Is the 2024 NBA Draft really as bad as everyone says?

We are just days away from the 2024 NBA Draft. This annual spectacle is always full of smokescreens, fear, uncertainty, doubt and a general lack of insight from the lay people who aren’t making picks on draft night.

This year, though, that’s all true and then some. The top of the draft is full of players largely unknown by the general public. There is no consensus top pick, and the highest echelon of players is considered largely uninspiring compared to recent years.

And yet, we carry on.

The Athletic’s draft sage, Sam Vecenie, got together with Mike Vorkunov to discuss a few big-picture topics and take a macro look at the 2024 draft. If you want player evals and mock drafts, check out Sam’s work.

Vorkunov: The NBA Finals are over. That means our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, Sam. I have some questions for you ahead of this draft, which might be one of the most uncertain drafts in more than a decade. You’ve graciously agreed to answer them. I don’t know much about this draft, so I’ve decided to abide by a maxim for this endeavor: I ask dumb questions, and you give smart answers.

I don’t want to ask you about individual players just yet, but I have some more structural questions. I’ve noticed that this draft has more older players than usual who could go higher in the draft. I counted six who have a chance to go in the top 20 based on your mocks and big board.

But recent history says drafting older players that high, someone older than 22 years old as of the draft day, is generally not going to bring good results for that team. I wrote last month that the recent history of taking older players in the top 20 is pretty gnarly.

Should teams avoid them again, or are there good reasons why older players have been pushed higher up the board this year?

Vecenie: I understand the idea of drafting younger and think, by and large, it’s a sharp idea if the players are there. Age and general developmental curves are important when it comes to evaluating prospects. But there are a number of reasons why, in this class particularly, I think the normal rules go out the window.

First and foremost, due to the advent of the name, image and likeness marketplace and the addition of free collegiate transfers without having to sit out for a year, players are staying in school and developing longer than ever. Players are no longer under the kind of financial pressure they were previously, and there’s no longer pressure to leave your school early to turn pro if you’re unhappy with your situation. You can get paid handsomely — much more handsomely than many of these players would in the international marketplace — to try a new environment and fast-track your development that way. I would expect draft classes to get a bit older on average over the next few years while these rules are still in place.

Second, draft classes are, often by nature, quite cyclical in regard to the availability of talent. You just don’t always get the same level of first-year-eligible teenagers. Unfortunately, this season is a down season in that respect. The most comparable draft to this one back in 2013 was similar in regard to the talent at the top. In that class, only five one-and-dones were taken in the lottery: Anthony Bennett, Nerlens Noel, Ben McLemore, Steven Adams and Shabazz Muhammad. Based on draft position, only one of those five ended up returning value (Adams). The two best players taken in that lottery, Victor Oladipo and CJ McCollum, were upperclassmen. Two of the three All-Stars to come out of that class — Oladipo and Rudy Gobert — were one year away from being automatically eligible. (The other All-Star, Giannis Antetokounmpo, was first-year-eligible.)

I don’t bring that up to say the 2024 class should be drafted older necessarily, either. Five of my top-six players are first-year-eligible players. However, I do believe that you simply need to evaluate the talent in front of you on some level and make the pick you feel most comfortable with, regardless of age. Age is a factor and should be considered an important one. Someone who is 19 years old and just as good as a player who is 22 years old is probably going to have a better long-term career, even if development isn’t linear. But it’s not the be-all and end-all as you’re going through this process.

Vorkunov: Mock drafts and big boards, like yours, have become pretty good indicators and predictors of where players will go, especially in the first round. Very few picks are outside the general bounds of expectation. Why do you think that is? Have you and your peers become really good at evaluating talent, or are teams less willing to make a pick that doesn’t conform to public perception? Do you think this is the draft in which that can change (and maybe give general managers cover to do what they want)?

Vecenie: That’s a great question. More than anything, I think the walls have come down when it comes to the availability of information, allowing people in the public sphere more access than ever before. Back in the mid-2000s, it was far more difficult for people in my position to even get access to tape to go through and evaluate players. Now, I can queue up Synergy Sports and do a deep dive on every single possession a player has seen the court for in any given season. Back in the day, teams needed to spend a large amount of time just handling logistics in terms of getting their hands on tape as it got sent through the mail. I always like to hear some of the stories Mel Kiper tells about getting tape sent to him back when he was just doing the written version of his draft guide.

People in the public sphere have gotten better. I don’t think there is a “fear” factor among teams, but I do wonder if there is a bit more potential for groupthink to circulate leaguewide as we all become more interconnected as a society with our phones and internet access. NBA front offices are a very insular group that travel across the league and world together to find new talent. Everyone gets to know everyone else. I wonder if there is a bit of an effect where opinions get evened out across the board, then people like me end up being a part of that process because we’re constantly talking to people around the league and evaluating players in the same manner.

Vorkunov: The oft-used descriptor this year has been that it’s a bad draft. What does that mean? Is it just the top guys who are below the top prospects in other years, or does the whole draft compare poorly to normal years?

Vecenie: I do think this draft will end up returning below-average commensurate value, but it’s worth noting that this is mostly something that public-facing people care about. NBA teams only have to find between one to four players depending on the year and the number of picks they have. They have a very different job than I do.

I think there isn’t the enormous talent level at the top that you typically see in a draft. I don’t have any Tier 1 or Tier 2 players in this class in my grading scale, and I’m typically not stingy with those grades. I’ve had 16 of them in the last four years. There are players who come out of Tier 3 and 4 to become All-Stars — I would expect a few will in this class. However, I don’t know there is a single prospect for whom I’ll look at what their median value can be projected as and say that I feel confident saying he will become an All-Star.

Having said that, I like the talent in the range from, say, No. 8 to No. 20. That group is, at the very least, on the same level as a normal draft, if not a bit stronger. From No. 25 or so on downward, I have fewer guarantee grades but more two-way grades than I normally do in a typical draft.

Vorkunov: One thing I heard from a few team executives at the combine last month was the belief that there could be good talent later on in the first round, but it might also take longer for those players to develop into good players.

How would you compare Alexandre Sarr, Zaccharie Risacher and anyone else you think has a chance at a top-two pick to other recent top-two picks? Can you do my favorite exercise in draft analysis: Where would this prospect go in other years?

Vecenie: In a normal draft, I would have my top player, Sarr, right in the Nos. 6-10 range. I don’t see him as a typical top-five pick because I worry a bit too much about what his offensive fit will be. Last year, I think I would have had him No. 7. In 2022, I would have him ranked sixth. In 2021, I think I would have ranked him ninth behind Alperen Şengün, who was one of the most productive players in Europe during his pre-draft season.

Again, this doesn’t mean there won’t be All-Stars here. A number of players have real upside, but many of them are much more dependent upon fit and long-term development than others we’ve seen in the past.

Vorkunov: What is the most chaotic top three you can imagine but still seems real?

Vecenie: I think it would involve a team trading up for Sarr to take him No. 1 ahead of the Washington Wizards. That would really create a circumstance where we’d get a No. 1 overall pick trade followed by everyone scrambling trying to figure out what exactly the Wizards would do. They could even look to trade out of the pick as well. Another team could try to move up to select Risacher or Donovan Clingan. Then at No. 3, the Rockets have certainly fielded offers and could easily move themselves out of the pick.

This is like a 1-percent-or-less outcome because it would require teams to want to actually pay the price to move up and make the picks, but let’s just go crazy and say the most chaos would be all of the top-three picks moving on draft night.

My best guess on what actually happens is that all three of the teams currently in their slots stay there and make selections.

Required reading

(Photo of Zaccharie Risacher: Aurelien Meunier / Getty Images)