2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread

[Marcus]

Why do people keep saying Lonzo Ball needs the ball to be effective??

Obviously you want a talented, elite passer/playmaker with the ball in his hands, but if you look at the #'s, he's actually playing with the ball in his hands a lot less in terms of usage than some of these other "top tier" prospects.

He often gets the ball, and either takes a shot or quickly makes a decision/read and finds an open teammate. He isn't running around in circles for 20 seconds like TJ McConnell pounding the rock, racking up 10 apg because he's doing everything and then kicking out. Kids pretty much playing within the offense and thriving.

Im not trying to say that Ball would be ideal for some rip hamilton, run around off the ball role. Simply saying that he can be effective in creating plays both on AND off the ball due to his ability to score from the perimeter in catch and shoot situations. I dont think him and Simmons would have an issue at all being on the floor at the same time. Both are elite playmakers and unselfish passers.

Again. I don't think anybody is saying they can't play together just saying Lonzo works better as the orchestrator of the offense and not as the guy waiting for the ball to swing his way for a shot or a pass. Even when he's not touching the ball at UCLA he's the maestro, he's setting up where guys line up, he's calling Bryce or Aaron over to execute the set, he's reading the matchups to see which works better and he's creating the space to get the shooters their looks. He's coaching on the floor which is what Ben's role is supposed to be right? Can they play off each other? sure, but if the outline which has been set in place is for Ben to run point and lead the offense its redundant to have another guy that is better suited to do the same thing next to him.The comments being made about Lonzo leading the offense are based on that being the case.

[Marcus]

Yup. If you want to get the most out of Ball you gotta put the ball in his hands and let him run your offense. If we're talking strictly off ball ability, Monk is a much bigger threat off the ball than Ball. Ball is a pretty bad value in the top 5 if you're taking him to play off the ball.

That statement is even more applicable to Fultz.

Fultz is a lead distributor that generates nearly all of his own offense.

83% of Fultz' mid-range jumpers are unassisted.
56.2% of Fultz' threes are pull-ups.
84% of Fultz' finishes at the rim are unassisted drives.

Unless Markelle overtakes ball handling priority from Simmons, are we getting the most out of Fultz? Is Fultz bad value in the Top 5?

Your argument isn't universally applicable. I don't think it's a good one to use.

Fultz's buzz came off of his performance at the U18 FIBA games. It's what essentially shot him up the charts on draft boards. His ability to play within the game and take over when needed is what he's applauded for. He won't have any problem playing off the ball or with lower usage.

[Kobblehead]

My point is that the arguments being used against Ball are illogical and hypocritical.

[LloydFree]

Why do people keep saying Lonzo Ball needs the ball to be effective??

Obviously you want a talented, elite passer/playmaker with the ball in his hands, but if you look at the #'s, he's actually playing with the ball in his hands a lot less in terms of usage than some of these other "top tier" prospects.

He often gets the ball, and either takes a shot or quickly makes a decision/read and finds an open teammate. He isn't running around in circles for 20 seconds like TJ McConnell pounding the rock, racking up 10 apg because he's doing everything and then kicking out. Kids pretty much playing within the offense and thriving.

Im not trying to say that Ball would be ideal for some rip hamilton, run around off the ball role. Simply saying that he can be effective in creating plays both on AND off the ball due to his ability to score from the perimeter in catch and shoot situations. I dont think him and Simmons would have an issue at all being on the floor at the same time. Both are elite playmakers and unselfish passers.

The concept of two players on the same team being able to dribble, pass and make decisions seems to be befuddling.

[Marcus]

My point is that the arguments being used against Ball are illogical and hypocritical.

Nobody is arguing against anybody but that point is being missed so I'll gracefully bow out of the discussion. I think Fultz is the better fit based on what I've seen of both kids over the last couple years that I've been watching this class. That's all I was saying. there is no argument against either Markelle or Lonzo.

[Kobblehead]

My point is that the arguments being used against Ball are illogical and hypocritical.

Nobody is arguing against anybody but that point is being missed so I'll gracefully bow out of the discussion. I think Fultz is the better fit based on what I've seen of both kids over the last couple years that I've been watching this class. That's all I was saying. there is no argument against either Markelle or Lonzo.

I guess you missed the post saying that Ball would be a bad value pick in the Top 5 on a team with Ben Simmons.

[Marcus]

My point is that the arguments being used against Ball are illogical and hypocritical.

Nobody is arguing against anybody but that point is being missed so I'll gracefully bow out of the discussion. I think Fultz is the better fit based on what I've seen of both kids over the last couple years that I've been watching this class. That's all I was saying. there is no argument against either Markelle or Lonzo.

I guess you missed the post saying that Ball would be a bad value pick in the Top 5 on a team with Ben Simmons.

I said that?

[phiphan]

I tried, but I can't get over Ball's shot form. I just can't. But Fultz's FT% is also disturbing.

I'd honestly be happy with either though.

[Kobblehead]

I said that?

Do you have Duke4life on ignore or something? You quoted me quoting another post. That other post was made by him, making that point.

[Duke4life831]

My point is that the arguments being used against Ball are illogical and hypocritical.

Nobody is arguing against anybody but that point is being missed so I'll gracefully bow out of the discussion. I think Fultz is the better fit based on what I've seen of both kids over the last couple years that I've been watching this class. That's all I was saying. there is no argument against either Markelle or Lonzo.

I guess you missed the post saying that Ball would be a bad value pick in the Top 5 on a team with Ben Simmons.

Lonzo Ball is not worth a top 5 pick if he is going to play off the ball. Can he still be a good player? Yes. Again Steve Nash could play off the ball, would Steve Nash been as effective and as good of a player if he played off the ball instead of running the offense? No. A huge reason Ball is considered a top 5 pick is because his ability to run the offense. To get the best out of him you would want to have the ball in his hands as much as you can.

The way you guys are talking about using Ball, he can play that and be solid. No one is denying that, what I am saying other guys do the things you guys are talking about better than Ball. Ball's biggest strength is having the ball in his hands and running the offense.

[Kobblehead]

Lonzo Ball is not worth a top 5 pick if he is going to play off the ball. Can he still be a good player? Yes. Again Steve Nash could play off the ball, would Steve Nash been as effective and as good of a player if he played off the ball instead of running the offense? No. A huge reason Ball is considered a top 5 pick is because his ability to run the offense. To get the best out of him you would want to have the ball in his hands as much as you can.

The way you guys are talking about using Ball, he can play that and be solid. No one is denying that, what I am saying other guys do the things you guys are talking about better than Ball. Ball's biggest strength is having the ball in his hands and running the offense.

Yup. If you want to get the most out of Ball you gotta put the ball in his hands and let him run your offense. If we're talking strictly off ball ability, Monk is a much bigger threat off the ball than Ball. Ball is a pretty bad value in the top 5 if you're taking him to play off the ball.

That statement is even more applicable to Fultz.

Fultz is a lead distributor that generates nearly all of his own offense.

83% of Fultz' mid-range jumpers are unassisted.
56.2% of Fultz' threes are pull-ups.
84% of Fultz' finishes at the rim are unassisted drives.

Unless Markelle overtakes ball handling priority from Simmons, are we getting the most out of Fultz? Is Fultz bad value in the Top 5?

Your argument isn't universally applicable. I don't think it's a good one to use.

[Marcus]

I said that?

Do you have Duke4life on ignore or something? You quoted me quoting another post. That other post was made by him, making that point.

Right, wasn't what I said though. I quoted you in reference to whether or not Fultz can play off the ball with lower usage.

Also I understood what Duke is saying. Its a pretty deep draft with a lot of applicable talent. Top five is pretty fluid and could play out depending on fit. This year it makes sense to draft what you need and will utilize rather than BPA because there are plenty of kids with BPA type talent.

[PhilasFinest]

Nobody is arguing against anybody but that point is being missed so I'll gracefully bow out of the discussion. I think Fultz is the better fit based on what I've seen of both kids over the last couple years that I've been watching this class. That's all I was saying. there is no argument against either Markelle or Lonzo.

I guess you missed the post saying that Ball would be a bad value pick in the Top 5 on a team with Ben Simmons.

Lonzo Ball is not worth a top 5 pick if he is going to play off the ball. Can he still be a good player? Yes. Again Steve Nash could play off the ball, would Steve Nash been as effective and as good of a player if he played off the ball instead of running the offense? No. A huge reason Ball is considered a top 5 pick is because his ability to run the offense. To get the best out of him you would want to have the ball in his hands as much as you can.

The way you guys are talking about using Ball, he can play that and be solid. No one is denying that, what I am saying other guys do the things you guys are talking about better than Ball. Ball's biggest strength is having the ball in his hands and running the offense.

Your acting as if nobody else touches the ball though during the game though other than Simmons. There would be plenty of opportunities for Ball to handle the ball and make plays even if he was more of a "secondary" ball handler to Simmons. His ability to score from outside, off of catch and shoot situations at pretty high level makes that fit seem even more logical.

Steve Nash had MVP seasons "doing it all", but he also never won a championship and for his career he had a 21% USG rate, his career high was 24%. Id think Nash would have been happy giving up some of that usage to some like LeBron (who's in the 30+% USG rate) and would benefited from wide open looks from 3 making both of there jobs easier.

Both LeBron and Wade had multiple 30+% Usage rates while playing on the same team, along with Bosh who had a usage rate in the mid/high 20's every year as well with those teams.

Kyrie Irving has usage rates a tad under 30% playing with LeBron, and Love still gets his touches in the mid 20's as well.

Hell, even a guy like Draymond Green who flirts with a triple double almost every night, averaged nearly 14-10-8 on usage under 20% playing with guys like Curry/Klay and now Durant dominating the ball in the mid to high 20%'s.


I fail to see how Ball, a 40+% 3 point shooter right now would be useless running off a screen and catching a perfect pass from Simmons off a drive, or getting a wide open pass from Embiid off of a double team. And thats not even factoring in him being able to take those looks and turn them into even better shots with his playmaking.

I fail to see how Simmons wouldn't benefit from getting a perfecting thrown dime from Ball on a cut to the basket or lob in the open floor after a steal.

And I dont see how Embiid doesn't benefit from having 2 players on the floor capable of getting him open looks out of pretty much any set imaginable and a guard on the perimeter that can shoot the 3 at a 40% clip. It opens the floor for him to operate, forces teams to think on doubles and gets him better looks.

There would be PLENTY of opportunities for not only Simmons to touch the ball and make plays, but also Ball and Embiid. 2 being elite playmakers would only make things easier for each other.

[Duke4life831]

Lonzo Ball is not worth a top 5 pick if he is going to play off the ball. Can he still be a good player? Yes. Again Steve Nash could play off the ball, would Steve Nash been as effective and as good of a player if he played off the ball instead of running the offense? No. A huge reason Ball is considered a top 5 pick is because his ability to run the offense. To get the best out of him you would want to have the ball in his hands as much as you can.

The way you guys are talking about using Ball, he can play that and be solid. No one is denying that, what I am saying other guys do the things you guys are talking about better than Ball. Ball's biggest strength is having the ball in his hands and running the offense.

Yup. If you want to get the most out of Ball you gotta put the ball in his hands and let him run your offense. If we're talking strictly off ball ability, Monk is a much bigger threat off the ball than Ball. Ball is a pretty bad value in the top 5 if you're taking him to play off the ball.

That statement is even more applicable to Fultz.

Fultz is a lead distributor that generates nearly all of his own offense.

83% of Fultz' mid-range jumpers are unassisted.
56.2% of Fultz' threes are pull-ups.
84% of Fultz' finishes at the rim are unassisted drives.

Unless Markelle overtakes ball handling priority from Simmons, are we getting the most out of Fultz? Is Fultz bad value in the Top 5?

Your argument isn't universally applicable. I don't think it's a good one to use.

Yes I do think you will get much more out of Fultz than Ball. Fultz is more like Russell has solid vision and facilitating but he's at his best when looking to score for himself. You want a guy that can score on and off the ball next to Simmons. I think in the long term both Russell and Fultz will be better off as scoring 2 guards.

[Kobblehead]

Right, wasn't what I said though. .

I never said you said it. I said some of the arguments being made against Ball are illogical, referring to Duke's post. The one you quoted me quoting. So why you would think I was talking to you is beyond me.

[LloydFree]

I said that?

Do you have Duke4life on ignore or something? You quoted me quoting another post. That other post was made by him, making that point.

Right, wasn't what I said though. I quoted you in reference to whether or not Fultz can play off the ball with lower usage.

Also I understood what Duke is saying. Its a pretty deep draft with a lot of applicable talent. Top five is pretty fluid and could play out depending on fit. This year it makes sense to draft what you need and will utilize rather than BPA because there are plenty of kids with BPA type talent.

The 76ers need someone who can shoot and defend NBA point guards. Ball seems suited for that.

[Kobblehead]

If you want to make an argument for Fultz, talk about him having better defensive instincts and hands.

These on-ball/off-ball arguments being made for Fultz are nonsensical and poorly formulated. For this aspect of the discussion clearly favors Ball.

[Ericb5]

I said that?

Do you have Duke4life on ignore or something? You quoted me quoting another post. That other post was made by him, making that point.

Right, wasn't what I said though. I quoted you in reference to whether or not Fultz can play off the ball with lower usage.

Also I understood what Duke is saying. Its a pretty deep draft with a lot of applicable talent. Top five is pretty fluid and could play out depending on fit. This year it makes sense to draft what you need and will utilize rather than BPA because there are plenty of kids with BPA type talent.

These are the types of debates that we SHOULD be having at this point in the season. Either Ball or Fultz still have time to leave the other in the dust in terms of the draft.

My gut is telling me right now that Ball is a touch more talented than Fultz. His vision and passing is probably at a higher level than any one skill that Fultz has. That being said, Fultz looks to me like he can definitely be a good scorer on or off the ball in NBA, and Ball's skillset overlaps with Simmons' skill set more.

The jury is out still for all of the top 6 right now. I think that there will be a lot of churn in that group between now and draft day, and so far nobody seems to me to be in a different draft tier. So I think that fit will play a very big role in the eventual draft order of that group.

It wouldn't surprise me, for example if Jackson, Ball or Fultz was either the first or the 6th pick in the draft, even though now they are trending towards the top 3.

I still think that Giles is the X factor. If he establishes himself as healthy I think that he goes to the head of the class and maybe becomes the first of them to breakthrough to a different tier.

I also think that Smith is being slept on a bit. Some draft sites right now have him in the 8-10 range, and that is frankly silly talk for me. I DEFINITELY see star upside with him.

[PhilasFinest]

Do you have Duke4life on ignore or something? You quoted me quoting another post. That other post was made by him, making that point.

Right, wasn't what I said though. I quoted you in reference to whether or not Fultz can play off the ball with lower usage.

Also I understood what Duke is saying. Its a pretty deep draft with a lot of applicable talent. Top five is pretty fluid and could play out depending on fit. This year it makes sense to draft what you need and will utilize rather than BPA because there are plenty of kids with BPA type talent.

These are the types of debates that we SHOULD be having at this point in the season. Either Ball or Fultz still have time to leave the other in the dust in terms of the draft.

My gut is telling me right now that Ball is a touch more talented than Fultz. His vision and passing is probably at a higher level than any one skill that Fultz has. That being said, Fultz looks to me like he can definitely be a good scorer on or off the ball in NBA, and Ball's skillset overlaps with Simmons' skill set more.

The jury is out still for all of the top 6 right now. I think that there will be a lot of churn in that group between now and draft day, and so far nobody seems to me to be in a different draft tier. So I think that fit will play a very big role in the eventual draft order of that group.

It wouldn't surprise me, for example if Jackson, Ball or Fultz was either the first or the 6th pick in the draft, even though now they are trending towards the top 3.

I still think that Giles is the X factor. If he establishes himself as healthy I think that he goes to the head of the class and maybe becomes the first of them to breakthrough to a different tier.

I also think that Smith is being slept on a bit. Some draft sites right now have him in the 8-10 range, and that is frankly silly talk for me. I DEFINITELY see star upside with him.

I agree with you...there will certainly be some shuffling in the order by draft night.

I dont dislike Fultz at all....kid has an intriguing blend of scoring ability and size for the PG spot.He has good length and height, gets his hands on the ball and generates steals/blocks to get out in transition. I think he will be a very good NBA player and has 2-way talent. I wouldn't be mad at all if the Sixers got him...id actually be excited.

I just don't get the notion that people come on here and essentially say Ball needs the rock in his hands to be worthy of a top 5 pick ,Fultz is the better fit because he's a scorer.... yet Ball carries a 17% usage rate right now compared to Fultz's 29.8%.

Looking at the #'s,Its actually more of the opposite....Fultz may need the ball in his hands to be worthy of a top 5 pick, not Ball.

Factor in Simmons (Who had a 26.4% usage rate at LSU) and Embiid (37.4% this year, likely unsustainable) and Id say it would probably be easier to fit Ball on the same team then it would be Fultz, who is more ball dominant in college and any of them.

[Kobblehead]

I agree with you...there will certainly be some shuffling in the order by draft night.

I dont dislike Fultz at all....kid has an intriguing blend of scoring ability and size for the PG spot.He has good length and height, gets his hands on the ball and generates steals/blocks to get out in transition. I think he will be a very good NBA player and has 2-way talent. I wouldn't be mad at all if the Sixers got him...id actually be excited.

I just don't get the notion that people come on here and essentially say Ball needs the rock in his hands to be worthy of a top 5 pick ,Fultz is the better fit because he's a scorer.... yet Ball carries a 17% usage rate right now compared to Fultz's 29.8%.

Looking at the #'s,Its actually more of the opposite....Fultz may need the ball in his hands to be worthy of a top 5 pick, not Ball.

Exactly.

All things considered, I'd probably take Fultz over Ball if they were both on the board while we were on the clock, if I'm being completely honest. That's simply off of being enamored with his skill level. However, an argument that he's a better fit with Simmons and Embiid than Ball doesn't exist, IMO.

The arguments against Ball being made by the Pro-Fultz people are just bad arguments and not rooted in any truth.