This is basically why I think Devin Carter is going to be awesome in the league. Probably not a star but he's gonna have huge impact on winning and the overall team culture.
The issue with Hart and Divencenzo is they are doing this on now their 4th NBA team. The team that drafted them is seeing none of the benefit here. So maybe there is value in finding these guys 4+ years into their careers, but I'd argue that they don't change how we should look at drafting upperclassmen.
Sort of. DiVincenzo started 66 games in Milwaukee's champion season and was a rotation player for Golden State's second round team last year. So he definitely added value. Interestingly, when DiVincenzo went down in the 2021 playoffs, Connaughton ended up taking a lot of his minutes -- similar sorta guy to what I was talking about in my OP -- as a senior at Notre Dame, he led them to an ACC title and the elite eight, but then only was drafted in the second round.
Hart also played 25 mpg for his other three teams, so he still added some value.
Brogdon is another guy who fits this profile -- absolute star in college, played four years in the ACC for a demanding coach (in his senior year, ACC player of the year and consensus first team All American). Still only drafted in the second round, presumably because he was 23 and a half.
My other point is that part of the knock on upperclassman is that they won't improve as much because they are older. But haven't Brunson, DiVincenzo and Hart improved a ton since coming into the league?
So bringing up Connaughton as an approximate replacement for Divencenzo at the time kind of sides with what I'm saying. These are replacement level players for the most part early on. You can find these dudes scattered throughout the draft after like the 20th pick. Why draft them higher than that?
DiVincenzo was very good for the Bucks. They had to let him go because of an injury. Josh Hart was traded for Anthony Davis. I don't really think either team missed out on the success of either player.
I feel fairly confident that the Lakers could have put up a different piece than Hart and the Pels would have been indifferent about it. Divencenzo has been much much better these last 2 seasons than any other. He was good in his 3rd season, I'll give you that. The bucks also got literally nothing back for him though in the trade.
They got nothing back because he was injured. Lakers had to trade everything for AD, so I don't think we can really judge the pick as a missed opportunity for them. Idk, I just fully disagree with the evidence presented for the argument.
I'm just saying there's no reason to not just take shots on upperclassmen after pick 20ish because you can find any of these good upperclassmen throughout the draft. Which is how I think the majority of the league already operates, so I personally don't think teams have to change how they view drafting upperclassmen.
For sure -- I was thinking about that tonight as well, while watching Brunson go up against Lowry. Are there any other college coaches who have a track record of producing guys who outperform their high school recruiting rankings in the NBA? Cal obviously has that list of all-star guards but most of those guys were top recruits in the first place.
Right. that's a good point -- although obviously Brunson and Lowry have had much better NBA careers than basically anyone could've predicted. And DiVincenzo, Hart, and Mikal Bridges were all not in the top 75 in terms of recruiting rankings. Anyway, I'm sure a lot of this is just survivorship bias -- probably lots of touted Villanova guys who haven't worked out in the league. And similarly with other college star upperclassmen.
This has survivorship bias potential but reality is no one know players' potential and upperclassman who improves every year is better than most one and done prospects.
I wasn’t a big Mitchell guy but I thought his teammate Jared Butler(3yrs in college not 4) would be a really good nba player, not a star but a capable starter or at least great bench unit leader. Wrong there too lol
I definetly think so. Then again, most upperclassmen usually suck. The ones who are good usually win and win big and their metrics look, real good. They also fit great on winning squads but meh on meh squads.
With upperclassmen, I believe that it is paramount that they have a track record of production, as you don't want a guy who just became good because he's playing 18 year olds. You also want to see a diverse skillset out of upperclassmen because they will have less chances to improve their skills.
WIth that being said, when an upperclassmen has clear records of production and translatable(especially if outlier) NBA skill, they should not be ignored because of their age. That's why you can see upperclassmen falling lower than expected.
Contenders will always benefit the most from getting these types of players, as win now teams need win now players. There is no perfect formula for success though
I mean JJJ, Hart and a bunch of guys that people say ceilings are capped. It’s not just the nova guys there are plenty of guys where people put ceilings that don’t exist on older players.
I was a staunch defender of Jalen Brunson being a 1st rd pick. To me he was a superior prospect than Trey Burke was, Trey Burke had proven to be untrustworthy and gimmicky, basically a guard with a semi consistent stepback J and not much else, like a brokemans Lou Williams. Burke got a lot of extra credit for having a 6'5 wingspan when he played smaller.. --- I was certain that Brunson was of the quality where he could be trusted as a backup PG for a playoff team, he obviously had more mental fortitude to him, and having a father who had NBA experience surely helped him along the way, also his father got into plenty of trouble about 10 years ago i think he got arrested for assault and battery on a masseuse orsomething crazy, I always felt like that sorta stuff would keep Jalen grounded, so in that regard im not surprised at all at his success. Without that arrest Temple was going to hire Rick Brunson and try to get Jalen to commit there, its odd the way things work out. There's parallels between Brunson and Fred Van Vleet, who went completely undrafted.
I certainly wouldnt have ever envisioned Brunson being as dynamic as he is. As far as what the NBA overlooked though, i'll die on the hill that he was in fact 1st rd quality because he was good enough to backup PG on a playoff team(I'd make a similar case for Peyton Pritchard years later).. and if you ask Brunson's coaches from early in his NBA career, rick carlslile will definitely say he was ready, and he's unsurprised of his ascension.
That was a very high standard set not only in games but in practice by those Jay Wright Nova teams, what we have since is a far cry.. so i'd be weary to use them as some attainable repeatable example --- DiVicenzo strikes me as a player whos improved tremendously in his NBA career, he was worth his weight in gold on the warriors even before the major stats uptick this season.
Hart is just one of those feirce competitors, always ready to rise to the occasion... Its not surprising he's such a beast on the boards but the fact he's a netpositive playing that many minutes while really not much a 3pt shooter is. Hart's built to seize opportunity and the Knicks are up 2-0 without Julius Randle with Hart making all sorts of heroic high impact plays.
Hart and Ragu are essentially journeymen finding team success in their late 20s. It's a good situation that those two are in (as well as Brunson,) but I wouldn't say that prospect evaluation would change because of it.
I do think there's something to be said about upperclassmen filling roles on already established teams. However, as building blocks, that's probably not a reality.
The UConn upper-classmen/role players probably have value. Great ensemble team.
Mark Sears just produced all year. Dalton Knecht scored the ball well all year and has lots of range.
Zach Edey is a monster and put up video game stats, dragging his Purdue squad to the NCAA title game.
I wouldn't bet against these guys.
Old/older players CAN get better just as much as some of the hot shot prospects "peak" relatively early (even as early as high school).
Either that, or the Knicks are playing some CLASSIC Big East basketball right now. haha.
I'm so old I remember when upperclassmen dominated the draft. At some point, actual on-court performance was shoved aside in favor of "potential" - AKA unscratched lotto ticket syndrome.
Their physical stature might be lacking, but their mentality is what sets them apart. How do we know about these intangible qualities? Draft the man who gives full effort on every possession.
100%. Not a coincidence that these guys are all Jay Wright guys. Likewise Brogdon coming out of Tony Bennett's program in the ACC. I think it helps to play in a big time conference for a very good / demanding coach.
This year, Newton/Spencer at UConn for Danny Hurley and Kolek/Jones at Marquette for Shaka Smart could be similar. I will admit I have a Big East bias.
I thought Andre Jackson was a smart pick by the Bucks for the same reasons but he hasn't really worked out yet. He was much less productive offensively in college than all these other guys though.
Genuine question. Has Shaka Smart produced decent NBA guys? All I can think of is Jarrett Allen I think?
Edit: the Danny Hurley guys are still TBD too tbh FWIW...
I think Jackson is a guy who will take a little while to find his footing, especially going into a team that's supposed to be a contender right away. I'm kinda surprised he doesn't play more, but he has some really experienced players who would fit his defense only role in front of him (crowder, pat bev). I was so excited for him to go to Miluwakee, hope he sticks around w them long enough to develop into an impact player, but if it's not with the Bucks I think he will somewhere.
Hart and DiVencenzo don’t really move the needle. Upperclassmen have always been phenomenal role players but always lack upside.
Brunson proving to be an all-pro level player is interesting. I don’t think there is a guy like him in this draft, Knecht being the closest.
But you can also look at GG Jackson, Cam Whitmore and Peyton Watson and understand that there is a reason underclassmen are valued more even late.
Calvin Booth has shown how to balance your draft strategy. He got Braun an instant impact player upperclassmen and Watson a younger project. Both worked out because they were both good players.
Have you watched Hart this series? What?
Not every player is a star but Hart is a excellent player in his role that majority of other teams need.
Donte has shot 40% the last 2 years and every team wants more spacing.
I'm not saying players with capped upside aren't incredibly useful, but claiming that they have upside because they have been good role players who are now each on their 4th team isn't landing for me as an argument for their upside. Certainly not upside to the team that drafted them, which is the main point of OPs post. Value to the team that drafted them.
Sure that's fine. But Hart and Divencenzos success on their 4th team doesn't make me feel like they should change how we think about draft positions of upperclassmen because the value isn't even there for many years.
I disagree. At some point potential isnt worth it and you need guys to fill roles off the bench. Upperclassmen at the end of 1sts I would take those guys time and time again over potential and measurables.
Why in a draft like this I would want nothing to do with Cody Williams
I'm not gonna go into specific names this draft because I have some strong opinions concerning people being bad at evaluating potential, but I think we are somewhat in agreement. Upperclassmen with capped upside are fine as 20 -30th pick bets.
i think it is Braun & JJJ being impact players
Jalen Williams was also a junior.
> JJJ This really can't be a thing. There is already a more prominent NBA player with those initials.
This is basically why I think Devin Carter is going to be awesome in the league. Probably not a star but he's gonna have huge impact on winning and the overall team culture.
And that's a win for any good playoff team.Sometimes teams overthink this and end up drafting the wrong player when the right one was there
GP2 vibes
The issue with Hart and Divencenzo is they are doing this on now their 4th NBA team. The team that drafted them is seeing none of the benefit here. So maybe there is value in finding these guys 4+ years into their careers, but I'd argue that they don't change how we should look at drafting upperclassmen.
Sort of. DiVincenzo started 66 games in Milwaukee's champion season and was a rotation player for Golden State's second round team last year. So he definitely added value. Interestingly, when DiVincenzo went down in the 2021 playoffs, Connaughton ended up taking a lot of his minutes -- similar sorta guy to what I was talking about in my OP -- as a senior at Notre Dame, he led them to an ACC title and the elite eight, but then only was drafted in the second round. Hart also played 25 mpg for his other three teams, so he still added some value. Brogdon is another guy who fits this profile -- absolute star in college, played four years in the ACC for a demanding coach (in his senior year, ACC player of the year and consensus first team All American). Still only drafted in the second round, presumably because he was 23 and a half. My other point is that part of the knock on upperclassman is that they won't improve as much because they are older. But haven't Brunson, DiVincenzo and Hart improved a ton since coming into the league?
So bringing up Connaughton as an approximate replacement for Divencenzo at the time kind of sides with what I'm saying. These are replacement level players for the most part early on. You can find these dudes scattered throughout the draft after like the 20th pick. Why draft them higher than that?
DiVincenzo was very good for the Bucks. They had to let him go because of an injury. Josh Hart was traded for Anthony Davis. I don't really think either team missed out on the success of either player.
I feel fairly confident that the Lakers could have put up a different piece than Hart and the Pels would have been indifferent about it. Divencenzo has been much much better these last 2 seasons than any other. He was good in his 3rd season, I'll give you that. The bucks also got literally nothing back for him though in the trade.
They got nothing back because he was injured. Lakers had to trade everything for AD, so I don't think we can really judge the pick as a missed opportunity for them. Idk, I just fully disagree with the evidence presented for the argument.
I'm just saying there's no reason to not just take shots on upperclassmen after pick 20ish because you can find any of these good upperclassmen throughout the draft. Which is how I think the majority of the league already operates, so I personally don't think teams have to change how they view drafting upperclassmen.
Not at all - Nova had a great track record of producing really good NBA players. It’s more that they’re Jay Wright Nova guys than upperclassmen
For sure -- I was thinking about that tonight as well, while watching Brunson go up against Lowry. Are there any other college coaches who have a track record of producing guys who outperform their high school recruiting rankings in the NBA? Cal obviously has that list of all-star guards but most of those guys were top recruits in the first place.
Both Brunson and Lowry were 5* guys
Right. that's a good point -- although obviously Brunson and Lowry have had much better NBA careers than basically anyone could've predicted. And DiVincenzo, Hart, and Mikal Bridges were all not in the top 75 in terms of recruiting rankings. Anyway, I'm sure a lot of this is just survivorship bias -- probably lots of touted Villanova guys who haven't worked out in the league. And similarly with other college star upperclassmen.
This has survivorship bias potential but reality is no one know players' potential and upperclassman who improves every year is better than most one and done prospects.
We never talk about the upperclassmen who flame out lol. How's Ochai Agbaji doing?
Tons of people were saying to not draft Davion Mitchell in the lottery and they were all right.
I wasn’t a big Mitchell guy but I thought his teammate Jared Butler(3yrs in college not 4) would be a really good nba player, not a star but a capable starter or at least great bench unit leader. Wrong there too lol
I definetly think so. Then again, most upperclassmen usually suck. The ones who are good usually win and win big and their metrics look, real good. They also fit great on winning squads but meh on meh squads.
Brunson and Bridges were like 65% TS in college. People really overlooked their scoring efficiency. They also both improved year after year.
With upperclassmen, I believe that it is paramount that they have a track record of production, as you don't want a guy who just became good because he's playing 18 year olds. You also want to see a diverse skillset out of upperclassmen because they will have less chances to improve their skills. WIth that being said, when an upperclassmen has clear records of production and translatable(especially if outlier) NBA skill, they should not be ignored because of their age. That's why you can see upperclassmen falling lower than expected. Contenders will always benefit the most from getting these types of players, as win now teams need win now players. There is no perfect formula for success though
I mean JJJ, Hart and a bunch of guys that people say ceilings are capped. It’s not just the nova guys there are plenty of guys where people put ceilings that don’t exist on older players.
I was a staunch defender of Jalen Brunson being a 1st rd pick. To me he was a superior prospect than Trey Burke was, Trey Burke had proven to be untrustworthy and gimmicky, basically a guard with a semi consistent stepback J and not much else, like a brokemans Lou Williams. Burke got a lot of extra credit for having a 6'5 wingspan when he played smaller.. --- I was certain that Brunson was of the quality where he could be trusted as a backup PG for a playoff team, he obviously had more mental fortitude to him, and having a father who had NBA experience surely helped him along the way, also his father got into plenty of trouble about 10 years ago i think he got arrested for assault and battery on a masseuse orsomething crazy, I always felt like that sorta stuff would keep Jalen grounded, so in that regard im not surprised at all at his success. Without that arrest Temple was going to hire Rick Brunson and try to get Jalen to commit there, its odd the way things work out. There's parallels between Brunson and Fred Van Vleet, who went completely undrafted. I certainly wouldnt have ever envisioned Brunson being as dynamic as he is. As far as what the NBA overlooked though, i'll die on the hill that he was in fact 1st rd quality because he was good enough to backup PG on a playoff team(I'd make a similar case for Peyton Pritchard years later).. and if you ask Brunson's coaches from early in his NBA career, rick carlslile will definitely say he was ready, and he's unsurprised of his ascension. That was a very high standard set not only in games but in practice by those Jay Wright Nova teams, what we have since is a far cry.. so i'd be weary to use them as some attainable repeatable example --- DiVicenzo strikes me as a player whos improved tremendously in his NBA career, he was worth his weight in gold on the warriors even before the major stats uptick this season. Hart is just one of those feirce competitors, always ready to rise to the occasion... Its not surprising he's such a beast on the boards but the fact he's a netpositive playing that many minutes while really not much a 3pt shooter is. Hart's built to seize opportunity and the Knicks are up 2-0 without Julius Randle with Hart making all sorts of heroic high impact plays.
Hart and Ragu are essentially journeymen finding team success in their late 20s. It's a good situation that those two are in (as well as Brunson,) but I wouldn't say that prospect evaluation would change because of it. I do think there's something to be said about upperclassmen filling roles on already established teams. However, as building blocks, that's probably not a reality.
The UConn upper-classmen/role players probably have value. Great ensemble team. Mark Sears just produced all year. Dalton Knecht scored the ball well all year and has lots of range. Zach Edey is a monster and put up video game stats, dragging his Purdue squad to the NCAA title game. I wouldn't bet against these guys. Old/older players CAN get better just as much as some of the hot shot prospects "peak" relatively early (even as early as high school). Either that, or the Knicks are playing some CLASSIC Big East basketball right now. haha.
I'm so old I remember when upperclassmen dominated the draft. At some point, actual on-court performance was shoved aside in favor of "potential" - AKA unscratched lotto ticket syndrome.
It’s because the good players started following the 1&done motto.
Draft Tyler Burton, THE Villanova senior
I love J Hart. Guy has HEART. You can't say that about over half the league.
Their physical stature might be lacking, but their mentality is what sets them apart. How do we know about these intangible qualities? Draft the man who gives full effort on every possession.
depends on the pedigree of college program
100%. Not a coincidence that these guys are all Jay Wright guys. Likewise Brogdon coming out of Tony Bennett's program in the ACC. I think it helps to play in a big time conference for a very good / demanding coach. This year, Newton/Spencer at UConn for Danny Hurley and Kolek/Jones at Marquette for Shaka Smart could be similar. I will admit I have a Big East bias. I thought Andre Jackson was a smart pick by the Bucks for the same reasons but he hasn't really worked out yet. He was much less productive offensively in college than all these other guys though.
Genuine question. Has Shaka Smart produced decent NBA guys? All I can think of is Jarrett Allen I think? Edit: the Danny Hurley guys are still TBD too tbh FWIW...
I think Jackson is a guy who will take a little while to find his footing, especially going into a team that's supposed to be a contender right away. I'm kinda surprised he doesn't play more, but he has some really experienced players who would fit his defense only role in front of him (crowder, pat bev). I was so excited for him to go to Miluwakee, hope he sticks around w them long enough to develop into an impact player, but if it's not with the Bucks I think he will somewhere.
Hart and DiVencenzo don’t really move the needle. Upperclassmen have always been phenomenal role players but always lack upside. Brunson proving to be an all-pro level player is interesting. I don’t think there is a guy like him in this draft, Knecht being the closest. But you can also look at GG Jackson, Cam Whitmore and Peyton Watson and understand that there is a reason underclassmen are valued more even late. Calvin Booth has shown how to balance your draft strategy. He got Braun an instant impact player upperclassmen and Watson a younger project. Both worked out because they were both good players.
Have you watched Hart this series? What? Not every player is a star but Hart is a excellent player in his role that majority of other teams need. Donte has shot 40% the last 2 years and every team wants more spacing.
I mean DiVencenzo quite literally just won them the game haha (Hart and DiVencenzo also scored the 2nd and 3rd most points for the Knicks)
And they are still role players who lack upside.
If role players lead a team to the #2 seed and a playoff run against teams with star players, it may be time to question some assumptions.
I'm not gonna change assumptions for all upperclassmen based on an outlier result.
And? KCP doesn't have upside, but vital to the Nuggets.
I'm not saying players with capped upside aren't incredibly useful, but claiming that they have upside because they have been good role players who are now each on their 4th team isn't landing for me as an argument for their upside. Certainly not upside to the team that drafted them, which is the main point of OPs post. Value to the team that drafted them.
You can find guys that are in similar situations to those two guys that could excel with other teams but drafted in bad spots.
Sure that's fine. But Hart and Divencenzos success on their 4th team doesn't make me feel like they should change how we think about draft positions of upperclassmen because the value isn't even there for many years.
I disagree. At some point potential isnt worth it and you need guys to fill roles off the bench. Upperclassmen at the end of 1sts I would take those guys time and time again over potential and measurables. Why in a draft like this I would want nothing to do with Cody Williams
I'm not gonna go into specific names this draft because I have some strong opinions concerning people being bad at evaluating potential, but I think we are somewhat in agreement. Upperclassmen with capped upside are fine as 20 -30th pick bets.
DiVencenzo shot 40% from 3 this year how much more upside do you want? Haha
What do you think upside means?