DRAFT TALK Thread: Looking Like Lonzo

Yeah, But hopefully Magic is smart enough to look at the totality of the roster and assess whether or not Ball has limitations that would be very glaring with our team. We don't have a lot of shooters. UCLA did. Russell and Ingram (hopefully) can shoot. Mozgov/Zubac and Randle can't. I know you take best player available, but if it's close, and Fox fit our roster better, and we can watch Lavar cry on national television, maybe you take Fox.

 

Regarding the shooting: Maybe. I think Ball is not a good shooter, and I'm concerned that he won't be able to score in the NBA - at least until he gets stronger and has some decent spacing.

Just looking at the numbers: Kidd shot 36.2% on threes and 69.2% on FTs. Ball is at 41.2% 3s and 67.3% FTs.

I read a ridiculously anti-Ball comparison between Fultz and Ball. Despite the bias, these things stood out to me:
"Ball attempts only 3.4 field goal attempts at the rim per game, and a whopping 53.4% of them are assisted."
"75.3% of Ball's threes were assisted."
"In terms of mid-range shooting, while (Fultz and Ball) shoot the same percentage, Ball has only made eleven mid range jumpers all season averaging .33 makes per game."

Can Ball do anything on offense in the NBA other than shoot? He doesn't seem able to penetrate or score in traffic.

I think that the absolute ceiling for Ball is Kidd on offense and a below average defender. I think plenty of scouting bears out the claims about his defense, so I won't bother defending them.

 

Honestly, I'm trading the pick one way or the other...but De'Aaron Fox is faster than Ball, and he's a better defender. If you want speed, you might want him. If you want scoring, Jackson is a good option.

I think that looking at this draft as "a guy who reminds me of Magic?!! We gotta do it!" is missing out on what this pick is. It's an asset, and if we can flip it to end up with Lopez/George or shed some big salaries, AND make the playoffs, I'm dealing this pick. No doubt.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't think Ball should be a slam dunk. I just was saying I think Ball has the tools to be a good defender. There aren't athletic limitations like Derek Fisher or someone like that had. If we had the first pick, I'd take Fultz without question. Figure out what to do with Russell afterward.

 

I don't like crapping all over Ball, but I do think that there's a critical component missing from the views of him. His physique looks pretty awful - scrawny and weak. He has lots of time to grow and add strength, but his physique does not impress.

 

This goes completely against everything Magic has said on the Radio about concerns over Lavar. Magic said they have zero concerns about him. I just don't believe this source at all.

 

I think there's plenty of evidence, both on film and in the numbers that Ball is the best pick at #2. Both in his traditional numbers and in his advanced stats Ball stands out not just among this draft, but among some of the best young guards in the league. If anyone doesn't want to trust those numbers because of some bias they have, that's on them.

I think it's clear that he should be the #2 pick as of what we've seen on the court and in the numbers. If he fails in his workout and he looks like Jahlil Okafor, then I gladly pass on him. I don't think it'll happen, but I'm prepared mentally if it does.

However, the issues I've seen posted here with Ball don't make much sense if Fox is the guy. If Ball is small, what does that make Fox? Fox is one of the lightest guards in the draft at 170 pounds on a 6'3" frame. Lonzo weighed in at UCLA at 190 on a 6'6" frame. Both thin, but why would one be acceptable and the other isn't? Ball showed over and over again on film that he is fully capable of running the break. Athletically, Fox has some speed on Ball, but that doesn't mean Ball is slow either. John Wall is faster than Damian Lillard, but both are athletic enough. Not to mention Ingram is even more slight than Ball and he handled himself just fine. I don't see an issue in Ball's body other than he's more prone to bruises when he hits the ground.

Ball is absolutely a shooter. I mean he's an excellent shooter from outside. He shot 41% from the college line and shot something in the mid 30% range from well behind the NBA line. Fox shot 24% from deep. Even Josh Jackson shot better (I think Fox develops a better shot, but it'll take time). I just don't understand how anyone could look at the numbers and think Ball won't able to knockdown a shot in the NBA. He might not be a prolific shooter, but he'll be a good enough shooter to space the floor early and has the upside to be a very, very good shooter over time. His form isn't a big problem considering he gets his shot off quickly and the end point is the same as a "normal" jumper. If Kevin Martin can score 20 points a night, Lonzo will be fine. They're roughly the same size (but play a vastly different game).

Ball as a non-defender is also a fallacy. He doesn't project as a stopper, but he does project as a decent defender. He had more steals than Fox or Jackson who are touted as defenders. He had literally 4 times as many blocks as Fox as well. Both Fox and Jackson had better Defensive Ratings (Ball at just over 100 and both Jackson and Fox had around 96), but to be fair Ball doubles their Ratings difference by bringing an Offensive Rating over 130 (Fox at 113 and Jackson at 110). The all had extremely similar Defensive win shares with Ball at 2.0, Fox at 2.1, and Jackson at 2.2 with again Ball outshining them offensively. So if Ball projects as a poor defender, I'm not positive anyone from this draft projects as anything much better. I like Fox's energy in one-on-one situations much more than Ball's as Ball tends to die on screens, but overall Ball plays passing lanes well and is an above average help-side defender for his position.

I don't say all of this to detract from Fox or from Jackson. I think they're all fine prospects and will bring their own things to the NBA. I love Fox's and Jackson's competitiveness and energy. I love Tatum's scoring ability. I think Fox will make a good player over time, comparing well to Mike Conley, but it took a while for Conley to find his way. I think Jackson is better than most give him credit for. I'm surprised nobody is talking about Tatum.

Ball is not a savior, but he's an excellent prospect. The vast, vast majority of scouts will tell you that and people who watch basketball agree. He's not a guaranteed star (who is?) but he'd make a fantastic prospect for us and he'd do a lot of positive things.

 

True, but there's a limit there. I don't think a great pass is going to turn Randle into a knockdown shooter. If so, Russell might have already done that for the team. Randle can come into the season a better shooter with hard work this summer, but even a better shooter would mean... 33%? Something like that? Still not great.

What those passes will absolutely do is move the ball up the court so we can try to get easy scoring opportunities. We don't do this enough. Every one of our kids with the possible exception of Ingram would much rather get the assist themselves.