Coulibaly and Draft Philosophy
Reaction and Answers
First of all, watch the video. Sam Vecenie and Coach Spins do great work all year long. If you’re reading my work and wondering where I learn from, here are a couple of YouTube channels;
The Game Theory Podcast with Sam Vecenie
The Coulibaly talk starts around the 45:00 mark. People who have been checking out the draft positions of my big board, may be surprised that I have Coulibaly in the mid-40s right now.
Why so low?
This isn’t a situation like OTE, where the Thompson twins are so athletic and dynamic in so many categories, that I’m not concerned about translation. His current level of competition isn’t as physical, and he has very specific athletic traits, but not a great overall general profile. The NBA isn’t about track athletes, it is about retaining that athleticism through contact. Every time I see him get an offensive rebound or power dunk, there’s barely any contact on the way to the rim. His current league doesn’t have guards that box out, anywhere. Defenses close out slower, and Coulibaly has a wealth of time to get his perimeter shot off, so much so, that the timing of the shot is inconsistent. Now, he has tremendous defensive motor and length, and he moves incredibly well on that end of the floor. This is where I think the value to his game really is. This looks clearly translatable. A team can take the risk on developing a player’s offense, as long as the defensive motor and willingness to attack the offensive glass is there; essentially some commitment to making winning plays.
Can a player learn how to deal with contact? Yes. I think Brandon Ingram is one of the best at doing so from such a raw start in the league. I also think, it’s a mental approach that requires a willingness to deal with contact and dish it out, not just be physical enough to do so. That part, isn’t as easy to develop. This, is where my skepticism lies.
Can a player get better at thinking the game? Of course, but this delves into “scouting the brain,” which is almost impossible to do. I find the pick-and-roll situations that he comes across quite rudimentary, lacking any advanced read or dynamic ball-handling, so I don’t find it translatable.
How can I rely on his shooting percentages, when it feels like his perimeter shot looks different each time? I can’t.
If a team is confident in how they develop a player, take him in the lottery.
If a team isn’t confident in that ability, give Coulibaly a better chance to succeed elsewhere.
For the Lakers, I think their idea of best player available leans a different direction.
Now, that being said, I am absolutely willing to take a chance on non-shooting wings. The difference for me personally comes in a few ways.
If a player can read/process one or both ends of the floor well, I can bank on that. I spend time watching videos on when a player sees something, and the corresponding action, and it happens at both ends of the floor at incredibly fast speeds.
If a player is a shot creator, and makes a solid percentage of contested mid-range shots, I’m far more optimistic of that player expanding their range to three-point territory than general thoughts on free throw percentage or at the rim finishing. (Djurisic)
If a player can create off the dribble and make good reads, especially knowing when to cut or link passes in succession, I can bank on that.
If a player has a high baseline of defense, I can bank on that. It doesn’t even have to be great individual defense, but knowing how to react within a team scheme, when to dig, when to double, how to rotate in a timely manner, etc., I can bank on that. It’s weird watching tape of players just to see how their heads swivel and how they’re reacting to a half court play in development.
If a player plays physically; initiates contact on drives, boxes out, chases rebounds, uses awareness, feet, chest, and hands in order, sets screens, etc., I can especially bank on that.
There’s this idea that if a player doesn’t shoot a great percentage behind the arc, that they can’t shoot. I firmly disagree with that idea, especially when there are so many 18-20 year olds that are generally more athletic than prior drafts as a whole, much better defensively, and have even more unique skill profiles than ever before. Yet, I feel like, there are players that are good to great mid-range and long-range shooters, but can’t see the full width of the court offensively, don’t react well defensively, and can’t handle defensive assignments individually or within a team scheme well. (Brice, Max, Keyonte, Smith Jr., Jett) If a player can’t do those things, I can’t really trust them to react well and rebound when the shot goes up either.
So, which would you prefer? Developing the shot? Or developing the brain in terms of being more physical, making reads, etc.?
There’s only so much NBA2k development VC to go around, and some players put it all into dynamic shooting, while other players, add skill value elsewhere.
I’d rather develop the shot. Physicality, vision, processing… all of these elements seem monumentally more difficult to develop. Note that, this lines up with my current big board in the lottery; Amen Thompson, Ausar Thompson, Jarace Walker, Leonard Miller; all early to late lottery because they’re 2-way players that can make reads on both ends of the floor. They have other skills that can lead to them being neutral or just positive on offense, while being clearly positive on defense. If you take away their shot, they have other skills to work with. If Ausar’s shot doesn’t work (and fwiw, 30% arc shooting isn’t tragically terrible for a 19 year old), his defense will absolutely be there and he actually has flashed the ability to create plays using vision of the full width of the court.
What happens when you take away Brandon Miller’s shot? Taylor Hendricks? Gradey Dick? Brandon falls back on playmaking on a certain level, Hendricks is a finisher, Gradey is an off-ball threat. But, none of them are the playmakers that I think Amen, Ausar, Jarace, and Leonard are.
This also leans into why I like Jordan Walsh over Julian Phillips. It helps that Walsh is such a great processor and it’s easier to see him defend bigger players at 3/4.
Quick note: if a BPA slips, regardless of position, pick that player anyway. The Lakers were once stacked with guards, and still took Reaves. None of those guards are with the roster anymore. They once had Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel, and still traded one of their best players in Vlade Divac just to get the rights to Kobe Bryant. We all know how that worked out.
If Amen Thompson slips to Detroit’s pick, I would take him at the #5 pick, and run three guard lineups with Cade, Amen Thompson, and Jaden Ivey. I think that’s a scary 3-guard lineup with wing-level height and length, and definitely scary in transition. Detroit isn’t currently a playoff team, so why not take a guy that can add a very unique dimension to a talented roster?
This is why I like choosing the Best Player Available.
The question came up, “Who is the better athlete? Ausar Thompson or Bilal Coulibaly?”
To me, the answer is very easily Ausar. It’s not just that I think he’s a more well-rounded athlete in terms of strength, quickness, speed, verticality, but he uses his physical tools on offense and defense equally, with physicality to drive into contact or be a point of attack defender that pressures the basketball heavily. Bilal, just isn’t that guy yet. He is, on one end of the floor, and not so much the other. I’m just not convinced of him as a rim pressure type of wing. I don’t see him initiating contact with his shoulder, using specific footwork to further optimize his first step with his dominant hand, let alone his off-hand, and his drives appear preplanned and predictable. There’s so much more he could be doing with his stride length, quick flip hips, and length in combination to make him a more effective overall player.
There was the idea of drafting for the playoffs being mentioned. For the most part, I absolutely agree with that idea, which is why in this draft cycle, I’m trying to incorporate guys who can read one or both ends of the floor along with physicality, and less emphasis on shooting.
Shooting is the great elixir that fixes everything, but when not everyone is a great shooter in the draft, what do you do? Default to guards that can shoot against centers that can’t? How do you know the shooting will be there when playoff intensity and physicality ramps up?
There are times when you can’t draft that two-way “playoff” prototype. I still think you go with the BPA. If that happens to be a guard, then have it be a guard that can help carry the team throughout the regular season. If it’s a center that can only play one type of defensive coverage, so be it! These guys are still NBA caliber players, and I’d rather draft that guy, who can still develop, than the theory of a two-way playoff player, that has a much longer road of development on both ends of the floor.
The playoffs help reveal how much physical size matters at the NBA level, especially when it’s tied to a certain level of guard skills. This is a big reason why I lean away from guards, unless it’s a very special type of guard. Scoot, Amen, and Cason are exceptions to the rule. They are physical players, especially strong in their own right, and do so much on one or both ends of the floor, that I have them ranked higher than much less skilled wing players. I didn’t forget how Scoot tried to repeatedly attack Wembanyama and scored over him several times. Amen Thompson’s level of overall athleticism is unforgettable. Cason, may appear to be more of an average athlete, until you realize how strong of a base he has when he defends and how strong his hands are when he tries to strip the basketball from players. He can defend up a position or two, and that’s why I have him in the lottery.
Every team needs at least one guard like that.
Needless to say, I really enjoyed the draft portion of this video. I wasn’t asked specific questions about my draft philosophy and I have written about my philosophy before, but I hope this helps clarify why my big board is what it is right now.