Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog
This is the kind of stuff that I think is overblown thanks to LSU's performance, as opposed to the cause of LSU's performance this year. That's not really what I saw, especially the first 2/3rds of the season, with the problem more being Simmons being passive as opposed to trying to be 'Rondo' and get assists over everything else.
It just didn't fit with what I saw in the games I watched. He could be accused of looking to force some home-run passes at times, yes, but if anything I thought it was more a result of his pass-first mentality than any desire to lead the nation in assists.
|
I wouldn't call it overblown because I certainly hadn't heard it discussed as much as the idea that Simmons is entirely without blame because he led the team in a bunch of statistical categories or that if he'd gone to Duke/Kansas/UNC/Kentucky he'd have been able to show his "true potential" as a Magic/LeBron hybrid. I don't even care all that much about his going to LSU considering that he probably wanted to try something new after playing for a stacked high school team that recruited players from all over the world, but it's silly to automatically assume that some big name coach would have gotten him to play with more intensity on defense or that Simmons would have bought into a reduced role on offense. LSU was pretty close to a net zero for his stock or whatever you'd like to call it: he's criticized now for the lack of team success, but the individual stats he put up by virtue of playing heavy minutes against poor opponents while not having to defer to better teammates helped to build him up first. Contrast that with players like Davis and Towns, who clearly weren't utilized in a way that maximized their talents or raw statistical output while at Kentucky and as a result didn't get widespread hype as the best player to come into the league since _______.
When I point out that Simmons has some Rondo moments, I'm not even trying to read into his mental state, I'm just pointing out instances where how he plays mitigates his raw statistical output. If he passes up a wide-open 12-15 foot shot earlier in the shot clock and as a result has to dish it off to a teammate who misses a more contested look, it doesn't matter much to me why it happened. Maybe he was trying to pad his assist totals or keep his field goal percentage looking good. Maybe he's actually a good shooter but has no confidence in his jump shot. Maybe he's actually a terrible shooter and is making the right play given his limitations as a player. Either way, it's the kind of play that looks efficient on a surface level (no missed field goal for Simmons, not much chance of a turnover, and every once in a while it leads to an assist) but really makes him and his team much easier to guard.
Additionally, seeing enough of those types of plays slightly undermines the idea that LSU runs a significantly worse halfcourt offense than what you'd see from most NCAA teams; if I can run a play that with little to no effort generates a completely uncontested 10-15 foot shot for my leading scorer pretty much every time, I wouldn't be overly concerned with what the 2nd and 3rd options are. The 2nd/3rd options are what's being covered up in order for the opponent to put out a big neon sign that says "we dare you to shoot!"
Now, could LSU have gotten more creative in terms of using Simmons as an off-ball cutter or a screener in a pick-and-roll if he had a smaller player on him (assuming that he'd try to set tough screens, which there isn't much video evidence of)? Sure, but as a Cavs fan, you should be familiar with the idea that you can run an extremely simple offense and still do okay if you have a player who's head and shoulders above the competition making all the decisions, so I'm less concerned with intangibles (I'm sure this year will be a learning experience and he'll try harder and blah blah blah) than I am with the fact that he doesn't look like that explosive of an athlete who can create something out of nothing (most of his highlights are in transition of course, but even the ones in halfcourt tend to feature him backing his dribble way out and getting a head of steam going against a college PF who likely has little/no experience guarding players on the perimeter) and that he doesn't seem to be incredibly instinctive with defensive rotations, which isn't something that gets magically fixed with more effort or a better defensive scheme. Again, all the Magic/LeBron, "this guy's one of the most gifted players at his age I've ever seen" stuff does not jibe with how many qualifications there are about how he needs to be in the perfect environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atocep
Free throw percentage is one of the best, if not the best, indicator for future 3 point development. Free throw shooting also doesn't fluctuate much, although guys do tend to improve over their college careers. 68% from the free throw line and over 40% from 3 just doesn't happen often.
I would argue that Ben Simmons doesn't need to be a good 3 point shooter to be a good NBA player because he handles the ball, passes very well, rebounds well, and has a very good steal rate. His development as a shooter will determine whether he's merely a good player or a great player. Ingram has to knock down 3s at a solid rate just to be a good player at the next level.
I honestly don't know who I would take #1 overall between these two. Both have red flags and both have high ceilings. Right now I'd likely go with Simmons because I think he has a higher floor and higher ceiling as a player. That doesn't mean Ingram has no shot at being the better player, I just don't think he's the safer pick between the two and the likelihood of Simmons being a below average player is pretty slim IMO. Ingram is tempting, but I just don't trust his outside shooting translating at this point.
|
I've looked at the same models you've looked at (and then some) and am saying that being a slightly below-average free throw shooter would not result in a player who shoots threes more frequently and at a higher percentage than Ryan Anderson did in college being projected below league average. There are certainly not too many players in the league who can both rebound and shoot threes at even an average level, and then when you add in what Ingram has shown defensively and as a ball handler that list becomes even shorter.
I didn't trust his outside shooting to translate before the season began because it wouldn't have been the first time a tall, athletic wing player struggled with three point shooting against tougher competition (hence why I anticipated Bender to be in the mix for number one overall after underwhelming seasons by all the top freshmen), but there's quite a bit of evidence at this point even before going into safe assumptions such as "an 18 year old has more room to improve than the average player going into the NBA" and "a 6'10 player with a 7'3 wingspan isn't going to struggle too much with regards to getting shots off" that I'd probably be as comfortable assuming that Ingram can shoot as I am that Ben Simmons can rebound, for example.
As for what I'd do with 1(1), I'd try my damnedest to figure out which teams employ scouts who still talk about triple doubles as if they're an awesome thing on their own and trade them the pick.