2025 CB Historical Draft - Player Analysis

[Roy H.]

1. Lebron
------------
2. Jokic
3. Curry
4. Giannis
-----------------
5. Durant
-----------------
6. Luka
7. Duncan

That's how I had it prior to the draft.  I would have ranked Duncan higher if I could have taken an earlier season, and I would have only taken Luka to build around with a very specific set of players.  I would have taken Jokic #1, because I think he would have been more fun and interesting to build around than Lebron, who I've had on multiple other CB teams.

I am very interesting why you had Luka as high as 6th.

Also, what type of team you were thinking of around him.

I give Luka high marks for extreme volume scoring at high efficiency combined with good size and creative passing.  He also carried a pretty mediocre Dallas team through a stacked Western Conference to reach the Finals.

You'd need to build a team of athletic shooters and finishers around him, while finding players who aren't extremely ball dominant.  If I'd drafted Luka, I think the ideal would be to trade up for Kawhi, try to get Klay, and then go from there.

[Roy H.]

I thought the draft order was good at selecting heiarchy / tiers between the best players.

My tiers would be something like this

That is just the MVP guys. Not the other folks. 

Tier One = LeBron, Jokic, KG
Tier Two = Duncan, Durant, Kawhi, D-Wade, Kobe, SGA
Tier Three = Steph, Dirk, Giannis, Dwight, Nash, Shaq, Embiid
Tier Four = Harden

I am not a Harden fan. He is on a tier by himself away from the others.

It seems like you're not a Steph or Giannis fan, either, which is strange to me.  Your tiers strike me as odd; to me, Giannis is significantly better than Embiid, and Curry is significantly better than Nash.

I am not a Giannis fan. I am lower on him than most.

I am a Steph fan.

Although my evaluation - how I am evaluating him and other players is different than where I think you are coming from. It looks to me like you are ranking their individual seasons in real life and making your heiarchy from that. I am rating how I think they would do in this setting and making my heiarchy from that standpoint. So we have quite different results.

I don't view Steph as much of an outlier in this fantasy league because he doesn't have the all-round game that the players in My Tier 1+2 have. He is an offensive force but he is too small to have much impact as a defender or rebounder. So I have Steph below those guys like D-Wade and I have him in Tier 3.

I don't think an all-around game matters that much.  For instance, I don't care if Steph can rebound, or if he's a game-changing passer, or if he's more than an above average defender who can lead the league in steals in a regular NBA season.  What he can do is score as efficiently as anybody, and he adds the skill of spacing the floor out to 30 feet.  That creates space that directly benefits his teammates.

In the modern NBA, Steph is much more valuable than a guy like Wade, who lacks in efficiency, outside shooting, and passing.

[Who]

I had Luka on my do-not-draft list. I had him as mid 3rd to late 4th round pick. I had trouble with his game.

I did not see him as valuable in this because his high volume offensive game was necessary. Not on a team with so many stars. So that reduced his positive value for me.

Then the negative value of his bad defense + ball dominance + efficiency which is good but not great. He distorts his teams on both ends of the floor.

[snively]

Does Jimmy Butler count as a game changer? No ring, but the two finals runs rank up there with LBJ's doomed solo efforts.

I don't think he does.  I considered him in the 4th, and traded down, just because I don't think his reputation is as good as his production. 

In the ECF against BOS (2020), he averaged 19 points on .443 eFG%.  Then in 2022, he had three series in a row of eFG% of subpar eFG%:  .438, .448, .451

EFG is going to underrate a FT machine like Butler but yes his incomplete offensive game really hurts his consistency.

But when he's going he's really up there.  His 22/23 season RS and playoffs ranks up with some of the best.

[Who]

Durant is an interesting one. I see him as more valuable in this setting than in the regular NBA. His strengths enhanced and his weaknesses better hidden.

Durant is a matchup nightmare. 6-10 to 7-0 with length. Shooting skill. One on one shot creation. He is the best scorer in the league for me. High efficiency high volume scoring. Not ball dominant. Can play with anyone. Nobody has an answer for him.

Other guys - even Kobe - have been slowed down more by great individual defenders / great defenses. More so than Durant. Durant has an outlier skill in this draft that separates him from the pack. Even from the other great scorers in this draft.

The main issue with him IRL (in real life) is that Durant doesn't improve the players around him. He doesn't have the playmaking. He is great at looking after himself but only so-so at setting the table for others. Other stars IRL have been able to out-compete him because of this. But in a setting where you are surrounded by stars (rather than one dimensional role players) who can all create and score themselves - as well as putting more playmaking around a guy like Durant to offset this weakness - that weakness can be hidden. Or at least better hidden (and to a large margin).

I see Durant being the outlier talent he is on Team USA as being similar to what he would be in this setting.

I see the argument, although there's probably some hyperbole.  Durant meets the off-hand criteria I gave, so he's in the conversation.  But, he's not as dominant a presence as Lebron. 

As far as best pure scorer, 32.0 points on .635% TS% is fantastic.  I think I'd prefer Curry's 30.1 points on .669 TS%, though.  I don't really care about height; Curry can get his shot off against anybody.

Curry was more efficient (better FG%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS% and FT%), and he scored more points per possession and more points per minute.

I view Durant and Steph differently. I view Durant as the superior scorer but Steph the superior overall offensive player.

The reason for Durant being the superior scorer is that he has more scoring resilience / consistency in tough situations. Steph is more volatile. He has extreme highs due to his 3 point shooting but more so-so peformances. Steph has shown great consistency in the regular season but not as much in the post-season / Finals. Delladova did a lot to slow Steph down in 2015. Steph didn't come through in 2016.

The reason why I value Steph as the superior offensive player despite Durant being the superior scorer is that Steph is a superior ball-handler and passer. Undervalued passer. Also an even greater off-ball gravity effect on opponents. As I said in by above post, Durant is great at looking after himself but doesn't do much to improve his teammates. Steph does improve his teammates. His superior passing and ball-handling allow him to do that.

[Who]

There is an interesting debate around Reggie Miller. It relates a bit to Steph Curry. Not much but a bit. Some of the talk in the NBA stat circles are that Reggie's scoring is undervalued historically.

(1) His high efficiency
(2) Off ball scoring has higher portability, doesn't impede teammates, thus more valuable
(3) His scoring upped in the playoffs and against elite defenses like the 1990s NY Knicks. Also, they were slow halfcourt series so Reggie's per 100 possession scoring numbers look much better than his per game numbers in the playoffs.

I want to talk about number two there.

I think the stat heads community gets this wrong. Or at least partially wrong. They are correct that off-ball scoring has high portability and typically has less negative impact on teammates than ball-handlers / iso players / post players ... but, in Reggie's case, he is more extreme in his off-ball scoring vs on-ball scoring.

The Pacers had to build their entire offense around Reggie's off ball movement. It did not matter whether the ball was in his hands or not. Everything was done to enhance him and let him be his most effective self. Guys were not as aggressive looking for scoring opportunities instead preferring to set extra screens to try and get Reggie open. Also, it has a high demand on the quality of the team to find the player once he gets open.

So if we look at Reggie again after Jermaine O'Neal arrives in Indiana. Jermaine O'Neal was a post scorer. He wasn't spending 80% of his time trying to set screens for Reggie. He was posting up and trying to score. More damaging for Reggie was Jermaine's lack of passing skills. He was a black hole in the post. He would take around 20 shots and you would be lucky if he had 2 assists. So the ball would go in there and it would not come out. Ron Artest was an iso / post up player as well and also a dodgy passer. This created a stagnant offense that hurt a movement scorer like Reggie.

So Reggie had two issues. One he had less guys to help him get open when he was paired with scorers rather than role players. Those guys were looking for their own offense instead of sacrificing themselves to set screens repeatedly over and over again for Reggie. Two, Reggie's (player) movement without the ball was not a threat to the opponent without the team passing necessary to find him.

There was the idea that this was just Reggie aging / declining. That is why his scoring dropped from 20ppg to 10-12ppg. But after the Malice in the Palice and guys were injured / suspended. The team switched to an offense being run around the isolation and post games of Jermaine O'Neal & Ron Artest and went back to game-planning their offense for Reggie in the 2nd half of the season. Reggie upped his scoring back up to 17.5ppg after the All-Star break. Reggie could still score. He still had it. It wasn't decline. It was environment. Reggie did not have the right environment in an offense built around Jermaine & Artest to be as effective as he was without them.

----------------------------

This is mostly about Reggie. It relates a bit to Steph but not a huge amount. Steph is a movement scorer as well which is where it relates (partially) to him but Steph is also a more skilled all-round offensive player. More creation off the dribble. More playmaking. He is not as negative effected as Reggie was by a change in offensive sysems. Steph has more offensive / scoring resilience in this regard.

That said, there is a boost (stat inflation) to Steph in GSW from playing in a system that has so much (1) off ball player movement (2) strong team passing (3) a point forward in Draymond who allows Steph to only be a part time PG instead of a full time PG.

Take Steph out of that system / circumstances and I do believe we would see some drop-off from him. He'd still be great. But I don't think he is 30ppg great.

Also, I think you can see this when he plays for Team USA. The team doesn't revolve around him the same way. He is not as impactful. He was great in that Gold Medal game but before that he was something like the 7th best player in the team. He did not have the dominance there that he has for GSW.

[Roy H.]

I had Luka on my do-not-draft list. I had him as mid 3rd to late 4th round pick. I had trouble with his game.

I did not see him as valuable in this because his high volume offensive game was necessary. Not on a team with so many stars. So that reduced his positive value for me.

Then the negative value of his bad defense + ball dominance + efficiency which is good but not great. He distorts his teams on both ends of the floor.

Where do you draw the line for good versus great efficiency?   As a rule of thumb, anything over .600 for a volume scorer is great / elite to me.

[Who]

Does Jimmy Butler count as a game changer? No ring, but the two finals runs rank up there with LBJ's doomed solo efforts.

I don't think he does.  I considered him in the 4th, and traded down, just because I don't think his reputation is as good as his production. 

In the ECF against BOS (2020), he averaged 19 points on .443 eFG%.  Then in 2022, he had three series in a row of eFG% of subpar eFG%:  .438, .448, .451

EFG is going to underrate a FT machine like Butler but yes his incomplete offensive game really hurts his consistency.

But when he's going he's really up there.  His 22/23 season RS and playoffs ranks up with some of the best.

just because I don't think his reputation is as good as his production.

I feel the opposite way with Jimmy. I feel his production is much better than his reputation. That he is under-appreciated / under-valued.

2 trips to the Finals and 1 trip to the ECF in 4 years. His 2nd best player was Bam. No 3rd star. A solid but unexceptional supporting cast. 2 trips to the Finals is what Stockton and K Malone did. It was a phenomenal achievement for Jimmy (and Bam).

[Who]

I had Luka on my do-not-draft list. I had him as mid 3rd to late 4th round pick. I had trouble with his game.

I did not see him as valuable in this because his high volume offensive game was necessary. Not on a team with so many stars. So that reduced his positive value for me.

Then the negative value of his bad defense + ball dominance + efficiency which is good but not great. He distorts his teams on both ends of the floor.

Where do you draw the line for good versus great efficiency?   As a rule of thumb, anything over .600 for a volume scorer is great / elite to me.

The league average TS% has risen a lot in the last few years.

It was 57.5% last season compared to 54-55% in the past.

So Luka at 60% today is above average but not great. Only +2.5% relative TS%. Good but not great.

When the league average TS% was 54-55%, 60% was an elite figure. 60% today would be the equivalent to 56.5-57.5% back then.

I don't know what the marker would be exactly. But I would guess around 5-6% and higher above the league average.

[Roy H.]

That said, there is a boost (stat inflation) to Steph in GSW from playing in a system that has so much (1) off ball player movement (2) strong team passing (3) a point forward in Draymond who allows Steph to only be a part time PG instead of a full time PG.

Take Steph out of that system / circumstances and I do believe we would see some drop-off from him. He'd still be great. But I don't think he is 30ppg great.

Also, I think you can see this when he plays for Team USA. The team doesn't revolve around him the same way. He is not as impactful. He was great in that Gold Medal game but before that he was something like the 7th best player in the team. He did not have the dominance there that he has for GSW.

Honestly, I think Olympic stats are nonsense.  They're irrelevant to judging NBA players.  If I bought into Olympic stats, I'd think that Tatum and Haliburton were scrubs.

As for Curry, I'm not sure what system he wouldn't work in and still be an absolute scoring machine.  I think every team in the league would shape their system to take maximum advantage of Curry.  He's dominated with David Lee and Harrison Barnes as starters (and Draymond averaged less than 2.0 assists off the bench), and with Luke Walton coaching him.  He won a title with Jordan Poole, Andrew Wiggins and Kevin Looney starting.

Curry is going to go down as either the second or third best player of this era, depending upon whether Jokic wins more.  Lebron will be #1 (even with some fall off), but Curry has the rings, the stats, and the aura.

[Roy H.]

I had Luka on my do-not-draft list. I had him as mid 3rd to late 4th round pick. I had trouble with his game.

I did not see him as valuable in this because his high volume offensive game was necessary. Not on a team with so many stars. So that reduced his positive value for me.

Then the negative value of his bad defense + ball dominance + efficiency which is good but not great. He distorts his teams on both ends of the floor.

Where do you draw the line for good versus great efficiency?   As a rule of thumb, anything over .600 for a volume scorer is great / elite to me.

The league average TS% has risen a lot in the last few years.

It was 57.5% last season compared to 54-55% in the past.

So Luka at 60% today is above average but not great. Only +2.5% relative TS%. Good but not great.

When the league average TS% was 54-55%, 60% was an elite figure. 60% today would be the equivalent to 56.5-57.5% back then.

I don't know what the marker would be exactly. But I would guess around 5-6% and higher above the league average.

So .625 - .635 to be great / elite?

That seems high.  Certain low-volume bigs and role players might hit that.  But, among volume scorers (> 20ppg), who ranks that highly?  Jokic.  Sabonis.  Durant.  Lavine.  SGA.  KAT.  Giannis.  Butler.  All were above .625 last season.

Just below last season were Lillard (.621) Curry and Porzingis (both .618).

Doncic was at .617 in 2024.  Volume scorers ahead of his:  Jokic, Giannis, Porzingis, Embiid (played 39 games), Sabonis, SGA, Lebron, Durant, Butler, KAT, Davis (with Curry being at .616).

So, roughly the 10th most efficient volume scorer.  Does that make Doncic elite?  I'd say so.

[Who]

Comparison of Duncan and Kobe for TS%

2004-05 = Tim 54.0% Kobe 56.3%
2005-06 = Tim 52.3% Kobe 55.9%
2006-07 = Tim 57.9% Kobe 58.0%
2007-08 = Tim 54.6% Kobe 57.6%
2008-09 = Tim 54.9% Kobe 56.1%
2009-10 = Tim 56.0% Kobe 54.5%

Total for 6yr period = Tim 54.9% Kobe 56.4%
Playoffs for 6yr period = Tim 54.1% Kobe 57.0%

[Who]

A different look at TS% for Kobe vs Luka

Bball-ref.com has a league adjusted TS+ ranking in their adjusted shooting section. It rates a player's TS% relative to the league average TS% of that season. 100 is average. Below 100 is a negative figure. Above 100 is a positive figure.

Luka Doncic

2019-20 = 104 (2nd season)
2020-21 = 103
2021-22 = 101
2022-23 = 105
2023-24 = 106
2024-25 = 102
Average for 6yr period = 104

Kobe Bryant

2004-05 = 106
2005-06 = 104
2006-07 = 107
2007-08 = 107
2008-09 = 103
2009-10 = 100
Average for 6yr period = 105

Kobe was 104-107 from 1997-08 to 2007-08. An 11 year stretch. 5 of those 11 seasons at 107. 2 seasons each at 106, 105, 104.

[Moranis]

Luka took a team whose 2nd best player was Kyrie, whose 3rd best player was probably PJ Washington and in which Daniel Gafford and Derek Jones were the other 2 starters through the Clippers, Thunder, and Wolves into the NBA Finals.  He did that on a bum leg as he was torching the great western conference teams and while averaging nearly a 34 point triple double in the regular season.  And he did that at 24 years old. 

At some point the only number that matters is the one on the scoreboard. 

I think Roy is generally correct. Too much focus on fit and not enough on talent in the voting.  Talent absolutely matters far more than it is being given credit for. 

Luka has played with Brunson, Kyrie, and Lebron in the NBA.  All 3 have tremendous usage and Luka made it work (making the WCF with Brunson, Finals with Kyrie).  He has great success in Europe and with his national team. 

He is a superb passer and takes care of the ball and is a plus shooter.  He'd make this work because he has made it work every where.  Smart smart player. 

[Moranis]

A different look at TS% for Kobe vs Luka

Bball-ref.com has a league adjusted TS+ ranking in their adjusted shooting section. It rates a player's TS% relative to the league average TS% of that season. 100 is average. Below 100 is a negative figure. Above 100 is a positive figure.

Luka Doncic

2019-20 = 104 (2nd season)
2020-21 = 103
2021-22 = 101
2022-23 = 105
2023-24 = 106
2024-25 = 102
Average for 6yr period = 104

Kobe Bryant

2004-05 = 106
2005-06 = 104
2006-07 = 107
2007-08 = 107
2008-09 = 103
2009-10 = 100
Average for 6yr period = 105

Kobe was 104-107 from 1997-08 to 2007-08. An 11 year stretch. 5 of those 11 seasons at 107. 2 seasons each at 106, 105, 104.

Kobe was a much better FT shooter than Luka is.  It greatly affects the TS%.  Look at their eFG%.  For their careers Luka's eFG% thus far is 54.2%.  Kobe for his career was 48.2%.  That is a massive difference.  And it isn't just from 3 where Luka is 35 to Kobe's 32.9, the bigger difference is from 2 where Luka is an elite 55.4%, while Kobe was a subpar 47.9%. 

Kobe was an inefficient chucker.  He took way too many shots, and thus took a lot of bad ones.  And unlike Luka has a poor assist to turnover ratio with 4.7 assists to 3.0 turnovers.  Luka has more turnovers at 3.9, but he also averages a lot more 8.2 assists (plus a lot more rebounds).  Obviously Kobe was a much better defender than Luka was, but offensively they aren't particularly close as players.  Luka is quite simply several tiers higher than Kobe as an offensive player and has the skills to play both off and on the ball.  I get that we've seen him on the ball mostly but that is just because he is better than anyone he's played with (yes including old Lebron).