Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Mikal Bridges in the pros is a role player. Hes caught in between height(sg vs sf) and doesnt make plays with the dribble.

Colin Sexton if hes available should be pick choice. Secondary picks would be Carter(Center) Knox(SF) SGA(PG) I think Trae Young will go top 5.

How is Bridges caught between positions? He is 6'7 with a 7'2 wingspan. Guys like Draymond Green are 6'7 playing some center. Bridges is has ideal SF size with the ability to slide over to PF when he fills out. He has SF height and PF/C length.

Colin Sexton is a player who performs with the dribble--its how the NBA is run. Honestly I dont see how either him or Young make it to 9 anyway. Bt if Sexton drops Id take him

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Mikal Bridges in the pros is a role player. Hes caught in between height(sg vs sf) and doesnt make plays with the dribble.

Colin Sexton if hes available should be pick choice. Secondary picks would be Carter(Center) Knox(SF) SGA(PG) I think Trae Young will go top 5.

How is Bridges caught between positions? He is 6'7 with a 7'2 wingspan. Guys like Draymond Green are 6'7 playing some center. Bridges is has ideal SF size with the ability to slide over to PF when he fills out. He has SF height and PF/C length.

Colin Sexton is a player who performs with the dribble--its how the NBA is run. Honestly I dont see how either him or Young make it to 9 anyway. Bt if Sexton drops Id take him

I like both of them. Burke may have reduced the need for a playmaking guard. Just saying that i consider Bridges a big wing who is a 2-way player, something we don't have and is extremely hard to find. Sexton and Young are both elite playmakers, but neither is a 2-way player. I rate all 3 very close for many reasons. I see 10 top players in this draft, and then a drop off, so ultimately we will just have to take who falls to us.

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Mikal Bridges in the pros is a role player. Hes caught in between height(sg vs sf) and doesnt make plays with the dribble.

Colin Sexton if hes available should be pick choice. Secondary picks would be Carter(Center) Knox(SF) SGA(PG) I think Trae Young will go top 5.

How is Bridges caught between positions? He is 6'7 with a 7'2 wingspan. Guys like Draymond Green are 6'7 playing some center. Bridges is has ideal SF size with the ability to slide over to PF when he fills out. He has SF height and PF/C length.

Colin Sexton is a player who performs with the dribble--its how the NBA is run. Honestly I dont see how either him or Young make it to 9 anyway. Bt if Sexton drops Id take him

Why would Bridges need to perform with the dribble? He will be a SG/FS. Will be able to defend multiple positions with 7 ft. wingspan. Think he has a chance to be better than Lee first year.

But your right, He may not make it down to us. I wanted him since draft talk began. Only cuz I wathced a lot of Big East. He just seems perfect for the NBA. Sexton to me is another Fox.

HofstraBBall wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Mikal Bridges in the pros is a role player. Hes caught in between height(sg vs sf) and doesnt make plays with the dribble.

Colin Sexton if hes available should be pick choice. Secondary picks would be Carter(Center) Knox(SF) SGA(PG) I think Trae Young will go top 5.

How is Bridges caught between positions? He is 6'7 with a 7'2 wingspan. Guys like Draymond Green are 6'7 playing some center. Bridges is has ideal SF size with the ability to slide over to PF when he fills out. He has SF height and PF/C length.

Colin Sexton is a player who performs with the dribble--its how the NBA is run. Honestly I dont see how either him or Young make it to 9 anyway. Bt if Sexton drops Id take him

Why would Bridges need to perform with the dribble? He will be a SG/FS. Will be able to defend multiple positions with 7 ft. wingspan. Think he has a chance to be better than Lee first year.

But your right, He may not make it down to us. I wanted him since draft talk began. Only cuz I wathced a lot of Big East. He just seems perfect for the NBA. Sexton to me is another Fox.

Whats the difference in Hutchinson from Boise State and Bridges?

Hutchinson has the responsibility of being a teasm best player initating plays with the dribble better rebounder--appears to be bigger or longer more versatile

BRIGGS wrote:
Whats the difference in Hutchinson from Boise State and Bridges?

Any other questions?

That being said Hutchinson would be a great add with a 2nd rounder. He's in a few mocks. Good job

codeunknown wrote:Re-posted my thoughts here - more appropriate for this draft thread.

The building of a championship team has become increasingly affected by the clustering of stars (the pseudo-whims of free agency), projecting future rule and draft entry changes, refining player and coaching metrics, assessing the skill set distribution of upcoming prospects out to middle school, and accurate projection of future salary caps. Naturally, these elements affect the risk posture a team takes, and this generally affects all decision making, including draft selections and FA signings. Let’s take advanced metrics.

The most obvious findings of advanced analytics have been the impressive marginal returns of strong 3 point shooting at the 4 and 5 positions, and the value of multi-positional defensive versatility. From this sprouted the vaguer term of “positionless basketball.” Like all analysis, the findings may lead to over and under-valuations of certain player categories, including the often binarized “stars” and “3 and D” role players. The reality is that each player operates on a spectrum, and more precisely defining the value of draft picks requires further improvement of models assessing both the player’s skill/physical trajectory and the positional competitive space.

Part of the reason tanking teams have not improved despite high draft picks is the undervaluation of 3 and D prospects, who generally are easier to project. It’s the relative lower risk of these players that adds premium to their value in the draft, especially if the “3 and D” characterization imprecisely discounts some intermediate offensive capabilities, which may add value in specific team contexts.

On the other hand, an over-reaction to the 3 and D fallout may result in risk aversion to players with asymmetric but large productivity i.e. apparent 1 way players. In my opinion, this is causing a gross under-valuation of Trey Young, who I hope falls to us at 9. Of course, there’s an associated risk, but it’s when to take the home run swing that remains unclear, and why the draft continues to be both unpredictable and influential.

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Mikal Bridges in the pros is a role player. Hes caught in between height(sg vs sf) and doesnt make plays with the dribble.

Colin Sexton if hes available should be pick choice. Secondary picks would be Carter(Center) Knox(SF) SGA(PG) I think Trae Young will go top 5.

How is Bridges caught between positions? He is 6'7 with a 7'2 wingspan. Guys like Draymond Green are 6'7 playing some center. Bridges is has ideal SF size with the ability to slide over to PF when he fills out. He has SF height and PF/C length.

Colin Sexton is a player who performs with the dribble--its how the NBA is run. Honestly I dont see how either him or Young make it to 9 anyway. Bt if Sexton drops Id take him

Why would Bridges need to perform with the dribble? He will be a SG/FS. Will be able to defend multiple positions with 7 ft. wingspan. Think he has a chance to be better than Lee first year.

But your right, He may not make it down to us. I wanted him since draft talk began. Only cuz I wathced a lot of Big East. He just seems perfect for the NBA. Sexton to me is another Fox.

Yeah, projecting Sexton is tough because this point guard class is kinda underwhelming. Like overrating a chick who is a six-seven in a bar full fours and fives. And we already have a six waiting for us at home (Burke).I like Sexton's aggressiveness and defense. But I'm not sure he does anything at an elite level at this point.
Mykal, and Miles, have the to potential to address several weaknesses on this roster. Most importantly, they would lead to an earlier endof the Lance and Bease era. I think Carter should be the first choice followed by the Bridges.

Lol. Agree, think we need a SG and SF. Also think that the PG position is the toughest to draft.

fishmike wrote:

codeunknown wrote:

fishmike wrote:

codeunknown wrote:Re-posted my thoughts here - more appropriate for this draft thread.

The building of a championship team has become increasingly affected by the clustering of stars (the pseudo-whims of free agency), projecting future rule and draft entry changes, refining player and coaching metrics, assessing the skill set distribution of upcoming prospects out to middle school, and accurate projection of future salary caps. Naturally, these elements affect the risk posture a team takes, and this generally affects all decision making, including draft selections and FA signings. Let’s take advanced metrics.

The most obvious findings of advanced analytics have been the impressive marginal returns of strong 3 point shooting at the 4 and 5 positions, and the value of multi-positional defensive versatility. From this sprouted the vaguer term of “positionless basketball.” Like all analysis, the findings may lead to over and under-valuations of certain player categories, including the often binarized “stars” and “3 and D” role players. The reality is that each player operates on a spectrum, and more precisely defining the value of draft picks requires further improvement of models assessing both the player’s skill/physical trajectory and the positional competitive space.

Part of the reason tanking teams have not improved despite high draft picks is the undervaluation of 3 and D prospects, who generally are easier to project. It’s the relative lower risk of these players that adds premium to their value in the draft, especially if the “3 and D” characterization imprecisely discounts some intermediate offensive capabilities, which may add value in specific team contexts.

On the other hand, an over-reaction to the 3 and D fallout may result in risk aversion to players with asymmetric but large productivity i.e. apparent 1 way players. In my opinion, this is causing a gross under-valuation of Trey Young, who I hope falls to us at 9. Of course, there’s an associated risk, but it’s when to take the home run swing that remains unclear, and why the draft continues to be both unpredictable and influential.

there are about 320 active NBA players. How many of them are like Trey Young? I cant think of a bigger waste of a pick. Briggs starts threads about getting players with manly bodies then covets Young is prob 5'11 160

You and I are in stark disagreement on Trey Young, although I think we agree on general principles fairly well - especially that multi-positional defensive strength and versatility produces returns greater than the sum of the parts. As far as Trey Young being 5' 11", that's semi-Briggsian don't you think? Do you really think they've mis-stated his height by 3 inches? I agree that he is smallish for the position - do you agree that his shooting numbers may under-rate him given the type of coverage he received in college? Do you think his height negatively impacts his otherwise impressive mult-faceted offensive game by such a large margin? I'm not trying to understate the risk, which is significant with making a pick like this - just that this is one occasion where I'm happy to undertake the risk.

5'11 is totally a Briggs measurement, but I think we both agree he would be one of the smallest players in the league. He's not a powerful guy. It wasnt just double and triple teams. Yes those came, but more than anything I noticed teams just pushing him off his spot and into shots that were rushed, or off balance. His shot selection is so far from NBA like I have no idea how to evaluate his BB IQ. He lead the league in assists AND TOs. He makes TONS of bad passes trying to force the action. He does so many things fundamentally wrong at the NBA level I just see a guy YEARS away. Steph Curry was also schemed for and his shooting was light years better than Trey's.

For Trey to be good incredible things have to happen. He's got to show he's got something almost everyone else doesnt because he's at a big physical disadvantage.

A guy like Mykal Bridges may not be as sexy as Young but for the NBA? He's like an offensive lineman. He's doing the heavy lifting. Also Bridges is a fantastic shooter.... he's had a breakout season there.

I have Trey Burke. He's 25 and in his first 3 starts is putting up 27/7 and shooting over 50%. Right now Trey Burke is better basketball player. That may sound silly but he's 25. Lets see where that train goes. He probably comes down to earth... but we need to hit on some of these guys.

I would take Kyri Thomas over Trey Young (especially after teams passed on Donovan Mitchell)

Regarding being pushed off spots and his turnover stats, we agree on those as facts. Its probably the context where we differ. There are many explanations for the turnovers but basically it comes down to 1) He needs to take large risk to make plays secondary to other deficiencies (size etc.) 2) the turnover statistic is inflated by his usage rate and should not be normalized to assists but rather to total points contributed or 3) his teammates contributed unduly to the turnovers, both through errors and general inability, allowing defensive game-planning. We can debate the 3 but perhaps its most convincing to keep the Curry comparison and use your assist to turnover metric, Curry is at 1.514 in college year 3 when he assumed the workload of Young, whereas Young is at 1.673 (superior despite being 1 and done).

I agree that the "system" Young played in confounds evaluation for basketball iq. He chucked shots and needs disciplining. Disciplining has a tendency to be unsuccessful (see Carmelo). However, Young's remarkeable baseline skill projects him to be an exception rather than the rule, and this may change the disciplinary framework itself(see Steph Curry's green light from 35 feet). Along those thoughts, Trae shot 36.1% from 3 in year 1 on massive volume, while Curry shot 38.7 from 3 in year 3 on similar volume.

Regarding incredible things needing to happen for Young to be good, I'd argue that those intangible elements are no more prevalent than the other draftees. We agree on the size as a detriment, but I think you are under-rating his skill.

Regarding Trey Burke, is he not short? If you're ok with Burke, my estimate is you'll be doubly thrilled with Young (if we swap them out).

1. Trae Young
2. Lonnie Walker - this guy I don't remember being mentioned here, but at our draft position, in my opinion he has to be taken before anyone not named Young.
3. Mikal Bridges
4. Wendell Carter

BRIGGS wrote:

codeunknown wrote:Updated Draft ranking, assuming the top 6 are Ayton, Bagley, Porter, Bamba, Doncic and Jackson Jr.

1. Trae Young
2. Lonnie Walker - this guy I don't remember being mentioned here, but at our draft position, in my opinion he has to be taken before anyone not named Young.
3. Mikal Bridges
4. Wendell Carter

The "safe" pick if hes there is Carter. We dont know how good he really could be because Duke played double big all year.
But the bottom line
is this
6-10 260 with a 7-3 wingspan--nba ready body at 19
Put it up across the board points three point shooting ft sg FG% passer shot blocker rebounder toughness durability and also played double big. Youre getting a lot there if at 9. I like him MUCH better than Jackson and hes no where near as raw as Bamba
He has a very similar profile to Alonzo Mourning
We dont know about Kanter nor do we know about KP for now. If we have Kanter for one more year we can start Carter at the 4 as he can guard outside/in and would physically mismatch most NBA 4 men.

This would be a great problem. My Top 2 picks, for Knicks, since the year started have been Carter and Mikal. Just don't think both will be there though. Do think if we get either or Knox I will be happy.