Goldbum wrote:I'm having some people over on Sunday for Brisket and Tenderloin, including 1 pro personnel scout, 1 college scout and a front office executive (plus wives and a bunch of people who don't watch sports) so I'll ask then.
1 thing I didn't mention is that teams (at least this one) believe Schmitz has a blind spot and a "type". Reddish, Dieng, Banton, etc. He said they've talked about Portland over valuing those guys and he thinks we will continue to overpay for that archtype until 1 hits.
Well, it's too bad he didn't take Amen, then, since he solves all of Portland's problems with POA defense, rebounding, playmaking, secondary ball handler, glue guy archetype, ridiculous FG% in transition (had the #1 transition FG% in the world, across all leagues and HS/college, prior to the draft iirc).
That said, they're probably not wrong. If you read Schmitz's old report on Draftexpress regarding Giannis, he seemed to have a fondness for the type of player Giannis embodied....lengthy, athletic, fluid movements that allow shot creation, body control, ball handling, attack the rim, make reads, make plays, defense, transition coast to coast, super efficient inside.
In theory, that is the type of player Portland needs.
And I think Cody Williams is that archetype more than anyone else in the draft (yes, above Sarr, Salaun, and Holland) but not so athletic and freakish like Giannis. Body control is VERY fluid, deceptive athleticism, can use contact to create separation, on ball defense, lengthy, good shot selection/efficiency (makes him passive but 75% at rim, 71% right baseline), elite transition, some ball handling, some playmaking potential, high IQ, great communicator, catch and shoot capability (50+% eFG, semi-limited 40% from 3).
Only needs to tighten his handles so he can get to his spots better and create space. That's the crux of his passiveness (so is his affinity for good shot selection). Hand size is also questionable but still larger than Cam Whitmore.
I only hope Schmitz doesn't psyche himself out now because these tools aren't really teachable. Wings/forwards don't just develop ball handling and fluidity just because they work hard at it and even if they do, they also have to somehow learn how to angle their body and use contact to create separation. It's just unheard of. I've never heard of a player developing all this if they didn't already have it.
Hence, Giannis already had it as an 18 year old. McGrady, too. A late riser like Siakam was already noted to having this prior to the draft.
This isn't a dig on your buddies but let's remember that pro scouts, draft experts, GMs all let Giannis go....just like they let Kawhi or Paul George or Siakam go (and Tari Eason is one I liked too that fell, we'll see how he ends up). Some cognitive bias exists in these institutions and its people to not recognize this type.
It's the same reason why the all-around All-Star SG type always fall past their worth despite consistently being Top 2 in a redraft. That's MJ, Drexler, Kobe, Roy, Wade, Vince, Richmond, Harden, hopefully Sharpe....and even Edwards was considered a weak #1 pick and was often mocked at #3. There's a bias to assume that just because a SG isn't dominant at one to two traits and is more all-around, they must be ineffective due them not being some super ball handler of a guard (usually, they're described as "can handle the ball but needs to tighten it up") or some great shooter. Their profiles always reads that they're just athletic and have well-rounded skillsets (good at everything but nothing great stands out) with fluid motion and quick first steps......nothing more...nothing like, "Hey, the only other profile that accurately matches it is the All-Star SG from several drafts ago and then, the one from prior to that too."
So, I think that's my issue with scouting and professional analysts. There isn't a deep enough understanding of archetypes and how certain players are usually already predetermined based on said archetype and the more items that they check off on the checklist of a particular ideal archetype, the closer you get to finding a star. I think there is a major fallacy nowadays in modern people in assuming that people are completely blank slates and can grow into a role. Not that they can't develop new strengths or mitigate weaknesses but rather, in the NBA, there is a disregard for things that are already set from Day 1. To suddenly develop a weakness into a world class skill is like asking the average Joe to suddenly become a 40% 3pt shooter....probably not going to happen.
So, if they already have these skills and some unique moves and some efficiency, you go with upside.
