Lauri Markkanen

[JCSunsfan]

He simply isn't one dimensional, I don't know where that is coming from. The drop for Lauri has come primarily for two reasons; concerns over his less than ideal length (hence the Olynyk comp) and the fact he went from shooting almost 50% from 3 early in the season to shooting something like mid 30's the last 6 weeks. It's not any different than what I've been saying IMO.

If you think Lauri is the player we saw earlier in the season, he projects as a very special NBA player. If you think we saw the real Markkanen the last 6 weeks, he's barely lottery worthy and probably should go in the mid-teens.

Fortunately for those of you that think he's just a big white stiff, I really doubt he's on our draft radar. My guess, we'll hear very little in rumors or reports about Tatum until the moment we draft him.

He is a below average defender, he is an average rebounder at best. What dimension does he have other than shooting? And I was granting him that he is a +40% three point shooter. If that is truly suspect as you say, he is a late first rounder.

 

[Mainstreet]

In a article today about Markkanen at azcentral Doug Haller gives his take. Here are a few comments.

Best comparison: Dirk Nowitzki and Kristaps Porzingis are popular answers, but that might be a bit lofty. Houston’s Ryan Anderson? At 6-10, Anderson has thrived as a stretch four in coach Mike D'Antoni's system this season, averaging 13.6 points and shooting 40.3 from 3-point range. "Some people say Porzingis, some people say Nowitzki,'' ESPN college analyst Seth Greenberg said. "Look, any of of those 6-10, 6-11, skilled frontcourt players he's going to potentially develop into in time. But his skill level is so ridiculous and the maturity in which he carries himself is certainly unique. He's going to be a really good NBA player."

Bust factor: Depends on your expectations. At minimum, Markannen should be a solid role player with the potential to develop into an effective long-term starter. “When you can shoot the basketball,'' one Western Conference scout said, "you’ll always have some sort of job, especially at that size."

There will always be room for 7 foot shooters. Markkanen should be more given time. At least we know he can do one thing well coming into the NBA.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...ri-markkanen-arizona-suns-prospect/313670001/

 

[Bodha]

In a article today about Markkanen at azcentral Doug Haller gives his take. Here are a few comments.

There will always be room for 7 foot shooters. Markkanen should be more given time. At least we know he can do one thing well coming into the NBA.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...ri-markkanen-arizona-suns-prospect/313670001/

Thats what I been saying. A 7 foot shooter is a rare chess piece. And its also something you cant teach. Bender will never be that. LM is a 16 ppg guy, because he is a 7 ft shooter. Hes better than Ryan Anderson. But nobody is saying hes Dirk.

And at #4 there are no superstars. A long term solid contributor counts as a very successful draft pick.

 

[Mainstreet]

Thats what I been saying. A 7 foot shooter is a rare chess piece. And its also something you cant teach. Bender will never be that. LM is a 16 ppg guy, because he is a 7 ft shooter. Hes better than Ryan Anderson. But nobody is saying hes Dirk.

Also, Markkanen is not a finished product. He should only improve. The bust factor is minimal.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Thats what I been saying. A 7 foot shooter is a rare chess piece. And its also something you cant teach. Bender will never be that. LM is a 16 ppg guy, because he is a 7 ft shooter. Hes better than Ryan Anderson. But nobody is saying hes Dirk.

And at #4 there are no superstars. A long term solid contributor counts as a very successful draft pick.

That is incorrect. In this draft picks up to 6 are expected to be all stars.

 

[Bodha]

That is incorrect. In this draft picks up to 6 are expected to be all stars.

Name the last NBA draft where the top 6 picks were all stars.

 

[AzStevenCal]

He is a below average defender, he is an average rebounder at best. What dimension does he have other than shooting? And I was granting him that he is a +40% three point shooter. If that is truly suspect as you say, he is a late first rounder.

He's very effective in the pick and roll, either side of it, and is also a good pick and pop man. His defense isn't bad, the potential is there for plus defense even though he'll never be great at the rim. He makes a lot of switching errors right now but his man defense is decent and, at minimum, he's an average rebounder for his position. He passes fairly well although that has not been something expected of him due to his ability to get his shot even under duress.

He can put the ball on the floor when the defender closes hard, and while this isn't huge praise, he does it better than Tucker used to. He runs the court well and typically does all the little things you need to win. Whatever you say about him, one thing was clear, the Cats were a far better team when he was on the court then when he was off, even when he wasn't scoring well.

If he can't make 3's at a high level (45%), he's still a fairly attractive NBA prospect but nothing else he does warrants a top 10 pick. But, as I've said, if he is truly that high efficiency distance shooter he showed in December and January, that alone makes him special in the NBA. And at a solid 7 feet, we're not talking Ryan Anderson special either, he will be a weapon that defenses have to account for every minute he's on the court.

Back to the one dimensional label. Even with UA playing fairly slow paced, Lauri still led the team with a 25 PER in addition to having to learn how to play all 3 front court positions at one time or another. Seriously, explain to me how a one dimensional player could manage that. It's beyond me. You don't like him, that's fine, but I just don't get the one dimensional putdown and it's clear his coach didn't consider him one dimensional either.

 

[JCSunsfan]

He's very effective in the pick and roll, either side of it, and is also a good pick and pop man. His defense isn't bad, the potential is there for plus defense even though he'll never be great at the rim. He makes a lot of switching errors right now but his man defense is decent and, at minimum, he's an average rebounder for his position. He passes fairly well although that has not been something expected of him due to his ability to get his shot even under duress.

He can put the ball on the floor when the defender closes hard, and while this isn't huge praise, he does it better than Tucker used to. He runs the court well and typically does all the little things you need to win. Whatever you say about him, one thing was clear, the Cats were a far better team when he was on the court then when he was off, even when he wasn't scoring well.

If he can't make 3's at a high level (45%), he's still a fairly attractive NBA prospect but nothing else he does warrants a top 10 pick. But, as I've said, if he is truly that high efficiency distance shooter he showed in December and January, that alone makes him special in the NBA. And at a solid 7 feet, we're not talking Ryan Anderson special either, he will be a weapon that defenses have to account for every minute he's on the court.

Back to the one dimensional label. Even with UA playing fairly slow paced, Lauri still led the team with a 25 PER in addition to having to learn how to play all 3 front court positions at one time or another. Seriously, explain to me how a one dimensional player could manage that. It's beyond me. You don't like him, that's fine, but I just don't get the one dimensional player and it's clear his coach didn't consider him one dimensional either.

Its not that I don't like him. I think he will have a decent NBA career because of his shooting. I tend to divide the game into the following categories (dimensions):

1. Shooting/scoring
2. Defense (man, p&r etc)
3. Rim protection
4. Rebounding
5. Passing/distribution

I just only see him a standout in the first category. In the rest he seems below average. I am willing to be convinced otherwise if someone wants to make a clear argument for it. The PER argument could be a start, but I think it overemphasizes offensive efficiency since that is a quantifiable metric (unlike defense, for instance).

 

[AzStevenCal]

Its not that I don't like him. I think he will have a decent NBA career because of his shooting. I tend to divide the game into the following categories (dimensions):

1. Shooting/scoring
2. Defense (man, p&r etc)
3. Rim protection
4. Rebounding
5. Passing/distribution

I just only see him a standout in the first category. In the rest he seems below average. I am willing to be convinced otherwise if someone wants to make a clear argument for it. The PER argument could be a start, but I think it overemphasizes offensive efficiency since that is a quantifiable metric (unlike defense, for instance).

Okay, I don't really take issue with anything here. I think he's a complete player but the only thing he does at a very high level is shoot from distance. And if he just had a two month hot streak, even that is in question.

If he's only going to shoot in the high 30's, low 40's from 3 (like he did the last 6 weeks of the season), he's still valuable. But probably no more than a complementary piece put out there to make the game easier for the 2 or 3 players that really matter.

 

[ozzfloyd]

LM will have multiple All Star appearances before he calls it a career. Book it.

 

[SirStefan32]

In a article today about Markkanen at azcentral Doug Haller gives his take. Here are a few comments.





There will always be room for 7 foot shooters. Markkanen should be more given time. At least we know he can do one thing well coming into the NBA.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...ri-markkanen-arizona-suns-prospect/313670001/

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Disagreement is about whether or not there is anything better at #4. Are there players who can do multiple things really well? Does he do anything else well? Is the talent he has easier to find in free agency than the talent someone else has? I really think reasonable people can agree he will at least be a Frye/ Anderson type. The question is whether or not he can be more, and whether or not guys like Tatum, Isaacs, Fox are just going to be better.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Name the last NBA draft where the top 6 picks were all stars.

Good question. Will be interesting to see how satisfied we should be with a role player at 4.

This draft is a bit different than others so I will take all drafts from 2000 to 2012

2000 1 all star in top 10 (#1)
2001 3 all stars top 10 (#2, #3, #10)
2002 3 all stars top 10 (#1, #9, #10)
2003 5 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #3, #4, #5, #6)
2004 4 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #5, #7, #9)
2005 4 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #3, #4, #10)
2006 2 all stars in top 10 (#2, #6)
2007 3 all stars in top 10 (#2, #3, #9)
2008 4 all stars in top 10 (#1, #4, #5, #10)
2009 4 all stars in the top 10 (#1. #3, #7, #9)
2010 4 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #5, #9, #10)
2011 2 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #9)
2012 3 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #6, #9)

Average all stars per draft: 3.23

2003 almost hit with all but one of the top 6 being all stars.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Conclusion on the above analysis:

Picking at 4 you had the opportunity to draft at least 1 all star: 3 times 2 all stars: 4 3 all stars: 4

Number of selections: 84
All Stars: 23

Chance at an all star: 27%

NBA executives project 7 players as all stars before the tournament. Post tournament Giles is out and Fox and Isaac in.

(http://www.espn.com/nba/insider/sto...lonzo-ball-more-freshmen-tiers-2017-nba-draft)

Final Conclusion: Stop thinking high floor and start thinking high ceiling.

 

[Bodha]

Good question. Will be interesting to see how satisfied we should be with a role player at 4.

This draft is a bit different than others so I will take all drafts from 2000 to 2012

2000 1 all star in top 10 (#1)
2001 3 all stars top 10 (#2, #3, #10)
2002 3 all stars top 10 (#1, #9, #10)
2003 5 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #3, #4, #5, #6)
2004 4 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #5, #7, #9)
2005 4 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #3, #4, #10)
2006 2 all stars in top 10 (#2, #6)
2007 3 all stars in top 10 (#2, #3, #9)
2008 4 all stars in top 10 (#1, #4, #5, #10)
2009 4 all stars in the top 10 (#1. #3, #7, #9)
2010 4 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #5, #9, #10)
2011 2 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #9)
2012 3 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #6, #9)

Average all stars per draft: 3.23

2003 almost hit with all but one of the top 6 being all stars.

You know whats funny. You say you dont take LM at #4 because "hes the 10th best player in the draft". Based on draft history, the #10 pick has given us 5 stars. #4 has 2.

Its because the NBA draft is the biggest crap shoot in pro sports. The #1 pick will probably be good, after that, its complete chaos.

If LM is just a sure thing solid role player, then take him and be happy with your good pick. Dont be greedy taking another project who will never reach his potential.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Good question. Will be interesting to see how satisfied we should be with a role player at 4.

This draft is a bit different than others so I will take all drafts from 2000 to 2012

2000 1 all star in top 10 (#1)
2001 3 all stars top 10 (#2, #3, #10)
2002 3 all stars top 10 (#1, #9, #10)
2003 5 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #3, #4, #5, #6)
2004 4 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #5, #7, #9)
2005 4 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #3, #4, #10)
2006 2 all stars in top 10 (#2, #6)
2007 3 all stars in top 10 (#2, #3, #9)
2008 4 all stars in top 10 (#1, #4, #5, #10)
2009 4 all stars in the top 10 (#1. #3, #7, #9)
2010 4 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #5, #9, #10)
2011 2 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #9)
2012 3 all stars in the top 10 (#1, #6, #9)

Average all stars per draft: 3.23

2003 almost hit with all but one of the top 6 being all stars.

Looks like #2 is jinxed.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

You know whats funny. You say you dont take LM at #4 because "hes the 10th best player in the draft". Based on draft history, the #10 pick has given us 5 stars. #4 has 2.

Its because the NBA draft is the biggest crap shoot in pro sports. The #1 pick will probably be good, after that, its complete chaos.

If LM is just a sure thing solid role player, then take him and be happy with your good pick. Dont be greedy taking another project who will never reach his potential.

Markkanen is like the 12th best person in this draft and will be drafted accordingly.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

And again you are looking at players from a risk adverse perspective (or potentially a homer one if you like U of A). You want high floor low ceiling in a draft where literally no NBA GM agrees with you.

 

[Russ Smith]

I don't think UA played at as slow a pace this year did they?

One other point I haven't seen made, LM played on a team where you had a non PG playing PG(Kadeem Allen) quite regularly. The best PG on the team offensively is PJC but he missed part of the year and didn't play huge minutes because he's not a good defender and Miller played the better defender, Allen at PG. That's not a knock on coaching it's pointing out that LM might benefit greatly in the NBA from playing with a "real" PG that gets him the ball where he wants it when he wants it, in his shooting pocket, something that Allen wasn't particularly good at

 

[Bodha]

Markkanen is like the 12th best person in this draft and will be drafted accordingly.

Did you read a thing I said? There is no accurate big board ranking. Your "12th best player" may very well be one of the only 3 stars drafted in the top 10. Theres (on average) 3 stars per 10 and alot of them coming in at #9 and #10? So whats that say for the guys drafted 2-8? What was wrong with their scouting reports?


Fultz and LM are the only sure things in this draft. Hes a solid, 7ft lights out shooter, stretch wing. His floor is very high, his ceiling low. But hes a good player.

Booker is our star. Surround him with solid supports like LM

 

[AzStevenCal]

I don't think UA played at as slow a pace this year did they?

One other point I haven't seen made, LM played on a team where you had a non PG playing PG(Kadeem Allen) quite regularly. The best PG on the team offensively is PJC but he missed part of the year and didn't play huge minutes because he's not a good defender and Miller played the better defender, Allen at PG. That's not a knock on coaching it's pointing out that LM might benefit greatly in the NBA from playing with a "real" PG that gets him the ball where he wants it when he wants it, in his shooting pocket, something that Allen wasn't particularly good at

It wasn't the snails pace of recent years but it was still fairly low scoring. We had 26 games where we failed to score 80 points. There were 14 games where we scored fewer than 72 and we averaged just under 65 points in our losses.

 

[Russ Smith]

It wasn't the snails pace of recent years but it was still fairly low scoring. We had 26 games where we failed to score 80 points. There were 14 games where we scored fewer than 72 and we averaged just under 65 points in our losses.

I have to admit I didn't look seemed 2 years ago you played faster and this year at least earlier in the year you were playing faster than normal.

It definitely impacts possessions and stats though and I do think the offense was limited this year because of PG issues with Allen playing there quite a bit because it was the best overall lineup, but not the best offensive lineup.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Did you read a thing I said? There is no accurate big board ranking. Your "12th best player" may very well be one of the only 3 stars drafted in the top 10. Theres (on average) 3 stars per 10 and alot of them coming in at #9 and #10? So whats that say for the guys drafted 2-8? What was wrong with their scouting reports?


Fultz and LM are the only sure things in this draft. Hes a solid, 7ft lights out shooter, stretch wing. His floor is very high, his ceiling low. But hes a good player.

Booker is our star. Surround him with solid supports like LM

I have read, acknowledged, and completely understand your viewpoint of being risk adverse. You have detailed it well.

I just want more out of the 4 pick.

 

[Matt L]

Did you read a thing I said? There is no accurate big board ranking. Your "12th best player" may very well be one of the only 3 stars drafted in the top 10. Theres (on average) 3 stars per 10 and alot of them coming in at #9 and #10? So whats that say for the guys drafted 2-8? What was wrong with their scouting reports?


Fultz and LM are the only sure things in this draft. Hes a solid, 7ft lights out shooter, stretch wing. His floor is very high, his ceiling low. But hes a good player.

Booker is our star. Surround him with solid supports like LM

We're not a role player a way from being relevant. Pick the player with the best upside at 4 and if you really think Markanen is going to be something special, use some assets to move up to the end of the lottery to pick him...

 

[Bodha]

We're not a role player a way from being relevant. Pick the player with the best upside at 4 and if you really think Markanen is going to be something special, use some assets to move up to the end of the lottery to pick him...

"Upside" aka another project.

No, we arent a role player away from being relevant, but sorry, we fell to the #4 pick. Complain all you want, but it is what it is. The odds of landing a superstar are absolutely nil. So a "Solid" player is more than good enough.

 

[Matt L]

"Upside" aka another project.

No, we arent a role player away from being relevant, but sorry, we fell to the #4 pick. Complain all you want, but it is what it is. The odds of landing a superstar are absolutely nil. So a "Solid" player is more than good enough.

Your words in bold are not true

the mentality of a "solid" player is more than good enough will get you at best a first round playoff exit and at worst a high lottery pick.