Kyle Anderson

[MGrand15]

Some interesting things to keep in mind about Kyle Anderson: he used to be a top recruit. Was thought to be one of the best players in his HS class, even though athleticism and how good your dunks look on your AAU YouTube mixtape is usually what's being evaluated in young prospects.

None other than Kevin Durant thought he was the best player in his class. I have this weird theory that current (not former!) players could be underrated evaluators of draft talent: they recognize those who "belong". LeBron James, for example, saw a star in Stephen Curry when others saw just another shooting specialist. Anthony Davis got the highest marks from Olympic teammates, who saw his dominance coming from miles away, etc. (Contrast with Christian Laettner, who according to Magic didn't quite fit the Dream Team)

So you've got this 6'9 player who has the full offensive package, passes the eye test and then some as a pure basketball player, used to be considered one of the best players in his class, and averaged 18, 10 and 8 (!) per 40 to go along with 2 steals, 1 block and 48% 3P shooting in college.

Yet DraftExpress currently has him at number 25, more than 17 picks behind DougMcDermott.

So one of three possibilities:
- he secretly sucks for an as-yet-unidentified reason
- this draft is REALLY good
- he's possibly slightly underrated

Or 4 - you and KD are overrating him.

Look, I like the kid but KD isn't a scout. He's going to big talk anyone that he sees play well. He probably would've said the same about Beasley too.

I like Anderson but he does have his flaws and may have to adjust his style of play. He may struggle A TON guarding the perimeter if he's put at SF. His high 3pt% was on a very low volume and he's historically not been a good shooter. I'm not sure you could pass the eye test and then some as a bball player if you struggle playing without the ball as a 6'9 guy. I'm not sure you can call him a COMPLETE package on offense. Lebron is the complete package on offense. This guy is not.

He can succeed. He can be Diaw/Lamar Odom like. He can be very good. But to act like he's this sure thing is just not true. His role in the league is a question mark. His athleticism is a major question mark. His defense is a question mark. His jump shot is a question mark.

[EvanZ]

The range of outcomes is extremely wide, and people who'll say "I told you", no matter what happens, will be lying.

Um, I think the word you're looking for is "prediction". That's not quite the same thing as lying.

[miltk]

Or 4 - you and KD are overrating him.

Look, I like the kid but KD isn't a scout. He's going to big talk anyone that he sees play well. He probably would've said the same about Beasley too.

I like Anderson but he does have his flaws and may have to adjust his style of play. He may struggle A TON guarding the perimeter if he's put at SF. His high 3pt% was on a very low volume and he's historically not been a good shooter. I'm not sure you could pass the eye test and then some as a bball player if you struggle playing without the ball as a 6'9 guy. I'm not sure you can call him a COMPLETE package on offense. Lebron is the complete package on offense. This guy is not.

He can succeed. He can be Diaw/Lamar Odom like. He can be very good. But to act like he's this sure thing is just not true. His role in the league is a question mark. His athleticism is a major question mark. His defense is a question mark. His jump shot is a question mark.

it's possible kd is NOT overrating him but merely rating him as he is, seeing attributes as is, and that in fact everyone has been UNDERrating kyle because they're so scared of his perceived weaknesses. i think all nayayers has a legitimate cause to feel as they do,,,but check drafts 16-25 http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-draft-history/ and tell me why kyle doesn't fit near the top of any of those lists(with maybe the exception of a year or two)

[SelfishPlayer]

You could also compare him ro Royce White, or Magic Johnson... The point is, players with his unique set of skills have been busts, superstars and literally everything in between. The range of outcomes is extremely wide, and people who'll say "I told you", no matter what happens, will be lying.

Lamar Odom, Billy Owens, Anthony Mason, Boris Diaw, Toni Kukoc
Sabonis, Divac, and Webber had the passing ability...

[Knighthonor]

The lower he drops, the better the chance he lands on a good team that know how to use him and develop him.

[BoutPractice]

The range of outcomes is extremely wide, and people who'll say "I told you", no matter what happens, will be lying.

Um, I think the word you're looking for is "prediction". That's not quite the same thing as lying.

Even though English is not my native language I think you could call it "lying"... at least lying to yourself. It's a lie to assert that whatever happened to a player was "necessary" or a "foregone conclusion" and that you were in possession of the "truth" that it was necessary before everyone else, because deep down you probably had (completely justified) doubts at the time.

[EvanZ]

The range of outcomes is extremely wide, and people who'll say "I told you", no matter what happens, will be lying.

Um, I think the word you're looking for is "prediction". That's not quite the same thing as lying.

Even though English is not my native language I think you could call it "lying"... at least lying to yourself. It's a lie to assert that whatever happened to a player was "necessary" or a "foregone conclusion" and that you were in possession of the "truth" that it was necessary before everyone else, because deep down you probably had (completely justified) doubts at the time.

That's what people do AFTER the fact takes place. If you're saying it BEFORE, it is what it is. A prediction. Maybe it will be wrong, maybe it will be right. The winners and losers will be sorted out later.

The problem I have with most people (especially media) is they don't go back and tell you when they were wrong about a player.

I've been wrong plenty of times about plenty of players. I wasn't *lying* about those players. I just thought they were better than they ended up being.

It's no more "lying" than a NBA team that actually has money invested in the decision and "reaches" for a player that "everyone" says should have gone lower (say Tristan Thompson).

Hey, and FWIW, your English is great. I have no problem with it.

[EvanZ]

Diaw was a long, thin, athletic freak when he came into the league. He even won a dunk contest in France and was generally seen as one of the country's best athletes along with Mickael Pietrus.

Yep. From an ESPN article today:

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2014/st ... onio-spurs

There was a time that Boris Babacar Diaw-Riffiod, target of all those #croissant jabs on Twitter, was regarded as a supreme athlete.

"People don't know how athletic he is," said Charlotte Hornets pro scouting director Todd Quinter, who was a key member of the Suns' front office for 26 seasons from 1986-2011.

NBA FINALS ON ESPN.COM


Follow our complete coverage of the 2014 NBA Finals. Heat vs. Spurs »

"When we acquired Boris in 2006, he was probably the fastest guy on the team from end to end. He could also really leap. Yet somehow he doesn't rely on his athleticism to get things done. It's almost like he uses it as a last resort."

You hear similar tales of awe from those who were with Diaw in Atlanta too.

"Everybody loves the chase-down block that LeBron is so good at, right?" Stotts said. "When we were watching video of [Diaw] before we drafted him, I can't tell you how many of those we saw. He's deceptively athletic with great timing and instincts. He has a wingspan that's deceptive too."

The capper comes from Cleveland Cavaliers general manager David Griffin, who, like Quinter, was an integral part of the Suns' front-office team when Diaw was acquired in a sign-and-trade for Joe Johnson orchestrated by then-Suns personnel chief Bryan Colangelo.

"Boris walks into the gym one day wearing flip-flops and holding his customary cappuccino, which was a staple for him every morning," Griffin recalled. "It was during pre-draft workouts, so he sees the Vertec [machine] and asks what it is.

"We tell him it measures your vertical leap by determining how many of the bars you can touch. He asks what's the highest anyone has ever gone, and we tell him Amare' [Stoudemire] cleared the entire rack.

"Boris puts down the cappuccino, takes off his flip-flops and clears the entire rack on the first try. Then he calmly puts his flip-flops back on, picks up his cappuccino and walks away, saying, 'That was not difficult.'"

[CunningLinguist]

My main concern with Anderson is that he doesn't seem to play well without the ball. He doesn't do much of anything when he's not handling the rock.

10 rebounds per 40 minutes for a guy who is supposedly a guard? Assuming he rebounds only "when he's not handling the rock", I'd say that's something.

im pretty sure he was just referring to what KA does on offense. he's very ball-dominant and when he doesn't have the ball in his hands he has a tendency to stand around. he also wasn't much of a catch and shoot shooter so that added to his ineffectiveness off the ball.

Anderson was actually very effective in catch and shoot situations with 1.44 points per possession

[ManualRam]

10 rebounds per 40 minutes for a guy who is supposedly a guard? Assuming he rebounds only "when he's not handling the rock", I'd say that's something.

im pretty sure he was just referring to what KA does on offense. he's very ball-dominant and when he doesn't have the ball in his hands he has a tendency to stand around. he also wasn't much of a catch and shoot shooter so that added to his ineffectiveness off the ball.

Anderson was actually very effective in catch and shoot situations with 1.44 points per possession

on what volume?

[EvanZ]

He was very effective in catch and shoot situations this season (21/41, 51%), as he's no longer a guy you can leave wide open, but again the small sample size leaves a lot to be desired.

From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz34jwPeXhk
http://www.draftexpress.com

Yes, small sample size. But there are other players who we give a complete pass on shooting and expect them to improve in the NBA (Marcus Smart was 11/51 on C&S jumpers http://www.shotanalytics.com/2014/06/02 ... cus-smart/). At least, we should give Anderson the benefit of the doubt. Pretty much all his shooting stats increased greatly from freshman to sophomore season, his 2p%, 3pt%, etc. Very few players combine his ability to shoot off the dribble with such a high release. That's huge.

[CunningLinguist]

im pretty sure he was just referring to what KA does on offense. he's very ball-dominant and when he doesn't have the ball in his hands he has a tendency to stand around. he also wasn't much of a catch and shoot shooter so that added to his ineffectiveness off the ball.

Anderson was actually very effective in catch and shoot situations with 1.44 points per possession

on what volume?

Either he was efficient or he wasn't.

[ManualRam]

Anderson was actually very effective in catch and shoot situations with 1.44 points per possession

on what volume?

Either he was effective or he wasn't.

ok so less than 1 made catch and shoot jumper a game? i'll go with ineffective.

[S.W.A.N]

on what volume?

Either he was effective or he wasn't.

ok so less than 1 made catch and shoot jumper a game? i'll go with ineffective.

That would be poor judgement on your part then. The numbers don't tell a story of ineffective, catch and shoot not a huge part of his game but when he has the ball in his hands so much its hardly expected to be. Yet when he was in those situations he shot very well.

[ManualRam]

Either he was effective or he wasn't.

ok so less than 1 made catch and shoot jumper a game? i'll go with ineffective.

That would be poor judgement on your part then. The numbers don't tell a story of ineffective, catch and shoot not a huge part of his game but when he has the ball in his hands so much its hardly expected to be. Yet when he was in those situations he shot very well.

frequency matters. even if he shot a good percentage, his success (less than 1 make a game) was statistically insignificant. teams didn't play him any differently because of his %s nor did they change their team defensive strategy because of him being a threat as a catch and shoot shooter.

kyle was extremely ball-dominant. he monopolized the ball and took up huge chunks of the the shot clock by himself. when he didn't have it, he wasn't a threat to do much at all. he did a whole lot of standing around or ball-chasing. when players are effective off-the-ball, even if its just sliding off the ball to create better passing angles, the ball finds them. imo, his lack of attempts in those situations says a lot more than the success in his limited attempts.

[S.W.A.N]

ok so less than 1 made catch and shoot jumper a game? i'll go with ineffective.

That would be poor judgement on your part then. The numbers don't tell a story of ineffective, catch and shoot not a huge part of his game but when he has the ball in his hands so much its hardly expected to be. Yet when he was in those situations he shot very well.

frequency matters. even if he shot a good percentage, his success (less than 1 make a game) was statistically insignificant. teams didn't play him any differently because of his %s nor did they change their team defensive strategy because of him being a threat as a catch and shoot shooter.

kyle was extremely ball-dominant. he monopolized the ball and took up huge chunks of the the shot clock by himself. when he didn't have it, he wasn't a threat to do much at all. he did a whole lot of standing around or ball-chasing. when players are effective off-the-ball, even if its just sliding off the ball to create better passing angles, the ball finds them. imo, his lack of attempts in those situations says a lot more than the success in his limited attempts.

That doesn't mean that you can automatically define his future as being inefficient off the ball. Being put in a system where he is forced to move and use cuts can change how he moves... At the very least the fact that he has a good success rate on the limited number of tries is a possible indicator that with increased number of set shots from being less of a ball distributor he could be effective.

[SelfishPlayer]

Channing Frye only made 6 three pointers over a 4 years college career. Spencer Hawes only made one as a freshman, and both of those guys are pretty good at shooting NBA 3's right now. I don't see anything at this point getting in the way of Kyle Anderson becoming a great NBA 3 point shooter one day. It's pretty typical for guys who have long NBA careers as starters to struggle with their 3 point shot in college. Why? Because they spent their early basketball years developing all of the other aspects of their games that would one day make them an NBA starter.

[EvanZ]

ok so less than 1 made catch and shoot jumper a game? i'll go with ineffective.

That would be poor judgement on your part then. The numbers don't tell a story of ineffective, catch and shoot not a huge part of his game but when he has the ball in his hands so much its hardly expected to be. Yet when he was in those situations he shot very well.

frequency matters. even if he shot a good percentage, his success (less than 1 make a game) was statistically insignificant. teams didn't play him any differently because of his %s nor did they change their team defensive strategy because of him being a threat as a catch and shoot shooter.

kyle was extremely ball-dominant. he monopolized the ball and took up huge chunks of the the shot clock by himself. when he didn't have it, he wasn't a threat to do much at all. he did a whole lot of standing around or ball-chasing. when players are effective off-the-ball, even if its just sliding off the ball to create better passing angles, the ball finds them. imo, his lack of attempts in those situations says a lot more than the success in his limited attempts.

Would you take Smart's 11/51 over Anderson's 21/41?

Anderson could have attempted 60 more shots - missed all of them - and had the same efficiency as Smart.

[ManualRam]

That would be poor judgement on your part then. The numbers don't tell a story of ineffective, catch and shoot not a huge part of his game but when he has the ball in his hands so much its hardly expected to be. Yet when he was in those situations he shot very well.

frequency matters. even if he shot a good percentage, his success (less than 1 make a game) was statistically insignificant. teams didn't play him any differently because of his %s nor did they change their team defensive strategy because of him being a threat as a catch and shoot shooter.

kyle was extremely ball-dominant. he monopolized the ball and took up huge chunks of the the shot clock by himself. when he didn't have it, he wasn't a threat to do much at all. he did a whole lot of standing around or ball-chasing. when players are effective off-the-ball, even if its just sliding off the ball to create better passing angles, the ball finds them. imo, his lack of attempts in those situations says a lot more than the success in his limited attempts.

Would you take Smart's 11/51 over Anderson's 21/41?

Anderson could have attempted 60 more shots - missed all of them - and had the same efficiency as Smart.

that's not much of a question. using smart as an example proves what, that anderson's not AS bad?
smart's not a spot up shooter either.

[ManualRam]

Channing Frye only made 6 three pointers over a 4 years college career. Spencer Hawes only made one as a freshman, and both of those guys are pretty good at shooting NBA 3's right now. I don't see anything at this point getting in the way of Kyle Anderson becoming a great NBA 3 point shooter one day. It's pretty typical for guys who have long NBA careers as starters to struggle with their 3 point shot in college. Why? Because they spent their early basketball years developing all of the other aspects of their games that would one day make them an NBA starter.

you just made the case for every prospect eventually becoming good 3 pt shooters.