But my question is why don't we truly evaluate players strengths and weakness while also interjecting our general sense of the depth of the players work ethic. I say general sense because for truly elite, franchise changing/superstar ceiling level players it's already visibly apparent that a kid wouldn't have the skill set he has without some degree of high caliber work ethic.
Natural talent provides speed and athleticism. But when you add high ball IQ, unselfishness, a genuine commitment to playing both sides of the ball when it's almost expected that elite players aren't always forced to play D or held accountable to play solid D. I mean where else to do create this perception of truly being able to judge a kids work ethic?
I try to. This is why I'm higher on guys like Tatum, Thomas Bryant, Semi Ojeleye and a few others that have had some reputation about being a self made player or other people raving about their work ethic.
Problem is, we can't scout their brain. Sasha was a machine in practice and didn't translate it to the floor. Stephen Curry learned to become an advanced ball-handler with actual shake 3+ years into the league, but had one transformative year at Davidson. Kobe was arguably the fastest I had ever seen adopt position spots on the floor with his pull up jumper... then Iso play... then post play... while sprinkled defense and playmaking in the middle of all of that. Same goes for Bynum.
Then I watch guys like Lonzo Ball. You can't teach that level of spatial awareness and instinctive passing.
But the ball-handling? Athleticism? Jumpshot? He has SF level ball-handling, mostly straight line drives and has trouble creating separation from defenders while attacking the hoop. Yet, guys like Tatum can do it with ease because of his footwork.
Athleticism? I think he's a 7/10 ot 8/10 athlete. Rarely see him finish powerfully at the rim, on ball, off the drive, especially in traffic. Seen this multiple times with Fultz, especially with his body control.
Jumpshot? It makes me sad that there's that much Russian twist into a jumpshot, and then there's guys like Markkanen at PF with simple, compact forms.
This is exactly why he's one of the riskiest guys in the draft. So much to work on. But, such an elite level passing skill.
I just don't see how he doesn't have an above average handle for a SG his age.
Klay, Monk, G.Harris, D. Green, Derozen, Bazemore, Bradley, J. Richardson, Shump, Reddick, Cj Miles, Hield, Wes Mathews, KCP, Belleneli, Lavine at same age(not close)
Most SGs at 18 cannot be a lead ball handler of a sweet 16 team. It's way abv average for a SG at his age.
I call it SF level, because it's the same crossovers, at the beginning of a drive, and then a straight line. He may protect the ball better, but attacking the hoop?
There are SGs that don't play PG, and have a bit more wiggle, and it shows when getting into their own shot. Nick Young is a straight line driver, but he has dribble combination moves to get into his pull up J.
We never really see Lonzo play PnR, change directions on the first defender, get to a specific spot, then, change direction on the help defender and burn the guy to the cup.
Instead, he settles to allow their defensive switch, and then settles again with a 30' step back J.
Against college level defense. _________________ "He's a Zen master, so he can speak to you, and he doesn't need a microphone; you can hear him in your head, 'Ron, don't shoot, don't shoot.' Whatever, pow, three. I love the Zen, though."
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144475 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 9:20 pm Post subject:
Mike@LG wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
vicman wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
vicman wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
AY2043 wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
epak wrote:
#28? Bell and Bam.
If so, I think one of Larry or Julius is traded at the deadline.
Most likely Julius as his pay day is coming up.
So a guy who will likely spend a good amount of time in the G League will make us want to trade an established player? Doubtful. I still think there is a better chance we trade that pick than keep it. I would rather trade it for a later 2018 first.
This is a really deep draft, I'd rather use it. We can get a really good player with that pick.
Granted, a 2018 first would be a better bargaining chip for potential trades.
We need players
That is what I was thinking of, potential trades. A 20-25 pick in next year's draft likely has more value than who we would draft at 28 this year.
We need players badly why give up a good draft unless it is to move salary
The words "we need players" were not in the post you quoted. And we would be adding talent using the 2018 first rounder in a trade. An NBA guy, not someone to spend part of the season in the G League.
I don't know why you say we can't get an NBA player at 28 this draft is stacked
.
So we run a 10- man rotation? That is tanking talk. Zubac and Clarkson spent time in the DL, it was a way for them to get reps. It didn't mean they weren't NBA players. My idea is to trade youth for a vet.
I don't know man. GSW and San Antonio go deep into their rosters.
We are nowhere near GS and SAS. If we use some youth to get solid vets then we can worry about depth _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
#28? Bell and Bam.
If so, I think one of Larry or Julius is traded at the deadline.
Most likely Julius as his pay day is coming up.
So a guy who will likely spend a good amount of time in the G League will make us want to trade an established player? Doubtful. I still think there is a better chance we trade that pick than keep it. I would rather trade it for a later 2018 first.
This is a really deep draft, I'd rather use it. We can get a really good player with that pick.
Granted, a 2018 first would be a better bargaining chip for potential trades.
We need players
That is what I was thinking of, potential trades. A 20-25 pick in next year's draft likely has more value than who we would draft at 28 this year.
We need players badly why give up a good draft unless it is to move salary
The words "we need players" were not in the post you quoted. And we would be adding talent using the 2018 first rounder in a trade. An NBA guy, not someone to spend part of the season in the G League.
I don't know why you say we can't get an NBA player at 28 this draft is stacked
.
So we run a 10- man rotation? That is tanking talk. Zubac and Clarkson spent time in the DL, it was a way for them to get reps. It didn't mean they weren't NBA players. My idea is to trade youth for a vet.
I don't know man. GSW and San Antonio go deep into their rosters.
Not only that I am fine with playing a deep bench. We played a lot of guys that didn't belong on the floor. A player like Bell might have the best defensive basketball iq on the team the kid knows the game. He is easily an upgrade over black on day one
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 9:30 pm Post subject:
Quote:
In this episode, I chat with Cole Zwicker in a continuation of last Monday's podcast, this time breaking down the top-five players in the 2017 NBA Draft Class: Markelle Fultz, Jayson Tatum, Josh Jackson, Lonzo Ball, and Jonathan Isaac. It's obviously an extremely deep dive given the length of the pod. We also talk at the top about my 15-hour excursion to the EYBL in Los Angeles on Saturday, including seeing Jay-Z in person
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 8518 Location: Left coast
Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 9:48 pm Post subject:
Fruscas wrote:
Ive been away for a while, but been watching some guys for the #28 pick, who do you guys like? Derrick White and Jordan Bell are my favs at the moment, would kinda prefer white if available but im not sure he is available there, judging by brogdon's season, i would guess not.
Bell is very very intriguing although it would create an hell of a logjam in the frontcourt. Also, we need a stretch four with some urgency, cause both ball and d'lo thrive playing with one...maybe Randle fine tunes his shot once and for all. Maybe Nance does...intriguing decisions to follow
I like D. White but I'm really hoping to parlay 28 into whatever it takes to get TJ Leaf to get some length, rebounding, and very accurate shooting inside and outside at the 4 spot.
But my question is why don't we truly evaluate players strengths and weakness while also interjecting our general sense of the depth of the players work ethic. I say general sense because for truly elite, franchise changing/superstar ceiling level players it's already visibly apparent that a kid wouldn't have the skill set he has without some degree of high caliber work ethic.
Natural talent provides speed and athleticism. But when you add high ball IQ, unselfishness, a genuine commitment to playing both sides of the ball when it's almost expected that elite players aren't always forced to play D or held accountable to play solid D. I mean where else to do create this perception of truly being able to judge a kids work ethic?
I try to. This is why I'm higher on guys like Tatum, Thomas Bryant, Semi Ojeleye and a few others that have had some reputation about being a self made player or other people raving about their work ethic.
Problem is, we can't scout their brain. Sasha was a machine in practice and didn't translate it to the floor. Stephen Curry learned to become an advanced ball-handler with actual shake 3+ years into the league, but had one transformative year at Davidson. Kobe was arguably the fastest I had ever seen adopt position spots on the floor with his pull up jumper... then Iso play... then post play... while sprinkled defense and playmaking in the middle of all of that. Same goes for Bynum.
Then I watch guys like Lonzo Ball. You can't teach that level of spatial awareness and instinctive passing.
But the ball-handling? Athleticism? Jumpshot? He has SF level ball-handling, mostly straight line drives and has trouble creating separation from defenders while attacking the hoop. Yet, guys like Tatum can do it with ease because of his footwork.
Athleticism? I think he's a 7/10 ot 8/10 athlete. Rarely see him finish powerfully at the rim, on ball, off the drive, especially in traffic. Seen this multiple times with Fultz, especially with his body control.
Jumpshot? It makes me sad that there's that much Russian twist into a jumpshot, and then there's guys like Markkanen at PF with simple, compact forms.
This is exactly why he's one of the riskiest guys in the draft. So much to work on. But, such an elite level passing skill.
I somehow forgot that you were a Tatum guy and have numerous posts within the thread. I also listened to the GoldenThroat podcast a couple days ago and listened to Mike Scott's breakdown of his top picks which like you Mike had Tatum ahead of both Lonzo and JJ. And because i don't like to be unintentionally biased towards my individual favorite players whether pros or pending draft picks I decided to give Tatum another look with open eyes.
From my evaluation I can definitely see where my personal bias towards protecting my perception of Josh Jackson (developed very early in the NCAA season) had blinded me rob Tatum. You and M.Scott were correct Tatum's total offensive repitoir is head and shoulders above anyone else outside of Fultz. Based on his size and his handles and ability to get his shot off he shouldn't never fall below 3 unless you already a young elite 3 and can't see him playing the 4. Tatum is damn Legit!
But my new found appreciation of Tatum also made me reevaluate my love affair with Josh Jackson. As I pulled up clips I truly had prepared myself to be disappointed in myself for blindly elevating Josh above the other prospects (outside of Fultz, who I can see will be an impact NBA player, but even that I believe is media and mock driven, I just lack the energy to nitpic the potential hazard of truly relying on stats from a guy that was essentially relied upon to do everything which can lead to unsustainable usage, non repeatable green light) and though likely underrated being looked at as he GOD on your team can give you a confidence boost you can sustain if placed in a position where you're now option 3 in the offense.
Anyway honestly three minutes into my Josh Jackson vids I realized that my initial thoughts and feelings are still there. Though Josh isn't as offensively fluid or polished as Tatum, Josh has elements to his game that Tatum doesn't posses and IMO those distinguishing elements for Josh put him ahead of Tatum for me. Basically If not for Fultz I think this draft would be Wiggins vs Parker all over again.
But I Definitely have ball no better than 4th on my board but still love his game and wouldn't be completely opposed (but quite nervous) to trading DLo to Philly to draft Lonzo and Josh back to back.
Klay, Monk, G.Harris, D. Green, Derozen, Bazemore, Bradley, J. Richardson, Shump, Reddick, Cj Miles, Hield, Wes Mathews, KCP, Belleneli, Lavine at same age(not close)
None of these guys are great playmakers. They too, have rudimentary ball-handling when attacking the hoop. Most of these guys are 3 and D.
Nick Young, Dipo(at same age), Beverly, Solomon Hill, Fournier(debatable maybe now, but at same age), Beal(at same age), Luwawu/Stauskas
That's 23 starting or projected starting SGs. So by definition/numbers he has an above (or way abv) average handle for a SG his age
There are different interpretations of what a classifies a handle in a position
Honestly, the same part of a handle that you laud for Nick Young - you condemn Lonzo for. Young has also been mostly a step back ball handling move, into a jump shot, type ball handler (especially after what, year 2 in his career), and Nick wasn't even doing that as a Freshman in college.
Despite Lonzo not often pulling out a variety of moves - there were a handful of times that he did... And none of the listed guys above, did that once at the same age. Even Lonzo's main crossover is still an above avg move for a freshman SG. He just didn't drive a lot, but I don't think he drove a below average amount for a freshman SG - and factor in Lonzo collapsing the defense driving in transition.
Klay, Monk, G.Harris, D. Green, Derozen, Bazemore, Bradley, J. Richardson, Shump, Reddick, Cj Miles, Hield, Wes Mathews, KCP, Belleneli, Lavine at same age(not close)
None of these guys are great playmakers. They too, have rudimentary ball-handling when attacking the hoop. Most of these guys are 3 and D.
Nick Young, Dipo(at same age), Beverly, Solomon Hill, Fournier(debatable maybe now, but at same age), Beal(at same age), Luwawu/Stauskas
That's 23 starting or projected starting SGs. So by definition/numbers he has an above (or way abv) average handle for a SG his age
There are different interpretations of what a classifies a handle in a position
Honestly, the same part of a handle that you laud for Nick Young - you condemn Lonzo for. Young has also been mostly a step back ball handling move, into a jump shot, type ball handler (especially after what, year 2 in his career), and Nick wasn't even doing that as a Freshman in college.
Despite Lonzo not often pulling out a variety of moves - there were a handful of times that he did... And none of the listed guys above, did that once at the same age. Even Lonzo's main crossover is still an above avg move for a freshman SG. He just didn't drive a lot, but I don't think he drove a below average amount for a freshman SG - and factor in Lonzo collapsing the defense driving in transition.
What I keep wondering or worrying about is having a back court of Lonzo and Russell and neither one be even close to elite at being able to break down a defender and attack the rim. How many truly effective offenses lack at least one attacking guard quality shooter or not?
I like Jackson's potential but if NBA defense gives him the space to shoot that 3, I'm just not that confident it will go in compared to if it was Lonzo.
Just for the record, giving space to shoot the 3 doesn't mean you have to shoot the 3. It means there are many options now. That player can set a screen for someone else, or the ball can be passed around so they can cut, or it can be moved crosscourt for an iso, etc
Don't say that to Kobe.
Seriously, they give you space to shoot the 3, you make them pay for it. Unless, you want to be labeled a kitty cat.
Been looking at Tatum for those in his camp what position is he playing for us? And if Tatum would be the pick you of course are looking at a trade back right I can't see taking him at 2. I mean trading back to 4 or 5 would make some sense
This was my first impression of Tatum (vs Jackson) and I don't think I've ever gotten over it:
Maybe try something else, Jayson?
Do you foresee Tatum being being able to play the 2 or 4? Asking because if we have realistic expectations of signing PG via trade or free agency to me PG will be slotted as the 3 with Ingram forced to grow into a 4. Where would that place Tatum? Do you think Josh (if you think he can effectively play the 2) would fit better with a PG being the primary offensive weapon on such a squad?
Been looking at Tatum for those in his camp what position is he playing for us? And if Tatum would be the pick you of course are looking at a trade back right I can't see taking him at 2. I mean trading back to 4 or 5 would make some sense
Tatum seems like a legit 3.
I wouldn't take him over Ball.
But I love his balance when he attacks and guys bouncing off his muscles.
Cant get over the fact that both options for the 2nd draft pick will struggle mightily creating their own offense (Jackson and Ball).
If DSJ checks out in interviews, he has some serious attitude questions he needs to address, I would be in favor of a 2 for 5+10 trade with the Kings. Would then look to move 10 for a pick in the 14-17 range if we can get a 2018 1st.
Something like
DSJ (or Monk, Fox)
J.Patton, D.Mitchell, Kennard,Anunoby, Ike
2018 1st
for
Lonzo Ball
I have been a Jackson lean over Ball from the jump but you cant ignore Jackson's lack of consistent j, questions of how he will score in the NBA, discipline on defense, age, frame. Both Ball and Jackson are seriously flawed players who both do a lot of great things to help their team win.
will never understand this....it is math...we know he shot 37% from 3 over the season, and well over 40% once he altered his release...that is as consistent as any player in the draft.
Look at his FT shooting. Shooting off the dribble.
fine, but his jumpshot is as consistent as the %'s say it is....I get people that want to doubt that will translate to the NBA line, but that is just speculation. I do not or never have bought into the FT line as a predictor theory.....and if anyone does buy that theory, they have to also question Fultz and Balls ability to shoot the 3 in the NBA.
The formula isn't just FT%, though it plays a large role (and ~10% difference is nothing to sneeze at). It also heavily relies on three-point attempts. Jackson shot 3.3 3PT attempts Per40. Fultz/Ball shot 5.7/6.1 respectively. That is nearly twice the amount. Do you still not fundamentally understand why the models project them as better shooters? If you disagree, that's fine. But at least know what the models are based on.
we were not discussing a model, we were simply speaking about the correlation between free throw % indicating long term 3 point %....if you ( or dcarter) are speaking about a specific metric or model, I was not....but thanks for chiming in as always desperate to show everyone how much smarter you are than others.
No need for the personal pot shot, adkindo. You're better than that.
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 10:54 pm Post subject:
LongTimeLurk wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
This was my first impression of Tatum (vs Jackson) and I don't think I've ever gotten over it:
Maybe try something else, Jayson?
Do you foresee Tatum being being able to play the 2 or 4? Asking because if we have realistic expectations of signing PG via trade or free agency to me PG will be slotted as the 3 with Ingram forced to grow into a 4. Where would that place Tatum? Do you think Josh (if you think he can effectively play the 2) would fit better with a PG being the primary offensive weapon on such a squad?
I think if you're drafting Tatum this high, the expectation would be to eventually use him at the four, where his skill set could actually stand out. His standing reach, if accurate is about a 1/2 inch longer than Kevin Love.
JJ can probably fit any sort of squad, so long as there is enough shooting around him in the lineups.
Magic, Kidd, and Stockton never had "shake" either. He is efficient with his handle. Sure I'd like him to have Kobe's ball-handling but that is not always the most efficient for the offense.
I think he will improve but he will never be like the Professor.
Been looking at Tatum for those in his camp what position is he playing for us? And if Tatum would be the pick you of course are looking at a trade back right I can't see taking him at 2. I mean trading back to 4 or 5 would make some sense
Tatum seems like a legit 3.
I wouldn't take him over Ball.
But I love his balance when he attacks and guys bouncing off his muscles.
I think Tatum would need to play the 4 if we took him otherwise it doesn't really make sense to take him. Jackson can play the 2 so I don't mind taking him but I like Ingram at the 3 already
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 11:06 pm Post subject:
LakerLogic wrote:
Magic, Kidd, and Stockton never had "shake" either. He is efficient with his handle. Sure I'd like him to have Kobe's ball-handling but that is not always the most efficient for the offense.
I think he will improve but he will never be like the Professor.
Kidd had better handles and got wherever he wanted on the floor. Magic was a walking mismatch given his height, and could create an advantage in the half court simply by posting. Stockton had a lethal pull up jumper coming off the screen.
Lonzo definitely needs to improve his handle and his pullup significantly if he wants a NBA defense to take him seriously anywhere under the three point line (and give them an actual reason to leave his teammates open for pass). If he doesn't, and he continues to specialize in what he's good at, he can still be a very valuable player- he just wouldn't get to the levels where people are hoping he reaches.
I do see an avenue where he improves enough in those areas. It's just a question of how likely you believe that it happens.
Kidd didn't get wherever he wanted in the half-court. Most of these players rely on screens anyways. He just need more reps when it comes to pick and roll. The point is, you don't need And1 handles to be dominant.
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 11:21 pm Post subject:
LakerLogic wrote:
Kidd didn't get wherever he wanted in the half-court. Most of these players rely on screens anyways. He just need more reps when it comes to pick and roll. The point is, you don't need And1 handles to be dominant.
Where he needs to improve directly concerns using ball screens, which is a much bigger deal now than in the past. I didn't consider iso at all, outside of the context of beating a big on a switch.
(Regarding Kidd, the dude averaged 6 freethrow attempts per 40 in college. He didn't get those simply by cutting).
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 12:22 am Post subject:
ChickenStu wrote:
I swear, if I read this thread long enough, I'm going to think everyone in discussion for #2 isn't good LOL.
As of now, I still have Jackson over Ball.
It might sound like I'm overly critical of Ball, but I actually have him at #2. He's just a different kind of player than what we've ever seen. I do admit that I'm overly critical on some of the arguments in his favor though.
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
