Cade Cunningham

[NYPiston]

Serious about knocking up the high school chick, or? When you take these guys this high you have to look at everything. To me getting a high schooler pregnant is not a good look.

How is a knocking up a high school girl a strike against his character or "**** up". I have news for you, high school kids have sex (even kids with good character) so pregnancy is always a possibility. It's just a weird thing to use as a strike against a kid.

Just some of the things you're saying about his character are so far out there and screams of a personal vendetta against him. Especially odd because the intel from everybody in the know is the exact opposite.

[Ruzious]

Guys, don't make me close this thread. Thanks.

[Marcus]

The other thing I found out about him that’s kinda **** up is that he knocked up a high school chick. Sounds like he’s a good dad, but do you see a Grant Hill doing something like that?

not new info though. His daughter ties into his turnaround prospect wise. As in that's when he buckled down and took this possible career path seriously and locked in on what he needs to do to succeed for himself and his child. I've wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt with this Cade thing because end of the day you are rightfully entitled to your opinion of the kid and how you view him as a prospect. Some of this is a little reachy though. Do all these things you've mentioned truly tie into your assessment of him as a prospect or is it more of you don't like the hype he's receiving?

[Marcus]

Piggybacking on Ruz here, lets keep it basketball going forward and leave the rest out of it.

[Big J]

Yea, I don’t think he’s a bad guy. I just question him as a franchise cornerstone. I’ll give him the benefit of being young when it happened.

[clyde21]

The other thing I found out about him that’s kinda **** up is that he knocked up a high school chick. Sounds like he’s a good dad, but do you see a Grant Hill doing something like that?

"Sounds like a good dad" that's the important part. Everything else is just noise.

Did you attack Tatum for having a kid young it too? Naaah, of course not.

You have a very weird conscious bias towards the kid. Going so far as to invent reasons to not like him (fake social media claims). Very strange. Why are you grabbing at straws to drive this narrative?

he admitted to having a 'gut feeling' about cade not being that good...so it's all working backwards from there coming up with stuff that might justify it.

like i said earlier, gut feelings are a thing, plenty of dudes on this board have gut feelings on prospects all the time...but they don't make **** up along the way to justify it.

[Slim Charlez]

Wtf has this turned into?? Dude makes it seem like a Karl Malone situation or something. Some weirdo vendetta against the kid.

[bkseven]

Yea, I don’t think he’s a bad guy. I just question him as a franchise cornerstone. I’ll give him the benefit of being young when it happened.

Ah. Young daddies can’t be franchise cornerstones. Got it.

[Big J]

Well it’s possible he could become more mature being a dad. At this point I’m gonna respect the mods wishes and move on.

[Yuri Vaultin]

At this point I’m gonna respect the mods wishes and move on.

Lol

You're going to conveniently move from posting any evidence supporting your BS claims about Cade’s bad social media? That's convenient.

Guess I'll take the high road too.

Any one have any real insight in to Cade? From what I've read his coaches, team mates, the orphans he saved fron that massive fire and pretty much anyone else laud him for his intangibles - selflessness, leadership and fantastic work ethic.

[buzzkilloton]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/31848982/nba-draft-2021-comparing-cade-cunningham-moves-nba-top-players

The moose posted this recent Schmitz article in the Pistons forum Cade thread. He goes in depth breaking down Cades moves and comparing them to moves of NBA players. Its a good read.

Schmitz ranks the top 1 picks of the past decade in this article. He puts Cade behind AD and Zion ofc and said Kyrie is likely ahead of him but he knocks Kyrie for missing most of his college season.

[The Moose]

Read on Twitter

[Charm]

Read on Twitter

So the theory here is like...Cade often passed the ball to bad 3-point shooters, who the defense was intentionally playing off of, and they missed. But if we give Cade credit for "creating" those wide-open 3's (a very generous interpretation of what happened), then he gets a whole 1 extra assist per game. So if, hypothetically, all of Cade's teammates were good shooters, but the defense still defended (some of) them as if they were bad shooters, then Cade might have baaaarely eked out a positive assist:TO ratio.

I appreciate the attempt they're making to quantify this effect, but the methodology just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Creating an open 3 for your best 3-point shooting teammate is much more difficult, and much more valuable, than creating an open 3 for your worst 3-point shooting teammate. But their methodology treats these two outcomes equally.

Anyway, I guess we'll find out soon enough how good Cade's passing really is in the NBA. Maybe I'll be eating crow, or maybe a whole lot of other people will be eating crow.

[Marcus]

Just so it's clear on both sides. What's the determining factor for failure or success when it comes to Cade? because both could be something vague enough to where this debate continues to go in the same circle it's been going in.

So for the detractors: what measure of success does Cade need to have in order for you to concede defeat? How much time does he get to prove you right or wrong?

For the supporters: what measure of failure does Cade need to have in order for you to concede defeat? How much time does he get to prove you right or wrong?

[The Moose]

Read on Twitter

So the theory here is like...Cade often passed the ball to bad 3-point shooters, who the defense was intentionally playing off of, and they missed. But if we give Cade credit for "creating" those wide-open 3's (a very generous interpretation of what happened), then he gets a whole 1 extra assist per game. So if, hypothetically, all of Cade's teammates were good shooters, but the defense still defended (some of) them as if they were bad shooters, then Cade might have baaaarely eked out a positive assist:TO ratio.

I appreciate the attempt they're making to quantify this effect, but the methodology just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Creating an open 3 for your best 3-point shooting teammate is much more difficult, and much more valuable, than creating an open 3 for your worst 3-point shooting teammate. But their methodology treats these two outcomes equally.

Anyway, I guess we'll find out soon enough how good Cade's passing really is in the NBA. Maybe I'll be eating crow, or maybe a whole lot of other people will be eating crow.

It’s more of a response to the notion that Cade’s team mates didn’t miss an unusual amount of make able shots from his passes. Plenty of posts have argued against the videos of Cade’s potential assists and basically have asserted that you could make a similar video of any playmaking prospect if you took the time.

It’s not to say that Cade is some passing savant like Luka, I dont think will continue to be a point guard as he transitions to the NBA, but it shows the stats back up most people’s eye tests; that his assist totals and his negative ast/to ratio aren’t a proper indication of his passing ability.




Visualised on a chart, it’s fairly obvious Cade has the highest variance in his numbers

here is the explanation for how the stat is calculated for anyone interested

[Charm]

Just so it's clear on both sides. What's the determining factor for failure or success when it comes to Cade? because both could be something vague enough to where this debate continues to go in the same circle it's been going in.

So for the detractors: what measure of success does Cade need to have in order for you to concede defeat? How much time does he get to prove you right or wrong?

For the supporters: what measure of failure does Cade need to have in order for you to concede defeat? How much time does he get to prove you right or wrong?

As a detractor, I'd be impressed if...

A. Cade ends up being a reasonably high volume inside-the-arc scorer on reasonable efficiency. Barrett for instance attempts around 10 2-pointers per game, and makes them at 46%. Cade needs to do better than that. I'll allow some wiggle room if his percentage is poor (mid-40's on 2's) but he's getting to the line a lot.

B. Cade actually lives up to the "point guard" label by averaging 5+ assists per game. If he misses slightly but has a good assist:TO ratio, e.g. 4.5 assists and 2.5 turnovers per game, I'd also accept that as a W.

C. Cade shows some evidence of being a positive-impact defender. Could be on/off splits, stl+blk numbers, rebounds, but he has to do something at an above-average level for an NBA SF.

[Marcus]

Just so it's clear on both sides. What's the determining factor for failure or success when it comes to Cade? because both could be something vague enough to where this debate continues to go in the same circle it's been going in.

So for the detractors: what measure of success does Cade need to have in order for you to concede defeat? How much time does he get to prove you right or wrong?

For the supporters: what measure of failure does Cade need to have in order for you to concede defeat? How much time does he get to prove you right or wrong?

As a detractor, I'd be impressed if...

A. Cade ends up being a reasonably high volume inside-the-arc scorer on reasonable efficiency. Barrett for instance attempts around 10 2-pointers per game, and makes them at 46%. Cade needs to do better than that. I'll allow some wiggle room if his percentage is poor (mid-40's on 2's) but he's getting to the line a lot.

B. Cade actually lives up to the "point guard" label by averaging 5+ assists per game. If he misses slightly but has a good assist:TO ratio, e.g. 4.5 assists and 2.5 turnovers per game, I'd also accept that as a W.

C. Cade shows some evidence of being a positive-impact defender. Could be on/off splits, stl+blk numbers, rebounds, but he has to do something at an above-average level for an NBA SF.

what's the timeframe?

[CptCrunch]

Read on Twitter

So the theory here is like...Cade often passed the ball to bad 3-point shooters, who the defense was intentionally playing off of, and they missed. But if we give Cade credit for "creating" those wide-open 3's (a very generous interpretation of what happened), then he gets a whole 1 extra assist per game. So if, hypothetically, all of Cade's teammates were good shooters, but the defense still defended (some of) them as if they were bad shooters, then Cade might have baaaarely eked out a positive assist:TO ratio.

I appreciate the attempt they're making to quantify this effect, but the methodology just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Creating an open 3 for your best 3-point shooting teammate is much more difficult, and much more valuable, than creating an open 3 for your worst 3-point shooting teammate. But their methodology treats these two outcomes equally.

Anyway, I guess we'll find out soon enough how good Cade's passing really is in the NBA. Maybe I'll be eating crow, or maybe a whole lot of other people will be eating crow.

It is indeed a bad attempt at absolving a sin.

You could argue Cade's teammate sucks and missed open shots, but you could perform this exercise with every point guard/forward in the draft.

In addition, Cade's team missing their shots could be argued as Cade not placing the ball in the right place (ie low quality passing). We know for a fact that not all passes are the same in the NBA.

[The Moose]

Read on Twitter

So the theory here is like...Cade often passed the ball to bad 3-point shooters, who the defense was intentionally playing off of, and they missed. But if we give Cade credit for "creating" those wide-open 3's (a very generous interpretation of what happened), then he gets a whole 1 extra assist per game. So if, hypothetically, all of Cade's teammates were good shooters, but the defense still defended (some of) them as if they were bad shooters, then Cade might have baaaarely eked out a positive assist:TO ratio.

I appreciate the attempt they're making to quantify this effect, but the methodology just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Creating an open 3 for your best 3-point shooting teammate is much more difficult, and much more valuable, than creating an open 3 for your worst 3-point shooting teammate. But their methodology treats these two outcomes equally.

Anyway, I guess we'll find out soon enough how good Cade's passing really is in the NBA. Maybe I'll be eating crow, or maybe a whole lot of other people will be eating crow.

It is indeed a bad attempt at absolving a sin.

You could argue Cade's teammate sucks and missed open shots, but you could perform this exercise with every point guard/forward in the draft.

In addition, Cade's team missing their shots could be argued as Cade not placing the ball in the right place (ie low quality passing). We know for a fact that not all passes are the same in the NBA.

There is no attempt to do anything. It is a stat this site tracks, there is no agenda to benefit Cunningham or absolve him of any sin.

The fact that he has the biggest discrepancy by a decent margin is evidence to the exact opposite of what I have bolded in your post. You can’t perform this exercise with other prospects in this draft and produce similar outcomes. The main reason I posted that statistic is so that argument can be laid to rest because not only does the eye test suggest otherwise, the stats back it up.

[clyde21]

yea, i do think Cade passing chops are overall better than his A/TO ratio shows and have been getting underrated here, but u can do that exercise with almost any college PG, useless stat unless ur doing it across the board and doing a comp.