2024 Hawks Offseason Thread: Draft Over: What's Next?

[Wretch]

On 5/17/2024 at 9:57 PM, KB21 said:

You should listen to Brad’s latest podcast with Tyler Jones.  It’s good.  Tyler made a great point.  If Sarr had played at Kentucky this past season instead of the NBL, he’s probably drawing comps to Anthony Davis and is the consensus pick.  He also said that if Buzelis and Holland had played in college this year instead of with Ignite, which was a disaster, they are probably the clear cut second and third picks with a completely different outlook on both.  

I've seen a few takes like this over the past month or so and it's the primary reason why I'm confident in the pick.

[NBASupes]

15 minutes ago, Wretch said:

I've seen a few takes like this over the past month or so and it's the primary reason why I'm confident in the pick.

Anthony Davis had one of the greatest college seasons ever. Sarr finished in the 48% percentile for athleticism. 

I would be shock if he was as good as Nerlens Noel

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Anthony Davis had one of the greatest college seasons ever. Sarr finished in the 48% percentile for athleticism. 

I would be shock if he was as good as Nerlens Noel

Making up more data I see.

[AHF]

45 minutes ago, Wretch said:

I've seen a few takes like this over the past month or so and it's the primary reason why I'm confident in the pick.

I think it is a fallacious argument because it assumes the conclusion.  The idea that playing at UK would improve someone's draft prospects is the assumption that playing at UK would have allowed the player to show how good he is to scouts in a way that playing elsewhere didn't.  That applies if the player is good at UK.  It works the opposite way if the player is bad at UK.

UK's top 3 recruits last year were top 10 guys coming out of HS in Edwards, Wagner and Bradshaw and now none of them are considered first round worthy because they exposed the weaknesses in their games.  Dillingham and Sheppard were much lower rated (#21 and #79 respectively) and boosted themselves to top 10 picks with great years in Lexington.  Playing at UK puts you in the spotlight.  Whether that is good or bad depends on your performance so any argument that playing at UK would boost someone's draft stock is based on an assumption about how successful they would have been last year which I think assumes the very thing about that player that is being debated (how good a player they are).

[kg01]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

I think it is a fallacious argument because it assumes the conclusion.  The idea that playing at UK would improve someone's draft prospects is the assumption that playing at UK would have allowed the player to show how good he is to scouts in a way that playing elsewhere didn't.  That applies if the player is good at UK.  It works the opposite way if the player is bad at UK.

UK's top 3 recruits last year were top 10 guys coming out of HS in Edwards, Wagner and Bradshaw and now none of them are considered first round worthy because they exposed the weaknesses in their games.  Dillingham and Sheppard were much lower rated (#21 and #79 respectively) and boosted themselves to top 10 picks with great years in Lexington.  Playing at UK puts you in the spotlight.  Whether that is good or bad depends on your performance so any argument that playing at UK would boost someone's draft stock is based on an assumption about how successful they would have been last year which I think assumes the very thing about that player that is being debated (how good a player they are).

Agree with AH here.  Kentucky guys definitely are overrated. 

[marco102]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

I think it is a fallacious argument because it assumes the conclusion.  The idea that playing at UK would improve someone's draft prospects is the assumption that playing at UK would have allowed the player to show how good he is to scouts in a way that playing elsewhere didn't.  That applies if the player is good at UK.  It works the opposite way if the player is bad at UK.

UK's top 3 recruits last year were top 10 guys coming out of HS in Edwards, Wagner and Bradshaw and now none of them are considered first round worthy because they exposed the weaknesses in their games.  Dillingham and Sheppard were much lower rated (#21 and #79 respectively) and boosted themselves to top 10 picks with great years in Lexington.  Playing at UK puts you in the spotlight.  Whether that is good or bad depends on your performance so any argument that playing at UK would boost someone's draft stock is based on an assumption about how successful they would have been last year which I think assumes the very thing about that player that is being debated (how good a player they are).

I don't think that's the argument that's being made.  Basically, by saying if playing at UK boosts your stock means, that more people would have exposure to the prospect good or bad.  Hence, if you perform the same as you did over seas, you'd be rated more highly because your games are not being played at 3 am US time.

[Spud2nique]

1 minute ago, kg01 said:

Agree with AH here. 

I don’t even know you anymore.

2 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Agree with AH here.  Kentucky guys definitely are overrated. 

Not Toine Walker bady! 

[marco102]

This is why the Hawks must continue to upgrade the front court with versatile players. I think Jalen Johnson fits this mold.  The draft will probably address this as well if you go with the suspected number 1 pick.  Mo Gueye intrigues me as well. 

[theheroatl]

2 minutes ago, marco102 said:

This is why the Hawks must continue to upgrade the front court with versatile players. I think Jalen Johnson fits this mold.  The draft will probably address this as well if you go with the suspected number 1 pick.  Mo Gueye intrigues me as well. 

We absolutely need better 4’s and 5’s… it’s been our biggest weakness for years

[AHF]

9 minutes ago, marco102 said:

I don't think that's the argument that's being made.  Basically, by saying if playing at UK boosts your stock means, that more people would have exposure to the prospect good or bad.  Hence, if you perform the same as you did over seas, you'd be rated more highly because your games are not being played at 3 am US time.

I don't think putting up the production that Sarr did at UK would have done much to help his draft stock.  He would have needed to play a much bigger role at UK and put up better numbers to be more of a consensus #1 pick than he already is.  Again, I think this assumes a stronger level of production than he put up in Australia because I can't think of any UK big man who put up less than 10 points and less than 5 rebounds at UK and boosted their draft stock.

[kg01]

44 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

I don’t even know you anymore.

Bbbbut .... I'd never really agree with AH.  It was a joke ... really.  Ah, come on.  Don't yall know when I'm joking?  Sheesh.  

[marco102]

59 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't think putting up the production that Sarr did at UK would have done much to help his draft stock.  He would have needed to play a much bigger role at UK and put up better numbers to be more of a consensus #1 pick than he already is.  Again, I think this assumes a stronger level of production than he put up in Australia because I can't think of any UK big man who put up less than 10 points and less than 5 rebounds at UK and boosted their draft stock.

You are correct.  However, I am saying the original tweet is using Kentucky as a metaphor for blue chip schools. If a prospect goes to a blue chip school and performs well, they'll generally get higher recognition that someone lighting it up oversees will get.  That's just the nature of the beast because more attention will be paid to that prospect.  It's really a chicken/egg debate though.

Edited May 20 by marco102

[AHF]

Just now, marco102 said:

You are correct.  I am however, not saying the original tweet is saying just Kentucky, but if a prospect goes to a blue chip school and performs, they'll generally get higher recognition that someone lighting it up oversees.  That's just the nature of the beast because more attention will be paid to that prospect.  It's really a chicken/egg debate though.

Right.  But that means a lot more production than Sarr did in Australia.  Nothing different about Kentucky than any other blue chip school.  All the UK bigs who went early had huge college numbers.

[Wretch]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I think it is a fallacious argument because it assumes the conclusion.  The idea that playing at UK would improve someone's draft prospects is the assumption that playing at UK would have allowed the player to show how good he is to scouts in a way that playing elsewhere didn't.  That applies if the player is good at UK.  It works the opposite way if the player is bad at UK.

UK's top 3 recruits last year were top 10 guys coming out of HS in Edwards, Wagner and Bradshaw and now none of them are considered first round worthy because they exposed the weaknesses in their games.  Dillingham and Sheppard were much lower rated (#21 and #79 respectively) and boosted themselves to top 10 picks with great years in Lexington.  Playing at UK puts you in the spotlight.  Whether that is good or bad depends on your performance so any argument that playing at UK would boost someone's draft stock is based on an assumption about how successful they would have been last year which I think assumes the very thing about that player that is being debated (how good a player they are).

Yeah, I'm not making arguments vs. Anthony Davis or that going to UK exclusively would have improved his draft stock.  There are takes like this that give me confidence in the pick, if saying it that way makes more sense.  Their reasoning being that if he were featured in a decent college program, that he would have had more exposure in the US, and against college players vs. Euro pros *edit- off the bench, they suspect better numbers.

[JeffS17]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I think it is a fallacious argument because it assumes the conclusion.  The idea that playing at UK would improve someone's draft prospects is the assumption that playing at UK would have allowed the player to show how good he is to scouts in a way that playing elsewhere didn't.  That applies if the player is good at UK.  It works the opposite way if the player is bad at UK.

UK's top 3 recruits last year were top 10 guys coming out of HS in Edwards, Wagner and Bradshaw and now none of them are considered first round worthy because they exposed the weaknesses in their games.  Dillingham and Sheppard were much lower rated (#21 and #79 respectively) and boosted themselves to top 10 picks with great years in Lexington.  Playing at UK puts you in the spotlight.  Whether that is good or bad depends on your performance so any argument that playing at UK would boost someone's draft stock is based on an assumption about how successful they would have been last year which I think assumes the very thing about that player that is being debated (how good a player they are).

Great post.

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I don't think putting up the production that Sarr did at UK would have done much to help his draft stock.  He would have needed to play a much bigger role at UK and put up better numbers to be more of a consensus #1 pick than he already is.  Again, I think this assumes a stronger level of production than he put up in Australia because I can't think of any UK big man who put up less than 10 points and less than 5 rebounds at UK and boosted their draft stock.

Agree with you, and honestly, he's more or less the consensus #1 pick anyways, but I think the assumption here, that I mostly agree with, is playing at UK would have absolutely resulted in more minutes (keep seeing ppl talk about Sarrs per game stats) and higher usage because Sarr would have stood out even more amongst his competition, which likely would have translated to much bigger production and numbers compared to playing in a league of seasoned professionals as the outlier young guy

It's also easier to have a bigger impact in college as a big imo because most nights you will be playing against far inferior competition.  Edey, for example, simply has to catch entry passes and spam the same shot that is unguardable by 95% of the college teams' personnel, since there are like 100+ relevant NCAA programs... so your average starting center is 1. not going to have NBA height and 2. might not even be a center at all.  Tons of teams don't have guys taller than 6'9" and a lot don't have centers at all.  It's kind of just a different environment to try to draw the same conclusions.

[Wretch]

8 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Great post.

Agree with you, and honestly, he's more or less the consensus #1 pick anyways, but I think the assumption here, that I mostly agree with, is playing at UK would have absolutely resulted in more minutes (keep seeing ppl talk about Sarrs per game stats) and higher usage because Sarr would have stood out even more amongst his competition, which likely would have translated to much bigger production and numbers compared to playing in a league of seasoned professionals as the outlier young guy

It's also easier to have a bigger impact in college as a big imo because most nights you will be playing against far inferior competition.  Edey, for example, simply has to catch entry passes and spam the same shot that is unguardable by 95% of the college teams' personnel, since there are like 100+ relevant NCAA programs... so your average starting center is 1. not going to have NBA height and 2. might not even be a center at all.  Tons of teams don't have guys taller than 6'9" and a lot don't have centers at all.  It's kind of just a different environment to try to draw the same conclusions.

And we literally saw this very thing when he played and dominated the G-League.  It's a lot of if's and but's for sure, but hearing it has given me confidence.

[kg01]

17 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Great post.

How come I never get one of these from you, jeffe? 

Maybe you don't wanna make other folks jealous?  

[AHF]

30 minutes ago, Wretch said:

Yeah, I'm not making arguments vs. Anthony Davis or that going to UK exclusively would have improved his draft stock.  There are takes like this that give me confidence in the pick, if saying it that way makes more sense.  Their reasoning being that if he were featured in a decent college program, that he would have had more exposure in the US, and against college players vs. Euro pros *edit- off the bench, they suspect better numbers.

Wagner and Edwards started all year for UK and hurt their NBA stock badly precisely because they didn't dominate as expected.  Would still be performance based.  If he did well, it would help his profile.  (Not sure his stock can get much higher).

Bear in mind that UK had two NBA quality bigs on the roster already.  He would have to beat them out.  (Which he should but not guarnateed).

[deester11]

 

Edited May 20 by deester11

[marco102]

56 minutes ago, deester11 said:

 

He def is training like a big wing. I need him sending me videos of him working in the post.