Scoot Henderson

[mattao313]

Basically no prospect has ‘fallback’ options if their main thing doesn’t work out.

I mean Lonzo ball went from a pure playmaking pg to a 3&D guy. But perhaps I'm missing what you mean by that.

Sent from my SM-A528B using RealGM mobile app

[eminence]

Basically no prospect has ‘fallback’ options if their main thing doesn’t work out.

I mean Lonzo ball went from a pure playmaking pg to a 3&D guy. But perhaps I'm missing what you mean by that.

Sent from my SM-A528B using RealGM mobile app

That's kind of the opposite direction, Lonzo still is (or was, RIP) a good playmaker. He added a skill to that (3pt shooting).

95% of prospects aren't doing anything meaningful in the league if their main skill doesn't transfer for whatever reason. Sure there's some that could still be workable 9th men, but that'll rightfully get a bust label if they went near the top of the lotto.

Only the very very top tier of players, and only if they're fairly well rounded can take losing their best skill and still be a meaningful contributor in the league. This year that is maybe Wemby, nobody else. And even then, if Wemby can't protect the rim he is a much much less interesting prospect.

What if Miller can't shoot? What if Walker can't switch? What if Scoot can't be a lead ballhandler? Well then they're all busts who'll be okay bench players at best.

The odds of them busting is important to guess at, figuring out what happens if they do bust is not particularly important.

[eminence]

Basically, ceiling is 100x more important than floor in prospect evaluation (completely arbitrary number pulled from my ass).

[clyde21]

Basically no prospect has ‘fallback’ options if their main thing doesn’t work out.

I mean Lonzo ball went from a pure playmaking pg to a 3&D guy. But perhaps I'm missing what you mean by that.

Sent from my SM-A528B using RealGM mobile app

yea, b/c he added a 3pt shot to his game, it's not like his playmaking wasn't any good in the league and he decided to be a shooter instead.

[UcanUwill]

I listened to 5 different podcasts this week where they described Scoot as a small guard, yet were getting gaslit for doing it here.

Is "they" a single person doing 5 different podcasts, or 5 people, each one on their own podcasts?

Just asking out of respect to your preferred pronoun usage...

I think in Missmatch and in NBAdraftshow they said this, but do not get their words twisted. They didnt really said he is a guard who is small, he is obviously a tank, but what they maent, is that he is still a guard, and he is not Ben Simmons guard, he is 6'4 guard, very strong, but still small in a basketball sense. They were talking of Scoot's fit and plug and play potential, he is still a guard, so he is not really DPOY candidate, he is ball dominant, so he wont fit with everybody, and he is not the best shooter in catch and shoot situations, so this is what they meant in saying he is small guard, he is not a plug and play guy. Bigs and off ball guys will always be easier to plug and play.

[UcanUwill]

Basically no prospect has ‘fallback’ options if their main thing doesn’t work out.

I mean Lonzo ball went from a pure playmaking pg to a 3&D guy. But perhaps I'm missing what you mean by that.

Sent from my SM-A528B using RealGM mobile app

yea, b/c he added a 3pt shot to his game, it's not like his playmaking wasn't any good in the league and he decided to be a shooter instead.

I love Lonzo, but do you really consider him playmaker, he is PG on paper, but was he ever successful primary playmaker. He is very unselfish and he is great in transition passes, but he aint playmaking in half court, he just moving the ball rather.

[clyde21]

since when did you have to be 6'10 to be a PG in the NBA?

being 6'10 is doing Simmons a lot of good right now in the league im sure.

[Big J]

Scoot is 6’4 now? Did he grow 2 inches? If so, that does change my evaluation in him.

[eminence]

Scoots size keeps him from reasonable best in the league ceiling, but Wemby is the only competetion that has that ceiling. Doesn’t prevent general stardom.

[JMAC3]

Basically, ceiling is 100x more important than floor in prospect evaluation (completely arbitrary number pulled from my ass).

Deandre Ayton has been a meh #1 pick, but because of his rebounding and versatility he is still a pretty solid pick. Same can be said with Ben Simmons, he never really figured out how to be a number 1 option, but his intangibles up until recently made him an allstar talent still. Same with Wiggins. Evan Turner to some degree.

Going back a bit further Marvin Williams is a guy that never really pieced it all together, but his size versatility and shooting gave him a long useful career.

So for instance this year, if Ausar Thompson and Cam Whitmore and Scoot all three end up below average shooters I would say Whitmore and Thompson are probably better bets to still remain key contributors in the long run. Size, Versatility and Defense are things that still hold value.

Someone mentioned it awhile ago, but there is a reason why there aren't tons of athletic centers or wings roaming around the gleague or overseas. But plenty of undersized guards that can score the ball exist in every league.

[Big J]

I think the only way Scoot becomes a legit superstar is if he can improve his shooting to close to 40% from 3. Otherwise he's never going to be more than a 2 on a contender.

[JMAC3]

I think the only way Scoot becomes a legit superstar is if he can improve his shooting to close to 40% from 3. Otherwise he's never going to be more than a 2 on a contender.

You can look at it one of 2 ways.

The first view: 3 point shooting is probably the easiest skill to add in the NBA. We see guys improve it every year. Including centers who never shoot it to being above league average in 1 or 2 off-season's. So that should give Scoot fans hope.

The second view: Piggybacking off the first. If outside shooting is the easiest skill set to improve and reach an acceptable baseline %. Then why not pick someone that is bigger, stronger faster etc...

That is the selling point for Scoot over the majority of the guards in this draft IMO and why I still give him a vote of confidence to still be a top 5ish pick.

[eminence]

Basically, ceiling is 100x more important than floor in prospect evaluation (completely arbitrary number pulled from my ass).

Deandre Ayton has been a meh #1 pick, but because of his rebounding and versatility he is still a pretty solid pick. Same can be said with Ben Simmons, he never really figured out how to be a number 1 option, but his intangibles up until recently made him an allstar talent still. Same with Wiggins. Evan Turner to some degree.

Going back a bit further Marvin Williams is a guy that never really pieced it all together, but his size versatility and shooting gave him a long useful career.

So for instance this year, if Ausar Thompson and Cam Whitmore and Scoot all three end up below average shooters I would say Whitmore and Thompson are probably better bets to still remain key contributors in the long run. Size, Versatility and Defense are things that still hold value.

Someone mentioned it awhile ago, but there is a reason why there aren't tons of athletic centers or wings roaming around the gleague or overseas. But plenty of undersized guards that can score the ball exist in every league.

You don't seem to get that skills other than primary ballhandling can be a players primary skills. Ayton has in no way missed (though obviously some morons missed on Luka), Ayton is 90% of what he could ever be. If for some reason he'd forgotten how to catch and finish the ball (his primary skill) he'd be a mediocre bench big at best and that's the easiest position in the league to just be a guy in (very few 7 footers).

Scoot will be a nobody if he can't be a primary on ball guy, no debating it.

[The-Power]

Basically, ceiling is 100x more important than floor in prospect evaluation (completely arbitrary number pulled from my ass).

I wouldn't agree with that statement unless by floor you mean the absolute worst outcome (but that would make ceiling the absolute best outcome and how meaningful is that to consider?). It's a false dichotomy to present something as either translating or not translating. In reality, it's all on a spectrum. The questions for Miller, Walker, Scoot etc. are not whether they can do what you mentioned, but how well and under which conditions, and what means for their respective teams and roster construction?

I think it's extremely important to think about what players can contribute when they don't hit their ceiling – because, according to the very nature of the idea of ceiling, very few actually do. So it matters to me that if Walker can't be an offensive passing hub and elite defender, I can still potentially get a good defensive stretch big who can make some reads of offense. Or if Miller can't reliably create on the ball, I still have a wing with good size and at least solid defense who stretches the floor reliably.

And by the same token, it matters to me that someone like Scoot will find it hard to contribute if his shooting never improves, or that George will find it hard to be a starter in the NBA if his scoring and shot creation does not develop to the extent that it passes the efficiency threshold. And I'll think about what role the twins could play in the NBA if defenses can just leave them open on the perimeter. Because all of that is a distinct possibility.

Neither absolute ceiling nor absolute floor are important to me. But while upside – in terms of realistically attainable ceiling if the tools generally translate or develop comparatively well – absolutely matters to me, so does thinking about what I can realistically expect of a player if certain tools do not translate or develop particularly well. And then it's all about balancing this in the evaluation, with the balance depending on several factors including team context, draft position, alternatives etc.

But perhaps I just misunderstood you here.

[The-Power]

I think the only way Scoot becomes a legit superstar is if he can improve his shooting to close to 40% from 3. Otherwise he's never going to be more than a 2 on a contender.

You can look at it one of 2 ways.

The first view: 3 point shooting is probably the easiest skill to add in the NBA. We see guys improve it every year. Including centers who never shoot it to being above league average in 1 or 2 off-season's. So that should give Scoot fans hope.

The second view: Piggybacking off the first. If outside shooting is the easiest skill set to improve and reach an acceptable baseline %. Then why not pick someone that is bigger, stronger faster etc...

That is the selling point for Scoot over the majority of the guards in this draft IMO and why I still give him a vote of confidence to still be a top 5ish pick.

That holds true only for simple catch-and-shoot 3s and, when it comes to bigs, also usually only applies when they already had some range. It's true that accuracy on simple shots can be improved because it's all about repetition. So you can reach a certain threshold. But it's definitely not easy to add a consistent and versatile pull-up game, and it's also not easy to close the gap to your peers because everyone works on their jumper non-stop. So the idea that players who struggle to shoot can be expected to end up somewhere around average, or somehow learn to fully leverage their shooting, has never been true.

[MemphisX]

I think the only way Scoot becomes a legit superstar is if he can improve his shooting to close to 40% from 3. Otherwise he's never going to be more than a 2 on a contender.

A 2 on a contender is a legit superstar in most cases. I understand the doubt. However, Ja is basically 6'2 and shooting 32.4% for his career and 31.6% this season. And Ja came into the league a stick figure. Scoot is going to elevate whatever team he is on immediately.

[BostonCouchGM]

I mean Lonzo ball went from a pure playmaking pg to a 3&D guy. But perhaps I'm missing what you mean by that.

Sent from my SM-A528B using RealGM mobile app

yea, b/c he added a 3pt shot to his game, it's not like his playmaking wasn't any good in the league and he decided to be a shooter instead.

I love Lonzo, but do you really consider him playmaker, he is PG on paper, but was he ever successful primary playmaker. He is very unselfish and he is great in transition passes, but he aint playmaking in half court, he just moving the ball rather.

Lonzo he didn't add a 3 pt shot. He was a 41% 3 pt shooter in college. What he did get better at was playing off-ball and on defense. As for playmaking. He's an elite playmaker. But you wouldn't know that based on his NBA career since he was misused by every coach he had. They had him playing off ball. He needs to be the PG working off the PnR. He's essentially Haliburton with defense if he was played correctly. But sadly, we'll likely never see that.

[Big J]

I think the only way Scoot becomes a legit superstar is if he can improve his shooting to close to 40% from 3. Otherwise he's never going to be more than a 2 on a contender.

A 2 on a contender is a legit superstar in most cases. I understand the doubt. However, Ja is basically 6'2 and shooting 32.4% for his career and 31.6% this season. And Ja came into the league a stick figure. Scoot is going to elevate whatever team he is on immediately.

Scoot isn’t close to the same level of athlete as Ja.

[JMAC3]

I think the only way Scoot becomes a legit superstar is if he can improve his shooting to close to 40% from 3. Otherwise he's never going to be more than a 2 on a contender.

A 2 on a contender is a legit superstar in most cases. I understand the doubt. However, Ja is basically 6'2 and shooting 32.4% for his career and 31.6% this season. And Ja came into the league a stick figure. Scoot is going to elevate whatever team he is on immediately.

I am not a Ja savant, but I have heard several other nba players and coaches say he has an incredible bbiq. That mixed with his elite athleticism and playmaking is what makes him special.

People forget he averaged 10 assists per game, which lead the country. 2nd was 7.7 per game.
next year leader was 8, year after 8.4, year after 7.9.
His passing was special as a prospect.

[JMAC3]

Saw something on Terry Rozier today that he measured 6-2+ with a 6-8+ wingspan at combine in 2015.

Link: https://www.nbadraft.net/2015-nba-draft-combine-measurements/

For those arguing Scoot isn't small because of wingspan, would you say the same for Rozier?