2022 NBA Draft

[JasonEvans]

And if Jason wins this bet, please do not send him a Keylime pie with baby blue coloring.

It actually tasted ok, though the color was gaaaaack!

@Wheat\\\

[Steven43]

Justin Jackson was a better prospect and is stuck in the g league. It’s a little much to call Wendell a sure fire nba prospect. But I’m at the beach. I’ll respond later with more thoughts.

Dang, I had completely forgotten about that guy until your mention of him. I can’t believe he was in the 2017 draft.

Seems like he was just at UNC a couple of years ago.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Dang, I had completely forgotten about that guy until your mention of him. I can’t believe he was in the 2017 draft.

Seems like he was just at UNC a couple of years ago.

Maybe because Cameron Johnson reminds you/me of Justin Jackson?

[Steven43]

Maybe because Cameron Johnson reminds you/me of Justin Jackson?

I think that might be it, actually.

[duke96]

That's the nature of a single-elimination tournament. And we were within a shot or two of winning the Final Four game, and I think would have been favored in the final.

Alas, sometimes things don't quite go your way.

But quite regularly the team with the most immediately apparent NBA talent doesn't win. Just as Duke and UK, who have many times had the most guys drafted but only twice have won it all in the one-and-done era.

Again, just the nature of a single-elimination tournament.

True for sure. But has any team ever had a full complement of five 1 - 5 position players go in the top c.35 picks in the same season?

Anyhow it's off topic. But striking.

[JasonEvans]

Pie bet that he plays more g league minutes this year that NBA minutes.

You mean like Kendrick Nunn or Gabe Vincent? They both spent their entire first year as a pro in the G-League before becoming quite successful NBA players.

I mean, G-League versus NBA minutes has absolutely nothing to do with Wendell's draft stock of how the NBA perceives his long-term value in the league. Totally different conversation than the one we are currently having. No way I make that bet because it is possible Wendell gets drafted by a team like Golden State or Miami who are loaded to the gills with 3&D wings who would give Wendell very little opportunity for playing time in the NBA. His team might decide to have him spend almost the entire year in the G-League merely as a way of giving him playing time until they have a slot for him at the next level. Minutes are totally irrelevant to this conversation.

But, I wonder if we can find a compromise -- games on roster. I'd be willing to bet a pie that Wendell Moore spends more games on the active roster of a NBA team next season than he spends on the roster of a G-League team. We can nullify the bet if Wendell is injured and misses more than 20 games in either league as the way the NBA clubs handle injury assignments could alter things in a way that proves neither of us was absolutely right or wrong.

What say you?

[brevity]

Pie bet that he plays more g league minutes this year that NBA minutes.

To the casual person, this is a great trap bet. Most players who are borderline NBA roster material are likely to play lots of G League minutes and not so many NBA minutes. Even if Wendell spends 25 percent of next season in the G League and 75 percent in the NBA, his G League minutes may still come out ahead.

I'd be willing to bet a pie that Wendell Moore spends more games on the active roster of a NBA team next season than he spends on the roster of a G-League team.

This might also be a trap bet. The NBA plays 82 regular season games. The last full G League season was in 2018-2019, and they played 50 regular season games.

[budwom]

I miss seeing David Stern being heckled.

[CDu]

True for sure. But has any team ever had a full complement of five 1 - 5 position players go in the top c.35 picks in the same season?

Anyhow it's off topic. But striking.

2015 UK had their starting PF (Towns), C (Cauley-Stein), SF (Lyles), and backup SG (Booker) go top-15, and their starting PG went #44, and a backup C went #48. And 2006 UConn had their PG, 2 wings, PF, and C all go in the top-40. 2010 UK had their PG, SG, PF, C and a backup C go in the first round.

It is about a 50/50 proposition when you have 5-6 guys drafted. 2007 UF, 2008 Kansas, and 2012 UK won it, while 2006 UConn, 2010 UK, 2015 UK, and 2022 Duke did not. Though only UConn fell short of the Elite-8, and both 2015 UK and 2022 Duke came oh so close to the title game.

[Phredd3]

This might also be a trap bet. The NBA plays 82 regular season games. The last full G League season was in 2018-2019, and they played 50 regular season games.

Less trappy if it is days on the roster, rather than games.

[DavidBenAkiva]

2015 UK had their starting PF (Towns), C (Cauley-Stein), SF (Lyles), and backup SG (Booker) go top-15, and their starting PG went #44, and a backup C went #48. And 2006 UConn had their PG, 2 wings, PF, and C all go in the top-40. 2010 UK had their PG, SG, PF, C and a backup C go in the first round.

It is about a 50/50 proposition when you have 5-6 guys drafted. 2007 UF, 2008 Kansas, and 2012 UK won it, while 2006 UConn, 2010 UK, 2015 UK, and 2022 Duke did not. Though only UConn fell short of the Elite-8, and both 2015 UK and 2022 Duke came oh so close to the title game.

This is a really good post and a reminder that accumulating a ton of future NBA talent is a great way of going very far in the NCAAT, even if you don't win the whole thing.

[scottdude8]

This is a really good post and a reminder that accumulating a ton of future NBA talent is a great way of going very far in the NCAAT, even if you don't win the whole thing.

Yup. I've come to the conclusion that all you can do entering March is "maximize your probability" of winning it all, but whether or not you win it all very much up to chance (both the fun and the pain of the Tourney!).

Here's another way to think about it: let's imagine in a given year there's a clear-cut No. 1 team, to the point that you'd expect that team to win against a top 50 team 95% of the time, a top 25 team 90% of the time, a Top 10 team 80% of the time, and the other top 2/3 teams 75% of the time. I think most would agree those probabilities would be indicative of a potentially historically good team... that's a team that would likely make its way through a series of best-of-7 series with plenty of sweeps and 5 game series, or in the college landscape likely have only a couple of losses entering the tourney.

In all likelihood, in the tourney said team would play a Top 50 team in Round 2, a Top 25 team in the Sweet 16, Top 10 teams in the Elite 8 and Final 4, and another top team in the NC. The probabilities say that team would win each of those games with a 0.95x0.9x0.8x0.8x0.75=0.41 chance. That means that a hypothetical "historically" good team would win the tournament, on average, less than half the time. But they'd make it to the Elite 8, and even the Final 4, much more often on average.

As with all hypothetical mathematical situations, this is highly idealized and simplified. But hopefully the thought experiment goes to show that just because a team doesn't win it all doesn't mean they weren't really, really good.

[Steven43]

Yup. I've come to the conclusion that all you can do entering March is "maximize your probability" of winning it all, but whether or not you win it all very much up to chance (both the fun and the pain of the Tourney!).

Here's another way to think about it: let's imagine in a given year there's a clear-cut No. 1 team, to the point that you'd expect that team to win against a top 50 team 95% of the time, a top 25 team 90% of the time, a Top 10 team 80% of the time, and the other top 2/3 teams 75% of the time. I think most would agree those probabilities would be indicative of a potentially historically good team... that's a team that would likely make its way through a series of best-of-7 series with plenty of sweeps and 5 game series, or in the college landscape likely have only a couple of losses entering the tourney.

In all likelihood, in the tourney said team would play a Top 50 team in Round 2, a Top 25 team in the Sweet 16, Top 10 teams in the Elite 8 and Final 4, and another top team in the NC. The probabilities say that team would win each of those games with a 0.95x0.9x0.8x0.8x0.75=0.41 chance. That means that a hypothetical "historically" good team would win the tournament, on average, less than half the time. But they'd make it to the Elite 8, and even the Final 4, much more often on average.

As with all hypothetical mathematical situations, this is highly idealized and simplified. But hopefully the thought experiment goes to show that just because a team doesn't win it all doesn't mean they weren't really, really good.

Interesting way to look at it.

What does this say about UNC’s chances to win the championship next year? We’d better not have a repeat of the 2016 and 2017 scenario where UNC lost (Villanova) in the championship game in ‘16 and came back in ‘17 to win it (vs the Gonzaga Chokers).

It just might finish me off were that to happen.

[WV_Iron_Duke]

The great '92 Duke team which was #1 the entire season was only 4-1 to win the NCAA Tournament.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Interesting way to look at it.

What does this say about UNC’s chances to win the championship next year? We’d better not have a repeat of the 2016 and 2017 scenario where UNC lost (Villanova) in the championship game in ‘16 and came back in ‘17 to win it (vs the Gonzaga Chokers).

It just might finish me off were that to happen.

Historically, teams that overperformed in the NCAAT did not sustain that great form the following season. UCLA in 2022 is the posterchild for this trend. Everyone was convinced they were a surefire top 3 team entering the 2021-22 season following the magical run to the Final Four and returning almost the entire group of players. They then proceeded to have a pretty good but not great 27-8 season, finished 2nd in the Pac-12, was a 4 seed and lost in the Sweet 16 to UNC. Objectively, it was a lot better than the previous season, where they entered the NCAAT at 18-12 and an 11-seed playing against Michigan State on Tuesday just to get to the Round of 64.

UNC has had 3 consecutive seasons of double-digit losses, losing 19, 11, and then 10 games. It is a team that has not been able to consistently win. They add some freshmen and one very good transfer in Pete Nance, but they lost arguably one of their two most important players from last year's team in Brady Manek. He was by far their most efficient scorer and his quick release allowed them to space the floor extremely well. When the defense clicked in the last ~6 weeks of the season, they suddenly started playing like the best team in the country. The question is if Pete Nance is more like Manek or more like Dawson Garcia. Both were stretch-fours that were going to share the load with Bacot in the frontcourt and help modernize the UNC offense. Garcia largely didn't work out while Manek did. Nance certainly has the tools to do some of what Manek did. But so did Garcia.

Jim Root of 3-Man Weave wrote up an interesting piece about teams that get a ton of hype following a so-so season. He mostly focuses on Crieghton but notes that the same situation largely applies to UNC. Teams that are middling (outside the KenPom Top 25 entering the NCAAT [UNC was 30th]) one season that appear in the AP Top 10 in the following preseason polls rarely end up in the KenPom top 10 at the end of the following season. It does happen sometimes, but less than 1/3rd of the teams do so. The question for UNC is if their team is the one that caught fire for 6 weeks or more like the team that played 4 months of hot/cold basketball during the 2022 season. We shall see.

Here's the article I referenced: https://www.three-man-weave.com/3mw/...-the-leap-2022

[HayYou]

Not in a wildly variable championship format where a single game can knock you out. In fact, as talked about seemingly ad nausea on this board, the "best" team entering the tournament doesn't win it more often than not. Hence why making a Final Four is still a monumental accomplishment, despite the disappointment of coming so close.

I'd add that AJ is in free fall draft status wise. There was talk of him being 4th (not that serious of talk) or 5th (dead serious talk). Now there is a real chance he falls out of the top 10. The longer the pre draft process is, or could theoretically be, the further he'd fall, with a floor being somewhere around 20. Now the talk is about consistency, defensive effort/effectiveness, and injury history. It is possible that such talk is a smoke screen from some team drafting closer to 10 that hopes AJG will fall to them, but I doubt it. That word, consistency, keeps popping up. I suspect some teams have done the per game splits and realized that AJG's lofty shooting percentage was built on inconsistent results. I'd take a guy who consistently hits 38% (with very little variation) compared to a guy shooting closer to 45% on WIDE variation. That is just my preference, but I think I'm not alone, especially in NBA front offices. Some guy that hits 7 or 8 out of 9 one game, and follows it with a few 1 out of 5s, or worse, is scary. Now, if that same player makes up for bad shooting with defense or great rebounding for his position, FINE. I'll live with the bad shooting days in the short run, and hope it improves (and trade him or don't resign him if it doesn't).

But AJG's bad defense barely got out paced on his good shooting nights. On his bad shooting nights.......Well, we lost some of his really bad shooting nights unless Moore or Keels or Roach went off in a pretty big way.

Further, at the end of the first and beginning of the second round, teams are looking for one of 2 types of players. Guys with huge upside (typically extremely athletic but raw bigs) or role players. And the role players at the blue bloods like Duke and UK fit the bill. Duke especially. We've got supporting players who are just that. Supporting players. They spent 1 or more years alongside top tier lottery picks, and even future NBA superstars. Our role players know how to play a role. There are plenty of guys who had better years, or who even MIGHT be BETTER players than our guys. But many of those other guys were stars, even if on mediocre teams. That player(s) have been featured since HS as one of the top options on the court. The offensive strategies of their teams were GEARED around maximizing the output of the "star."

In other words, they've always been either the Batman, or Batman in training, on their team. Well, the NBA doesn't even need that guy to be a Robin. And that player isn't good enough to be Robin in the NBA anyway. The NBA needs Alfreds. And Duke's role players know how to do that with a smile on their face and the phrase "yes coach, whatever you say coach" or "yes All star player x, whatever you say player X." And there is nothing wrong with that. In the real world, almost everyone has a role like that. In the real world, some of us grow into the leader role, but in sports growth is limited by natural athletic or physical gifts. Moore can work as hard as he wants, but he might never by more than the 4th option on the court at any given time, with his PT being predicated on hard work on D, and putting his team's star in the best possible position.

And like a lot of Duke guys, Moore (and Keels and Roach and Cook and Trent and Lance and the Plumlees and Griffin and Kennard and Grayson) know this, accept this, and are able to excel in that limited role. Lots of guys aren't. They can't fathom a system not geared towards them. The idea of being a lesser sidekick (Alfred or Commissioner Gordon to Batman, much less a Robin).

Based on Draft status, or likely status, it is easy to say that Duke underachieved. The FF is pretty good, and anything can happen. UNCheat was a bad matchup for Duke, and they made some lucky shots, etc. If it hadn't been UNCheat, we'd be a little disappointed, naturally, but it wouldn't be this sense of gloom.

[Kedsy]

That word, consistency, keeps popping up. I suspect some teams have done the per game splits and realized that AJG's lofty shooting percentage was built on inconsistent results. I'd take a guy who consistently hits 38% (with very little variation) compared to a guy shooting closer to 45% on WIDE variation. That is just my preference, but I think I'm not alone, especially in NBA front offices. Some guy that hits 7 or 8 out of 9 one game, and follows it with a few 1 out of 5s, or worse, is scary. Now, if that same player makes up for bad shooting with defense or great rebounding for his position, FINE. I'll live with the bad shooting days in the short run, and hope it improves (and trade him or don't resign him if it doesn't).

But AJG's bad defense barely got out paced on his good shooting nights. On his bad shooting nights...Well, we lost some of his really bad shooting nights unless Moore or Keels or Roach went off in a pretty big way.

This might be pretty convincing, if it was true. Out of the 39 games AJ played for Duke, he had only five (5) games in which he attempted more than two three-pointers while making less than 30% (and in two of those he made 29% and he made 25% in one of the others, meaning there were only two games all season in which AJ shot "1 out of 5s, or worse," the VaTech game in the ACC tourney (1 for 8) and UNC in the Final Four (0 for 4)). Duke won three of those five games (the only losses being the already mentioned VaTech and UNC games). And I don't know what you consider "[going] off in a pretty big way," but in the three wins in which AJ shot poorly from three, none of Moore or Keels or Roach exceeded 15 points.

[Daddylawman]

I'd add that AJ is in free fall draft status wise. There was talk of him being 4th (not that serious of talk) or 5th (dead serious talk). Now there is a real chance he falls out of the top 10. The longer the pre draft process is, or could theoretically be, the further he'd fall, with a floor being somewhere around 20. Now the talk is about consistency, defensive effort/effectiveness, and injury history.

Do you just post BS like this to see if someone (like me) is foolish enough to take the bait? This is just flat out stupid. AJ has not been projected in the Top 5 at any point since he end of the season. Every mock draft has him around 10-12. The "talk" you reference is made up in your own head. You love make these grand proclamation posts based on nothing but your desire to make us read your $#!t . Just stop.

[CameronBlue]

Do you just post BS like this to see if someone (like me) is foolish enough to take the bait? This is just flat out stupid. AJ has not been projected in the Top 5 at any point since he end of the season. Every mock draft has him around 10-12. The "talk" you reference is made up in your own head. You love make these grand proclamation posts based on nothing but your desire to make us read your $#!t . Just stop.

The "talk" reminds me of "People are saying, not me, but some people..."

[tommy]

I'd add that AJ is in free fall draft status wise. There was talk of him being 4th (not that serious of talk) or 5th (dead serious talk). Now there is a real chance he falls out of the top 10. The longer the pre draft process is, or could theoretically be, the further he'd fall, with a floor being somewhere around 20. Now the talk is about consistency, defensive effort/effectiveness, and injury history. It is possible that such talk is a smoke screen from some team drafting closer to 10 that hopes AJG will fall to them, but I doubt it. That word, consistency, keeps popping up. I suspect some teams have done the per game splits and realized that AJG's lofty shooting percentage was built on inconsistent results. I'd take a guy who consistently hits 38% (with very little variation) compared to a guy shooting closer to 45% on WIDE variation. That is just my preference, but I think I'm not alone, especially in NBA front offices. Some guy that hits 7 or 8 out of 9 one game, and follows it with a few 1 out of 5s, or worse, is scary. Now, if that same player makes up for bad shooting with defense or great rebounding for his position, FINE. I'll live with the bad shooting days in the short run, and hope it improves (and trade him or don't resign him if it doesn't).

But AJG's bad defense barely got out paced on his good shooting nights. On his bad shooting nights...Well, we lost some of his really bad shooting nights unless Moore or Keels or Roach went off in a pretty big way.

Further, at the end of the first and beginning of the second round, teams are looking for one of 2 types of players. Guys with huge upside (typically extremely athletic but raw bigs) or role players. And the role players at the blue bloods like Duke and UK fit the bill. Duke especially. We've got supporting players who are just that. Supporting players. They spent 1 or more years alongside top tier lottery picks, and even future NBA superstars. Our role players know how to play a role. There are plenty of guys who had better years, or who even MIGHT be BETTER players than our guys. But many of those other guys were stars, even if on mediocre teams. That player(s) have been featured since HS as one of the top options on the court. The offensive strategies of their teams were GEARED around maximizing the output of the "star."

In other words, they've always been either the Batman, or Batman in training, on their team. Well, the NBA doesn't even need that guy to be a Robin. And that player isn't good enough to be Robin in the NBA anyway. The NBA needs Alfreds. And Duke's role players know how to do that with a smile on their face and the phrase "yes coach, whatever you say coach" or "yes All star player x, whatever you say player X." And there is nothing wrong with that. In the real world, almost everyone has a role like that. In the real world, some of us grow into the leader role, but in sports growth is limited by natural athletic or physical gifts. Moore can work as hard as he wants, but he might never by more than the 4th option on the court at any given time, with his PT being predicated on hard work on D, and putting his team's star in the best possible position.

And like a lot of Duke guys, Moore (and Keels and Roach and Cook and Trent and Lance and the Plumlees and Griffin and Kennard and Grayson) know this, accept this, and are able to excel in that limited role. Lots of guys aren't. They can't fathom a system not geared towards them. The idea of being a lesser sidekick (Alfred or Commissioner Gordon to Batman, much less a Robin).

Based on Draft status, or likely status, it is easy to say that Duke underachieved. The FF is pretty good, and anything can happen. UNCheat was a bad matchup for Duke, and they made some lucky shots, etc. If it hadn't been UNCheat, we'd be a little disappointed, naturally, but it wouldn't be this sense of gloom.

Steph Curry must be pretty scary then. Fun fact: This season, of the 64 regular season games Steph played in, in 20 of them he shot 30% or less from 3. That's 31% of his regular season games. In the playoff, it was 6 of his 22 games, so 27% of games he shot that poorly from range.

Contrast AJ Griffin. Beginning with S. Carolina State, as that is when he began to get regular minutes after his injury, of the 25 games in which AJ took at least 3 three-pointers, he shot less than 30% in only 20% of those 25 games (5 of the 25). So yeah, on a percentage basis, AJ had less "off" nights from long range than did the generally acknowledged greatest shooter in NBA history this year.

Also, Carolina wasn't a "bad matchup" for Duke this year. I seem to remember us blowing them out of their own building by 20. And then it taking two missed FTs from our 72% shooting center and a lucky three pointer that their erratic PG threw in with a defender draped all over him for them to beat us in the FF. The matchup was fine. We crushed them once. They got lucky once. And the other win they got was on Coach K's last game at home when our guys were understandably ridiculously tight and enormously stressed in a once-in-a-lifetime environment.