2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery

[Jvaughn]

Drafting Reddish is like throwing a lottery pick away to the trash pile.

There has never been a college player in the past 20 years who sucks as much donkey balls as he does in college and ends up being an above average NBA starter.

Gerald Wallace and Kyle Lowry come to mind off the top of my head. I'm sure there are way more cases of players who were bad at the college level but became productive NBA players. Lot of factors can change for a player. Situation, team, and the college game sometimes don't suit a player.

[SfBull]

Reddish going higher in the top 5 would be glorious. I don't envy the team that does.

That said, he is the perfect player who would look appealing in private workouts, great body, athletic, great shooting stroke, at least until he puts on his jersey and starts playing in games.

I'd be stunned if he ever ends up being a starting calibre NBA player. STUNNED.

The Suns are pretty set on a pg at #6, either Garland or Coby White.

The Cavs might be tempted to draft Reddish at #5. I hope that Reddish goes HAM in his private workup over there.

He'll most likely be available at #7 and the Bulls will be tempted to pick him too.

[SfBull]

I’ll give you $100 for every guy you predict to be an all-star at least once but you have to give me $100 for every guy you don’t predict to be an all-star that ends up one and you have to give me $100 if you predict him to be an all-star and doesn’t end up one of its so easy to predict future value and upside. Can pick as many or few guys as you want.

Why would anyone agree to this? No matter the draft, the % chances of winning this bet is low.

So if the chances are so low, why do you know that Deandre Hunter is a low ceiling player? How does anyone truly know a player's "ceiling"? You can have an opinion on skills or ability but to mention ceilings is an impossible argument because not a person alive is able to predict it.

Completely subjective evaluation .

[Chi town]

How would you guys feel if it went like this?
1. Zion
2. Morant
3. Barrett
4. Garland
5. Reddish
6. White

Get to pick between Culver and Hunter. I would take Hunter. I disagree with those completely dismissing him. I think his ceiling is Paul George and his floor is relatively high.

I said on lottery day that one of Garland, Culver or Hunter would be available at 7. I feel that more strongly right now, although my hopes of Garland have faded to almost zero.

I think he is too robotic to possibly be George, but
I can see a borderline all star type player.

Agreed. I take Culver over Hunter solely due to the handle and fluidity. Culver is more PG than Hunter IMO. I also think Hunter is a PF not a SF. I know he can defend both but I don’t see him being a SF than can handle and playmaker. Culver can.

[Red Larrivee]

Hunter played a nice cushy role on the best team in the country. I watched him and rarely came away all that impressed with him as an overall basketball player. Sure, he had a good efficient season, but will it translate to the pro game. I say no. He will get drafted by a team who will need him to do more than he's capable of doing. The results will more than likely result in a subpar rookie campaign.

DeAndre Hunter is the Mikal Bridges of this draft year. I wasn't high on Bridges and my opinion is the same about Hunter.

Why wouldn't Hunter's game translate to the pros and why would a team need him to do "more" as a rookie? I really can't think of major reason why Hunter's game won't translate.

And FWIW, Mikal Bridges at one point during the season was 2nd in RPM among rookies and Phoenix was +4.6 with him on the floor. You may need to reconsider why you don't like the type of player that adds positive value to a team.

[CoreyVillains]

Did a breakdown on St.John’s Shamorie Ponds. If we don’t go PG in round 1, Ponds is someone I’d look into. Excellent handle, underrated distributor who rarely turns the ball over, excellent defender with a fantastic steal rate(defensive vid coming soon), decent shooter who can get his own shot but needs to watch his shot selection at the next level, played in a multi-ball handler system at SJU. He’s a junior so he’ll be 21 at the start of next season, but I also feel he has a good NBA future if he lands in the right system.

Watch on YouTube

Here’s Ponds defensive tape.

Watch on YouTube

[Rose2Boozer]

Hunter played a nice cushy role on the best team in the country. I watched him and rarely came away all that impressed with him as an overall basketball player. Sure, he had a good efficient season, but will it translate to the pro game. I say no. He will get drafted by a team who will need him to do more than he's capable of doing. The results will more than likely result in a subpar rookie campaign.

DeAndre Hunter is the Mikal Bridges of this draft year. I wasn't high on Bridges and my opinion is the same about Hunter.

Why wouldn't Hunter's game translate to the pros and why would a team need him to do "more" as a rookie?

Well, because there's the college game and then there's the pro game. The two levels are clearly not the same. Hunter shot a great percentage from three at Virginia. Do you think it will translate? My guess is no. Bridges had a great percentage and great volume from three at Villanova. Did it translate to his rookie year in Phoenix?

Why would he be expected to do more at the pro level? I guess that's the nature of lottery picks. They're drafted with the hopes of improvement. You don't think the team that drafts Hunter will want to see him play off the dribble more than he did in Virginia? Of course they will. Will he be successful? My guess is no. At the end of the day, DeAndre Hunter is a very good defensive prospect.

[johnnyvann840]

Hunter played a nice cushy role on the best team in the country. I watched him and rarely came away all that impressed with him as an overall basketball player. Sure, he had a good efficient season, but will it translate to the pro game. I say no. He will get drafted by a team who will need him to do more than he's capable of doing. The results will more than likely result in a subpar rookie campaign.

DeAndre Hunter is the Mikal Bridges of this draft year. I wasn't high on Bridges and my opinion is the same about Hunter.

Why wouldn't Hunter's game translate to the pros and why would a team need him to do "more" as a rookie? I really can't think of major reason why Hunter's game won't translate.

And FWIW, Mikal Bridges at one point during the season was 2nd in RPM among rookies and Phoenix was +4.6 with him on the floor. You may need to reconsider why you don't like the type of player that adds positive value to a team.

Even as a rookie Bridges was a high impact player for his team. Both the offense and defense were a lot better with him on the floor. Not sure how you can use him as a bad example. He scored with above average efficiency. Averaged 2 steals per 36. He was a solid rookie and not nearly a finished product.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

Hunter played a nice cushy role on the best team in the country. I watched him and rarely came away all that impressed with him as an overall basketball player. Sure, he had a good efficient season, but will it translate to the pro game. I say no. He will get drafted by a team who will need him to do more than he's capable of doing. The results will more than likely result in a subpar rookie campaign.

DeAndre Hunter is the Mikal Bridges of this draft year. I wasn't high on Bridges and my opinion is the same about Hunter.

Why wouldn't Hunter's game translate to the pros and why would a team need him to do "more" as a rookie? I really can't think of major reason why Hunter's game won't translate.

And FWIW, Mikal Bridges at one point during the season was 2nd in RPM among rookies and Phoenix was +4.6 with him on the floor. You may need to reconsider why you don't like the type of player that adds positive value to a team.

Even as a rookie Bridges was a high impact player for his team. Both the offense and defense were a lot better with him on the floor. Not sure how you can use him as a bad example. He scored with above average efficiency. Averaged 2 steals per 36. He was a solid rookie and not nearly a finished product.

Mika’s rookie season was pretty good considering the mess he got drafted into.

https://www.nba.com/suns/features/mikal-bridges-case-all-rookie-selection

[johnnyvann840]

Hunter played a nice cushy role on the best team in the country. I watched him and rarely came away all that impressed with him as an overall basketball player. Sure, he had a good efficient season, but will it translate to the pro game. I say no. He will get drafted by a team who will need him to do more than he's capable of doing. The results will more than likely result in a subpar rookie campaign.

DeAndre Hunter is the Mikal Bridges of this draft year. I wasn't high on Bridges and my opinion is the same about Hunter.

Why wouldn't Hunter's game translate to the pros and why would a team need him to do "more" as a rookie?

Well, because there's the college game and then there's the pro game. The two levels are clearly not the same. Hunter shot a great percentage from three at Virginia. Do you think it will translate? My guess is no. Bridges had a great percentage and great volume from three at Villanova. Did it translate to his rookie year in Phoenix?

Why would he be expected to do more at the pro level? I guess that's the nature of lottery picks. They're drafted with the hopes of improvement. You don't think the team that drafts Hunter will want to see him play off the dribble more than he did in Virginia? Of course they will. Will he be successful? My guess is no. At the end of the day, DeAndre Hunter is a very good defensive prospect.

Mikal wasn't bad from 3 pt, he was right around average for the NBA and as a rookie trying to adjust to a lot of things. There have been countless rookies who shot really poorly from 3 pt and wound up great 3 pt shooters in this league. Bridges wasn't even bad at .335, which is acceptable especially for a rookie. About the same as Zach Lavine as a rookie.

[Chi town]

How would you guys feel if it went like this?
1. Zion
2. Morant
3. Barrett
4. Garland
5. Reddish
6. White

Get to pick between Culver and Hunter. I would take Hunter. I disagree with those completely dismissing him. I think his ceiling is Paul George and his floor is relatively high.

I said on lottery day that one of Garland, Culver or Hunter would be available at 7. I feel that more strongly right now, although my hopes of Garland have faded to almost zero.

So does Hunter basically become our backup SF and PF?

Culver has so much more versatility and could play 1-4 and defend 2-4

I don’t see PG’s fluidity in Hunter, but I agree that his ceiling has been undersold and would be thrilled to take him at 7.

[Chi town]

IMO Mikal>Hunter solely due to handle, more versatility, and ability to defend 1-4. This is why I want Culver over Hunter.

I’d rather trade back at 7 and draft langford then stay put and take Hunter.

[Rose2Boozer]

Why wouldn't Hunter's game translate to the pros and why would a team need him to do "more" as a rookie?

Well, because there's the college game and then there's the pro game. The two levels are clearly not the same. Hunter shot a great percentage from three at Virginia. Do you think it will translate? My guess is no. Bridges had a great percentage and great volume from three at Villanova. Did it translate to his rookie year in Phoenix?

Why would he be expected to do more at the pro level? I guess that's the nature of lottery picks. They're drafted with the hopes of improvement. You don't think the team that drafts Hunter will want to see him play off the dribble more than he did in Virginia? Of course they will. Will he be successful? My guess is no. At the end of the day, DeAndre Hunter is a very good defensive prospect.

Mikal wasn't bad from 3 pt, he was right around average for the NBA and as a rookie trying to adjust to a lot of things. There have been countless rookies who shot really poorly from 3 pt and wound up great 3 pt shooters in this league. Bridges wasn't even bad at .335, which is acceptable especially for a rookie. About the same as Zach Lavine as a rookie.

What percentage did he shoot from three at Villanova?

[R3AL1TY]

Did a breakdown on St.John’s Shamorie Ponds. If we don’t go PG in round 1, Ponds is someone I’d look into. Excellent handle, underrated distributor who rarely turns the ball over, excellent defender with a fantastic steal rate(defensive vid coming soon), decent shooter who can get his own shot but needs to watch his shot selection at the next level, played in a multi-ball handler system at SJU. He’s a junior so he’ll be 21 at the start of next season, but I also feel he has a good NBA future if he lands in the right system.

Watch on YouTube

Nice breakdown...I checked out couple more videos of him. He's definitely a scoring PG and a guy you'll want to put in a 6th man roll. I like how he uses spin moves when attacking the basket. He looks like a slightly more efficient chucker than Blakeney, but I don't think I would pick him over Windler, Nowell, and Samanic at 38 if they're available.

He’s much more of a team player than Blakeney. He had a 29.2 assist % with a 10.3 to %. And he’ll D up his position, had a 4.1 steal %. But he does need to work on his shot selection a bit, but he was the number one guy on SJU, so I think he is smart enough to adjust based on his role in the NBA.

If he's bringing other things to the table like assists and defense, and knowing his role, then I wouldn't mind him getting picked over couple guys. Where are you getting those percentages from?

[Red Larrivee]

Well, because there's the college game and then there's the pro game. The two levels are clearly not the same. Hunter shot a great percentage from three at Virginia. Do you think it will translate? My guess is no. Bridges had a great percentage and great volume from three at Villanova. Did it translate to his rookie year in Phoenix?

Why would he be expected to do more at the pro level? I guess that's the nature of lottery picks. They're drafted with the hopes of improvement. You don't think the team that drafts Hunter will want to see him play off the dribble more than he did in Virginia? Of course they will. Will he be successful? My guess is no. At the end of the day, DeAndre Hunter is a very good defensive prospect.

Yet, Bridges was still a positive impact player for Phoenix as a rookie. Shooting translates long-term; there are plenty of examples of good shooters who struggled as rookies: Kevin Durant, Reggie Miller, and Mark Price are a few of the prolific ones.

Plus, Hunter wasn't just a knockdown three-point shooter. I posted this a while back from his Synergy:



Even if you think his three-point shooting is fluky for the pro level (and why would you since, he he upped his percentage from .382 to .438 on the same volume), he's literally was good to great in every other offensive category last season. A team can wait on the chance that he gets stronger off the dribble (even though he isn't even remotely bad at it), while he contributes in other areas offensively and plays strong defense.

You mentioned improvement; Hunter improved significantly last season and shows all the signs of a player who will continue to do so. Again:

- Increased his 3P% from .382 to .438 on the same volume.
- Increased his efficiency from .584 to .618 TS% on the same volume
- Basically doubled his win shares from 3.7 to 7.3.
- Consistent regardless of the competition he faced. Here are Hunter's numbers in Conference Play last season (Per 40):

18.8 points
6.5 rebounds
2.5 assists
.532 FG%
.500 3P%
.628 TS%
24.9 PER
3.4 WS (led team)

Reminder: He played in the ACC, the strongest conference in basketball last season.

To recap, this is a player who:

- Is one of the most consistent players in the draft
- Added significant value on both sides of the ball
- Has little to no questions about basketball IQ
- Excelled as a pillar in one of the most defensively-demanding teams in the country,
- Is celebrated for his intangibles and decision-making
- Enters the league with one of the highest role player floors in the draft (a factor that contributed to unlikely rises for Paul George, Jimmy Butler, and Pascal Siakam).

And yet, we're supposed to believe that this is a profile of a player who will not translate to the NBA.

It doesn't vibe.

[johnnyvann840]

Well, because there's the college game and then there's the pro game. The two levels are clearly not the same. Hunter shot a great percentage from three at Virginia. Do you think it will translate? My guess is no. Bridges had a great percentage and great volume from three at Villanova. Did it translate to his rookie year in Phoenix?

Why would he be expected to do more at the pro level? I guess that's the nature of lottery picks. They're drafted with the hopes of improvement. You don't think the team that drafts Hunter will want to see him play off the dribble more than he did in Virginia? Of course they will. Will he be successful? My guess is no. At the end of the day, DeAndre Hunter is a very good defensive prospect.

Mikal wasn't bad from 3 pt, he was right around average for the NBA and as a rookie trying to adjust to a lot of things. There have been countless rookies who shot really poorly from 3 pt and wound up great 3 pt shooters in this league. Bridges wasn't even bad at .335, which is acceptable especially for a rookie. About the same as Zach Lavine as a rookie.

What percentage did he shoot from three at Villanova?

Why does that even matter right now? The college 3 is a constant 19.9 vs the NBA 3 being longer and different from everywhere on the floor anywhere from 22- 23.9. Takes some adjusting to for most players, especially rookies.

[Chi town]

Well, because there's the college game and then there's the pro game. The two levels are clearly not the same. Hunter shot a great percentage from three at Virginia. Do you think it will translate? My guess is no. Bridges had a great percentage and great volume from three at Villanova. Did it translate to his rookie year in Phoenix?

Why would he be expected to do more at the pro level? I guess that's the nature of lottery picks. They're drafted with the hopes of improvement. You don't think the team that drafts Hunter will want to see him play off the dribble more than he did in Virginia? Of course they will. Will he be successful? My guess is no. At the end of the day, DeAndre Hunter is a very good defensive prospect.

Yet, Bridges was still a positive impact player for Phoenix as a rookie. Shooting translates long-term; there are plenty of examples of good shooters who struggled as rookies: Kevin Durant, Reggie Miller, and Mark Price are a few of the prolific ones.

Plus, Hunter wasn't just a knockdown three-point shooter. I posted this a while back from his Synergy:



Even if you think his three-point shooting is fluky for the pro level (and why would you since, he he upped his percentage from .382 to .438 on the same volume), he's literally was good to great in every other offensive category last season. A team can wait on the chance that he gets stronger off the dribble (even though he isn't even remotely bad at it), while he contributes in other areas offensively and plays strong defense.

You mentioned improvement; Hunter improved significantly last season and shows all the signs of a player who will continue to do so. Again:

- Increased his 3P% from .382 to .438 on the same volume.
- Increased his efficiency from .584 to .618 TS% on the same volume
- Basically doubled his win shares from 3.7 to 7.3.
- Consistent regardless of the competition he faced. Here are Hunter's numbers in Conference Play last season (Per 40):

18.8 points
6.5 rebounds
2.5 assists
.532 FG%
.500 3P%
.628 TS%
24.9 PER
3.4 WS (led team)

Reminder: He played in the ACC, the strongest conference in basketball last season.

To recap, this is a player who:

- Is one of the most consistent players in the draft
- Added significant value on both sides of the ball
- Has little to no questions about basketball IQ
- Excelled as a pillar in one of the most defensively-demanding team teams in the country,
- Is celebrated for his intangibles and decision-making
- Enters the league with one of the highest role player floors in the league (a factor that contributed to unlikely rises for Paul George, Jimmy Butler, and Pascal Siakam).

And yet, we're supposed to believe that this is a profile of a player who will not translate to the NBA.

It doesn't vibe.

Good analysis. I just don’t trust his handle. Kawhi, PG, Jimmy are all much more fluid and can handle. Hunter is far too upright. It’s a body type IMO. I don’t think he can change that even if his handle dramatically improves. Don’t think he will ever be able to create or play make off the dribble.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

How would you guys feel if it went like this?
1. Zion
2. Morant
3. Barrett
4. Garland
5. Reddish
6. White

Get to pick between Culver and Hunter. I would take Hunter. I disagree with those completely dismissing him. I think his ceiling is Paul George and his floor is relatively high.

I said on lottery day that one of Garland, Culver or Hunter would be available at 7. I feel that more strongly right now, although my hopes of Garland have faded to almost zero.

So does Hunter basically become our backup SF and PF?

Culver has so much more versatility and could play 1-4 and defend 2-4

I don’t see PG’s fluidity in Hunter, but I agree that his ceiling has been undersold and would be thrilled to take him at 7.

I don’t know what Hunter’s longterm role with the Bulls is and I’m not worried about it. Our starting PF may have durability issues and our SF may only be under contract for another year (and also has health issues). If all three become healthy and productive long-term options I’ll consider it a good problem. Wings are the most fluid currency in the league, we can always trade one.

As for Hunter vs Culver, I like Culver’s handle more but that’s about it. He’s a worse scorer outside of 3 feet (and maybe at the rim too - I haven’t checked). His passing touch is no better. Defensively, I like Culver more as a team defender but Hunter’s abilities one on one more than make up for that gap. Bottom line, the thing Culver is better at - playing on ball for long stretches - is not something I think he’s good enough to do in the league.

[SfBull]

So if the chances are so low, why do you know that Deandre Hunter is a low ceiling player? How does anyone truly know a player's "ceiling"? You can have an opinion on skills or ability but to mention ceilings is an impossible argument because not a person alive is able to predict it.

It's not about absolutes. It's about probabilities. No one truly knows anything, but we have a good idea about it, depending on the player.

No one knows what DeAndre Hunter's actual ceiling is. It's reasonable to play the probabilities to project where it sits. Based on probabilities, it's highly unlikely that Hunter will exceed the commonly placed projections placed upon him.

How about steals like Butler and Draymond? I didn't follow their drafts at the time .Did they exceed their commonly placed projections ?

[JohnnyKILLroy]

IMO Mikal>Hunter solely due to handle, more versatility, and ability to defend 1-4. This is why I want Culver over Hunter.

I’d rather trade back at 7 and draft langford then stay put and take Hunter.

You don’t see versatility in Hunter?