My first choice is either of Fultz/Ball obviously but I'm also very interested with pairing Ingram up with Jackson/Isaac.
Brandon Ingram and Johnathan Isaac would be some duo with DLO running the point. _________________ “Life is too short. You have to keep it moving.” - Kobe
So Pelinka admitted that fit is a real factor in drafting..
Always belived in factoring in fit. I think BPA is good in theory but kind of a fallacy, heard so much BPA NO MATTA WHAT here, I just had to make this comment sorry
Here's the problem for "fit". Sometimes the most talented players don't fit the system well.
Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal aren't "ideal triangle fit."
Hell, McDermott is the "perfect fit" at PF, for all teams. 3pt range, quick release, plays off ball. Randle, is not. Randle, is still, clearly the better player.
BPA is obviously the #1 factor. But so often, there isn't enough talent demarcation to not factor in fit. Especially with these 19 year olds - after 1 year in college, you don't know what they can't do, precisely enough.
If we saw another year of Monk, and saw that his ball handling/passing didn't improve - then if we were in this same draft at that time, we wouldn't think of choosing him over Jackson/Tatum.
But for now, Monk's strength's fit well - and we don't have enough evidence to factor in these guys weaknesses more so than fit. So you want to draft on BPA, which a lot of teams do, but they strike out on these Freshman because they don't have enough evidence - so BPA isn't a tried and true method!
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:57 pm Post subject:
KeepItRealOrElse wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
KeepItRealOrElse wrote:
So Pelinka admitted that fit is a real factor in drafting..
Always belived in factoring in fit. I think BPA is good in theory but kind of a fallacy, heard so much BPA NO MATTA WHAT here, I just had to make this comment sorry
Here's the problem for "fit". Sometimes the most talented players don't fit the system well.
Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal aren't "ideal triangle fit."
Hell, McDermott is the "perfect fit" at PF, for all teams. 3pt range, quick release, plays off ball. Randle, is not. Randle, is still, clearly the better player.
BPA is obviously the #1 factor. But so often, there isn't enough talent demarcation to not factor in fit. Especially with these 19 year olds - after 1 year in college, you don't know what they can't do, precisely enough.
If we saw another year of Monk, and saw that his ball handling/passing didn't improve - then if we were in this same draft at that time, we wouldn't think of choosing him over Jackson/Tatum.
But for now, Monk's strength's fit well - and we don't have enough evidence to factor in these guys weaknesses more so than fit. So you want to draft on BPA, which a lot of teams do, but they strike out on these Freshman because they don't have enough evidence - so BPA isn't a tried and true method!
I guess I'll disagree here too?
Shaq and Bryant are the anti-triangle types.
GSW is the only team that I've seen draft for fit, but just so happened to have legit talent at those draft positions. It still took 2-3 years of NBA development time.
LeBron is a fit almost anywhere.
Kawhi Leonard was a motor wing without any shot and played PF. He was molded by the Spurs.
Tony Parker wasn't a fit for the Spurs halfcourt system. Zero jumpshot. Ball-dominant.
Ginobili wasn't a fit either, considered too wild and TO prone...
Westbrook, just isn't a fit for the modern NBA...
If the talent is assumed to be close, and the system allows for the draft player to be play closest to their natural archetype (Buddy Hield is a great example), then, fit makes sense.
Antetokounmpo isn't technically a fit because he lacks range... same for Ben Simmons... _________________ Resident Car Nut.
At 3 I wouldn't be opposed to the lakers trading down to get DS jr.....if we are changing some parts around for draftees it would be interesting if the lakers could land both DS jr and Markannen I think a young core of
C - Zub
PF - Markannen
SF - BI
SG - DLo
PG - DM jr
has better overall team potential than say
C- Zub
PF - Randle
SF - BI, Jackson or Tatum (based on whom most boards have at 3)
SG - D lo
PG - clarkson
If New Orleans doesn't jump into the top 3, then Sacramento would have two picks in the lottery and be the team to talk to for your scenario.
Frank Jackson and Hamidou Diallo declaring for the draft but not signing agents
had a feeling Diallo would at least declare
Pretty much need to think of Diallo as a HS prospect. MAJOR concern if he didn't develop anything during his year at UK, even if it was in practice. I don't like the idea of skipping a year of progression between 18-24.
why do you assume he did not develop any in the past year? I think he gets a promise and stays in....he is an athletic freak with skills
Guys like Mudiay and Brandon Jennings didn't really develop in their year of overseas basketball.
I think Ferguson is headed the same way, because I don't think of Australian competition.
What NBA player basically took a year off at the NCAA level, got drafted, and turned out well? At least we got to glimpse Harry Giles.
Australian competition where you're allowed to hard foul and be physical is better than CBA competition where you are discouraged from playing defense so they can run up scores.
You could tell Mudiay wasn't it when Sun Yue shut him down in the CBA the moment he started forcing him left.
I see a lot more things translatable at the next level in Ferguson than I ever did in Mudiay.
I disagree. Sure, they're stronger players, but they're definitely not NBA speed in terms of quickness and athleticism. They're easier to outmaneuver.
As for Mudiay vs. Ferguson, I don't see it so obviously. Ball-handling translates to the NBA level, even if we disregard athleticism from Mudiay or Ferguson. But Mudiay can actually pass a bit, and that didn't change at the NBA level. When I watch Ferguson, he rarely dribbles more than twice, rarely at the rim, and takes shots on full vert where Aussie defenders aren't even close to contesting. It's like physical HS play, but not even NCAA level defense.
I don't see where physical play at the Australian leagues is helping Ferguson, especially if he isn't playing as a physical player.
Mudiay got rightfully laughed at by people that knew the CBA when he said it would be "more physical" than the NBA. Ferguson could actually make that claim of the Australian League.
His three point percentage is also messed with by the fact he had a lot of 0-1 or 0-2 games from three when he'd play spot minutes and he had games where he didn't shoot much and missed, going 0-2, 0-1, and 0-3. So there's that too.
He actually wound up shooting 40% from the field in games where he shot the ball 5 times or more which isn't bad considering his frame and the kind of impact and he was facing whenever he tried to get to the basket.
In fact from November through January, his numbers on high volume three pointers taken (4 or more) was actually 39%.
Downside is that he didn't finish the season strong though with only one real stand out game against Bribane where he got real play time over 20 minutes. But what happened was 3 games later they used him as a 6th man and he only had one good game against Illawa but aside from that his last two months weren't the strongest. As a kid for lack of a better word, that was expected.
That performance imo is the reason I think he could drop to us at 28. But he definitely got more of an 18 year old going up against grown men experience than Mudiay did.
If you don't like him, the guy I showed before Peter Jok is a severely underrated player as well, who I don't even see in mocks tbh.
So if you don't like Ferguson, I'd say Peter Jok is another wing to look at. Just won the 3 point competition as well I believe. _________________ How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Last edited by MJST on Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
At 3 I wouldn't be opposed to the lakers trading down to get DS jr.....if we are changing some parts around for draftees it would be interesting if the lakers could land both DS jr and Markannen I think a young core of
C - Zub
PF - Markannen
SF - BI
SG - DLo
PG - DM jr
has better overall team potential than say
C- Zub
PF - Randle
SF - BI, Jackson or Tatum (based on whom most boards have at 3)
SG - D lo
PG - clarkson
If New Orleans doesn't jump into the top 3, then Sacramento would have two picks in the lottery and be the team to talk to for your scenario.
its possible if we keep the pick and think its better value to trade down. workouts matter a lot. just like how NY picked porzingis and he got boo'd because people thought it was too early
Joined: 15 Apr 2001 Posts: 2324 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:04 pm Post subject:
Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
I also believe drafting 19 year old perimeter players for defense is a recipe for disaster: Orlando drafted Oladipo #2 because they thought in part that he would be a great defender, and look what happened. Detroit thought they were getting Ron Artest part 2 in drafting Stanley Johnson. How is that working out?
I disagree that he was drafted just for defense.
Oladipo shot 64.4% from 2pt range and 44% behind the arc, as one of Indiana's primary scoring options. Can't fake that. He even shot better than their #1 guy, Cody Zeller.
I had issues about those stats not translating to the NBA level because I didn't think he was a dynamic ball-handler, but no doubt at the time, he was definitely worth the lottery pick.
Quote:
Yes, we're terrible on D. But drafting a 19 year old (oops, I mean 20 year old) isn't the answer. Josh Jackson is getting overrated around these parts, and IMO, shouldn't be the pick.
But the idea is, you're drafting Jackson for defense AND playmaking. Bonus if he gets the shot right.
Quote:
The opposite holds true for Tatum: just doesn't make sense to draft ANY SF that's not CLEARLY better than Ingram. Period.
Disagree again, because now, the idea is you're building around Ingram out of need, and Ingram isn't an established franchise player. So then, it goes to BPA, regardless of archetype.
Quote:
So, IMO, that leaves Smith Jr, Isaac (who hasn't really been discussed at length AT ALL on here for some reason), and Monk.
Smith Jr. is a ball stopper that couldn't get his team to win, and even admitted in interviews that he has "lapsed" on offense in terms of effort. Flags.
Quote:
Monk's been getting some love on here & does deserve some consideration. Because of his lethal jumper & athleticism, he deserves some looking into--he truly could be a one-of-a-kind player (like Iverson, Westbrook, etc.) that defies conventional wisdom. Not necessarily saying that he should or shouldn't be the pick, but he should be looked into THOROUGHLY. I mean, when's the last time you saw an ATHLETE that could SHOOT like Monk? When's the last time you saw a SHOOTER that was THAT kind of athlete???
That's why I have him at #5. The only reason why I don't have him higher is because guys like Westbrook though more raw in terms of skill, showed much better motor off-the-ball and on the defensive end. People glare at his athleticism, but absolutely forget he has the motor of an elite PF at all given times. That's why he's a one-man fast break. Monk, doesn't have that motor, unless he's coming off of screens and getting shots. It's more Lou Williams than Westbrook, even if Monk has the twitch.
Quote:
I don't get why people aren't giving Isaac more love. I mean, if I told you that there's a 6'11" 19 year old with a 7'1" wingspan who can finish, create off the dribble, rebound, block shots, get steals, and shot 34% from 3, would you HONESTLY say that he doesn't have the chance to be a top-3 pick?
Basically he's Robert Horry, except he has asthma issues, concerns about strength, and more raw individual skills. He was "hidden" at FSU's system because they basically played 10 guys 20-25mpg, and we never saw that further exploited out of Isaac. Where was he in the tournament? Silent. He's not a shot creator or dynamic ball-handler, but a stud #3 or #4 option for teams looking for unicorns. If you're willing to wait on project players, he's the guy, but the Lakers don't have time to wait.
.
To me, bottom line is, do you think Tatum or Jackson are better prospects than Ingram? I don't. Ingram can be as good or better than Jackson defensively, and may not be far behind Tatum offensively, if at all. And he's as good of a ball handler and passer as Jackson, if not better. Why stunt his growth & draft a player that's going to clearly cut into his playing time when there's so much other talent at other positions, and Jackson or Tatum are clearly NOT head and shoulders above Ingram?
Besides, Jackson or Tatum don't strike me as potentially franchise-altering mega-talents. Neither one of them look like a Lebron-James level impact player. So in the absence of that, there's just not much to gain from drafting them or any SF in this draft.
As for Isaac, I don't get why the usage argument should be used against him: if he were a European player with the same EXACT body & low usage rate, draftniks would be screaming at the top of their lungs to get the kid. Marqueese Chriss was another low-usage guy in the draft last year, and he looks to be one of the best young bigs in the league. Porzingis was a low-usage guy. Greek Freak was a low-usage (Euro) guy.
And sure, I understand about the wanting to win now thing. But you gotta take the best player available. Brandon Ingram may or may not have been the second best player in the draft last year, but he was drafted #2 overall because he has the potential to be to best player in his class in four years.
I think you're selling Isaac's WAAY short if you think he's just a potential 3rd option: he's shown advanced ball-handling moves like hang dribbles, crossovers, and splitting double teams, as well as some ball-handling duties. And advanced shot-making skills like stepbacks, fadeaways, and runners. AND he can hit open 3's??? All at 6'11"??? Talk about a skills package! Robert Horry was never this advanced offensively.
Year after year, we drool over these other teams' "unicorns", Porzingis, Greek Freak... possibly Chriss. Isaac has the potential to be one, and NO ONE seems to be paying attention....
BPA is a tough to determine at times though. Much depends on how some evaluates and prioritizes different skills.
One may see shotmaking as more important then ISO playmaking. Or defensive skill over rebounding. One may put a priority on raw athleticism while another covets fundamentals and effort.
So Pelinka admitted that fit is a real factor in drafting..
Always belived in factoring in fit. I think BPA is good in theory but kind of a fallacy, heard so much BPA NO MATTA WHAT here, I just had to make this comment sorry
Here's the problem for "fit". Sometimes the most talented players don't fit the system well.
Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal aren't "ideal triangle fit."
Hell, McDermott is the "perfect fit" at PF, for all teams. 3pt range, quick release, plays off ball. Randle, is not. Randle, is still, clearly the better player.
BPA is obviously the #1 factor. But so often, there isn't enough talent demarcation to not factor in fit. Especially with these 19 year olds - after 1 year in college, you don't know what they can't do, precisely enough.
If we saw another year of Monk, and saw that his ball handling/passing didn't improve - then if we were in this same draft at that time, we wouldn't think of choosing him over Jackson/Tatum.
But for now, Monk's strength's fit well - and we don't have enough evidence to factor in these guys weaknesses more so than fit. So you want to draft on BPA, which a lot of teams do, but they strike out on these Freshman because they don't have enough evidence - so BPA isn't a tried and true method!
I guess I'll disagree here too?
Shaq and Bryant are the anti-triangle types.
GSW is the only team that I've seen draft for fit, but just so happened to have legit talent at those draft positions. It still took 2-3 years of NBA development time.
LeBron is a fit almost anywhere.
Kawhi Leonard was a motor wing without any shot and played PF. He was molded by the Spurs.
Tony Parker wasn't a fit for the Spurs halfcourt system. Zero jumpshot. Ball-dominant.
Ginobili wasn't a fit either, considered too wild and TO prone...
Westbrook, just isn't a fit for the modern NBA...
If the talent is assumed to be close, and the system allows for the draft player to be play closest to their natural archetype (Buddy Hield is a great example), then, fit makes sense.
Antetokounmpo isn't technically a fit because he lacks range... same for Ben Simmons...
Development is everything. Bottom line.
Every year, better college players(draftee's), get surpassed by rookies viewed as lesser prospects.
I mean, the legitimacy of 'fit' is why you yourself have two boards, which you've posted here.
Joined: 15 Apr 2001 Posts: 2324 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:11 pm Post subject:
Mike@LG wrote:
KeepItRealOrElse wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
KeepItRealOrElse wrote:
So Pelinka admitted that fit is a real factor in drafting..
Always belived in factoring in fit. I think BPA is good in theory but kind of a fallacy, heard so much BPA NO MATTA WHAT here, I just had to make this comment sorry
Here's the problem for "fit". Sometimes the most talented players don't fit the system well.
Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal aren't "ideal triangle fit."
Hell, McDermott is the "perfect fit" at PF, for all teams. 3pt range, quick release, plays off ball. Randle, is not. Randle, is still, clearly the better player.
BPA is obviously the #1 factor. But so often, there isn't enough talent demarcation to not factor in fit. Especially with these 19 year olds - after 1 year in college, you don't know what they can't do, precisely enough.
If we saw another year of Monk, and saw that his ball handling/passing didn't improve - then if we were in this same draft at that time, we wouldn't think of choosing him over Jackson/Tatum.
But for now, Monk's strength's fit well - and we don't have enough evidence to factor in these guys weaknesses more so than fit. So you want to draft on BPA, which a lot of teams do, but they strike out on these Freshman because they don't have enough evidence - so BPA isn't a tried and true method!
I guess I'll disagree here too?
Shaq and Bryant are the anti-triangle types.
GSW is the only team that I've seen draft for fit, but just so happened to have legit talent at those draft positions. It still took 2-3 years of NBA development time.
LeBron is a fit almost anywhere.
Kawhi Leonard was a motor wing without any shot and played PF. He was molded by the Spurs.
Tony Parker wasn't a fit for the Spurs halfcourt system. Zero jumpshot. Ball-dominant.
Ginobili wasn't a fit either, considered too wild and TO prone...
Westbrook, just isn't a fit for the modern NBA...
If the talent is assumed to be close, and the system allows for the draft player to be play closest to their natural archetype (Buddy Hield is a great example), then, fit makes sense.
Antetokounmpo isn't technically a fit because he lacks range... same for Ben Simmons...
I don't believe in drafting for fit in the SYSTEM, either, which is why I'm not a fan of drafting Ball. But if the talent is close, then I do believe in drafting for fit, position-wise. If it's not close, then you go for the best player (i.e., I'm not going to NOT draft a Lebron James just because I have Brandon Ingram. But I won't draft a guy who's comparable +/- 10% of Brandon Ingram. Just doesn't make sense.)
To me, bottom line is, do you think Tatum or Jackson are better prospects than Ingram? I don't. Ingram can be as good or better than Jackson defensively, and may not be far behind Tatum offensively, if at all. And he's as good of a ball handler and passer as Jackson, if not better. Why stunt his growth & draft a player that's going to clearly cut into his playing time when there's so much other talent at other positions, and Jackson or Tatum are clearly NOT head and shoulders above Ingram?
Besides, Jackson or Tatum don't strike me as potentially franchise-altering mega-talents. Neither one of them look like a Lebron-James level impact player. So in the absence of that, there's just not much to gain from drafting them or any SF in this draft.
As for Isaac, I don't get why the usage argument should be used against him: if he were a European player with the same EXACT body & low usage rate, draftniks would be screaming at the top of their lungs to get the kid. Marqueese Chriss was another low-usage guy in the draft last year, and he looks to be one of the best young bigs in the league. Porzingis was a low-usage guy. Greek Freak was a low-usage (Euro) guy.
And sure, I understand about the wanting to win now thing. But you gotta take the best player available. Brandon Ingram may or may not have been the second best player in the draft last year, but he was drafted #2 overall because he has the potential to be to best player in his class in four years.
I think you're selling Isaac's WAAY short if you think he's just a potential 3rd option: he's shown advanced ball-handling moves like hang dribbles, crossovers, and splitting double teams, as well as some ball-handling duties. And advanced shot-making skills like stepbacks, fadeaways, and runners. AND he can hit open 3's??? All at 6'11"??? Talk about a skills package! Robert Horry was never this advanced offensively.
Year after year, we drool over these other teams' "unicorns", Porzingis, Greek Freak... possibly Chriss. Isaac has the potential to be one, and NO ONE seems to be paying attention....
i like isaac, but u could argue for fox being like wall, tatum like carmelo, jackson like kawhi, markannen like dirk, etc.. big risk in him busting if u draft him top 3(if lakers keep the pick). i could see him going 5 tho if he impresses in workouts
So Pelinka admitted that fit is a real factor in drafting..
Always belived in factoring in fit. I think BPA is good in theory but kind of a fallacy, heard so much BPA NO MATTA WHAT here, I just had to make this comment sorry
It makes sense if the BPA is a game changer like Embiid, or Jordan.
I had never thought about it this way, but it makes all the sense in the world.
So Pelinka admitted that fit is a real factor in drafting..
Always belived in factoring in fit. I think BPA is good in theory but kind of a fallacy, heard so much BPA NO MATTA WHAT here, I just had to make this comment sorry
It makes sense if the BPA is a game changer like Embiid, or Jordan.
I had never thought about it this way, but it makes all the sense in the world.
BPA theory failed the Okafor year (6ers chose him cuz that was the "correct BPA" and that they'd have him in a trade piece later). I'm still in favor of BPA but only toward guards/forwards. History-wise, that's the one BPA worked. It's the bigmen BPA that seemingly has the curse.
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:40 pm Post subject:
yinoma2001 wrote:
I'm leaning for the Lakers:
#1: Fultz
#2: Jackson
#3: Isaac
#4: Ball
Maybe I'm just becoming less enamored by Ball. I was certainly caught in his daze during his peak, but stepping back, he's looking more and more like a really good passing SG...a little too much DLo redux in terms of people complaining about the same issues when DLO was running point.
I have Fultz in tier 1 and Jackson and Ball in tier 2. I haven't very much of Isaac, but the game I saw he did a whole lot of nothing, so at the moment I'm lower on him than Tatum and others.
Isaac had so many bad games down the stretch. I'm surprised he's getting any attention. Both top PGs, both swingmen, and the 2 UK guys should be above him.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:47 pm Post subject:
Vishnu wrote:
Isaac had so many bad games down the stretch. I'm surprised he's getting any attention. Both top PGs, both swingmen, and the 2 UK guys should be above him.
Isaac has a very high floor....combo forward near 7 Feet tall that is a good defender....I doubt he falls below 5 or 6.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:05 pm Post subject:
Quote:
If you don't like him, the guy I showed before Peter Jok is a severely underrated player as well, who I don't even see in mocks tbh.
So if you don't like Ferguson, I'd say Peter Jok is another wing to look at. Just won the 3 point competition as well I believe.
Ferguson at #28 makes sense. I'd have trouble drafting Jok if the players on my draft list are available. Even then, I prefer them over Ferguson. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:12 pm Post subject:
Quote:
To me, bottom line is, do you think Tatum or Jackson are better prospects than Ingram? I don't. Ingram can be as good or better than Jackson defensively, and may not be far behind Tatum offensively, if at all. And he's as good of a ball handler and passer as Jackson, if not better. Why stunt his growth & draft a player that's going to clearly cut into his playing time when there's so much other talent at other positions, and Jackson or Tatum are clearly NOT head and shoulders above Ingram?
Disagree. If they're BPA, why does it matter if they're better than Ingram or not?
Hell, I would actually argue that both Jackson and Tatum were better players than Ingram ALL SEASON up until the last month.
Quote:
Besides, Jackson or Tatum don't strike me as potentially franchise-altering mega-talents. Neither one of them look like a Lebron-James level impact player. So in the absence of that, there's just not much to gain from drafting them or any SF in this draft.
I didn't perceive Ingram as a franchise-altering mega talent either. They don't have to be LeBron level talent to prove that they could be VERY useful as Laker players or as an asset.
Quote:
As for Isaac, I don't get why the usage argument should be used against him: if he were a European player with the same EXACT body & low usage rate, draftniks would be screaming at the top of their lungs to get the kid. Marqueese Chriss was another low-usage guy in the draft last year, and he looks to be one of the best young bigs in the league. Porzingis was a low-usage guy. Greek Freak was a low-usage (Euro) guy.
The difference isn't the USG, but rather the reason why. He has conditioning issues. He has asthma. We're in year 3 of Randle and still see condioning issues.
I really don't care about Marqueese Chriss, because despite all of that athletic talent and raw skill level, he has no clue what to do with it. Empty stat player, negative defender.
Quote:
And sure, I understand about the wanting to win now thing. But you gotta take the best player available. Brandon Ingram may or may not have been the second best player in the draft last year, but he was drafted #2 overall because he has the potential to be to best player in his class in four years.
If that's the case, then why would I opt for role-playing Isaac when there are two shot creators in Tatum and Jackson?
Quote:
I think you're selling Isaac's WAAY short if you think he's just a potential 3rd option: he's shown advanced ball-handling moves like hang dribbles, crossovers, and splitting double teams, as well as some ball-handling duties. And advanced shot-making skills like stepbacks, fadeaways, and runners. AND he can hit open 3's??? All at 6'11"??? Talk about a skills package! Robert Horry was never this advanced offensively.
Really disagree there.
The reason why I'm not high on Isaac is because I see him as a project player, just to get to a role-player level. Yeah, he can be seen as a unicorn, but he doesn't have the motor of Porzingis or Greek Freak. He doesn't have the elite height/length of Porzingis to make up for the rudimentary ball-handling (and I really don't see what you see in terms of ball-handling abilities).
Over 48% of shots at the rim are assisted. 36% of his 2point shots are assisted. 84% of his 3point shots are assisted. So, basically, the places where we want him to score, someone is is creating half to 3/4 of the shots for him.
Quote:
Year after year, we drool over these other teams' "unicorns", Porzingis, Greek Freak... possibly Chriss. Isaac has the potential to be one, and NO ONE seems to be paying attention....
I think you're drastically overrating Chriss, in an oddly different way to Isaac.
Why do you think he's fallen in everyone's mock draft? He was as high as #4 in February. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:14 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Development is everything. Bottom line.
Every year, better college players(draftee's), get surpassed by rookies viewed as lesser prospects.
I mean, the legitimacy of 'fit' is why you yourself have two boards, which you've posted here.
Yup. And for the most part, I stay away from the "fit", especially in lottery territory because that's the area of highest chance for a franchise player.
It makes more sense to me in the late 1st/early 2nd when the talent is relatively even in terms of skills and athleticism. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:23 pm Post subject:
nash wrote:
Yong wrote:
KeepItRealOrElse wrote:
So Pelinka admitted that fit is a real factor in drafting..
Always belived in factoring in fit. I think BPA is good in theory but kind of a fallacy, heard so much BPA NO MATTA WHAT here, I just had to make this comment sorry
It makes sense if the BPA is a game changer like Embiid, or Jordan.
I had never thought about it this way, but it makes all the sense in the world.
It makes sense for BPA, even if you have All Stars in Eddie Jones and NVE ahead to draft Kobe Bryant.
It makes sense for BPA, when you can go for Leandro Barbosa who has athletic tools, physical tools, and a 3pt., shot, instead of a system fit like Brian Cook, that didn't.
It makes sense for BPA, when you can have Anderson Varejao, Beno Udrih, Chris Duhon, and Trevor Ariza from the get go, instead of a system fit like Sasha Vujacic
It makes sense for BPA, when it actually happened in 2005 with Andrew Bynum, Ronny Turiaf, and Von Wafer, respective to draft position. That's when Kupchak finally started to nail the draft.
Guys like Sasha, Cook, and Walton never became major assets, even in the system they supposedly fit in so well. Instead, the Lakers passed up on guys that had better overall careers and general value. I don't think it mattered what skill sets they brought (Who didn't want a Varejao level rebounder prior to the injuries, or a speedy guard next to Bryant instead of Sasha, that also hit 3s?)
Hell, a big part of the current problem with the Lakers is, between 2008 to 2013, the Lakers kept ZERO of their own drafted assets. None of them became starters. None of them became solid bench players. That's why there's been this feeling of "starting over from scratch" and why it's taken a series of lottery years just to build actual depth on the team, which is an accomplishment in itself.
It's a fallacy that a system fit player is guaranteed to have a better career and "enhance" within the system, as opposed to a legit talented basketball player that can play in a different system, yet provide specific skill sets in the system anyway. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Development is everything. Bottom line.
Every year, better college players(draftee's), get surpassed by rookies viewed as lesser prospects.
I mean, the legitimacy of 'fit' is why you yourself have two boards, which you've posted here.
Yup. And for the most part, I stay away from the "fit", especially in lottery territory because that's the area of highest chance for a franchise player.
It makes more sense to me in the late 1st/early 2nd when the talent is relatively even in terms of skills and athleticism.
I see where you're coming from with that logic, it makes sense for sure - but I still don't think it's quite realistic. But I feel u
I also don't think you get appropriate value when trading a prospect at a crowded position on your team. Nurkic and a 1st for Plumlee? Ouchhh
I was listening to the Simmons podcast because Harbs was on and they both mentioned this kid starting for Barcelona as a 16 year old. Is he the next super star big man prospect?
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:33 pm Post subject:
KeepItRealOrElse wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
Development is everything. Bottom line.
Every year, better college players(draftee's), get surpassed by rookies viewed as lesser prospects.
I mean, the legitimacy of 'fit' is why you yourself have two boards, which you've posted here.
Yup. And for the most part, I stay away from the "fit", especially in lottery territory because that's the area of highest chance for a franchise player.
It makes more sense to me in the late 1st/early 2nd when the talent is relatively even in terms of skills and athleticism.
I see where you're coming from with that logic, it makes sense for sure - but I still don't think it's quite realistic. But I feel u
I also don't think you get appropriate value when trading a prospect at a crowded position on your team. Nurkic and a 1st for Plumlee? Ouchhh
Denver is actually ahead of that trade, due to a previous trade. Can't remember all of the logistics.
I think Denver could have held onto Nurkic for more, but they drafted 2 Euro centers and they BOTH had legit talent. That's the point. They actually experimented with Nurkic getting priority first, then Jokic 2nd half of the season. Once Jokic proved himself, he was kept and Nurkic wasn't. No point into keeping an unhappy player with losing PT, so Nurkic was out.
Still, I'd rather have THAT problem.
I mean, look at the Lakers now. They've drafted quite a few BPAs. If you look at the youthcore, JC, DAR, Ingram, Randle, Zubac, Nance Jr., Black, the Lakers actually have assets that warrant value in trade AND if the Lakers decide to actually trade multiple players, their depth doesn't totally get depleted.
That's the idea.
The Lakers once had NVE, Eddie Jones, Kobe Bryant, Rick Fox, Elden Campbell, Shaquille O'Neal. 1998 had 4 Laker All-Stars. They had the absolute luxury of actually gutting the team, taking on less talent for fit, and still winning championships.
EJ and Elden turned into Glen Rice.
Glen Rice turned into Horace Grant.
Horace Grant turned into an expired contract to stay under the luxury tax, and then the Lakers still had Robert Horry. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
