The Clint Capela-Robert Williams comparison is not a new one. DraftExpress/ESPN made a nice video on the subject the other day. Since Williams’ emergence as a prospect his freshmen year, Capela has been the dominant comparison. Williams is listed at 6’9 with a 7’4 wingspan, but hasn’t been officially measured. Capela measured at 6’11 (in shoes) with a 7’4.5 wingspan.

Capela’s height advantage should not be dismissed, but Williams is a stockier 237 than Capela’s 222 when he was drafted. Both players are athletic rim-runners and rim-protectors tailor made for spread pick-and-roll systems. A further glance at the players production reveals just how accurate the comparison is.

I separated Capela’s numbers into Eurocup and French League splits because while Eurocup is a higher level of play than the SEC, the LNB Pro A is nearly identical to the SEC per Layne Vashro’s work. Take a second look at those first two rows. I mean that is downright eerie similarity. The only real substantial differences are block rate and offensive rebound rate.

Shot blocking numbers are usually lower in European leagues, so Capela’s lesser production makes sense. Williams lower offensive rebound rate could be partially explained by playing the 4 and thus farther from the basket, but I think this is a legitimate advantage area for Capela.

Overall, Capela’s production is ever so slightly more impressive, but that is somewhat mitigated by his putrid assist-to-turnover production in Eurocup play. The tape backs up these prospects extreme similarities.

Williams standout quality is his incredible reaction time and range as a shot blocker. Look at how much ground he rapidly covers on this block from his freshman year:

That same range and leaping ability makes him an absolutely dynamic lob threat. Given his combination of length, explosiveness, and mobility, he profiles as this draft’s best lob target.

Those two areas, catching lobs and protecting the rim, are the primary reason Clint Capela is who he is in the NBA. Crucially though, Williams also shows promise in a number of more subtle areas that round out Capela’s game.

Capela separates himself from other rim-rolling bigs with his dexterity and agility finishing in non-lob situations. It’s difficult to say just how good Williams is here. He didn’t get many chances to play in pick-and-roll at Texas A&M, and it is probably safe to assume he lags behind Capela.

That being said, he did show some promising flashes. Pay attention to the agility and footwork Williams displays on these two finishes.

Williams is unlikely to develop into quite as diverse and skilled a finisher as Capela. Capela’s ability to euro-step around defenders, finish with his left, and play off a couple dribbles is exceedingly rare. But if you go back and watch DraftExpress’s pre-draft video on Capela, the player you see is awfully similar to what Williams looks like today. There is maybe a touch more high-level coordination, but it is hard to say whether I’m just projecting that with hindsight.

I encourage you to actually watch that video, because it is startling how similar the two are as prospects. Capela’s strengths: Physical Tools, Defensive Potential, Rebounding Instincts, Finishing Ability. Weaknesses: Offensive Polish, Fundamentals on D, Strength/Polish, Intangibles?

A Robert Williams video might have the exact same breakdown. The only thing missing is a mention of passing vision, where Capela showed some promise, and Williams looks even better.

His turnover rate is evidence of questionable decision making, but his raw vision is a real asset. He had some nice interior passes to front-court mate Tyler Davis and also was good at kicking out to shooters from the post.

The other area of important comparison between the two is mobility as a perimeter defender. Both are supremely fast and agile for their size, but Capela’s ability to sit down in a stance and contain players helps unlock Houston’s switching scheme.

Based on my watching, Williams has the movement skills to be as good as Capela. These two clips are both only a couple slides, but they showcase how well Williams covers ground.

Williams problem is his discipline. He does not consistently sit down in a stance, and gets burned when he takes bad angles like this:

His lackadaisical tendencies are not confined to getting in a proper stance. Far too often, he lazily runs up to screens, doesn’t run the floor hard, or floats in questionable defensive position. He also insists on hoisting up long-two’s and college threes despite his woeful results thus far.

The good news is, many of the exact same issues plagued Capela at the same age. The “Fundamentals on D” and “Intangibles?” sections of his DX video illuminate similar question marks.

So, when looking at it all, Williams and Capela are about as similar as two prospects will ever get. Capela may have had slight advantages in height, dexterity, and quickness, but Williams is a little stronger, a bit more promising of a passer, and maybe even a touch more explosive.

That doesn’t mean Williams is going to be as good of an NBA player as Capela. Capela has almost certainly hit the high-end of his outcome range. He continued to improve his coordination as a finisher, became more disciplined as a defender, and plays in the perfect team system to highlight his skillset.

It is highly unlikely Williams’ development curve will go so smoothly. He needs to both find coaches who improve his focus and concentration, and find a system that allows him to work as a spread pick-and-roll threat. It is reasonable to expect Williams to be an approximation of Capela, but a team should not draft him with the expectation of getting Capela.

Now, figuring all that out is interesting, but the far more interesting question is how to value such a prospect?

There are two contradictory arguments that jump out. On the one hand, in a draft top-loaded with elite big prospects, Williams should be devalued as the most replaceable of the bunch. A ceiling of Clint Capela is nice, but Capela-types are the most prevalent player-type in the league. Didn’t the Warriors just start Javale-freaking-Mcgee in two finals games? Why should a team invest premium draft capital in Williams when there are a number of Capela-lite’s out there to be signed for cheap?

This argument makes sense. DeAndre Ayton, Marvin Bagley, Jaren Jackson, Mo Bamba, and Wendell Carter all possess more uncommon skillsets, making them worth premium draft capital and pushing Williams down the board.

Alternatively, didn’t we just witness a playoffs in which Capela was as good as any other big in the league? In playoff Box-Plus Minus, Capela ranked 2nd behind Al Horford among centers with over 100 minutes. That puts him ahead of more “uncommon” centers like Rudy Gobert, Joel Embiid, Karl Anthony-Towns, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Myles Turner.

If a team believes in their coaching staff and system, might it not make more sense to draft the Capela-facsimile given what we saw in the playoffs? If a team is not willing to go as far as saying Capela can be as good as any center in the league, might they at least be amenable to the idea that trading down for Williams is a better value proposition than drafting one of the other guys high?

My colleague Ben Rubin floated this idea the other day in his “draft rules,” and I think it is a compelling argument.

Rather than a big board, the start of some draft rules. pic.twitter.com/7D49pzNywp — B (@KaiserLindeman) June 18, 2018

Ben also included Wendell Carter, who as an Al Horford simulacrum absolutely fits in this discussion, but is unlikely to fall as far as Williams.

Ultimately, the question of whether to draft another big high or to trade down for Williams comes down to two separate questions. 1. Do you believe in your coach and systems ability to turn Williams into a similarly valuable player to Capela? 2. Do you believe in the upside of any of the top bigs to be a significantly better player than Capela?

I think most would answer yes to the second question, but these playoffs serve as a cautionary example of being too confident in that position. Moreover, the past few years of NBA history suggest that building around big men is not necessarily a winning strategy at the highest level of basketball. Kevin Pelton wrote a great piece about the topic recently, and spearheaded by Javier Pesquera, draft twitter has ruminated over this topic all year.

In many ways, how to value Robert Williams in relation to the other bigs in this class represents the crux of that debate. The past few years have seen a wave of young big talent enter the league. If those guys wind up as the league’s best players within a few years, maybe the league will shift back to the best teams being centered around their big men. In that case, the Robert Williams/Capela-types might lose value. Ayton/Bagley/Bamba/WCJ/JJJ could represent significantly more valuable players than Williams.

But if league trends continue in their current direction, it is easy to envision a future in which Robert Williams offers just as much as value as those other players, and is more likely to wind up on the type of roster that actually competes for a title.

It is impossible to say which viewpoint is “correct.” Projecting league trends is not an easy task. However, I tend to lean on the side of pace-and-space being a fundamental shift in strategy, and not just a personnel based trend.

As a result, if I was a team picking at the top of the draft, I would give serious consideration to trading down and acquiring Robert Williams plus something else, rather than investing in one of the top bigs. One last thing I’ll note is that many of these same arguments might apply to Mitchell Robinson. Robinson’s intangible flags are far more worrisome than Williams, but his tools might be even more enticing. If a team has reason to believe in Robinson’s personality he should absolutely factor into this same calculus.