De'Andre Hunter

[Stillwater]

position per say is PF in offensive sets because he lacks the tools to play the 3 at a high level.
Nobody has any reservations about his elite defense against any position.

He's clearly a worker. So I would play him at the SG position. You yourself say, "Nobody has any reservations about his elite defense against any position", if all he does is shoot the three from the NBA rate at the same percentage but on higher volume. Man that's like Loul Deng at SG.

Hunter's so much better at shooting than Deng. Teams would dare Deng to shoot. It's such a huge difference between the 2.

he is a better shooter per say but the numbers are deceiving given his low attempts.
If the % stays good at higher attempts against better defenders and he shows handles to break down defenses better than in the past he could be a solid pro maybe even worth the 4th if most others taken later wash out... but the odds are he is an average at best outside shooter with a solid midrange game ala rodney hood/ Harrison Barnes

[Roddy B for 3]

He's clearly a worker. So I would play him at the SG position. You yourself say, "Nobody has any reservations about his elite defense against any position", if all he does is shoot the three from the NBA rate at the same percentage but on higher volume. Man that's like Loul Deng at SG.

Hunter's so much better at shooting than Deng. Teams would dare Deng to shoot. It's such a huge difference between the 2.

he is a better shooter per say but the numbers are deceiving given his low attempts.
If the % stays good at higher attempts against better defenders and he shows handles to break down defenses better than in the past he could be a solid pro maybe even worth the 4th if most others taken later wash out... but the odds are he is an average at best outside shooter with a solid midrange game ala rodney hood/ Harrison Barnes

Shooters are better now because the teams put more emphasis on shooting. J agree with the Hunter is a better shooter than Deng.

I think Hunter and Deng can be similar level defenders, mid-range shooters and transition players.Hunter should work to develop a 6 3pfga 37%+ make type of shooting game. That would be better than Deng for sure.

But everyone hoots more and is a better shooter now. So relative to the rest of the league o like the Deng comp. Although maybe their is a better one.

[King Ken]

Hunter's so much better at shooting than Deng. Teams would dare Deng to shoot. It's such a huge difference between the 2.

he is a better shooter per say but the numbers are deceiving given his low attempts.
If the % stays good at higher attempts against better defenders and he shows handles to break down defenses better than in the past he could be a solid pro maybe even worth the 4th if most others taken later wash out... but the odds are he is an average at best outside shooter with a solid midrange game ala rodney hood/ Harrison Barnes

Shooters are better now because the teams put more emphasis on shooting. J agree with the Hunter is a better shooter than Deng.

I think Hunter and Deng can be similar level defenders, mid-range shooters and transition players.Hunter should work to develop a 6 3pfga 37%+ make type of shooting game. That would be better than Deng for sure.

But everyone hoots more and is a better shooter now. So relative to the rest of the league o like the Deng comp. Although maybe their is a better one.

I don't know or think Hunter is as talented as Deng but Hunter is a much better defender coming out of college than Deng was and it wasn't even close. I don't know if Deng is a good comparison. I don't think there is one for Hunter.

[Billy Goat]

A player the Knicks should draft but will fall for the volume scorer again (Barrett)

[clyde21]

i am a pretty strong in at this point on Hunter w/e his comp might be. NBA level body, two-way player, strong fundementals, great set shot, good baseline of functional athleticism, has a high floor but still a decently high ceiling as well. he'll look even better in the NBA with more transition ops and even more room to attack the rim.

and the guy is just posting obscene metrics...+42 Net Rating, 12.6 BPM, 27 PER, 64 TS%.

really only trepidation is that he is junior age but if this guy was a year younger would he make it out of the top 10 in any draft?

Hunter is turning into a legit stud at this point, love everything about his game, he'll fall short of being a star most likely but he'll be in the next tier down for sure long term.

[jayu70]

Hunter had himself a night!

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[No-Man]

Didn't expect this leap from him, he looks legit on ball if he has more room to grow he may end up a top20 player

[Timmyyy]

Oftentimes I have the feeling some people undervalue prospects with an already developed role player skill set. Mainly because of two reasons:

1. Underrating the impact players with elite role player skills can have. Look at Mikal Bridges. That type of player is more valuable to a winning team than nearly any realistic outcome of, let's say, Marvin Bagley (who showed a little bit of everything in college but nothing looked really surefire translatable).

2. Underrating the probability of improvement to become even more than a role player. And DeAndre Hunter might become another example of that. There are a lot of Wiggins-type prospects out there that have great tools and show a little bit of everything and so there is a belief they will develop in all of those areas, which sometimes happens and sometimes not. But the belief in the improvements tend to be higher than for a guy that only showed role player skills and didn't show off things he isn't good at yet.
So I sometimes ask myself why is it a thing to bet on a guy like Bagley to improve on so many things but not on a guy like Mikal Bridges to develop an on-ball game (just as an example because they were in the same draft, doesn't mean I think Mikal will develop into an on-ball player)?

Not really saying this happened with Hunter since there were a lot of guys really high on him, but just as a general thought since I still see this a lot. And while I am pleasantly surprised Hunter is developing his on-ball game so quickly I am far from shocked that he does.

[clyde21]

he was showing glimpses of this scoring ability in college, for anyone that was actually paying attention. read back in this thread.

[King Ken]

The metrics don't show it but he's easily our best player.

[nolang1]

Oftentimes I have the feeling some people undervalue prospects with an already developed role player skill set. Mainly because of two reasons:

1. Underrating the impact players with elite role player skills can have. Look at Mikal Bridges. That type of player is more valuable to a winning team than nearly any realistic outcome of, let's say, Marvin Bagley (who showed a little bit of everything in college but nothing looked really surefire translatable).

2. Underrating the probability of improvement to become even more than a role player. And DeAndre Hunter might become another example of that. There are a lot of Wiggins-type prospects out there that have great tools and show a little bit of everything and so there is a belief they will develop in all of those areas, which sometimes happens and sometimes not. But the belief in the improvements tend to be higher than for a guy that only showed role player skills and didn't show off things he isn't good at yet.
So I sometimes ask myself why is it a thing to bet on a guy like Bagley to improve on so many things but not on a guy like Mikal Bridges to develop an on-ball game (just as an example because they were in the same draft, doesn't mean I think Mikal will develop into an on-ball player)?

Not really saying this happened with Hunter since there were a lot of guys really high on him, but just as a general thought since I still see this a lot. And while I am pleasantly surprised Hunter is developing his on-ball game so quickly I am far from shocked that he does.

Hunter is just a case of people being dumb about stats. Virginia is like the slowest team in the country and he was definitely not scoring like a role player on a per-possession level (he scored at the same rate his redshirt freshman year and I had him as a mid-late lottery pick in 2018 had he come out then). Marvin Bagley getting injured has really let people go crazy with their after-the-fact justifications for why they somehow thought he was a bad prospect coming out of college lol.

[Timmyyy]

he was showing glimpses of this scoring ability in college, for anyone that was actually paying attention. read back in this thread.

Well, that's an awfully nice answer to a post that didn't insult anyone.

I actually said that I didn't think this perfectly applies to Hunter, I also said that I know a lot of people saw this potential in him. I watched Hunter a lot in college and I liked the probabilities of him getting to that point, although not as quick.
It was just a general thought I was reminded of because Fischella said he didn't quite see this on-ball ability in him.

But I guess in the end it is more important to you to be the "smartest" guy in the room and come with the good old "I knew it all along" stuff, even if it completely misses the point of my post.

[clyde21]

he was showing glimpses of this scoring ability in college, for anyone that was actually paying attention. read back in this thread.

Well, that's an awfully nice answer to a post that didn't insult anyone.

I actually said that I didn't think this perfectly applies to Hunter, I also said that I know a lot of people saw this potential in him. I watched Hunter a lot in college and I liked the probabilities of him getting to that point, although not as quick.
It was just a general thought I was reminded of because Fischella said he didn't quite see this on-ball ability in him.

But I guess in the end it is more important to you to be the "smartest" guy in the room and come with the good old "I knew it all along" stuff, even if it completely misses the point of my post.

i wasn't talking to you or referring to your post my guy, it was just a general statement...his tape showed stuff we're seeing today, people just had to extrapolate to the NBA game where he would get out more in transitions and have more space/opportunities to develop and show off his live dribble scoring game.

my point is that none of this is really shocking.

[Timmyyy]

Oftentimes I have the feeling some people undervalue prospects with an already developed role player skill set. Mainly because of two reasons:

1. Underrating the impact players with elite role player skills can have. Look at Mikal Bridges. That type of player is more valuable to a winning team than nearly any realistic outcome of, let's say, Marvin Bagley (who showed a little bit of everything in college but nothing looked really surefire translatable).

2. Underrating the probability of improvement to become even more than a role player. And DeAndre Hunter might become another example of that. There are a lot of Wiggins-type prospects out there that have great tools and show a little bit of everything and so there is a belief they will develop in all of those areas, which sometimes happens and sometimes not. But the belief in the improvements tend to be higher than for a guy that only showed role player skills and didn't show off things he isn't good at yet.
So I sometimes ask myself why is it a thing to bet on a guy like Bagley to improve on so many things but not on a guy like Mikal Bridges to develop an on-ball game (just as an example because they were in the same draft, doesn't mean I think Mikal will develop into an on-ball player)?

Not really saying this happened with Hunter since there were a lot of guys really high on him, but just as a general thought since I still see this a lot. And while I am pleasantly surprised Hunter is developing his on-ball game so quickly I am far from shocked that he does.

Hunter is just a case of people being dumb about stats. Virginia is like the slowest team in the country and he was definitely not scoring like a role player on a per-possession level (he scored at the same rate his redshirt freshman year and I had him as a mid-late lottery pick in 2018 had he come out then). Marvin Bagley getting injured has really let people go crazy with their after-the-fact justifications for why they somehow thought he was a bad prospect coming out of college lol.

Agree with the Hunter part. I wasn't posting on RealGM back then but I am a long time lurker on the draft forum and I was indeed considerably lower on Bagley than most from what I read here. But that too wasn't anything I wanted to emphasize with my post at all. I guess I unwillingly opened a lot of side discussions.

[Timmyyy]

he was showing glimpses of this scoring ability in college, for anyone that was actually paying attention. read back in this thread.

Well, that's an awfully nice answer to a post that didn't insult anyone.

I actually said that I didn't think this perfectly applies to Hunter, I also said that I know a lot of people saw this potential in him. I watched Hunter a lot in college and I liked the probabilities of him getting to that point, although not as quick.
It was just a general thought I was reminded of because Fischella said he didn't quite see this on-ball ability in him.

But I guess in the end it is more important to you to be the "smartest" guy in the room and come with the good old "I knew it all along" stuff, even if it completely misses the point of my post.

i wasn't talking to you or referring to your post my guy, it was just a general statement...his tape showed stuff we're seeing today, people just had to extrapolate to the NBA game where he would get out more in transitions and have more space/opportunities to develop and show off his live dribble scoring game.

my point is that none of this is really shocking.

Since I used the exact same word as you in my first post, I guess we agree.

[MemphisX]

The metrics don't show it but he's easily our best player.

That is quite the take and I do not dispute it at all.

[nolang1]

Oftentimes I have the feeling some people undervalue prospects with an already developed role player skill set. Mainly because of two reasons:

1. Underrating the impact players with elite role player skills can have. Look at Mikal Bridges. That type of player is more valuable to a winning team than nearly any realistic outcome of, let's say, Marvin Bagley (who showed a little bit of everything in college but nothing looked really surefire translatable).

2. Underrating the probability of improvement to become even more than a role player. And DeAndre Hunter might become another example of that. There are a lot of Wiggins-type prospects out there that have great tools and show a little bit of everything and so there is a belief they will develop in all of those areas, which sometimes happens and sometimes not. But the belief in the improvements tend to be higher than for a guy that only showed role player skills and didn't show off things he isn't good at yet.
So I sometimes ask myself why is it a thing to bet on a guy like Bagley to improve on so many things but not on a guy like Mikal Bridges to develop an on-ball game (just as an example because they were in the same draft, doesn't mean I think Mikal will develop into an on-ball player)?

Not really saying this happened with Hunter since there were a lot of guys really high on him, but just as a general thought since I still see this a lot. And while I am pleasantly surprised Hunter is developing his on-ball game so quickly I am far from shocked that he does.

Hunter is just a case of people being dumb about stats. Virginia is like the slowest team in the country and he was definitely not scoring like a role player on a per-possession level (he scored at the same rate his redshirt freshman year and I had him as a mid-late lottery pick in 2018 had he come out then). Marvin Bagley getting injured has really let people go crazy with their after-the-fact justifications for why they somehow thought he was a bad prospect coming out of college lol.

Agree with the Hunter part. I wasn't posting on RealGM back then but I am a long time lurker on the draft forum and I was indeed considerably lower on Bagley than most from what I read here. But that too wasn't anything I wanted to emphasize with my post at all. I guess I unwillingly opened a lot of side discussions.

Well the main one would be that if you're trying to make it a blanket statement rather than about DeAndre Hunter himself, there are a lot of ways to have an 'elite role player skillset' and most people are no more capable of identifying that in players than they are in determining who's most likely to be a superstar or whatever. Even when trying to rank players with this in mind, I think you'll see enough Denzel Valentines or Zhaire Smiths or Gary Clarks that people have been high on over the years to note that the "role player" is not necessarily a great deal safer. And of course on the flip side you can point to players like Brandon Ingram or Jaylen Brown who would've been used as examples of raw athletic guys who weren't particularly good at any one thing until they did in fact improve.

Leaning heavily on the 'elite role player' thing as a blanket statement is a relatively low-risk way to seem smart in the short term when the worst players by advanced metrics tend to be players who are trying to do too much rather than the least talented players. Especially so if you don't actually rank the players beforehand and can just after the fact say "I don't get why teams pass up on guys like (role player who looks the best) and instead draft players like (one-and-done lotto pick who looks the worst)." Brandon Clarke would be a pretty good recent example where if you had him as like the 3rd pick in the draft, you could take a victory lap after his rookie season about, and now that (like most players) he doesn't seem to have improved that much from age 23 to 24 and it seems less like an obvious, no-brainer pick to have him that high, it's ok because people have moved on to talking more about newer players.

[DroseReturnChi]

The metrics don't show it but he's easily our best player.

That is quite the take and I do not dispute it at all.

it shows atlanta is a bad team when you have young, reddish, collins and they are all worse.
and some of them will get maxed so this is pretty much your core for the next decade.

[Duke4life831]

Always nice to see an old thread get bumped up and to take that long breath and thinking to yourself "okay what idiotic thing did I say on this one" to find out you actually had a good take. Keep this thread alive for a long time haha

[clyde21]

The metrics don't show it but he's easily our best player.

That is quite the take and I do not dispute it at all.

it shows atlanta is a bad team when you have young, reddish, collins and they are all worse.
and some of them will get maxed so this is pretty much your core for the next decade.

i think they have a tough decision to make when it comes to Collins after this year, and I was never a huge Trae guy, Cam is still up and down we'll see, but Hunter is a stud.

honestly I'd probably let Collins walk, or maybe negotiation some type of S+T, knowing I already have Capela and Onyeka on the roster already. Trae you have to max him at some point but I'm still not convinced about his scalability as a player in winning/POs, but again we'll see with that one.