interesting hollinger stuff on the rookie class:
I mentioned above nine of the top 12 from a year ago are already entrenched starters; but aside from Morant and Williamson, whom else could you say that about from this draft?
Charlotteās PJ Washington is the only other lottery pick who looks fairly bankable as a long-term starter. He doesnāt ooze upside but heās a rock-solid combo forward who can shoot well enough to space the floor (42.9 percent from 3), and he murders switches by powering his way to the paint for jump hooks with either hand. None of it is remotely surprising ā Washington was the best player in the SEC last year and at the age of 21 is already one of the best players on his (admittedly miserable) team. He needs to draw more fouls and add more tricks in the paint against players his own size, but heās a keeper.
As far as the rest of the lottery? Itās a rough go, man.
Iāll start on a sort-of positive note. Two frontcourt players look like ādefinite maybesā of varying stripes ā Rui Hachimura and Jaxson Hayes have shown enough that I want to see more.
Hachimura remains a divisive player due to his limited feel, blah defense and nonexistent assists and free throws, but had a 30-point game on Sunday and may be the rare payer who is so good from midrange that you donāt mind him shooting a ton from there. Advanced stats still see him as a strongly negative player, but given his unique skill set and late development curve (Hachimura came to Gonzaga just over three years ago from Japan, where he rarely faced strong competition), heās established a respectable chance of becoming valuable.
Hayes may have the more exciting upsideā the 19-year-old has 28 dunks in 18 games, several of which have been spectacular, and flies up and down the court. But he is also the most mistake-prone in the present, struggling with fouls and physicality while his still-slim frame (hopefully) fills out. His being a bit of a project was a known; we probably wonāt get a true return on this pick for a while.
The other really solid lottery pick so far has been Miamiās Tyler Herro, who looks at worst as a threatening bench sniper and possibly much more. The 20-year-old is shooting 39.2 percent from 3 and has shown enough athletic pop to believe he can expand his role. Nit-picking, youād like to see more off-the-ball juice and fewer turnovers, and for him to embrace the fact that 3s are worth more than 2s (a third of his shots are midrange 2s). Can he be a Klay Thompson down the road? Probably not, but heās one of the few guys in this draft where you can talk yourself into such outcomes.
Finally, Phoenixās much-criticized pick of Cameron Johnson at number 11 doesnāt look great compared to the two guys taken after him (Washington and Herro), and the 23-year-old packs little upside. Pick him 11th in the 2018 draft and it would be seen as a disaster. But as a rookie heās massively outperformed every pick from three to 10 by providing a rotation-caliber stretch forward for the resurgent Suns.
OK, enough with the exceptions. The four guys above havenāt torched the league or anything, but at least they havenāt sucked. Good news ā in his draft theyāre ahead of the curve!
The rest of the lottery? Well ā¦ itās not just that they havenāt set the world on fire; itās that theyāve been actively dreadful.
Some of the 2019 NBA Draft class together on draft night. (Nathaniel S. Butler / Getty Images)
In particular, six players selected in the top 10 have been setting money on fire every time they take the court:
RJ Barrett: Forced into a lead role at the center of Dysfunction Junction at age 19, the highly touted third overall pick is off to an underwhelming start. The crux of the problem is that heās a ball-dominant wing who hasnāt made a huge impact as a passer (3.2 APG) and canāt shoot. In particular, his inability to make a free throw (just 53.3 percent) is troubling given all the driving and contact thatās part of his game.
The other worrisome part is his 42.0 percent mark on 2s. Barrettās key selling point was his ability to get downhill and make plays with his size, but he hasnāt had enough burst and lift to consistently finish against defenders who are sitting in the charge circle waiting on him. As a result, heās taken a lot of short floaters and fared miserably on those shots (26.7 percent from 3-10 feet this year) His outside stroke has always been erratic and has looked no better thus far (31.7 percent).
The punchline here is that Barrett is still outplaying at least five of the seven players taken directly after him, and Barrett still gives us far more reason to believe in his future than theirs. Barrett may not be an uber-freak athlete, but his rates of steals, rebounds and free throws all suggest impactful talent; he just has to harness it with more efficiency. A more sensible roster around him probably would help too.
DeāAndre Hunter was supposed to be a safe pick with limited upside at No. 4. He hasnāt even been that safe. Hunter holds his own as a positional defender and can make shots when given time and space; theoretically that makes him a 3-and-D guy. So is Tony Snell. Actually, the statistical similarity between Hunter and Snell is jarring, and not in a good way.
Hunter doesnāt have the kind of footwork or hair-trigger release that could make him a high-volume 3-point weapon and he struggles mightily to get anything going closer to the basket ā shooting just 42.0 percent on 2s with a low free-throw rate. Hunter rarely had to create on the ball at Virginia; he has shown some flashes as a right-handed driver but needs to add more wiggle and finishes. Right now heās all straight lines.
A combo forward, Hunter may be stuck between positions. He shows limited playmaking ability as a 3 ā including a high turnover rate for a secondary option ā but barely rebounds enough for a wing, let alone a 4. He can guard either spot competently and shows switchability at that end, which should at least allow him to get minutes while he figures out the offensive side. However, he makes little impact in terms of dynamic plays, with just 13 steals and five blocks on the season.
Taking Hunter over Washington ā a younger, better player at the same position ā the Hawks might want a mulligan on that one.
Darius Garland stinks right now. I donāt know how else to put this. The fifth pick in the draft is only 19 and some of his college and AAU tape looked a lot better than what heās shown in the NBA, so itās possible he gets better. But calling it like it is, at the moment heās awful.
Garland canāt defend, he canāt create and his shooting hasnāt been enough of a weapon to offset all of his weaknesses. Of all the gift minutes being handed out to rookies this year, his are perhaps the most charitable ā 28.2 minutes per game despite a disastrous 7.1 PER and equally insufficient defense.
The worst part is that he seems like he might be overmatched athletically. One can easily imagine fixes for what ails Barrett, and even see a pathway to Hunter becoming a viable starter. Garland? He hasnāt blocked a shot or dunked in 568 minutes and has just 25 free-throw attempts. His shooting has at least been something close to advertised (37.2 percent on 3s, 84.0 percent from the line), so thatās one positive on which to build. But if he were a second-round pick heād be playing for Canton right now ā¦ and probably coming off the bench.
Jarett Culver, the sixth pick, doesnāt alarm you so much as underwhelm you. A big ballhandling wing who can defend, the idea of Culver has been significantly better than the reality. His halfway decent rates of assists and steals hint at that promise, but right now are overwhelmed by the fact he canāt shoot ā 27.8 percent from 3, 43.9 percent on 2s, and a disturbing 43.2 percent from the line. Watching his wonky release in warm-ups, one can see that this is going to be a challenge to straighten out his release so he can be a consistent perimeter threat.
I should note that as a collegian Culver didnāt shoot well either, but it wasnāt this bad ā he was 34.1 percent from 3 and 68.7 percent from the line in his two years at Texas Tech, and many of the 3s were off the dribble.
Culver isnāt an elite athlete either, so at the rim he must rely on skill and craftiness ā tools he has yet to fully harness. Heās shooting 54 percent at the rim, which would be decent enough if he could get there at a decent rate and draw some fouls along the way. But he has trouble getting all the way to the cup ā a quarter of his shots are from 3-10 feet and heās only made 26 percent of them, plus heās not getting to the line. Although given his free-throw woes, in the short term maybe thatās a blessing.
Culver starts for the Wolves right now, partly due to injuries, and heās at least competent defensively. But he has a long way to go just to be average at the offensive end.
Coby White, the seventh pick, shoots more than once every two minutes, a ratio that would be a lot more appealing if some of those shots would find the net. That could potentially happen; heās only 19 and at least has shown the ability to create shots, plus his shooting numbers in college support the idea that heās a better shooter than heās shown. Alas, what heās shown thus far is a 47.0 TS% that throws him into the āshameless gunnerā bin; as a minus defender with limited playmaking chops, he has to convert at a higher rate to be something more than Malik Monk with cooler hair. Right now heās making an unacceptable 39.0 percent of his 2s with an abysmally low free-throw rate. That wonāt fly.
Of all these players, Whiteās struggles worry me the least. Heās already demonstrated a high level of shot-creating ability at a very young age. His speed and shooting ability should eventually allow him to flourish offensively and become a solid sixth man at worst. Iām still, um, Bullish on him long-term.
But he does actually have to make some of these attempts heās flinging up, and a bit more discretion in which ones he chooses to take would be welcomed by all.
Finally, there is Cam Reddish ā who was arguably outperforming Garland for the dishonor of this lotteryās worst performer before unexpectedly erupting for 25 points on Wednesday night. Despite that outburst, the body of work tells a gruesome story.
Advertised as a 3-and-D guy, he has official stats of 31.8 percent shooting while unofficially averaging two ballhandling disasters per evening, contributing to a sky-high turnover rate for a secondary player. Iām sure Reddish can shoot better on 24.7 percent on 3s ā heās at 77 percent from the line, for instance. Iām not totally sure how much better, however. His elbow-out form doesnāt inspire oodles of confidence, even in warm-ups. And inside the arc, heās a lost cause who has no clue how to finish or where to send the ball next.
With his size and mobility and a rate of 1.9 steals per 100, Reddish might be able to defend well enough to stay in the league. The Hawks have even used him as a stopper at times. (The Hawks also give up 400 points per game, but still).
Offensively, however, Reddish has been a total disaster. All the red flags from his freshman year at Duke have only shown worse as a pro: His limited handle, rough decision making and peculiar inability to finish combine to make him among the leagueās least effective offensive players.
Finally, itās fitting that we capped off the lottery with a player who hasnāt played at all ā Romeo Langford seemed like a reach at the time with the 14th pick and has played just 14 NBA seconds ā not minutes, seconds. Langford has also battled injuries, recently bowing out of the lineup again after a mishap in a G League game, so the jury is still out, but heās another lottery pick off to a very slow start.
Again, itās still early ā¦ only itās not really THAT early anymore. As always, some of these players will get better as the year goes on, and some will emerge in their second and third seasons. But roughly half the players selected in the lottery will need to show major, major strides just to get a second contract. Thatās a far cry from the group that stormed the league a year ago.
― J0rdan S., Friday, 6 December 2019 17:36 (four years ago) link