NBA Draft 2016 Big Board

I thought I would pitch in to the massive bank of people giving their two cents on the fast approaching NBA Draft. This is my big board (not my mock, simply the best guy available). I could go into a whole explanation of why each guy is here or there, but instead I choose to present it in a clean way that incites conversation (go ahead and comment or tweet me @hoover__26 with #NBABigBoard to chat about my thought process and share your own).

1.   Brandon Ingram
2.   Ben Simmons
3.   Jamal Murray
4.   Kris Dunn
5.   Jaylen Brown
6.   Marquese Chriss
7  . Henry Ellenson
8.   Skal Labissiere
9.   Buddy Hield
10. Dragan Bender
11. Timothe Luwawu
12. Jacob Poetl
13. Deyonta Davis
14. Furkan Korkmaz
15. Damantas Sabonis
16. Wade Baldwin
17. Denzel Valentine
18. Thon Maker
19. Malachi Richardson
20. Demetrius Jackson
21. Taurean Prince
22. Dejounte Murray
23. Brice Johnson
24. Ante Zizic
25. DeAndre Bembry
26. Cheick Diallo
27. Damian Jones
28. Tyler Ulis
29. Juan Hernangomez
30. Ivica Zubac

Some other guys that are lower on my board,  I think are underrated and could have great NBA careers are:

Wes Washpun
Cat Barber
Kay Felder
Egidijus Mockevicius
Mike Tobey
Isaiah Cousins
Wayne Selden
Gary Payton II
Michael Gbinjie
Ben Bentil
Pascal Siakam
Jarrod Uthoff

Wes Washpun Vs. Isaiah Thomas NBA Draft Prospect Analysis Evaluation

Wes Washpun vs. Isaiah Thomas

Body Type Evaluation

Wes Washpun out of UNI is a hard guy to make a comparison to. At first, Kyrie Irving jumped out to me. However, Washpun being generously listed at 6’1” made that a hard comparison to make. While Isaiah clearly has the height disadvantage (standing at only 5’9”), they have similar physical traits. Both are ridiculous jumpers, with Washpun hitting 36.5 inches on the no-step vertical and Isaiah having what is rumored to be a 38.5 inch max vertical. Washpun is considerably longer than Thomas, being 3-4 inches taller and having a wingspan of nearly 6’7” (according to hoopshabit.com), almost five inches longer than Thomas’. Washpun, despite being the taller and longer of the two, weighs about ten pounds less than Thomas. However, both are similar in that they are undersized point guards with wingspans that exceed their heights by about 5 inches.

Statistical Evaluation

Statistically, this is another interesting argument. Metrically, they are very similar. Their rebound percentage, assist percentage, steal percentage, block percentage, turnover percentage and usage percentage for their last year in college all are within a few points of each other (Washpun having the lead in all of them except turnover percentage and steal percentage, and a lower usage percentage). Thomas has the lead in true shooting percentage by .014, as well as the lead in Win Shares and Box Plus/Minus (all stats courtesy of sports-reference.com). While Thomas seems to have been the more impactful player for his team, scoring and assisting at higher averages than Washpun, Wes appears to be the more well rounded player. He was seventh in the Missouri Valley Conference in blocked shots at 6’1”, and second in the conference in points produced. Thomas was also playing with three future NBA wing men, which may have aided in his assist numbers. Regardless, both were very capable college point guards, and they were both vital parts of their team's’ success. Washpun is a more well rounded player, while Thomas is a better passer and shooter.

Film Evaluation

When you go to the film, a few things become obvious. Both Washpun and Thomas are great penetrators and finishers around the rim, and they are both extremely bouncy and light on their feet. While, as I said, I initially compared Washpun to Kyrie, the fact that Washpun has to rely on quickness and explosiveness as opposed to Kyrie having his 6’4” frame backing him up makes it a harder comparison to make. Isaiah’s college mixtape shows a ton of jumping into passing lanes, driving and juking shot blockers, and passing from the interior. Washpun is versed in all three of these things, and while Thomas may shoot a few more threes, Washpun has the ability to expand his range (if you need proof, look up Washpun’s three quarter court jumper in UNI’s upset win over #1 North Carolina). While Thomas’s flashy interior lob and drop off passes are a thing of beauty, I was really impressed with Washpun’s ability to drive, turn into the post, and find an open shooter from the painted area like a Greg Monroe.

Final Thoughts

Wes Washpun is one of my favorite sleepers in this year’s draft. As I have said, I think he could very easily be a starting point guard in the NBA one day. He compares to Isaiah Thomas in many areas, including style of play and rebounding as a shorter player. Potential landing spots for Washpun could be places like Chicago, Memphis, Atlanta, or New York, teams that either need a point guard now or are preparing for the impending loss of their current point guard but also have other needs to fill earlier in the draft. For instance, I could see Chicago addressing their needs in the frontcourt first, then going after Washpun as the possible heir of Derrick Rose. Nonetheless, I think Wes Washpun has a tremendously high ceiling in the NBA, and should get the recognition he deserves.

Henry Ellenson vs.Kevin Love Prospect Analysis and Evaluation

Henry Ellenson vs. Kevin Love

Body Type Evaluation

If you look at the measurables on both Love and Ellenson, it may seem pretty clear cut. Ellenson, the Marquette product, is listed on espn.com at 7’, 242 pounds. Love is listed at 6’10”, 251 pounds. Ellenson’s pre-draft standing reach and wingspan top Love’s pre-draft numbers by one and two inches, respectively. It looks as though Ellenson has the right body to be a center in the NBA on day one. However, according to Zach Brunner (@fantasyflurry has played basketball with Ellenson), Henry is probably closer to 6’10” (at only 19, nothing says he can’t reach 7’ at some point, but he will be quite undersized at the 5 on draft day). But, that doesn’t mean he and Love see eye to eye when it comes to height. Love’s 6’10” listing is one of the most controversial in the game, and he was measured at 6’ 7.8” without shoes at his NBA combine. Adding the average 1 ½” for basketball shoes, Love would have had to have grown nearly an inch since his combine to be a legitimate 6’10” in shoes. Ellenson fits the Kevin Love bill as far as being a slightly undersized rebounder with an offensive game that stretches out as far as anyone’s. But, I would say Ellenson has the edge on physical measurables, as he is now (at 19 years old) what Kevin Love has tried to grow into (and maybe never has, but nobody really knows).  

Statistical Evaluation

As far as the numbers go, these two are pretty close. Ellenson averaged 17 points, 9.7 rebounds, 1.8 assists and 1.5 blocks per game for Marquette (sports-reference.com). Love averaged 17.5 points, 10.6 rebounds and 1.9 assists per game for UCLA (basketball-reference.com). Just looking at that, you may be tempted to give Love the slight edge. However, teammates and competition have to also be considered (not to mention metric stats). Ellenson’s Marquette played against 12 NCAA tournament teams, and went 4-7 against those teams. Kevin Love’s UCLA team went 7-2 against ranked teams in 2007 (technically it was 7-1-V, after Memphis had their wins vacated due to some supposed shenanigans with Derrick Rose’s brother). However, Kevin Love played with three other future NBA players in his starting lineup (including Russell Westbrook). Ellenson’s right hand man (junior forward Luke Fischer) averaged 12.1 points, 6.2 boards and 1 assist (granted it was on a FG% of 60%, but still not even close to matching the impact of Russell Westbrook and Darren Collison). Love has the metric edge in pretty much every stat, but he was also quite a bit more free to shoot as he pleased with such impressive teammates. Ellenson has the potential to boost his rebounding to a Love-like level, but he needs to improve there if he wants to be equally as strong on the boards. I give the statistical edge to Love, but Ellenson had quite a bit bigger role on his team (and in turn more pressure on him to perform on a nightly basis).

Film Evaluation

When you go to the film, it’s clear that these two are similar players. They both are adept at using both hands on finishes in the post, and both have strong touch when putting up floaters. Love may appear to be a better and more willing passer, but just look at who he was passing to! Ellenson was tasked as a freshman to be the main contributor on a Marquette team that wasn’t stacked with talent, while Love was tasked to be ONE of the contributors on a #1 ranked team with multiple future NBA All-Stars on it.  While Ellenson may have seemed inconsistent with his jumper, just look at the following images.

Love has more space there than Ellenson would know what to do with (this is not the only time this happened, I just picked that play for an example). In addition to this, Love’s low post game was bolstered by the fact that defenders often fronted him to avoid being sealed on a drive by Westbrook or Collison (both accomplished drivers to the hoop). Don’t get me wrong, Kevin Love had an elite post game in college (and still does today). However, the numbers may be a little misleading.  Another thing that I have seen people knock Ellenson with is his defensive ability. While that is one of his weaknesses, I see things that tell me he will improve. For one, he really didn’t have any help on defense! When a player is driving on Ellenson, he was left to protect the rim on his own many times. It also seems like Ellenson has the physical, mental and emotional ability to work hard at improving his weak spots. For more on that, here is a quote from Zach Brunner: “That kid has his head on straight and has improved an insane amount from when I first met him when he was a freshman in high school. He has the work ethic to be the best, and that is his only goal right now. He has this slight arrogance that I think you need to succeed in this league. In his mind, if he wants to do something, nobody is going to stop him. Luckily, his head is on straight, comes from small town roots, and has that humbleness to back it up. Think like how Larry Bird was.” I’d say those are some pretty strong words.

Final Thoughts

I think Henry Ellenson is a very good prospect, and I would certainly take him in the top 15 in this year’s draft. Do I think he can be Kevin Love? Well, they are similar (but not identical) players. Ellenson has a better NBA body than Love, but his overall fundamentals are still lagging behind where Love was at his age. Ellenson is still adjusting to being a low post presence on both sides of the ball, as he tended to work more from the midrange area in high school. I’m very excited to see Ellenson in the NBA, and if he can continue to improve as a 19 year old player, he should be someone to watch for years to come.

Kris Dunn vs. John Wall NBA Draft Prospect Evaluation

Kris Dunn vs. John Wall

Body Type Evaluation

To begin this assessment, I am going to focus on one thing that makes both Wall and Dunn extraordinary from a measurements standpoint, (channeling my inner Jay Bilas here) their wingspan. An average NBA point guard has a wingspan of about 6’5” (nyloncalculus.com). Wall’s wingspan of 6’9” would have put him well over the 90th percentile. Now, according to espn.com, Kris Dunn out of Providence has a wingspan of 6’10”. We just saw how valuable a point guard who can shoot over defenders is when Shaun Livingston torched the Cleveland defense by penetrating and releasing over the shorter guard playing him. If Dunn’s wingspan is really that massive, that’s a big selling point for me. As far as standing reach goes, Wall’s 8’6” tops Dunn’s 8’4”, but 8’4” is still enough to put him close to the 90th percentile in that respect. From there, I can see why the comparisons are made. Both are slashing guards who have above average speed and athleticism, and both have had injury problems in the past (proving the while Dunn’s past injuries may be a red flag, the story can have a happy ending as it did with Wall’s success in the NBA). While the height and weight measurements on Dunn varies from listing to listing, most have him at nearly 6’4” and a little over 200lbs. Wall is approximately the same height, and just a little lighter at 196lbs. As far as this goes, I would say Wall and Dunn have very similar body types, which suit a very similar playing style. However, that certainly doesn’t paint the whole picture. If we want to fill in all of the blanks, and be able to make the most educated guess possible on Dunn’s potential, we need to look at this comparison from a few more angles.

Statistical Evaluation

Statistically, this is another interesting comparison. Both Wall and Dunn played with other dominant stars in college, Wall having played with guys like DeMarcus Cousins, Patrick Patterson and Eric Bledsoe, and Dunn with Ben Bentil (who is staying in the draft as of now) and Rodney Bullock. Wall and Dunn’s college scoring in the year before they were drafted (Wall was a one and done, so that was his freshman year) was separated by about a fifth of a point. Wall averaged 0.3 assists more per game that Dunn, but nearly a whole rebound less. Dunn also played less minutes per game than Wall, and therefore has better stats per 40 minutes. However, when it comes to Win Shares Per 40 Minutes, Wall has a considerable lead on Dunn (sports-reference.com), while concurrently having a lower usage percentage. Dunn has the lead in Player Efficiency Rating, which for the record I don’t like to rely on as a true judge of efficiency. Overall, the stats are pretty close. They both steal the ball at a very good clip, and they both are pretty prone to turnovers. In a purely statistical evaluation, I would have to give Wall the edge (also accounting for the fact that he was a freshman and Dunn has parts of four seasons played in college). But, while Ben Bentil was a great player for Providence, Wall had much better teammates (they had five players taken in the first round that year). Metrically, however, the edge probably goes to Dunn. He has a greater assist percentage, rebound percentage, steal percentage, and a lower turnover percentage (sports-reference.com). Shooting is a big topic for these two, as Wall’s shaky jump shot was often a question earlier in his career (he once shot less than 10% from long range in a year). Dunn’s three point shooting percentage his last year in college was better than Wall’s, but keep in mind that Dunn has had more time in college to work on it (he is only 3 years younger than Wall despite being in the draft six years after him). One thing about Dunn that has me worried is his rather low True Shooting Percentage. It sits at .541, which is lower than Wall’s college number. If Dunn is going to have a similar career arc as Wall, he will need to pick up his shooting as Wall did. From this perspective, it seems like Wall and Dunn share many of the same statistical strengths and weaknesses. But, there is one last test for them to go through, and that is perhaps the most important one of all for NBA scouts: the eye test.

Film Evaluation

Now, with the last two angles to this comparison, it’s pretty obvious how Kris Dunn drew his John Wall comparisons. But when it comes to the mixtapes, it goes beyond just a comparison. It gets to the point where it’s hard to tell them apart. I have watched both players, and I found John Wall’s college play a little more “dynamic”, but that doesn’t really matter much as far as production. Dunn has great speed, like Wall. He uses that speed and twitchy quickness to jump passes and get easy dunks, like Wall. He uses those easy dunks to create future openings when it comes to penetration, like Wall. In fact, I re-watched a few mixtapes of Wall and Dunn from college, and I was a little bit frightened by the similarities. If you get a chance, find Wall’s game winner vs. Miami (Ohio) on YouTube, then find Dunn’s game winner vs. Creighton. It’s the same play. Dunn goes the same way as Wall, he steps back in the same spot, shoots pretty much the same shot, and it ends with the same result. Wall’s was a splash, it barely touched the net. Dunn’s hit the back of the rim, and bounced around a while before going down. Regardless of how it went in, it did on both occasions, and ended with a win being put in the column of Kentucky and Providence.

Final Thoughts

John Wall is a tremendous player. Kris Dunn is a tremendous prospect. Will their career parabolas share the same arc? I don’t know the answer to that question, nobody does right now. However, what I can say is that Dunn shares many of the traits of a player like Wall. While Wall did what he did as a freshman, and therefore seemed to have more potential, Dunn is still someone I certainly would take in the Lottery. Without doubt, I can say that Kris Dunn is the real deal, and could fill a similar role as Emmanuel Mudiay did last season. But, comparing those two is another story entirely, one that I don’t choose to tell. I conclude this article by saying the following to any NBA team who thinks they can contend with a combo guard who can step in and competently score and defend in a number of ways- Kris Dunn is available, and ready to go.