teams must press on with the task of selecting the best talent and determining the best positional fits. And there is actually talent in this draft; it was harder to winnow my list down to 20 or so than I expected. It’s just hiding in some different places than you might have originally expected. As is my recent pattern, I’m revealing my top 23 (with three sleepers included!) just after Tuesday night’s lottery and saving the rest of my top 75 for June, when we know for sure who is staying in the draft. Why 20? Historically, there are about 20 players who end up mattering from each draft. Limiting myself this way forces me to think harder about who that 20 might be. I don’t use that as a hard and fast rule if I really love or hate the draft, but this year I have exactly 20, plus my three favorites from the shooting guard blahscape tacked on the end. Here’s how my board looks: TIER 1: The two biggest fish in a medium-size pond 1. Jabari Smith Jr. | 6-10 freshman | PF | Auburn Smith is an unusual player for a top overall pick because he didn’t always dominate games athletically. He had unusually low rates of rebounds, blocks and steals for a prospect of this caliber and shot just 43.9 percent on 2s in SEC games. (Reminder: I often rely on stats in conference games because they winnow out the early-season joke games against St. Leo’s and Incarnate Word.) So what’s the case for Smith? Let’s start with his jumper, which is just smooth as butter. Smith might have the best shooting form of any prospect I’ve evaluated since Michael Porter Jr. launching perfect parabolas toward the rim and having the footwork to get into this stroke during live play. At a legit 6-10, Smith can rise over anybody and launch, providing something of an offensive cheat code that should set up the rest of his game as he develops. Meanwhile, his athletic gifts are also pretty significant. Some of his defensive clips had me cackling, yelling, “Noooooo don’t do it!” at my monitor while some rando college guard decided to try his luck isoing Smith off the dribble. Vid Smith can slide his feet like a guard, plus his length allows him to play a half step farther off dribblers and cut off any driving angles. He sometimes gives a little too much cushion and will need to play closer in the pros, but his switchability at the pro level seems rock solid. He also rarely gets faked off his feet, a bugaboo for a lot of bigs who otherwise can hold up on switches. Quick, hard changes of direction occasionally leave him a step behind, but he also has the “catch-up” ability to get back in the play and block shots from behind. With his body still filling out, Smith has a low post defense that’s maybe not quite as clinical. Opponents could duck in and get position, especially when Walker Kessler was off the floor and Smith had to play the five, and he didn’t contest their shots as aggressively as you might hope. Adding some muscle obviously will help here, but I’d be leery of playing him much at the five in the NBA until he adds more lower body strength. Finally, there’s the age issue. With a May 2003 birthdate, Smith is six months younger than Banchero and a full year younger than Holmgren. He’s physically young too, as he’s still pretty clearly growing into his body. In a draft without a surefire future All-Star, he seems the one most likely to earn that honor.
Spoiler 2. Paolo Banchero | 6-10 freshman | PF | Duke Prospect-wise, Banchero isn’t perfect. He’s not an elite athlete or a great defender, his arms are a bit short for a big, and his shooting stroke could stand to be more consistent (33.8 percent from 3 and 72.9 percent from the line). He’s a bit on the older side for a one-and-done, and his rates of steals and blocks are pretty sad for a lottery prospect. OK, now that I’m done whining … Banchero is also an attacking, off-the-dribble shot creator at 6-10, and he’s not some shot-hunting pig either. He averaged an eye-opening 6.3 assists per 100 possessions last season, often acting as a de facto point guard for a Duke team that didn’t have a true lead guard. It’s pretty easy to envision a world in which he’s his team’s best or second-best offensive option, particularly if his line-drive outside shot gets a little more air under it and a big more consistency. Defensively, Banchero’s lack of length gives him issues contesting shots and protecting the rim, which might limit his utility as a small-ball five. Otherwise, I thought his tape was pretty good. His clips in isolation defense show a guy who is comfortable sliding his feet out on the perimeter, and he didn’t default to giving yards of space and allowing easy pull-up 3s the way some bigs do. In his best moments, he could play close enough to remove any pull-ups at all, like this: Vid Banchero seems to change direction pretty well, but in straight-line speed challenges he is vulnerable; little fast guys give him problems, but he can defend anyone two through four on the perimeter pretty capably. Overall, he’s a fairly safe bet as a high-production four, one with plus offense and who can get to the point of being solid defensively. TIER II: High ceilings, but more speculative 3. Jaden Ivey | 6-4 sophomore | SG | Purdue Ivey is the one player in this draft who is most reminiscent of Ja Morant, with a blast-off first step that sends him rocketing toward the rim. It should be even more effective in the open space of the NBA versus a Purdue approach that was heavily geared toward entering the ball to its two behemoth post players. Alas, the Morant comparisons break down once we get into the decision-making realm. Ivey barely averaged more assists than turnovers in Big Ten play; his good clips are ridiculous, but there is a lot of head-scratching chaff to work through before you get to that wheat. His shooting is also a question mark, with a below-the-shoulder set shot similar to Morant’s that yielded 32.2 percent from 3 and 73.98 percent from the line in his two years with the Boilermakers. Put simply, Ivey is going to be an offensive skill-development challenge for whatever team picks him, but the upside reward is an All-Star-caliber shot creator from the guard spot. Defensively it’s a similar story. The physical toolset is there, but the application of those tools is a bit inconsistent. Ivey can get caught upright and blown by at times but doesn’t concede space and can still stay with dribblers. Opponents rarely went at him in isolation, perhaps because of the giant dude waiting in the paint behind him, but also because it didn’t look profitable the few times opponents tried. Ivey can slide his feet and explodes off the floor to challenge shots, sometimes surprising shooters who thought they had themselves a nice pull-up. He needs the defensive output to be more consistent, especially if he’s juggling a prominent offensive role at the same time. The tape from his freshman year is actually even better, perhaps because less was being asked of him at the other end. Overall, this is an eye-test call. Ivey’s college track record is wartier than you’d prefer for a pick this high, especially from a sophomore, but nobody else in this draft is in Ivey’s league as an off-the-dribble creative force. 4. Chet Holmgren | 7-1 freshman | C | Gonzaga A lot of the concerns about Holmgren have to deal with his frame. At 7-1 and just 195 pounds, will he be more prone to injuries? Will he hold up to the pounding of a routine NBA game multiplied by 82? The visual is hard to ignore — he looks like somebody might break him in half — but I’m wondering if these worries are missing the real issue. Career-length issues for bigs are usually driven by lower extremity injuries; the fact that Holmgren’s light build puts less strain on his knees and ankles could end up being a major positive for his long-term durability. The real thing to wonder about with Holmgren is whether drafting a 7-1 center in the top five makes any sense unless he’s basically guaranteed to play in the All-Star game. Holmgren definitely has some huge positives — few bigs have shown as much juice off the dribble at a young age, his 3-point shot is already reliable enough to be a passable long-range floor spacer (39.0 percent from 3 as a freshman), and he finishes everything around the basket (73.7 percent on 2s). Holmgren also controls the paint like few others, with an absurd 12.6 percent block rate and 28.7 percent Defensive Rebound Rate. NBA teams still are skittish about playing zone, but Holmgren could be an awesome zone defender. Three issues prevent him from ranking higher here. First, the skinny body really limits his ability to have any kind of post game. There is virtually no cost to switching a guard on him. He can shoot and handle a bit, but offensively he’s trending toward Myles Turner. Second, nobody talks about this, but Holmgren is a year older than most freshmen, with a May 2002 birthdate. For comparison, the next player on my board, Bennedict Mathurin, has played two years at Arizona but is a month younger than Holmgren. Lastly, the defensive tape is perhaps not quite as awesome as the stats might make you believe, particularly in switch situations. The Synergy stats say he performed well against isolations, but several of those plays featured missed bunnies at the rim, and the sample is small enough that it matters. Holmgren typically gave up a driving lane to one side and then relied on his length to contest at the summit, but often didn’t get there in time. Occasionally, it went worse than that, particularly against pro-caliber guards. Here Santa Clara’s Jalen Williams (an underrated prospect!) just flat-out drops him: Vid Care to see the movie again? Vid Holmgren held up much better when bigs tried to take him off the dribble in closer quarters; there just isn’t enough room to get away from his arms. Opponents will see his body and think they can mash him in the paint, but that is likely to be a horrible mistake that ends badly. His tentacles swallow up everything in the paint, and he could very well lead the league in blocks every year. Because of that, and the talent gradient we’re about to hit, this is probably the best slot for Holmgren. I’m not a huge fan of drafting centers, as you can tell, but the risk-reward equation turns more positive after the first three names are off the board.
Spoiler TIER III: Reliably solid wings 5. Bennedict Mathurin | 6-6 sophomore | SF | Arizona One can argue it’s a reach to take Mathurin at No. 5, since it’s unlikely he’ll ever be the best player on his team. But because of his positional value and skill set, even his mid-tier scenarios make him a $20 million player in today’s NBA. Few players have more obvious 3-and-D utility than Mathurin, an athletic 6-6 Canadian of Haitian extraction who came through the NBA’s development academy in Mexico City. He’s still evolving into his game, but in two years at Arizona he shot 38.7 percent from 3 and 78.9 percent from the line. Mathurin still needs to tighten his handle and improve his feel, factors that could limit him from moving beyond a 3-and-D role at the next level, but his size and plus athleticism give him outs even if he never turns into a ballhandling wizard. Additionally, he doubled his assist rate as a sophomore at Arizona, showing visible progress as an on-ball creator. Defensively, Mathurin might be more “solid” than true stopper. He’ll get into the ball but is not quite as fluid laterally as you might hope. He also can sit up in his stance at times, permitting blow-bys. More often, he’s able to stay solid and use his size and length to contest late, but he’s rarely an active disruptor on that end. 6. Shaedon Sharpe | 6-6 freshman | SG/SF | Kentucky Teams have a lot of questions about Sharpe, questions that aren’t going to get answered by seeing him work out against a chair in Chicago at the combine. Why didn’t he play at all for Kentucky this year? How much did that set him back? While teams comb through background parts and go back through his EYBL tape, the inevitably of the upside scenarios is what’s likely to see him chosen high. He could fail spectacularly, but the bar for this player archetype is pretty low as far as eventual success goes. Sharpe is 6-6 with a 6-11 wingspan and can really shoot; watching him work out on the floor before Kentucky’s NCAA Tournament game, I found it pretty clear he’ll be a viable NBA floor spacer from Day 1. He’s also athletic enough that he was ranked as the top prospect in the Class of 2023 before reclassifying. How many guys like that, who also had elite shooting ability, have failed? Yes, there are questions about his feel and other, secondary lines of inquiry given that nobody has seen him play top-drawer competition. If he were a center or point guard, I’d have him several places lower. But a 6-6 wing who can shoot? Even if he “fails” in terms of achieving stardom, that still becomes a decent value proposition. 7. Keegan Murray | 6-8 sophomore | SF/PF | Iowa Murray is probably the most head-scratching player in this draft. On the one hand, he’s a 6-8 forward who put up video-game stats in the Big Ten. Don’t overthink this, right? But on the other hand, he was a much older player (turning 22 in August, he’s the second-oldest player on my list today), and his tape isn’t quite as alluring as his stats. Murray is neither a high-wire athlete nor a knockdown shooter. He’s fine and all — 37.3 percent from 3 and 74.9 percent from the line in two years at Iowa — but it’s his all-around wiles as a scorer that provide his real value. It’s fair to question how much daylight that part of his game will receive at the NBA level, because he doesn’t create easy separation and isn’t a great distributor. Defensively, it’s more of the same. His size and length help him get hands on balls, but he’s not some elite stopper out there. He offers some secondary rim protection but didn’t always show great awareness, and his team’s defense was consistently its undoing. Murray has long arms and can slide his feet on the ball, so he should hold up decently enough against wings and fours. What I get back to is that we’ve seen this movie before with guys like T.J. Warren and Cedric Ceballos — smooth forwards who lacked top-drawer athleticism but had crazy feel for scoring and finding buckets in the flow of the game. The league undervalues guys like this sometimes because they don’t have an easy box to slide into, but I’m pretty confident Murray can be a rotation forward at worst, and the upside is a 20-point scorer. TIER IV: Let’s get crazy Here’s where I suspect my draft board deviates pretty radically from the consensus. Partly, this is because the late lottery this year appears a bit soft in terms of surefire NBA talent, and partly, this is because I value certain things more than others. The one accelerated the other: If the talent curve is relatively flat, stylistic preferences inevitably matter more. With that said, fasten your seat belts… 8. Jeremy Sochan | 6-9 freshman | PF | Baylor A Polish citizen who grew up mostly in England, Sochan offers an alluring combination of present value and long-term upside as a high-energy forward with some shot-creation possibilities. Although he’s 6-9, Sochan can handle the ball and get to the cup with long strides and loosey-goosey quickness. He can make some decent reads as a passer, and he shot 60.7 percent inside the arc in Big 12 games. His shooting is more speculation but wasn’t as bad as the percentages make it seem (29.6 percent from 3, 58.9 percent from the line). His form needs work, but it’s not broken. Sochan is better east and west than vertically; he’s quick, but he doesn’t pop off the floor. Relative to a player like Banchero, he offers more potential switchability and could even do work as a small-ball five as his body fills out. His tape against guards is very good, playing close enough that they can’t just walk into pull-ups, even contested ones, while still mostly holding his own when they tested his speed. Sochan leaves his feet too willingly and good crossovers sometimes leave him wobbly. He also had problems when dribblers got into his body, something that likely will become less problematic with more strength and experience. Overall, we’re in a different area now in terms of risk-reward proposition. It’s possible Sochan is never anything more than an energy backup, but his upside scenarios are so tempting that he’s worth grabbing once my top seven names are off the board. 9. Dyson Daniels | 6-6 shooting guard | G League Elite We’re getting into a type here in the late lottery: Guys with poor left-tail outcomes because of their shooting, but enough on the right tail to make them worth pursuing regardless. Daniels isn’t a freak athlete, shot 52.5 percent from the line and 27.3 percent from 3 in the G League and needs an hour and a half to uncork his outside shot. I’m a big fan anyway. Few players I saw this year were more obviously about the right things than Daniels; even as his teammates with Elite did whatever the hell it was they were doing, he was very consciously trying to play the right way, hit the open man and compete on defense. He guarded every opponent’s best player and was good at it, with size, competitiveness and anticipation for steals. He has a point guard’s handle and is a plus passer. While he isn’t an above-the-rim athlete, he’s able to finish in transition and draw fouls in the lane. An Australian who is the same age as this year’s one-and-dones, Daniels came away with a statistical projection from his G League season that should be pretty positive: He averaged nearly two assists for every turnover, shot 54.9 percent inside the arc, had an 11.0 percent rebound rate from the guard spot and had high rates of steals and blocks. Some scouts I talked to compare him to Memphis’ Kyle Anderson in terms of an iffy shooter who can impact the game despite not being an elite athlete, but Daniels has more high-end outcomes than that because there is still time for his shot to come around. 10. Josh Minott | 6-8 freshman | SF/PF | Memphis Jalen Duren and, to a lesser extent, Emoni Bates got a lot of the attention on Memphis this year, while Minott saw his role fluctuate wildly, and he was hardly playing by the end of the year. Minott is also a bad shooter (2 of 14 on 3s in 2021-22) and will be 19 1/2 on draft day, making him a bit old for a freshman. And yet … the analytics on Minott are really impressive, with a sky-high steal rate of a big forward (3.6 per 100 possessions in AAC play), a positive assist-turnover rate and a 14.4 percent rebound rate despite often paying next to a lottery center. History says it would be folly to ignore a player who passes this deftly and gets his hand on this many balls at the defensive end. Even the shooting has some promise — he hit 75.4 percent from the line. It’s not like he was an empty offensive force either, scoring a very respectable 25.3 points per 100 possessions. He didn’t play much, but when he did, he was quite effective. Vid Defensively, Minott can be tight-hipped and slow with his first slide, and a bit over-reliant on using his hands to compensate for it. He also picks up a lot of fouls that way, part of his insane foul rate (6.2 per 100 possessions). That said, Minott probably plays closer to the dribbler of any other player I saw in this size class, which is notable — players tell on themselves by how much cushion they give the dribbler. Minott has tremendous hands and long arms and legs; he uses the former to flick the ball from unsuspecting dribblers, and the latter to make up ground if he’s initially beat. Minott goes for the ball a bit too often, a high-risk strategy that can leave an open downhill run if it fails, and because he’s thin and has a high center of gravity, he can pick up fouls when opponents get into his body or spin off him.
