Why the NBA’s Most Expensive Prospects Are Being Misrepresented by AI Models

1.14K
Why the NBA’s Most Expensive Prospects Are Being Misrepresented by AI Models

The Algorithm Doesn’t See the Fire

I watched the mock draft simulations like a cold case file—each profile a sanitized ghost of what could be. They assign ‘high template’ labels like Jalen Brunson or Victor Oladipo as if these were blueprints, not possibilities. But you can’t code humanity into a spreadsheet. Flagg isn’t a bigger version of Tatum—he’s a chaotic creator who thrives in transition, not in isolation.

Templates Are Dead.

The AI models worship physical dimensions: height, wingspan, vertical leap. But they ignore timing. They ignore decision speed under pressure. Harper? They call him ‘a poor man’s Brunson’—but his rhythm is his weapon, not his 6’6” frame. That’s like judging a jazz solo by meter alone.

The Low Template Is the Real Story

Low templates aren’t failures—they’re warnings. Bailey’s lack of creation? It’s not deficiency—it’s design. He doesn’t need to create; he needs to exploit space—and they don’t model that because it can’t be quantified in Excel.

Maluach and Beringer: The Quiet Revolution

They call them ‘projectable.’ Meaning: we’ll wait five years for him to become useful. But Maluach already protects the rim better than half the league’s starters—and Beringer? He moves like gravity with knees bent—not just tall—he dances in space.

Essengue: The Unpredictable Diamond

18-year-old German forward with no name on ESPN—but ranked #9 in our internal model? He doesn’t need tactics—he has instinctive rebounding, defensive versatility, and rising touch near the arc. If he never shoots threes? Still valuable.

Conclusion: The Model Is Broken—Not the Player

We treat potential as predictability instead of possibility. We confuse motion for mastery and size for significance. You’re betting on muscle when you should be betting on mind. The league spends millions on projections… while ignoring players who think differently than the algorithm. Do you trust an AI that can’t feel rhythm? Or would you rather take your chances on someone who plays before they get drafted?

ShadowLane23

Likes21.51K Fans3.55K

Hot comment (3)

นราคลา_๙๙

AI คิดว่าเด็กใหม่ต้องสูงกับแขนยาวเท่านั้น… แต่ไม่เคยเห็นว่า ‘จัง’ ยืนตะลึงในมุมมื้อคืนตอนดึก! เขามีจังที่ไม่มีแรง…แต่มีหัวใจที่พูดได้กับการกระโดดในความเงียบ — เหมือนตอนที่แม่ส่งข้าวมาให้เขาเล่นบอลแทนที่จะส่งข้าวไปซื้อไอศครีม 🍦 แล้วคุณจะเลือกใคร? คนที่ยังจำได้ว่า ‘หัวใจ’ สำคัญกว่า ‘ความสูง’?

740
43
0
桜の夢ノミス

AIが身長と垂直跳躍だけで選手を評価するって、茶碗に投げたボールを覗いてるみたいだよ。実際は、12分の静けさより、2.3秒の呼吸の方が重いんだよね。ハーパーは6フィート6インチじゃない、『心のリズム』なんだよ。次の選手は、データじゃなくて、魂の軌びだ。あなたも、スクリーンでMVPより‘最後の一攻’を探してる?(笑)

873
98
0
Холодни_спорт_фан_1987

AI рахує ли тіль? Ні, він бачить лише костюм — як у Львові на тренуванні з кавуном і мобілкою «Баскетбол як життєва філософія». Вони вимірюють стриби за даними з Excel-а, а не за серцем. Татум не має 6’6”, але має душу — це не розмір, це ритм! Хто ще вважається на хвилю? Не смартфоном… а шпилькаючим поглядом. А хто сьогодні не стрибає? Тодо! Дайте йому чай з лимонадою — і пояснюйте йому: «Не грава — це свяття».

66
46
0
indiana pacers