Nowak008 wrote:machu46 wrote:
His team was god awful with hilariously poor spacing, and he was still able to produce at a very efficient rate.
He just screams to me good stats bad team guy. I mean last year people were freaking out that Ben Simmons didn't make the tournament...but his team was 19-14 and finished 3rd in the SEC... Fultz went 9-22... and 2-16 in conference play...in a pretty weak conference...I mean God damn that is terrible. How can the #1 pick be on a team that bad?
Being tall isn't a weakness, and he isn't even small relative to SGs anymore. His standing reach is like an inch shorter than Harden/Klay Thompson and an inch or two longer than Bradley Beal. His size is perfectly fine for a SG and is good for a PG.
Quick name all the all stars in the league who are 6'4 - .... there just isn't any. The only guys that come to mind at 6'4 are Eric Gordon, Marcus Smart, Dion Waiters, Brandon Knight...those guys are all flawed in a lot of ways in part because they aren't quick enough or tall enough. Maybe it's just an aberration... but I think it's relevant to think about
I feel like the "good stats bad team" thing is an outdated phrase we used for guys that put up big numbers inefficiently on bad teams and got overpaid for it. Fultz was extremely efficient at Washington despite being the sole focus of opposing defenses. And his team went 9-16 with him playing. He missed 6 games in which they went 0-6. Don't get me wrong, 9-16 is still bad, but there's only so much one player can do when playing in a major college conference surrounded by awful teammates. I never understood criticizing Simmons for this either, and Washington was a far worse situation than LSU.
As MCG mentioned, Westbrook, Curry, Wall, Beal are all basically the same height as Fultz. And Dwyane Wade has basically the same measurables as Fultz too. Wall measured at exactly 6'4". Westbrook was 6'3.5", which is exactly what Fultz measured at. Curry was 0.25 inches shorter.