New ESPN(by far the best and most accurate nba draft site) top 100
Poole-64
Matthews-67
Tillman-75
Winston-87
Iggy-88
Weāve had plenty of freshman come in and play well under Beilein. Hardaway, Burke, Stauskus, GR3, and Walton all came in and started and played comparably if not better than Iggy this year. Itās also important to remember Iggy is old for a freshman, heās six months older than Poole, so he came in more physically ready than most. There really isnāt room for anything other than incremental improvements from Iggy. Heās a very good player, but hes probably never gonna be a guy with a 15%+ assist rate. Hopefully he can bump his assist rate up to around 10% by kicking the ball out a couple times a game when he drives and the defense collapses instead of forcing really tough contested shots at the rim.
1 Like
I would say Burke and maybe Stauskas are guys that came in and did better than Iggy. And Iām not even sure about Stauskas since Iām betting a ton of his baskets were assisted.
Iggy had a bigger impact as a freshman than everyone else on that list imo. All of those guys were role players in their freshman year.
I will merely note that āplaying wellā, which Ignas did, and ābeing appealing to NBA scoutsā arenāt the same thing, and are two utterly different conversations. What Iāve said, ad nauseum, is that Ignas played well, yet does not have contours of an NBA player.
He lack the athleticism to be a two point bucket-getter (he finished poorly in Big Ten play at the basket), and definitely will struggle to guard NBA small forwards.
Most NBA rotation players have, at least, a solid combination of both talent/athleticism and skills. NBA scouts will, generally, draft talent and assume they can teach skill, becauseā¦you canāt teach talent.
This is why you see Poole - who was quantifiably worse than Brazdeikis - higher on the list. Poole has the size of an NBA 2, a good fundamental shooting stroke, and athleticism to get some of his own shots and effectively defend. They will see that, and feel that he can be coached to good shot selection and sound defensive rotations (or at least that its worth trying).
Ignas was one of the most catch-and-shootiest guys in recent Michigan history (his baskets were overwhelmingly assisted), struggled against mobile offensive players (faired much better against power players due to his strength), and had lass than an assist a game.
2 Likes
Iggyās impact was bigger because of the team he played on. Stauskus was a better player than Iggy, but he played on a team with an incredibly ball dominant Burke and Hardaway as a second option. Iggy had a higher percentage of shots assisted than Stauskus did as well.
Hardaway as a freshman played 76.7% of minutes with a 24.3 usage rate and an ORTG of 109.8.
Iggy this year played 74.1% of minutes with a 24.6 usage rate and an ORTG of 110.7.
Thatās pretty close and Iggy and a much better supporting cast.
Iggy had a higher % of his shots at the rim (42.7) and from 3 (85.7) assisted than a freshman Walton (25.9) and (83.7).
I think you could argue any of them were as good as Iggy as freshman.
Are there stats on Iggyās percentage around the rim in Big Ten play and on the season? It seems like the consensus is that he isnāt a good finisher but Iām wondering if the analytics back that up
Every shot chart Dylan posted towards the end of the year showed his shots around the basket at an icy blue. Here it is pre-TTU:
For comparison sake, Matthews was 63% at the rim, Poole 65%.
1 Like
Are we only talking about offense? I donāt think anyone would argue Iggy was worse on the other end of the floor than Stauskas and some others.
I canāt tell you specifically at the rim, but Brazdeikis shot 50% on twos over the entire season and 45.7% on twos in Big Ten play (which is 20 of 37 games).
1 Like
Here are some hoop-math numbers on it:
Looks a little different from Dylanās chart, probably due to how āat the rimā is classified.
Either way, you see he finishes significantly worse than every one of our major players except X whoās like 5ā9".
When you use the ālayup/dunkā criteria, which I believe Hoop Math is using from PBP, I do think that more makes are called layups and dunks than misses. If that makes sense.
A shot near that rim that goes in usually feels like a layup but a 4 foot shot around the hoop that doesāt go in is still near the rim but is called an other two usually in PBP.
1 Like
I hadnāt looked at it - Iām frankly sort of shocked that Poole and Brazdeikis ended with nearly identical efficiency numbers in shooting. I would have said Brazdeikis was appreciably better.
Do you think he could play the point in year one? I havent seen him in person but I thought he was more of a shot-hunting two guard who may have to be reigned in a bit from a shot selection perspective. But maybe thatās just the LaMelo Ball highlights getting the best of meā¦
A lot of talk going around about Poole being as good as goneā¦
Did they change the rule now to where you can enter the draft and if you donāt get drafted, you can still go back to school?
I hope both Poole and Iggy come back, but maybe the odds are one of them will definitely leave. Kind of like it was 2 years ago with DJ and Moe. Like in that instance if we could only get 1 of them back, it was more important for it to be Moe. This time, of the two, itās defintely Iggy for me as the more important one to return.
I said this weeks back: āThat Poole just wants to be done with college basketball.ā
Heāll most assuredly declare, and the only way he doesnāt stay in the draft is if he gets overwhelmingly negative feedback from evaluators.
I donāt think thatās going to happen with this weak draft.
1 Like
Whereās the talk coming from? I havenāt seen anything one way or another.
1 Like
Rivals apparently and the Edge of the Internet
Jordan Poole | G | Michigan
Top 100 draft ranking: No. 64
The 19-year-old sophomore showed his shortcomings against Texas Tech, finishing with just eight points in 31 minutes. At 6-5 with a projectable frame and a smooth stroke, Poole has an intriguing long-term projection, but he showed why heās still far away from being able to help an NBA team. His decision-making often leaves much to be desired. Heās contact-averse and could stand to add more ways to impact the game when his shot isnāt falling. On the other side of the ball, he too often gets lost or gambles on the perimeter. Thereās no questioning Pooleās talent, as he can really shoot it off the catch or bounce, while showing some occasional passing instincts as well. He made five or more 3s in five different games this season, while also flashing some defensive versatility. But Poole could use another year of high-level experience at Michigan to maximize his draft stock.
Should Poole opt to enter the draft he without question will garner workout interest and would likely hear his name called, but one more year of seasoning at Michigan would serve him well. ā Schmitz
Charles Matthews | F | Michigan
Top 100 draft ranking: No. 67
Despite the blowout, the 22-year-old wing had some impressive defensive possessions against Culver, who scored all nine of his buckets against other defenders. At 6-6 with great feet and decent length, Matthews is one of the better wing defenders in the country. But itās his offensive limitations that could keep him from hearing his name called in June and ultimately sticking in the NBA. Matthews still hasnāt progressed as a shooter, finishing the season at 29.9 percent from 3, bringing his collegiate total to 30.1 percent on just 206 attempts. He sprayed corner 3 after corner 3 in the Sweet 16.
Although he has a decent feel for the game, heās not a particularly gifted ball-handler, so heās very much a one-sided player at this stage. Matthews does technically have one more year of eligibility, but at 22 years old it wouldnāt be surprising to see him at least pursue a two-way contract. Wing defenders generally last longer in the NBA, so Matthews should have his chances to show he can improve shooting (a clear swing skill). ā Schmitz
Xavier Tillman | C | Michigan State
Top 100 draft ranking: No. 75
After seeing just nine MPG as a freshman, Tillman developed into the second-most important player on MSUās roster (behind Cassius Winston) as a sophomore, playing a huge role in the Spartansā run to the Final Four with 19 points, nine rebounds, two blocks and three steals in 29 minutes in Sundayās win over Duke. This came just two days after outplaying Naz Reid and LSU in the Sweet 16 in another extremely impressive performance. His ability to put a body on Zion Williamson in the post with his massive frame, huge wingspan and surprisingly nimble feet helped keep the projected No. 1 pick relatively contained by his own lofty standards. There was a noticeable drop-off in the minutes Tillman was forced to the bench because of foul trouble.
Tillman doesnāt look like much of an NBA prospect at first glance, standing just 6-8 and playing mostly an earthbound, no-frills style of basketball as a powerful center. Dig deeper and thereās more, as he has a high basketball IQ, outstanding instincts as a defender and rebounder and a tremendous motor. He has a chance to become a more prolific outside shooter in time, as he showed this past weekend by knocking down two of his three 3-point attempts with solid mechanics.
Tillmanās unique statistical profile (excellent 2-point and free throw percentages, plus strong assist, steal, block and rebounding rates) and age (20) rate him favorably in different analytics models. Although his lack of size and average explosiveness may temper that enthusiasm to a degree, Tillman has done a nice job of putting himself on the NBA radar and could emerge as a more serious prospect as a junior in 2020 once he moves into the starting lineup full-time, particularly if he starts to take and make more 3s. ā Givony
Ignas Brazdekis | F | Michigan
Top 100 draft ranking: No. 88
Brazdekis was Michiganās sole bright spot during itās disheartening loss to Texas Tech, finishing with 17 points and 13 rebounds in 33 minutes. He attacked the rim aggressively and showed fight until the final buzzer in what could be his last game as a Wolverine. The 6-7 Brazdekis also showed his weaknesses, as he was beat off the dribble consistently, struggled mightily when heavily contested from 3 and left much to be desired as a facilitator.
Brazdekis deserves a lot of credit for how he has improved his body and his productive season averaging 14.8 points on 57.9 percent true shooting. He could certainly hear his name called in the back end of the second round with a strong pre-draft process, but questions still remain about how the 20-year-old Brazdekis moves the needle on an NBA floor. His confidence, aggressiveness and ambidexterity as a straight-line driver are certainly positives, but heāll need to become a much more consistent shooter (career 32.2 percent from 3 on 410 attempts) and more adept passer to make up for his lack of length (6-8 wingspan) and foot speed on the defensive end of the floor. ā Schmitz
2 Likes
Where the hell does he get the Iggy is a 32% career 3 PT shooter from? He shot 39% this year. Is he counting HS stats? If so, why? Iāve never heard of a playerās ācareerā stats used including HS ball.
1 Like