Post by TinyTimPig on Sept 8, 2021 0:08:07 GMT -5
Disclaimer: These comparisons were made using only the 6.0 scouts that I’m in possession of. I see some really strong prospects in this class and I wish I could compare it to some of the top guys from the 3001 draft, but I don’t have any of their builds.
1.1 George Mikan C 6'10'' 245 23 B+ C C B A- C DePaul
Comparison: Joel Embiid C 7'0'' 250 20 B+ C, C+ B, C+ B, Kansas
Breakdown: Frankly, there wasn’t a good comparison for Mikan. He has scoring chops that match rookie McHale’s but is better rebounding, on defense, and athletically. His potential is 30 points lower than McHale’s was, but McHale never seemed to make much of that extra potential. I went with Embiid due to the scoring similarities after upgrades and what both guys can offer on defense. Embiid’s athletic attributes are better across the board, but Mikan kills him on the glass. We’ll have to hope Mikan’s 45 potential tanks him off the bat because he could be pretty scary otherwise.
Grade: A. Mikan was the easy choice at 1.1. He's a ready-made product for a team that currently owns 2/3 of the league's fracs in the superior conference. The floor is extremely high and, even if he never saw an upgrade, Mikan would still be a stud. With +30 at his disposal, Pete can get creative or just stick with the tried and true inside, jumper, and strength to cement Mikan as perhaps the best scoring big man in the league. Despite just 45 potential, Mikan was the clear 1.1 as he doesn't need to put any stock into successful TCs to be an impact player.
1.2 John Beckman PG 5'10'' 195 20 C- B- A, C+ D+ B, Hudson County League
Comparison: Nick Van Exel PG 6'1'' 170 21 C, C+ C, C, D- B, Cincinnati
Breakdown: I like this comparison a lot better than Mikan’s. The scoring attributes are similar and turnovers shouldn’t be much of an issue for Beckman, much like Van Exel during his career. Beckman’s passing is significantly higher, so I expect to see more assists and maybe a slightly lower scoring ceiling as he looks to be a facilitator, though if I had to guess I would bet NVE’s passing attribute has seen quite a bit of growth during his career (6.8 assists as a rookie to 10.7 last year). Neither is much of a factor rebounding, and Beckman should be a better defender but NVE made an All-Defensive second team a couple years ago. The toughest part for this year’s 1.2 is that he seems destined to play in an inside offense with guys like Patrick Ewing and Ricky Pierce already heavily invested in, which means he may never be more than a game manager.
Grade: B. Like Mikan, I think Beckman also has a really high floor. Turnovers shouldn't be an issue and he has an excellent jumper, which are 1a and 1b for me when looking at a point guard. His high steal grade is a cherry on top. As a prospect, Beckman has an exciting build that should have every opportunity to flourish. The only reason this grade isn't higher is that I'm not sure about using the second overall pick on a point guard who may only be an impact player if made into a focal point in an outside offense.
1.3 Dolph Schayes PF 6'8'' 220 21 C+ C, C, B- A- B, NYU
Comparison: Al Horford PF 6'10'' 245 21 B, C, C, C+ C, B, Florida
Breakdown: The bigs in this class, at least from where I’m standing, are really something else. Chap suggested that Dolph looks like Jokic due to his inside and jumper potentially reaching 90 and 85 after upgrades, but Jokic doesn’t compare when it comes to rebounding or the athletic attributes (strength in particular). Jokic should block more shots, but Dolph has him beat in some other defensive categories. For all those reasons, I went with a better rebounding Horford, who after upgrades sat somewhere around 100 inside and 80 jumper. Other than that, the two players seem very similar when it comes to athleticism and defense.
Grade: B-. I was really torn between Gates and Schayes with this pick, but Schayes' elite jumper, strength, and rebounding ultimately won out. He ought to be a strong player, but like the guy who will be lining up in the frontcourt next to him for the foreseeable future, Julius Randle, he likely won't be much of a defender without surprising TC growth. Both players had decent enough Post Defense attributes, but neither started with much shot blocking. Randle hasn't grown there, but if Schayes does, this grade will be higher. He should be a very good player, but his one apparent flaw (fingers crossed TOs won't be a major issue) is one that may get exposed due to the team he plays on.
1.4 William(s) Gates SF 6'4'' 230 22 B- C+ C, B, B- B, Buffalo
Comparison: Bryon Russell SF 6'7'' 225 22 B- C- C, B- C, C, Cal State Long Beach
Breakdown: I actually really wanted to use Kevin Durant as the comparison for Gates, but I just couldn’t do it with KD having terrible athletic, defensive, and rebounding attributes. He really was terrible, wasn’t he? Nice pick, IanBoyd . Calbert Cheaney or Arron Afflalo might be better comparisons when it comes to initial build, but with the SG inside cap it felt disingenuous to use them as the comp. So instead, I went with Russell, though I think Gates edges him out a tad in most areas and significantly in his three-point shooting. Both have a good handling to passing ratio and play solid defense and Gates edges him by just 8 in jump shot. If I could combine two players, it’d probably be KD’s scoring and Russell’s everything else.
Grade: C+. I think Gates will be a very good player, but some of his luster wore off for me when we saw the second college sim stats. He looked like a 1.1 candidate at sim 2, but his numbers really came back down to earth over time to the point where he only really stood out as a rebounder and wing with positional versatility. He ranked 7th among wings in pts/tsa which is something that obviously can be improved with upgrades, but he doesn't offer anything else that stands out as particularly elite either.
1.5 Bob Pettit PF 6'9'' 205 22 B, C+ C, C- B, B, LSU
Comparison: Nick Fazekas PF 6'11'' 235 22 C+ C, C- C, C, C, Nevada
Breakdown: Full disclosure, Pettit is the one player of the top four that I did not scout or whose scout I didn’t see shared publicly. Using college stats only, my estimate is that his inside probably sits somewhere around 55 or 60 and his strength and jumper hovering around 75. Rebounding probably hovers around the mid-60s or low 70s, which is one area where he really outperforms Fazekas. Nick was a hidden gem which allowed him to lean into his scoring with upgrades, but he’s been a liability everywhere else. Pettit ought to be a far more balanced player but should be a better rebounder, a similarly bad defender, and slightly worse scoring-wise assuming he isn’t a hidden gem and won’t have the extra 10 points to invest in that area. The C+ outside grade is a bit misleading in my opinion, as his 49 threes attempted tell me that he has a few points in that category that are driving up the display grade but won't ever get to a point where they're actually a factor for him.
Grade: B. On the surface, I think there was a bit of drop off here from the top four talent-wise, though not having Pettit's build means you can't put much stock into my opinion on the matter. He should be a good scorer and rebounder without major turnover issues, but is the first guy taken that doesn't look to me to have the ceiling of a top two option on a team. But you work with what's available and I think Mike took the best player available who fits a position of need for the Bulls. You might say every position is a position of need for the Bulls, and you wouldn't be wrong, but the frontcourt is the most glaring of those weaknesses.
1.1 George Mikan C 6'10'' 245 23 B+ C C B A- C DePaul
Comparison: Joel Embiid C 7'0'' 250 20 B+ C, C+ B, C+ B, Kansas
Breakdown: Frankly, there wasn’t a good comparison for Mikan. He has scoring chops that match rookie McHale’s but is better rebounding, on defense, and athletically. His potential is 30 points lower than McHale’s was, but McHale never seemed to make much of that extra potential. I went with Embiid due to the scoring similarities after upgrades and what both guys can offer on defense. Embiid’s athletic attributes are better across the board, but Mikan kills him on the glass. We’ll have to hope Mikan’s 45 potential tanks him off the bat because he could be pretty scary otherwise.
Grade: A. Mikan was the easy choice at 1.1. He's a ready-made product for a team that currently owns 2/3 of the league's fracs in the superior conference. The floor is extremely high and, even if he never saw an upgrade, Mikan would still be a stud. With +30 at his disposal, Pete can get creative or just stick with the tried and true inside, jumper, and strength to cement Mikan as perhaps the best scoring big man in the league. Despite just 45 potential, Mikan was the clear 1.1 as he doesn't need to put any stock into successful TCs to be an impact player.
1.2 John Beckman PG 5'10'' 195 20 C- B- A, C+ D+ B, Hudson County League
Comparison: Nick Van Exel PG 6'1'' 170 21 C, C+ C, C, D- B, Cincinnati
Breakdown: I like this comparison a lot better than Mikan’s. The scoring attributes are similar and turnovers shouldn’t be much of an issue for Beckman, much like Van Exel during his career. Beckman’s passing is significantly higher, so I expect to see more assists and maybe a slightly lower scoring ceiling as he looks to be a facilitator, though if I had to guess I would bet NVE’s passing attribute has seen quite a bit of growth during his career (6.8 assists as a rookie to 10.7 last year). Neither is much of a factor rebounding, and Beckman should be a better defender but NVE made an All-Defensive second team a couple years ago. The toughest part for this year’s 1.2 is that he seems destined to play in an inside offense with guys like Patrick Ewing and Ricky Pierce already heavily invested in, which means he may never be more than a game manager.
Grade: B. Like Mikan, I think Beckman also has a really high floor. Turnovers shouldn't be an issue and he has an excellent jumper, which are 1a and 1b for me when looking at a point guard. His high steal grade is a cherry on top. As a prospect, Beckman has an exciting build that should have every opportunity to flourish. The only reason this grade isn't higher is that I'm not sure about using the second overall pick on a point guard who may only be an impact player if made into a focal point in an outside offense.
1.3 Dolph Schayes PF 6'8'' 220 21 C+ C, C, B- A- B, NYU
Comparison: Al Horford PF 6'10'' 245 21 B, C, C, C+ C, B, Florida
Breakdown: The bigs in this class, at least from where I’m standing, are really something else. Chap suggested that Dolph looks like Jokic due to his inside and jumper potentially reaching 90 and 85 after upgrades, but Jokic doesn’t compare when it comes to rebounding or the athletic attributes (strength in particular). Jokic should block more shots, but Dolph has him beat in some other defensive categories. For all those reasons, I went with a better rebounding Horford, who after upgrades sat somewhere around 100 inside and 80 jumper. Other than that, the two players seem very similar when it comes to athleticism and defense.
Grade: B-. I was really torn between Gates and Schayes with this pick, but Schayes' elite jumper, strength, and rebounding ultimately won out. He ought to be a strong player, but like the guy who will be lining up in the frontcourt next to him for the foreseeable future, Julius Randle, he likely won't be much of a defender without surprising TC growth. Both players had decent enough Post Defense attributes, but neither started with much shot blocking. Randle hasn't grown there, but if Schayes does, this grade will be higher. He should be a very good player, but his one apparent flaw (fingers crossed TOs won't be a major issue) is one that may get exposed due to the team he plays on.
1.4 William(s) Gates SF 6'4'' 230 22 B- C+ C, B, B- B, Buffalo
Comparison: Bryon Russell SF 6'7'' 225 22 B- C- C, B- C, C, Cal State Long Beach
Breakdown: I actually really wanted to use Kevin Durant as the comparison for Gates, but I just couldn’t do it with KD having terrible athletic, defensive, and rebounding attributes. He really was terrible, wasn’t he? Nice pick, IanBoyd . Calbert Cheaney or Arron Afflalo might be better comparisons when it comes to initial build, but with the SG inside cap it felt disingenuous to use them as the comp. So instead, I went with Russell, though I think Gates edges him out a tad in most areas and significantly in his three-point shooting. Both have a good handling to passing ratio and play solid defense and Gates edges him by just 8 in jump shot. If I could combine two players, it’d probably be KD’s scoring and Russell’s everything else.
Grade: C+. I think Gates will be a very good player, but some of his luster wore off for me when we saw the second college sim stats. He looked like a 1.1 candidate at sim 2, but his numbers really came back down to earth over time to the point where he only really stood out as a rebounder and wing with positional versatility. He ranked 7th among wings in pts/tsa which is something that obviously can be improved with upgrades, but he doesn't offer anything else that stands out as particularly elite either.
1.5 Bob Pettit PF 6'9'' 205 22 B, C+ C, C- B, B, LSU
Comparison: Nick Fazekas PF 6'11'' 235 22 C+ C, C- C, C, C, Nevada
Breakdown: Full disclosure, Pettit is the one player of the top four that I did not scout or whose scout I didn’t see shared publicly. Using college stats only, my estimate is that his inside probably sits somewhere around 55 or 60 and his strength and jumper hovering around 75. Rebounding probably hovers around the mid-60s or low 70s, which is one area where he really outperforms Fazekas. Nick was a hidden gem which allowed him to lean into his scoring with upgrades, but he’s been a liability everywhere else. Pettit ought to be a far more balanced player but should be a better rebounder, a similarly bad defender, and slightly worse scoring-wise assuming he isn’t a hidden gem and won’t have the extra 10 points to invest in that area. The C+ outside grade is a bit misleading in my opinion, as his 49 threes attempted tell me that he has a few points in that category that are driving up the display grade but won't ever get to a point where they're actually a factor for him.
Grade: B. On the surface, I think there was a bit of drop off here from the top four talent-wise, though not having Pettit's build means you can't put much stock into my opinion on the matter. He should be a good scorer and rebounder without major turnover issues, but is the first guy taken that doesn't look to me to have the ceiling of a top two option on a team. But you work with what's available and I think Mike took the best player available who fits a position of need for the Bulls. You might say every position is a position of need for the Bulls, and you wouldn't be wrong, but the frontcourt is the most glaring of those weaknesses.
