Jarrett Culver

[clyde21]

LeVert was an elite shooter in college, Culver is not.

Culver: 80th percentile jumpers, 88th around basket, 90th C&S, 73rd off dribble, 88th on jumpers less than 17 feet, 78th from 17 to 3, 17th on 3s.

LeVert: 81st percentile on jumpers, 58th around basket, 97th on C&S, 22nd off dribble, 11th on jumpers less than 17 feet, N/A (2/9) from 17 feet to 3, 94th on 3s (26/59).

They're shooting profiles are pretty similar, actually. On top of that, his game resembles LeVert WAY more than Ross. Ross was an athletic streaky shooter. That's it.

Culver is shooting 37% from three. LeVert shot above 40% from three, 3 years in a row in Michigan, and shot 45% from three his final year in Michigan. I'm not sure if you know this, but 45% from three for a whole season in college is a big deal.

in his 2nd season LeVert shot 40% shooting 4 attempts per game, Culver is currently shooting 38% shooting 3 attempts.

not sure if this is worthy of a discussion.

[NBA Fan 1234]

LeVert was an elite shooter in college, Culver is not.

Culver: 80th percentile jumpers, 88th around basket, 90th C&S, 73rd off dribble, 88th on jumpers less than 17 feet, 78th from 17 to 3, 17th on 3s.

LeVert: 81st percentile on jumpers, 58th around basket, 97th on C&S, 22nd off dribble, 11th on jumpers less than 17 feet, N/A (2/9) from 17 feet to 3, 94th on 3s (26/59).

They're shooting profiles are pretty similar, actually. On top of that, his game resembles LeVert WAY more than Ross. Ross was an athletic streaky shooter. That's it.

Culver is shooting 37% from three. LeVert shot above 40% from three, 3 years in a row in Michigan, and shot 45% from three his final year in Michigan. I'm not sure if you know this, but 45% from three for a whole season in college is a big deal.

No need to be condescending...but allow me to return the favor. I'm not sure if you know this, but LeVert was 73/190 his first 2 years in college from 3. Culver is 74/194 through 1 season +. Percentage wise, Culver's # is better than Ross', too.

Anyways, my main point was that their (being Culver and LeVert) games are similar. That's true. Ross plays nothing like Culver. If you're going to continue to be condescending, consider this my last post. I urge you to watch more games of Culver, though.

[atlantabbq99]

Culver: 80th percentile jumpers, 88th around basket, 90th C&S, 73rd off dribble, 88th on jumpers less than 17 feet, 78th from 17 to 3, 17th on 3s.

LeVert: 81st percentile on jumpers, 58th around basket, 97th on C&S, 22nd off dribble, 11th on jumpers less than 17 feet, N/A (2/9) from 17 feet to 3, 94th on 3s (26/59).

They're shooting profiles are pretty similar, actually. On top of that, his game resembles LeVert WAY more than Ross. Ross was an athletic streaky shooter. That's it.

Culver is shooting 37% from three. LeVert shot above 40% from three, 3 years in a row in Michigan, and shot 45% from three his final year in Michigan. I'm not sure if you know this, but 45% from three for a whole season in college is a big deal.

No need to be condescending...but allow me to return the favor. I'm not sure if you know this, but LeVert was 73/190 his first 2 years in college from 3. Culver is 74/194 through 1 season +. Percentage wise, Culver's # is better than Ross', too.

Anyways, my main point was that their (being Culver and LeVert) games are similar. That's true. Ross plays nothing like Culver. If you're going to continue to be condescending, consider this my last post. I urge you to watch more games of Culver, though.

I don't know where you learn math, but in LeVert's second year in college, he shot 41% from three. Culver in his second year in college is shooting 37% from three. Two different numbers are not the same.

[clyde21]

Culver is shooting 37% from three. LeVert shot above 40% from three, 3 years in a row in Michigan, and shot 45% from three his final year in Michigan. I'm not sure if you know this, but 45% from three for a whole season in college is a big deal.

No need to be condescending...but allow me to return the favor. I'm not sure if you know this, but LeVert was 73/190 his first 2 years in college from 3. Culver is 74/194 through 1 season +. Percentage wise, Culver's # is better than Ross', too.

Anyways, my main point was that their (being Culver and LeVert) games are similar. That's true. Ross plays nothing like Culver. If you're going to continue to be condescending, consider this my last post. I urge you to watch more games of Culver, though.

I don't know where you learn math, but in LeVert's second year in college, he shot 41% from three. Culver in his second year in college is shooting 37% from three. Two different numbers are not the same.

LeVert: 40.8% at 4 attempts
Culver: 38.0% at 3.2 attempts

are we done here?

[NBA Fan 1234]

Oy, lol. I'll just say that.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/jarrett-culver-1.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/caris-levert-1.html

(Channel with some TTU games on it.) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxc_dT9F-lQiGapcWfcMfpQ

I'm done here - anyone else want to pick this up? If not, I think this should serve as a final post in addition to the stats I provided above.

Really looking forward to the TTU / ISU matchup on Wednesday. THT and Haliburton v Culver will be great.

[EvanZ]

Funny you said that because it was Huerter who actually made me change my opinion about drafting elite shooters. He is the reason why I now say you have to draft elite shooters

And Ross actually averaged more steals Culver. Both are about the same level defensive player, only above average on the college level, not like Kawhi or Butler when they were in college.

Yeah sorry, I don't think you're learning the right lessons here.

[MotownMadness]

Is his defense as good as his advanced numbers suggest?

[eminence]

Is his defense as good as his advanced numbers suggest?

How good are they suggesting? I think he's certainly a very solid defender.

Biggest thing to me is that I don't think he's close to his listed 6'5 195 (ESPN). As a forward vs as a guard his offensive skillset becomes a ton more intriguing.

[doordoor123]

Is his defense as good as his advanced numbers suggest?

How good are they suggesting? I think he's certainly a very solid defender.

Biggest thing to me is that I don't think he's close to his listed 6'5 195 (ESPN). As a forward vs as a guard his offensive skillset becomes a ton more intriguing.

He looks bigger than Barrett. To me Culver looks closer to 6’6/6’7

I really like his movement defensively though. He gets in front of screens and is quick/long enough to go around a screen and contest. I also like how easily it is for him to maneuver laterally. To me he’s one of the best wing defenders in the draft.

[NBA Fan 1234]

I think he’s probably 6’7 - strong lower body.

[MotownMadness]

Is his defense as good as his advanced numbers suggest?

How good are they suggesting? I think he's certainly a very solid defender.

Biggest thing to me is that I don't think he's close to his listed 6'5 195 (ESPN). As a forward vs as a guard his offensive skillset becomes a ton more intriguing.

5.4 DBPM, 80.3 DRTG, .140 DWS/40

[KirkHinrich]

The Athletic has him compared to a prime Nic Batum, looking around 15/5/5 while providing good 2-way value. I think that is a good baseline for him if he doesn't become a better go-to score. Not sure if he plays similar to Batum but I think he has a very high baseline that will fit in with literally any team in the league.

[Ruzious]

Is his defense as good as his advanced numbers suggest?

How good are they suggesting? I think he's certainly a very solid defender.

Biggest thing to me is that I don't think he's close to his listed 6'5 195 (ESPN). As a forward vs as a guard his offensive skillset becomes a ton more intriguing.

Just checking if you meant to word that the way it sounds. It sounds (to me anyway) like you're saying he's significantly smaller than the listed size, but I'm guessing you meant he's significantly bigger (because I think he is).

[eminence]

Is his defense as good as his advanced numbers suggest?

How good are they suggesting? I think he's certainly a very solid defender.

Biggest thing to me is that I don't think he's close to his listed 6'5 195 (ESPN). As a forward vs as a guard his offensive skillset becomes a ton more intriguing.

Just checking if you meant to word that the way it sounds. It sounds (to me anyway) like you're saying he's significantly smaller than the listed size, but I'm guessing you meant he's significantly bigger (because I think he is).

Oh yeah, bigger for sure.

[eminence]

Is his defense as good as his advanced numbers suggest?

How good are they suggesting? I think he's certainly a very solid defender.

Biggest thing to me is that I don't think he's close to his listed 6'5 195 (ESPN). As a forward vs as a guard his offensive skillset becomes a ton more intriguing.

5.4 DBPM, 80.3 DRTG, .140 DWS/40

Hmm, I guess I'm not exactly sure how good those are in college, but I can easily see him someday being worth ~1.5 pts on defense/100, which is very good for a wing, though maybe just short of elite.

[doordoor123]

The Athletic has him compared to a prime Nic Batum, looking around 15/5/5 while providing good 2-way value. I think that is a good baseline for him if he doesn't become a better go-to score. Not sure if he plays similar to Batum but I think he has a very high baseline that will fit in with literally any team in the league.

I mean they’re different players, but in terms of their role, yeah that’s probably the kind of role he’ll have. But he’s smaller than Batum, which is part of Batums entire appeal. And Batum has long strides, but Culver is more bouncy/better at change of direction. Batum uses his length to defend and Culver uses more defensive skill. I also think Culver is more athletic while Batum had his length. But in terms of role in the NBA I think that’s a good comparison. Just not in terms of who he is as a player. Batum had a higher ceiling just because of his size and was also probably a better handler. As time went by he got injured a lot and it changed him entirely. At one point he could have grown into an even much better player than he is now. Before Giannis Antetokounmpo came into the league a lot of people were comparing him to Batum. So that’s a big difference between Antetokounmpo and Culver.

[KirkHinrich]

The Athletic has him compared to a prime Nic Batum, looking around 15/5/5 while providing good 2-way value. I think that is a good baseline for him if he doesn't become a better go-to score. Not sure if he plays similar to Batum but I think he has a very high baseline that will fit in with literally any team in the league.

I mean they’re different players, but in terms of their role, yeah that’s probably the kind of role he’ll have. But he’s smaller than Batum, which is part of Batums entire appeal. And Batum has long strides, but Culver is more bouncy/better at change of direction. Batum uses his length to defend and Culver uses more defensive skill. I also think Culver is more athletic while Batum had his length. But in terms of role in the NBA I think that’s a good comparison. Just not in terms of who he is as a player. Batum had a higher ceiling just because of his size and was also probably a better handler. As time went by he got injured a lot and it changed him entirely. At one point he could have grown into an even much better player than he is now. Before Giannis Antetokounmpo came into the league a lot of people were comparing him to Batum. So that’s a big difference between Antetokounmpo and Culver.

Culver would have to improve with his dribble if he wanted to be a point forward type like a Giannis or Simmons. After seeing how much he improved as a playmaker after one year, there is hope that he could become a point forward as a 4.

His height at the combine will be very important for his projection. The higher up he gets in height, the more dangerous he becomes with his offensive skills.

[Duke4life831]

Is his defense as good as his advanced numbers suggest?

I don't think he's a game changer defensively. He's not going to be the next Kawhi or anything like that. But just like the rest of his game, I think he is extremely solid defensively. I don't think you will ever have to worry about him on that end.

[EvanZ]

Is his defense as good as his advanced numbers suggest?

I don't think he's a game changer defensively. He's not going to be the next Kawhi or anything like that. But just like the rest of his game, I think he is extremely solid defensively. I don't think you will ever have to worry about him on that end.

He could be similar to Klay on defense or Luol Deng. Probably never the level of an Iggy (crazy high IQ) or Kawhi (crazy wingspan/hands).

[Duke4life831]

Is his defense as good as his advanced numbers suggest?

I don't think he's a game changer defensively. He's not going to be the next Kawhi or anything like that. But just like the rest of his game, I think he is extremely solid defensively. I don't think you will ever have to worry about him on that end.

He could be similar to Klay on defense or Luol Deng. Probably never the level of an Iggy (crazy high IQ) or Kawhi (crazy wingspan/hands).

I like the Klay comparison a lot actually when it comes to their defense. I think Luol had more physical tools to rely on. But ya I think you're dead on with the Klay thing.

Klay isn't a game changer on that end, just really solid. Klay with better team defense is a really good defender. Basically a prime Danny Green.