Official Wolves 2022 Pre-Draft Thread
Posted: Sun May 15, 2022 10:19 am
We're two days away from the beginning of this year's NBA draft combine and only 5 weeks from this year's NBA draft. So I thought it was time to start a thread for some serious Wolves draft discussion. The Wolves have four picks in this year's draft: ## 19, 40, 49 and 51. So there's lots to talk about after going through last year's draft with no picks.
I'm going to touch on four things in this initial post: (1) my overall assessment of this year's draft as it relates to the Wolves; (2) my overall approach to making picks; (3) my main lesson from the 2020 draft; and (4) what I think the Wolves should do with their picks.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THIS YEAR'S DRAFT AS IT RELATES TO THE WOLVES
Up until a few weeks ago, I didn't think much of this year's draft pool. I still think it's someone unimpressive at the top. I'm not crazy about Jabari Smith, Banchero or Chet Homgren as the consensus top three. However, as I've looked more closely and given it a lot more thought, I've come to view this draft pool as strong overall throughout the first round and into the second round. In that sense, I see it as similar to the 2020 and 2019 drafts, which yielded a number of really good NBA players from the bottom of the lottery to the bottom of the first round - players like Tyler Herro, Brandon Clarke, Tyrese Maxey, Saddiq Bey, Jordan Pool, Desmond Bane and others.
Similarly, there are a lot of players projected to go in the bottom half of this year's first round and the top half of the 2nd round who could become terrific NBA players and possibly better than many who are currently projected to be drafted in the top 5. That makes the Wolves four picks, especially ##19 and 40 highly valuable.
OVERALL APPROACH TO MAKING PICKS
I base my picks or rankings primarily on four things: (1) written and video draft analysis available in the media; (2) player stats; (3) player physical attributes - e.g., size, strength, athleticism; (3) a player's mental attributes (i.e., mental toughness, competitiveness, etc.; and (4) the eye test from watching games, video highlights and video draft reviews.
Regarding player stats, I tend to give more weight to rebounding than any other stat because it tends to translate better than any other to the NBA and because it says a lot about the player's physical abilities, effort and instincts. Players who rebound well tend to have either good size or athleticism. They also tend to be those who play hard and have good instincts or "a nose for the ball." Rebounding isn't easy. You have to have the physical tools and desire to compete for the ball over and over again. I recall my frustration as Paul Millsap fell well down into the second round even though he was college basketball's best rebounder. It made no sense to me then and his career since then underscores the value of rebounding as a measure of a player's NBA potential. I also pay a lot of attention to steals (guards and wings) and blocked shots (PFs and Cs). Those stats, especially steals, tend to translate fairly well to the NBA and they also say a lot about a player's physical attributes, instincts and effort. Finally, when it comes to stats, I don't pay much attention to scoring averages. I focus instead on shooting efficiency and how often a player gets to the line. I don't focus too much on 3-point percentage because that doesn't seems to be a very predictive stat. For example, Okogie hit 38% of his threes in both of his two college seasons, which was better than Tyler Herro's college 3-point percentage. Curry's 3-point percentage has been better in the NBA than in college. I don't ignore 3-point percentage, but I don't give it as much weight as FG and TS percentages.
Regarding physical attributes, I'm well known for paying a lot of attention to wingspan and standing reach. I know I probably give too much emphasis to these measures, but as a guy with alligator arms, I can't help myself. :). I give some weight to height as a measure of a player's ability to see the floor, but that's the only value it has. Otherwise, it's all about how far your arms extend vertically and/or horizontally. As Kevin McHale once told a group of us, you don't block shots or intercept passes with your head. I also pay a lot of attention to vertical leap, sprint speed and lateral quickness as measured by the agility test. When it comes to vertical leap, I'm more interested in the no-step vertical because it tells us more about how quickly and how often a player can get high off the floor. There is also the obvious interplay between length and athleticism. The more you have one, the less you need the other. I remember Larry Bird talking about his length. He said if he were a couple inches shorter, he would have probably been an average player. And we all know about Kevin McHale's long arms. So while neither was particularly athletic, they both had terrific length that helped make them greats players. Sprint speed and lateral quickness stats have value to me, but I think they have limited predictive value. I think you can tell more from the eye test about a player's ability to stay with other players on defense or get by players on the offensive end. The mental part is harder to gauge since there are no combine measurements for mental toughness or competitiveness. But typically you know it when you see it. It can be learned or confirmed by talking to a player's past coaches and teammates.
Finally, we get to the eye test. This is obviously the most subjective, but it's also the most fun and probably the most telling. A player can lack great quickness, athleticism or size, but have great instincts and skills that allow him to defend effectively or get good dribble penetration. A guard or wing with a great "ball-on-a-string" handle and really good instincts can be more effective at breaking down defenses off the dribble and scoring at the rim than much quicker or more athletic players. Larry Bird comes to mind again as a good example. He wasn't athletic, but his brain's processing speed was off the charts, which made him better than far more athletically gifted players. He could anticipate things and see plays develop instantaneously before others could do the same.
MAIN LESSON FROM 2020 DRAFT
I was way off in my analysis of the 2020 draft. Edwards and Ball were clearly the most talented players in that draft. They were the consensus top two picks of the most respected basketball analysts. They had terrific physical profiles and stats. And their play was eye-popping as measured by the eye test. Yet, I didn't want the Wolves to draft them. Why? Because I was worried about their attitudes or motors. I read a few things that raised questions about their respective attitudes and I was worried about their mental makeups - worried that they weren't motivated or that they didn't really love the game. In short, I was worried they were going to be Andrew Wiggins.
When I look back on it, the questions about their attitudes or motors were few and far between and they weren't consistent with their production or what I saw watching them play. I guess I was suffering from PWTSD post Wiggins traumatic stress disorder. But it wasn't just Wiggins. It was the specter of Derrick Williams and smiling Wes Johnson. Williams and Johnson were immensely talented and productive in college. They should have at least become solid NBA players if not stars but they both couldn't even last in the League. I've heard from people in the Wolves organization that Williams was lazy and enjoyed the NBA lifestyle far more than the NBA game. So it was, in fact, his mental makeup that caused him to fail in spite of his considerable physical gifts. Smiling Wes was clearly just happy to sit and joke with teammates on the bench. So questions about a prospect's motor, motivation or love for the game are clearly important. But I think my lesson from 2020 is to avoid exaggerating those issues to the point where they distort my judgment.
Looking back, there was nothing to suggest that Edwards was another Wiggins. Just watching Edwards play in college you could see the fire and enthusiasm he had for the game and his competitive spirit. It was night and day in comparison to watching Wiggins float around dispassionately and disappear entirely from games in college. LeMello Ball didn't exhibit the same outward passion and fire on the court as Edwards, but he was too productive in multiple categories, including "do-shit" categories like rebounding and steals, to be credibly viewed as another Wiggins or Wes Johnson. So yes, motor and competitiveness matter. But it's important to keep those concerns in proper perspective and consider them in the broader context of draft reviews, stats and the eye test. As I look back, the concerns raised about the competitiveness or motor of Edwards and Ball were few and far between. Meanwhile, their stats and eye test painted a picture that contradicted those few blurbs of concern.
WHAT THE WOLVES SHOULD DO IN THIS YEAR'S DRAFT
My overall view is that the Wolves should be highly reluctant to trade their #19 pick. I also think they should be reluctant to trade their #40 pick. As I mentioned earlier, this looks like a very good, deep draft reminiscent of the 2019 and 2020 drafts. That means there will likely be some very talented prospects when the Wolves are on the clock at #19. Moreover, it's important for any NBA franchise, especially one like the Wolves in a smaller, less attractive free agent market, to continually replenish their young talent through the draft. That's especially important this year after having no picks in the 2021 draft. You can never have enough young talent in the NBA. Edwards looks like he'll become a star, but we still don't know for sure. I have high expectations for McDaniels, but he's far from establishing that he'll be more than a role player in the NBA. I like Nowell, JMac and Naz, but none of them look like budding all-stars and the jury's still out on how good they will be. There are injury risks, future salary issues and other things that come into play. That's a long way of saying the Wolves should focus on landing at least one highly talented player in this year's draft and developing that player. Right now, I see our #19 pick as the key to landing that player, but the Wolves could also trade down into the 20s or into the top five of the 2nd round. Bottom line is to have a pick in the first round or very high second round and use that pick to bring in a talented young player.
Regarding who the Wolves should pick, I think they should focus on drafting the best player available regardless of position or particular need. When I think of best player, it's a combination of upside and likelihood of eventually reaching that upside. I'll wait for a later post to pick my favorites for the Wolves, but right now I'm intrigued by a number of players who are projected to be drafted in the teens or 20s, including Dyson Daniels, Tari Eason, Kendall Brown, MarJon Beauchamp, Ochai Agbaji, Blake Wesley, EJ Liddell, Bryce McGowens, Leonard Miller, Mark Williams, Christian Koloko and Wendell Moore. I think we'd have to trade up a few slots to have a shot at Daniels or Eason (especially Daniels), but I think it would be worth considering.
Now that I've finished my treatise, I'll throw it open for discussion and speculation. :)
I'm going to touch on four things in this initial post: (1) my overall assessment of this year's draft as it relates to the Wolves; (2) my overall approach to making picks; (3) my main lesson from the 2020 draft; and (4) what I think the Wolves should do with their picks.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THIS YEAR'S DRAFT AS IT RELATES TO THE WOLVES
Up until a few weeks ago, I didn't think much of this year's draft pool. I still think it's someone unimpressive at the top. I'm not crazy about Jabari Smith, Banchero or Chet Homgren as the consensus top three. However, as I've looked more closely and given it a lot more thought, I've come to view this draft pool as strong overall throughout the first round and into the second round. In that sense, I see it as similar to the 2020 and 2019 drafts, which yielded a number of really good NBA players from the bottom of the lottery to the bottom of the first round - players like Tyler Herro, Brandon Clarke, Tyrese Maxey, Saddiq Bey, Jordan Pool, Desmond Bane and others.
Similarly, there are a lot of players projected to go in the bottom half of this year's first round and the top half of the 2nd round who could become terrific NBA players and possibly better than many who are currently projected to be drafted in the top 5. That makes the Wolves four picks, especially ##19 and 40 highly valuable.
OVERALL APPROACH TO MAKING PICKS
I base my picks or rankings primarily on four things: (1) written and video draft analysis available in the media; (2) player stats; (3) player physical attributes - e.g., size, strength, athleticism; (3) a player's mental attributes (i.e., mental toughness, competitiveness, etc.; and (4) the eye test from watching games, video highlights and video draft reviews.
Regarding player stats, I tend to give more weight to rebounding than any other stat because it tends to translate better than any other to the NBA and because it says a lot about the player's physical abilities, effort and instincts. Players who rebound well tend to have either good size or athleticism. They also tend to be those who play hard and have good instincts or "a nose for the ball." Rebounding isn't easy. You have to have the physical tools and desire to compete for the ball over and over again. I recall my frustration as Paul Millsap fell well down into the second round even though he was college basketball's best rebounder. It made no sense to me then and his career since then underscores the value of rebounding as a measure of a player's NBA potential. I also pay a lot of attention to steals (guards and wings) and blocked shots (PFs and Cs). Those stats, especially steals, tend to translate fairly well to the NBA and they also say a lot about a player's physical attributes, instincts and effort. Finally, when it comes to stats, I don't pay much attention to scoring averages. I focus instead on shooting efficiency and how often a player gets to the line. I don't focus too much on 3-point percentage because that doesn't seems to be a very predictive stat. For example, Okogie hit 38% of his threes in both of his two college seasons, which was better than Tyler Herro's college 3-point percentage. Curry's 3-point percentage has been better in the NBA than in college. I don't ignore 3-point percentage, but I don't give it as much weight as FG and TS percentages.
Regarding physical attributes, I'm well known for paying a lot of attention to wingspan and standing reach. I know I probably give too much emphasis to these measures, but as a guy with alligator arms, I can't help myself. :). I give some weight to height as a measure of a player's ability to see the floor, but that's the only value it has. Otherwise, it's all about how far your arms extend vertically and/or horizontally. As Kevin McHale once told a group of us, you don't block shots or intercept passes with your head. I also pay a lot of attention to vertical leap, sprint speed and lateral quickness as measured by the agility test. When it comes to vertical leap, I'm more interested in the no-step vertical because it tells us more about how quickly and how often a player can get high off the floor. There is also the obvious interplay between length and athleticism. The more you have one, the less you need the other. I remember Larry Bird talking about his length. He said if he were a couple inches shorter, he would have probably been an average player. And we all know about Kevin McHale's long arms. So while neither was particularly athletic, they both had terrific length that helped make them greats players. Sprint speed and lateral quickness stats have value to me, but I think they have limited predictive value. I think you can tell more from the eye test about a player's ability to stay with other players on defense or get by players on the offensive end. The mental part is harder to gauge since there are no combine measurements for mental toughness or competitiveness. But typically you know it when you see it. It can be learned or confirmed by talking to a player's past coaches and teammates.
Finally, we get to the eye test. This is obviously the most subjective, but it's also the most fun and probably the most telling. A player can lack great quickness, athleticism or size, but have great instincts and skills that allow him to defend effectively or get good dribble penetration. A guard or wing with a great "ball-on-a-string" handle and really good instincts can be more effective at breaking down defenses off the dribble and scoring at the rim than much quicker or more athletic players. Larry Bird comes to mind again as a good example. He wasn't athletic, but his brain's processing speed was off the charts, which made him better than far more athletically gifted players. He could anticipate things and see plays develop instantaneously before others could do the same.
MAIN LESSON FROM 2020 DRAFT
I was way off in my analysis of the 2020 draft. Edwards and Ball were clearly the most talented players in that draft. They were the consensus top two picks of the most respected basketball analysts. They had terrific physical profiles and stats. And their play was eye-popping as measured by the eye test. Yet, I didn't want the Wolves to draft them. Why? Because I was worried about their attitudes or motors. I read a few things that raised questions about their respective attitudes and I was worried about their mental makeups - worried that they weren't motivated or that they didn't really love the game. In short, I was worried they were going to be Andrew Wiggins.
When I look back on it, the questions about their attitudes or motors were few and far between and they weren't consistent with their production or what I saw watching them play. I guess I was suffering from PWTSD post Wiggins traumatic stress disorder. But it wasn't just Wiggins. It was the specter of Derrick Williams and smiling Wes Johnson. Williams and Johnson were immensely talented and productive in college. They should have at least become solid NBA players if not stars but they both couldn't even last in the League. I've heard from people in the Wolves organization that Williams was lazy and enjoyed the NBA lifestyle far more than the NBA game. So it was, in fact, his mental makeup that caused him to fail in spite of his considerable physical gifts. Smiling Wes was clearly just happy to sit and joke with teammates on the bench. So questions about a prospect's motor, motivation or love for the game are clearly important. But I think my lesson from 2020 is to avoid exaggerating those issues to the point where they distort my judgment.
Looking back, there was nothing to suggest that Edwards was another Wiggins. Just watching Edwards play in college you could see the fire and enthusiasm he had for the game and his competitive spirit. It was night and day in comparison to watching Wiggins float around dispassionately and disappear entirely from games in college. LeMello Ball didn't exhibit the same outward passion and fire on the court as Edwards, but he was too productive in multiple categories, including "do-shit" categories like rebounding and steals, to be credibly viewed as another Wiggins or Wes Johnson. So yes, motor and competitiveness matter. But it's important to keep those concerns in proper perspective and consider them in the broader context of draft reviews, stats and the eye test. As I look back, the concerns raised about the competitiveness or motor of Edwards and Ball were few and far between. Meanwhile, their stats and eye test painted a picture that contradicted those few blurbs of concern.
WHAT THE WOLVES SHOULD DO IN THIS YEAR'S DRAFT
My overall view is that the Wolves should be highly reluctant to trade their #19 pick. I also think they should be reluctant to trade their #40 pick. As I mentioned earlier, this looks like a very good, deep draft reminiscent of the 2019 and 2020 drafts. That means there will likely be some very talented prospects when the Wolves are on the clock at #19. Moreover, it's important for any NBA franchise, especially one like the Wolves in a smaller, less attractive free agent market, to continually replenish their young talent through the draft. That's especially important this year after having no picks in the 2021 draft. You can never have enough young talent in the NBA. Edwards looks like he'll become a star, but we still don't know for sure. I have high expectations for McDaniels, but he's far from establishing that he'll be more than a role player in the NBA. I like Nowell, JMac and Naz, but none of them look like budding all-stars and the jury's still out on how good they will be. There are injury risks, future salary issues and other things that come into play. That's a long way of saying the Wolves should focus on landing at least one highly talented player in this year's draft and developing that player. Right now, I see our #19 pick as the key to landing that player, but the Wolves could also trade down into the 20s or into the top five of the 2nd round. Bottom line is to have a pick in the first round or very high second round and use that pick to bring in a talented young player.
Regarding who the Wolves should pick, I think they should focus on drafting the best player available regardless of position or particular need. When I think of best player, it's a combination of upside and likelihood of eventually reaching that upside. I'll wait for a later post to pick my favorites for the Wolves, but right now I'm intrigued by a number of players who are projected to be drafted in the teens or 20s, including Dyson Daniels, Tari Eason, Kendall Brown, MarJon Beauchamp, Ochai Agbaji, Blake Wesley, EJ Liddell, Bryce McGowens, Leonard Miller, Mark Williams, Christian Koloko and Wendell Moore. I think we'd have to trade up a few slots to have a shot at Daniels or Eason (especially Daniels), but I think it would be worth considering.
Now that I've finished my treatise, I'll throw it open for discussion and speculation. :)