Lonzo Ball

reanimator · Post #861 » by **reanimator** » Tue Nov 7, 2017 2:56 pm

Lonzo is who we thought he was and the next few years are about finding solves for the warts in his game.

People who liked Lonzo as a prospect are confident he will.

Post #862 » by **Marcus** » Tue Nov 7, 2017 5:15 pm

reanimator wrote:Lonzo is who we thought he was and the next few years are about finding solves for the warts in his game.

People who liked Lonzo as a prospect are confident he will.

well stated.

madmaxmedia · Post #863 » by **madmaxmedia** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 12:03 am

The only thing that I find puzzling so far is his abysmal 3FG%. He's getting open looks, but just making barely any of them.

That is a different issue than not being able to get his shot off, or always being contested on his shot (which was a valid concern based his shooting motion.) The NBA 3FG distance shouldn't be a huge factor IMO, as he was routinely taking shots well behind the college line.

TripleBOF · Post #864 » by **TripleBOF** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 1:38 am

reanimator wrote:Lonzo is who we thought he was and the next few years are about finding solves for the warts in his game.

People who liked Lonzo as a prospect are confident he will.

He hasn't been who I thought he was. I knew he'd struggle on man defense and finishing at the rim. I knew he'd be an elite passer who made teammates better, a good rebounder and a decent team defender. But I honestly thought he'd be an above average 3 pt shooter so I'm surprised by the shooting woes. But he just turned 20 y/o, has a tremendous amount of pressure on him playing in LA so I expect it will improve as he gets acclimated. It's a testament to his game that he can be a positive despite the bad shooting. As we've seen, many HOF guys struggled with their shot when they first arrived.

Mulhollanddrive · Post #865 » by **Mulhollanddrive** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 2:12 am

My critique was that he needed an extra few points a game (only took 8 FGAs at UCLA) to have a higher ceiling than Rondo or Rubio. I never bought the mythical narrative of being a winner and transforming bad teams and players just being on court as he was always going to go to a losing team in the NBA, so without that I think he's about at par now of having to find ways to score more than the likes of Rondo, Rubio, Carter-Williams, Marshall etc..

reanimator · Post #866 » by **reanimator** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 3:14 am

TripleBOF wrote:
reanimator wrote:Lonzo is who we thought he was and the next few years are about finding solves for the warts in his game.

People who liked Lonzo as a prospect are confident he will.

He hasn't been who I thought he was. I knew he'd struggle on man defense and finishing at the rim. I knew he'd be an elite passer who made teammates better, a good rebounder and a decent team defender. But I honestly thought he'd be an above average 3 pt shooter so I'm surprised by the shooting woes. But he just turned 20 y/o, has a tremendous amount of pressure on him playing in LA so I expect it will improve as he gets acclimated. It's a testament to his game that he can be a positive despite the bad shooting. As we've seen, many HOF guys struggled with their shot when they first arrived.

Only 10 % of the season so far so stats are heavily skewed and his form was a concern.

That said, adjusting to the NBA 3 pt line + learning when and where to pick your spots is normal for rookies.

Plenty of plus shooters shot atrocious percentages as rookies.

saphan · Post #867 » by **saphan** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 3:24 pm

He is shooting 53% from FT, this speaks even more to me then his awful 3 pt.

madmaxmedia · Post #868 » by **madmaxmedia** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 4:22 pm

saphan wrote:He is shooting 53% from FT, this speaks even more to me then his awful 3 pt.

I think the combination is especially telling. He wasn't a great FT shooter at UCLA but was certainly better than 53%. For whatever reason (all the focus pre-draft, some bad early games, etc.), I think he's got his shooting in his head now and there's some sort of mental block.

If he was shooting 75% FT and horrible 3FG%, that might indicate legit problems getting his 3 off. But that's not what I've seen on the court so far, he's not knocking down open 3's at a decent clip.

toussaud · Post #869 » by **toussaud** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 5:04 pm

my dad called him a taller light skinned version of Howard Eisley lol. about the most accurate description i hever heard.

He's not a BAD player. But he's not really a good one either lol. he does nothing for the team that any backup PG can't do.

UcanUwill · Post #870 » by **UcanUwill** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 5:38 pm

madmaxmedia wrote:
saphan wrote:He is shooting 53% from FT, this speaks even more to me then his awful 3 pt.

I think the combination is especially telling. He wasn't a great FT shooter at UCLA but was certainly better than 53%. For whatever reason (all the focus pre-draft, some bad early games, etc.), I think he's got his shooting in his head now and there's some sort of mental block.

If he was shooting 75% FT and horrible 3FG%, that might indicate legit problems getting his 3 off. But that's not what I've seen on the court so far, he's not knocking down open 3's at a decent clip.

Shows its all confidence issue. ANyway, has long way to go, I said you guys he can easily end up being worse than Rubio, people where downplaying him by saying he is next Rubio, like its hugely terrible. Rubio is a good NBA player, Ball has ton of work to do to reach that level.

The-Power · Post #871 » by **The-Power** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 7:45 pm

madmaxmedia wrote:
saphan wrote:He is shooting 53% from FT, this speaks even more to me then his awful 3 pt.

I think the combination is especially telling. He wasn't a great FT shooter at UCLA but was certainly better than 53%.

13 FTA is hardly a sample size where we should use percentages and draw conclusions based on that.

madmaxmedia · Post #872 » by **madmaxmedia** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 8:27 pm

The-Power wrote:
madmaxmedia wrote:
saphan wrote:He is shooting 53% from FT, this speaks even more to me then his awful 3 pt.

I think the combination is especially telling. He wasn't a great FT shooter at UCLA but was certainly better than 53%.

13 FTA is hardly a sample size where we should use percentages and draw conclusions based on that.

LOL, I didn't know it was only 13 FTA (although I probably could have figured, given how many games they've played!)

clyde21 · Post #873 » by **clyde21** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 9:11 pm

I watch this guy and I seriously don't understand how he was the 2nd overall pick. Especially considering some of the other guys I'm watching.

XTraderXL · Post #874 » by **XTraderXL** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 11:11 pm

clyde21 wrote:I watch this guy and I seriously don't understand how he was the 2nd overall pick. Especially considering some of the other guys I'm watching.

Its not really surprising to me. I have been saying since before the draft that I just dont see it. It was clear he will have problems shooting the ball, he is not a great half court passer, he is stiff, ball handling is just basic for a PG.... He looks awkward in the way he moves and I was really surprised that people were so high on him.

He will be an ok player in the NBA but not nearly as good as hyped. You have to be careful about prospects Skip Bayless is high on. The guy cant evaluate talent and is completely wrong 99% of the time :banghead:

Post #875 » by **GimmeDat** » Wed Nov 8, 2017 11:25 pm

I was always under the impression that he'd look less impressive in the more PnR oriented NBA, but I'm not sure how you can say things like it was clear he would have problems shooting the ball. He shot extremely well at UCLA. The knocks on his shooting 'translating' was whether he could actually get his shot off, and that hasn't appeared to be a problem.

reanimator · Post #876 » by **reanimator** » Thu Nov 9, 2017 12:17 am

GimmeDat wrote:I was always under the impression that he'd look less impressive in the more PnR oriented NBA, but I'm not sure how you can say things like it was clear he would have problems shooting the ball. He shot extremely well at UCLA. The knocks on his shooting 'translating' was whether he could actually get his shot off, and that hasn't appeared to be a problem.

It wasn't stated specifically for Lonzo because adjusting to the NBA 3 and being overall efficient is a problem common to most 1st and 2nd year players. Now, Lonzo is on the extreme of that but the sample is so small to really overreact IMO.

madmaxmedia · Post #877 » by **madmaxmedia** » Thu Nov 9, 2017 3:33 am

reanimator wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:I was always under the impression that he'd look less impressive in the more PnR oriented NBA, but I'm not sure how you can say things like it was clear he would have problems shooting the ball. He shot extremely well at UCLA. The knocks on his shooting 'translating' was whether he could actually get his shot off, and that hasn't appeared to be a problem.

It wasn't stated specifically for Lonzo because adjusting to the NBA 3 and being overall efficient is a problem common to most 1st and 2nd year players. Now, Lonzo is on the extreme of that but the sample is so small to really overreact IMO.

One of the common complaints about Lonzo's game pre-draft was the weird form on his jumper, and that it would be very difficult to get off in the NBA. Otherwise, his 3FG% in college was pretty good and he has good range on his shot.

What has turned out is that he's gotten enough open 3 point looks, but is converting a really, really percentage of them. So that has surprised some. That being said, you're right about adjusting the the NBA 3 and playing efficiently being a common problem for young players.

So for example, it could be that he's rushing his shot ever so slightly due to better defenders in the NBA, which is affecting his accuracy (regardless of whether they are open looks or not.) It's easy to say a guy should knock down open looks whether it's an NBA game or any other game, but you're definitely going to feel more rushed/pressured on an NBA floor due to level of competition. So that may or may not settle out over time with more minutes.

Jkam31 · Post #878 » by **Jkam31** » Thu Nov 9, 2017 3:58 am

GimmeDat wrote:I was always under the impression that he'd look less impressive in the more PnR oriented NBA, but I'm not sure how you can say things like it was clear he would have problems shooting the ball. He shot extremely well at UCLA. The knocks on his shooting 'translating' was whether he could actually get his shot off, and that hasn't appeared to be a problem.

He barely ran pick and roll at UCLA plus he has no mid range or jumper off the dribble

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Post #879 » by **GimmeDat** » Thu Nov 9, 2017 4:08 am

Jkam31 wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:I was always under the impression that he'd look less impressive in the more PnR oriented NBA, but I'm not sure how you can say things like it was clear he would have problems shooting the ball. He shot extremely well at UCLA. The knocks on his shooting 'translating' was whether he could actually get his shot off, and that hasn't appeared to be a problem.

He barely ran pick and roll at UCLA plus he has no mid range or jumper off the dribble

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Yes, that's why I noted he'd look less impress in a more PnR dominated league.

Jkam31 · Post #880 » by **Jkam31** » Thu Nov 9, 2017 5:35 am

GimmeDat wrote:
Jkam31 wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:I was always under the impression that he'd look less impressive in the more PnR oriented NBA, but I'm not sure how you can say things like it was clear he would have problems shooting the ball. He shot extremely well at UCLA. The knocks on his shooting 'translating' was whether he could actually get his shot off, and that hasn't appeared to be a problem.

He barely ran pick and roll at UCLA plus he has no mid range or jumper off the dribble

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Yes, that's why I noted he'd look less impress in a more PnR dominated league.

Haha my bad I read that wrong but I agreed with you before the draft and now.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app