Credit to heels for pointing this out: Ball only had an 18% USG%.. that is staggeringly low for a supposed stud.

What's so special about FRANK?

And Lonzo deserves the Lakers. His shot makes my eyes bleed.

this is my first time looking at fultz. obviously as a c's fan i wish there were a shaq or a lebron. but 1. he makes it look real easy dunking from just inside the foul line at 17 years old here. it's actually pretty damn freaky. 2. he has a soft touch with that shot in the videos i have seen.

i always like prospects with "freakish big hands". Like kawhi, even as a rookie, you saw him strong with the ball down low and in traffic i think because of his big hands. and rondo, yes i know, but those hands really do let him dribble wherever he wants and hold it that extra bit to find a man.

Nash career 21 USG
Kidd career 19.2 USG

Lonzo is kind of a funky amalgam of the two, and has a similar overall effect, even if he takes shots less commonly than the typical superstar.

Magic 22.3 USG fwiw

this kid can dance man, he is shifty. and one dribble, maybe a spin, two steps and a big hop he is at the rim with those big hands.

Lonzo is obviously going to be a star. And a Laker. Of course the haters are already mad.

Nba numbers, against nba talent.

Ball is in college vs lol college talent.

It's a legitimate question: will Lonzo be able to get enough shots up (at efficiency) to be a credible threat to prevent him from peaking as tall Rondo (his floor)?

He shot very well on great volume from three (frequently beyond NBA distance) and his size/athleticism/skill helped him finish at an elite rate at the rim (against lol college size/strength; but he will get bigger/stronger, too). But he was a poor ft shooter, so even at his longrange volume there are questions about whether he becomes a great NBA shooter. I'm guessing he's north of 35% on 5 att/36 as a rookie. I think that will be good enough to keep the defense from being able to minimize his elite passing by sagging off of him.

Lonzo had a 67+ TS% as a freshman. Pretty unlikely he's Rondo levels of shooting. He probably had the most efficient season by a freshman guard in NCAA history.

I agree. Put Lonzo on those Celtics teams in Rondo's place and they win 3-4 titles imo.

But the closer his shooting gets to Rondo-bad (his FT% is a pink flag), the less effective he will be at generating high-eV looks for teammates (something he did better than just about any college player ever, and where the lion's share of his value comes from).

I didnt see much of Fultz in college but ive now read a bunch of scouting reports and seen quite a few videos. Kid can flat out score. Hes also long. Sometimes he looks to play lazy on defense but im sure with the right coach motivating him he can be a good defender. At worst hes going to be a really good scorer in the nba.

I'm not going to hold Fultz team sucking against him as that team wouldnt win games with anyone in the ncaa subbed in for Fultz. Similar to how Simmons LSU team was going to suck regardless of who u put in for him.

Ball was my number one until i seen how he got thrashed everytime he ran into a nba level pg. Still he think hes got alot of upside. More of a chance he busts then Fultz but id be happy with him at 2.

I can see why alot of people here would have him over Fultz as u see him playing with much better talent on UCLA also being on way more primetime games. Hes a flashy and exciting player to watch. He seems like the perfect fit for the lakers. Pretty much all the scouts have had Fultz number 1 all season and sounds like nearly all nba teams have Fultz one and i can see why.

Pretty much every scout and most (almost all?) GMs had Wiggins over Embiid.

I'll go with Dean + what I've seen over scoutz echo-chamber.

Also, UCLA's talent advantage is overstated. Leaf will be lucky to stick as a 10th man anywhere, Anibogu was a baby, and there are no other pros on the floor. Pretty much all the minutes were had by guys on last year's crap factory team that went 6-12 in conference.

Let me be clear: Fultz is no Wiggins. He's going to be a stud in most sims too. Picking him over Ball is a tiny mistake, if at all.

Embiid would of been consensus top pick if not for injury.

UCLA has two guys that will go in the 1st round of this draft outside of Ball. The talent levels between Washington and UCLA isnt even close. Regarldess of how you think they will be as pros that UCLA team had a top 5 recruiting class 3 top 25 players and both will be going in the first round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CNxoTKvG20

it may be ugly but his release is pretty quick

No ****.

UCLA SRS 20.7
UW SRS 2.1

I mean, it's hard to look at those numbers and not feel a little queasy about Fultz' team effects.

2015-16 UW SRS 11.2
UCLA 10.5

i have to admit i am disappointed at the lack of development of wiggins. dean was right, as i recall, he predicted that wiggins doesn't use his athleticism to get to loose balls, rebounds, or get steals. he isn't a playmaker, he loses the ball in traffic. he doesn't assert himself.
he is scorer who gets to the line. doubtful he mans up going forward.

Washington was predicted to be in the bottom of the pac 10 by everybody coming into the season. They lost everybody from a bad team the year before. Similar to Simmons on LSU it takes more then one guy to have a good team. Fultz also was banged up and missed games for injury he played amazing this season as the stats show. Only so much one frosh can do.

fultz seems to have a little bit of harden, like a loosey goosey, herky jerky own world zone. harden has great court vision and is a great facilitator though, so we'll see how fultz is like that with nba talent. fultz gets going up the court and its a bit like westie, not the usian bolt angry never seen anything like it westie, but like that. he isn't butter like lillard with that shot, but the kid looks like he is a great shooter already with easy range from way downtown.

if he can put it all together and also use his tools to defend the one, i like him. that big skinny kid, ball. i have to see him, but one thing, physics. the league has demons like IT2, curry, lillard, etc, so shifty and quick with release on the three, which is so big these days. hard for a really tall point to ever guard these guys imo. how many 6'7'' defensive backs are there in the nfl, you need to be able to cut and duck around screens and get out quick. fultz has strength and long arms and the athleticism to do it. does ball have that potential, idk.

nash had a pretty clear ability to score with volume, just didn't shoot that much. kidd was great b/c he was also an elite defender. perhaps ball was just blending and could have easily handled real volume, but the # leaps off the page

edit: he seems like an extremely smart player so him being good wouldn't be a surprise, but i'm having a hard time seeing offensive dominance. maybe the mechanics on the jumper are just blinding me though. also is athletic and has great size so the defensive potential is high

Ball is going to be really good, hes just not going to be a superstar. like 10 year+ starter, Mike Conley type guy. I think Fultz has some bust equity but he really has superstar equity imo.

Well, I have similar concerns about Simmons. In theory anyone who's good enough to be a legit prospect should get at least decent college results, though of course with NBA prospects there's loads of projection about their growth curve, and athleticism matters a lot, etc. It just makes me worry about the "Does he make his team better?" question. Especially with the questions of basketball intelligence and instincts that I see people asking with him (whereas most everyone feels really good about Ball's as far as I can tell).

Of course, I don't really know much about the NBA Draft and I'm just speculating on the importance of being a good prospect on measurables and athletics vs. playing good basketball, how important stats and productivity are if they aren't in the service of winning.

Some other guys who didnt win much in college but went on to have good nba careers:

Lillard who played 4 years of college ball never made the tourney playing a bad conference.

Klay Thompson played 3 years of college ball and didnt go to the tourney.

Paul George played two years on bad ncaa teams.

Millsap played 3 seasons never won anything.

Chris Bosh team didnt win much as a frosh.

Outside of Bosh these guys werent freshmen and they all went on to be big time players. You cant expect a team with just one player whos a frosh to win a bunch of games. Fultz was on a terrible team void of talent with a bad coach.

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/articl...team-didnt-win

"Washington didn't struggle because Fultz failed to produce. His numbers don't lie. His effective field-goal percentage on shots off the catch was 56.7 percent; off the bounce, his eFG was 50.9 percent, third among all high-major players. Fultz creates shots for others, too, ranking No. 20 in the nation in assist rate despite his teammates shooting just 28.6 percent from beyond the arc in Pac-12 play and finishing with a collective 49.4 eFG for the season, good for No. 225 in the nation."

"It gives me a slight pause and is in the back of my mind," an NBA executive without a lottery pick said about Fultz. "But I wouldn't be too worried about it, because if he would've switched places with Ball [at UCLA] or [Kentucky's De'Aaron] Fox, he would have won a lot more."