rochrist wrote:Andrew McCeltic wrote:Fruit Pastilles wrote:You watched a breakdown? ****, you got me up against the wall.
He's 19.
Not many rookies ever have a decent pull-up shot.
I just don't think it's a coincidence that everything about this guy's game screams hyper-efficient, yet you think he doesn't shoot many low-percentage inefficient mid-range 2s because he sucks?
Lonzo doesn't care about college. He wants to play in the NBA, and the modern NBA is all about threes and high-percentage shots at the rim.
Even then, I don't think creating shots is anywhere near as important as being able to select and make them. Guys like Rubio, Rondo and prime Kidd couldn't make shots. Lonzo's eFG% on the other hand is stupidly high for a freshman guard.
I just think most of these arguments fail to see the big picture. When we're talking about a basketball genius who makes his teammates better and is outlier good at making effective shots, it doesn't really matter what moves he can pull off the dribble. He's still gonna win and be great.
I think Ball is a "basketball genius" and could be as good as Fultz, or better. Think Markelle could struggle once he starts playing against grown men. I see Ball getting to LA, coming off the bench, and taking over in like March at a high level.
Ball could play the 2 for us, it'll take him awhile to learn how to get his shot off by himself.
Do worry about over-hype with Markelle, especially because of his athletic attributes. That's one area where NBA heads lose perspective the most easily. But I think he's going to be very good eventually.
Unless he completely reworks his mechanics, he'll never be able to get his shot off by himself.
Plus, if he's such a basketball genius, why did he get his head handed to him by the VERY raw Fox?
Markelle was outplayed by Ball, too. You can't make too much of individual match-ups. I think, especially with the more open style we play, Lonzo is in a position to be a very impactful player. Remember the year we got IT, we also added Tayshaun Prince, and had him for about a month before the deadline? And how he made the entire offense flow better, play with more composure, knew how to get to his spots, knew where other people were supposed to go? Kelly Olynyk has some of that, too, which is why the team offense numbers go up when he's on the floor, combined with his stretch shooting. Horford has it. And Ball is potentially better at it than all of them combined.
Is his shot flukey? Yes. Will he be able to get it off against NBA defenders? I don't know. Is it guardable? Yes. But you do, at least, have to guard it. That's more than you could say about Rubio, or Rondo, or even Jason Kidd when he came in the league.
There's the risk that in trying to give Ball a better shot, you fix what's only half-broken, and lose the long bombs and open threes in trying to make him more adaptable. But the real question is how much one-on-one game he has, beyond what he showed at UCLA. Some of that may come out in workouts.
He's going to be very, very good. You put him in LA, with DAR, Ingram, and Zubac, with Luke Walton coaching? They're going to be like the Adelman Kings within a few years. Laser passing and BBIQ.
Fultz/Ball is still a little up in the air for me. Deferring to the fact that apparently *everyone* in NBA offices thinks Fultz is a surefire superstar.
My second question is whether, if we could get a second mid-lotto pick, we'd want Monk, Tatum, Isaac, or Zach Collins. Or even Ntilikina, if he's that special.
Third is if Giles is healthy, and if we can get him. Remember if he'd been healthy all year, unless he'd had a Skal Lab-ish season, he was the consensus number one pick, head and shoulders above even Fultz and Ball for his athleticism, rebounding ability, shot-blocking instincts/timing, and crisp, classic low-post moves.
