2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery

[Red Larrivee]

He shows flashes and has consistency issues, something that is said about 98% of all prospects. The point is whether you can coach him into those flashes and consistency.

But you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. You always fall back on the one 35-game season of college data. Just like you keep deriding his HS rankings when it has never been about that. I guess scouting is just looking at box scores now. Which is funny, because if you were into data analysis for the draft, you would realize there is no way to crunch the numbers and come up with a meaningful draft order. It's all too variable in college between school, role, age, position, teammates and a whole host of situations.

What would Reddish have done at Fresno State, or UCLA, or DePaul? No one knows, but anyone with an honest observation can admit they would be materially different. And that throws the stats argument for a loop every time.

Yes, because this is the most meaningful sample size of basketball Reddish will play as a prospect. How could it not make up a bulk of his outlook? If Reddish killed it this season, everyone would rightfully be more optimistic about him. The process of evaluating talent should not involve disregarding bad play just because it doesn't fit your agenda.

This isn't purely about crunching numbers. Reddish was bad from an eye test and his production merely confirmed it.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[KevinPandawong]

Oh, so now you’re hiding behind “we don’t know him personally so we don’t know”. But we know he isn’t athletic, we know he did the physical measurements but skipped the athletic testing. We know historically, and in this draft, players with weaker athletic testing numbers mysteriously seem to keep missing the athletic testing. Don’t waste my time if that is the standard you want to hide behind.

Like I said, he probably caught a cold that day and couldn’t perform a standing vert.

Who's hiding? I gave you my guess, just because I'm not willing to claim my opinion as fact(unlike you) doesn't mean I dodged any question. You're choosing to ignore my response.

Meanwhile, I've still yet to hear a reason why the onus is solely on NAW to explain his skipping the measurements and no one else of the other top 15-20 prospects that skipped those same measurements. Again, who's hiding?

No one's wasting your time, you chose to participate. Though before I waste any more of mine, I'll choose to ignore any more unfounded claims of yours. Everyone is free to discuss their opinions, but don't presume yours as fact without any evidence and argue out of bad faith.

It's clear to me that this discussion isn't going any further. Here go spout off your opinion as fact to your heart's avail, just do it with someone else: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1846911

I gave you the list of players who were participating and all the reasons. You're willfully ignoring it all because you like NAW. That's fine, he's a good prospect and I would be happy to see him on the Bulls some day. But he's not athletic and that is holding back his draft stock. He knows it and that's why he didn't do the athletic testing. So you don't have to guess anymore. I gave you the answer.

Yeah I ignored list of the borderline 1st round, mostly 2nd round prospects(with only 4-5 prospects ranked above #20 on ESPN's board) because they have nothing to do with the top 15-20 prospects skipping the testing. It's the status quo for them to skip it, but you want to single out one prospect and make claims that he's hiding without any evidence.

As if NBA teams don't conduct their own testing in their private workouts. The combine is for fans and journalists, the teams have their own criteria to judge prospects which are far more expansive and informative than anything we'll ever get on these kids. How exactly is NAW planning to hide then?

I'm not ignoring anything with NAW, you fail to realize this discussion started because I said his athleticism is questionable and without combine numbers hard to judge. I was hardly even advocating for him, in my OP I already stated I had Hunter, Culver, and Little higher but Reddish and White lower. You're giving your guess, not an answer. I don't know what's so hard to understand about the concept of 'no proof, no truth'.

[cjbulls]

He shows flashes and has consistency issues, something that is said about 98% of all prospects. The point is whether you can coach him into those flashes and consistency.

But you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. You always fall back on the one 35-game season of college data. Just like you keep deriding his HS rankings when it has never been about that. I guess scouting is just looking at box scores now. Which is funny, because if you were into data analysis for the draft, you would realize there is no way to crunch the numbers and come up with a meaningful draft order. It's all too variable in college between school, role, age, position, teammates and a whole host of situations.

What would Reddish have done at Fresno State, or UCLA, or DePaul? No one knows, but anyone with an honest observation can admit they would be materially different. And that throws the stats argument for a loop every time.

Yes, because this is the most meaningful sample size of basketball Reddish will play as a prospect. How could it not make up a bulk of his outlook? If Reddish killed it this season, everyone would rightfully be more optimistic about him. The process of evaluating talent should not involve disregarding bad play just because it doesn't fit your agenda.

This isn't purely about crunching numbers. Reddish was bad from an eye test and his production merely confirmed it.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The bolded is your problem. Players aren't drafted on numbers. They create context for evaluating physical traits and skill sets, but they don't decide anything. No one can tell you the difference between Hachimura's numbers and Keldon Johnson's numbers, they don't care. They just inform opinions on the shown traits. Physical traits and skill sets are 1 and 2, with a third being intangibles (work ethic, character concerns, injury history, etc.). The numbers inform those issues, but they don't mean anything independently.

There's a reason Markus Howard was a second rounder and Ja Morant is the second pick, and it isn't about the numbers.

[Pnjguy]

He shows flashes and has consistency issues, something that is said about 98% of all prospects. The point is whether you can coach him into those flashes and consistency.

But you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. You always fall back on the one 35-game season of college data. Just like you keep deriding his HS rankings when it has never been about that. I guess scouting is just looking at box scores now. Which is funny, because if you were into data analysis for the draft, you would realize there is no way to crunch the numbers and come up with a meaningful draft order. It's all too variable in college between school, role, age, position, teammates and a whole host of situations.

What would Reddish have done at Fresno State, or UCLA, or DePaul? No one knows, but anyone with an honest observation can admit they would be materially different. And that throws the stats argument for a loop every time.

Yes, because this is the most meaningful sample size of basketball Reddish will play as a prospect. How could it not make up a bulk of his outlook? If Reddish killed it this season, everyone would rightfully be more optimistic about him. The process of evaluating talent should not involve disregarding bad play just because it doesn't fit your agenda.

This isn't purely about crunching numbers. Reddish was bad from an eye test and his production merely confirmed it.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I agree with that, that's why he went from going 1-2 overall to 5-6-7.

[Pnjguy]

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2019/6/4/18635931/cam-reddish-nba-draft-2019-duke-scouting-report-stats-high-school-recruiting

CHICAGO — Cam Reddish thinks you have him all wrong.
As he faces reporters at the NBA Draft combine, the line of questioning directed at Reddish is unusually probing. Reddish is asked to respond to questions over how much he loves basketball. He is asked if he felt he was overshadowed at Duke by playing alongside Zion Williamson and R.J. Barrett. He’s asked if his laid back personality is a cause for concern.
“I can do it all,” Reddish says in a voice that is soft-spoken but defiant. “I feel like I’m capable of doing everything on both sides of the floor. I’m excited for the opportunity to do that.”
A year ago, Reddish was ranked ahead of Williamson by most recruiting services and was considered by some to have the highest long-term upside of anyone in Duke’s prized incoming freshmen class. After one rocky season in Durham, Reddish is fighting to save his reputation as much as his draft stock.
Reddish looks like the prototypical NBA prospect from the moment he walks into the gym
Reddish looks like the prototypical NBA prospect from the moment he walks into the gym. He measured at 6’8 with a nearly 7’1 wingspan at the combine, ideal size for a wing who can defend multiple positions and still create his own offense. Add in a smooth shooting stroke, the ability to pull-up off the dribble, and point guard experience from his high school days, and Reddish offers an intoxicating package of new-age potential that feels like a seamless match for today’s NBA.
So why didn’t Reddish’s obvious talent translate into production at Duke? That’s the question NBA scouts are asking themselves after a freshman year full of statistical red flags. Reddish’s effective field goal percentage of 46 percent is the lowest for any projected first rounder. He badly struggled to score inside the arc, shooting an abysmal 39 percent on two-pointers. His turnover rate was twice as high as his assist rate.
It all goes in to making Reddish the NBA Draft’s biggest enigma, a player who looks the part of a top-five pick but with little hard evidence to back it up. It makes him a landmine in a draft that is starved for star potential after Williamson. Pass on him for a less talented player and look like a fool if he plays up to his ability. Take him and look like a sucker if he never overcomes the same deficiencies that made him so inefficient in college.
Who is Cam Reddish? It’s a mystery no one has been able to crack just yet.
Seth Berger remembers the moment he knew a young Cameron Reddish was different. It harkens back to his early high school days when the Westtown head coach saw his burgeoning talent show up at the gym by himself to get work in at 5:45 a.m. before the school day started. Berger gushes as he says Reddish was never late for a practice his entire senior year.
Westtown is the northwest Philadelphia school where Reddish blossomed into a blue chip prospect. It’s also the place where he began to hone his ball handling and passing ability after Berger made the decision to play him at point guard.
“Any basketball player’s highest level is the one where they’re making the most difficult decisions that they can,” Berger said. “Moving him on the ball early was an effort to increase the speed of the improvement of his decision making.”
It was Berger’s job to maximize Reddish’s natural tools by helping him learn to process the game more quickly. What he found was a player willing to learn, who was blessed with a naturally unselfish attitude, and who treated teammates with a kindness and equality that belied his five-star status.
Reddish burnished his reputation at USA Basketball and on Nike’s EYBL grassroots circuit. This isn’t an example of a late bloomer — Reddish has been ranked at or near the top of his class from the moment it started being evaluated. He could have played for any college in the country, but chose Duke as he started his senior year of high school, hoping to follow in a burgeoning lineage of star wing scorers like Jabari Parker, Brandon Ingram, and Jayson Tatum. He had no idea at the time Barrett and Williamson would be joining him.
Reddish had a foundation for success with his physicality and his personality. Converting that into efficiency has always been a work in progress. He finished his final season of grassroots (or AAU) basketball as one of the leading scorers on the EYBL at nearly 24 points per game, but he only shot 40 percent from field and 29.7 percent from three, per D1 Circuit. He also struggled at the Nike Hoop Summit, finishing 2-for-8 from the field for seven points, as scouts began to question his motor, focus, and shot selection.
Reddish’s one year at Duke hardly provided any answers. He scored in single digits in 13 of his 36 games. He shot only 35 percent from the field. He ranked in the 38th percentile in points-per-possession in transition and in the 36th percentile in points-per-possession in the half court, per Synergy-Sports. Often times, it felt like Reddish was pressing when he finally got his turn with the ball in an offense that monopolized by Barrett and Williamson.
Reddish’s supporters will tell you he didn’t get the opportunity to show the full breadth of his talent at Duke playing alongside two top-three draft picks. His skeptics will wonder why he couldn’t make a more meaningful impact as opposing defenses game-planned to stop his teammates first. Berger sees it a different way.
“I don’t view success by statistics,” Berger said. “I look at his season and say he did what his team needed him to do to be really successful. Whatever the coach asks him to do is what he’s going to do. That’s the type of person and player Cam is.”
While Reddish’s lone college season was characterized by inconsistency and inefficiency, there were some some encouraging statistical markers. He posted an impressive steal rate of 2.9 percent, which historically is a strong predictor of success from college to the NBA. His free throw percentage of 77.2 percent shows he has tremendous potential as a shooter even if he ran hot-and-cold at Duke from behind the arc. He also thrived as a pick-and-roll ball handler, finishing in the 96th percentile nationally for points-per-possession. He graded out as “very good” in pull-up shooting and “good” in isolations.
“I don’t necessarily see myself as just a shooter,” Reddish said at the combine, hoping he doesn’t get pigeonholed as a catch-and-shoot wing. He wants to show what he can do with the ball in his hands.
It’s likely that Reddish will win himself some new fans as he gets in private workouts. A recent workout video went viral as Reddish exploded for a dunk and sank five consecutive three-pointers. Of course, Reddish has always been a great NBA prospect on-paper. It’s molding that theorietical talent into tangible production that has eluded coaches and scouts for so long.
As a high school player, Reddish drew comparisons to Paul George and Tracy McGrady because of his frame and athletic fluidity. Even after a rough year at Duke, the narrative as he enters this draft is that he might have the highest upside of any player available after Williamson.
But instead of seeing Reddish’s combination of length and that shooting stroke as an avenue for a high ceiling, perhaps it’s what gives him a high floor. The NBA will always need long, versatile players who can shoot. That’s what Reddish should be able to provide as he continues to develop even if he doesn’t turn into a Hall of Famer. What some see as a lack of “killer instinct” also makes him a great teammate with an amiable personality who has always been highly coachable.
Reddish didn’t live up to his high school hype during his one-and-done season, but he still has all the attributes for a long pro career. Instead of focusing on why he isn’t standing out, maybe it’s time to consider how he can fit in.

[leo921]

If we are unable to draft Garland or Hunter what would you think about trading the 7th pick and Dunn for Mikal Bridges
Bridges is a good 3 and D prospect who would form great wing depth with Lavine, Porter and Bridges. Can even get away with some minutes with all 3 of them playing.

Get Bridges then bring in Pat Beverly and Marcus Morris in FA(2 yr contracts) and with health and steady improvement we can make some noise and be set for a big 2021 offseason with lots of cash

[Red Larrivee]

He shows flashes and has consistency issues, something that is said about 98% of all prospects. The point is whether you can coach him into those flashes and consistency.

But you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. You always fall back on the one 35-game season of college data. Just like you keep deriding his HS rankings when it has never been about that. I guess scouting is just looking at box scores now. Which is funny, because if you were into data analysis for the draft, you would realize there is no way to crunch the numbers and come up with a meaningful draft order. It's all too variable in college between school, role, age, position, teammates and a whole host of situations.

What would Reddish have done at Fresno State, or UCLA, or DePaul? No one knows, but anyone with an honest observation can admit they would be materially different. And that throws the stats argument for a loop every time.

Yes, because this is the most meaningful sample size of basketball Reddish will play as a prospect. How could it not make up a bulk of his outlook? If Reddish killed it this season, everyone would rightfully be more optimistic about him. The process of evaluating talent should not involve disregarding bad play just because it doesn't fit your agenda.

This isn't purely about crunching numbers. Reddish was bad from an eye test and his production merely confirmed it.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The bolded is your problem. Players aren't drafted on numbers. They create context for evaluating physical traits and skill sets, but they don't decide anything. No one can tell you the difference between Hachimura's numbers and Keldon Johnson's numbers, they don't care. They just inform opinions on the shown traits. Physical traits and skill sets are 1 and 2, with a third being intangibles (work ethic, character concerns, injury history, etc.). The numbers inform those issues, but they don't mean anything independently.

There's a reason Markus Howard was a second rounder and Ja Morant is the second pick, and it isn't about the numbers.

Reddish was awful from an eye test too. For the most part, his physical traits did not stand out in college. You're creating this facade that Reddish is a unique victim of statistics. There's nothing misleading about it. You can't talk up someone's skills when they were not good at those skills. The numbers confirm how effective or ineffective someone is at something. Context obviously helps, but the context doesn't paint the picture of a player who was in a poor position to succeed.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Fl_Flash]

He shows flashes and has consistency issues, something that is said about 98% of all prospects. The point is whether you can coach him into those flashes and consistency.

But you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. You always fall back on the one 35-game season of college data. Just like you keep deriding his HS rankings when it has never been about that. I guess scouting is just looking at box scores now. Which is funny, because if you were into data analysis for the draft, you would realize there is no way to crunch the numbers and come up with a meaningful draft order. It's all too variable in college between school, role, age, position, teammates and a whole host of situations.

What would Reddish have done at Fresno State, or UCLA, or DePaul? No one knows, but anyone with an honest observation can admit they would be materially different. And that throws the stats argument for a loop every time.

This last sentence doesn't make sense. Who knows what he would have done at those colleges, but then you say anyone with an honest evaluation would state that his results would be materially different. If that's the case, then how can you say "who knows"? Apparently anyone with an "honest evaluation" knows.

Reddish is not going to be a good pro.

You talk about coaching him out. Problem is coaching doesn't fix what's between your ears or beating in your chest.
Reddish doesn't have it - plain and simple.
You can have the smoothest stroke in the world, but if you can't hit the shots when they count - in games - then how pretty you shoot in an empty gym really doesn't amount to much.
I pray the Bulls don't draft this guy. He's going to be a disappointment relative to his hype.
I don't think he has the internal drive to really be more than he is. Just my opinion.

[PlayerUp]

what would you think about trading the 7th pick and Dunn for Mikal Bridges

I wouldn't even offer the #7 pick for Mikal Bridges. This is giving up way too much for a 23 year old who underperformed last season with the Suns.

[bigworld2017]

what would you think about trading the 7th pick and Dunn for Mikal Bridges

I wouldn't even offer the #7 pick for Mikal Bridges. This is giving up way too much for a 23 year old who underperformed last season with the Suns.

Bridges didn't set the league on fire but he had a pretty solid first Year on a dysfunctional team. He certainly dd not underperform like Knox and a few others did. Bridges is going to be a good player. But that team needs a PG even worse than we do. I'd take Bridges for Dunn in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd send them Dunn for their 2nd rounder which is #32 and a second rounder next year. Players projected to possibly be available at #32 include Cam Johnson, Carsen Edwards, Bazley, Okeke, the Tacko man, Jordan Bone, Lecque, and Ty Jerome.

[panthermark]

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2019/6/4/18635931/cam-reddish-nba-draft-2019-duke-scouting-report-stats-high-school-recruiting

That article made me like him even less.
Early bloomer....talent equalization...call it what you want.

I see a bit of the same issue in Dunn (and Ball to a slight extent) as well.

Guys "look" the part.
They have height and wingspan that makes GM's salivate.
They can defend
They have "PG" experience in high school.

But they are not particularly quick or explosive (at an elite level), not do they have a quick first step. Nor are they amazing ball handlers. This all worked in high school...where they were taller and more athletic than most of the people they played against and could bully their way in the paint and shoot over people. That height advantage, plus an "average" first step and "good" (not elite) athleticism was more than enough. But as the the level of competition rises, that height and athletic gap between them and the person guarding them decreases....and all of a sudden, that lack of a first step or elite athleticism is exposed at the highest level. None of them can easily get by their man now, nor finish at the rim very well (in traffic)...so they all often settle for jumpers of some sort.

The question them becomes, do they have the desire..the motor....to do what needs to be done to make themselves better? (Ball's issue isn't his motor, it is his shot mechanics).

If it were not for his HS numbers...would Cam Reddish be Tony Snell?
Cam does not want to be seen as a spot up shooter (which he didn't do all the great in anyway)....but right now, he does not looks like someone who will be a great ISO scorer in the NBA. He's still young....and he can defend...so he will find a spot. Just lower expectations.

[cjbulls]

Yes, because this is the most meaningful sample size of basketball Reddish will play as a prospect. How could it not make up a bulk of his outlook? If Reddish killed it this season, everyone would rightfully be more optimistic about him. The process of evaluating talent should not involve disregarding bad play just because it doesn't fit your agenda.

This isn't purely about crunching numbers. Reddish was bad from an eye test and his production merely confirmed it.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The bolded is your problem. Players aren't drafted on numbers. They create context for evaluating physical traits and skill sets, but they don't decide anything. No one can tell you the difference between Hachimura's numbers and Keldon Johnson's numbers, they don't care. They just inform opinions on the shown traits. Physical traits and skill sets are 1 and 2, with a third being intangibles (work ethic, character concerns, injury history, etc.). The numbers inform those issues, but they don't mean anything independently.

There's a reason Markus Howard was a second rounder and Ja Morant is the second pick, and it isn't about the numbers.

Reddish was awful from an eye test too. For the most part, his physical traits did not stand out in college. You're creating this facade that Reddish is a unique victim of statistics. There's nothing misleading about it. You can't talk up someone's skills when they were not good at those skills. The numbers confirm how effective or ineffective someone is at something. Context obviously helps, but the context doesn't paint the picture of a player who was in a poor position to succeed.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I just posted a bunch of eye test analysis for you. I can post more if you like. What you really mean to see is he doesn't pass your eye test, which we know is largely informed by the box scores. Every other scouting report has a lot of positives to say about Reddish's eye test. The eye test is why he's going top 10 despite his numbers.

[Red Larrivee]

The bolded is your problem. Players aren't drafted on numbers. They create context for evaluating physical traits and skill sets, but they don't decide anything. No one can tell you the difference between Hachimura's numbers and Keldon Johnson's numbers, they don't care. They just inform opinions on the shown traits. Physical traits and skill sets are 1 and 2, with a third being intangibles (work ethic, character concerns, injury history, etc.). The numbers inform those issues, but they don't mean anything independently.

There's a reason Markus Howard was a second rounder and Ja Morant is the second pick, and it isn't about the numbers.

Reddish was awful from an eye test too. For the most part, his physical traits did not stand out in college. You're creating this facade that Reddish is a unique victim of statistics. There's nothing misleading about it. You can't talk up someone's skills when they were not good at those skills. The numbers confirm how effective or ineffective someone is at something. Context obviously helps, but the context doesn't paint the picture of a player who was in a poor position to succeed.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I just posted a bunch of eye test analysis for you. I can post more if you like. What you really mean to see is he doesn't pass your eye test, which we know is largely informed by the box scores. Every other scouting report has a lot of positives to say about Reddish's eye test. The eye test is why he's going top 10 despite his numbers.

I watched his games during the season. You don't need statistics to know that he did not play well. The numbers merely support it. Reddish is going in the lottery because this class has no depth and some team will be intrigued by trying to turn his game around. It's not a confirmation of superstar upside or statistics lacking importance.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[cjbulls]

He shows flashes and has consistency issues, something that is said about 98% of all prospects. The point is whether you can coach him into those flashes and consistency.

But you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. You always fall back on the one 35-game season of college data. Just like you keep deriding his HS rankings when it has never been about that. I guess scouting is just looking at box scores now. Which is funny, because if you were into data analysis for the draft, you would realize there is no way to crunch the numbers and come up with a meaningful draft order. It's all too variable in college between school, role, age, position, teammates and a whole host of situations.

What would Reddish have done at Fresno State, or UCLA, or DePaul? No one knows, but anyone with an honest observation can admit they would be materially different. And that throws the stats argument for a loop every time.

This last sentence doesn't make sense. Who knows what he would have done at those colleges, but then you say anyone with an honest evaluation would state that his results would be materially different. If that's the case, then how can you say "who knows"? Apparently anyone with an "honest evaluation" knows.

Reddish is not going to be a good pro.

You talk about coaching him out. Problem is coaching doesn't fix what's between your ears or beating in your chest.
Reddish doesn't have it - plain and simple.
You can have the smoothest stroke in the world, but if you can't hit the shots when they count - in games - then how pretty you shoot in an empty gym really doesn't amount to much.
I pray the Bulls don't draft this guy. He's going to be a disappointment relative to his hype.
I don't think he has the internal drive to really be more than he is. Just my opinion.

The point is NBA stats are largely comparable internally because the system contains way less parity. Unfortunately, people have then taken that idea and said well of course it means the same for college basketball, so they cite PER and TS% as some big innovation. But the parity in college is exponentially larger. Not just from the teams, but from players, roles, systems, and rules/style of the college game.

I can't guarantee you that Reddish would shoot 50% or 25% or average 4 more assists at Minnesota, but I can tell you by playing lesser competition on a team that features him as the star, his numbers would be materially different. And that just shows why the data analysis is flawed and shouldn't form the bulk of his outlook.

[cjbulls]

Reddish was awful from an eye test too. For the most part, his physical traits did not stand out in college. You're creating this facade that Reddish is a unique victim of statistics. There's nothing misleading about it. You can't talk up someone's skills when they were not good at those skills. The numbers confirm how effective or ineffective someone is at something. Context obviously helps, but the context doesn't paint the picture of a player who was in a poor position to succeed.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I just posted a bunch of eye test analysis for you. I can post more if you like. What you really mean to see is he doesn't pass your eye test, which we know is largely informed by the box scores. Every other scouting report has a lot of positives to say about Reddish's eye test. The eye test is why he's going top 10 despite his numbers.

I watched his games during the season. You don't need statistics to know that he did not play well. The numbers merely support it. Reddish is going in the lottery because this class has no depth and some team will be intrigued by trying to turn his game around. It's not a confirmation of superstar upside or statistics lacking importance.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Reddish is going high because he has a decent floor as a 3&D player plus a bonus ceiling if you can unlock his issues. He's not a pure gamble because he will still be a good defender with great shooting form and range.

[panthermark]

I just posted a bunch of eye test analysis for you. I can post more if you like. What you really mean to see is he doesn't pass your eye test, which we know is largely informed by the box scores. Every other scouting report has a lot of positives to say about Reddish's eye test. The eye test is why he's going top 10 despite his numbers.

I watched his games during the season. You don't need statistics to know that he did not play well. The numbers merely support it. Reddish is going in the lottery because this class has no depth and some team will be intrigued by trying to turn his game around. It's not a confirmation of superstar upside or statistics lacking importance.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Reddish is going high because he has a decent floor as a 3&D player plus a bonus ceiling if you can unlock his issues. He's not a pure gamble because he will still be a good defender with great shooting form and range.

I disagree.
Reddish is going "high" because this is a weak draft, because of his high school ranking, and because he looks the part (silky J in an empty gym...6'8" with a 7'1" wing span).
Reddish is a first round pick because he can be a 3&D player with a potential bonus ceiling.

If Reddish would have posted the same numbers at NC State instead of Duke, and would have been the ranked 51st ranked high schooler instead of 1st, we would not be talking about him right now at #7...but maybe as a sleeper 2nd round pick.

[JohnnyTapwater]

Are we all looking at Reddish as a role player or as a star player?

I see him as a role player, but with more potential than any other player in our range to be a star player. If he doesn't reach that, I'm okay, because I think he'll end up being a knock down shooter. Another weapon to space the floor. That's my best case scenario.

I know know. NOTHING suggest THIS is even possible, but yet I have this gut feeling.

[cjbulls]

I watched his games during the season. You don't need statistics to know that he did not play well. The numbers merely support it. Reddish is going in the lottery because this class has no depth and some team will be intrigued by trying to turn his game around. It's not a confirmation of superstar upside or statistics lacking importance.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Reddish is going high because he has a decent floor as a 3&D player plus a bonus ceiling if you can unlock his issues. He's not a pure gamble because he will still be a good defender with great shooting form and range.

I disagree.
Reddish is going "high" because this is a weak draft, because of his high school ranking, and because he looks the part (silky J in an empty gym...6'8" with a 7'1" wing span).
Reddish is a first round pick because he can be a 3&D player with a potential bonus ceiling.

If Reddish would have posted the same numbers at NC State instead of Duke, and would have been the ranked 51st ranked high schooler instead of 1st, we would not be talking about him right now at #7...but maybe as a sleeper 2nd round pick.

I just took the HS Rankings from Rivals but you can insert whatever list you want: Why is no one else getting a bump? Barrett has fallen to 3. Little is below Reddish despite being higher before. Bol, Langford have experienced big drops. Shittu, Bassey, Grimes are essentially out of the draft entirely. These are all the top 9 players. Why is Reddish the only pass?

[Pnjguy]

The discussion has turned to "will Cam Reddish be any good" instead of, "Would he be worth the 7th pick in this draft."

With all the cons on Reddish, i can name even more for the rest of the players that will likely fall to us.

[panthermark]

Are we all looking at Reddish as a role player or as a star player?

I see him as a role player, but with more potential than any other player in our range to be a star player. If he doesn't reach that, I'm okay, because I think he'll end up being a knock down shooter. Another weapon to space the floor. That's my best case scenario.

I know know. NOTHING suggest THIS is even possible, but yet I have this gut feeling.

I see him as a POTENTIAL role player. A POTENTIAL 3&D guy.

Right now, the silky J of his has not translated to good 3 point shooting. I suspect that it can....but right now....of the 4 guys in our range (Hunter, White, Culver, and Cam), he is the one who has proven the least.

Just look at at his history. In both EYBL and the Nike Hoop Summit, he he wasn't all that great or efficient. As the competition got better, he got worse. Zion went down, and Cam crapped the bed.
The term around here for guys like that is "bum slayer".