NBA scouts at CyHawk?

Not really surprising if you look at the slate of games Wed-Fri. It was by far highest level matchup. Only 5 ranked teams playing.

Wed:
Minny v Purdont
Houston v Jackson State
Wisco v Nebrasketball

Thurs:
ISU v Dorks

Fri:
Texa$ v Uconn
 
  • Like
Reactions: Erik4Cy
Genuine question because I don't really know much about it, but what do NBA scouts gain from being at the game in person that they can't just see on film? Is it more of a personality look in the huddle, etc?
Somewhat, yes. Scouting isn't either/or with in person and film. It should always be both. They need to take a holistic approach to mitigate missing something about a player.

NBA scouts go in person to see a player's true size, athleticism, and strength, plus the intangible factors like demeanor, body language, communication with teammates, and reaction to pressure or adversity. It can reveal character and coachability vital for the NBA that video can't fully capture, reducing the organization's risk.

Film is essential for deep analysis, but live scouting confirms physicals and assesses a player's presence and mental makeup in their natural environment.
 
Genuine question because I don't really know much about it, but what do NBA scouts gain from being at the game in person that they can't just see on film? Is it more of a personality look in the huddle, etc?
TV has a lot of odd angles and close ups where you really don't always get to see the whole floor, so if they're want to pay close attention to just a few guys in particular, I would think it would be way easier to be there in person.
 
TV has a lot of odd angles and close ups where you really don't always get to see the whole floor, so if they're want to pay close attention to just a few guys in particular, I would think it would be way easier to be there in person.
Agreed and the TV broadcast doesn't just go away - you can always go back and see the broadcast view of it later to see another angle of something you saw in person. You can't go back and see the live version again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclonepride
The NBA won’t throw everything at him. But the NBA has a Toure on every team that will be defending him. I think it showed he would struggle with the defenders already in the NBA.

Toure exposed what his top end really is.

Toure's defense is probably the high ceiling of anybody in that game at the next level. Meaning at his best he's better defensively than Stirtz/Milan/Jefferson top potential as offensive players. He's incredibly elite already this few games into his NCAA journey.

Jefferson is putting himself in the convo taking and making huge 3s. He's a undersized for NBA 4 but the way he is passing and shooting he is giving himself a real chance.
 
Toure's defense is probably the high ceiling of anybody in that game at the next level. Meaning at his best he's better defensively than Stirtz/Milan/Jefferson top potential as offensive players. He's incredibly elite already this few games into his NCAA journey.

Jefferson is putting himself in the convo taking and making huge 3s. He's a undersized for NBA 4 but the way he is passing and shooting he is giving himself a real chance.
I don’t know that he’s really that undersized the position has changed in the NBA.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CloneIce
Interestingly enough, AJ Green is considered strong defender in the NBA. They put him on top guys. So comparing Stirtz to him for that reason is really backwards thinking.
Is this more of a Kyle (?) Korver deal he lasted quite a while in the NBA shooting 3s.
 
Somewhat, yes. Scouting isn't either/or with in person and film. It should always be both. They need to take a holistic approach to mitigate missing something about a player.

NBA scouts go in person to see a player's true size, athleticism, and strength, plus the intangible factors like demeanor, body language, communication with teammates, and reaction to pressure or adversity. It can reveal character and coachability vital for the NBA that video can't fully capture, reducing the organization's risk.

Film is essential for deep analysis, but live scouting confirms physicals and assesses a player's presence and mental makeup in their natural environment.

This statement reads like AI. Not saying it is but reads like it to me.
 
Somewhat, yes. Scouting isn't either/or with in person and film. It should always be both. They need to take a holistic approach to mitigate missing something about a player.

NBA scouts go in person to see a player's true size, athleticism, and strength, plus the intangible factors like demeanor, body language, communication with teammates, and reaction to pressure or adversity. It can reveal character and coachability vital for the NBA that video can't fully capture, reducing the organization's risk.

Film is essential for deep analysis, but live scouting confirms physicals and assesses a player's presence and mental makeup in their natural environment.
The intangibles are just as important for most of the players, most of us can see the best players that are just truly skilled basketball players, but its the little things you cannot see on film is why they what to see them live and maybe meet the player. Is the player working hard off the ball, is he coachable, is he taking plays off or busting his ass every second the on the floor. A lot of those things you cannot see those on film.

Stirtz will get his shot at the next level, at best to me, he will become a decent back up. Jefferson will be drafted, late first or early 2nd round. Milo needs another year, in my opinion, he is less up and down than last year, but needs to learn to take it to the hoop stronger and his defense is still a work in progress. If he comes back he will be our primary scorer and we can showcase his abilities. Lipsey is going to struggle making it at the next level, very good players, but it's more hard work and effort than athletic ability, which is huge at the next level. Lipsey will need to be in the right place to have success. Hard to say right now on the younger kids, they all could use another year to show them more. Haliburton stayed two years, no sense that Toure cannot do the same, to showcase his talent.
 
I think that is on his coach not giving him a blow. Our guys hounded him all night with special recognition to Toure, but Lipsey, Heise and Batemon all had good minutes there too. They weren't calling any illegal screens, even with the hip checks, so was a bit surprised someone didn't test the line and really lay someone else out.

He stills scored in double figures, and his deep threes with a hand up in his face showed he can deliver. I think part of him not playing a lot of defense is knowing they can't afford for him not to be on the floor, but there has to be a big question mark if he is quick enough to guard one on one in space. Could he play the AJ Green-type role? The question will be if he can play a starting PG role or not. To me that is the key question.
I think McCollum was perfectly fine with him being a decoy and it worked fairly well.
 
Toure may be the best on ball defender I have seen at Iowa State and we have had some good ones over the years. Looking forward to seeing him matched up against the best guard we face each game.

Jefferson has a bit of Niang and a bit of Fizer with his game. He's a little more athletic than both of them but he isnt as dominant as Fizer in the paint or as good hitting the 3 as Niang. But he fits what the NBA is looking for in a stretch 4 IMO.

Lipsey may have to work his way into the league as a 2 way player but when he is healthy he has NBA talent. Milan has NBA talent too but needs to be more aggressive and consistent. He is either red hot or hesitant to engage on a given night. Stirtz was guarding him most of the night and Milan had a size advantage but we didn't see him take advantage of that much and try to post him up or take him to the rack.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: twincyties
Toure, "developmental," more so than the aforementioned, NBA-speak, imho.
How he progresses throughout the season? High-high hopes.
Ugly 3 form. Hardly our first (hello, Tyrese).

Hoping for more Batemon looks.
 
Somewhat, yes. Scouting isn't either/or with in person and film. It should always be both. They need to take a holistic approach to mitigate missing something about a player.

NBA scouts go in person to see a player's true size, athleticism, and strength, plus the intangible factors like demeanor, body language, communication with teammates, and reaction to pressure or adversity. It can reveal character and coachability vital for the NBA that video can't fully capture, reducing the organization's risk.

Film is essential for deep analysis, but live scouting confirms physicals and assesses a player's presence and mental makeup in their natural environment.

I took a picture at the Orlando tournament a couple years back and accidentally got a scout’s phone in the bottom of it. Here’s a zoomed in shot if you could interpret the notes. No idea which org they were from because I didn’t even notice them until I was going through photos later

IMG_4090_Original.jpeg