Draft Philosophy: 3 OR D?

[Wizard Mentor]

I asked a simple question: who is the best 3&D player in the draft. It's an important question, particularly right now, since our team is abysmal at both. I was informed by multiple posters, that there was none, but that some might develop into that. @Samuel had an extensive reply:

Sarr - D, No 3
Risacher - D "tools" (good team D), Streaky 3
Clingan - D (likely drop only), nonexistent 3
Topic - No 3, good FT%, no D
Buzelis - No 3, good 3pt% in HS, D "tools"
Castle - No 3, Good D
Dillingham - 3, Awful D
Holland - D upside, No 3 (broken form)
Sheppard - Good 3, D playmaker, questionable team D
Knecht - Good 3, Awful D (potentially good D "tools")
Cody - Streaky 3, D "tools"
Salaun - D "tools", No 3 (decent FT%)
Filip - 3, questionable D tools in NBA
Missi - D, nonexistent 3
Da Silva - Good 3, questionable D tools in NBA

So, if you can't have both, do you draft 3 OR D? Or, more straightforwardly... "Is a D more likely to develop a 3, or is a 3 more likely to develop D?"

Dame, CJ, Ant are 3s we drafted who never learned D. Of course, Aminu, et. al. were D's who never learned the 3. It feels like we should draft a D (like Holland), and try to teach them the 3 (a la K Leonard). OTOH, warts and all, Dame, CJ, Ant, are 3 of the best players we've had in the last however many years. Also, there are really 3 basic factors: 3, D, creation. Dame, CJ, Ant are all fantastic creators.

What say you? Based on this, who do we draft?

 

[Pinwheel1]

I asked a simple question: who is the best 3&D player in the draft. It's an important question, particularly right now, since our team is abysmal at both. I was informed by multiple posters, that there was none, but that some might develop into that. @Samuel had an extensive reply:



So, if you can't have both, do you draft 3 OR D? Or, more straightforwardly... "Is a D more likely to develop a 3, or is a 3 more likely to develop D?"

Dame, CJ, Ant are 3s we drafted who never learned D. Of course, Aminu, et. al. were D's who never learned the 3. It feels like we should draft a D (like Holland), and try to teach them the 3 (a la K Leonard). OTOH, warts and all, Dame, CJ, Ant, are 3 of the best players we've had in the last however many years. Also, there are really 3 basic factors: 3, D, creation. Dame, CJ, Ant are all fantastic creators.

What say you? Based on this, who do we draft?

Not to dodge the question but I think it varies. (and how high you are drafting) If a player has the physical tools to improve their defense and he can already shoot well..... then I would take him. Granted great defensive instincts are hard to find, but overall good coaching can improve one's team D.

However, if a player is a good defender in college but his shot is so bad (MKG) I would hesitate to take him in the lottery.

I guess if I was forced to choose one over the other I think most 18-19-year-olds can learn to shoot the 3 ball over time. What seems to be more difficult is improving their mid-range pull-up jumper in traffic. Those are the players we really need as they are better at creating their own shot.

 

[oldfisherman]

I never understood how a player can be near the best on O, but refuse to use what they know about O to be at least be good defender.

I would draft for 3, and give them 2 seasons to improve their D. If they show little to no improvement on D, trade them after season 2.

Reason, a good 3 player will return better assets in a trade than a D player.

D is more mental, were players learn to apply their athletic skills to be a good defender. Some players that could be good on D, use this half of the game to rest.

3 is more skill, some players will never be a good shooter.

 

[CJ_is_Gone]

Dame, CJ, Ant are all fantastic creators.

I don't agree that CJ or ANT are fantastic creators.

IMO, Defense is more about effort, and is much more difficult to 'learn' as a result. It's changing player's natural tendencies.

Shooting the 3 can be improved with practice and effort... but everyone's development curve is unique. Once you get to the upper end of that development curve, further improvement is very slow and incremental.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I'd prioritize D in the draft - the 3 is more likely to improve to acceptable or better as a player ages. It's still unlikely the player makes those improvements - but there is a chance.

We basically never see a player with poor defensive projections become very good.

 

[wizenheimer]

so, is the question: is it better to play 4-on-5 on offense, or defense?

Amen Thompson is a lousy shooter from 3...turribal. But he does so many other things well it sure looks like he'll be able to carve out a valuable role in the NBA. But his perimeter shooting is likely to set a lower ceiling. And, in the modern NBA a team probably can't afford more than one Amen in their rotation

a guy who can come off the bench and carry a torch from 3 will always have a role, even if he's bad at defense. Kyle Korver had a 17 year career and was still impactful at 37 years old. Justice Winslow was out of the league at 26

another question: has the NBA evolved so much that a player like Andre Miller could never be a 30 minute.game starter on a good team. I'm thinking he'd have a very limited role in the current NBA

another question, part 2: are PG's and C's excluded from the 3&D calculations?

bringing up another question, part 3: Has any player 6'4 and under who arrived in the NBA with no-D ever developed even mediocre D?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

"Is a D more likely to develop a 3, or is a 3 more likely to develop D?"

Dame never developed D, whereas Matisse and Derek Jones Jr. have SOMEWHAT developed a 3. Neither is likely, but the former is more likely.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

OTOH, warts and all, Dame, CJ, Ant, are 3 of the best players we've had in the last however many years.

THAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM

 

[Pinwheel1]

bringing up another question, part 3: Has any player 6'4 and under who arrived in the NBA with no-D ever developed even mediocre D?

Chris Paul comes to mind:

https://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Chris-Paul-14/#:~:text=Paul has incredibly quick hands,always finds the open man.

"Wake Forest was a very poor defensive team this season, and it showed up in the tournament. While some of that falls on Skip Prosser's system and a few of Paul's teammates, Paul's inability to lock up primary ball handlers (go back to that West Virginia game again), is a place to start when discussing the Demon Deacons' defensive woes. At a generous 6'0, Paul is a bit undersized as a point in the NBA. While his explosiveness more than makes up for it, Paul may have to adjust some of the things he does as far as attacking the basket. He may have trouble guarding some of the bigger point guards in the league as well. - Source: https://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Chris-Paul-14/ ©DraftExpress"

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Chris Paul comes to mind:

https://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Chris-Paul-14/#:~:text=Paul has incredibly quick hands,always finds the open man.

"Wake Forest was a very poor defensive team this season, and it showed up in the tournament. While some of that falls on Skip Prosser's system and a few of Paul's teammates, Paul's inability to lock up primary ball handlers (go back to that West Virginia game again), is a place to start when discussing the Demon Deacons' defensive woes. At a generous 6'0, Paul is a bit undersized as a point in the NBA. While his explosiveness more than makes up for it, Paul may have to adjust some of the things he does as far as attacking the basket. He may have trouble guarding some of the bigger point guards in the league as well. - Source: https://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Chris-Paul-14/ ©DraftExpress"

Some others not known for their D before the NBA:
Kobe Bryant
Tayshaun Prince
Klay Thomson

It's pretty rare, though.

 

[wizenheimer]

I don't agree that CJ or ANT are fantastic creators.

yeah, putting CJ and Ant at the same level as Dame as "creators" is well beyond reality

CJ has always been good-to-elite as a catch-&-shoot and spot-up option, but his career TS% is below the league median. meaning whatever above the median bump he got from his team-created shots was seriously degraded by his lower efficiency on self-created shots. And he's average at PG creation skills and facilitating team offense. He's never been able to escape the tweener world

this season, Simons was in the 4oth percentile in isolation. 60% of the league was better. Last season, he was in the 48th percentile, but last season he had Dame around to take the focus of opposing defenses. And, while Simons was in the 48th percentile in isolation following in the draft Dame created, Dame was in the 91st percentile. Now 91% is "fantastic" creation, not 40-48%, and Dame was a couple of tiers better as a PG creator as well

 

[wizenheimer]

Chris Paul comes to mind:

https://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Chris-Paul-14/#:~:text=Paul has incredibly quick hands,always finds the open man.

"Wake Forest was a very poor defensive team this season, and it showed up in the tournament. While some of that falls on Skip Prosser's system and a few of Paul's teammates, Paul's inability to lock up primary ball handlers (go back to that West Virginia game again), is a place to start when discussing the Demon Deacons' defensive woes. At a generous 6'0, Paul is a bit undersized as a point in the NBA. While his explosiveness more than makes up for it, Paul may have to adjust some of the things he does as far as attacking the basket. He may have trouble guarding some of the bigger point guards in the league as well. - Source: https://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Chris-Paul-14/ ©DraftExpress"

but it wasn't the case was it? That was a terrible evaluation. He wasn't bad at defense...at all

CP3 was really really good at defense when he first stepped on an NBA floor. As a rookie, he was 1st on his team in defensive rating, 1st in DBPM, and 1st in defensive winshares. Now, maybe, probably, it's much more difficult to gauge defense than it is to gauge shooting. But CP3 didn't evolve from a bad defender to good one; he evolved from a really good day-one defender to an elite defender

 

[Wizard Mentor]

I don't agree that CJ or ANT are fantastic creators.

IMO, Defense is more about effort, and is much more difficult to 'learn' as a result. It's changing player's natural tendencies.

Shooting the 3 can be improved with practice and effort... but everyone's development curve is unique. Once you get to the upper end of that development curve, further improvement is very slow and incremental.

good points. What I really meant in reference to creators was that CJ and Ant can get their own shot.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Some others not known for their D before the NBA:
Kobe Bryant
Tayshaun Prince
Klay Thomson

It's pretty rare, though.

Those 3 still projected to be good defenders in the NBA - even if they were drafted for their offense.

I can't ever think of a prospect that projected as a bad defender becoming great in the NBA. But we have seen players that project as bad NBA shooters become great.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Amen Thompson is a lousy shooter from 3...turribal. But he does so many other things well it sure looks like he'll be able to carve out a valuable role in the NBA. But his perimeter shooting is likely to set a lower ceiling. And, in the modern NBA a team probably can't afford more than one Amen in their rotation

a guy who can come off the bench and carry a torch from 3 will always have a role, even if he's bad at defense. Kyle Korver had a 17 year career and was still impactful at 37 years old. Justice Winslow was out of the league at 26

It also depends if your drafting to take a chance at acquiring a starter or better level player - or just settling for a rotation/backup quality player. Guys with an NBA quality skill like Kyle Korver are more likely to be a role player but will always have limits. Whereas guys like Justice Winslow are a gamble the team is hoping they can become a two way player like Jimmy Butler. They don't have to develop to be a star like Butler - maybe they just become a very good two way contributor like KCP.

If you have defensive potential there is that possibility of being a 3&D player as this thread is titled. Without that defensive potential the upside is limited. Yes the player could have a useful role, but as more of a specialist and not as a key starter to compete in the playoffs.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Probably doesn't need to be said, but if you're drafting #7, you WANT a player with warts. Otherwise, they don't make it to #7. So, we want the warts, and then find out that those warts are immaterial.

 

[Pinwheel1]

but it wasn't the case was it? That was a terrible evaluation. He wasn't bad at defense...at all

CP3 was really really good at defense when he first stepped on an NBA floor. As a rookie, he was 1st on his team in defensive rating, 1st in DBPM, and 1st in defensive winshares. Now, maybe, probably, it's much more difficult to gauge defense than it is to gauge shooting. But CP3 didn't evolve from a bad defender to good one; he evolved from a really good day-one defender to an elite defender

Yes, a terrible evaluation. Which I often think is pretty common. Here is another (2nd Team all-NBA team in 2023)

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...018-scouting-report-for-dallas-mavericks-pick

Defensive outlook

Brunson's defensive outlook is his biggest question mark. He's heavy-footed for a point guard. He ranked in the 18th percentile in isolation defense and 33rd percentile in chasing his man off screens. It's difficult to envision him containing many NBA starting speedsters. Brunson offers minimal defensive playmaking ability as well. Per 40 minutes, he averaged 1.2 steals, and he recorded only one block his entire 116-game career.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

It also depends if your drafting to take a chance at acquiring a starter or better level player - or just settling for a rotation/backup quality player. Guys with an NBA quality skill like Kyle Korver are more likely to be a role player but will always have limits. Whereas guys like Justice Winslow are a gamble the team is hoping they can become a two way player like Jimmy Butler. They don't have to develop to be a star like Butler - maybe they just become a very good two way contributor like KCP.

If you have defensive potential there is that possibility of being a 3&D player as this thread is titled. Without that defensive potential the upside is limited. Yes the player could have a useful role, but as more of a specialist and not as a key starter to compete in the playoffs.

Jimmy Butler still can't shoot threes.

 

[Samuel]

"Is a D more likely to develop a 3, or is a 3 more likely to develop D?"

Someone wrote an interesting article recently (i'll look it up later) about the death of 3 and D. basically that in today's NBA if you want to win, you need guys who can do a little bit of everything. It's not enough to be a zero usage 3 point shooter that can lock guys up, or a ballhander that can't finish at the rim. In the playoffs where spacing and matchups are king, even a guy like Ryan Dunn wouldn't survive if he could splash it from 3 at a 35% clip.

In other words, you might be able to get away with a couple of guys like that in spot minutes, but when you're building your roster from scratch, you build with multi-dimensional players or it's gonna be tough sledding.

Reading tea leaves, Portland is prioritizing high character, plus size and/or athleticism with defensive tools (even if they're not good at defense yet), and a work ethic to add the shot later. I suspect we'll see more of this on draft night.

 

[Reep]

I would vote for D, but with a shot that isn't broken, so you can at least hope. The problem is that Portland needs more 3pt shooting, so ... Hopefully a healthy Sharpe, Ant and improved Scoot can bring those 3pt numbers up next year on their own.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Someone wrote an interesting article recently (i'll look it up later) about the death of 3 and D. basically that in today's NBA if you want to win, you need guys who can do a little bit of everything. It's not enough to be a zero usage 3 point shooter that can lock guys up, or a ballhander that can't finish at the rim. In the playoffs where spacing and matchups are king, even a guy like Ryan Dunn wouldn't survive if he could splash it from 3 at a 35% clip.

In other words, you might be able to get away with a couple of guys like that in spot minutes, but when you're building your roster from scratch, you build with multi-dimensional players or it's gonna be tough sledding.

Reading tea leaves, Portland is prioritizing high character, plus size and/or athleticism with defensive tools (even if they're not good at defense yet), and a work ethic to add the shot later. I suspect we'll see more of this on draft night.

I agree. A 3-and-D player has to be able to put the ball on the floor when the defender is running out on him. They seldom will be able to get all the way to the rim, so they need to have the ability to consistently knock down a mid-range jumper to be effective.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I agree. A 3-and-D player has to be able to put the ball on the floor when the defender is running out on him. They seldom will be able to get all the way to the rim, so they need to have the ability to consistently knock down a mid-range jumper to be effective.

I don't think there are this many absolutes. Any 5 man lineup can get by with one player that can't shoot threes, one player that can't get to the rim, one player that can't defend great, etc. If you have a guy who is an excellent defender as well as an excellent 3 point shooter you might be able to still easily build a contending roster with him as a piece, you just need more playmaking at other positions.

You first need a couple stars that are multi dimensional on offense. If they are good on defense that makes the rest of the roster construction much easier.

Some of this is relevant to the failure of all those DameCJ teams. It is very difficult to get frontcourt players that have enough excellent defense to cover both of those guys terrible defense, but still contribute enough on offense 3 point spacing, then finally provide some playmaking when short DameCJ get trapped.

 

[cheesehoff]

From an early age we see that scorers get all the attention. Defense often goes unseen and unappreciated. Shooting is much easier to teach than D, especially at the earlier stages of learning the game.
Shooting can be boiled down to a few things (I know it's not that easy, but for the sake of this discussion...)
*Fundamentals-Good, easily repeatable form. Footwork, very overlooked.
*Repetition-Practice, practice, practice. You are training your muscles just like writing, running, talking, etc. FT's are about 90% muscle memory. Having hours every day to practice, world class teachers and staff to rebound and feed the ball are very important.
*Confidence-Once you've shot thousands of shots in practice, translating that to games isn't easy. Having confidence in yourself isn't the only thing. Having the confidence of your teammates and coaches can be just as important.
Defense is more complicated for a number of reasons.
*You can't go out and practice without someone else.
*It's harder physically than shooting. You have to be pretty tough to excel, mentally & physically.
*Developing individual defense is only part of being a good team defender. Schemes can affect this.
*Communication-One of the hardest things to teach. Learning the verbage that is used is about breaking and relearning a habit that happens in a split second.
*Athleticism-There is a certain level of physical ability and genetics that can make the difference between being good vs being great. You are assigned to defend a short, quick ball-handler and a second later you've switched onto a 7' bully. Good defenders make it hard for anyone to score.
*Confidence-You'll never stop a good score everytime he shoots. Just like a CB in football, you have to have a short memory.
*Mental prep-Knowing your opponent's strengths & weaknesses, knowing their offense, etc.

Sorry for the novel. I just wanted to point out the complexities and nuances of being a shut-down defender vs being a knock-down shooter. I'm sure I missed a few things, too. (I was a shooter, not a defender, but not from a lack of effort.)

 

[PtldPlatypus]

(I was a shooter, not a defender, but not from a lack of effort.)

I was always precisely the opposite.

 

[Hoopguru]

We have one of the better d players in the league and people want him gone because he's not a prolific scorer. He has improved his 3 more so than Simons has his D.

 

[Natebishop3]

We have guys who are great defenders who can't shoot.

Thybulle
Camara

We need shooters. This is why I'm so intrigued by Knecht.

 

[Samuel]

We have guys who are great defenders who can't shoot.

Thybulle
Camara

We need shooters. This is why I'm so intrigued by Knecht.

like salaun, knecht scares me at 7. i'm fine with him at 14—he probably won't drop that far though.

the defensive issues will keep him from starter minutes.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

the defensive issues will keep him from starter minutes.

Yeah, there just don't seem to be any Kyle Korvers any more.

 

[Natebishop3]

like salaun, knecht scares me at 7. i'm fine with him at 14—he probably won't drop that far though.

the defensive issues will keep him from starter minutes.

This is why I'd love to pick up another lottery pick in this draft.

If we could get one of Holland/Williams/Castle at 7

And Knecht in the 8-10 range

And then Ware/Missi/Salaun (project) at 14

 

[Samuel]

This is why I'd love to pick up another lottery pick in this draft.

If we could get one of Holland/Williams/Castle at 7

And Knecht in the 8-10 range

And then Ware/Missi/Salaun (project) at 14

if you're using tisse/2nds to move up that's fine but brogdon or firsts to move up is a no no, IMO.