Top prospects: Star potential and fit

#1
These are two things I tend to look at when evaluating the top of a draft. The first is obviously much more important. If you can draft a star player, especially an all-NBA level talent, you do that and figure out how to balance the roster later if need be. How a player fits with the current roster shouldn't be much of a determining factor unless two prospects are relatively equal in other regards. That said, if the Kings want to win next season, it probably does matter a bit more than it would normally.

Obviously just my opinion, but here's how I would rank the top prospects:

Paolo Banchero

Star potential: High

Banchero is a big wing with great scoring instincts, a really good handle for his size, and advanced playmaking skills. He could potentially be the focal point of an offense with his ability to score from all three levels and transition between quickness/finesse and power moves really well. His outside shot is inconsistent and he'll need to improve there to reach his potential, but there are very few holes in his offensive game.

Fit: Decent

Banchero CAN be a decent individual defender when engaged, but he often just didn't give much effort on that end. He's a pretty good team defender and directs traffic well, but often gets caught ball watching and loses his man. He also offers little rim protection. So he's likely not going to improve a bad Kings defense. He also operates best in the midrange so he's not going to be a great floor spacer. On the other hand, having two bigs that can both playmake would give visions of the old Vlade/Webber Kings. You'd need shooters at the other two spots but it could work.

Chet Holmgren

Star potential: Medium

I'm a big Holmgren fan. He's potentially an elite rim protector with an incredible feel for blocking shots and keeping them in play. He can stretch the floor, has fantastic touch near the hoop, rebounds well, shows really strong playmaking potential, and handles and moves very well for a 7 footer. At his best Holmgren can affect the game in a number of ways. So why don't I view him to have high star potential? Because I don't think Holmgren will ever be able to impose his will on a defense. I don't see a way that you can toss him the ball and ask him to get you a bucket. But he'd be able to impact the game in a lot of ways. So while I don't think he's ever a traditional "star" level player, at his best he could be Gobert-like on defense without getting run off the floor when teams go small and/or pick and roll him over and over while also doing a little of everything on offense. That's potentially a star player.

Fit: It depends

Holmgren played with Timme and made it work but it wasn't ideal for either of them. Sabonis is a bit more versatile on offense than Timme and they could definitely run some two man game. If Cleveland made it work on offense with Jarett Allen and Evan Mobley I think the Kings definitely could with Holmgren and Sabonis. But on defense, Cleveland's plan worked because Mobley has the quickness to defend wings on the perimeter. Holmgren moves well for a seven footer, but he's not Mobley. Chet is engaged and active on perimeter switches, he flips his hips well, takes good angles, and uses his length to recover when beaten. But while that worked on the NCAA level I don't know if he'll be as successful against bigger, stronger, and faster NBA wings and guards. And if he can't do a decent job of defending on the perimeter then it makes it really hard to play he and Domas together.

Jabari Smith Jr

Star potential: Medium

Smith should be a very good NBA player for a long time. He is an elite shooter at 6'10" who is switchable on defense. He's also one of the youngest players in this class while apparently being very coachable and a hard worker. For a lot of prospects developing an outside shot is the swing skill that could take them from good to great. Smith already has that. He makes more tough, contested jumpers than pretty much any prospect I've watched the last few years. But he's not a strong vertical athlete, struggles to score inside and plays pretty stiff with a shaky handle. There's a lot there he'd need to clean up but with such a high floor to start with I think his bust potential is very low and given the leap he made the last year I wouldn't bet against him.

Fit: Ideal

Smith Jr spaces the floor and is switchable on defense. With Fox and Domas he'd be able to ease into the league as a stretch 4 who isn't asked to do a ton more right away. Of all the top prospects he is maybe the best fit with the current Kings "core".

Jaden Ivey

Star potential: Medium to high

I like Ivey. He's a lot of fun to watch, especially his highlights. Watching full games you see more of his warts, but he's still special athletically and has an underrated outside shot. But I see him compared to Ja Morant a fair amount and there's a huge distinction to be made. Ivey right now isn't a lead guard. His A/TO ratio is just above one and he's a good playmaker for a SG but he's not a PG at this stage. Big athletic PGs like Morant, Westbrook, pre-injury Derrick Rose have a great shot at being star players. Ivey, again right now at least, would be closer to Zach LaVine, Donovan Mitchell, Victor Oladipo, or (as a best case comp) Dwayne Wade as a slightly undersized but super athletic SG rather than a big, athletic PG. It doesn't mean he can't be a star, but it's a little higher climb. That said, he has an insanely quick first step, is a great finisher at the basket, stepped up in big games/crunchtime and shot 37% from three on decent volume, with many of his shots well beyond the NBA three. His defense was generally not good, but he could turn it up as an on ball defender when he chose to.

Fit: Not great

Ivey does work well as a cutter so he and Sabonis would have some highlight plays for sure. And he can shoot from outside but rarely from midrange so he's not going to clog up the paint for Fox or Sabonis. But having two attacking guards, one who shoots okay and one who shoots poor to okay (if De'Aaron's post trade shooting splits are to be believed) and who are often indifferent on defense despite their physical gifts doesn't seem like a great recipe for success. Again, if McNair thinks Ivey is a star, you take him and figure out the rest. But IMO the fit isn't great. That said, I think there's a decent chance Ivey goes top 3.

More to come.
 
#2
Keegan Murray

Star potential: low

Murray is likely a 12 year NBA player who fits on almost any roster. He won't score inside at the same rate at the next level so he'll need to adjust a bit, but I think he'll figure it out. He's a solid, relatively switchable defender who just knows how to play the game. He'll be 22 to start the season and is a good but not great athlete who does a lot well but nothing exceptionally and who hasn't shown playmaking skills which is why I don't see a clear path to him being an NBA star, but given that he took a huge leap later than most, it's still certainly possible.

Fit: Pretty good

Murray's lack of playmaking is mitigated somewhat by playing with Fox and Sabonis and he and Barnes would make for a pretty versatile set of forwards. Murray does like to work in the paint (as does Barnes) and while he shot it well this year, he was under 30% from the college 3 last year and his FT% is good but not great. So spacing might be a bit of an issue. But overall he's a safe pick that should contribute right away.

Shaedon Sharpe

Star potential: Who knows?

Sharpe has the size, athleticism and shooting potential to be a big time SG/wing. But it's so hard to project him based on EYBL footage from a year ago. He has some plusses like his secondary playmaking ability, rebounding, and timing on cuts to the basket. But he also has a loose handle, a non-elite first step, and some really troubling habits on defense. I was in favor of Sharpe initially because he represents a home run swing and a chance to get a potential #1 level player at #4 but the more I've watched of him the more nervous he makes me.

Fit: Initially poor, possibly good in time.

Sharpe didn't play a minute of college basketball. He's going to take a long time to acclimate. He's not LeBron, he isn't going to be able to contribute right away. Kobe Bryant's transition to the NBA might be a best case scenario and that took some time. But IF he hits, Sharpe eventually represents a good shooter who can create his own shot and can draw defenses and then make the right read to hit an open teammate. He has the tools to possibly switch 1-3 on defense and flashes some go-to scorer skills. But he's a big gamble.

Jalen Duran

Star potential: Low

I like Duren. I think he'll be a rim protector and rebounder who gets easy buckets in transition, off the pick & roll, and on dumpoffs in the dunker's spot. He'll likely contribute right away and just get better as he's the youngest of the players likely to be drafted. But in today's NBA he doesn't really have a path to being a star. He doesn't have a real low post game, doesn't stretch the floor, and isn't super switchable on defense. He can absolutely help a team the same way we've seen Robert Williams be a big part of the Celtics, but he is very unlikely to ever be a go to scorer or the best player on a good team.

Fit: Terrible.

He wouldn't be able to play alongside Sabonis and he doesn't space the floor for either Domas and Fox. When I thought the Kings would pick at 7 or 8 I thought a trade down with Charlotte for #13 and #15 made a lot of sense for both teams. But at #4 there's no reason for the Kings to select Duren.

Benedict Mathurin

Star potential: Medium to low

Mathurin combines good size/physical tools, shooting, and athleticism which make him intriguing. He also seems to play with a chip on his shoulder. Right now he doesn't show a great ability to create his own shot beyond pulling up for jumpers and he struggles to finish at the basket. He does offer some playmaking potential but he also has poor fundamentals and effort on defense. That said, I could see him possibly becoming a Devin Booker like player. Maybe not as crafty, but more athletic.

Fit: Great

Mathurin stretches the floor and attacks hard on cuts to the basket. He looks like a great SG for Fox and Sabonis. Moreso than Ivey or Sharpe, Mathurin can be effective without dominating the ball. But given Fox's lapses he'd HAVE to get better and more consistent on defense to prevent a layup drill by opposing backcourts.
 
Last edited:
#3
These are two things I tend to look at when evaluating the top of a draft. The first is obviously much more important. If you can draft a star player, especially an all-NBA level talent, you do that and figure out how to balance the roster later if need be. How a player fits with the current roster shouldn't be much of a determining factor unless two prospects are relatively equal in other regards. That said, if the Kings want to win next season, it probably does matter a bit more than it would normally.

Obviously just my opinion, but here's how I would rank the top prospects:

Paolo Banchero

Star potential: High

Banchero is a big wing with great scoring instincts, a really good handle for his size, and advanced playmaking skills. He could potentially be the focal point of an offense with his ability to score from all three levels and transition between quickness/finesse and power moves really well. His outside shot is inconsistent and he'll need to improve there to reach his potential, but there are very few holes in his offensive game.

Fit: Decent

Banchero CAN be a decent individual defender when engaged, but he often just didn't give much effort on that end. He's a pretty good team defender and directs traffic well, but often gets caught ball watching and loses his man. He also offers little rim protection. So he's likely not going to improve a bad Kings defense. He also operates best in the midrange so he's not going to be a great floor spacer. On the other hand, having two bigs that can both playmake would give visions of the old Vlade/Webber Kings. You'd need shooters at the other two spots but it could work.

Chet Holmgren

Star potential: Medium

I'm a big Holmgren fan. He's potentially an elite rim protector with an incredible feel for blocking shots and keeping them in play. He can stretch the floor, has fantastic touch near the hoop, rebounds well, shows really strong playmaking potential, and handles and moves very well for a 7 footer. At his best Holmgren can affect the game in a number of ways. So why don't I view him to have high star potential? Because I don't think Holmgren will ever be able to impose his will on a defense. I don't see a way that you can toss him the ball and ask him to get you a bucket. But he'd be able to impact the game in a lot of ways. So while I don't think he's ever a traditional "star" level player, at his best he could be Gobert-like on defense without getting run off the floor when teams go small and/or pick and roll him over and over while also doing a little of everything on offense. That's potentially a star player.

Fit: It depends

Holmgren played with Timme and made it work but it wasn't ideal for either of them. Sabonis is a bit more versatile on offense than Timme and they could definitely run some two man game. If Cleveland made it work on offense with Jarett Allen and Evan Mobley I think the Kings definitely could with Holmgren and Sabonis. But on defense, Cleveland's plan worked because Mobley has the quickness to defend wings on the perimeter. Holmgren moves well for a seven footer, but he's not Mobley. Chet is engaged and active on perimeter switches, he flips his hips well, takes good angles, and uses his length to recover when beaten. But while that worked on the NCAA level I don't know if he'll be as successful against bigger, stronger, and faster NBA wings and guards. And if he can't do a decent job of defending on the perimeter then it makes it really hard to play he and Domas together.

Jabari Smith Jr

Star potential: Medium

Smith should be a very good NBA player for a long time. He is an elite shooter at 6'10" who is switchable on defense. He's also one of the youngest players in this class while apparently being very coachable and a hard worker. For a lot of prospects developing an outside shot is the swing skill that could take them from good to great. Smith already has that. He makes more tough, contested jumpers than pretty much any prospect I've watched the last few years. But he's not a strong vertical athlete, struggles to score inside and plays pretty stiff with a shaky handle. There's a lot there he'd need to clean up but with such a high floor to start with I think his bust potential is very low and given the leap he made the last year I wouldn't bet against him.

Fit: Ideal

Smith Jr spaces the floor and is switchable on defense. With Fox and Domas he'd be able to ease into the league as a stretch 4 who isn't asked to do a ton more right away. Of all the top prospects he is maybe the best fit with the current Kings "core".

Jaden Ivey

Star potential: Medium to high

I like Ivey. He's a lot of fun to watch, especially his highlights. Watching full games you see more of his warts, but he's still special athletically and has an underrated outside shot. But I see him compared to Ja Morant a fair amount and there's a huge distinction to be made. Ivey right now isn't a lead guard. His A/TO ratio is just above one and he's a good playmaker for a SG but he's not a PG at this stage. Big athletic PGs like Morant, Westbrook, pre-injury Derrick Rose have a great shot at being star players. Ivey, again right now at least, would be closer to Zach LaVine, Donovan Mitchell, Victor Oladipo, or (as a best case comp) Dwayne Wade as a slightly undersized but super athletic SG rather than a big, athletic PG. It doesn't mean he can't be a star, but it's a little higher climb. That said, he has an insanely quick first step, is a great finisher at the basket, stepped up in big games/crunchtime and shot 37% from three on decent volume, with many of his shots well beyond the NBA three. His defense was generally not good, but he could turn it up as an on ball defender when he chose to.

Fit: Not great

Ivey does work well as a cutter so he and Sabonis would have some highlight plays for sure. And he can shoot from outside but rarely from midrange so he's not going to clog up the paint for Fox or Sabonis. But having two attacking guards, one who shoots okay and one who shoots poor to okay (if De'Aaron's post trade shooting splits are to be believed) and who are often indifferent on defense despite their physical gifts doesn't seem like a great recipe for success. Again, if McNair thinks Ivey is a star, you take him and figure out the rest. But IMO the fit isn't great. That said, I think there's a decent chance Ivey goes top 3.

More to come.
Since before the tourney, Banchero has been my #1 prospect. He has the highest floor of the top picks--yes, even higher than Murray. And also has one of the highest ceilings. My fave for ROTY.

While fair, I really think there's something there with Daniels. The rate of his growth--physically, his skills, and his shot--indicate he's a dude, who's ceiling is much higher than where it is currently projected to be. Bet on the velocity.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#4
In general I try to stay away from who will or will not be a star. Mostly because it too subjective, and most arguments, one way or the other prior to a player actually playing in the NBA are abstract arguments. Meaning, they can't be proven. We all have our opinion! When I started doing this sort of thing, I used to put much more value on so called upside than I do now. Now I'm more of a results guy. Results are what I see with my eye's, and the stats that verify what my eye's see.

With that in mind, to me, Murray was the best player available over Ivey. The only way you could put Ivey ahead of Murray is by projecting his future results, which can't be proven. You can make an educated guess based on the information that he's a hard worker, that everyone who knows him says he's a great teammate and he wants to be great, etc. I originally thought that Donte Greene could become a star in the league, but he got his first big paycheck, and was content with that. Walt Williams was loaded with talent. He should have been a star, but he didn't have the drive and loved eating more than working out. Point is, you don't really know.

I watched Murray play in over 20 games, plus all the film I could watch on sites that specialize in breaking down a player. Did the same with Ivey, and came to the conclusion that right now, today, Murray is the better player, which to my mind, means he was the best player available. The fact that he also fit a need was a bonus. Now whether he becomes a star or not is a question I can't answer. But back when Kawhi Leonard was in the draft, I doubt anyone predicted he would become a superstar. He was my pick that year and I loved his game, but I never for a moment thought he would become the player he is today. Ditto Paul George...

Some critic's say that Murray's game is boring. That he's not exciting to watch, like for instance, Ivey. But Tim Duncan's game was boring. Would anyone turn down Duncan on their team. All Murray did was everything his team asked him to do, and in the process became the best player in college basketball. You pointed out that in his freshman year, he only shot 29% from three, which could imply that maybe that was an outlier. Almost making it look like a negative. But at the same time, most people tout Ivey's 10 percentage point improvement in three pt percentage as a positive. While at the same time they roll their eye's at Murray's jump from 30% to 40% from three.

So lets look at that. Ivey shot close to 44% from three the first half of the season, but as the season went on, and his volume went up, and other teams starting defending him more intensely, his percentage in the second half of the season went down to around 28% which dropped his overall average to close to 37%. Murray actually did the opposite. He started the season shooting around 32% from three, but as the season wore on, and he became the focus of the other teams defense, being double teamed almost every time he touched the ball, and his volume went up, he shot almost 45% in the 2nd half of the season, rounding out his season average at just a tick under 40%.

The main difference between Murray and Ivey other than height and Ivey's athleticism, is that Ivey has flare and flash to his game. He'll bring ooh's and ahh's multiple times in a game, while Murray just goes about his business of winning. Over the years I've learned to bet my money on what is, over what could be. That's why I wanted Franz Wagner last season. And Haliburton the season before. This year it was Murray. Good write up by the way. I enjoyed reading it..
 
#5
In general I try to stay away from who will or will not be a star. Mostly because it too subjective, and most arguments, one way or the other prior to a player actually playing in the NBA are abstract arguments. Meaning, they can't be proven. We all have our opinion! When I started doing this sort of thing, I used to put much more value on so called upside than I do now. Now I'm more of a results guy. Results are what I see with my eye's, and the stats that verify what my eye's see.

With that in mind, to me, Murray was the best player available over Ivey. The only way you could put Ivey ahead of Murray is by projecting his future results, which can't be proven. You can make an educated guess based on the information that he's a hard worker, that everyone who knows him says he's a great teammate and he wants to be great, etc. I originally thought that Donte Greene could become a star in the league, but he got his first big paycheck, and was content with that. Walt Williams was loaded with talent. He should have been a star, but he didn't have the drive and loved eating more than working out. Point is, you don't really know.

I watched Murray play in over 20 games, plus all the film I could watch on sites that specialize in breaking down a player. Did the same with Ivey, and came to the conclusion that right now, today, Murray is the better player, which to my mind, means he was the best player available. The fact that he also fit a need was a bonus. Now whether he becomes a star or not is a question I can't answer. But back when Kawhi Leonard was in the draft, I doubt anyone predicted he would become a superstar. He was my pick that year and I loved his game, but I never for a moment thought he would become the player he is today. Ditto Paul George...

Some critic's say that Murray's game is boring. That he's not exciting to watch, like for instance, Ivey. But Tim Duncan's game was boring. Would anyone turn down Duncan on their team. All Murray did was everything his team asked him to do, and in the process became the best player in college basketball. You pointed out that in his freshman year, he only shot 29% from three, which could imply that maybe that was an outlier. Almost making it look like a negative. But at the same time, most people tout Ivey's 10 percentage point improvement in three pt percentage as a positive. While at the same time they roll their eye's at Murray's jump from 30% to 40% from three.

So lets look at that. Ivey shot close to 44% from three the first half of the season, but as the season went on, and his volume went up, and other teams starting defending him more intensely, his percentage in the second half of the season went down to around 28% which dropped his overall average to close to 37%. Murray actually did the opposite. He started the season shooting around 32% from three, but as the season wore on, and he became the focus of the other teams defense, being double teamed almost every time he touched the ball, and his volume went up, he shot almost 45% in the 2nd half of the season, rounding out his season average at just a tick under 40%.

The main difference between Murray and Ivey other than height and Ivey's athleticism, is that Ivey has flare and flash to his game. He'll bring ooh's and ahh's multiple times in a game, while Murray just goes about his business of winning. Over the years I've learned to bet my money on what is, over what could be. That's why I wanted Franz Wagner last season. And Haliburton the season before. This year it was Murray. Good write up by the way. I enjoyed reading it..
While I was leaning more so towards wanting Monte to draft Ivey just because of the star potential in the kid, I will admit that I do not have anywhere close to the amount of knowledge that you obviously have on the draft prospects. And based on your comments over the past couple of months, I am convinced that I will still be happy with having Murray on the Kings, although a little less happy than if we had Ivey. But I am not going to lose any sleep over who we drafted, because Murray, by far, was number 1b on my draft board. And I was able to convince myself that, because of it, I would be happy with either pick at the end of the day.