NCAA Basketball: Biggest takeaways from 2019 NBA Draft combine

Over 60 NCAA Basketball prospects attended the 2019 NBA Draft Combine in Chicago this week, participating in a barrage of shooting drills, anthro measurements, strength and agility tests, five-on-five scrimmages and interviews. With so much going on in just two days, there was plenty to take in.

Years and years of competitive basketball are viewed by scouts and team personnel for the NBA Draft, as top prospects are watched and analyzed from their budding days as scrawny unsuspecting high school students to their days as matured men on the collegiate hardwood floors of NCAA Basketball or amateur leagues overseas. Weaknesses are scrutinized, personalities are studied, physical attributes are measured, skills are examined, and stats and film are picked apart number-by-number and frame-by-frame.

Between adolescence and adulthood, NBA teams are able to scout prospects as they develop over the years, with these players establishing reputations and perceptions among league circles that evolve and change over time. Whenever the annual NBA Draft roles around, teams will have plenty of material to look through when deciding who is and who isn’t worth one of the 60 selections of the night. From a logical standpoint, small samples and random outings shouldn’t be enough to significantly sway the opinions of scouts and front offices.

But since when is the NBA Draft combine logical?

This year, over 60 prospective draftees traveled to Chicago to participate in the 2019 NBA Draft Combine, where they underwent a series of interviews, agility tests, vertical tests, and 5-on-5 scrimmages to give teams a chance to view prospects all in one massively chaotic setting. Although it would seem more reasonable for a scout or front office executive to weigh a full season — or better yet, a full college career — of play as more meaningful than a couple of scrimmages, but these people are only human. Recency bias is a powerful thing, as is momentum, and every year prospects see their stock rise and fall depending on performances at the combine and even the NCAA Tournament.

Are these showings wholly indicative of who these players are and what they’re capable of? No, but there’s value in them nonetheless.

The athletic tests — lane agility, three-quarter court sprint, shuttle run, standing and max vertical leaps — aren’t true tests of whether a player’s physical gifts are noteworthy on the floor, although they do generate considerable buzz on television and social media. A 43-inch max vert sounds nice and looks cool whenever a player is skying for a dunk or a block, but what does that mean if they’re not actually using it in a functional way out in a competitive setting? Jordan Bone jumped out of the gym this year with his 43-inch max vert, but he doesn’t use it on a regular basis as a rebounder or finisher, so does it really matter?

Likewise, the process of measuring for height, wingspan, standing reach and weight is a valuable way of gaining tangible numbers to understand the size of players large and small. Putting a number on someone’s wingspan, such as Nassir Little’s impressive 7-1 frame, can benefit their perception as a finisher or versatile defender, but if that length isn’t utilized effectively on the floor, does it actually matter?

Additionally, do these numbers really tell us anything? Both Ty Jerome and Tyler Herro, a pair of 6-6 guards with first round potential, were measured as having negative wingspans at 6-4 and 6-3 respectively. This hints at concerns over their ability to finish around the basket and corral opponents on the defensive end, since they don’t have the benefit of added length to stretch past a shot-blocker’s reach or the extra inches to swallow up an opposing ball-handler.

Those who have regularly watched both Jerome and Herro are aware of their physical limitations and how the lack of length manifested itself on a regular basis. Jerome’s short arms (and lack of burst and strength) hindered him as a driver, as he routinely stopped short of the basket and tossed up a floater since he was unable to score against contests. Herro, albeit tough for his size, experienced similar issues.

Should their subpar measurements impact their stock despite all of this pre-existing knowledge and tape? No, but it likely will, based on the pure optics that poor measurements carry with them.

Another player that will likely be hit with unnecessary blowback is Gonzaga’s Brandon Clarke, who measured in as 6-8 with a 6-8 wingspan, a seemingly troubling combination for someone who suited up regularly as the team’s starting center and who projects to be a big in the NBA. He is small for a big, unquestionably, but it was known that he wasn’t an owner of plus-length or size at his position.

Freaking out over measurements is a common thing, and some executives will likely (and wrongfully) lower him on their draft boards and worry about his transition to the NBA on offense and defense, but doing so would be an act of cognitive dissonance. Just look at his tape, his stats, his off-the-charts mobility and athleticism that was calculated while in Chicago. Clarke posted elite block numbers at Gonzaga, using elite timing and defensive IQ, along with his 40.5-inch max vert, to rotate onto shooters and send shots into the stands. He was a strong rim-running lob threat and strong rebounder, too, so are his subpar measurements really that bad? Of course not! Functional athleticism matters, as mentioned previously, as does playing above your size — Clarke is a perfect examples of both traits.

Athletic tests and measurements are meaningless, but it does matter how they’re perceived and used as evaluation tools for NBA front offices. Interviews are better tools for gathering new insights into the mentalities of players and their capacity for learning and growth as players (and, generally, as human beings), and strong answers can do quite a bit to convince teams to select certain players.

Keldon Johnson provided great answers pertaining to his desire to work hard and expand his offensive game; Coby White didn’t give much insight into his transformation from scoring guard to point guard, but his lively personality was charming and likeable, which is significant as well; Nassir Little answered questions about his playing time and role at UNC with maturity and a surprising level of introspection, which won’t go unnoticed by teams that listened; and the aforementioned Clarke provided a refreshing level of self-awareness pertaining to how he makes up for his short arms on defense.

Solid test results, measurements, and interviews can all lead to big impacts on players’ draft stocks, but, time and time again, the 5-on-5 scrimmages find themselves to be the most impactful of the event’s happenings, with a bad shooting afternoon sometimes being enough to completely tank someone’s stock and send a projected first round pick sliding all the way into the second. It’s happened before and will likely happen again this year, as teams are more reactive to recent events.

Although there were plenty of players that could’ve opted to participate in the scrimmages this year, many of whom could have benefited from the shot at possibly outplaying some of their peers, several projected first-rounders backed out and chose to play it safe, likely fearing that they would either fail to impress scouts or that they would get exposed in some way.

Forty players suited up for the four scrimmages at the 2019 NBA Draft combine, and there was plenty to take away from the two-day stint of action.

Here’s a breakdown of all 40 participants, separated based on their status as a guard, wing, combo-forward, or big. Some players significantly improved their draft stock and odds of getting drafted on June 20, some did just enough to stand pat, and others saw their perception sour and their stock subsequently tumble as a result.