Las Vegas Summer league - July 7-17, 2017

[rate_]

Also, how does Bam Adebayo not even make the poll????

He shot 35% from the field.

Still came away with decent numbers

Poor efficiency but still had good impact in the ORL SL:

18-9-1-1-2 | .183 WS/48 | 21.8 PER (26.6% USG)

Josh Jackson also shot 35% from the field, but look at the difference:

18-8-2-0-1 | .096 WS/48 | 14.4 PER (24.5% USG)

[Feel_the_Heat15]

Also, how does Bam Adebayo not even make the poll????

He shot 35% from the field.

And averaged 10+ FTA per game.

[atlantabbq99]

I never realize what an ugly and bad 3pt shooter Lonzo Ball is. Maybe those scouts were right by saying he is another Ricky Rubio passer and shooter.

Thing is I don't think he is as good of passer or has Rickys bball iq. If someone handed Ricky a team and let him hustle create as the #1 he would be an all star. Ricky is just a much better game manager and pick and roll player.

Sent from my SM-T713 using RealGM mobile app

Rubio is the worst passing pick and roll guard in the NBA. He has always been too slow in creating his own shot, and he has been the weakest member of the wolves for years...

Watch on YouTube

[FlatearthZorro]

Also, how does Bam Adebayo not even make the poll????

He shot 35% from the field.

41% through the first 3 games. The 8am clunker at the end was a poor game for him...

He also was consistently rebounding and blocking shots as well. And his jumper, while not refined yet, looks smooth and natural.

Don't draw too many conclusions from that 35% number...

Oh, I'm not saying anything. Kid looks like a modern day big man. Only 19, good rebounder but 35% from the field probably led to not being on the poll.

http://www.nba.com/article/2017/07/08/kia-rookie-ladder-boston-celtics-jayson-tatum-impressive-start

He's 2nd on nba.com Rookier ladder.

[sikma42]

I never realize what an ugly and bad 3pt shooter Lonzo Ball is. Maybe those scouts were right by saying he is another Ricky Rubio passer and shooter.

Thing is I don't think he is as good of passer or has Rickys bball iq. If someone handed Ricky a team and let him hustle create as the #1 he would be an all star. Ricky is just a much better game manager and pick and roll player.

Sent from my SM-T713 using RealGM mobile app

Rubio is the worst passing pick and roll guard in the NBA. He has always been too slow in creating his own shot, and he has been the weakest member of the wolves for years...

Watch on YouTube

I'm not watching the video but that is a silly assertion.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[The-Power]

Let's make it just a game of probability
what's worrying for Lonzo is that the other four top 5 picks are looking very good.

If you want to argue probability: the individual probability of Lonzo being a bust doesn't increase if the other players picked in the top five aren't busts.

technically they are independent events
but given that the probability of all 5 being all-stars is close to 0, I feel like he's the most likely to be the underwhelming prospect

I'm sort of making a prediction beforehand with hindsight so the starting conditions are not equal (It's like I know already that the other 4 will be better).As a consequence he's the most likely candidate for that "bust spot" which has almost 100% chance to happen

If every top 5 player has, say, a 10% of becoming an All-Star in any draft then Ball's odds are still at 10% irrespective of what happens to the other players. Ultimately – given the low individual odds – it's extremely unlikely that all players turn into All-Stars, yes, but Ball's individual chances do not change one bit. Generally, the reasoning regarding a certain individual based on aggregate probability is very evidently flawed – that's just not how probability theory works.

In other words: assuming that all other four players pan out (we have to assume that as an antecedent condition in your scenario), the chances that Ball will pan out as well are just as high as the chances he won't pan out if they were 50/50 at the beginning. If they are 10% at the beginning, they are still 10% at the end no matter what happens to the others.

The aggregate percentage (= end result) can be used to approximate starting chances for each individual at the start. However, aggregate percentage does not change the own individual odds depending on how other individuals did before or do simultaneously or later. Not at all.

[KingDavid]

A lot of overreactions over one bad game. Can someone tell me what look good and what looked concerning about Ball? I missed the game. I knew getting his shot off was going to be a problem if he doesn't tweak it. But the weak handles in half court is a major problem. That's not easy to fix. Limitations there have a lot to do with foot speed and footwork.

[karkinos]

zhou qi highlights lookin legit out there for houston
if he can get regular off the bench minutes in his rookie season, rockets are a great threat

[AdagioPace]

If you want to argue probability: the individual probability of Lonzo being a bust doesn't increase if the other players picked in the top five aren't busts.

technically they are independent events
but given that the probability of all 5 being all-stars is close to 0, I feel like he's the most likely to be the underwhelming prospect

I'm sort of making a prediction beforehand with hindsight so the starting conditions are not equal (It's like I know already that the other 4 will be better).As a consequence he's the most likely candidate for that "bust spot" which has almost 100% chance to happen

If every top 5 player has, say, a 10% of becoming an All-Star in any draft then Ball's odds are still at 10% irrespective of what happens to the other players. Ultimately – given the low individual odds – it's extremely unlikely that all players turn into All-Stars, yes, but Ball's individual chances do not change one bit. Generally, the reasoning regarding a certain individual based on aggregate probability is very evidently flawed – that's just not how probability theory works.

In other words: assuming that all other four players pan out (we have to assume that as an antecedent condition in your scenario), the chances that Ball will pan out as well are just as high as the chances he won't pan out if they were 50/50 at the beginning. If they are 10% at the beginning, they are still 10% at the end no matter what happens to the others.

The aggregate percentage (= end result) can be used to approximate starting chances for each individual at the start. However, aggregate percentage does not change the own individual odds depending on how other individuals did before or do simultaneously or later. Not at all.

yeah, let's say mine is more a mix of probability, common sense, messy reasoning, gut feeling, qualitative assessment (he's less athletical,wierd shooting and 0 defense)
Frankly,I should have not used the word "probability", that assumes as you say, that Lonzo will develop indipendently from the other 4 regardless of the individual and/or aggregate probability


Let's suppose you don't know what's the individual chance for each to develop as an all-star but you know that the other four will became all-stars (somebody from the future called you and gave you this information) and you know,empirically,that Lonzo is less athletical and has a weird shooting form.
Would you put faith in Lonzo? Would you assign to Lonzo the same probability?

your mathematical self would say ("yeah,there's still chance")
while
your "gut-feeling" self would say (mmmm)

It's my fault,I shouldn't have used the term probabilty. To tell you the truth,mine was only really a weak attempt to reconcile his "weak physical tools" and the "good performances of the other 4" to predict that he will be the underwhelming one.
While the first could be a legit limitation to his chances, the second,as you say,appears not to be influent (although my gut feeling would disagree and I would bet against Lonzo If I knew whether the other 4 pan out or not). But that's just a personal drive,nothing objective

[jonjames]

Since John Wall has come to form there's been alot of electric guards with poor jumpers taken in the lottery. All of them played great in summer league, but have had a hard time adjusting.

2012: Austin Rivers (10)
2013: Victor Oladipo (2)
2014: Elfird Payton (10)
2015: Emmanuel Mudiay (7)
2016: Kris Dunn (5)

Dunn & Mudiay are the most recent prospects dubbed with the John Wall comp and both have been a bit underwhelming. Hopefully Fox can break the chain and make a name for himself. I don't think he has that nuclear athleticism that guys like Wall/Westbrook/Rose has, but he certainly plays with alot of poise. In fact, I think his mid-range game at his age is farther along than his predecessors at their times. At the bare minimum I see prime Devin Harris, and maybe even the upside to be Tony Parker-lite if all things fall right.

Love Fox's attitude and want him to succeed but honestly he's nothing like John Wall as far as a tier of a prospect IMO. Yeah he is quick and lacking shooting and went to UK but nowhere near the pure PG and smaller. Wall even in high school had very evident playmaking ability that was special. Given size, playmakin ability and athleticism I've actually thought he was one of the better number one prospects in a while for a one and done. Since him the only prospect I liked more was AD as Towns was good but a surprise. He was a really good prospect who got hated on because many people called Rose his floor right before Rose made a huge jump his MVP year. And the next year people fell in Love with Kyrie so Wall has been a bit underrrated or his potential skipped over a bit since. Fox is nowhere near the prospect Wall was coming out IMO. Not to say he can't be a great player but people who think he's on that level given the tools and skill set at the same age I think are very mistaken.

I think underrating fox if you think hes not close to wall as prospect. Hes better pure athlete than wall imho. Wall has the better size/dimensions than fox. Also fox jumpshot isnt good by any means but not bad. Bad would be like rondo rubio dunn..hes better shooter than those guys.

[RaptorsLife]

I remember when lavar ball said UCLA didn't win because he had 3 white guys on the team and they lacked foot speed

Well lonzo couldn't get passed kendall Marshall in summer league. The irony lol

[MotownMadness]

I remember when lavar ball said UCLA didn't win because he had 3 white guys on the team and they lacked foot speed

Well lonzo couldn't get passed kendall Marshall in summer league. The irony lol

He also told me at halftime Lakers would win the game

[karkinos]

wall and rose were on a different level athletically than most
fox could be there, but i don't think his skills are as refined for us to really see how that athleticism translates when he has the ball in his hands.

[dkj5061]

It is interesting that Ingram is about as young as the top 5 picks in this draft. He's younger than Josh Jackson. 1 month older than Ball, 3 months older than Fox, 5 months older than Tatum, 6 months older than Fultz. I mean Ingram is basically the same age as the top 5 picks with one full nba season under his belt.

*almost 9 months older than Fultz.

Regardless, he's still very young and looked a little bigger last night night which is huge for his development. He'll be a good one.

[The Hack]

Can't believe how many good, young players I saw in the Suns/Kings game. These summer league games have been pretty cool

[EddieJonesFan]

The biggest difference between Rubio and Ball is Rubio's ball handling is far superior, but Ball has more potential as a more efficient scorer.

[Joel Embust]

Can't believe how many good, young players I saw in the Suns/Kings game. These summer league games have been pretty cool

Yeah, most of their young core/rotational players were featured and played big minutes.

[OkcSinceSGA]

Rubio has elite, top 10 level on court metric impact. Wolves fans who wanted him out are dumb and will see that soon. He was terribly managed in Minnesota. It's a tall order that Ball will be that good anytime soon.

[CaptainMorgan78]

His shooting will improve over time.

I really like fox. Great motor, speed, handles, etc... But that shot... it's really bad. His stroke looks OK but that kind of makes me believe it could be a significant problem. I think he literally just has poor depth perception or something and it's not something that can be re-worked. He misses BADLY to the left, then right..long, short. Worst shooting lottery pick by a significant margin. Luckily, shooting is a skill we have seen countless players adapt and learn in the pros, but right now, it is really poor. Especially for the pg position where you need to be able to shoot in todays league. If he learns to shoot average from midrange and deep he could be a stud though. It just would be a huge concern.

I think you're exaggerating a little too much, Fox has a better looking shot than Lonzo.

Sent from my Z981 using RealGM mobile app

[Higgs Boston]

The biggest difference between Rubio and Ball is Rubio's ball handling is far superior, but Ball has more potential as a more efficient scorer.

And defense. Rubio is too much aggressive sometimes trying to steal the ball, but he is elite. Ball can't guard a chair.