Kyle Anderson

[arambone]

in the spread out nba, anderson's passing ability will be even more valuable, as will his 6'9 perch.

[my2bits]

Skill wise Anderson is probably a top 5 prospect. Athletically? Top 25. Athleticism is useless if a player can't take advantage of it. Without ball handling skills, foot work and I.Q. an explosive athlete can never truly dominate or even be relied upon offensively. DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond are supremely gifted athletes yet their coaches cannot go to them on offense unless it's for a lob or dunk or put back. MKG is a liability on offense for the same reasons. A fundamentally sound player with decent athleticism will have a greater impact overall as long as they can develop a dependable jump shot. In Anderson's case their simply aren't many players 6"9 /240 lbs that have his ball control, vision, versatility, court awareness and intangibles. In every aspect excluding speed/ athleticism he is a better player than Wiggins. Not Wiggins ceiling but right now. Anderson can put up the 2014 version of Paul Pierce's stats right now as a rookie. Pierce's athleticism has degraded to about the level of Anderson's, yet Anderson is just beginning his career while Paul's is ending. The league is littered with prototypical athletes who can't perform a simple cross-over, a spin move, a reverse pivot, an up and under or a crisp, intelligent pass. Measurements, do not a great player make.

[HeartBreakKid]

Skill wise Anderson is probably a top 5 prospect. Athletically? Top 25. Athleticism is useless if a player can't take advantage of it. Without ball handling skills, foot work and I.Q. an explosive athlete can never truly dominate or even be relied upon offensively. DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond are supremely gifted athletes yet their coaches cannot go to them on offense unless it's for a lob or dunk or put back. MKG is a liability on offense for the same reasons. A fundamentally sound player with decent athleticism will have a greater impact overall as long as they can develop a dependable jump shot. In Anderson's case their simply aren't many players 6"9 /240 lbs that have his ball control, vision, versatility, court awareness and intangibles. In every aspect excluding speed/ athleticism he is a better player than Wiggins. Not Wiggins ceiling but right now. Anderson can put up the 2014 version of Paul Pierce's stats right now as a rookie. Pierce's athleticism has degraded to about the level of Anderson's, yet Anderson is just beginning his career while Paul's is ending. The league is littered with prototypical athletes who can't perform a simple cross-over, a spin move, a reverse pivot, an up and under or a crisp, intelligent pass. Measurements, do not a great player make.

I've been questioning my faith in Anderson since I have him really high, but you make very good points. Is Anderson really so nonathletic that literally none of his great skills will be relevant? I think Anderson is worth a single digit pick for sure.

I'd worry a lot about whether or not he's good enough to have the ball in his hands a lot at the NBA level. Generally the only players with the ball in their hands a lot are PG's and stars - otherwise you need to be effective without the ball in your hands. College stars who are used to playing with the ball a lot, but who aren't good enough to have that role in the NBA routinely disappoint because they don't have a useful offensive role in the NBA.

Indeed, what if he's not allowed to play point forward on what ever team he goes too? Might not be a pretty situation for his growth to get benched for not having many great offball skills. He has great vision and feel for the game, so he could at least help move the rock around, but when I think of Anderson in the NBA I am usually thinking of him with the ball in his hand, which he may not have the opportunity to do that.

[Onus]

Skill wise Anderson is probably a top 5 prospect. Athletically? Top 25. Athleticism is useless if a player can't take advantage of it. Without ball handling skills, foot work and I.Q. an explosive athlete can never truly dominate or even be relied upon offensively. DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond are supremely gifted athletes yet their coaches cannot go to them on offense unless it's for a lob or dunk or put back. MKG is a liability on offense for the same reasons. A fundamentally sound player with decent athleticism will have a greater impact overall as long as they can develop a dependable jump shot. In Anderson's case their simply aren't many players 6"9 /240 lbs that have his ball control, vision, versatility, court awareness and intangibles. In every aspect excluding speed/ athleticism he is a better player than Wiggins. Not Wiggins ceiling but right now. Anderson can put up the 2014 version of Paul Pierce's stats right now as a rookie. Pierce's athleticism has degraded to about the level of Anderson's, yet Anderson is just beginning his career while Paul's is ending. The league is littered with prototypical athletes who can't perform a simple cross-over, a spin move, a reverse pivot, an up and under or a crisp, intelligent pass. Measurements, do not a great player make.

I've been questioning my faith in Anderson since I have him really high, but you make very good points. Is Anderson really so nonathletic that literally none of his great skills will be relevant? I think Anderson is worth a single digit pick for sure.

I'd worry a lot about whether or not he's good enough to have the ball in his hands a lot at the NBA level. Generally the only players with the ball in their hands a lot are PG's and stars - otherwise you need to be effective without the ball in your hands. College stars who are used to playing with the ball a lot, but who aren't good enough to have that role in the NBA routinely disappoint because they don't have a useful offensive role in the NBA.

Indeed, what if he's not allowed to play point forward on what ever team he goes too? Might not be a pretty situation for his growth to get benched for not having many great offball skills. He has great vision and feel for the game, so he could at least help move the rock around, but when I think of Anderson in the NBA I am usually thinking of him with the ball in his hand, which he may not have the opportunity to do that.

There's a real boom or bust quality to Anderson. If the team he goes to doesn't put the ball in his hands he could struggle mightily. That said in the right situation I think Anderson can be a real game changer and would take him in front of parker, smart and maybe randle (not sure how his physicality and aggressiveness is going to translate).

[EvanZ]

There's a real boom or bust quality to Anderson. If the team he goes to doesn't put the ball in his hands he could struggle mightily. That said in the right situation I think Anderson can be a real game changer and would take him in front of parker, smart and maybe randle (not sure how his physicality and aggressiveness is going to translate).

Why would a team draft Anderson and not put the ball in his hands? I'm just really curious about this analysis, because it seems to come up a lot during draft season. It's not as if the team drafting him doesn't know that he can handle the ball, pass, etc. That's undoubtedly why any team would be drafting him, it's not so he can run off the ball, shoot off screens, or be a 3&D player, right?

I can think of plenty of players who shouldn't have the ball in their hands but did anyway, but not many that really deserved to "have the ball in their hands" and for whatever reason nobody noticed that would be a good thing. Give me a few examples of players who should have the ball in their hands more and their career was hurt by it. And the list better not start with Harrison Barnes.

[Old Man Game]

Looking at how Anderson measured out, I'm really curious if he could transition to become a stretch 4. That handle and court vision would be intriguing to me in small ball lineups.

[LloydFree]

Skill wise Anderson is probably a top 5 prospect. Athletically? Top 25....

I would tend to agree with that assessment. Where some of the experts have him rated on their "big boards" is out of line with his ability.

If Kyle Anderson is a player projected to be picked in the 20's he is being severely underrated. Either that, or Jabari Parker is being overrated. The gap in skills and athleticism between the two players is not that big. If Jabari Parker played PG, at his size against quick guards, he would look just as slow and awkward as Kyle Anderson. The biggest difference between the 2 players, is Jabari has a shooters mentality, and Anderson has a passers mentality. They'll play the same position in the pros, and the difference in athleticism and skill won't seem so big.

[E-Balla]

Skill wise Anderson is probably a top 5 prospect. Athletically? Top 25....

I would tend to agree with that assessment. Where some of the experts have him rated on their "big boards" is out of line with his ability.

If Kyle Anderson is a player projected to be picked in the 20's he is being severely underrated. Either that, or Jabari Parker is being overrated. The gap in skills and athleticism between the two players is not that big. If Jabari Parker played PG, at his size against quick guards, he would look just as slow and awkward as Kyle Anderson. The biggest difference between the 2 players, is Jabari has a shooters mentality, and Anderson has a passers mentality. They'll play the same position in the pros, and the difference in athleticism and skill won't seem so big.

Jabari has a SFs game though. His game more closely matches his speed/body type. Kyle's doesn't. Personally I think Kyle is the 7th best prospect but out the gate he'll probably be the 2nd best player.

[ImHeisenberg]

So, "Slow-Mo" didn't participate in the agility tests on day 2?

Anderson was probably the prospect I was most interested in seeing how he measured on max vert, and speed tests.

At this point, I think he could be the spiritual successor to Hedo Turkoglu.

[Onus]

There's a real boom or bust quality to Anderson. If the team he goes to doesn't put the ball in his hands he could struggle mightily. That said in the right situation I think Anderson can be a real game changer and would take him in front of parker, smart and maybe randle (not sure how his physicality and aggressiveness is going to translate).

Why would a team draft Anderson and not put the ball in his hands? I'm just really curious about this analysis, because it seems to come up a lot during draft season. It's not as if the team drafting him doesn't know that he can handle the ball, pass, etc. That's undoubtedly why any team would be drafting him, it's not so he can run off the ball, shoot off screens, or be a 3&D player, right?

I can think of plenty of players who shouldn't have the ball in their hands but did anyway, but not many that really deserved to "have the ball in their hands" and for whatever reason nobody noticed that would be a good thing. Give me a few examples of players who should have the ball in their hands more and their career was hurt by it. And the list better not start with Harrison Barnes.

Tyreke Evans started off w the ball in his hands and then the kings moved him off ball.

Hedo didn't start his career w the ball until he got to orl.

Borris diaw didn't start w the ball.

Evan turner

Teams do dumb **** all the time

[LloydFree]

There's a real boom or bust quality to Anderson. If the team he goes to doesn't put the ball in his hands he could struggle mightily. That said in the right situation I think Anderson can be a real game changer and would take him in front of parker, smart and maybe randle (not sure how his physicality and aggressiveness is going to translate).

Why would a team draft Anderson and not put the ball in his hands? I'm just really curious about this analysis, because it seems to come up a lot during draft season. It's not as if the team drafting him doesn't know that he can handle the ball, pass, etc. That's undoubtedly why any team would be drafting him, it's not so he can run off the ball, shoot off screens, or be a 3&D player, right?

I can think of plenty of players who shouldn't have the ball in their hands but did anyway, but not many that really deserved to "have the ball in their hands" and for whatever reason nobody noticed that would be a good thing. Give me a few examples of players who should have the ball in their hands more and their career was hurt by it. And the list better not start with Harrison Barnes.

Tyreke Evans started off w the ball in his hands and then the kings moved him off ball.

Hedo didn't start his career w the ball until he got to orl.

Borris diaw didn't start w the ball.

Evan turner

Teams do dumb **** all the time

Evan Turner is Hot garbage, with or without the ball.

[EvanZ]

There's a real boom or bust quality to Anderson. If the team he goes to doesn't put the ball in his hands he could struggle mightily. That said in the right situation I think Anderson can be a real game changer and would take him in front of parker, smart and maybe randle (not sure how his physicality and aggressiveness is going to translate).

Why would a team draft Anderson and not put the ball in his hands? I'm just really curious about this analysis, because it seems to come up a lot during draft season. It's not as if the team drafting him doesn't know that he can handle the ball, pass, etc. That's undoubtedly why any team would be drafting him, it's not so he can run off the ball, shoot off screens, or be a 3&D player, right?

I can think of plenty of players who shouldn't have the ball in their hands but did anyway, but not many that really deserved to "have the ball in their hands" and for whatever reason nobody noticed that would be a good thing. Give me a few examples of players who should have the ball in their hands more and their career was hurt by it. And the list better not start with Harrison Barnes.

Tyreke Evans started off w the ball in his hands and then the kings moved him off ball.

So that's the opposite of what I asked. The other two guys aren't great examples in my opinion. They both play well off the ball anyway.

The idea that a player has to be ball dominant to be successful never made much sense to me. If you're good and can make plays the ball will come to you or go through you one way or another.

[miltk]

So, "Slow-Mo" didn't participate in the agility tests on day 2?

Anderson was probably the prospect I was most interested in seeing how he measured on max vert, and speed tests.

At this point, I think he could be the spiritual successor to Hedo Turkoglu.

kyle has an ankle injury.

kyle has been the most known quantity in amateur basketball because he has been the most dissected, most controversial, and most ruminated over. It won't matter what his numbers are. if they are low, it's what people expect. if they are higher he can move up 2 or 3 spots. it won't matter because he will not be drafted on what numbers he puts up...he will be drafted on what's in between his ears.

[Onus]

Why would a team draft Anderson and not put the ball in his hands? I'm just really curious about this analysis, because it seems to come up a lot during draft season. It's not as if the team drafting him doesn't know that he can handle the ball, pass, etc. That's undoubtedly why any team would be drafting him, it's not so he can run off the ball, shoot off screens, or be a 3&D player, right?

I can think of plenty of players who shouldn't have the ball in their hands but did anyway, but not many that really deserved to "have the ball in their hands" and for whatever reason nobody noticed that would be a good thing. Give me a few examples of players who should have the ball in their hands more and their career was hurt by it. And the list better not start with Harrison Barnes.

Tyreke Evans started off w the ball in his hands and then the kings moved him off ball.

So that's the opposite of what I asked. The other two guys aren't great examples in my opinion. They both play well off the ball anyway.

The idea that a player has to be ball dominant to be successful never made much sense to me. If you're good and can make plays the ball will come to you or go through you one way or another.

I agree but you're acting like teams never misuse players.

[theGreatRC]

Is Boris Diaw a lazy comparison for this guy?

[Onus]

Tyreke Evans started off w the ball in his hands and then the kings moved him off ball.

So that's the opposite of what I asked. The other two guys aren't great examples in my opinion. They both play well off the ball anyway.

The idea that a player has to be ball dominant to be successful never made much sense to me. If you're good and can make plays the ball will come to you or go through you one way or another.

I agree but you're acting like teams never misuse players.

Also what if he goes to Cleveland with Kyrie and Dion Waiters on the team already. Do you really think he'd have the ball in his hands.

What if New Orleans picks him when they already have Jrue, Tyreke, and EG?

Or phx, possibly Bos, possibly Min, or even Phi

[EvanZ]

Also what if he goes to Cleveland with Kyrie and Dion Waiters on the team already. Do you really think he'd have the ball in his hands.

What if New Orleans picks him when they already have Jrue, Tyreke, and EG?

Or phx, possibly Bos, possibly Min, or even Phi

I think he'll have the ball in his hands. That's why any team would draft him. Doesn't mean he's immediately the starting PG for any team he goes to, but there are plenty of ways to get him the ball.

Anderson is a guy you want to run your offense through one way or another.

[Onus]

Also what if he goes to Cleveland with Kyrie and Dion Waiters on the team already. Do you really think he'd have the ball in his hands.

What if New Orleans picks him when they already have Jrue, Tyreke, and EG?

Or phx, possibly Bos, possibly Min, or even Phi

I think he'll have the ball in his hands. That's why any team would draft him. Doesn't mean he's immediately the starting PG for any team he goes to, but there are plenty of ways to get him the ball.

Anderson is a guy you want to run your offense through one way or another.

I want him to have the ball in his hands, I'm just pointing to the fact if he gets chosen by those teams, it could be problematic for his development since they already have very ball dominant players on the team. He's not a slam dunk pick for just any team. As I said earlier I'd take him top 5 easily abut he shouldn't be top 5 for every team.

[Marcus]

Also what if he goes to Cleveland with Kyrie and Dion Waiters on the team already. Do you really think he'd have the ball in his hands.

What if New Orleans picks him when they already have Jrue, Tyreke, and EG?

Or phx, possibly Bos, possibly Min, or even Phi

I think he'll have the ball in his hands. That's why any team would draft him. Doesn't mean he's immediately the starting PG for any team he goes to, but there are plenty of ways to get him the ball.

Anderson is a guy you want to run your offense through one way or another.

I want him to have the ball in his hands, I'm just pointing to the fact if he gets chosen by those teams, it could be problematic for his development since they already have very ball dominant players on the team. He's not a slam dunk pick for just any team. As I said earlier I'd take him top 5 easily abut he shouldn't be top 5 for every team.

I wouldn't see Minnesota as that bad of a fit. The ball moves pretty effectively over there and doesn't necessarily need to be handled by Rubio or fed to Love on the block for those 2 guys to be effective.

I agree with the assesment that a team should/would be more apt to draft Kyle KNOWNING the type of player he is and how they will have to use him for him to be effective for them

[machu46]

A great way to put the ball in his hands without having to take it away from whoever a team's star/PG is: Sixth Man. I think Anderson can be a perfect 6th man, and that's an extremely valuable thing in the NBA. If you look at all of the best teams in the NBA, one of the things that they all have in common (with the exception of Indiana) is that their benches are among the league leaders in minutes per game (relative to other team's benches).

Anderson is a perfect sixth man because you can sub him in for a PG, SG, SF, or PF, and still be able to put a functional lineup around him. You can give him the ball and let him create for the rest of your bench players, and generally speaking, he'll be going against lesser competition when matched up against bench players, so he'll be able to take better advantage of his skill level. If I were picking in the 12+ range, I would love to add him to my team.

I think he'd be a great fit for pretty much any of the teams picking between Phoenix and Charlotte in this year's draft.