Image ImageImage Image

2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery

Moderators: HomoSapien, Ice Man, dougthonus, Tommy Udo 6 , DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, Payt10, RedBulls23, coldfish, fleet, AshyLarrysDiaper, kulaz3000, Michael Jackson

User avatar
GimmeDat
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 23,915
And1: 16,880
Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Location: Australia
 

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#561 » by GimmeDat » Fri May 24, 2019 12:55 pm

cjbulls wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:
cjbulls wrote:
Love and Bosh’s efficiency went down when they switched teams: care to explain?

I’m not sure what you mean by sensational in their roles? Both Bosh and Love were perceived as not pulling their weight and subject to trade on their new teams. Both were sensational on their old teams, just like Cam was on his.

Read the quotes from Bosh. It’s a difficult change. Reddish went from point guard in HS/AAU to the fourth ball handling option. And he made the change as an 18 year old kid off on his own for the first time. The other two at least had maturity, past success and money.


I would accredit that to the fact that their roles required them to take more jump-shots as they were playing off of others more. It also didn't help that when Bosh first came to Miami, he hadn't stretched his shot out to 3 point range yet. There is always a level of sacrifice to changing roles, you have to give up more on-ball wrinkles to your arsenal, I would be the first to concede that.

But the thing with Reddish.. he took 16 attempts per 40. His usage was barely less than RJ or Zion - he didn't really have to compromise that much. And if the argument is that he had foresaken the 'PG/initiator' role, then why did he look really bad whenever he had the ball in his hands, with a poor handle and 3.6 TO's to 2.6 assists per 40? These are things that shouldn't have been an issue given his role.

I don't want to write off Cam, I had massive hopes for him out of HS and thought the same way about his skill-set. I do hold hope for him, but if I try to delve in to that hope, it's hard to find any objective reasoning to explain how he can go from the season he just had at Duke to the player people thought he was in HS. It seems like a poor bet.


Or you can look at it the other way: other than this one 35 game sample, he has been a good player. Most players would just go back to school or transfer. It’s just rare for someone to struggle but then still be talented enough to go so high that they enter the draft.

It’s still types of shots that’s matter. You said it yourself. Most of his shots came off-ball. And it could be a confidence thing as the year goes on and he feels more and more pressure. It’s why I think it would help for him to go somewhere like the Cavs where he can have more free reign.

He obviously struggled. But in many ways he can improve, like his handle and drive. He’s going to have trainers and coaches and everyone else studying his tape and working to improve that. He is said to have the most “natural talent” in the draft. He just needs the right situation to try to unlock it.


HS is such a murky level to evaluate talent though, and even out of HS there was concerns about his motor/mentality, among other things. It was pretty well established he was a big swing guy that could be polarizing.

Quinten Grimes was 8th in the top 100 before the season - now he may not even get picked in the same round. Ditto Naz Reid, who was 12th in the top 100. EJ Montgomery and Moses Brown were 14th/15th and are not top 60 prospects in this class. Are we making the same mental hurdles to justify their pre-season rankings?

'Talent' is a bit of a misnomer. He has tools in terms of looking the part in a workout setting, combined with HS pedigree. But there's been a lot of looking deep in to his play and people are finding tangible issues with his game which are issues going forward. He didn't shoot well, for instance; that's something I'm not totally concerned about. I've seen some critique his release point, but generally speaking I think his form is excellent, he looks balanced and poised shooting off the dribble.. I think he'll get that aspect of his game together. His 'stiffness', as described in a tweet on the other page, his seemingly poor ability to read the game as it's happening and make good reads or premeditate moves, his complete lack of explosion athletically and his total adversity to contact at the rim, as well as a lack of even substantial passing/handling flashes for someone in which that is a large part of his sell, all do concern me.

My personal prediction is that he'll be an NBA caliber player, he'll play good defense, be able to play multiple spots, and will have his moments as a shooter, though somewhat hampered by assertiveness and consistency. But the absolutely massive statistical red-flags in terms of finishing, the issues handling/passing, etc., all make me believe that those aspects to his game doing a back-flip and becoming assets in the NBA are not non-existent, but realistically extremely poor bets.
User avatar
Ferulci
Starter
Posts: 2,390
And1: 2,263
Joined: Nov 15, 2009
Location: France

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#562 » by Ferulci » Fri May 24, 2019 12:55 pm

While Reddish is not a non-shooter, I can't say he's a shooter at the moment. <40% overall and <33% on 3's don't lie, especially when you are wide open half of the time.
So, is he supposed :
- To be a 3 and D ? Because he's currently an awful spot-up/catch and shoot 3 pointers. And he's not like he displayed all defensive potential at Duke.
- To be a good playmaker/point forward ? Because he has a negative Assist/TO ratio and was about the most predictable you can get anytime he had the ball.
- To be schackled by RJ and Zion ? Yet, when Zion wasn't here, he was even worse, had games with 0 assist and 4 turnovers while never going to the foul line.

Which players with a season like this before being drafted ended up allstar ?
I understand that he has some playmaking tools but that's only half the story : his skills have to be good enough to justify putting the ball in his hands rather than your guard.

So again, my question for Cam Reddish truthers : what is his path to stardom ?
buckboy wrote:
jg77 wrote:Lavine is my dark horse MVP candidate.

That is the darkest horse that has ever galloped.
DanTown8587
RealGM
Posts: 37,583
And1: 9,332
Joined: Jan 06, 2008
Location: Chicago
     

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#563 » by DanTown8587 » Fri May 24, 2019 12:55 pm

cjbulls wrote:For all the “numbers, numbers, numbers” people. Here is analysis from Kevin Pelton, the ESPN stats analyst. He also has Reddish ranked #5 overall.

Nobody in this year's draft inspires stronger takes than Reddish, who had a disappointing freshman campaign as the third option on a Blue Devils team featuring three surefire lottery picks. Despite the talent around him, Reddish's true shooting percentage (.499) was only slightly better than Horton-Tucker's. He made worse than 40 percent of his 2-point attempts and barely 33 percent from 3-point range.

The inclusion of stats from the Nike EYBL (collected by ESPN Stats & Information's Neil Johnson) boosts Reddish in my projections. Among 2018-19 freshmen in the top 100, only Oregon's Bol Bol rated better than Reddish during 2017 EYBL play between their junior and senior years of high school. Reddish wasn't all that much more efficient against EYBL competition, but he was responsible for a larger share of his team's offense and more effective as a distributor -- even after considering the change in level of play. That suggests some of Reddish's skills might have been hidden because of Duke's depth.

Ultimately, Reddish's NBA potential might hinge on his ability to consistently make 3-pointers. That hasn't happened at any level of competition. However, Reddish's accuracy at the free throw line (77 percent as a freshman) suggests untapped potential as a shooter. I've found that free throw shooting in college is slightly more predictive of NBA 3-point accuracy than 3-point percentage in college.


Well thank god someone is making a stats argument and basically saying that nothing Reddish did at Duke besides FTs matters in evaluating his future.
...
User avatar
Red Larrivee
RealGM
Posts: 41,935
And1: 18,723
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Location: Hogging Microphone Time From Tom Dore

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#564 » by Red Larrivee » Fri May 24, 2019 12:59 pm

cjbulls wrote:For all the “numbers, numbers, numbers” people. Here is analysis from Kevin Pelton, the ESPN stats analyst. He also has Reddish ranked #5 overall.

Nobody in this year's draft inspires stronger takes than Reddish, who had a disappointing freshman campaign as the third option on a Blue Devils team featuring three surefire lottery picks. Despite the talent around him, Reddish's true shooting percentage (.499) was only slightly better than Horton-Tucker's. He made worse than 40 percent of his 2-point attempts and barely 33 percent from 3-point range.

The inclusion of stats from the Nike EYBL (collected by ESPN Stats & Information's Neil Johnson) boosts Reddish in my projections. Among 2018-19 freshmen in the top 100, only Oregon's Bol Bol rated better than Reddish during 2017 EYBL play between their junior and senior years of high school. Reddish wasn't all that much more efficient against EYBL competition, but he was responsible for a larger share of his team's offense and more effective as a distributor -- even after considering the change in level of play. That suggests some of Reddish's skills might have been hidden because of Duke's depth.

Ultimately, Reddish's NBA potential might hinge on his ability to consistently make 3-pointers. That hasn't happened at any level of competition. However, Reddish's accuracy at the free throw line (77 percent as a freshman) suggests untapped potential as a shooter. I've found that free throw shooting in college is slightly more predictive of NBA 3-point accuracy than 3-point percentage in college.


I don't think you actually read this through. Pelton had to use high school numbers to boost his projection for Reddish, which is an extremely flawed way of doing it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
DanTown8587
RealGM
Posts: 37,583
And1: 9,332
Joined: Jan 06, 2008
Location: Chicago
     

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#565 » by DanTown8587 » Fri May 24, 2019 1:12 pm

For the "well he's a good FT shooter so he'll be good in the league argument" (all numbers are combined over the past three years)

52 players shot between 73-80% on at least 200 FTA and attempted at least 300 3P over the past three years

3 guys made 40%+ (Ingles, Satoransky, Tolliver)
3 guys made 38-40% (Horford, Hill, Dragic)

Once you get lower than that, you're essentially league average at shooting. But here's the key thing

- Of the 52 guys, you have a literal who's who of NBA players who fans have been begging to get better at threes

John Wall
Russell Westbrook
Giannis
Marcus Smart
Dwyane Wade
Pascal Siakam
Evan Turner
Draymond Green
Joel Embiid

So even if I grant the idea that sometimes decent FT shooters are better long range shooters; however, it's far more likely that you don't become a valuable three point shooter than it is you become one.
...
User avatar
GimmeDat
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 23,915
And1: 16,880
Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Location: Australia
 

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#566 » by GimmeDat » Fri May 24, 2019 1:19 pm

77% isn't even that great from the line. Good, but not great on a 'he'll have to be a good shooter eventually' level.
cjbulls
Analyst
Posts: 3,584
And1: 1,301
Joined: Jun 26, 2018

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#567 » by cjbulls » Fri May 24, 2019 1:20 pm

Red Larrivee wrote:
cjbulls wrote:For all the “numbers, numbers, numbers” people. Here is analysis from Kevin Pelton, the ESPN stats analyst. He also has Reddish ranked #5 overall.

Nobody in this year's draft inspires stronger takes than Reddish, who had a disappointing freshman campaign as the third option on a Blue Devils team featuring three surefire lottery picks. Despite the talent around him, Reddish's true shooting percentage (.499) was only slightly better than Horton-Tucker's. He made worse than 40 percent of his 2-point attempts and barely 33 percent from 3-point range.

The inclusion of stats from the Nike EYBL (collected by ESPN Stats & Information's Neil Johnson) boosts Reddish in my projections. Among 2018-19 freshmen in the top 100, only Oregon's Bol Bol rated better than Reddish during 2017 EYBL play between their junior and senior years of high school. Reddish wasn't all that much more efficient against EYBL competition, but he was responsible for a larger share of his team's offense and more effective as a distributor -- even after considering the change in level of play. That suggests some of Reddish's skills might have been hidden because of Duke's depth.

Ultimately, Reddish's NBA potential might hinge on his ability to consistently make 3-pointers. That hasn't happened at any level of competition. However, Reddish's accuracy at the free throw line (77 percent as a freshman) suggests untapped potential as a shooter. I've found that free throw shooting in college is slightly more predictive of NBA 3-point accuracy than 3-point percentage in college.


I don't think you actually read this through. Pelton had to use high school numbers to boost his projection for Reddish, which is an extremely flawed way of doing it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Yeah, it’s almost as if the professional analyst recognizes there is predictive merit to HS. Mind blown.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,930
And1: 33,624
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#568 » by DuckIII » Fri May 24, 2019 1:23 pm

That Pelton excerpt actually makes Reddish sound worse to me. And I want to like Reddish. Am I reading it right that it’s saying Reddish was inefficient in HS as well and has never been an accurate 3pt shooter?

What a weird argument Pelton is making to suppprt the player ranking.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
DanTown8587
RealGM
Posts: 37,583
And1: 9,332
Joined: Jan 06, 2008
Location: Chicago
     

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#569 » by DanTown8587 » Fri May 24, 2019 1:23 pm

Red Larrivee wrote:
cjbulls wrote:For all the “numbers, numbers, numbers” people. Here is analysis from Kevin Pelton, the ESPN stats analyst. He also has Reddish ranked #5 overall.

Nobody in this year's draft inspires stronger takes than Reddish, who had a disappointing freshman campaign as the third option on a Blue Devils team featuring three surefire lottery picks. Despite the talent around him, Reddish's true shooting percentage (.499) was only slightly better than Horton-Tucker's. He made worse than 40 percent of his 2-point attempts and barely 33 percent from 3-point range.

The inclusion of stats from the Nike EYBL (collected by ESPN Stats & Information's Neil Johnson) boosts Reddish in my projections. Among 2018-19 freshmen in the top 100, only Oregon's Bol Bol rated better than Reddish during 2017 EYBL play between their junior and senior years of high school. Reddish wasn't all that much more efficient against EYBL competition, but he was responsible for a larger share of his team's offense and more effective as a distributor -- even after considering the change in level of play. That suggests some of Reddish's skills might have been hidden because of Duke's depth.

Ultimately, Reddish's NBA potential might hinge on his ability to consistently make 3-pointers. That hasn't happened at any level of competition. However, Reddish's accuracy at the free throw line (77 percent as a freshman) suggests untapped potential as a shooter. I've found that free throw shooting in college is slightly more predictive of NBA 3-point accuracy than 3-point percentage in college.


I don't think you actually read this through. Pelton had to use high school numbers to boost his projection for Reddish, which is an extremely flawed way of doing it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Not just HS Red, the very specific time of between jr and sr year of HS. And this part in bold is key to it all - he actually wasn't that good by efficiency numbers but hey, he did a lot of volume on a AAU team so my god he must be good.
...
cjbulls
Analyst
Posts: 3,584
And1: 1,301
Joined: Jun 26, 2018

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#570 » by cjbulls » Fri May 24, 2019 1:25 pm

So now on top of the Nba itself and near unanimous draft boards, I presented a pure stat analysis that has Reddish even higher. And y’all are still trying to go back to the stats, stats, stats. Lol

Maybe the Reddish haters can acknowledge there just may be something more there.
User avatar
Red Larrivee
RealGM
Posts: 41,935
And1: 18,723
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Location: Hogging Microphone Time From Tom Dore

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#571 » by Red Larrivee » Fri May 24, 2019 1:26 pm

cjbulls wrote:Yeah, it’s almost as if the professional analyst recognizes there is predictive merit to HS. Mind blown.


I'm a big fan of Pelton and his work, but "Ignore the fact that Reddish was neither efficient in high school or college as a shooter or scorer, and look at his free throw percentage" is probably the oddest take he's had in a while.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,930
And1: 33,624
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#572 » by DuckIII » Fri May 24, 2019 1:29 pm

DanTown8587 wrote:
Not just HS Red, the very specific time of between jr and sr year of HS. And this part in bold is key to it all - he actually wasn't that good by efficiency numbers but hey, he did a lot of volume on a AAU team so my god he must be good.


Yeah, that’s how I read it too. One summer of stats that were still inefficient. I’ve been advocating swinging for Reddish or Little, but this gives me serious pause.

You know things are bleak when the article justifying Reddish as a top 5 talent actually makes him sound much worse.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,930
And1: 33,624
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#573 » by DuckIII » Fri May 24, 2019 1:34 pm

cjbulls wrote:So now on top of the Nba itself and near unanimous draft boards, I presented a pure stat analysis that has Reddish even higher. And y’all are still trying to go back to the stats, stats, stats. Lol

Maybe the Reddish haters can acknowledge there just may be something more there.


CJ, you know I advocate for Reddish as the pick because it was part of my argument against White. But I’m starting to question how you read things. That “pure stat analysis” doesn’t support Reddish. It supports the notion that whether on high volume or low volume, whether against higher or lower levels of competition, he’s inefficient and has poor shooting range.

But he’s an okay free throw shooter. So he’s got that going for him, which is nice.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
User avatar
Red Larrivee
RealGM
Posts: 41,935
And1: 18,723
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Location: Hogging Microphone Time From Tom Dore

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#574 » by Red Larrivee » Fri May 24, 2019 1:38 pm

DanTown8587 wrote:Not just HS Red, the very specific time of between jr and sr year of HS. And this part in bold is key to it all - he actually wasn't that good by efficiency numbers but hey, he did a lot of volume on a AAU team so my god he must be good.


Just when I thought I couldn't get lower on Reddish.

I guess I should go back and watch his free throw highlights to become optimistic.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
User avatar
JohnnyKILLroy
RealGM
Posts: 12,124
And1: 4,336
Joined: Jun 18, 2008
Location: Fountain Valley- A nice place to live
       

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#575 » by JohnnyKILLroy » Fri May 24, 2019 2:22 pm

DuckIII wrote:
DanTown8587 wrote:
Not just HS Red, the very specific time of between jr and sr year of HS. And this part in bold is key to it all - he actually wasn't that good by efficiency numbers but hey, he did a lot of volume on a AAU team so my god he must be good.


Yeah, that’s how I read it too. One summer of stats that were still inefficient. I’ve been advocating swinging for Reddish or Little, but this gives me serious pause.

You know things are bleak when the article justifying Reddish as a top 5 talent actually makes him sound much worse.


Between the 2 it’s Little all the way for me.

Hopefully someone bites on Cam before we pick.
What is happiness? It's a moment before you need more happiness.” — Don Draper
User avatar
Red Larrivee
RealGM
Posts: 41,935
And1: 18,723
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Location: Hogging Microphone Time From Tom Dore

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#576 » by Red Larrivee » Fri May 24, 2019 2:24 pm

Reddish would be such a Dan Gilbert pick.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
cjbulls
Analyst
Posts: 3,584
And1: 1,301
Joined: Jun 26, 2018

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#577 » by cjbulls » Fri May 24, 2019 2:32 pm

The way you all are rushing to dispute Pelton when it doesn’t support your view cracks me up. #5!!!!

I’m apparently the only vocal one who recognizes drafting is not a science.
StunnerKO
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,017
And1: 3,143
Joined: Sep 25, 2017

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#578 » by StunnerKO » Fri May 24, 2019 2:36 pm

We will draft Romeo Langford and be happy
User avatar
Red Larrivee
RealGM
Posts: 41,935
And1: 18,723
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Location: Hogging Microphone Time From Tom Dore

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#579 » by Red Larrivee » Fri May 24, 2019 2:47 pm

cjbulls wrote:The way you all are rushing to dispute Pelton when it doesn’t support your view cracks me up. #5!!!!

I’m apparently the only vocal one who recognizes drafting is not a science.


There is no science to always drafting the correct player when a large group of players is available.

However, drafting is still a process that when done right, increases the chances of avoiding certain player types who consistently don't translate to the league. One example, to steal a term from cold fish, is the "early bloomer" who peaks in high school, underwhelms in college, and is drafted mostly on high school pedigree.

Currently, Reddish is on the lowest end of examples on that spectrum and not too far from Austin Rivers, another five star recruit who underwhelmed in college and continued to do so in the NBA. Rivers at one point was the best high school prospect in his class.

Your support for Reddish doesn't seem to have much of a process. You're hoping for an extremely unlikely result based on high pedigree while minimizing what happened against better competition.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,930
And1: 33,624
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: 2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery 

Post#580 » by DuckIII » Fri May 24, 2019 2:54 pm

cjbulls wrote:The way you all are rushing to dispute Pelton when it doesn’t support your view cracks me up. #5!!!!

I’m apparently the only vocal one who recognizes drafting is not a science.


The problem, cj, is that I’m not disputing Pelton. I’m saying that accepting his data as 100% accurate, it makes Reddish sound worse. The hope has been that he had a bad fit at Duke, or that he was injured, or that something else was going on to explain the bad data. But Pelton’s article establishes that the efficiency and range data was bad against inferior competition as well.

That’s troubling. It suggests that his play at Duke was not an anomaly, but rather a trend line consistent with prior performance.

And no NBA fan would dispute your last statement. There’s always the chance that any drafted (or even undrafted) player could be great.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.

Return to Chicago Bulls