Markelle Fultz

[E-Balla]

Washington on the other hand is playing worse than usual and no one is going to say Fultz gives 100% effort.

This is the most efficient Washington offense since the 09-10 season...a team with multiple pros.

There's 2 ends to the floor though and no one on the team plays D.

[WalterBenjamin]

Honestly seems like your hatred of Fultz is somewhat personal...

hatred? towards an NBA prospect? One who might end up being a Celtic? lmao. Okay!!! So pointing out he's sloppy due to turnovers? Fact. A poor FT shooter? Fact. High usage chucker? Fact. Sorry not sorry the hype level is not warranted. I wanted Murray and had concerns about Brown. Didn't mean I "hated" Brown. I'm Brown's biggest defender on here now

Hint?!

[The-Power]

Mind you he has a absurd assist rate with abysmal teammates.

Well, those two go hand in hand to some extent. Fultz is their entire offense and the players around him are mostly finishers. Poor finishers, but finishers as they cannot create by themselves. So you would expect a high assist rate mainly because nobody else on that team is worth much.

High assist rate as a term doesn't tell us much. Would I expect an assist rate in the high teens-lower 20s? Sure, but I assure you an assist rate in the mid 30s is beyond the product of being the entire offense, especially when you couple that with his incredibly low turnover rate.

Agree with the reasons why Ball's scoring is mostly assisted but that doesn't change the fact there isn't a huge efficiency gap given that luxury.

I'm not saying it's entirely a product of the offensive polarization. Two important things to keep in mind: 1) Fultz is clearly a talented playmaker and you don't reach these numbers without being one. 2) The polarization of the offense is a testament to his ability actually, because - a smart coach provided - you are only given such primacy if you're talented enough to justify it. All I was trying to express was that comparing those numbers and take them at face value doesn't really help us to understand ability and impact of a given players' playmaking.

Scouting-wise it's pretty obvious to me that Ball is the more proficient passer and floor general. Fultz, on the other hand, is a superior scorer and - arguably most importantly - looks already very advanced in using on-ball screens to create offense which is such an important part of today's NBA offense. Being able to create off being a scoring threat even allows some players to be more effective playmakers compared to players with a superior passing game, vision and feel for the game and its pace - at least in halfcourt sets and/or for crucial possessions. Fultz and Ball could very well fit this distinction.

Whether Fultz or Ball makes more sense for a team therefore depends on the context of the team imo. I trust Ball more to maximize the output of offensively talented players around him whereas Fultz would be the obvious choice as a clear focal point - or one of two focal points at most - on offense as a ball handler AND scorer.

Washington on the other hand is playing worse than usual and no one is going to say Fultz gives 100% effort.

This is the most efficient Washington offense since the 09-10 season...a team with multiple pros.

There's 2 ends to the floor though and no one on the team plays D.

It's pretty far-fetched to use Washington's defense as an argument against Fultz - the impact from his position is always going to be limited. It makes sense to include offensive efficiency at the team level relative to the talent level in one's evaluation of a player who runs the offense as the primary ball handler, playmaker and scorer. But defense? Nah. Especially since Fultz defense and defensive intensity isn't anything I'm worried about. He's engaged, he's active, he pays attention. Does he always goes all-out on defense? No. But a) this is the case for most Guards and b) it's not something we can expect from someone with his offensive burden playing 36 out of 40 minutes. There's absolutely nothing to be concerned about regarding Fultz' defense imo.

[Duke4life831]

And he's pointing out that that word salad means nothing.

"How many of the Top 25 scorers in the NBA are ELITE passers and can't score?"

Do you not get that this sentence makes no sense?

I think people are arguing that Ball is a transcendental passer like Nash or Stockton. Their scoring is respectable but not dominant.

The people arguing that are box score analysts.

Ball: 31.7% AST% 18.4% TOV%
Fultz: 34.5% AST% 12.8% TOV%
Smith: 37.4% AST% 15.7% TOV%

Ball's playmaking is overrated. UCLA just runs a much more efficient offense than UW and NCst. If Fultz and Smith maintained their AST%/TOV% ratio on UCLA, UCLA's offense would be even better. And I see no reason why their AST%/TOV% ratio would become worse from playing with better teammates. It should improve if anything.

Aren't you the one doing box score analysts though? How about Ben Simmons, his passing skills are praised and people think he's going to be one of the best passers in the NBA once he plays. These are his passing numbers last year

4.8 assists, 3.4 TOs, 27.4 Ast%, 17.4 TO%.

His conference numbers get even worse and those are the ones I prefer to use for college stats because majority of guys get to play like 5-7 cupcakes to open the season. The fact that you're saying UCLA's offense would be even better with DSJ or Fultz is just dumb. It's like you're only looking at box scores and not actually looking at player style. UCLA has the 2nd best offense college ball has seen in 15+ years, they are running a brand new system which is basically built all around Ball's style of play.

[eagereyez]

I think people are arguing that Ball is a transcendental passer like Nash or Stockton. Their scoring is respectable but not dominant.

The people arguing that are box score analysts.

Ball: 31.7% AST% 18.4% TOV%
Fultz: 34.5% AST% 12.8% TOV%
Smith: 37.4% AST% 15.7% TOV%

Ball's playmaking is overrated. UCLA just runs a much more efficient offense than UW and NCst. If Fultz and Smith maintained their AST%/TOV% ratio on UCLA, UCLA's offense would be even better. And I see no reason why their AST%/TOV% ratio would become worse from playing with better teammates. It should improve if anything.

Aren't you the one doing box score analysts though? How about Ben Simmons, his passing skills are praised and people think he's going to be one of the best passers in the NBA once he plays. These are his passing numbers last year

4.8 assists, 3.4 TOs, 27.4 Ast%, 17.4 TO%.

His conference numbers get even worse and those are the ones I prefer to use for college stats because majority of guys get to play like 5-7 cupcakes to open the season. The fact that you're saying UCLA's offense would be even better with DSJ or Fultz is just dumb. It's like you're only looking at box scores and not actually looking at player style. UCLA has the 2nd best offense college ball has seen in 15+ years, they are running a brand new system which is basically built all around Ball's style of play.

Simmons wasn't used as the primary facilitator at LSU. Pretty obvious what the contextual difference is. There's also an added benefit from having a big-man facilitator in that they draw another big out of the paint, meaning their AST%/TOV% is less important. That was a really, really bad example. And no, AST% and TOV% are not box score metrics.

Smith and Fultz are more efficient distributors despite playing with worse teammates. >>If<< they maintained their AST%/TOV% on UCLA, UCLA's offense would be even better.

[reanimator]

I'm not saying it's entirely a product of the offensive polarization. Two important things to keep in mind: 1) Fultz is clearly a talented playmaker and you don't reach these numbers without being one. 2) The polarization of the offense is a testament to his ability actually, because - a smart coach provided - you are only given such primacy if you're talented enough to justify it. All I was trying to express was that comparing those numbers and take them at face value doesn't really help us to understand ability and impact of a given players' playmaking.

Scouting-wise it's pretty obvious to me that Ball is the more proficient passer and floor general. Fultz, on the other hand, is a superior scorer and - arguably most importantly - looks already very advanced in using on-ball screens to create offense which is such an important part of today's NBA offense. Being able to create off being a scoring threat even allows some players to be more effective playmakers compared to players with a superior passing game, vision and feel for the game and its pace - at least in halfcourt sets and/or for crucial possessions. Fultz and Ball could very well fit this distinction.

Whether Fultz or Ball makes more sense for a team therefore depends on the context of the team imo. I trust Ball more to maximize the output of offensively talented players around him whereas Fultz would be the obvious choice as a clear focal point - or one of two focal points at most - on offense as a ball handler AND scorer.

I don't disagree with any of this. I brought up the advanced metrics to illustrate that some of the hyperbole going around was not accurate, not that advanced metrics are the objective truth or something. I don't believe Fultz to be a better passer even if assist rate indicates that, just like I don't believe Ball is a more efficient volume scorer even if advanced metrics indicate that.

[Vesper]

There is really no point to even scout Fultz anymore.

We know what he is and what he brings, regardless of opponent in NCAA level. We also know that washington sucks and wont do anything this season.

[Marcus]

There is really no point to even scout Fultz anymore.

We know what he is and what he brings, regardless of opponent in NCAA level. We also know that washington sucks and wont do anything this season.

exactly why I've stayed out of the discussion for the most part.

[bigpimpatl]

There is really no point to even scout Fultz anymore.

We know what he is and what he brings, regardless of opponent in NCAA level. We also know that washington sucks and wont do anything this season.

Is Fultz what everyone considers a "can't miss" talent? Like KAT or Anthony Davis of point guards?

[jrob23]

There is really no point to even scout Fultz anymore.

We know what he is and what he brings, regardless of opponent in NCAA level. We also know that washington sucks and wont do anything this season.

Is Fultz what everyone considers a "can't miss" talent? Like KAT or Anthony Davis of point guards?

no. not even close. I don't think anyone is a generational "can't miss" prospect in this class. I think Ball is a can't miss PG prospect though. I do have him as the bpa at this point.

[WalterBenjamin]

There is really no point to even scout Fultz anymore.

We know what he is and what he brings, regardless of opponent in NCAA level. We also know that washington sucks and wont do anything this season.

Is Fultz what everyone considers a "can't miss" talent? Like KAT or Anthony Davis of point guards?

Yes he is.

[DirtyDez]

There is really no point to even scout Fultz anymore.

We know what he is and what he brings, regardless of opponent in NCAA level. We also know that washington sucks and wont do anything this season.

Is Fultz what everyone considers a "can't miss" talent? Like KAT or Anthony Davis of point guards?

Towns wasn't on AD's level going into the draft. I would say Fultz and Towns are on the same level. Not a grand slam to go #1 but 95% likely to yes.

[Zombiesonics]

I've felt since his participation on that u18 usa team he might have some issues getting over screens or containing the dribble. Having said that, there is no way he doesn't go #1 imo. Just too gifted, skill wise and athleticism. he almost performs on a different plane than players his age.

[bigboi]

I think people are arguing that Ball is a transcendental passer like Nash or Stockton. Their scoring is respectable but not dominant.

The people arguing that are box score analysts.

Ball: 31.7% AST% 18.4% TOV%
Fultz: 34.5% AST% 12.8% TOV%
Smith: 37.4% AST% 15.7% TOV%

Ball's playmaking is overrated. UCLA just runs a much more efficient offense than UW and NCst. If Fultz and Smith maintained their AST%/TOV% ratio on UCLA, UCLA's offense would be even better. And I see no reason why their AST%/TOV% ratio would become worse from playing with better teammates. It should improve if anything.

Aren't you the one doing box score analysts though? How about Ben Simmons, his passing skills are praised and people think he's going to be one of the best passers in the NBA once he plays. These are his passing numbers last year

4.8 assists, 3.4 TOs, 27.4 Ast%, 17.4 TO%.

His conference numbers get even worse and those are the ones I prefer to use for college stats because majority of guys get to play like 5-7 cupcakes to open the season. The fact that you're saying UCLA's offense would be even better with DSJ or Fultz is just dumb. It's like you're only looking at box scores and not actually looking at player style. UCLA has the 2nd best offense college ball has seen in 15+ years, they are running a brand new system which is basically built all around Ball's style of play.

Simmons is overrated as a passer, this has been known. Personally, I think Smith might be the best passer just off his pick and roll game. Ball makes pretty simple passes when I've watched him, nothing that makes me go wow, his court vision is crazy.

[PLO]

Simmons over rated as a passer?! And its known?

[Rastas]

Simmons over rated as a passer?! And its known?

Simmons still has plenty of haters out there - and they remain relevant until he finally gets to play.

[bigboi]

Simmons over rated as a passer?! And its known?

You dudes suffer from the D'Angelo Russell syndrome. Every time a prospect can make some flashy passes, they're some type of generational passer. Simmons' passing is so lauded because 1. He makes flashy passes and 2. He is 6'10. But other than that, his passing is a bit overrated and I've always said that his passing doesn't make his team better. We'll just wait and see, after all this board did say that Russell was the next great passer. Oh well

[Tanks1]

Simmons over rated as a passer?! And its known?

You dudes suffer from the D'Angelo Russell syndrome. Every time a prospect can make some flashy passes, they're some type of generational passer. Simmons' passing is so lauded because 1. He makes flashy passes and 2. He is 6'10. But other than that, his passing is a bit overrated and I've always said that his passing doesn't make his team better. We'll just wait and see, after all this board did say that Russell was the next great passer. Oh well

The hate is real.....is feels good ! 10, 9, 8, 76ers !!!

[Marcus]

5 post in a row about Simmons. How bout we bring it back. Anybody with any word on Kelle's knee?

[HotelVitale]

Simmons over rated as a passer?! And its known?

You dudes suffer from the D'Angelo Russell syndrome. Every time a prospect can make some flashy passes, they're some type of generational passer. Simmons' passing is so lauded because 1. He makes flashy passes and 2. He is 6'10. But other than that, his passing is a bit overrated and I've always said that his passing doesn't make his team better. We'll just wait and see, after all this board did say that Russell was the next great passer. Oh well

There's a legit concern there--Simmons didn't play PG at LSU and he mostly only passed in transition or on drives from the perimeter. We don't actually know if he'll be able to play PG full time, or at least enough to get the 8-12 assists that most starting PGs can get. I don't think there are big reasons to assume he can't, but it's an unknown, and it's not child's play to master the pn'r and other more difficult aspects of full-time PG timing.

Problem with the Russell comparison is that he basically was the PG on Ohio State and still didn't produce many assists or show good vision as a half-court facilitator. The amazing passes people were talking about were like 3 passes Russell made at a stand-still (i.e. not off the dribble in in-game action), and many people were skeptical that meant he was likely to be a great passer at the next level (I for one was vocal about that when the Sixers were thinking of drafting him). Also, the biggest problem with Russell as a prospect was his inability to shake guys or get to the cup--if you can't do that then it's harder to create for teammates, and that should be easier for Simmons to do with his combo of size and quickness.