Lets say we win the #1 pick

[pokerface]

Bledsoe is an all-star level talent. I think a lot of posters on this board undervalue him. I would throw up if we traded him and all we received was a pick in the 7-12 range.

That's all true but Bleds contract is up in two years after this season. That's affects value too. If his contact was longer his trade value would be more.

 

[Finito]

Yes but the main reason Oden went over Durant was the highschool hype of being ranked #1 for a long time.

He wouldn't have that advantage over Fultz who was ranked #1 for a long time also and then the diminished value of old school centers in todays league, there is almost no way he would go ahead of Fultz if he was in the draft now.

Are you related to Fultz? He your cousin?

You just sound like a cheerleader now. Greg Oden was considered a generational talent so was Durant that year.

No Fultz is not a better prospect that Derick Rose.

 

[slinslin]

Derrick Rose was not as good a prospect, Rose had holes in his game. Never was the passer or shooter Fultz is and didn't have the size. Fultz is the best PG prospect in the draft in the last 25 years+.

 

[TJ]

Give me Lonzo Ball over Fultz. Fultz's game resembles D'Angelo Russell and Lonzo Jason Kidd.

 

[slinslin]

Give me Lonzo Ball over Fultz. Fultz's game resembles D'Angelo Russell and Lonzo Jason Kidd.

Fultz is 10x the athlete Russell is and just superior in every aspect. That comparison is really invalid.

This is the same fake news story as last year when people were arguing that Ben Simmons was not the +1 pick.

The reason Washington sucks has nothing to do with Fultz. They were a mediocre team and lost their top 3 players and only brought in Fultz. Their offense was good despite running a lot of NBA style plays. But they were one of the worst defensive teams in ncaa basketball which can hardly be blamed on Fultz individually.

https://deanondraft.com/2017/01/15/is-markelle-fultz-a-loser/

 

[TJ]

Fultz is 10x the athlete Russell is and just superior in every aspect.

This is the same fake news story as last year when people were arguing that Ben Simmons was not the +1 pick.

The reason Washington sucks has nothing to do with Fultz. They were a mediocre team and lost their top 3 players and only brought in Fultz. Their offense was good despite running a lot of NBA style plays. But they were one of the worst defensive teams in ncaa basketball which can hardly be blamed on Fultz individually.

Has nothing to do with Washington sucking, but UW sucked because Romar is a garbage coach. It had plenty of talent on its roster, but he couldn't draw up a play to save his life.

Fultz is a good player, but Lonzo has special talent. Fultz has a score-first mentality like Russell; whereas, Ball is just so much more versatile.

 

[slinslin]

Fultz has a higher assist rate than Ball. Isn't playing selfish at all and just a vastly superior scorer in every way imaginable.

 

[TJ]

Fultz has a higher assist rate than Ball. Isn't playing selfish at all and just a vastly superior scorer in every way imaginable.

AST/TO

Ball 7.5/2.6
Fultz 5.9/3.2

We don't need "superior scorers" in the backcourt. We already have Booker. We need a facilitator, and Ball is better at that than anyone in college hoops right now.

 

[slinslin]

Raw stats, advanced Fultz has a higher assist rate and lower turnover rate and has shown elite skill in pick and roll and generally halfcourt settings. Lonzo has only shown elite skill in transition.

We dont need a facilitator, we need the best player and Fultz is the best player. Nobody would get the idea that it is better to add Ricky Rubio to your team instead of Harden , Curry, Westbrook, Lowry, Wall, Lillard etc.

And Fultz is as good a facilitator as anyone and can can score in the post, in the pick and roll, off the dribble, in isolation, gets to the line..

If Fultz went to UCLA and Ball to Washington we would be laughing at this.

 

[TJ]

Raw stats, advanced Fultz has a higher assist rate and lower turnover rate and has shown elite skill in pick and roll and generally halfcourt settings. Lonzo has only shown elite skill in transition.

I can't tell you how far off base the bolded is. Watch more PAC-12 games.

You want someone who's going to go iso most of the time, you take Fultz. You want a true PG who can facilitate a potent offense and make those around him better, you take Ball. I don't care about advanced metrics. Ball fits what this team needs far more than Fultz does.

I'm not discounting Fultz, but I'm also not falling for the Fultz okie doke that he should be locked in as the #1 pick.

 

[slinslin]

I can't tell you how far off base the bolded is. Watch more PAC-12 games.

You want someone who's going to go iso most of the time, you take Fultz. You want a true PG who can facilitate a potent offense and make those around him better, you take Ball. I don't care about advanced metrics. Ball fits what this team needs far more than Fultz does.

I'm not discounting Fultz, but I'm also not falling for the Fultz okie doke that he should be locked in as the #1 pick.

31% of Balls plays come in transition which is a massive outlier.
In pick and roll situations Ball is at 79 points per 100 plays. Fultz on the other hand is at 101 points per 100npick and rolls which is among the top of the nation.

Fultz has proven himself as the #1 guy at every level. Highschool, Team USA etc.

You dont see prospects with complete games in the draft. Not to mention 18 year olds.


Fultz turns 19 in the summer, Ball turns 20 before the season.

 

[3rdside]

stay away from the statistics slinslin..

AST/TO

Ball 7.5/2.6
Fultz 5.9/3.2

We don't need "superior scorers" in the backcourt. We already have Booker. We need a facilitator, and Ball is better at that than anyone in college hoops right now.

That's what I'd fear with fultz, it's Booker's backcourt and Ball would fit right into it. Fultz's style, his facial expression (and even his name I don't like) scream self absorbed, one man show...no thanks.

 

[slinslin]

stay away from the statistics slinslin..


That's what I'd fear with fultz, it's Booker's backcourt and Ball would fit right into it. Fultz's style, his facial expression (and even his name I don't like) scream self absorbed, one man show...no thanks.

Because Booker doesn't play his best with Bledsoe. /s
And that doesn't do Fultz any justice because Fultz has shown great passing skills in halfcourt settings against packed defenses, moreso than Ball has.


Now we are at the point of facial expressions and name. Wow!

Fultz does not even need the Ball, he has often played off the ball in youth teams.

If you think Fultz is self absorbed you know nothing about the kid, try youtube. there is an amateur documentation following his senior highschool year which gives a real close look.

 

[3rdside]

lol - i thought i deleted the statistics comment..

They both play the same number of minutes and Ball has higher assists and lower turnovers and that is is pretty much the end of it.

Fultz's advanced turnover stat is better because he passes less.

His advanced assist stat is better because he shoots much more of the ball when he's on the floor relative to his teammates than does Lonzo by a factor of nearly 2:1 (Fultz averages 17.6 FGA's per game to Ball's 9.5).

And because Fultz is a shoot first point guard, Washington - naturally - complete less assists as a team versus UCLA when he's on the floor - this is reflected in the team assists they make; 13.2 versus 21.6 for Washington and UCLA respectively.

Therefore any assist Fultz makes carries greater weight because it's measured against a much lower number of team assists that his team mates make, while he's on the floor.

Definitely misleading.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

lol - i thought i deleted the statistics comment..

They both play the same number of minutes and Ball has higher assists and lower turnovers and that is is pretty much the end of it.

Fultz's advanced turnover stat is better because he passes less.

His advanced assist stat is better because he shoots much more of the ball when he's on the floor relative to his teammates than does Lonzo by a factor of nearly 2:1 (Fultz averages 17.6 FGA's per game to Ball's 9.5).

And because Fultz is a shoot first point guard, Washington - naturally - complete less assists as a team versus UCLA when he's on the floor - this is reflected in the team assists they make; 13.2 versus 21.6 for Washington and UCLA respectively.

Therefore any assist Fultz makes carries greater weight because it's measured against a much lower number of team assists that his team mates make, while he's on the floor.

Definitely misleading.

It's just not that simple. Fultz is on a team where he has to make things happen far more often than Ball does. Thus Fultz has a much higher usage rate. Having a much higher usage means he is going to turn the ball over more per game. Give Fultz the talent around him that Ball has and his assists would be higher and turnovers lower than they currently are.

 

[3rdside]

Bledsoe's pass numbers from the link you provided point to Bledsoe being only average at finding good shots for his team mates and only average at finding team mates who can make a good secondary pass. Ball is a much better facilitator meaning Booker should get better looks.

The risk with Fultz is that he takes over the team, Booker takes on a secondary role and our chemistry revolves around that.

But with Booker reigning threes and Chriss catching lobs, Ball is the perfect man for the job and with these three, our chemistry would be insanely good.

 

[ColdPickleNachos]

Bledsoe's pass numbers from the link you provided point to Bledsoe being only average at finding good shots for his team mates and only average at finding team mates who can make a good secondary pass. Ball is a much better facilitator meaning Booker should get better looks.

The risk with Fultz is that he takes over the team, Booker takes on a secondary role and our chemistry revolves around that.

But with Booker reigning threes and Chriss catching lobs, Ball is the perfect man for the job and with these three, our chemistry would be insanely good.

Yeah...I think that might be the best argument for Ball. He can be an alpha dog and not infringe on Booker's role with the team. I think they could be an amazing fit together. Fultz and Booker could be amazing together as well, but their roles would be harder to define, which makes chemistry harder to figure out.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Bledsoe's pass numbers from the link you provided point to Bledsoe being only average at finding good shots for his team mates and only average at finding team mates who can make a good secondary pass. Ball is a much better facilitator meaning Booker should get better looks.

The risk with Fultz is that he takes over the team, Booker takes on a secondary role and our chemistry revolves around that.

But with Booker reigning threes and Chriss catching lobs, Ball is the perfect man for the job and with these three, our chemistry would be insanely good.

Teams need multiple elite scorers. If Fultz is good enough to put Booker into a secondary role on offense than we should embrace that. The fact that Westbrook and Durant could coexist as long as they did bodes really well for a Fultz/Booker combo, as Fultz is IMO a more willing passer than Westbrook.

 

[AsUpRoDiGy]

Teams need multiple elite scorers. If Fultz is good enough to put Booker into a secondary role on offense than we should embrace that. The fact that Westbrook and Durant could coexist as long as they did bodes really well for a Fultz/Booker combo, as Fultz is IMO a more willing passer than Westbrook.

I would love to have two elite scorers, but in order for it to work...they have to co-exist and not be selfish...which is why Durant hated Westbrook so much. Booker seems very passive, while Fultz seems more like the ball-hog Westbrook type. In my estimation...between Fultz and Ball...Fultz is the better individual player, but Ball is the better team player. Fultz will put up amazing stats, but Ball will make your team better with all his intangibles.

 

[slinslin]

Teams need multiple elite scorers. If Fultz is good enough to put Booker into a secondary role on offense than we should embrace that. The fact that Westbrook and Durant could coexist as long as they did bodes really well for a Fultz/Booker combo, as Fultz is IMO a more willing passer than Westbrook.

Its like when you create a 2k character. You put all sliders to 99. You wouldn't put shooting, dunking, athleticism etc to 70 because you create a PG.

Fultz does not pound the ball. When he has it he creates, he is not hogging. He is moving off the ball and spotting up too. He will have to run pick and roll and halfcourt offense too.

Also it is an illusion to think that Ball can cone in and whichever NBA team he goes to can play like UCLA does in the NCAA.

The main benefactors of Ball would probably be Warren and Chriss, not Booker who would have probably more pressure on him in the halfcourt.

Booker and Bledsoe worked better together than Jason Kidd and Penny ever did.

Lillard and McCollum, Curry and Klay. Lowry and DeRozan. they are all scorers and high usage players.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

I would love to have two elite scorers, but in order for it to work...they have to co-exist and not be selfish...which is why Durant hated Westbrook so much. Booker seems very passive, while Fultz seems more like the ball-hog Westbrook type. In my estimation...between Fultz and Ball...Fultz is the better individual player, but Ball is the better team player. Fultz will put up amazing stats, but Ball will make your team better with all his intangibles.

Except Fultz isn't selfish. He is just a great player that doesn't have a lot around him. He has to make a lot happen on his own. I am actually a big fan of Ball and would certainly be fine with getting him if Fultz isn't available, but let's not pretend like the talent around him at UCLA isn't a huge part of the numbers that he is putting up.

Also it has been proven time and again that in today's NBA you need elite scorers to compete in the playoffs and Ball unfortunately doesn't bring that to the table. Ball will lead to great regular season records IMO, but is not someone that is going to take over late in playoff games and take us to the promised land. Elite scoring guards are far more valuable at the moment than elite passing ones and until I see something that proves otherwise than I will continue to believe that.

 

[AsUpRoDiGy]

Except Fultz isn't selfish. He is just a great player that doesn't have a lot around him. He has to make a lot happen on his own. I am actually a big fan of Ball and would certainly be fine with getting him if Fultz isn't available, but let's not pretend like the talent around him at UCLA isn't a huge part of the numbers that he is putting up.

Also it has been proven time and again that in today's NBA you need elite scorers to compete in the playoffs and Ball unfortunately doesn't bring that to the table. Ball will lead to great regular season records IMO, but is not someone that is going to take over late in playoff games and take us to the promised land. Elite scoring guards are far more valuable at the moment than elite passing ones and until I see something that proves otherwise than I will continue to believe that.

I've only seen Fultz play a couple times, so maybe my sample size wasn't good enough. And you make a good point...the best teams in the league right now have PG's that are much better shooters than they are passers. When I watched Fultz...I saw a guard who can create his own shot and has a great spot up jumper...which is going to translate very well to the NBA.

 

[slinslin]

Fultz does everything well. The stylistic argument in my opinion comes when comparing Ball, Smith and Fox who all have different strengths and weaknesses.

Ball elite in transition and moving the ball quickly with deficiencies in halfcourt and pick and roll.
Smith elite in isolation/pnr/halfcourt , very good handle and passing good shooter, does not turn the ball over much for the usage but overdribbles at times.
Fox is pretty good all around and the best defender but the worst shooter.

 

[3rdside]

It's just not that simple. Fultz is on a team where he has to make things happen far more often than Ball does. Thus Fultz has a much higher usage rate. Having a much higher usage means he is going to turn the ball over more per game. Give Fultz the talent around him that Ball has and his assists would be higher and turnovers lower than they currently are.

The TOV% analysis is too simple - I read it off this:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/lonzo-ball-1.html

Not this:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html


Let me rephrase it:

TOV% estimates the number of turnovers a player makes per 100 possessions factoring in the number of shots and free throws he shoots i.e. it's trying to work out how many turnovers a player makes relative to how much he uses the ball (usage).

Fultz has a lower TOV% because his usage is so much higher - on a better team his usage might go down but then so would his turnovers.

My point was that when you're assessing a player's passing ability the raw assist / turnovers is better at doing this, even though I agree that on a better team Fultz's ratio would be better.

 

[slinslin]

Raw stats are better? How, it is absolutely fair to put Fultz turnovers relative to how much he has to do with the ball.