APBRmetrics

Dr Positivity wrote: Top 5

1. C Joel Embiid
2. SG Nik Stauskas
3. PF Noah Vonleh
4. PF Julius Randle
5. SG Jordan Adams

No offense intended btw - but odd list. Most draft models aren't gonna like Randle that much. You aren't the first that I've seen list Jordan Adams above his teammate Kyle Anderson - but I've watched a ton of Bruin games, & that's hard for me wrap my brain around. My draft model will probably like Adams, but VERY doubtful more than Anderson. My eyes really like Anderson, I love guys with diversity in their games. Both are very much old school type players - very instinctual but not as "athletic" as people seem to now expect from their draft prospects.

Vonleh seems forgotten about by most - mainly because of all the Embiid/Parker/Wiggins talk. No Parker or Wiggins (yet still Randle), eyebrow raising.

I like Anderson, though I see all the reasons to be concerned about Otto Porter last year (who I also had around 20th) true for him as well. He really needs 3pt shooting he's not guaranteed to have, while defensively he'll be combination of young and slow and thus hard to contribute for years, even if having long term potential in the area. I think he need a few things to go right to be a starter and is a few things going wrong from being a journeyman lost in the shuffle, so that sounds like a fringe top 20 pick to me

One of the reasons I like Randle more than others is belief in his perimeter shooting. Not necessarily 3s, but midrange. That hasn't been the biggest part of his game this year, but between the history of his perimeter shooting in high school, a FT in the 70s for a PF and that he's jacked up some 3 attempts at UK, like Anthony Davis I think there's reason to see it as a part of his game at the next level. When added to his tools to score in the paint, to me that would make him quite a dynamic offensive PF talent to me.

Statman...
"You aren't the first that I've seen list Jordan Adams above his teammate Kyle Anderson - but I've watched a ton of Bruin games, & that's hard for me wrap my brain around."

I feel the same way. I have watched a lot of UCLA, and while both players rate really high statistically, I consistently walk away thinking "Wow Anderson is really good" and "Huh... not sure how Adams puts up the numbers he does".

Dr. Positivity...
"I like Anderson, though I see all the reasons to be concerned about Otto Porter last year (who I also had around 20th) true for him as well."

I agree with much of your reasoning here... but for what it is worth, statistically Otto Porter is much closer to Adams than Anderson. There are no good historical NCAA comps for Anderson, but I like Kukoc and Diaw as more subjective comps.

Lol, have you guys already given up on Otto Porter?

Obviously too early to completely give up on Porter, but the list of guys to fail this hard as rookies and become more than marginal players isn't very long.

On a related note... Cody Zeller looks to be turning his season around over the past month and change.

VJL wrote:Obviously too early to completely give up on Porter, but the list of guys to fail this hard as rookies and become more than marginal players isn't very long.

On a related note... Cody Zeller looks to be turning his season around over the past month and change.

Yeah, when some people pointed out KO's splits, it appears the same is true of Cody. This is a brutal rookie class but it's too soon to label them ALL busts...

Over here -- viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8377&p=18949#p18949
-- you can see rookies who have come on as late; gone sour of late; started hot, faded, and bounced back; etc.

I think that poor Otto is (thus far) a casualty of really bad luck and pretty bad coaching, namely:

- 2 guys having much better years than expected (Ariza, Webster),
- his team spending most of the year fighting for 3rd while fearing 9th,
- WAS not (yet) having a D League team all to themselves, and
- being stuck standing in the corner a lot (ie doing what Ariza does, and should be doing), when he himself can't shoot that well (yet).

Washington is fighting hard for the playoffs and better seeding, and given Ariza's good shooting this season Porter is just pushed completely out of the rotation. He's averaging nine minutes a game, and it's hard for players to play well in such opportunities. He's also coming off an injury, and he's only 20 years old.

Any more thoughts on Doug McDermott? What's his best comparison? How much will he be able to score in the pros?

I don't want to be too negative about McDermott, but I definitely don't think he is a wise choice in the lottery. His steals, blocks, and distribution stats are absolutely terrible for a prospect, and have been throughout his college career. That said, his scoring ability is pretty unique as well.

My favorite optimistic comp for him is "The Rifleman" Chuck Person. Dan Langhi and Luke Harangody are currently his closest statistical comparisons.

Porter can still turn himself into a good player. It would appear he's at a high risk of being a bust, with a good player but not star upside. So for the 3rd overall pick that makes him regrettable

talkingpractice wrote:I think that poor Otto is (thus far) a casualty of really bad luck and pretty bad coaching, namely:

- 2 guys having much better years than expected (Ariza, Webster),
...

Don't blame Martell Webster; his numbers aren't up from last year.Webster's shooting a lot more 3's this year, but not as well as last year (42% to 39%). His FTA are down by 1/3.
Across the board modest declines in Reb%, Ast%, Stl%, and Usg%

Can you throw in PJ Hairston?

VJL wrote: I agree with much of your reasoning here... but for what it is worth, statistically Otto Porter is much closer to Adams than Anderson. There are no good historical NCAA comps for Anderson, but I like Kukoc and Diaw as more subjective comps.

Luke Walton (I think specifically jr year-pre injury) as a comp? I believe KA has better shooting %'s & bs/st rates. Rich man's Luke Walton.

Other college comps statistically - maybe Royce White with better effective range, but KA is more perimeter oriented but can rebound as opposed to post oriented can pass (Draymond Green fits the latter also)?

Also - I can't help but thing how good KA & Adams & Lavine (and middling future international pro's like the Wears, Parker, etc.) if they had a better strength & conditioning (& nutrition?) program there. It's VERY obvious when they play Arizona - the Arizona guys are all very cut w/ very low body fat - all of them. The UCLA guys the last number of years look like old school players - guys who don't really lift (little defined musculature), get outta shape in the offseason, etc. Love never leaned out at all until the pros, Josh Smith a few years ago showed TONS (no pun intended) of promise on the court as a frosh - and progressively got fatter and fatter to where he couldn't move well enough defensively to keep from fouling and had little cardio.

There Arizona kids show big improvements in body sculpture in just a few months - they all look like NBA bodies at 18/19/20 years old out there. UCLA kids, they slim down (alike Shabazz Muhammad/Anderson/Adams) some as the season goes (from the preseason looking outta shape), but that's about it.

Having said all that - I can't help but think a pro S&C & nutrition program might lend to a more explosive/stronger Anderson & Adams - and a stronger Lavine. Upside there?

talkingpractice wrote:I think that poor Otto is (thus far) a casualty of really bad luck and pretty bad coaching, namely:

- 2 guys having much better years than expected (Ariza, Webster),
- his team spending most of the year fighting for 3rd while fearing 9th,
- WAS not (yet) having a D League team all to themselves, and
- being stuck standing in the corner a lot (ie doing what Ariza does, and should be doing), when he himself can't shoot that well (yet).

Didn't Otto Porter have off season injuries/surgery? I'm pretty certain he wasn't "ready" until some time into the season - which meant the coach had no work with him in the offseason to see how to make him fit.

I bet Porter blossoms a bit in the course of the next couple years, barring injury. The circumstances weren't right for an even mediocre rookie year.