Every day leading up to the draft, on every team in the league, NBA scouts, executives, head coaches and ownership meet in their draft war rooms hashing out who the best players in the draft are. Often the differences between them are minuscule. But on draft night, they have one pick and have to choose between Player A and Player B.
We've asked Jay Bilas and Chad Ford, our two resident NBA draft experts, to look at their personal lists, find areas where there are discrepancies and make the case for the player they have rated higher.
We'll start with the point guards.
1. D'Angelo Russell vs. Emmanuel Mudiay
Bilas on Russell: Russell is the best pure basketball player in this draft. He is skilled with the ball; he is a passing savant that sees the entire floor and can deliver it ahead of the play; he can really shoot it, and he is mature and team-oriented. With his size, shooting ability, feel and passing, I see Russell as a terrific scoring point guard in the NBA. The kid is just a baller, and he has an innate feel for the game. While he is not the dynamic athlete that Mudiay is, he is a far better athlete than he gets credit for. Also, I get the whole "initial maturity" argument, but playing a year overseas is not a long-term advantage. It is a short-term factor. Look, both Russell and Mudiay can be excellent professional basketball players, and this is not a zero-sum game. I favor Russell's offense just a bit over Mudiay's athleticism. It is certainly not an easy call.
Ford: I agree, it's a very tough call -- one I've gone back and forth on all year. I agree with you on Russell's strengths. Russell's feel for the game is elite. His passing ability is incredible. And while I'm not sure he's the best shooter in the draft, he's very, very good. And he has great size for his position. But I'm just a little more concerned than you are about his weaknesses. I agree he's not a bad athlete. But the difference between the Mudiay and Russell athletically (explosion, quickness and strength) is significant in my mind. Second, Russell didn't really play any defense at Ohio State this season. He's young, he was focused on carrying the team offensively -- I get it. But there's not much evidence from watching tape of Ohio State that he's going to be able to stop anyone. Mudiay, on the other hand, has lock-down potential on the defensive end.
Ford on Mudiay: There are a couple of reasons why I think I'd take Mudiay over Russell. The biggest is strength and athleticism. Mudiay is an incredible physical specimen, built in the mode of a Chauncey Billups or a Baron Davis. While that will certainly help him offensively at finishing through contact, where I really think he'll benefit is on the defensive end. He has the potential to be an elite defender. I also think maturity favors Mudiay. Playing in China for a year, in an unfamiliar setting against former NBA players and Chinese veterans, had a major impact on him. He understands, more than most rookies, the level of work it will take to be great in the NBA. And from everything I've seen from Mudiay, he has the drive and work ethic to achieve greatness. His jump shot is still a work in progress, as is his decision-making with the ball in his hands. But let's not overstate his weaknesses. Neither of those aspects of his game is broken. They just need improvement. The same could have been said about a host of other young point guards when they came into the league who are now All-Stars.
Bilas: I don't think we differ on Mudiay's strengths, nor do I believe he has weaknesses that detract from his attractiveness as a prospect. I just like Russell a little bit better. If Russell were gone and I was able to select Mudiay, I would be thrilled. As you know, it is hardly a slap in the face to be rated No. 4 on the Best Available List to Russell's No. 3. Of course, both would rather be on a Big Board rather than on a list. Who wouldn't? Where do you keep that Big Board, anyway?
Watch Chad and Jay debate Russell vs. Mudiay
2. Cameron Payne vs. Jerian Grant
Bilas on Payne: I watched quite a bit of Payne throughout the season and I see him as a legitimate, pure point guard. While it is also a really close call, I rate Payne just ahead of Grant because of his ability to seamlessly run the point. Grant can certainly do it, too, and with more size. Payne is excellent off of ball screens, and has really good length and quickness with the ball. He has a quality handle and he is a creative passer. I especially like his ability to change speeds. His quickness and anticipation as a defender is very good, and he is a capable scorer. The main issue for Payne will be strength and refining his perimeter shot. His release point is low, and needs to be higher. With work, he will improve there. His 3-point shooting numbers are actually better than Grant's, although he did not play against the same competition.
Ford: First of all, I don't even get to know where ESPN keeps the Big Board. I submit it to ESPN security in a manila envelope and that's the last I see of it until ESPN.com publishes it. Lists, apparently, aren't quite as secure. As for Payne, again we don't disagree on his strengths and weaknesses. I'm a fan. I just think there's been a level of irrational exuberance on Payne the past few months. Was he rated on your list over Grant all season? I couldn't find any NBA teams that had him this high until after he became a hot name. I'm comfortable with him in the No. 15 to No. 25 range, but in recent weeks his stock has grown higher than that. I think if he plays at Duke or Kansas, he's not actually this high. It's one time when playing for a small school adds a hint of mystery and boosts your stock. Again, I think he's a very good prospect. But if I'm betting the next four years on a guy, it's Grant.
Ford on Grant: I know there is a thing against seniors when it comes to the NBA draft. I get that. And the analytics typically back it up. But I'm betting Grant is one of the seniors who bucks the trend. I think he has a number of advantages over Payne. He's bigger, a better athlete, can play both the 1 and the 2, is an elite pick-and-roll player and he's NBA-ready now. Given where both guys will be drafted, that will matter. I do worry about Grant's jump shot. It's streaky. But he put up great numbers for two straight years at Notre Dame. I think he's one of the few sure things in the draft.
Bilas: I am with you on the senior thing. I have no idea how we went from valuing seniors to thinking they are too old and somehow incapable of improvement going forward. I love Grant. He is a terrific player who has the size, skill and competitive fire to be a very good NBA player. This is another area where there is not much real estate separating two good players. Both Grant and Payne are worthy prospects, and I don't think any team would feel shortchanged by one or the other.
Watch Chad and Jay debate Grant vs. Payne
3. Olivier Hanlan vs. Joseph Young
Bilas on Hanlan: I probably have Hanlan rated higher than most, if not all, others. I really like him as a prospect. Hanlan is a smart, high-character player who is every bit the scorer that Young is, but he is bigger and stronger. He is not a great athlete, which is the only thing that causes me concern. I still believe he will be capable as a scorer in the NBA, but he will be tested on the defensive end. He needs to improve his shooting off of the bounce, but he has a variety of ways to score.
Ford: Yes, you have Hanlan a bit higher than most. But your reasoning is sound. He has positional size, a high basketball IQ and carried a heavy load on a bad team the past couple of seasons. I just think that his lack of elite athleticism and elite shooting ability are two major red flags. What's the one elite thing Hanlan does? He does a lot of things well. But other than his size and feel, he lacks a definitive skill or athletic ability. Young, on the other hand, has both great shooting and terrific quickness.
Ford on Young: The concerns about Young are well documented. He's a senior, he's more of a scorer than a point guard, and he's small. But in a league that has seen a number of little scoring machines thrive coming off the bench (he reminds me of a young Lou Williams), I think he's got a real shot. A couple of things stand out for me. One, he has been a high-volume but very efficient shooter his whole career. He shot 38, 42, 42 and 36 percent from 3-point range in his four years in college. He shot 88 percent or higher from the free throw line after his freshman season, and 93 percent as a senior. And he shot 45 percent or higher from the field the past three seasons, good numbers for a player who took as many shots as Young did. I also think he's an underrated passer. He averaged nearly four assists per game this year. Add in a 6-foot-5 wingspan and terrific quickness, and I think he's got a shot at being a great scorer off the bench in the NBA.
Bilas: I like Young as a scoring option off the bench, one who can come in and get immediate offense and change the pace of the game. He is indeed small, but he has shown the quickness and ability to read defenses in order to gain separation. He is not a great defender, not a superior athlete (but he is quick with the ball), and he thinks scoring rather than running a team, but he should be taken at the top half of the second round. I see him as an Aaron Brooks-type, while I see Hanlan as more of a Greivis Vasquez-type player. Young is the better athlete, but it's a close call on who is the better player.