Rui Hachimura

[DCZards]

Rui's been better than all those guys. Not just shooting. Not to mention that all of them except Reddish were taken before him.

Which shows the following: if you compare Rui to guys who are playing worse than him, he will look good compared to them. What happens if you compare him to guys who are playing better than him? Gee... he doesn't look good compared to them. How about that?

Here are the other rookies playing 20+ minutes a game: Paschall, Washington, Hunter, Nunn, Barrett, Herro, Garland, White, Bowman, Poole, Culver, Reddish, Morant, Porter, Johnson, Hayes & Clarke.

Of those 17 guys, Paschall, Washington, Herro, Bowman, Morant, Johnson, Hayes & Clarke have been more productive than Rui overall.

Of those 8, only Paschall & Washington have played more minutes than Rui (Herro is only 24 minutes behind him).

Only 1 of them (Hayes) was taken before Rui. It's worth noting that Paschall was a R2 pick, & Bowman was signed undrafted. Both by GS -- couple of sharp moves there.

If you look at the guys people here (not me) hoped we could get, Rui wasn't on that list. It was Hunter (above all), Garland & White. Doumbuoya came on strong towards the end, when folks were convinced that -- sadly -- we would miss on Hunter.

Zards' 2d choice behind Hunter was P.J. Washington -- the only one I can remember who expressed that clearly. He gets some credit for that, I'd say, since he was the only one to call out the guy, & since Washington has played well. At the same time, of course, he was pretty firmly for Hunter if available. &, he wavered towards Nassir Little a bit as well....

Neither he nor anyone here -- to all of whom it is now utterly obvious that the guy was the only possible choice -- wanted Rui Hachimura. The herd has now moved to him, of course.

A few of us wanted Clarke -- not with the #9 pick, that wasn't going to be necessary. We wanted to trade down to get Clarke & one or two more players. & it's kind of obvious at this point that he's a ton better than a whole bunch of guys picked near the top of the draft -- look at that bunch of non-performers mentioned above!

In truth, however, the only reason he gets compared to Hachimura all the time -- aside from the fact that so far he's played so very much better than Rui, or any other rookie for that matter -- is that they both went to Gonzaga.

I don't know how Rui will turn out, though for sure he's made the first & most important step of showing that he isn't a bust. For that reason alone you should all be happy that you didn't get the guy you wanted!

You remember correctly. I liked what I saw from PJ Washington in college, especially during the NCAA tournament when, after missing a couple of games due to an injury, he came back and immediately lifted the overall play of his Kentucky team.

I did waver toward Little as well.

It's far too early to tell how the careers of these rookies will turn out, especially the 19 and 20 year olds. But, despite what the early #s might say, I'm expecting at least a couple of top picks (Barrett & Garland) to eventually justify being picked in the top 5. Of course. that's just my opinion.

Both Barrett and Garland are just 19 years old and Garland played just 5 college games. So, as I said, far to early to project with any certainty what kind of pro careers they'll have.

[payitforward]

Absolutely! For all of them tho especially for the youngest among them.

Again, however, the first hurdle is for a rookie to show he isn't a bust. Morant, Washington, Herro, Clarke, Rui, Thybulle, Bowman & a few others have done that, I'd say. Barrett, Garland, White, Hunter, & Reddish -- all taken in the top 10 -- not yet.

[prime1time]

I'm perfectly satisfied with how Rui has played this season. You say that some players have been more productive than Rui, what does We drafted Rui to be a good player for multiple years going forward. Not to be the most productive Rui through the 1st 3rd of the season. We are completely rebuilding his jump shot. We are working on his defensive awareness. And a lot more other things. It's unfair to really compare rookies so early. Look at Otto Porter. Your insistence on tying two separate things together - your trade down theory and Rui's performance as a rookie - constantly derails this thread.

[Ruzious]

Absolutely! For all of them tho especially for the youngest among them.

Again, however, the first hurdle is for a rookie to show he isn't a bust. Morant, Washington, Herro, Clarke, Rui, Thybulle, Bowman & a few others have done that, I'd say. Barrett, Garland, White, Hunter, & Reddish -- all taken in the top 10 -- not yet.

Speaking of Hunter, I read something about a rumor of Hunter and an expiring for Derozan. I think that would be short-sighted for Atl. Hunter's started off poorly, but there's little doubt in my mind, he's going to be a very good player for a lot of years. Atl's going to make a jump at some point - assuming John Collins stays out of trouble.

[nate33]

Absolutely! For all of them tho especially for the youngest among them.

Again, however, the first hurdle is for a rookie to show he isn't a bust. Morant, Washington, Herro, Clarke, Rui, Thybulle, Bowman & a few others have done that, I'd say. Barrett, Garland, White, Hunter, & Reddish -- all taken in the top 10 -- not yet.

Speaking of Hunter, I read something about a rumor of Hunter and an expiring for Derozan. I think that would be short-sighted for Atl. Hunter's started off poorly, but there's little doubt in my mind, he's going to be a very good player for a lot of years. Atl's going to make a jump at some point - assuming John Collins stays out of trouble.

I seriously doubt Atlanta does that. Maybe they'll just absorb Derozan into their cap and give back a big TPE, but I don't see them giving up any young assets for him. San Antonio is in a weak negotiating position. Nobody really wants Derozan. Good teams can't afford his salary hit and it's far from certain he can blend into an existing offense. Bad teams don't want him because he's too old to build around.

[payitforward]

I'm perfectly satisfied with how Rui has played this season. You say that some players have been more productive than Rui, what does We drafted Rui to be a good player for multiple years going forward. Not to be the most productive Rui through the 1st 3rd of the season. We are completely rebuilding his jump shot. We are working on his defensive awareness. And a lot more other things. It's unfair to really compare rookies so early. Look at Otto Porter. Your insistence on tying two separate things together - your trade down theory and Rui's performance as a rookie - constantly derails this thread.

You're right -- this is not the place to discuss alternative draft strategies.

As I've already written, the kid has a shot to be outstanding. & he's already demonstrated that he isn't going to be some kind of a bust -- always the first thing you want to know about any rookie in any draft.

You're also right that there's no way to make more of a judgement on him than that. In this case, I've said the same thing -- repeatedly.

But I wouldn't say it's unfair to compare rookies so early. It's just wrong to draw any conclusions about any of them from such comparisons.

[Meliorus]

Nobody is talking about how he shoots 21% from 3 in the modern NBA. Nobody is talking about how his form makes it pretty much impossible to shoot a high percentage (but whose gonna tell him to revamp it). Nobody talks about the 0.1 blocks per game. On any fan website I go on, it just seems like blind worshipping of his 14 and 7. His defense is bad the awareness isn’t there. Not a good passer and tunnel visions frequently (shades of KO).

He’s really good at finishing at the rim, don’t need to run plays for him. He’s strong and athletic with a long wingspan (that appears smaller than measured). That’s about it for positives.

[nate33]

Nobody is talking about how he shoots 21% from 3 in the modern NBA. Nobody is talking about how his form makes it pretty much impossible to shoot a high percentage (but whose gonna tell him to revamp it). Nobody talks about the 0.1 blocks per game. On any fan website I go on, it just seems like blind worshipping of his 14 and 7. His defense is bad the awareness isn’t there. Not a good passer and tunnel visions frequently (shades of KO).

He’s really good at finishing at the rim, don’t need to run plays for him. He’s strong and athletic with a long wingspan (that appears smaller than measured). That’s about it for positives.

Meh, I'm not too worried about his 3-point shooting. He has shown flashes in FIBA and the preseason that his 3-point shot can be reliable when he gets more arc on the ball. I expect that will get better when he has an entire offseason to work on it. Most guys that hit free throws and midrange shots eventually figure out the 3-ball.

I think the bad blocks and steals totals are due to him playing defense like he's still in college, where all you do is stand straight with your arms up. The steals have already improved a bit this season and I think the blocks will get a bit better too (but he'll never be a shot blocker).

I'm much more concerned about his rebounding and defensive awareness. He's just not in the right place very often and he has no instinct for the ball. You don't often see players improve on that much.

[Meliorus]

Nobody is talking about how he shoots 21% from 3 in the modern NBA. Nobody is talking about how his form makes it pretty much impossible to shoot a high percentage (but whose gonna tell him to revamp it). Nobody talks about the 0.1 blocks per game. On any fan website I go on, it just seems like blind worshipping of his 14 and 7. His defense is bad the awareness isn’t there. Not a good passer and tunnel visions frequently (shades of KO).

He’s really good at finishing at the rim, don’t need to run plays for him. He’s strong and athletic with a long wingspan (that appears smaller than measured). That’s about it for positives.

Meh, I'm not too worried about his 3-point shooting. He has shown flashes in FIBA and the preseason that his 3-point shot can be reliable when he gets more arc on the ball. I expect that will get better when he has an entire offseason to work on it. Most guys that hit free throws and midrange shots eventually figure out the 3-ball.

I think the bad blocks and steals totals are due to him playing defense like he's still in college, where all you do is stand straight with your arms up. The steals have already improved a bit this season and I think the blocks will get a bit better too (but he'll never be a shot blocker).

I'm much more concerned about his rebounding and defensive awareness. He's just not in the right place very often and he has no instinct for the ball. You don't often see players improve on that much.

I'm also of the mindset that rebounding and defensive awareness are the most innate traits of a player that do not change. Offensive skills can be developed.

[youngWizzy]

What is also disturbing and honestly hard to watch is how ineffective he has been from mid range. The shots he take not only dont go in but are contested and he forces the issue a lot.

As of today he is:

19/47 from 10 - 16 feet (40.4%)
18/42 from 16 - three point line (42.9%)

Overall that equates to 37/89 (41.6%) from mid range. In other words 0.416 * 2 = 0.832 points per shot from mid range.....horrible

[nate33]

What is also disturbing and honestly hard to watch is how ineffective he has been from mid range. The shots he take not only dont go in but are contested and he forces the issue a lot.

As of today he is:

19/47 from 10 - 16 feet (40.4%)
18/42 from 16 - three point line (42.9%)

Overall that equates to 37/89 (41.6%) from mid range. In other words 0.416 * 2 = 0.832 points per shot from mid range.....horrible

Those are actually pretty good percentages. Very few people shoot in the high 40's from midrange and almost nobody shoots in the 50's. What it illustrates is that the midrange shot should never be the goal of an offense. It's a bailout shot when your offense doesn't generate a shot at the rim or an open 3. Having a guy who can create bailout shots and hit them at a mid-40's rate is definitely a good thing though. It puts a floor on your half court offense efficiency. It's just not a first option.

[Ruzious]

What is also disturbing and honestly hard to watch is how ineffective he has been from mid range. The shots he take not only dont go in but are contested and he forces the issue a lot.

As of today he is:

19/47 from 10 - 16 feet (40.4%)
18/42 from 16 - three point line (42.9%)

Overall that equates to 37/89 (41.6%) from mid range. In other words 0.416 * 2 = 0.832 points per shot from mid range.....horrible

Those are actually pretty good percentages. Very few people shoot in the high 40's from midrange and almost nobody shoots in the 50's. What it illustrates is that the midrange shot should never be the goal of an offense. It's a bailout shot when your offense doesn't generate a shot at the rim or an open 3. Having a guy who can create bailout shots and hit them at a mid-40's rate is definitely a good thing though. It puts a floor on your half court offense efficiency. It's just not a first option.

Right, but when he shoots it before the offense needs bailing out, it's usually a poor decision on his part - seems to have happened a lot - as it did with Keiff Morris the last few seasons.

[youngWizzy]

What is also disturbing and honestly hard to watch is how ineffective he has been from mid range. The shots he take not only dont go in but are contested and he forces the issue a lot.

As of today he is:

19/47 from 10 - 16 feet (40.4%)
18/42 from 16 - three point line (42.9%)

Overall that equates to 37/89 (41.6%) from mid range. In other words 0.416 * 2 = 0.832 points per shot from mid range.....horrible

Those are actually pretty good percentages. Very few people shoot in the high 40's from midrange and almost nobody shoots in the 50's. What it illustrates is that the midrange shot should never be the goal of an offense. It's a bailout shot when your offense doesn't generate a shot at the rim or an open 3. Having a guy who can create bailout shots and hit them at a mid-40's rate is definitely a good thing though. It puts a floor on your half court offense efficiency. It's just not a first option.

Right, but when he shoots it before the offense needs bailing out, it's usually a poor decision on his part - seems to have happened a lot - as it did with Keiff Morris the last few seasons.

Exactly! Right on the money. He fails to hit the extra pass when the ball comes to him and tries to force up a really difficult and inefficient shot despite what the clock says.

[tontoz]

I agree that Rui seems overly fond of the midrange shot. Near the end of the clock it is fine but otherwise we should be looking for better shots.

[nate33]

What is also disturbing and honestly hard to watch is how ineffective he has been from mid range. The shots he take not only dont go in but are contested and he forces the issue a lot.

As of today he is:

19/47 from 10 - 16 feet (40.4%)
18/42 from 16 - three point line (42.9%)

Overall that equates to 37/89 (41.6%) from mid range. In other words 0.416 * 2 = 0.832 points per shot from mid range.....horrible

Those are actually pretty good percentages. Very few people shoot in the high 40's from midrange and almost nobody shoots in the 50's. What it illustrates is that the midrange shot should never be the goal of an offense. It's a bailout shot when your offense doesn't generate a shot at the rim or an open 3. Having a guy who can create bailout shots and hit them at a mid-40's rate is definitely a good thing though. It puts a floor on your half court offense efficiency. It's just not a first option.

Right, but when he shoots it before the offense needs bailing out, it's usually a poor decision on his part - seems to have happened a lot - as it did with Keiff Morris the last few seasons.

I agree. He shoots it too much.

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hachimura can create that midrange shot whenever he wants. I think one day he'll get to that point, but not now.

[payitforward]

This is all correct, but I think it mostly reflects his being a rookie thrown right into the role of a starter & asked to play 30+ minutes a game. A relatively basketball-inexperienced rookie at that.

Rui's 8th in minutes among rookies. Of the 7 guys playing more than he, only Washington, Paschell & Herro are playing as good or better than Rui. Paschell was a 4-year player.

Rui started the year at a higher level than he's playing at now, & that's no surprise. Once teams started looking at video of him, they began to be able to chip away at his effectiveness.

The other thing that jumps out at me is from a really different angle: there's a big fan demand that Rui be a hero. A savior. Or, more modestly, that he demonstrate immediately how the franchise has changed. The new era. He can't do that. Not too many guys over the years have been able to do that -- & a whole lot of those who did were picked #1 in the draft!

To me, Rui has done the first thing I want a rookie to do. He's passed the first test -- he's shown that he isn't going to be a bust. The rest is up in the air. We don't know what his ceiling is. We don't know how quickly he'll develop. We aren't going to know, either -- not for a while.

As I've written repeatedly, Rui has a chance to be an outstanding NBA player. Was it the best use of our pick to pick him #9? Nah. But how best to use a pick & whether a player is good or not are two entirely different, virtually unrelated issues -- despite how easy it is to forget that simple fact.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Speaking of Hunter, I read something about a rumor of Hunter and an expiring for Derozan. I think that would be short-sighted for Atl. Hunter's started off poorly, but there's little doubt in my mind, he's going to be a very good player for a lot of years. Atl's going to make a jump at some point - assuming John Collins stays out of trouble.

I doubt that happens but it would be absolutely dreadful for the Hawks. Heck, if they really want DeRozan they can just sign him when he opts out this offseason - I think that would be an awful move, too, but at least they wouldn't be giving up Hunter to do it.

Hunter is one of three players the Hawks should be particularly attached to, along with Young and Collins. I'm more skeptical about Reddish and Huerter, to varying degrees, but I wouldn't move either of those guys for DeRozan, either. The Hawks just need to be patient with Young, Collins and Hunter while building up a functional supporting cast - and they'll get a chance to add another high pick to their group this offseason.

[nate33]

Speaking of Hunter, I read something about a rumor of Hunter and an expiring for Derozan. I think that would be short-sighted for Atl. Hunter's started off poorly, but there's little doubt in my mind, he's going to be a very good player for a lot of years. Atl's going to make a jump at some point - assuming John Collins stays out of trouble.

I doubt that happens but it would be absolutely dreadful for the Hawks. Heck, if they really want DeRozan they can just sign him when he opts out this offseason - I think that would be an awful move, too, but at least they wouldn't be giving up Hunter to do it.

Hunter is one of three players the Hawks should be particularly attached to, along with Young and Collins. I'm more skeptical about Reddish and Huerter, to varying degrees, but I wouldn't move either of those guys for DeRozan, either. The Hawks just need to be patient with Young, Collins and Hunter while building up a functional supporting cast - and they'll get a chance to add another high pick to their group this offseason.

Those rumors are generated from the Spurs PR department. Derozan on a $30M a year contract with a player option isn't going to get them back a recent high pick. They'll be lucky to get a couple of 2nds.

Nobody wants Derozan. He's too ball dominant to fit into a winning team, and he's too old and expensive to make much sense for a rebuilding team.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Nobody wants Derozan. He's too ball dominant to fit into a winning team, and he's too old and expensive to make much sense for a rebuilding team.

The Raptors did a pretty good con job with DeRozan. Granted, there were still a lot of skeptics but they managed to win a lot of games with him scoring a lot of points and making a lot of allstar games and all-NBA appearances that he maybe shouldn't have gotten. It's not even that he's ball-dominant but that he's not good enough as a ball-dominant player to handle that sort of main offensive role for a good team. The Raptors managed it by building a supporting cast that could win with or without him. Last season they may have had Kawhi and Green but they're winning just as much this season without those guys and without Demar. Demar was just sort of superficially there, neither hindering nor helping the team.

The Spurs PR department is hilarious, too. That talk in the offseason of them considering an extension. His pending free agency is a big problem, too. I'm wondering how hard the Knicks are going to pat themselves on the back when he signs there this offseason. I don't know if the Spurs would be better without him or not but they won't be worse, and they also won't be better with him. Honestly, they should also probably move on from Aldridge who, while not the anchor DeRozan is, holds the team up in a similar way. Poeltl isn't as obvious a successor as White and Murray are to Demar but Poeltl is already better defensively but worse offensively and the team struggles to play two Cs at the same time.

[nate33]

Nobody wants Derozan. He's too ball dominant to fit into a winning team, and he's too old and expensive to make much sense for a rebuilding team.

The Raptors did a pretty good con job with DeRozan. Granted, there were still a lot of skeptics but they managed to win a lot of games with him scoring a lot of points and making a lot of allstar games and all-NBA appearances that he maybe shouldn't have gotten. It's not even that he's ball-dominant but that he's not good enough as a ball-dominant player to handle that sort of main offensive role for a good team. The Raptors managed it by building a supporting cast that could win with or without him. Last season they may have had Kawhi and Green but they're winning just as much this season without those guys and without Demar. Demar was just sort of superficially there, neither hindering nor helping the team.

The Spurs PR department is hilarious, too. That talk in the offseason of them considering an extension. His pending free agency is a big problem, too. I'm wondering how hard the Knicks are going to pat themselves on the back when he signs there this offseason. I don't know if the Spurs would be better without him or not but they won't be worse, and they also won't be better with him. Honestly, they should also probably move on from Aldridge who, while not the anchor DeRozan is, holds the team up in a similar way. Poeltl isn't as obvious a successor as White and Murray are to Demar but Poeltl is already better defensively but worse offensively and the team struggles to play two Cs at the same time.

You are making my point. The Raptors did just as well with and without him. And so have the Spurs.

Look at his career on/off numbers for goodness sake!