2022 NBA Draft Part II

[The Moose]

Anyone that can get you 7 assists per game with the ball in their hands is a point guard/lead ball handler these days. With that being the case Bennedict Mathurin needs to be thrown into that group, but he also may be a lead scorer as well. I never read anyone discuss unearthing scorers out of the draft anymore. The focus seems to revolve around 3 and D players and playmakers, but not who projects to be outright cold blooded scorers who create for themselves and close games.

There has been 98 guards/wing 1st round picks drafted since 2008 with an assist rate equal to or below Mathurin. Only 5 of them have even topped 5apg in a single season of their career , and only one, Jimmy Butler, has touched 7 apg.

Why do you think he’s a 7 apg guy? His handle is pretty weak and he has very little shift. He’s basically a straight line driver at this point. He played a little bit of pnr this season and was ok as the handler but I definitely don’t see how he would be projected as a lead ball handler

WTF at using college stats to project NBA production.

not sure if serious

Also, you didnt answer the question, why do you think he’s a 7 apg guy?

Its pretty simple, Mathurin was a low assist guy in the NCAA. Its a fairly logical assumption that it's unusual for a statistical weakness at the ncaa level to become a strength at the NBA level. Most draft prospects who aren't high assist guys in the NCAA don't suddenly become top 15 assist guys in the NBA.

[SelfishPlayer]

There has been 98 guards/wing 1st round picks drafted since 2008 with an assist rate equal to or below Mathurin. Only 5 of them have even topped 5apg in a single season of their career , and only one, Jimmy Butler, has touched 7 apg.

Why do you think he’s a 7 apg guy? His handle is pretty weak and he has very little shift. He’s basically a straight line driver at this point. He played a little bit of pnr this season and was ok as the handler but I definitely don’t see how he would be projected as a lead ball handler

WTF at using college stats to project NBA production.

not sure if serious

Also, you didnt answer the question, why do you think he’s a 7 apg guy?

Its pretty simple, Mathurin was a low assist guy in the NCAA. Its a fairly logical assumption that it's unusual for a statistical weakness at the ncaa level to become a strength at the NBA level. Most draft prospects who aren't high assist guys in the NCAA don't suddenly become top 15 assist guys in the NBA.

Darius Garland.

[CraftylikeaFox]

The prospect that I question the most is Keegan Murray. He's an older under average height PF prospect with only a year of serious production. People call him a wing. What ever happened to stretch fours? He doesn't play or move like a wing to me. He looks like your typical Tobias Harris, Obi Toppin, James Johnson, Derrick Williams, etc.

Something about his game seems really off to me. I've been watching a bunch of his highlights lately and he seems to be good at basketball and bad at basketball at the same time. He'll hit a nice three and follow that up with a soft touch fadeaway and then he'll lead a fast break and get completely out of control and turn the ball over due to his poor dribbling and follow that up with one of the worst passes you'll ever see. The only player I've ever seen play like him is Skal Labissiere who would do the exact same things. One moment he looks like an all star, the very next you're questioning what he's doing in the league.

[SelfishPlayer]

The prospect that I question the most is Keegan Murray. He's an older under average height PF prospect with only a year of serious production. People call him a wing. What ever happened to stretch fours? He doesn't play or move like a wing to me. He looks like your typical Tobias Harris, Obi Toppin, James Johnson, Derrick Williams, etc.

Something about his game seems really off to me. I've been watching a bunch of his highlights lately and he seems to be good at basketball and bad at basketball at the same time. He'll hit a nice three and follow that up with a soft touch fadeaway and then he'll lead a fast break and get completely out of control and turn the ball over due to his poor dribbling and follow that up with one of the worst passes you'll ever see. The only player I've ever seen play like him is Skal Labissiere who would do the exact same things. One moment he looks like an all star, the very next you're questioning what he's doing in the league.

That's what it looks like when you are playing at a level of basketball that you should have aged out of already. He's too good for the level of competition but not good enough to play without evident weaknesses. He will be a 22 year old NBA rookie. I remember Wes Johnson was an older prospect people were in love with early in the lottery. I posted a quote recently on Murray's stats where he and Kevin Durant are the only two guys in college basketball history to produce that specific combination of points, blocks, threes, and maybe something else. Very questionable.

[toooskies]

WTF at using college stats to project NBA production.

not sure if serious

Also, you didnt answer the question, why do you think he’s a 7 apg guy?

Its pretty simple, Mathurin was a low assist guy in the NCAA. Its a fairly logical assumption that it's unusual for a statistical weakness at the ncaa level to become a strength at the NBA level. Most draft prospects who aren't high assist guys in the NCAA don't suddenly become top 15 assist guys in the NBA.

Darius Garland.

Small sample (5 games), bad data sample (5th game he only played 2 mins, so more like 4 games and 3.3 APG rather than 5 games and 2.6 APG), and he was playing with another PG (Saben Lee).

You can sell me on Mathurin getting better as a passer as the year went on (over 3 assists per game in some sample starting in early February), and he was playing with two pass-first guards too. But Garland was a good passer going into college with a weak 4-game sample, mostly against inferior competition.

[The Moose]

WTF at using college stats to project NBA production.

not sure if serious

Also, you didnt answer the question, why do you think he’s a 7 apg guy?

Its pretty simple, Mathurin was a low assist guy in the NCAA. Its a fairly logical assumption that it's unusual for a statistical weakness at the ncaa level to become a strength at the NBA level. Most draft prospects who aren't high assist guys in the NCAA don't suddenly become top 15 assist guys in the NBA.

Darius Garland.

Garland ast rate at in 5 games at Vandy = 25.7
Mathurin career ast rate in 63 games at Arionza = 12.2

So yeah outside of the fact that Garland had a tiny sample size , he still overwhelmingly had a higher assist rate, more than double and played primarily on the ball.

You’re projecting a guy in Mathurin who has been an off ball shooter/scorer with low assist rates for 2 seasons now in the NCAA as a lead handler 7apg guy in the NBA.

As I said before, it’s not completely impossible. The 4 guys out of 98 I mentioned before were Booker, Butler, Paul George and Derozan. But they are the extreme outliers.

And you still didn’t answer the initial question, why do you think he’s a 7 apg guy?

[SelfishPlayer]

not sure if serious

Also, you didnt answer the question, why do you think he’s a 7 apg guy?

Its pretty simple, Mathurin was a low assist guy in the NCAA. Its a fairly logical assumption that it's unusual for a statistical weakness at the ncaa level to become a strength at the NBA level. Most draft prospects who aren't high assist guys in the NCAA don't suddenly become top 15 assist guys in the NBA.

Darius Garland.

Small sample (5 games), bad data sample (5th game he only played 2 mins, so more like 4 games and 3.3 APG rather than 5 games and 2.6 APG), and he was playing with another PG (Saben Lee).

You can sell me on Mathurin getting better as a passer as the year went on (over 3 assists per game in some sample starting in early February), and he was playing with two pass-first guards too. But Garland was a good passer going into college with a weak 4-game sample, mostly against inferior competition.

Four of the starters have very good passing ability. Besides Mathurin very good passing ability, this is part of the reason why I know that he can be spammed in the NBA as a score first "point guard." He could be around more specialists in the NBA and be called upon to simply produce more. It wouldn't historically be odd for an Arizona player to do more in the NBA, the same with UNC players. Out of all of those good passers he made the most sense to be a shooter/scorer. I view Mathurin as having better passing ability than a guy like Tyrese Maxey who probably will never average 7 apg. Mathurin also looks like he can potentially be a great scorer, a guy averaging 24ppg. It's all potential.

[SelfishPlayer]

not sure if serious

Also, you didnt answer the question, why do you think he’s a 7 apg guy?

Its pretty simple, Mathurin was a low assist guy in the NCAA. Its a fairly logical assumption that it's unusual for a statistical weakness at the ncaa level to become a strength at the NBA level. Most draft prospects who aren't high assist guys in the NCAA don't suddenly become top 15 assist guys in the NBA.

Darius Garland.

Garland ast rate at in 5 games at Vandy = 25.7
Mathurin career ast rate in 63 games at Arionza = 12.2

So yeah outside of the fact that Garland had a tiny sample size , he still overwhelmingly had a higher assist rate, more than double and played primarily on the ball.

You’re projecting a guy in Mathurin who has been an off ball shooter/scorer with low assist rates for 2 seasons now in the NCAA as a lead handler 7apg guy in the NBA.

As I said before, it’s not completely impossible. The 4 guys out of 98 I mentioned before were Booker, Butler, Paul George and Derozan. But they are the extreme outliers.

And you still didn’t answer the initial question, why do you think he’s a 7 apg guy?

He's obviously a good passer, have you watched the games? Assisting the basketball isn't his focus for that team but when he is put into the pick and roll and typical lead ball handler positions he performs well.

[clyde21]

WTF at using college stats to project NBA production.

not sure if serious

Also, you didnt answer the question, why do you think he’s a 7 apg guy?

Its pretty simple, Mathurin was a low assist guy in the NCAA. Its a fairly logical assumption that it's unusual for a statistical weakness at the ncaa level to become a strength at the NBA level. Most draft prospects who aren't high assist guys in the NCAA don't suddenly become top 15 assist guys in the NBA.

Darius Garland.

lol wut? DG has been a top tier PG and playmaker since AAU.

[BlazersBroncos]

How did this thread devolve into comparing the passing abilities of Garland to freaking Mathurin lol.

[NYPiston]

Something about his game seems really off to me. I've been watching a bunch of his highlights lately and he seems to be good at basketball and bad at basketball at the same time. He'll hit a nice three and follow that up with a soft touch fadeaway and then he'll lead a fast break and get completely out of control and turn the ball over due to his poor dribbling and follow that up with one of the worst passes you'll ever see. The only player I've ever seen play like him is Skal Labissiere who would do the exact same things. One moment he looks like an all star, the very next you're questioning what he's doing in the league.

That's the problem, you're watching highlights and not the games.
Say what you want about Murray's upside at the NBA level but he was one of the most consistent players in college basketball last season, there was very little "up and down" in his game. It can argued that's part of the reason why he's perceived lower ceiling than some other guys in that range, because his A game really isn't that special, he's just consistently solid.

[NYPiston]

lol wut? DG has been a top tier PG and playmaker since AAU.

Garland was a low assist guy in college. Not that I agree with selfishplayer's general point but he's not wrong that Garland is an example of a player that was a low assist guy in college that turned into a high assist guy in the pros.

[clyde21]

lol wut? DG has been a top tier PG and playmaker since AAU.

Garland was a low assist guy in college. Not that I agree with selfishplayer's general point but he's not wrong that Garland is an example of a player that was a low assist guy in college that turned into a high assist guy in the pros.

DG played 5 games in college, and assist #s are largely irrelevant, Garland's always been a legit playmaker. the Mathurin comp is odd af, but terrible comps seem to be par for the course for Selfish.

[SeattleJazzFan]

mathurin is a very good passer, but he won't average 7 apg ever in his career over the course of a season.

[SelfishPlayer]

Bradley Beal is the sort of guy that Mathurin compares favorably with. Beal producing according to what's asked of him. He has gone from shooter, to scorer, to scoring playmaker with a couple of 6 assist seasons under his belt. Beal averaged 2.2 assists in college. Ron Harper his first three seasons in college never averaged as much as 3 assists, but he had an NBA season where he averaged 7 assists and went on to start at point guard for the Bulls.

[NYPiston]

DG played 5 games in college, and assist #s are largely irrelevant, Garland's always been a legit playmaker. the Mathurin comp is odd af, but terrible comps seem to be par for the course for Selfish.

Oh I agree that he was always a legit playmaker, going back to my point about not agreeing with SelfishPlayer's general point, I was just pointing out that he had a low assist total in college in a literal sense without taking into account context.

Going back to Mathurin vs. Garland. Two totally different players, one is a legit playmaking/scoring combo PG while the other is pretty much a 3 and D off guard who can drive and kick occasionally. I actually think Mathurin is a bit underrated as a passer but he'll never be a high assist guy at the NBA level.

[babyjax13]

They are the same, Australian tall point guards. Exum was never good enough.

I've watched a lot of Dante Exum, they do not play similarly at all. Dante could do two things on offense, run a PnR and throw a nice lob, or run the PnR and get to the rim. Dyson is so much more advanced in his feel for the game, his passing, his shooting, and is a bit better defensively (where Dante was pretty good). Doesn't have quite the same first step, but I think he'll be a lot more successful pro.

yet nobody. i mean nobody was saying that about exum pre-draft. there is a reason he was a consensus top 7 (at worst) pick in that draft. people were saying a lot of the same things about exum as they are saying about daniels, if not more glowing about exum.

No one was saying he could shoot, and he also had never really played in an environment with pros or players on his level where we could see him (much like Sharpe). He got the Rose comps, but that was only based on his stupid fast first step.

[SeattleJazzFan]

I've watched a lot of Dante Exum, they do not play similarly at all. Dante could do two things on offense, run a PnR and throw a nice lob, or run the PnR and get to the rim. Dyson is so much more advanced in his feel for the game, his passing, his shooting, and is a bit better defensively (where Dante was pretty good). Doesn't have quite the same first step, but I think he'll be a lot more successful pro.

yet nobody. i mean nobody was saying that about exum pre-draft. there is a reason he was a consensus top 7 (at worst) pick in that draft. people were saying a lot of the same things about exum as they are saying about daniels, if not more glowing about exum.

No one was saying he could shoot, and he also had never really played in an environment with pros or players on his level where we could see him (much like Sharpe). He got the Rose comps, but that was only based on his stupid fast first step.

he got rose comps, kobe comps, etc. and yeah, they weren't saying he could shoot, but they weren't saying he couldn't shoot either - they saw him as they see many 19 year old guard/wing types with big potential - as a guy who could score and whose shot could develop.

[babyjax13]

yet nobody. i mean nobody was saying that about exum pre-draft. there is a reason he was a consensus top 7 (at worst) pick in that draft. people were saying a lot of the same things about exum as they are saying about daniels, if not more glowing about exum.

No one was saying he could shoot, and he also had never really played in an environment with pros or players on his level where we could see him (much like Sharpe). He got the Rose comps, but that was only based on his stupid fast first step.

he got rose comps, kobe comps, etc. and yeah, they weren't saying he could shoot, but they weren't saying he couldn't shoot either - they saw him as they see many 19 year old guard/wing types with big potential - as a guy who could score and whose shot could develop.

The difference was it was not based on game film against real competition. He worked out for Orlando and they immediately knew what was up. He did not work out for us and we were going to draft AG but went with the consensus pick (based on nothing). We've seen Dyson against real competition and he has been pretty good, and we've seen his game develop, and he's apparently demonstrating more development in workouts. There is a lot more there in terms of skill + actual demonstrations that his talent translates to a real competitive environment.

[moss_is_1]

Read on Twitter

I feel his stock was definitely dropping, maybe even into the 2nd round?