Cade Cunningham

[eminence]

Take a guy who averaged more turnovers than assists in college and ask him to run an NBA offense...has that ever been attempted before? It'll be interesting to see what happens

It's really not that uncommon if you're looking at players' freshman seasons rather than simply the last year before they made the NBA. Steph Curry had as many assists as turnovers. Allen Iverson had one more assist than turnover. Kevin Durant, Paul Pierce, Kawhi, Brandon Roy, and Paul George are others who came up in a not-at-all exhaustive search. I'm sure you could find plenty of NBA point guards who played multiple years in college and had more turnovers than assists as freshmen.

Some guy named Nash wasn't far over a 1.0 ratio his freshman season. Turned out to be an alright passer.

[nolang1]

Take a guy who averaged more turnovers than assists in college and ask him to run an NBA offense...has that ever been attempted before? It'll be interesting to see what happens

It's really not that uncommon if you're looking at players' freshman seasons rather than simply the last year before they made the NBA. Steph Curry had as many assists as turnovers. Allen Iverson had one more assist than turnover. Kevin Durant, Paul Pierce, Kawhi, Brandon Roy, and Paul George are others who came up in a not-at-all exhaustive search. I'm sure you could find plenty of NBA point guards who played multiple years in college and had more turnovers than assists as freshmen.

Sure, I buy that if he develops well from here he could be a part-time point forward in a few years. Some people though are acting like he's going to be a competent floor general from day 1, which I think would be virtually unprecedented if he pulls it off.

I'm not really sure what the point is here; are you saying he's supposed to be as good of a passer as some 6 foot nothing player who's a liability on defense and not a threat to score? It seems pretty clear that a pure point guard or floor general or whatever you want to call it is somewhat dated as a concept and has been for a while (speaking of, the future 3x NBA assist champ and all-time triple double leader also averaged more TOs than assists his freshman year of college and inspired plenty of these same sort of tired debates about whether he's a true floor general point guard who makes his teammates better and blah blah blah). And all this is just looking at historical stats to say yeah, it's really not the unprecedented occurrence you seem to think it is without even having to get into Cunningham's team context with the lack of shooters besides him.

[Charm]

Take a guy who averaged more turnovers than assists in college and ask him to run an NBA offense...has that ever been attempted before? It'll be interesting to see what happens

It's really not that uncommon if you're looking at players' freshman seasons rather than simply the last year before they made the NBA. Steph Curry had as many assists as turnovers. Allen Iverson had one more assist than turnover. Kevin Durant, Paul Pierce, Kawhi, Brandon Roy, and Paul George are others who came up in a not-at-all exhaustive search. I'm sure you could find plenty of NBA point guards who played multiple years in college and had more turnovers than assists as freshmen.

Some guy named Nash wasn't far over a 1.0 ratio his freshman season. Turned out to be an alright passer.

Sure, but Nash didn't become an All-Star PG overnight. It took nearly a decade of remarkable year-after-year development. Maybe Cade has a puncher's chance to replicate that, but we're projecting waaaaay into the future there.

[Marcus]

It's really not that uncommon if you're looking at players' freshman seasons rather than simply the last year before they made the NBA. Steph Curry had as many assists as turnovers. Allen Iverson had one more assist than turnover. Kevin Durant, Paul Pierce, Kawhi, Brandon Roy, and Paul George are others who came up in a not-at-all exhaustive search. I'm sure you could find plenty of NBA point guards who played multiple years in college and had more turnovers than assists as freshmen.

Some guy named Nash wasn't far over a 1.0 ratio his freshman season. Turned out to be an alright passer.

Sure, but Nash didn't become an All-Star PG overnight. It took nearly a decade of remarkable year-after-year development. Maybe Cade has a puncher's chance to replicate that, but we're projecting waaaaay into the future there.

Are you apart of the "must be a finished product by day 1" crowd or just low on Cade in the sense that you don't buy into him being able to develop into a primary ballhandler?

[eminence]

It's really not that uncommon if you're looking at players' freshman seasons rather than simply the last year before they made the NBA. Steph Curry had as many assists as turnovers. Allen Iverson had one more assist than turnover. Kevin Durant, Paul Pierce, Kawhi, Brandon Roy, and Paul George are others who came up in a not-at-all exhaustive search. I'm sure you could find plenty of NBA point guards who played multiple years in college and had more turnovers than assists as freshmen.

Some guy named Nash wasn't far over a 1.0 ratio his freshman season. Turned out to be an alright passer.

Sure, but Nash didn't become an All-Star PG overnight. It took nearly a decade of remarkable year-after-year development. Maybe Cade has a puncher's chance to replicate that, but we're projecting waaaaay into the future there.

And nobody expects Cade to be anywhere close to that, especially overnight (or ever, let's be honest, Nash is a GOAT candidate passer). That doesn't mean it's not a good option for a young team to turn their offense over to him to try to develop him into that clear offensive lead guy.

[Charm]

It's really not that uncommon if you're looking at players' freshman seasons rather than simply the last year before they made the NBA. Steph Curry had as many assists as turnovers. Allen Iverson had one more assist than turnover. Kevin Durant, Paul Pierce, Kawhi, Brandon Roy, and Paul George are others who came up in a not-at-all exhaustive search. I'm sure you could find plenty of NBA point guards who played multiple years in college and had more turnovers than assists as freshmen.

Sure, I buy that if he develops well from here he could be a part-time point forward in a few years. Some people though are acting like he's going to be a competent floor general from day 1, which I think would be virtually unprecedented if he pulls it off.

I'm not really sure what the point is here; are you saying he's supposed to be as good of a passer as some 6 foot nothing player who's a liability on defense and not a threat to score? It seems pretty clear that a pure point guard or floor general or whatever you want to call it is somewhat dated as a concept and has been for a while (speaking of, the future NBA assist champ and all-time triple double leader also averaged more TOs than assists his freshman year of college and inspired plenty of these same sort of tired debates about whether he's a true floor general and blah blah blah). And all this is just looking at historical stats to say yeah, it's really not the unprecedented occurrence you seem to think it is without even having to get into his team context with the lack of shooters besides him.

The point is that he's got a lot of work to do before he can succeed as a primary ballhandler in the NBA. He's not prepared to take on that role from day one like Trae and LaMelo, let alone Luka. Maybe he'll get there, but not as a rookie, and probably not for at least a few years thereafter. A lot of things have to go right for him to succeed.

To address the Westbrook thing in particular, he was a unusually young freshman (turned 17 in November of his freshman year) who played limited minutes, so I don't think that's a very fair comparison. Even as a sophomore he was younger than Cade was as a freshman.

[nolang1]

Sure, I buy that if he develops well from here he could be a part-time point forward in a few years. Some people though are acting like he's going to be a competent floor general from day 1, which I think would be virtually unprecedented if he pulls it off.

I'm not really sure what the point is here; are you saying he's supposed to be as good of a passer as some 6 foot nothing player who's a liability on defense and not a threat to score? It seems pretty clear that a pure point guard or floor general or whatever you want to call it is somewhat dated as a concept and has been for a while (speaking of, the future NBA assist champ and all-time triple double leader also averaged more TOs than assists his freshman year of college and inspired plenty of these same sort of tired debates about whether he's a true floor general and blah blah blah). And all this is just looking at historical stats to say yeah, it's really not the unprecedented occurrence you seem to think it is without even having to get into his team context with the lack of shooters besides him.

The point is that he's got a lot of work to do before he can succeed as a primary ballhandler in the NBA. He's not prepared to take on that role from day one like Trae and LaMelo, let alone Luka. Maybe he'll get there, but not as a rookie, and probably not for at least a few years thereafter. A lot of things have to go right for him to succeed.

To address the Westbrook thing in particular, he was a unusually young freshman (turned 17 in November of his freshman year) who played limited minutes, so I don't think that's a very fair comparison. Even as a sophomore he was younger than Cade was as a freshman.

Not sure what kind of strawman you're trying to put up where Cade is supposed to be an all-star in year one when none of the other players you mentioned were even close to that either. Trae was a very bad player his rookie year whose team was better with him off the court. Not interested in someone who's trying to move the goalposts and point to assist numbers to say someone was 'successful' as a primary ballhandler while ignoring that they were the worst defender in the league by a long shot. If you want to say you don't think Cade will average 7 assists per game as a rookie, that at least better communicates the argument you're trying to make even if it's completely arbitrary and not very meaningful as to whether someone is a good basketball player.

[Charm]

Some guy named Nash wasn't far over a 1.0 ratio his freshman season. Turned out to be an alright passer.

Sure, but Nash didn't become an All-Star PG overnight. It took nearly a decade of remarkable year-after-year development. Maybe Cade has a puncher's chance to replicate that, but we're projecting waaaaay into the future there.

Are you apart of the "must be a finished product by day 1" crowd or just low on Cade in the sense that you don't buy into him being able to develop into a primary ballhandler?

I'm a numbers guy and an armchair scout. Quantitatively, Cade's profile is pretty weak for a #1 pick.

His Assist:TO numbers aren't terrible, but they don't indicate that he's on track to be a point forward like some people seem to think. Qualitatively, he seems to hesitate before a lot of his passes, and that hesitation costs him because he's not particularly quick to begin with. And the game only gets faster at the next level.

His other issue is that he doesn't project to be a very good finisher at the rim. Quantitatively, offensive rebound rate is a good proxy for functional athleticism around the rim, and he's terrible there. It's hard to find stats on dunks, but he'd surely be at the bottom of the barrel there as well. The one thing he does well offensively is shoot, and he'll do a lot of that in the NBA. Towards the end of the college season he abandoned his low-percentage dribble drive attempts in favor of more 3's, and that trend will probably continue for him. He'll no doubt be a valuable floor spacer, but his lack of an effective dribble drive game limits his upside as a #1 or #2 option type. Think taller Lonzo Ball, with somewhat worse passing?

[eminence]

Anywho, haven't commented much on prospects this season (weird year). But Cunningham is my pretty easy #1 (Mobley an easy #2, not so sure after that, but I like Green/Barnes among other lotto guys). Cade's got a dang high floor as a big shooter who's competent if not perfect in other offensive areas. How far off Bojan Bogdanovic is he today? For upside he'll need to continue to learn to use his size/strength and improve his passing vision if he wants to become a top tier primary option. Not sure I could peg the likelihood, but I think it's certainly possible and if he does he has MVP top end potential for me.

[clyde21]

Sure, but Nash didn't become an All-Star PG overnight. It took nearly a decade of remarkable year-after-year development. Maybe Cade has a puncher's chance to replicate that, but we're projecting waaaaay into the future there.

Are you apart of the "must be a finished product by day 1" crowd or just low on Cade in the sense that you don't buy into him being able to develop into a primary ballhandler?

I'm a numbers guy and an armchair scout. Quantitatively, Cade's profile is pretty weak for a #1 pick.

His Assist:TO numbers aren't terrible, but they don't indicate that he's on track to be a point forward like some people seem to think. Qualitatively, he seems to hesitate before a lot of his passes, and that hesitation costs him because he's not particularly quick to begin with. And the game only gets faster at the next level.

His other issue is that he doesn't project to be a very good finisher at the rim. Quantitatively, offensive rebound rate is a good proxy for functional athleticism around the rim, and he's terrible there. It's hard to find stats on dunks, but he'd surely be at the bottom of the barrel there as well. The one thing he does well offensively is shoot, and he'll do a lot of that in the NBA. Towards the end of the college season he abandoned his low-percentage dribble drive attempts in favor of more 3's, and that trend will probably continue for him. He'll no doubt be a valuable floor spacer, but his lack of an effective dribble drive game limits his upside as a #1 or #2 option type. Think taller Lonzo Ball, with somewhat worse passing?

really? tell us more about Steph's and Kyrie's Oreb rates.

[eminence]

Finishing is certainly one of his larger offensive weak points.

[Marcus]

Finishing is certainly one of his larger offensive weak points.

I do like the off-set option of duck in quick post he can present if given the proper mismatch.

[Charm]

Are you apart of the "must be a finished product by day 1" crowd or just low on Cade in the sense that you don't buy into him being able to develop into a primary ballhandler?

I'm a numbers guy and an armchair scout. Quantitatively, Cade's profile is pretty weak for a #1 pick.

His Assist:TO numbers aren't terrible, but they don't indicate that he's on track to be a point forward like some people seem to think. Qualitatively, he seems to hesitate before a lot of his passes, and that hesitation costs him because he's not particularly quick to begin with. And the game only gets faster at the next level.

His other issue is that he doesn't project to be a very good finisher at the rim. Quantitatively, offensive rebound rate is a good proxy for functional athleticism around the rim, and he's terrible there. It's hard to find stats on dunks, but he'd surely be at the bottom of the barrel there as well. The one thing he does well offensively is shoot, and he'll do a lot of that in the NBA. Towards the end of the college season he abandoned his low-percentage dribble drive attempts in favor of more 3's, and that trend will probably continue for him. He'll no doubt be a valuable floor spacer, but his lack of an effective dribble drive game limits his upside as a #1 or #2 option type. Think taller Lonzo Ball, with somewhat worse passing?

really? tell us more about Steph's and Kyrie's Oreb rates.

Scoring in the paint looks very different as you move from guards to forwards to bigs. In the extreme case, a guard can purely rely on quickness and ballhandling skill to get to the cup. Bigs rely more on strength and athleticism to create high-percentage opportunities. Wings typically use some combination of both, and if you compare Cade to other wing prospects, his physical deficiencies really stand out (i.e. very few dunks and offensive rebounds for a player his size). He also, of course, doesn't have the quickness or ball-on-a-string handle of a guy like Curry or Kyrie. The result is that his dribble drive attempts disproportionately end in turnovers or low-percentage midrange shots.

To his credit, he actively adjusted his game, taking more 3's and being much more selective about when he tried to attack off the dribble as the season went on. But the fact that those weaknesses stood out so much against college competition suggests that he'll probably continue to struggle to get to the rim in the NBA.

[clyde21]

I'm a numbers guy and an armchair scout. Quantitatively, Cade's profile is pretty weak for a #1 pick.

His Assist:TO numbers aren't terrible, but they don't indicate that he's on track to be a point forward like some people seem to think. Qualitatively, he seems to hesitate before a lot of his passes, and that hesitation costs him because he's not particularly quick to begin with. And the game only gets faster at the next level.

His other issue is that he doesn't project to be a very good finisher at the rim. Quantitatively, offensive rebound rate is a good proxy for functional athleticism around the rim, and he's terrible there. It's hard to find stats on dunks, but he'd surely be at the bottom of the barrel there as well. The one thing he does well offensively is shoot, and he'll do a lot of that in the NBA. Towards the end of the college season he abandoned his low-percentage dribble drive attempts in favor of more 3's, and that trend will probably continue for him. He'll no doubt be a valuable floor spacer, but his lack of an effective dribble drive game limits his upside as a #1 or #2 option type. Think taller Lonzo Ball, with somewhat worse passing?

really? tell us more about Steph's and Kyrie's Oreb rates.

Scoring in the paint looks very different as you move from guards to forwards to bigs. In the extreme case, a guard can purely rely on quickness and ballhandling skill to get to the cup. Bigs rely more on strength and athleticism to create high-percentage opportunities. Wings typically use some combination of both, and if you compare Cade to other wing prospects, his physical deficiencies really stand out (i.e. very few dunks and offensive rebounds for a player his size). He also, of course, doesn't have the quickness or ball-on-a-string handle of a guy like Curry or Kyrie. The result is that his dribble drive attempts disproportionately end in turnovers or low-percentage midrange shots.

To his credit, he actively adjusted his game, taking more 3's and being much more selective about when he tried to attack off the dribble as the season went on. But the fact that those weaknesses stood out so much against college competition suggests that he'll probably continue to struggle to get to the rim in the NBA.

i didn't say he has Ky's or Steph's quickness or handle, but you made the correlation between Oreb rate and finishing around the team...some of the best finishers in the entire league aren't exactly known for being great offensive rebounders..so I don't see the link there at all.

does he need to improve his finishing? for sure, but I am not really worried about it, he's got the size, functional athleticism/coordination, BBIQ and all the requisite skills/tools to eventually get there at some point.

you make a good point re: his playmaking, I think it has been overrated by some, not 100% sure I want him to be THE guy handling the ball like a Luka (which is a Style I don't condone anyways, I never like having the ball in 1 guys hands at all time)...but I wouldn't really draft him to put him in that capacity either...as a 6-7 guy who can be a secondary handler of even a 1A handler for you I'd take that all day...and he's absolutely lethal in transition which he will have many more opportunities of in the NBA.

[Charm]

really? tell us more about Steph's and Kyrie's Oreb rates.

Scoring in the paint looks very different as you move from guards to forwards to bigs. In the extreme case, a guard can purely rely on quickness and ballhandling skill to get to the cup. Bigs rely more on strength and athleticism to create high-percentage opportunities. Wings typically use some combination of both, and if you compare Cade to other wing prospects, his physical deficiencies really stand out (i.e. very few dunks and offensive rebounds for a player his size). He also, of course, doesn't have the quickness or ball-on-a-string handle of a guy like Curry or Kyrie. The result is that his dribble drive attempts disproportionately end in turnovers or low-percentage midrange shots.

To his credit, he actively adjusted his game, taking more 3's and being much more selective about when he tried to attack off the dribble as the season went on. But the fact that those weaknesses stood out so much against college competition suggests that he'll probably continue to struggle to get to the rim in the NBA.

i didn't say he has Ky's or Steph's quickness or handle, but you made the correlation between Oreb rate and finishing around the team...some of the best finishers in the entire league aren't exactly known for being great offensive rebounders..so I don't see the link there at all.

does he need to improve his finishing? for sure, but I am not really worried about it, he's got the size, functional athleticism/coordination, BBIQ and all the requisite skills/tools to eventually get there at some point.

you make a good point re: his playmaking, I think it has been overrated by some, not 100% sure I want him to be THE guy handling the ball like a Luka (which is a Style I don't condone anyways, I never like having the ball in 1 guys hands at all time)...but I wouldn't really draft him to put him in that capacity either...as a 6-7 guy who can be a secondary handler of even a 1A handler for you I'd take that all day...and he's absolutely lethal in transition which he will have many more opportunities of in the NBA.

All I can say with certainty is that (holding other stats constant, i.e. in a simple regression analysis) NCAA offensive rebound rate is significantly positively correlated with NBA offensive impact. Qualitatively, I interpret this as a proxy for functional athleticism in the paint. Cade's offensive rebound rate is fantastically low...the lowest of any 6'6"+ prospect this year, I believe. At least to my eye, the film backs this up...he routinely gets out-muscled down low, and he's not quick off the floor at all.

Big picture, I see 3-point shooting as a clear strength and possibly an elite skill for him. I appreciate his confidence as a shooter too; he has the guts to go 1-on-1 and take and make shots in big moments, which not all great shooters (looking at you Kispert) will do. But even in the modern NBA you need more than a jumpshot, and things got ugly for Cade in a hurry when his jumpshot wasn't falling. I think he's a good prospect, but not a high-lottery type prospect.

[yoyoboy]

Some guy named Nash wasn't far over a 1.0 ratio his freshman season. Turned out to be an alright passer.

Sure, but Nash didn't become an All-Star PG overnight. It took nearly a decade of remarkable year-after-year development. Maybe Cade has a puncher's chance to replicate that, but we're projecting waaaaay into the future there.

And nobody expects Cade to be anywhere close to that, especially overnight (or ever, let's be honest, Nash is a GOAT candidate passer). That doesn't mean it's not a good option for a young team to turn their offense over to him to try to develop him into that clear offensive lead guy.

I think my issue is that even by the eye test, Cade doesn’t appear to be a lead playmaker - both because he just doesn’t have the penetration ability and because I really don’t think he’s that good of a passer if you’re comparing him to other primary ball handlers.

And statistically, I’m not sure anyone with a sub-1.0 AST/TO ratio in college has ever turned out to be a quality lead playmaker in the NBA. Even with guys like Nash (who by the way passed the eye test as a playmaker in ways Cade didn’t), you’re talking about a 1.08 ratio versus a 0.86 ratio, which is a significant difference. I understand the argument that if Nash could become possibly the GOAT passer despite an uninspiring AST/TO ratio, then it’s not out of the realm of possibility that Cade can be an at least good primary playmaker in the NBA. But when we’re coming up with projections, all we can really do is go off what we think are the most likely outcomes, and historically, if you go by the data, Cade would be a complete outlier if he turns out to be a guy who can run your offense. And if I’m a GM I’d rather draft based on the most likely scenario rather than the absolute best possible case scenario if everything breaks right, the latter of which is a trap I think too many front offices fall into.

I do still like Cade as a prospect, but I think he’s my #2 behind Mobley in a draft I’m already not as high on as others. If I had more confidence in myself and didn’t let the consensus opinion sway my thoughts, I’d probably rank him a little lower. To me, he optimistically projects as a secondary playmaker wing who will operate similarly to Middleton or Tatum in terms of style/role. Because I think he can shoot the hell out of the ball, he’s got decent team defender potential, and he’s definitely a great playmaker relative to other wings in the league. But I’m very concerned with his penetration ability and finishing, and I don’t think it’s a guarantee he’ll be an actual difference maker on defense. If a team tries to develop him as an oversized PG I think they’ll regret it.

[eminence]

Sure, but Nash didn't become an All-Star PG overnight. It took nearly a decade of remarkable year-after-year development. Maybe Cade has a puncher's chance to replicate that, but we're projecting waaaaay into the future there.

And nobody expects Cade to be anywhere close to that, especially overnight (or ever, let's be honest, Nash is a GOAT candidate passer). That doesn't mean it's not a good option for a young team to turn their offense over to him to try to develop him into that clear offensive lead guy.

I think my issue is that even by the eye test, Cade doesn’t appear to be a lead playmaker - both because he just doesn’t have the penetration ability and because I really don’t think he’s that good of a passer if you’re comparing him to other primary ball handlers.

And statistically, I’m not sure anyone with a sub-1.0 AST/TO ratio in college has ever turned out to be a quality lead playmaker in the NBA. Even with guys like Nash (who by the way passed the eye test as a playmaker in ways Cade didn’t), you’re talking about a 1.08 ratio versus a 0.86 ratio, which is a significant difference. I understand the argument that if Nash could become possibly the GOAT passer despite an uninspiring AST/TO ratio, then it’s not out of the realm of possibility that Cade can be an at least good primary playmaker in the NBA. But when we’re coming up with projections, all we can really do is go off what we think are the most likely outcomes, and historically, if you go by the data, Cade would be a complete outlier if he turns out to be a guy who can run your offense. And if I’m a GM I’d rather draft based on the most likely scenario rather than the absolute best possible case scenario if everything breaks right, the latter of which is a trap I think too many front offices fall into.

I do still like Cade as a prospect, but I think he’s my #2 behind Mobley in a draft I’m already not as high on as others. If I had more confidence in myself and didn’t let the consensus opinion sway my thoughts, I’d probably rank him a little lower. To me, he optimistically projects as a secondary playmaker wing who will operate similarly to Middleton or Tatum in terms of style/role. Because I think he can shoot the hell out of the ball, he’s got decent team defender potential, and he’s definitely a great playmaker relative to other wings in the league. But I’m very concerned with his penetration ability and finishing, and I don’t think it’s a guarantee he’ll be an actual difference maker on defense. If a team tries to develop him as an oversized PG I think they’ll regret it.

Looking at post-80's NCAA guys (when TOVs were tracked regularly), guys with 1.0 ast/tov or lower in their first high minute seasons and are in the top 100 for career NBA APG, 51 guys eligible:

Dennis Johnson - 0.75
Joe Dumars - 0.85
Sleepy Floyd - 0.93
Kevin Johnson - 0.93
Jamal Murray - 0.94
Mark Price - 0.95
Jeff Teague - 0.97
Isaiah Thomas - 0.99
Stephen Curry - 1.00

Michael Jordan was above 1.0 in his Fr season, but dropped below in his So/Jr seasons, bottoming out at 0.74 in his So season, unsure if this happened to anyone else, but MJ was a particularly notable case

DJ*, Dumars, Floyd, Murray*, MJ had college career sub 1.0 Ast/Tov ratios. *=1 season college careers

[Charm]

And nobody expects Cade to be anywhere close to that, especially overnight (or ever, let's be honest, Nash is a GOAT candidate passer). That doesn't mean it's not a good option for a young team to turn their offense over to him to try to develop him into that clear offensive lead guy.

I think my issue is that even by the eye test, Cade doesn’t appear to be a lead playmaker - both because he just doesn’t have the penetration ability and because I really don’t think he’s that good of a passer if you’re comparing him to other primary ball handlers.

And statistically, I’m not sure anyone with a sub-1.0 AST/TO ratio in college has ever turned out to be a quality lead playmaker in the NBA. Even with guys like Nash (who by the way passed the eye test as a playmaker in ways Cade didn’t), you’re talking about a 1.08 ratio versus a 0.86 ratio, which is a significant difference. I understand the argument that if Nash could become possibly the GOAT passer despite an uninspiring AST/TO ratio, then it’s not out of the realm of possibility that Cade can be an at least good primary playmaker in the NBA. But when we’re coming up with projections, all we can really do is go off what we think are the most likely outcomes, and historically, if you go by the data, Cade would be a complete outlier if he turns out to be a guy who can run your offense. And if I’m a GM I’d rather draft based on the most likely scenario rather than the absolute best possible case scenario if everything breaks right, the latter of which is a trap I think too many front offices fall into.

I do still like Cade as a prospect, but I think he’s my #2 behind Mobley in a draft I’m already not as high on as others. If I had more confidence in myself and didn’t let the consensus opinion sway my thoughts, I’d probably rank him a little lower. To me, he optimistically projects as a secondary playmaker wing who will operate similarly to Middleton or Tatum in terms of style/role. Because I think he can shoot the hell out of the ball, he’s got decent team defender potential, and he’s definitely a great playmaker relative to other wings in the league. But I’m very concerned with his penetration ability and finishing, and I don’t think it’s a guarantee he’ll be an actual difference maker on defense. If a team tries to develop him as an oversized PG I think they’ll regret it.

Looking at post-80's NCAA guys (when TOVs were tracked regularly), guys with 1.0 ast/tov or lower in their first high minute seasons and are in the top 100 for career NBA APG, 51 guys eligible:

Dennis Johnson - 0.75
Joe Dumars - 0.85
Sleepy Floyd - 0.93
Kevin Johnson - 0.93
Jamal Murray - 0.94
Mark Price - 0.95
Jeff Teague - 0.97
Isaiah Thomas - 0.99
Stephen Curry - 1.00

Michael Jordan was above 1.0 in his Fr season, but dropped below in his So/Jr seasons, bottoming out at 0.74 in his So season, unsure if this happened to anyone else, but MJ was a particularly notable case

DJ*, Dumars, Floyd, Murray*, MJ had college career sub 1.0 Ast/Tov ratios. *=1 season college careers

yoyoboy put it better than I did. A good analogy would be 3-point shooting...some players were terrible 3-point shooters as college freshmen but went on to become good or even great shooters in the NBA. There are probably even examples of players who were bad 3-point shooters (or non-shooters) *and* bad foul shooters, and they still somehow developed respectable 3-point shots later in their careers. This doesn't mean that college shooting numbers and assist:TO numbers are worthless for predicting NBA outcomes. It just means that there's significant uncertainty in predicting NBA outcomes, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here. If you want the odds to be in your favor, of course, you pick players with more proven skills and higher likelihood to develop new skills (i.e. younger players).

[nolang1]

I think my issue is that even by the eye test, Cade doesn’t appear to be a lead playmaker - both because he just doesn’t have the penetration ability and because I really don’t think he’s that good of a passer if you’re comparing him to other primary ball handlers.

And statistically, I’m not sure anyone with a sub-1.0 AST/TO ratio in college has ever turned out to be a quality lead playmaker in the NBA. Even with guys like Nash (who by the way passed the eye test as a playmaker in ways Cade didn’t), you’re talking about a 1.08 ratio versus a 0.86 ratio, which is a significant difference. I understand the argument that if Nash could become possibly the GOAT passer despite an uninspiring AST/TO ratio, then it’s not out of the realm of possibility that Cade can be an at least good primary playmaker in the NBA. But when we’re coming up with projections, all we can really do is go off what we think are the most likely outcomes, and historically, if you go by the data, Cade would be a complete outlier if he turns out to be a guy who can run your offense. And if I’m a GM I’d rather draft based on the most likely scenario rather than the absolute best possible case scenario if everything breaks right, the latter of which is a trap I think too many front offices fall into.

I do still like Cade as a prospect, but I think he’s my #2 behind Mobley in a draft I’m already not as high on as others. If I had more confidence in myself and didn’t let the consensus opinion sway my thoughts, I’d probably rank him a little lower. To me, he optimistically projects as a secondary playmaker wing who will operate similarly to Middleton or Tatum in terms of style/role. Because I think he can shoot the hell out of the ball, he’s got decent team defender potential, and he’s definitely a great playmaker relative to other wings in the league. But I’m very concerned with his penetration ability and finishing, and I don’t think it’s a guarantee he’ll be an actual difference maker on defense. If a team tries to develop him as an oversized PG I think they’ll regret it.

Looking at post-80's NCAA guys (when TOVs were tracked regularly), guys with 1.0 ast/tov or lower in their first high minute seasons and are in the top 100 for career NBA APG, 51 guys eligible:

Dennis Johnson - 0.75
Joe Dumars - 0.85
Sleepy Floyd - 0.93
Kevin Johnson - 0.93
Jamal Murray - 0.94
Mark Price - 0.95
Jeff Teague - 0.97
Isaiah Thomas - 0.99
Stephen Curry - 1.00

Michael Jordan was above 1.0 in his Fr season, but dropped below in his So/Jr seasons, bottoming out at 0.74 in his So season, unsure if this happened to anyone else, but MJ was a particularly notable case

DJ*, Dumars, Floyd, Murray*, MJ had college career sub 1.0 Ast/Tov ratios. *=1 season college careers

yoyoboy put it better than I did. A good analogy would be 3-point shooting...some players were terrible 3-point shooters as college freshmen but went on to become good or even great shooters in the NBA. There are probably even examples of players who were bad 3-point shooters (or non-shooters) *and* bad foul shooters, and they still somehow developed respectable 3-point shots later in their careers. This doesn't mean that college shooting numbers and assist:TO numbers are worthless for predicting NBA outcomes. It just means that there's significant uncertainty in predicting NBA outcomes, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here. If you want the odds to be in your favor, of course, you pick players with more proven skills and higher likelihood to develop new skills (i.e. younger players).

It's too bad Cade Cunningham just started playing basketball last November; maybe if he had played against nationally-ranked high school competition or in the EYBL or maybe even a FIBA U19 World Cup we would know more about whether he's a good passer. Of course, even if hypothetically speaking he had played basketball before this year and was a good passer, there's always the chance he forgot (for reasons that have nothing to do with playing with zero floor-spacing teammates who shot a poor percentage on the opportunities he created for them, obviously).

[Charm]

Looking at post-80's NCAA guys (when TOVs were tracked regularly), guys with 1.0 ast/tov or lower in their first high minute seasons and are in the top 100 for career NBA APG, 51 guys eligible:

Dennis Johnson - 0.75
Joe Dumars - 0.85
Sleepy Floyd - 0.93
Kevin Johnson - 0.93
Jamal Murray - 0.94
Mark Price - 0.95
Jeff Teague - 0.97
Isaiah Thomas - 0.99
Stephen Curry - 1.00

Michael Jordan was above 1.0 in his Fr season, but dropped below in his So/Jr seasons, bottoming out at 0.74 in his So season, unsure if this happened to anyone else, but MJ was a particularly notable case

DJ*, Dumars, Floyd, Murray*, MJ had college career sub 1.0 Ast/Tov ratios. *=1 season college careers

yoyoboy put it better than I did. A good analogy would be 3-point shooting...some players were terrible 3-point shooters as college freshmen but went on to become good or even great shooters in the NBA. There are probably even examples of players who were bad 3-point shooters (or non-shooters) *and* bad foul shooters, and they still somehow developed respectable 3-point shots later in their careers. This doesn't mean that college shooting numbers and assist:TO numbers are worthless for predicting NBA outcomes. It just means that there's significant uncertainty in predicting NBA outcomes, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here. If you want the odds to be in your favor, of course, you pick players with more proven skills and higher likelihood to develop new skills (i.e. younger players).

It's too bad Cade Cunningham just started playing basketball last November; maybe if he had played against nationally-ranked high school competition or in the EYBL or maybe even a FIBA U19 World Cup we would know more about whether he's a good passer. Of course, even if hypothetically speaking he had played basketball before this year and was a good passer, there's always the chance he forgot (for reasons that have nothing to do with playing with zero floor-spacing teammates who shot a poor percentage on the opportunities he created for them, obviously).

In addition to being more recent, the level of competition and the sample size (of non-blowout games) are both much more significant for Cade's 2020-21 season. There's a reason people generally focus on a prospect's most recent season, barring injury. There's a reason no one talks about Brandon Boston anymore.

The stuff about Cade's teammates is totally overblown too. They had no problem scoring when Cade was on the bench, or even in entire games without Cade. They shot a higher percentage overall than the NCAA average. And even if his teammates *were* terrible, it wouldn't be a great excuse. Take a look at fellow freshman Nijel Pack, an unheralded prospect marooned on a KState team utterly devoid of offensive talent. Still he managed a very respectable 3.8 assists and 2.0 turnovers per game. If Cade was as good a passer as some people think he is, he would've done similarly.