DNHQ Draft Tourney. Jett Howard (1) vs Brandin Podziemski (16)

shooter v shooter

May 18, 2023

Overall results and how we chose the field at 2023 Dub Nation HQ Draft Tournament. Past Draft Tourneys archived here.

Our Draft Tournament

Yes, we are still having our FOURTH annual DNHQ Draft Tournament, where Dub Nation gets to vote on whom the Warriors should draft via head to head showdowns.

The draft will happen on Jun 22 2023, 5pm.

If the Warriors end up trading the pick, I’ll end the draft tournament early.

Jett Howard | 6-8 wing | 19 years old | Michigan

Vecenie:

The Scout: I’m a bit lower on Howard than most, but let’s mention the good first on why he’s projected to be taken in the first round. He’s a tremendous shot maker and shooter who has some of the best shot prep in this draft, which allows him to be a genuine threat off NBA-caliber actions. Michigan ran a ton of Zoom and Pistol actions, using him in dribble handoffs. The Wolverines ran him off screening actions regularly to try to get him loose. He’s a teenager who averaged 14 points and hit 37 percent from 3 on high volume and also showcased the ability to relocate and score from the midrange. Here’s the issue: Michigan was about seven points per 100 possessions better when Howard was off the court because he was such a negative defender. He can’t move in space and also isn’t strong enough now to guard down the lineup. He has a ways to go on that end.

O’Connor:

SHADES OF

Desmond Bane

Feel for the Game
Catch-and-shoot Threat
Float Game
Clutch Gene

PLUSES

Knockdown 3-point shooter with the potential to hit off movement. He’s also comfortable pulling up from midrange and loves using a floater.
High-IQ wing who knows how to be a playmaker, not just a scorer. He thrives in NBA-style actions, a lot like Desmond Bane and Dillon Brooks do for the Grizzlies. He’ll slingshot around screens or handoffs toward the middle of the floor, take a dribble to draw the defense, and then fire a pass to a big man rolling to the basket. It’s an action every pro offense runs, and he runs it to perfection because of his improvisational feel.
He wants to be a good defender. Effort is never an issue; it’s just his positioning and awareness. But he hustles to recover to shooters, logs help blocks, and fights over screens. In overtime against Ohio, he made multiple clutch plays down the stretch to help Michigan get the win with on-ball stops and blocks.
He’s the son of former NBA All-Star Juwan Howard, who played 19 years in the league.

MINUSES

On the ball, struggles to contain faster perimeter scorers. He gets too flat-footed, which hurts his lateral quickness.
Loses track of his man too often while off the ball since he ball watches. There are instances when he’ll completely leave his man open behind the arc because of confusion about who he’s supposed to match up against.

The Jett Howard vs. Kobe Bufkin Debate

While doing The Game Theory Podcast with Sam Vecenie this May, he and I recorded a mock draft and discussed the bizarre on-off numbers taking place at Michigan. The question, from one of the live show’s viewers, was built around the idea of Michigan being a non-tournament team despite having two first-round talents in Jett Howard and Kobe Bufkin, as well as coveted big man Hunter Dickinson.

At around the hour-and-fifteen mark of the video (timestamped here) the first Michigan player was taken in our mock, and Sam very eloquently handled a question about what the breakdown of the on-off stats for Bufkin and Howard might indicate about how or why the Wolverines were unsuccessful.

I’ll just let Sam take it away from here…

I’m not a major fan of on-off stats because they are very roster-dependent. The quality of a backup has a lot to do with determining the metrics for a single player. For Michigan to have quality point guard Dug McDaniel also on the roster to ease the minutes while Bufkin is off the floor is, to me, an important part of this context.

Howard, the team’s far-and-away best shooter, should’ve seen a boost from the lack of floor spacing the Wolverines could generate when he sat. Instead, the opposite happened: Michigan’s defense got so much better than it more than offset his shooting absence.

These numbers clearly don’t tell the entire story, but they are a start to contextualizing when and how some lineup data should and should not be seen as a negative when a prospect is coming from an under-achieving team

Brandin Podziemski, 20, 6-5 So. SG, Santa Clara

Hollinger: (#22)

A transfer who hardly played his freshman season for Illinois, Podziemski blew up in the WCC for mid-major Santa Clara. He profiles as an all-offense, no-defense guy whose success will likely be determined by whether he can kinda sorta hold his own on defense or whether he’ll just be totally eviscerated.
There are definite shortcomings here, although you won’t find them in the stats — Podziemski’s rates of steals, blocks and rebounds actually compare quite well with players of far greater pedigree. The tape doesn’t lie, however: Blow-bys were common, and Podziemski will be giving up inches to virtually any wing he checks (I think his listing at 6-5 will be proven generous). The shred of good news is that he does have some late closing ability to rise up and contest or block shots from behind.
Offensively, however, Podziemski can shine as a secondary creator. The lefty is a deadly 3-point shooter (43.8 percent this past season); that may be a slight outlier based on his 77.1 percent free-throw mark, but the eye test is that he is a money shooter reminiscent of Luke Kennard. Podziemski also is a good passer off the dribble who can function in secondary pick-and-rolls.
A guy like this won’t make it without at least one magic trick up his sleeve, and Podziemski has it: an unworldly floater game, perhaps the best of any draft prospect since Trae Young. He launches them from different angles and approaches, needing little room to unleash glorious parabolas that softly splash through the net on angel’s wings; if he outperforms, this part of his game will likely be a huge piece.

18. Brandin Podziemski (Dean on Draft)

Podz was the #79 RSCI freshman last season, but could only manage 66 total minutes on an experienced Illinois team. So he hit the transfer portal and has spent his sophomore season at Santa Clara where he has flourished.

He is a 6’5 SG with a crafty offensive game where offers a bit of everything. He can handle, pass, and shoot, and has been highly efficient as a lead guard for a solid Santa Clara team.

His downside is that he is not particularly quick or athletic, and may struggle to defend quicker guards in the NBA. But he does have good instincts that have helped him generate a good 3.1% steal rate, and he has a strong frame and excellent motor that has helped him rebound exceptionally well for a guard. He is constantly chasing loose balls and diving on the floor.

He may be a liability on defense, but he has enough redeeming qualities such that he may not necessarily be a disaster on that end. His team defense has been much better with him on the floor, and he is not that bad of an athlete. For instance– he has 5 dunks and 10 blocks on the season compared to projected lottery pick Keyonte George who has 1 dunk and 4 blocks, but nobody is questioning George’s athleticism.

It’s easy to fall into the mindset that a not super athletic mid-major player has limited upside. But let’s take a moment to compare Podz to the best Santa Clara alum in NBA history at the same age, per 100 possessions:

They aren’t exactly the same mold– Nash higher assist rate shows that he was more of a pure PG, and his higher 3PA rate and FT% suggests that Podz isn’t quite on his level as a shooter.

But on the flipside, Podz creates offense in the arc at a higher volume and efficiency, and in spite of his lower assist rate and higher scoring output, he has a better assist:TOV rate than Nash. He has been excellent at avoiding turnovers in spite of his large offensive role, and his passing looks better than his assist rate suggests. He likely could play a more PG type role if he was willing to make more risky passes that may result in a turnover.

And of course this doesn’t even touch on Podz being 2″ taller with more steals and blocks and more than 2x times as many rebounds.

Granted, this doesn’t mean that he is necessarily going to be as good or better than Nash. He hardly looked like a future NBA star at this stage, and there are plenty of mid-major prospects who posted similar or better numbers to Nash at this age who failed to amount to anything in the NBA.

But this should dispel the notion that Podz is a low upside player because he plays for a mid-major. There is a reasonable case to be made that he is the highest upside SG in the draft. Nick Smith (#6) and Keyonte George (#9) rate much higher than Podz (#84) on ESPN’s board, but outside of being 5* recruits and almost a year younger, there is not much to point at that gives them more potential.

As mentioned earlier, his greater dunk and block total suggests he may be a better athlete than George, and on the court George does not do anything that Podz does not. Podz may be a bit less athletic than Nick Smith, but not by a huge margin as Smith is often pulling up for floaters and mid-range shots instead of getting all the way to the rim. And Podz atones with a stronger frame and better basketball IQ.

And even though they have better recruiting pedigree, Podz was a 4* who initially committed to a good high major team. He had good pedigree himself.

And let’s not even get started on the twins ranked 3rd and 4th who are hardly posting better stats against joke tier competition while being a month older than Podz has put up vs a solid NCAA schedule.

The only real concern is if his inability to get any minutes as a freshman for Illinois is indicative of some deeper flaw. So let’s see how the rest of the season unfolds before actively declaring him as the best SG in the class. But if he sustains his current level of production down the stretch, he has a serious case as being the best SG in the class and one of the few interesting non-freshmen in this draft crop.

Your Vote

Vote in this poll and/or by posting a comment (worth ten votes) with a single hashtag #ONE or #SIXTEEN.