What's new
By:
Filters

2024 NBA Draft Mega Thread

Elizah Huge said:
Well yeah… one was a senior and one was a freshman lol.
Click to expand...
My point was about how much you can project and how certain you can be based on sample size. 600 shots approaches the number you need to be pretty sure about what level of shooter a player is(I think I read a while ago some analysis that you need about 750-800 shots to know with good certainty). 150 shots is ... in relative terms - nothing. Now his FT% is pretty good too, so if I had to guess he would be a good shooter, but IMO it's very debatable just how good of a shooter he will be - again, will he be 38% good or 45% good? Because there is a serious difference in those. And also - what TYPE of 3p shots are those going to be? Will he shoot 40% predominantly on the catch or 40% with healthy diet of off the dribble shots... because, again, it matters and those are very different types of shooters and the value is very different. For example, will he be able to shoot it coming off pick n' roll? Will he be able to shoot it at high rate off the dribble in iso? Or coming off screens?

Lets leave aside the extremes ... and even the average outcome. What is the type of player he will be if he hits his 75th percentile outcome? Is that player worth a top 10 pick? And maybe in this draft he is worth it, I just am thinking out loud and trying to make my mind on him, because there are definitely things to like about him, but there is also good chance that his game just fits much better the college game than the league and even in good case outcomes he's not all that valueable(again, we talking about top 3 pick according to a few people here). Can he be like... some version of George Hill or Mike Conley I guess?
 
Last edited:
stitches said:
With Shep it's about how good it is going to be? As in - is it going to be 38% or 45% good.
With Castle it's ... is it going to be average?
Click to expand...

I'm going to stand by what I said before and not get into this percentage discussion because I don't find it useful. One shooter's 38% is not another's 38%. But the point is the same, Shep is an elite shooting prospect so his scale of outcomes is based on that. Castle is a bad shooter and becoming an average shooter would be a high end outcome for him. If we afford that same optimism with Shep, what does a high end shooting outcome mean? If an elite shooting prospect turns into one of the best shooters in the league is that really a high end outcome? Or is it just expectation. Either way, Shep is on that scale as a shooter where he can be one of the elite shooter. Besides his percentages, his film looks great. Terrific release as @Saint Cy of JFC has pointed out. He has no problem shooting them from very deep and large chunk of those makes are off the dribble/unassisted. It also doesn't hurt his projection that he has a coach who is well known to limit his guards in his system. If all these indicators beyond the raw percentages went against Shep, I could understand more of the skpeticism...but the deeper I dive the more I find things that make me believe in his shooting.

And just for the record, I really like Castle. I keep brining him up because I think a lot of the reasons why I like Shep go hand in hand with Castle. The big one would be their roles on their respective teams. For Castle, playing within a system in a smaller usage role is a virtue. It's one of the main things people say they like about him. With Sheppard, playing in a role is why he cannot be considered a top prospect and instead the conversation is why he can't be a heavy ballhandler. We don't even talk about Castle in that context of being a star player. While I think the question mark on Shep is fair on it's own, I think there's a double standard with how we view the role player stuff in college, the value of being a role player in the NBA, and how we're projecting the shooting.
 
Elizah Huge said:
I don’t like the McConnell comparison either. TJ is a pure floor general. Sheppard I think will have a much more complete offensive game.
Click to expand...

That's why we say TJ with a laser. If TJ was a great shooter, his world of possibilities would be expanded. I guess TJ is just generally more dibbly and would still be so even with a jumper, but no comparison is perfect.

Defensively, I think you can draw some similarity as well. TJ is/was a big steals guy and that has made him a decent defender for his career. You might not want him to switch onto Tatum or whatever, but there is value to creating turnovers and creating the chaos he does. McConnell/Jones brothers is kind of a model for how his defense might go. Not sure he's physically strong enough to be Lowry/CP3/FVV....but maybe with time.
 
KqWIN said:
I'm going to stand by what I said before and not get into this percentage discussion because I don't find it useful. One shooter's 38% is not another's 38%. But the point is the same, Shep is an elite shooting prospect so his scale of outcomes is based on that. Castle is a bad shooter and becoming an average shooter would be a high end outcome for him. If we afford that same optimism with Shep, what does a high end shooting outcome mean? If an elite shooting prospect turns into one of the best shooters in the league is that really a high end outcome? Or is it just expectation. Either way, Shep is on that scale as a shooter where he can be one of the elite shooter. Besides his percentages, his film looks great. Terrific release as @Saint Cy of JFC has pointed out. He has no problem shooting them from very deep and large chunk of those makes are off the dribble/unassisted. It also doesn't hurt his projection that he has a coach who is well known to limit his guards in his system. If all these indicators beyond the raw percentages went against Shep, I could understand more of the skpeticism...but the deeper I dive the more I find things that make me believe in his shooting.

And just for the record, I really like Castle. I keep brining him up because I think a lot of the reasons why I like Shep go hand in hand with Castle. The big one would be their roles on their respective teams. For Castle, playing within a system in a smaller usage role is a virtue. It's one of the main things people say they like about him. With Sheppard, playing in a role is why he cannot be considered a top prospect and instead the conversation is why he can't be a heavy ballhandler. We don't even talk about Castle in that context of being a star player. While I think the question mark on Shep is fair on it's own, I think there's a double standard with how we view the role player stuff in college, the value of being a role player in the NBA, and how we're projecting the shooting.
Click to expand...
I just don't know how to project him in the league. I just don't see him as an explosive athlete and I don't see him as having the size and length to be great in the NBA. This is where him and Castle diverge significantly... well... there and in the shooting. But players have shown they can improve shooting in the league. Players do not gain 5 inches of wingspan and vertical... he's a below the rim athlete... he's short AND SMALL... especially if you are not going to be playing him at PG. That's why I've been asking... give me a realistic high end outcome(like 75-80th percentile)... what would he look like? What would his role be? Give me a player with similar physical and athletic tools and skills that was more than a shooting specialist with limited use and role.
 
I'm pretty confident that Sheppard can develop into a Hornacek type of player. Hornacek is a little bigger but I think they have a similar skillset.
 
sip said:
I'm pretty confident that Sheppard can develop into a Hornacek type of player. Hornacek is a little bigger but I think they have a similar skillset.
Click to expand...
That might be a good one that's leaning more towards the shooting(off-ball) guard type. I've been trying to fit him in PG mold simply because I just think he's too small and short to be playing with another small'ish and short'ish player.
 
stitches said:
I just don't know how to project him in the league. I just don't see him as an explosive athlete and I don't see him as having the size and length to be great in the NBA. This is where him and Castle diverge significantly... well... there and in the shooting. But players have shown they can improve shooting in the league. Players do not gain 5 inches of wingspan and vertical... he's a below the rim athlete... he's short AND SMALL... especially if you are not going to be playing him at PG. That's why I've been asking... give me a realistic high end outcome(like 75-80th percentile)... what would he look like? What would his role be? Give me a player with similar physical and athletic tools and skills that was more than a shooting specialist with limited use and role.
Click to expand...

FVV and Mike Conley would be the two that most represent a high outcome IMO. Now, you can rip apart the comparison because no comparison is perfect, Shep is better/worse than at different things for those guys....but the overall level is how I see it. Makes 1-2 all star games, does so by being a great PnR player....no necessarily an élite 1 on 1 creator. Defensively is undersized, but finds a way to add value despite obvious flaws.
 
stitches said:
I just don't know how to project him in the league. I just don't see him as an explosive athlete and I don't see him as having the size and length to be great in the NBA. This is where him and Castle diverge significantly... well... there and in the shooting. But players have shown they can improve shooting in the league. Players do not gain 5 inches of wingspan and vertical... he's a below the rim athlete... he's short AND SMALL... especially if you are not going to be playing him at PG. That's why I've been asking... give me a realistic high end outcome(like 75-80th percentile)... what would he look like? What would his role be? Give me a player with similar physical and athletic tools and skills that was more than a shooting specialist with limited use and role.
Click to expand...
I think Shep is athletic though. I think he has really elite feel/anticipation. Its the only explanation for his defensive playmaking when you consider his size. He played mostly like a game manager type point guard at Kentucky which is what kind of points me towards McConnell and the Jones brothers... but he also had just bananas shooting numbers. He also had a couple moments in the season where his team needed him to be more aggressive and he had big games. One of the many impressive things about him ant Rob were they played to win and just understood what they were good at and what the team wanted. It was really impressive how unselfish those two were.

I dinged Shep pretty hard for the tourney game. He is not a perfect prospect by any means but when your coach is already kinda iffy on Xs and Os and then you find out he was on his way out... it kinda makes sense they weren't prepared for what happened.

I think Shep is basically a lock to be one of the 7-8 best players in this draft. If a team thinks Castle, Holland, Topic, etc. have more star potential I understand but I think those guys have less of a chance to be a top 7ish player than Shep. Not a comp but guys like Podz that just get it done in spite of having not the best tools is encouraging.
 
KqWIN said:
FVV and Mike Conley would be the two that most represent a high outcome IMO. Now, you can rip apart the comparison because no comparison is perfect, Shep is better/worse than at different things for those guys....but the overall level is how I see it. Makes 1-2 all star games, does so by being a great PnR player....no necessarily an élite 1 on 1 creator. Defensively is undersized, but finds a way to add value despite obvious flaws.
Click to expand...
Yeah... I floated around the Conley/George Hill comp a bit earlier and wondered if he can be some version of those(although Hill is both bigger and longer)... So you see him as a PG (on-ball) guard too?
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I think Shep is athletic though. I think he has really elite feel/anticipation. Its the only explanation for his defensive playmaking when you consider his size. He played mostly like a game manager type point guard at Kentucky which is what kind of points me towards McConnell and the Jones brothers... but he also had just bananas shooting numbers. He also had a couple moments in the season where his team needed him to be more aggressive and he had big games. One of the many impressive things about him ant Rob were they played to win and just understood what they were good at and what the team wanted. It was really impressive how unselfish those two were.

I dinged Shep pretty hard for the tourney game. He is not a perfect prospect by any means but when your coach is already kinda iffy on Xs and Os and then you find out he was on his way out... it kinda makes sense they weren't prepared for what happened.

I think Shep is basically a lock to be one of the 7-8 best players in this draft. If a team thinks Castle, Holland, Topic, etc. have more star potential I understand but I think those guys have less of a chance to be a top 7ish player than Shep. Not a comp but guys like Podz that just get it done in spite of having not the best tools is encouraging.
Click to expand...

I won't quibble too much with someone if they see an easier star path for someone else bc of the physical attributes. I have Holland really high just based on physical attributes. I also think the safety of Shep counts for something and I also don't think we should discount his star potential. Not every all star guard is built like Shai. Sometimes they're the size/athleticism of Conley, CP3, Lowry, FVV, Curry, Brunson, Garland, Trae ect. But like you said, Shep is athletic and impressive physically in his own right.

I am a believer that it's more important to do the athletic things than appear "athletic". Like a block is a block whether it's explosive with length or fundamentally sound like Shep. Shep is A+ at all those things except the amount of dunks he gets....but then again his percentage at the hoop was great. After the Taylor debacle last year I'm not sure if it's better or worse to be able to finish with a dunk lmao.
 
stitches said:
Yeah... I floated around the Conley/George Hill comp a bit earlier and wondered if he can be some version of those(although Hill is both bigger and longer)... So you see him as a PG (on-ball) guard too?
Click to expand...
Oh I have no doubt he is a point guard. I think because he is such a good shooter he can play with another primary creator perfectly.

I think he is the traditional point guard though. Setting others up and running some actions for himself. Is he going to struggle if he is a primary perimeter creator is the question... and I think it is yes (just like it is with most of the guys in this draft). I don't think he is the new age Kyrie style of point guard. I don't think its a bad thing. I think he can do really well in a medium usage role and allow a lot of oxygen for others.

I worry more on defense with Shep. He's small. He makes plays at an unreal elite level BUT he also got targeted a bit and is a bit spacey off ball... and obviously if he is gambling this much he will get taken advantage of at times. I think ultimately the good and bad will even out and he will be an above average/good defender... which is saying a lot for a guy his size.
 
stitches said:
Yeah... I floated around the Conley/George Hill comp a bit earlier and wondered if he can be some version of those(although Hill is both bigger and longer)... So you see him as a PG (on-ball) guard too?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure you can find earlier posts of mine echoing some of the same concerns I had with you. But the deeper dive I did on him made me much more confident that he could/should be more of an on ball player. If I looked deeper and it turned out that he was terrible with higher usage, never was in a high usage role at all, or had the large majority of his shots assisted I would have a different opinion on him.
 
KqWIN said:
I won't quibble too much with someone if they see an easier star path for someone else bc of the physical attributes. I have Holland really high just based on physical attributes. I also think the safety of Shep counts for something and I also don't think we should discount his star potential. Not every all star guard is built like Shai. Sometimes they're the size/athleticism of Conley, CP3, Lowry, FVV, Curry, Brunson, Garland, Trae ect. But like you said, Shep is athletic and impressive physically in his own right.

I am a believer that it's more important to do the athletic things than appear "athletic". Like a block is a block whether it's explosive with length or fundamentally sound like Shep. Shep is A+ at all those things except the amount of dunks he gets....but then again his percentage at the hoop was great. After the Taylor debacle last year I'm not sure if it's better or worse to be able to finish with a dunk lmao.
Click to expand...
Yeah we have talked about this and I think we are basically on the same page with "high floor actually is an indicator of star potential" type of argument.

Its probably because of the pasty skin, size, and old school haircut but he just reminds me of Stock, Mark Price, and the traditional pgs I grew up with. I think Price was faster and more slippery than Shep, Stock a better passer, but I don't think that player type would be bad in today's nba.

I think on an nba big board that has no team attached to it I would have Shep higher than Castle. Its hard for me to detach from my Jazzcentric way of thinking and the fit with Castle/Key theoretically is soooo juicy that I have him higher. But after hearing DA kind of not crown Key which is surprising given the narrative most of the year and refreshing.... I think they could give BPA approach regardless of fit. Which I know is something you basically agree with. I feel like we might consider Shep a bit more seriously.

I can see measurements, fit, and such pushing Shep to 7-8 range and I'd be so excited to have him.
 
KqWIN said:
Yeah, I'm sure you can find earlier posts of mine echoing some of the same concerns I had with you. But the deeper dive I did on him made me much more confident that he could/should be more of an on ball player. If I looked deeper and it turned out that he was terrible with higher usage, never was in a high usage role at all, or had the large majority of his shots assisted I would have a different opinion on him.
Click to expand...
One thing I like on prospects is when you look closer and they look better the longer you look. Not sure if its confirmation bias or some real thing... but Shep is definitely one of those guys I personally like more the more I watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top