|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31911
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31911
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ponds with 25-7-5 on 8-13 shooting as part of an easy St. John's win over Marquette. And he scored most of those points in the first half, as they coasted in the 2nd.
He could be one of those players that ends up being better than half of the guys that get taken in the lottery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luminous8
Star Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
Posts: 2192
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | 44TheLogo wrote: | at our projected slot, based on existing mocks, i'm targeting hayes, brazdeikis, and horton tucker.
that said, i think mike's on point, converting the 1st into 2 2nds gives us slightly better cap flexibility, and also will allow us to fill the roster easier after we lose most of the 1 year guys. |
Am I hesitant on Hayes and Gafford because I don't think they're even strong players? Hayes is getting away with length and not fighting the post defensively from the limited sample I saw. Gafford, I guess I just expected more since there was some draft buzz from last year.
Also, Azubuike is played as an Iso post player, not a lob target, but if he played as one, why wouldn't he be considered up there with Hayes and Gafford?
I guess Hayes and Gafford can eventually switch defensively down the line, but I don't think it's to the detriment of roughly 20-30 draft spots. |
I'd be interested in Synergy data on Azubuike's defense on shooters. It's not just potential defensive switchiness, Gafford and Hayes look to have far superior closeout and recovery speed. And with so many perimeter-oriented bigs these days, a center's ability to defend in space against his own man is pretty vital - maybe almost as vital as post strength.
On offense, we see the value difference in catch radius versus pure standing reach every day with JaVale versus an aging Tyson and ground-bound Zu. Azubuike looks to bring significantly less gravity as a roll man than Hayes or Gafford and I haven't seen signs that he's going to bring any notable skill on the short roll. Do you think Gafford and Hayes can't become effective screeners in the NBA? |
There's trade offs between all 3 guys. I think Azubuike has the potential to have the largest catch radius with his 7'8" wingspan, and I also think he doesn't use full vert around the hoop. It's frustrating watching Kansas/Kentucky.
I do think Gafford and Hayes have considerably more defensive motor. I haven't paid much attention to Azubuike's screening, but IF he can do that at the NBA level (270lbs man, like set your feet already dude), that would be a big deal for me. I do think they motor is completely dead when it comes to perimeter defense though, and basically it ramps up the closer he gets to the hoop; scoring, rebounding, swats. With Hayes and Gafford, it's nowhere near as drastic of a drop off.
I just figure, yeah, we need a lob target, but if it's possible to get the BPA in the 1st round (I am skeptical about lob targets being 1st round picks because they take development time) and then get Azubuike in the 2nd.. that might be something. |
I guess I'm more enamored of lob bigs than most draftniks because I probably overrate how safe they are. I can't envision taking them in the top-10, of course (looking at you, WCS) because they're upside limited and somewhat fungible, but I also feel like guys that combine wingspan with athleticism and solid to good defensive awareness are more rare than a lot of draft twitter acknowledges. I think Gafford is getting the "we thought he was leaving last season so now we're bored with him" drop in consideration a la Trier the year before, whereas I think he has definite good starter upside and should be separated from the high usage centerpiece role he's being shoehorned into on a mediocre Arkansas team.
Tbh, outside of Jontay and maybe Gafford and Hayes, this isn't the draft to reach for true 5s - Bol's foot injury puts him in limbo on my draft board right now - and so it makes sense to try to find value in the 2nd round on bigs who slip. I'm just not a huge fan of Udoka because his upside looks like career backup 5, but I understand the danger in using a 1st round pick on a guy who ends up being the same thing. |
I’d still be comfortable takin Fernando late first. Dude doesn’t have the best hands, touch, or IQ. But he’s terrific defensively and can seriously move his feet against smaller players on Ball. He’s also got a terrific post base defensively and is t exactly easily moved. Sure his floor is Kwame Brown, but a younger Kwame wasn’t a terrible player, just not worth a 1st pick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | Scouting shooting is the worst (unless you're a fiend like KiROE), but it's impossible to evaluate young guys without breaking down every aspect of their shooting profile with meticulous stats and film work. I assume NBA teams have always done so, but so many questionable/fake shooters get drafted so high every year and end up disappointing at the most key skill there is. I assume it's hubris from NBA front offices - "we'll teach him to shoot" they may say - but I'm also flabbergasted at the trajectories of Fultz and Fox as shooters after their HS/college performances. Maybe it is all a crapshoot *sigh*
So how do you assess shooting potential in a draft prospect? Are you looking at FT shooting, unassisted jumpers, form, or motion shooting as most key? Or all of the above? More? Share with me your seasoned eyes, LG draftniks, so that we may ken out the real shooters from the masses. |
I think Fultz is just an outlier case.
Otherwise, I also think a lot of people expect a certain level of shooting from freshman, even with high volume 3-point shooting with distance.. For the most part, I don't see it translate until they're several years in the league. |
Good points, but what specifically do you prioritize when assessing shooting talent in a prospect?
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luminous8 wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | 44TheLogo wrote: | at our projected slot, based on existing mocks, i'm targeting hayes, brazdeikis, and horton tucker.
that said, i think mike's on point, converting the 1st into 2 2nds gives us slightly better cap flexibility, and also will allow us to fill the roster easier after we lose most of the 1 year guys. |
Am I hesitant on Hayes and Gafford because I don't think they're even strong players? Hayes is getting away with length and not fighting the post defensively from the limited sample I saw. Gafford, I guess I just expected more since there was some draft buzz from last year.
Also, Azubuike is played as an Iso post player, not a lob target, but if he played as one, why wouldn't he be considered up there with Hayes and Gafford?
I guess Hayes and Gafford can eventually switch defensively down the line, but I don't think it's to the detriment of roughly 20-30 draft spots. |
I'd be interested in Synergy data on Azubuike's defense on shooters. It's not just potential defensive switchiness, Gafford and Hayes look to have far superior closeout and recovery speed. And with so many perimeter-oriented bigs these days, a center's ability to defend in space against his own man is pretty vital - maybe almost as vital as post strength.
On offense, we see the value difference in catch radius versus pure standing reach every day with JaVale versus an aging Tyson and ground-bound Zu. Azubuike looks to bring significantly less gravity as a roll man than Hayes or Gafford and I haven't seen signs that he's going to bring any notable skill on the short roll. Do you think Gafford and Hayes can't become effective screeners in the NBA? |
There's trade offs between all 3 guys. I think Azubuike has the potential to have the largest catch radius with his 7'8" wingspan, and I also think he doesn't use full vert around the hoop. It's frustrating watching Kansas/Kentucky.
I do think Gafford and Hayes have considerably more defensive motor. I haven't paid much attention to Azubuike's screening, but IF he can do that at the NBA level (270lbs man, like set your feet already dude), that would be a big deal for me. I do think they motor is completely dead when it comes to perimeter defense though, and basically it ramps up the closer he gets to the hoop; scoring, rebounding, swats. With Hayes and Gafford, it's nowhere near as drastic of a drop off.
I just figure, yeah, we need a lob target, but if it's possible to get the BPA in the 1st round (I am skeptical about lob targets being 1st round picks because they take development time) and then get Azubuike in the 2nd.. that might be something. |
I guess I'm more enamored of lob bigs than most draftniks because I probably overrate how safe they are. I can't envision taking them in the top-10, of course (looking at you, WCS) because they're upside limited and somewhat fungible, but I also feel like guys that combine wingspan with athleticism and solid to good defensive awareness are more rare than a lot of draft twitter acknowledges. I think Gafford is getting the "we thought he was leaving last season so now we're bored with him" drop in consideration a la Trier the year before, whereas I think he has definite good starter upside and should be separated from the high usage centerpiece role he's being shoehorned into on a mediocre Arkansas team.
Tbh, outside of Jontay and maybe Gafford and Hayes, this isn't the draft to reach for true 5s - Bol's foot injury puts him in limbo on my draft board right now - and so it makes sense to try to find value in the 2nd round on bigs who slip. I'm just not a huge fan of Udoka because his upside looks like career backup 5, but I understand the danger in using a 1st round pick on a guy who ends up being the same thing. |
I’d still be comfortable takin Fernando late first. Dude doesn’t have the best hands, touch, or IQ. But he’s terrific defensively and can seriously move his feet against smaller players on Ball. He’s also got a terrific post base defensively and is t exactly easily moved. Sure his floor is Kwame Brown, but a younger Kwame wasn’t a terrible player, just not worth a 1st pick. |
Fernando is definitely growing on me, especially with the ongoing hints of a jumper that could be extended to behind the line.
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | Scouting shooting is the worst (unless you're a fiend like KiROE), but it's impossible to evaluate young guys without breaking down every aspect of their shooting profile with meticulous stats and film work. I assume NBA teams have always done so, but so many questionable/fake shooters get drafted so high every year and end up disappointing at the most key skill there is. I assume it's hubris from NBA front offices - "we'll teach him to shoot" they may say - but I'm also flabbergasted at the trajectories of Fultz and Fox as shooters after their HS/college performances. Maybe it is all a crapshoot *sigh*
So how do you assess shooting potential in a draft prospect? Are you looking at FT shooting, unassisted jumpers, form, or motion shooting as most key? Or all of the above? More? Share with me your seasoned eyes, LG draftniks, so that we may ken out the real shooters from the masses. |
I think Fultz is just an outlier case.
Otherwise, I also think a lot of people expect a certain level of shooting from freshman, even with high volume 3-point shooting with distance.. For the most part, I don't see it translate until they're several years in the league. |
Good points, but what specifically do you prioritize when assessing shooting talent in a prospect? |
Trend of progress
Understanding what the players' best skill is. If it's shooting, that tends to fix faster.
Repeatable motion
Arc. I spend a lot of time staring at the basketball at peak arc and the relative height to the top of the backboard.
Feet
Types of shots. C&S v off screen v off the dribble straight v off the dribble dynamic (side to side crossover, step back, side step, etc)
Motion efficiency
So, Lonzo doesn't fit well here. Even the shot arcs funny, and he jumped straight to the dynamic shots without great consistency elsewhere.
Buddy Hield though, for example, changed his form freshman to soph year, perfected it junior and senior year, excellent C&S, pull up, then added dynamic pull up shooting his last year. Arc/Feet/Base all consistent. Even arm speed showed variability and the wrist flick would compensate and generate force into consistent arc and makes.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | Scouting shooting is the worst (unless you're a fiend like KiROE), but it's impossible to evaluate young guys without breaking down every aspect of their shooting profile with meticulous stats and film work. I assume NBA teams have always done so, but so many questionable/fake shooters get drafted so high every year and end up disappointing at the most key skill there is. I assume it's hubris from NBA front offices - "we'll teach him to shoot" they may say - but I'm also flabbergasted at the trajectories of Fultz and Fox as shooters after their HS/college performances. Maybe it is all a crapshoot *sigh*
So how do you assess shooting potential in a draft prospect? Are you looking at FT shooting, unassisted jumpers, form, or motion shooting as most key? Or all of the above? More? Share with me your seasoned eyes, LG draftniks, so that we may ken out the real shooters from the masses. |
I think Fultz is just an outlier case.
Otherwise, I also think a lot of people expect a certain level of shooting from freshman, even with high volume 3-point shooting with distance.. For the most part, I don't see it translate until they're several years in the league. |
Good points, but what specifically do you prioritize when assessing shooting talent in a prospect? |
Trend of progress
Understanding what the players' best skill is. If it's shooting, that tends to fix faster.
Repeatable motion
Arc. I spend a lot of time staring at the basketball at peak arc and the relative height to the top of the backboard.
Feet
Types of shots. C&S v off screen v off the dribble straight v off the dribble dynamic (side to side crossover, step back, side step, etc)
Motion efficiency
So, Lonzo doesn't fit well here. Even the shot arcs funny, and he jumped straight to the dynamic shots without great consistency elsewhere.
Buddy Hield though, for example, changed his form freshman to soph year, perfected it junior and senior year, excellent C&S, pull up, then added dynamic pull up shooting his last year. Arc/Feet/Base all consistent. Even arm speed showed variability and the wrist flick would compensate and generate force into consistent arc and makes. |
Great stuff. Do you still have old notes on Lonzo's shot from when you scouted him at UCLA?
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luminous8
Star Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
Posts: 2192
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | Luminous8 wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | 44TheLogo wrote: | at our projected slot, based on existing mocks, i'm targeting hayes, brazdeikis, and horton tucker.
that said, i think mike's on point, converting the 1st into 2 2nds gives us slightly better cap flexibility, and also will allow us to fill the roster easier after we lose most of the 1 year guys. |
Am I hesitant on Hayes and Gafford because I don't think they're even strong players? Hayes is getting away with length and not fighting the post defensively from the limited sample I saw. Gafford, I guess I just expected more since there was some draft buzz from last year.
Also, Azubuike is played as an Iso post player, not a lob target, but if he played as one, why wouldn't he be considered up there with Hayes and Gafford?
I guess Hayes and Gafford can eventually switch defensively down the line, but I don't think it's to the detriment of roughly 20-30 draft spots. |
I'd be interested in Synergy data on Azubuike's defense on shooters. It's not just potential defensive switchiness, Gafford and Hayes look to have far superior closeout and recovery speed. And with so many perimeter-oriented bigs these days, a center's ability to defend in space against his own man is pretty vital - maybe almost as vital as post strength.
On offense, we see the value difference in catch radius versus pure standing reach every day with JaVale versus an aging Tyson and ground-bound Zu. Azubuike looks to bring significantly less gravity as a roll man than Hayes or Gafford and I haven't seen signs that he's going to bring any notable skill on the short roll. Do you think Gafford and Hayes can't become effective screeners in the NBA? |
There's trade offs between all 3 guys. I think Azubuike has the potential to have the largest catch radius with his 7'8" wingspan, and I also think he doesn't use full vert around the hoop. It's frustrating watching Kansas/Kentucky.
I do think Gafford and Hayes have considerably more defensive motor. I haven't paid much attention to Azubuike's screening, but IF he can do that at the NBA level (270lbs man, like set your feet already dude), that would be a big deal for me. I do think they motor is completely dead when it comes to perimeter defense though, and basically it ramps up the closer he gets to the hoop; scoring, rebounding, swats. With Hayes and Gafford, it's nowhere near as drastic of a drop off.
I just figure, yeah, we need a lob target, but if it's possible to get the BPA in the 1st round (I am skeptical about lob targets being 1st round picks because they take development time) and then get Azubuike in the 2nd.. that might be something. |
I guess I'm more enamored of lob bigs than most draftniks because I probably overrate how safe they are. I can't envision taking them in the top-10, of course (looking at you, WCS) because they're upside limited and somewhat fungible, but I also feel like guys that combine wingspan with athleticism and solid to good defensive awareness are more rare than a lot of draft twitter acknowledges. I think Gafford is getting the "we thought he was leaving last season so now we're bored with him" drop in consideration a la Trier the year before, whereas I think he has definite good starter upside and should be separated from the high usage centerpiece role he's being shoehorned into on a mediocre Arkansas team.
Tbh, outside of Jontay and maybe Gafford and Hayes, this isn't the draft to reach for true 5s - Bol's foot injury puts him in limbo on my draft board right now - and so it makes sense to try to find value in the 2nd round on bigs who slip. I'm just not a huge fan of Udoka because his upside looks like career backup 5, but I understand the danger in using a 1st round pick on a guy who ends up being the same thing. |
I’d still be comfortable takin Fernando late first. Dude doesn’t have the best hands, touch, or IQ. But he’s terrific defensively and can seriously move his feet against smaller players on Ball. He’s also got a terrific post base defensively and is t exactly easily moved. Sure his floor is Kwame Brown, but a younger Kwame wasn’t a terrible player, just not worth a 1st pick. |
Fernando is definitely growing on me, especially with the ongoing hints of a jumper that could be extended to behind the line. |
Yup,... I remember seeing something early in his freshman year about how he had shown sign of a jumper that extended beyond the arc. Of course I don’t want him to become a guy who lives on the perimeter because it takes away his best skill set in rebounding,... but having that spot up jumper is HUHE. Really turned Dedmonds career around being able to shoot a couple a game to keep the d honest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 3156
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | Scouting shooting is the worst (unless you're a fiend like KiROE), but it's impossible to evaluate young guys without breaking down every aspect of their shooting profile with meticulous stats and film work. I assume NBA teams have always done so, but so many questionable/fake shooters get drafted so high every year and end up disappointing at the most key skill there is. I assume it's hubris from NBA front offices - "we'll teach him to shoot" they may say - but I'm also flabbergasted at the trajectories of Fultz and Fox as shooters after their HS/college performances. Maybe it is all a crapshoot *sigh*
So how do you assess shooting potential in a draft prospect? Are you looking at FT shooting, unassisted jumpers, form, or motion shooting as most key? Or all of the above? More? Share with me your seasoned eyes, LG draftniks, so that we may ken out the real shooters from the masses. |
I think Fultz is just an outlier case.
Otherwise, I also think a lot of people expect a certain level of shooting from freshman, even with high volume 3-point shooting with distance.. For the most part, I don't see it translate until they're several years in the league. |
Good points, but what specifically do you prioritize when assessing shooting talent in a prospect? |
I look at
Shooting form which includes Set vs. Jump shot.
Effort in shot or what I term Shooting Strength
Shooting touch which is more of an opinion based assessment and the most important factor I consider in my analysis.
I will use examples to best demonstrate of how I base my analysis which may be unconventional compared to someone like KIROE.
Jump shot. Strength factor. Fultz and Khyri Thomas. Their forms are different but look fundamentally sound. However watching Fultz in college I questioned whether he had the shooting strength to make the conversion from college 3 to NBA 3. Did not see him shoot longer 3's in college and it appeared his shot had effort. OTOH the college 3 seemed like a 10 ft shot for Thomas. Did not see the effort being exerted which disrupts shooting touch. I feel wrist strength is important. Svi also falls in this category.
I watched KIROE's video suggesting BI adopt a similar form to Kawhi. I don't believe this was possible given BI's lack of strength especially in the wrist.
Set shot or shooting on the way up. Shake Milton and BI during practice. Less strength is used and most shooting forms work. I don't like to see the elbows fly out like Lamelo Ball but it still works.
Shooting touch. This is just a judgement call. I believe it is tied in to the wrist. I look at free throw % and how a players shot appears in mid-range or around the basket. These are less reliant on pure strength and more on the players ability to use the wrist to put the proper push to the ball.
For someone like Isaac Bonga where the film was limited his ability to shoot floaters using both hands indicated to me he had a shooters or wrist touch. What was impressive imo was his ability to shoot floaters softly off the backboard. His youtube vid playing HORSE confirmed he had the shooters touch with a set shot form so strength was less of a factor to consider. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16135
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Probably already covered somewhere in here but, we have no 2nd rd pick this year because we traded it for Roy Hibbert. Sucks.
Also, we could have had the Bulls 2nd rd pick (34) this year but we traded it for Isaac Bonga last year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PartyMan
Starting Rotation
Joined: 29 Jan 2016
Posts: 963
Location: The Dark Side of the Moon
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | Probably already covered somewhere in here but, we have no 2nd rd pick this year because we traded it for Roy Hibbert. Sucks.
Also, we could have had the Bulls 2nd rd pick (34) this year but we traded it for Isaac Bonga last year. |
I'm cool with trading the pick for Bonga. Kid's got some upside.
As for Hibbert, he wasn't that far removed from a decent player at the time. Yeah would be nice to have considering we got JC and Svi around the spot I'm guessing it would be.
_________________
We pour this booze and we drink this booze because we think it's yummy. YUMMY! So over the tounge and down the throat to party in our tummys.
DOWN THE HOLA BITC*OLA!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Top-5 NBA prospect Bol Bol out for season at Oregon, will enter draft
| Quote: | Oregon star freshman Bol Bol's college career is over, he announced Thursday.
Bol has been sidelined for the past four games because of a left foot injury and is unlikely to fully recover before the end of the season. |
LINK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vecenie and Cole have been discussing and exploring this theory for several weeks. I recall Fox was an example of someone that may should have been considered to have higher shooting potential because of his touch around the rim. I have never really bought into the free throw shooting being a solid predictor....it will be interesting to see how this one plays out of the next few years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16135
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: |
Vecenie and Cole have been discussing and exploring this theory for several weeks. I recall Fox was an example of someone that may should have been considered to have higher shooting potential because of his touch around the rim. I have never really bought into the free throw shooting being a solid predictor....it will be interesting to see how this one plays out of the next few years. |
Good FT shooting is a great basis to work from. To be a good FT shooter, you have to have a consistent form.
It's pretty rare to get a good FT shooter that can't also shoot well from outside (not counting centers and power forwards that predominantly play inside).
Looking at the list of current NBA players shooting over 80%, I can see:
Rubio - 84%
Dennis Schroder - 81%
Kelly Oubre - 81%
Once you get to 85% FTs, it's pretty hard to find a bad shooter. Once you get to 90%, it's pretty impossible to find a bad shooter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | adkindo wrote: |
Vecenie and Cole have been discussing and exploring this theory for several weeks. I recall Fox was an example of someone that may should have been considered to have higher shooting potential because of his touch around the rim. I have never really bought into the free throw shooting being a solid predictor....it will be interesting to see how this one plays out of the next few years. |
Good FT shooting is a great basis to work from. To be a good FT shooter, you have to have a consistent form.
It's pretty rare to get a good FT shooter that can't also shoot well from outside (not counting centers and power forwards that predominantly play inside).
Looking at the list of current NBA players shooting over 80%, I can see:
Rubio - 84%
Dennis Schroder - 81%
Kelly Oubre - 81%
Once you get to 85% FTs, it's pretty hard to find a bad shooter. Once you get to 90%, it's pretty impossible to find a bad shooter |
that is not really the theory....it is looking at guys that are young/college players and projecting them to be good shooters based on their current free throw shooting abilities. Sure most guys that have been in the league for a while that are good shooters, shoot well across the board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Couldn't one liken it to having good handwriting sitting on a desk... and then having good handwriting on a rowboat or in the back seat of a car?
If you can't write well sitting perfectly still... it would be hard for you to write well while being jostled about a vehicle.
I supposed if you never learned from childhood how to shoot free throws and only started shooting jump shots late in life that maybe the skill wouldn't translate.
But when you are a little kid you usually learn to shoot set shots first... so it seems the muscle memory would start from the set shot and then be extended to the jump shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakersForever123
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 2261
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If the NBA season ended today, we will have the 18th pick of the NBA draft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Super Mega Team
Star Player
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 3877
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Would of been nice to have a crystal ball and traded down to Denver when we picked Brandon Ingram. They have picks #7 & #15.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2016.html
Draft Pick #7 Jamal Murray
Draft pick #20 Caris Levert
Draft pick #27 Pascal Siakam
Draft pick #29 Dejounte Murray
Wonder why Levert, Siakam, & Murray werr drafted so relatively low and look at their growth now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daytripper
Star Player
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 1194
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
^In hindsight should've traded down a few slots w/ PHX or SAC in 2017 and picked Fox.
Should've traded down a few slots in 2015 and taken Porzingis.
This coming draft there is going to be a huge dropoff after Zion. Not sure I'd want the 2nd or 3rd pick this June tbh.
If there's no clear superstar available at your selection maybe it's better to have multiple lower lottery picks in the crapshoot known as the NBA draft? The history of the #2 pick is just plain ugly. KD is really one of the few exceptions at that slot and that was more of an anomoly with Oden also in that draft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OC Lakerfan wrote: | Would of been nice to have a crystal ball and traded down to Denver when we picked Brandon Ingram. They have picks #7 & #15.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2016.html
Draft Pick #7 Jamal Murray
Draft pick #20 Caris Levert
Draft pick #27 Pascal Siakam
Draft pick #29 Dejounte Murray
Wonder why Levert, Siakam, & Murray werr drafted so relatively low and look at their growth now? |
Caris LeVert - Severe injury history. Didn't even finish that season with Michigan, missed half the year. Had foot issues in prior years. Needed 2 years to "rehab" physically before you've got what you've got today.
Murray - No real PG skills. Average first step. Used as a SG in Kentucky and came off screens. The initiator in the halfcourt for Denver is Jokic, not Murray.
Siakam - TOTAL project, raw athletic tools, great motor, wingspan. Barely glimpses of a foundation with off-ball play/jumper.
DeJounte Murray - WAY late declare for the draft. I liked him a lot, but he doesn't shoot outside of 14'. Still doesn't. Knew he was the better player than Chriss, but Chriss was the lottery. Murray OTOH, went to an excellent prospect grooming team.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daytripper wrote: | ^In hindsight should've traded down a few slots w/ PHX or SAC in 2017 and picked Fox.
Should've traded down a few slots in 2015 and taken Porzingis.
This coming draft there is going to be a huge dropoff after Zion. Not sure I'd want the 2nd or 3rd pick this June tbh.
If there's no clear superstar available at your selection maybe it's better to have multiple lower lottery picks in the crapshoot known as the NBA draft? The history of the #2 pick is just plain ugly. KD is really one of the few exceptions at that slot and that was more of an anomoly with Oden also in that draft. |
So people can get mad that Fox needs the basketball next to LeBron and he starts doing poorly too, except, he's not the capable switch defender and gets bullied defensively.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Receipts.
http://forums.lakersground.net/togo/thread.php?topic_id=171463
| Quote: | You had a SF defend a combo guard. Of course he's going to look outsized.
But, if you want to make this about skills and athleticism.
1. Levert has a quicker first step.
2. Levert already gained 25lbs. of muscle in the past 2 years.
3. Levert has a better jumpshot.
4. At 6'7", Levert has the lateral quickness to keep up with point guards defensively.
5. Levert has a better midrange game.
6. Levert is a better ball-handler.
7. Levert is better in isolation.
8. Levert has a far better assist to TO ratio. He's not even the PG. 1.4:1 on 5 assists per game, not 0.7:1 like Stanley Johnson.
9. Levert just turned 20 in August.
10. Levert shoots 45.7% behind the arc on 5 attempts per game.
Jamal Crawford was a project point guard out of Michigan. They tried to force him to play PG early on and it never worked. Crawford never had Levert's natural court vision or passing abilities. Crawford settled being a volume shooter that got hot, and it worked for his career.
Levert is just a higher IQ Larry Hughes. Same exact physical tools, only Levert can already shoot and has to share PG duties with Walton Jr., who is not an NBA level PG by any means.
Stanley Johnson succeeds because he's the perfect fit in Arizona. They need a physical perimeter defender and a guy in transition. Put him in isolation where he needs to create a shot, and he's in trouble. His shotpocket and trajectory already ruin his percentage. He's completely getting by on physical gifts at the NCAA level, but at the NBA level, he's just above average.
One guy has to lead his team despite all of the other teammates already in the NBA.
The other guy is the 3rd or 4th option on a team loaded with NBA talent.
It's easy to oversee the circumstances.
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Caris-LeVert-66377/
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Stanley-Johnson-46065/
A lot of people are going to think I'm overhyping the kid. I'll just phrase it this way.
He's the NCAA version of Exum. Not as pure with passing. Much better scoring. Height, 1st step, speed, wingspan, playmaking, defense, all the same.
So you can imagine why I shocked that he's that low in the lottery. Lots of freshman are getting hyped as expected, but not every class produces great talent.
|
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Super Mega Team
Star Player
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 3877
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | OC Lakerfan wrote: | Would of been nice to have a crystal ball and traded down to Denver when we picked Brandon Ingram. They have picks #7 & #15.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2016.html
Draft Pick #7 Jamal Murray
Draft pick #20 Caris Levert
Draft pick #27 Pascal Siakam
Draft pick #29 Dejounte Murray
Wonder why Levert, Siakam, & Murray werr drafted so relatively low and look at their growth now? |
Caris LeVert - Severe injury history. Didn't even finish that season with Michigan, missed half the year. Had foot issues in prior years. Needed 2 years to "rehab" physically before you've got what you've got today.
Murray - No real PG skills. Average first step. Used as a SG in Kentucky and came off screens. The initiator in the halfcourt for Denver is Jokic, not Murray.
Siakam - TOTAL project, raw athletic tools, great motor, wingspan. Barely glimpses of a foundation with off-ball play/jumper.
DeJounte Murray - WAY late declare for the draft. I liked him a lot, but he doesn't shoot outside of 14'. Still doesn't. Knew he was the better player than Chriss, but Chriss was the lottery. Murray OTOH, went to an excellent prospect grooming team. |
Thanks for this and your excellent analysis above Mike.
If you were the Lakers what position and/or skillet would you draft next year? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GOODRICH25
Star Player
Joined: 17 Jun 2017
Posts: 3366
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | Top-5 NBA prospect Bol Bol out for season at Oregon, will enter draft
| Quote: | Oregon star freshman Bol Bol's college career is over, he announced Thursday.
Bol has been sidelined for the past four games because of a left foot injury and is unlikely to fully recover before the end of the season. |
LINK |
could fall off to ~20?
_________________
48 49 50 52 53 54 72 80 82
85 87 88 00 01 02 09 10 20
17 99 19 22 44 13 25 Mic.
52 33 32 42 34 8 24 16 23 3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
