Possible lottery picks in the 2022 draft:

E

ESP47

All-Star
#211
#211
hrdboild said:
The only point I was trying to make is that if we filter out all older prospects that means missing on some really good players too. I don't think Keegan Murray is in any way comparable to Wade, I just don't think age is a criterion worth considering on its own unless/until a more direct correlation can be made between existing performance and eventual success in the NBA. That list has some good players on it, some notable busts, and a hall of famer. You could probably make a similar list of players at any age drafted in the top 5 -- there's just a larger sample size of younger players to sort through.

Age in particular isn't something I consider but I have always felt like Seniors putting up huge numbers should be looked at with suspicion because part of their success may be that they spent 4 years learning how to succeed in a league where there's significant turnover and top players usually only stay 1 or 2 years. If they are elite enough to be drafted in the lottery, why are they still in college in year 4? I want to have a good answer to that question if I'm committing a top 10 pick. Murray is a sophomore and there's already a long track record of players elevating their game in year 2 and then continuing to elevate it in the NBA. So that's where I lie on the issue. I like his skillset -- I think he has NBA quality offensive moves and enough defensive awareness to defend both wing positions. He's probably more of a Harrison Barnes replacement than compliment eventually, but that's a fit issue and I feel like that would work itself out anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's why it would be nice to see what the 6-10 range would look like with that criteria filtered.

I'm not quite understanding why age in particular isn't something you consider but you do look at seniors putting up big numbers as skeptical. Maybe Keegan hasn't spent much time in the NCAA as some other players but he is older than nearly every other sophomore, which means he's had another year or year and a half to work on his game in some capacity. I think all of it needs to be taken into some sort of consideration. He's not quite a true sophomore putting up these numbers but he's not quite a junior or senior either. It's just something to take into account when scouting him.

Agreed on the Barnes comparison. I can see him having the Barnes inside game lightyears before Barnes developed it but it's a longshot that his outside shot will ever be as good as Barnes.
 
hrdboild

hrdboild

Moloch in whom I dream Angels!
Staff member
#212
#212
ESP47 said:
Yeah that's why it would be nice to see what the 6-10 range would look like with that criteria filtered.

I'm not quite understanding why age in particular isn't something you consider but you do look at seniors putting up big numbers as skeptical. Maybe Keegan hasn't spent much time in the NCAA as some other players but he is older than nearly every other sophomore, which means he's had another year or year and a half to work on his game in some capacity. I think all of it needs to be taken into some sort of consideration. He's not quite a true sophomore putting up these numbers but he's not quite a junior or senior either. It's just something to take into account when scouting him.

Agreed on the Barnes comparison. I can see him having the Barnes inside game lightyears before Barnes developed it but it's a longshot that his outside shot will ever be as good as Barnes.
Click to expand...
Because I see them as unconnected issues. People develop physically and mentally on different timelines. One player may be done growing at age 18 and another may still be growing at age 22. One player may have lifted weights since they were 12 and another might have just started when they got to college. So I don't see age as a one-to-one comparison in the same way that "years spent in a top college program" can be.
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#213
#213
ESP47 said:
Davis is a wild card for me. I really like his game but if his 3pt shot doesn't come around, it'll be difficult to win with our current core. I'm seeing what you're seeing on the defensive end as well. He's not too cool to defend like many offensively talented players. The same issues can be seen with Murray as well. If he can score inside the arc but can't shoot very well, his skills are going to overlap with the players we already have and make the team easier to defend than need be. If these guys could shoot from the outside as well as continue their all around offensive development, then they could become a shooter when Fox and Sabonis have the ball and become the go to guy when they don't.

How come you have Griffin over Mathurin? If Griffin is the best shooter of the group, then Mathurin is 2nd with a wide gap between him and the other guys. I just feel like Mathurin has more of a multi dimensional game than Griffin. He would work well with Fox and Sabonis but could also maybe handle some of the load himself if those guys aren't on the floor. Griffin seems a bit more reliant on other players to make him look good. Neither are bad defenders but I do like Mathurin's defense a little more.
Click to expand...
All 4 are really close to me and I wouldn't be mad if we drafted any of them at 5. But I think Griffin has more on-ball skill than he's shown at Duke (team context where they don't need him to create very much) and I think he has more upside as a 2-4 flex defender than Mathurin. I'm not entirely sure how well Mathurin will defend 3's if he has to full time. He's got the size/wingspan, but perhaps a little slim right now

It's interesting having these prospect discussions because I think Griffin actually has a higher ceiling than Mathurin, but a lower floor if the on-ball game doesn't keep developing. I think Mathurin pretty clearly is gonna be a starter, but I'm not entirely sure what is ceiling looks like. He's pretty good at everything, but nothing to me stands out as a super elite level skill.
 
iowamcnabb

iowamcnabb

Hall of Famer
#214
#214
The age thing with Murray is different imo. He went to a post graduate academy in Florida after high school in hopes of getting more college offers. Signed with Iowa the next season and then played a smaller role on an Iowa team that was top ten ranked for a big chunk of the year and had high hopes going into the tourney. In his first year as the centerpiece he has totally dominated and is essentially a Junior with 2 college years of experience.
 
Tetsujin

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#218
#218
People are going to be talking about the missed free throws but Keegan Murray had another BIG performance (22 points/11 rebounds/4 blocks) in a close loss to Illinois.
 
iowamcnabb

iowamcnabb

Hall of Famer
#220
#220
Tetsujin said:
People are going to be talking about the missed free throws but Keegan Murray had another BIG performance (22 points/11 rebounds/4 blocks) in a close loss to Illinois.
Click to expand...
Yeh, I think unless he bombs in the tourney he is the Franz Wagner of this draft. Different players and skill sets but too valuable of a prototype to fall down the board. I think he probably goes 5 or maybe 6 if Sharpe declares.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#223
#223
sactowndog said:
You say that but statistical data has proven the opposite is more likely. College free throw shooting is the best predictor of shooting success at the pro level.
Click to expand...
Came back for an update. Murray has his 3pt percentage up to 38.5% which is pretty good, and his freethrow percentage up to 72.4%. I know your a stats guy, but there's more to judging a player than stats. Murray's form is pretty good, and more importantly consistent. I've watched a lot of players shoot the ball, and there are some that I know almost immediately that they will never be good shooters. One of the reasons I didn't like Marcus Smart. I've never gotten that vibe from Murray. He looks like a shooter. The problem with his freethrow shooting, in my humble opinion, is that he simply doesn't get the proper amount of backspin on his shot. It's not a problem he has with his regular jumper. If I'm correct, then that's an easy fix!
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#224
#224
bajaden said:
Came back for an update. Murray has his 3pt percentage up to 38.5% which is pretty good, and his freethrow percentage up to 72.4%. I know your a stats guy, but there's more to judging a player than stats. Murray's form is pretty good, and more importantly consistent. I've watched a lot of players shoot the ball, and there are some that I know almost immediately that they will never be good shooters. One of the reasons I didn't like Marcus Smart. I've never gotten that vibe from Murray. He looks like a shooter. The problem with his freethrow shooting, in my humble opinion, is that he simply doesn't get the proper amount of backspin on his shot. It's not a problem he has with his regular jumper. If I'm correct, then that's an easy fix!
Click to expand...
I think Murray along with Johnny Davis too that we can expect they'll get quite a few more open catch&shoot opportunities at the NBA level when they aren't the sole focus of the defenses attention. Both guys have to be near the top in terms of unassisted points in the NCAA with how much their teams rely on their scoring creation. That's a big reason I'm really high on both; they're such smart offensive players that we should see their efficiency go up with a lower usage role.
 
J

Jc121

G-League
#225
#225
I was rooting to draft Bagley so I will have no wish to make any suggestions. Now I kinda got that off my chest what does sharpe bring to the table.
I figure he is a shot in the dark but would we really take a flyer on him? I would think we would have a better idea if and when he does workouts.
 
Tetsujin

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#226
#226
Jc121 said:
I was rooting to draft Bagley so I will have no wish to make any suggestions. Now I kinda got that off my chest what does sharpe bring to the table.
I figure he is a shot in the dark but would we really take a flyer on him? I would think we would have a better idea if and when he does workouts.
Click to expand...
Sharpe is the ultimate wildcard. Not only do we not know if he’s going to be in this draft, we also haven’t seen him play above the high school level.

That said Sharpe has all the tools you could ask for in a modern draft prospect. Wing size, guard skills, elite athleticism, good defensive instincts, excellent shot mechanics. If he hits, he’s probably the best player in this draft class. Also Mark Jones would be overjoyed to have the opportunity to mention the fact Shaedon is Canadian five times a game.

The problem is that there is just no film on the guy and we haven’t had the chance to see him go against even college athletes this season. Now sometimes that play against higher level competition can improve a guy’s stock as a prospect (Scoot Henderson, Zion Williamson, etc.), other times playing against college opponents can expose flaws in your game/make you look unbelievably bad and diminish your standing as a prospect (BJ Boston, Patrick Baldwin, Emoni Bates). Would I draft him over the top two guys in this class? No. Banchero or Ivey? Probably not unless he absolutely blows up during predraft workouts. Over Keegan, Griffin, Benedict, or Davis? Now that’s where things get interesting.

if I were OKC or Houston and just trying to swing for home runs, I’d absolutely pick him 5th overall. If I were the Kings and clearly on a bit of a faster timeline and trying to build around Sabonis and Fox, I’m still probably going with Keegan or Benedict or AJ, who to varying effect could probably come in and make an impact next to our stars from day one.
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#227
#227
bajaden said:
Came back for an update. Murray has his 3pt percentage up to 38.5% which is pretty good, and his freethrow percentage up to 72.4%. I know your a stats guy, but there's more to judging a player than stats. Murray's form is pretty good, and more importantly consistent. I've watched a lot of players shoot the ball, and there are some that I know almost immediately that they will never be good shooters. One of the reasons I didn't like Marcus Smart. I've never gotten that vibe from Murray. He looks like a shooter. The problem with his freethrow shooting, in my humble opinion, is that he simply doesn't get the proper amount of backspin on his shot. It's not a problem he has with his regular jumper. If I'm correct, then that's an easy fix!
Click to expand...
You can usually see a decent stroke, Murray has that for sure.
 
Tetsujin

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#232
#232
At this point, we might have to climb into the top 4 to have a chance at drafting Murray.
Keegan with 26/8/2/1/1 with no turnovers on 19 shots despite missing all his threes.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#235
#235
Well, just finished watching Keegan Murray and the Iowa Hawkeye's beat Rutgers. Personally, I'm all in on Murray. I'd have a hard time convincing myself that Banchero is better than Murray. He's taller and weighs more, and he's younger, but it ends there. Murray had his usual 26 pt's today, and that's all well and good, but it's all the little things that Murray does. He's a very smart basketball player, and when the game is on the line, it's those little things that he does that help win the game.

Just over 3 minutes and change left in the game, and Rutgers has gotten Iowa's lead down to 9 pt's, and they have the momentum. Iowa needs a basket, they take a shot and the rebound bounces off to the left side, and out of nowhere comes Murray beating everyone to the loose ball, he kicks it out to another teammate who launches another three, and the rebound bounces toward the right sideline, and yes, you guessed it, there's Murray all the way across the floor to grab another board. Iowa misses again and Rutger brings the ball down the floor. They have a cutter and the pass is made and Murray anticipates the pass, steals the ball and goes the length of the floor for a dunk.

A bit later Rutgers gets the ball to a player under the basket, and there's Murray with weakside help that causes a turnover. Believe me, I would love to have Holmgrem or Smith on the Kings, but if we could come away with Murray, I'd be happy as a clam. He knows how to play the game. In his last ten games prior to todays game he has scored, 26pt's, 22pt's, 23pt's, 26pt's, 15pt's, 28pt's, 24pt's, 23pt's, 37pt's, 30pt's. During that span he's averaged 57% overall, and 46% from the three. He also averaged 7.8 rebounds per game.

I honestly have never gotten this age thing. So your drafting a player that's 21 or 22 years old, and you have him on a rookie contract for 4 years meaning that he's then 25 or 26 years old. If he's a keeper you sign him to a 5 year extension which at the end of he's 30 or 31 years old. By this time he's been on your team for 9 years, which is longer than the average. In the case of Murray, you'd be drafting a younger player in hopes that in a couple of years, he might be as good as Murray is right now. Where is the logic in that. That's like throwing a diamond away and replacing it with a piece of coal and hoping that piece of coal turns into a diamond.

Also watched the Auburn game, and they got their butt's kicked. I don't think Auburn is going anywhere in the tournament. Their guard play is just horrible. Smith didn't shoot the three very well today, but shot the ball well overall for 17 pt's. Auburns guards or the chuckers as I like to call them combined to go 4 for 27 from the floor with Johnson going 0 for 14. Almost every shot Smith took was self created, and highly contested. The NBA will seem like a relief to him. I don't remember Kessler's exact stat line, but he went something like 5 for 8 from the floor. He only took 8 shots while his guards were chucking up 27 shots. unbelieveable! Wisconsin and Johnny Davis coming up next!
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#237
#237
kb02 said:
There’s a lot to like here: fundamentals, handles, passing, vision, anticipation on off and def, scoring with either hand, pivoting off of either foot. Only drawbacks: not sure if he’s 6’10, average athleticism, doesn’t show a consistent three point shot, average at best defender.

Built like Billy Owens. Has a similar game too.

https://twitter.com/statuses/1502468312546037760
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's just rare to see 6"10/240 dudes with his offensive skill-set. And after watching him more, he's a much better passer than I initially anticipated; very smart with reads and I think will be a +big man passer at the next level.

My concerns are similar. That if he doesn't hit a ceiling as a feature offensive scorer and the spacing doesn't improve, is he just destined to be Tobias Harris? I think he'll eventually be a passable defender where he's not actively hurting you, but I don't ever see it being a strength.
 
kb02

kb02

All-Star
#238
#238
The_Jamal said:
Yeah, it's just rare to see 6"10/240 dudes with his offensive skill-set. And after watching him more, he's a much better passer than I initially anticipated; very smart with reads and I think will be a +big man passer at the next level.

My concerns are similar. That if he doesn't hit a ceiling as a feature offensive scorer and the spacing doesn't improve, is he just destined to be Tobias Harris? I think he'll eventually be a passable defender where he's not actively hurting you, but I don't ever see it being a strength.
Click to expand...
Agree. He doesn’t have the ceiling as Holmgen or Smith, but dude is the most NBA ready of the three. His footwork, passing, and vision will enable him to produce even with just average athleticism immediately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.