Why Are Cedric35 and Yang Hancen Still Underrated? The Data Behind NBA Draft’s Silent Biases

The Myth of the Early Pick

I’ve reviewed every combine drill, every film frame, every regression model from the last three drafts. Cedric35 was picked at #35. Yang Hancen at #59. To most scouts, that’s late. To me? It’s a signal.

Statistical models don’t predict stars—they reveal patterns hidden in plain sight. Cedric’s lateral quickness (92nd percentile), vertical leap (35 inches), and change-of-direction efficiency (89th) don’t show up on highlight reels. But they dominate in isolation play—exactly where scouts look away.

The Blind Spot in Scouting

Media loves athleticism over analytics. They see height, wingspan, dunk contests—things that flash on ESPN. But real impact? It’s the quiet moments: footwork under pressure, deceleration vectors, spatial awareness—all invisible to human eyes.

Yang didn’t need to be a ‘project’; he was a system response trained over years—not a marketing narrative.

Probability Is Not Prophecy

I built this model because I’ve watched too many teams lose games chasing hype while true value hides in the margins.

Statistics isn’t prophecy—it’s probability language spoken in code. Cedric and Yang aren’t underrated because they’re unproven. They’re undervalued because the system hasn’t learned how to measure what it can’t see.

Your Turn: Algorithm or Intuition?

Who do you trust when the numbers say one thing… and your eyes say another? Vote below: [Algorithm] or [Intuition]? Share your take—where do you draw the line?