Finally, A Big Board: Tier 1, 2 & 3 (#1-#10)
Honestly, I don’t even want to post a big board yet. I’d rather keep going player-by-player and doing excessively long posts about why I like or dislike them. Unfortunately, I’ve realized that if I keep doing that I’m only going to get to so many guys and wind up not giving people what they actually want which is a big board. Therefore, I encourage any readers to reach out to me about who they would like to see me write about more extensively. I don’t have time to get to everybody, but I should have time to do a few more long dives either before or after the draft.
A Note About Methodology
As many people will tell you, big boards are in many ways a non-sensical exercise. What is the ranking based on? Peak upside? Expected outcome? Is potential value for contract factored in? Potential trade value? Is it more important to draft someone who turns a 40 win team into a 50 win team or a 6o win team into a 65 win team? Should teams draft strictly based on a big board’s “best player available” or should they consider fit?
It is crucial when making a big board to have some larger objective in mind that you’re ranking for. In my case, my purposefully vague answer is “building a championship team.” I am of the philosophy that teams should always be striving to build for championships, and I do believe that teams can get “stuck” in the 45–55 win range without ever having a serious shot at the championship.
The most dangerous player to draft is the guy who will earn a max contract but hampers your team’s ceiling if he’s a max guy. Some teams drafting don’t care about this, but for my big board I do. That being said, if “building a championship team” is the overarching goal, guys expected trade value and the type of assets they will be still matters. So even if a guy doesn’t project as a great fit on a contender, they can still be worth drafting if they are a realistic stepping stone to building that team.
Furthermore, these rankings are not strictly based on upside, nor strictly based on expected value. Instead, both are factored into calculations of what gives the best long term shot at building a championship team. To build a champion you need some really good outcomes for your players. So, upside weighs quite heavily. But it is not the end-all-be-all because in some cases it can be of greater importance to make sure you’re adding an asset that will help your team (it is also worth noting that upside and expected outcome are far more correlated than most would suggest).
As regards to fit versus best player available, the current way the debate is framed is quite silly. The reason being, is that fit and best player available are inextricably connected. How good a player is depends on their fit with their teammates. Isaiah Thomas is a “better player” now than he was two years ago partly because he’s improved, but also because he is in a team context that maximizes his strengths more.
Consequently, teams should absolutely draft players that will be maximized in their current structure. In doing so they may be drafting for “fit,” but they also are actually drafting the player who will turn out best on their team. Now, the important thing when drafting for fit is not placing too much faith in your current team’s roster. Rosters change rapidly in the NBA, and depending on where your team is at on the “win curve” (a fantastic term of Ben Rubin’s), a varying amount of players on your current roster should be considered.
For example, amongst the lottery teams, the only players that would factor into my draft thinking are Joel Embiid, Ben Simmons, Karl Towns, Kristaps Porzingis, Andre Drummond (though I would actually try to trade him), and Nikola Jokic. Everyone else, Isaiah Thomas, Andrew Wiggins, Carmelo Anthony included, I don’t consider to be important and properly valued enough pieces to matter. “Properly valued” meaning that while yes Andrew Wiggins is a nice young piece who could absolutely “fit” on a championship team, he is likely to end up receiving a max contract which he won’t out-value and therefore hurt his team’s odds of winning a championship.
Championship teams don’t have players that match their contract value, they have players that exceed their contract value, and true superstars exceed max contract value. Andrew Wiggins is no where near a true superstar.
A more established team with young talent like the Washington Wizards might consider the fit of not just John Wall, but also Bradley Beal and Otto Porter. A current contender or borderline contender like Cleveland, or even Houston, should consider the fit of nearly every relevant player on their team.
It is impossible that my big board accurately reflects what I would do if I were drafting as each team. Under my general ethos of “build a championship team”, I took the viewpoint that I was starting with a generally untalented lottery-esque roster when building my board. If I was drafting as the Cavs, or even the Sixers who have some potential transcendent young pieces already on their team, my board would be quite different.
As a result, I will go through my board in tiers. Players are ranked based on a generally bad team, but within each tier teams should feel comfortable looking for the best fit.
Also, because team fit is so important, these rankings will be updated at some point after the draft. Expectations for guys do change, sometimes dramatically, based on where they end up.
Before getting on to the board it is worth saying that even between tiers, there is not much to separate most prospects. It is impossible to rank guys within the NBA, and we *know* how good they are. Ranking guys is an incredibly difficult task, and my goal is merely to do better than everybody else. Not to be anywhere near perfect.
You’ll notice that many guys of the same position are often grouped together on my board. That’s because I value players as much on their archetype as I do their “raw value.” Since there is so little to separate guys, it is often times easier to separate players by potential archetype value rather than value specific to them. An average starting center is simply less valuable than an average wing, and the same goes for a rotation wing and a rotation center.
How much to factor in the young talent at the center position is going to change this equation, and I’ve been struggling with how much to weigh it. Drafting someone with the hopes of them being a small-ball 5 starting center five years from now is probably unrealistic, but the league’s general trend of valuing wings, shooting, and defensive versatility isn’t going away.
Before starting, I’d also like to shout out some of the many other great draft writers/thinkers who have influenced my thinking about players in this draft. Specifically, the aforementioned Ben Rubin (there are a bunch of guys on Ben’s board I probably should have mentioned that I didn’t), Marc Whittington, Jonathan Tjarks, Cole Zwicker, Dean Demakis, Mike Gribanov, Javier Pesquerj, Sean Derenthal, and Chris Stone. I’m sure I’m forgetting many but all of those guys have consistently challenged and expanded the way I think about players.
Anyway, I’ve somehow written over 1000 words of preamble for a post that doesn’t need any added length. I recommend you digest this one in chunks, and please do reach out on twitter/email/here with questions so I can either do more deep-dives or even a mailbag post.
Tiers are labeled by expected outcome range. Guys who I have already written long posts about I will have less to say about and instead just link to the post with a few sentences.
Link to full Big Board
Link to part 2 (tier 4/5), part 3 (tier 6), and part 4 (tier 7).
Tier 1: Potential Superstars
- Lonzo Ball
- Markelle Fultz
My extended thoughts on why I favor Ball>Fultz can be found in my recent piece for SBNation.
One last thing I will emphasize is that I by no means hate Fultz or think he can’t fit next to other stars. It is more that Lonzo is exceptional in this regard than Fultz is poor.
For example, Fultz fits fine in Philly, but if Simmons and Embiid do become the superstars many hope they will they would benefit more from having a player like Lonzo next to them than Fultz.
Also, earlier this year I wrote this piece on learning to love Lonzo Ball.
Tier 2: Useful Starters — Low End All-Stars
3. Jonathan Isaac
If played at the 4, he has a chance to be an elite off-ball defender. Plus perimeter switch-ability with real rim protection is a super valuable combo. When you add in the chance to be average on offense from cutting, shooting, and some handling, you get a “superstar role player” type.
The best thing about him is his ability to fit in almost any team context. The only team in the lottery that would have been a bad fit is Philly and they are now out of the equation.
More detailed breakdown of why I’m high on Isaac here.
4. De’Aaron Fox
Fox naysayers are undervaluing his combination of elite quickness to get to the basket and size/vertical athleticism to finish once he is there. Recency bias caused by the failures of Michael Carter-Williams, Emmanuel Mudiay, Elfrid Payton, and Kris Dunn are over-shadowing just how good of a player Fox was a freshman.
I’m also pretty optimistic about Fox’s shot. Not that it will be great, but that he’s a good bet to be an average mid-range shooter and turn into an ~33% three-point shooter within three-five years. The more you dive into his high school/AAU/contextual numbers the more it seems his 3P% this year was not indicative of his true talent.
All that being said, some of the current hype for Fox is getting out of hand. Fox has the highest upside of anyone outside of Ball/Fultz, but his upside is a clear notch below those guys. Even if he shoots some, he doesn’t profile as a good enough creator for others or elite enough defender to match them. Isaac ranks an inch ahead of Fox because he can bring value in a greater variety of team contexts. Fox absolutely needs the right coach/system/team to get the most out of him. He could easily fall some in my post-draft rankings.
Anyway, I did write more about the type of player I expect Fox to be in the league here.
5. Josh Jackson
I remain quite unexcited by Jackson as a prospect. Not that he won’t be good, but that he’s just not all that interesting to discuss. There are some real reasons to be concerned about Jackson, and I’ve already written about why his upside is not that great.
I highly recommend reading this twitter thread on Josh Jackson’s defense.
If Jackson’s not actually that great a defender and he’s a below average shooter is he really all that useful a player?
Now, the reason Jackson sits at #5 here is because his likeliest outcome is still a plus defender and non-terrible shooter who can dribble and pass at a high-level for a wing. Those guys are in high demand in today’s NBA. None of the guys after him on this list are valuable enough archetypes to justify moving Jackson down, but I’m far from enamored with him.
6. Zach Collins
It makes no sense that Collins is consistently mocked in the 11–14 range. Two-way centers who can rebound, protect the rim, guard in space some, finish, and maybe shoot the ball have a place in the league. As he continues to add strength, he should be able to at least battle with the rising stars of the league (Embiid, Jokic, Towns, others), and gain importance through their existence.
Plays like this are hugely encouraging for Collins future. Having the presence of mind to deter the guards drive and the quick-twitch response to come up with the block on the big is high-level stuff.
Collins excellent rebound and block rates are as much a product of his solid positional instincts as they are his size and athleticism.
He’s not higher on this board because he’s much more good at everything than elite at anything. Even if you’re betting on his shot to come around, which seems like a solid bet based on his form and peripheral numbers, his offensive upside is still capped by a lack of fluidity and feel for the game.
Realistically, he projects as more of a top 8–16 center than a top-8 guy. Nonetheless, that is deserving of much higher draft status than he is currently projected.
7. Malik Monk
A quick stat comparison between Malik Monk and Jamal Murray reveals startlingly similar profiles.
Since I was quite low on Murray last year, it might seem illogical to have Monk so high. For starters, in retrospect my Murray ranking was certainly too low last year. More importantly though, there are a few factors that point towards Monk being the better prospect.
The most obvious advantage Monk has is athletically. Murray is stronger with a more refined skill set, but he can’t keep up with Monk as a runner and leaper.
That Monk was so similarly productive despite their gap in skill-level speaks to his athleticism. One of the biggest concerns with Murray was that his lack of athleticism would prevent him from creating space to generate efficient looks against NBA defenders. That same concern is mitigated with Monk. He has the quickness to lose defenders and the elevation on his jumper to get shots off.
The gap in athleticism also allows Monk to get by on defense in a way Murray cannot. Not that Monk is good on defense. Because he is not. Just that there is a difference between being being a very bad defender and a terrible one and Monk’s quickness allows him to stay in front of guys in a way Murray cannot.
The other way an athleticism gap comes into play is creating room for improvement. Basic concepts of diminishing returns tell us that the worse skills are, the easier they are to improve. In Monk’s case, his high handle slows him down and affects many facets of his game. As a result, he has a clear avenue for major improvement that Murray did not.
The atrocious spacing situation Monk dealt with at Kentucky is another factor not being given enough press. Playing next to Briscoe and Fox eliminated the possibility of him getting to work on the ball and cramped the floor for the limited driving he did do. Monk’s spacing situation next to at best one other shooter (Derek Willis) and most of the time no other shooters is the worst of any potential lottery prospect. That matters. Even Murray on a similar team last year at least was next to the better passing and shooting Tyler Ulis.
The best thing about Monk is how quick a decision maker he is. He’s oftentimes compared to Murray, Devin Booker, Jamal Crawford, J.R. Smith, and C.J. McCollum types, but if you just watch him his play style doesn’t really resemble them. All of those guys love to hold the ball and dribble around in iso and pick-and-roll situations.
Monk plays more like J.J. Redick, Kyle Korver, or Klay Thompson. He flies around off-the-ball but once he is on it he either quickly works into his shot or gives it up and goes back into motion. Monk is not the level of shooter those guys are. Yet, his quickness off-the-bounce allows him to create opportunities those guys cannot when coming off of off-ball action. Plays like this.
Monk projects, in terms of value, similarly to Redick. They are both undersized on defense, but able to be bad not terrible. J.J. can do more as a shooter, but the rest of Monk’s offensive game makes him more alluring overall. The biggest potential difference is that Monk’s superior athleticism could allow him to translate his production to the playoffs in a way Redick cannot.
Redick is a valuable piece. A slightly better Redick who can translate to the playoffs is well worth a top-10 pick. The upside Monk has if he can dramatically improve his handle means a team isn’t shooting too low by drafting Monk either. Monk has his limitations. He is seventh here for a reason. He is also a legitimately good version of an archetype that can be quite useful at its best.
8. OG Anunoby
My thoughts on OG are pretty well encapsulated in the piece I wrote on him recently.
The bottom line is that he’s a truly elite on-ball defender. Couple that with mediocre off-ball defense and basic offensive competency and you have someone who can stick in the league and bring value even without dramatic shooting improvement. The small chance of dramatic shooting improvement justifies him being (at the back) of this tier. Such a player is just too valuable to pass up for guys that don’t have avenues to being ultra useful.
Tier 3: Restrictive Starters
9. Dennis Smith Jr.
Smith Jr. is one of the more tricky prospects to discuss. There are large discrepancies in both talent evaluation and team building strategy that lead to differing valuations of Smith.
Starting with strict scouting: Smith is obviously quite talented on the offensive end. He doesn’t have one elite strength, but he has a complete package of handling, pull up shooting, and finishing. As a distributor he’s not bad. Definitely better than De’Aaron Fox. His issue is that while he is good at seeing cutters and finding guys in pick-and-roll when he’s dribbling on the perimeter, as soon as he’s on the move or looking for his shot his vision breaks down. This is not a fatal flaw. Gilbert Arenas, Damian Lillard, Baron Davis, and Kyrie Irving all suffer from the same problem.
Defensively is where Smith’s biggest problems lie. He’s almost as bad as anyone in this draft and a clear notch below someone like Monk. It bears repeating, there is a difference between bad and terrible defense and it matters. Smith’s college tape suggests he’s a terrible defender.
On the ball, he has the athletic tools to theoretically be good but he’s a slow reactor who takes bad angles.
Off the ball, he’s a disaster. As Sean Derenthal said in a recent podcast, Smith “invents rotations.” Sean didn’t mean it as a compliment.
Smith will probably play with slightly more energy and awareness at the NBA level. It would be nearly impossible not to. Even with some improvement, it is overly optimistic to project him as anything other than an atrocious -2 or -2.5 on the defensive end.
Getting into team building strategy, Smith is the perfect player to cap a team’s upside. Unless he was still recovering from his torn ACL this past season (this is a possibility that I’m not really weighing because it seems far-fetched), Smith doesn’t have a path to be much better than Damian Lillard or this year’s Kemba Walker on offense. Those guys are damn good offensive players, but they could only elevate their team’s offenses to #11 (Portland) and #14 (Charlotte) as the lead guys.
What makes Smith such a poor option to build around is his inability to bring value in an off-ball role. It is not that Smith can’t space the floor fine. It is that Smith only brings value when the ball is in hands, and more importantly, when he has time to dribble a lot and direct the offense. In this way, Smith is the opposite of Monk. He just makes slow decisions.
Compare him to Lillard. Someone who is already overrated and difficult to build a championship contender around if he is on a max contract. He is not as good a shooter so he doesn’t have as much gravity off-ball. He somehow might be an even worse defender. And he’s a less decisive player who relies more on dribbling and probing to bring his value.
His speed of decision making and ability to play off others stands in stark contrast to De’Aaron Fox. Fox may not provide much spacing off-ball, but he’s a far better defender than Smith, and he is much better at attacking decisively off of ball movement rather than needing to hold the ball like Smith. The difference in defense, decisiveness, and upside is why Fox stands so much higher on this board.
Now, I fully expect people to look back on my ranking of Smith and say #9 was too low. He could easily be a borderline all-star and someone who demands a max or near max contract. I have him ninth because I find it almost impossible to envision him on a true championship contender. He’s not good enough to be a contenders best offensive player, and his defense and need to play on-ball prevent him from being the type of player that actually helps a championship team. He deserves to be a top-10 pick because he’s going to have a fair amount of trade value, but I would really only draft him with the ultimate plan of trading him.
10. Jayson Tatum
Tatum is another guy who I have already laid out my thoughts on before.
Tatum, like Smith, I expect to be perceived as better than the #10 guy in this class by many five years from now. Much like Harrison Barnes and Tobias Harris though, he fits the archetype of mediocre defender who is only average on offense. Tatum doesn’t need to use possessions like Smith, but in his cased he’s kind of damned if he does damned if he doesn’t.
In the case that Tatum is a heavy usage guy, he will be something like Barnes in Dallas this season. An inefficient shot creator who doesn’t contribute to winning basketball. In the case that Tatum takes on a low usage role he will be something like Barnes in Golden State, an off-ball player who can play on a championship team but isn’t a needle mover on either end of the floor. In a fairly top-heavy draft like this one a non-needle mover who lacks an enticing upside is only worth about the 10th pick.
Go on to my post on tier 4 & 5, players #11-#23.
