The draft is all about projecting talent, right? So if that's the case and we're discussing 19,20, and 21 year old players, why is their collegiate experience not being factored into the debate?
I think it's a major oversight not to assume that if these freshman players stayed another year in college or even two more years that they would clearly separate themselves from those that have.
Look at the two SG's McLemore and Oladipo. Oladipo played three seasons at IU and used that time to improve his game to the level of now being discussed as a top 5 pick. On the other hand you have McLemore, who is nine months younger, with much less college experience and they're in the same debate. Couldn't you assume that if McLemore were to stay at KU one more season that his game would improve drastically as well?
Same goes in the debate of the bigs with Len and Zeller being sophomores, while Noel is only a freshman.
Same would go for Porter being compared to Bennett or Muhammad.
Another issue not getting much time is the fact that Oladipo and Zeller played together and are the only two teammates projected to go in the lottery. Zeller entered the season as a projected top 3 pick, with lots of attention and Oladipo reaped those benefits from teams sagging to double or triple team Zeller, leaving openings for Vic to be very efficient with his scoring.
The point of all this is that these player's can't be compared apples to apples, because that's not the case. You have to factor that the longer a prospect is in college the longer they're working with a strength and conditioning coach, the longer they have access to higher level coaching, and the longer they have to just worry about themselves and improving their craft, the better player they're going to become.
Due to the fact that the draft is all about projecting talent 2-4 years into the future, you would have to factor that the sophomores and juniors in the class are already that much further along in their development and thus closer to their ceilings.
I think if you look at it like that you would project McLemore to be dropping 20+ ppg, especially alongside Wiggins (think Oladipo with Zeller), Bennett is a 20 and 10 big, while Noel is probably getting a stat line of 15 ppg, 13 rpg, 5 bpg next season as sophomores.
So if we're debating between two players and everything else seems to be even, shouldn't the deciding factor go in favor of the least developed player? I know that's a scary thing to envision with the Wizards historical lack of player development, but nonetheless the better option to have in the long term if they're trying to find the best player of the bunch?