Lonzo Ball

[SirStefan32]

The one positive of ball over jackson is he likely will be a big time three point threat in the nba,even without the ball.

This will open the floor for booker, last year he got so many traps and packing of the paint because teams didn't guard bledsoe at the 3 point line.

Booker can operate like harden, eventually with chriss as the Main screener, but he needs more open space

I am not sure how good of a shooter Ball (or Jackson, for that matter) will be, but the rest of the post is spot on. Suns need to add some three-point shooting. I am encouraged by Chriss and Bender (despite struggling the last few games), but I really wish they had more long-range threats on 1 and 3 positions.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Fultz is a better defender, is faster, and a better shooter. He literally has zero holes in his game.

Other than not winning.

 

[Jay Cardinal]

I would take Ball first overall. I know that is not popular, and I certainly can't argue against Fultz's -- but when I watch Ball play the game seems so natural. He seems to see the game so we'll, reminds me a lot of Magic or Kidd.

Also I think even though his shot is ugly, he is deadly from three. Is Fultz's really as good of a shooter as Ball?

Excited to get a great player!

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Okay, let me help you with that.

Man in providing that quote you bolded the part that made your argument to win the battle, but ignored the part that maybe causes you to lose the war:

"Put Fultz on the floor with the same UCLA teammates, and I don't think they're nearly as successful," one GM said.

 

[Bodha]

"You cant pass your way back into a game"


need to be a scorer as well.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I won't melt down unless we end up at 4. While I have a strong preference, I believe both players will be very good.

I agree. Won't be mad with any of the top three. Will be bummed if we drop to four, but not mad if we take Tatum (and maybe Isaac - he's growing on me)

 

[SirStefan32]

"You cant pass your way back into a game"


need to be a scorer as well.

Suns were 9th in scoring last season at 107 points per game. They are 29th in assists, 30th in points allowed, 22nd in offensive rating, and 28th in defensive rating. Suns need some passing and defense. They have plenty of scoring, and several of those guys will only get better from here.

EDIT:
To clarify, I am not advocating for any one player- I like all three of them, and none of them are perfect.

 

[Bodha]

Suns were 9th in scoring last season at 107 points per game. They are 29th in assists, 30th in points allowed, 22nd in offensive rating, and 28th in defensive rating. Suns need some passing and defense. They have plenty of scoring, and several of those guys will only get better from here.

Ulis is a great assist man. give him a full time role and I bet he becomes a double double regular.

I want Jackson for the defensive aspect. Hes a shut down defender with a very high offensive ceiling. Similar to Chriss is some regards. Between the two of them, they would be the foundation for our future. 2 really good 2-way players.

 

[SirStefan32]

Ulis is a great assist man. give him a full time role and I bet he becomes a double double regular.

I want Jackson for the defensive aspect. Hes a shut down defender with a very high offensive ceiling. Similar to Chriss is some regards. Between the two of them, they would be the foundation for our future. 2 really good 2-way players.

Chriss is not a defensive stopper. He does a good job helping from the weak side. He might end up being a good defender, but he is not a two-way player or a foundation for our future at this point. I like the kid, I think he is going to be good, but he is not a foundational two-way player.

I like Ulis too, but he is a severely undersized point guard who can't shoot. He is not a valid reason to pass on Ball or Fultz, or trade Bledsoe. He is a very good backup PG, but let's not pretend he is a transformational PG either.

 

[Russ Smith]

And for those touting his shooting, just go rewatch the Kentucky / UCLA game where a team took away his strengths.

Ball shot 4-10. 1-6 from 3 point land and got to the line twice.

He has almost no half court game. He isn't quick enough to beat a player like Monk and get to the line.

Meanwhile Monk went to the line 15 times that game on his way to 39 points because Ball could not guard him one on one.

So essentially this comes down to you watched one game, the one where he played more than half of it with a tweaked hamstring and came away concluding he can't play? I'd like to see anybody guard an athlete like Fox playing with a tweaked hammy.

If you watched the game UCLA defended Fox the same way both games, go under the screen and make him shoot the jumper or runner. Both games he put up points but in the first game UCLA was able to keep him from constantly getting to the rim and in a breakneck pace game their defense held UK to 41%. In the 2nd game UCLA couldn't keep Fox out of the lane, he essentially single handedly fouled Welsh out(in 18 minutes) and UK shot 49%.

Let's rewatch the game, 45-42 Kentucky, Lonzo in transition pulls a long 3 pointer, Monk hits him across the shooting arm, the ball falls about 4 feet short is outletted to Monk who took off and laid it in 47-42. both announcers immediately pointed out Lonzo was obviously fouled on the play, and it not only took away a 3 pointer or 3 FT's, it gave UK a layup since virtually everyone except for Monk stopped because the foul was so obvious.

So that 4-10 1-6 only 2 FT's should have been 4-9 1-5 and 5 FT's.

BTW the guy you keep calling Monk is actually Fox. And for the record 10 of those 15 FT's he took were in the last 2 minutes of the game when UCLA was fouling to try and catch up.

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good debate.

 

[Russ Smith]

"You cant pass your way back into a game"


need to be a scorer as well.

Then don't always get behind.

 

[Bodha]

Chriss is not a defensive stopper. He does a good job helping from the weak side. He might end up being a good defender, but he is not a two-way player or a foundation for our future at this point. I like the kid, I think he is going to be good, but he is not a foundational two-way player.

Neither is Jackson right now, Im saying they both can be. And that potential is why they are both foundational long-term players. Chriss definitely is. Hes young and sloppy, but he showed more his rookie year than Len has in 4 years.

As big of a TJ Warren fan as i am, I recognize he doesnt have Chriss/Jacksons athleticism or defensive ceiling.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

Yes, you are correct, Ball played like crap against a different player. My bad.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

I am going to go out on a limb and say Russ is a UCLA fan.

 

[Russ Smith]

Yes, you are correct, Ball played like **** against a different player. My bad.

yes he did. And again, of those 15 Ft's you're touting as evidence Ball can't play defense, 10 of them were the result of UCLA trying to catch up the last 2 minutes by fouling.

So in the 38 minutes where UCLA was actually playing their regular defense, Fox shot 5 FT's. Ball shot 2 and would have shot 5 if the refs had called the obvious foul on Monk on the missed 3 early in the 2nd half.

Which is again why when you watch the game and then look at stats you have to put them into context. De Aaron Fox destroyed Lonzo Ball in that game. but if you look at the actual context he scored 11 points in the last 2:30 of the game and 9 of those 11 were freethrows where UCLA just fouled him to try and catch up. He went 9-10, and had a layup in there when UCLA was pressing and fouling. He got 39 points because he was the one with the ball when UCLA was intentionally fouling. If it had been Monk instead, Fox would have had about 30 and Monk would have had 31.

Fox gave Lonzo fits both times UCLA played UK, he's by far the best defender at PG UCLA played all year, I'd say Kadeem Allen too but he didn't give Lonzo nearly as much trouble he's just not as big as Fox is.

 

[Russ Smith]

I am going to go out on a limb and say Russ is a UCLA fan.

Of course I am, never hid that. I'm not saying Lonzo is the best player in the draft. I'm saying comparing Fultz to Gary payton is insulting to Payton. One of the most ferocious defenders in NBA history compared to a guy who acted like he didn't care at all in his one year in college.

he MIGHT turn out to be a great defender, but nothing he did in college suggests he will.

 

[Mainstreet]

I agree. Won't be mad with any of the top three. Will be bummed if we drop to four, but not mad if we take Tatum (and maybe Isaac - he's growing on me)

Fox should be included even if we expand it to a top 5 or 6.

 

[Errntknght]

Hey, if Fox is really a top notch on-ball defender - beyond having one great game defending Lonzo - maybe we should draft him. (Might as well have an all Kentucky backcourt...) You know if we wind up drafting fifth, it's nice to know there will be someone available that we'd love to have.

 

[Mainstreet]

Hey, if Fox is really a top notch on-ball defender - beyond having one great game defending Lonzo - maybe we should draft him. (Might as well have an all Kentucky backcourt...) You know if we wind up drafting fifth, it's nice to know there will be someone available that we'd love to have.

I would not be upset one bit drafting Fox. There may be preferences for drafting Fultz or Ball but I think Fox can be just as good or better. This relieves some stress for me regarding the draft.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I find it interesting that people question Ball's shooting. He has been shooting 36% plus from 3 since high school JV years, and good grief, those Ball kids take them from NBA range as junior highers.

I am torn between Fultz and Ball, but the criticism of Ball doesn't seem to fit with the reality I see.

The criticism of Fultz seem to be ignored, like the fact that his defensive effort is poor. That does concern me. The other thing that concerns me is how ANY player considered a first over all pick can lead a college team to an 8-22 record? I understand missing the tourney being on a bad team, but you would think a superstar level player would be produce some more wins almost on his own.

Fultz's record and Lonzo's father. The two big question marks, and they should bother be given similar consideration. The second level question marks are Fultz's motivation on D and Lonzo's midrange game.

 

[Russ Smith]

Hey, if Fox is really a top notch on-ball defender - beyond having one great game defending Lonzo - maybe we should draft him. (Might as well have an all Kentucky backcourt...) You know if we wind up drafting fifth, it's nice to know there will be someone available that we'd love to have.

He actually defended Lonzo well in both games. The first one Lonzo was 14 points 7 assists 5-12 shooting but 6 turnovers. 2nd one 4-10 10 points 8 assists 4 turnovers. he guarded Lonzo better than anybody else this year.

 

[Russ Smith]

I find it interesting that people question Ball's shooting. He has been shooting 36% plus from 3 since high school JV years, and good grief, those Ball kids take them from NBA range as junior highers.

I am torn between Fultz and Ball, but the criticism of Ball doesn't seem to fit with the reality I see.

The criticism of Fultz seem to be ignored, like the fact that his defensive effort is poor. That does concern me. The other thing that concerns me is how ANY player considered a first over all pick can lead a college team to an 8-22 record? I understand missing the tourney being on a bad team, but you would think a superstar level player would be produce some more wins almost on his own.

Fultz's record and Lonzo's father. The two big question marks, and they should bother be given similar consideration. The second level question marks are Fultz's motivation on D and Lonzo's midrange game.

The big question on Lonzo's shooting is the form, can he get that shot off in the NBA like he did in college. Many say no, many said the same thing before he got to UCLA, he won't get that shot off in college. When they played in Australia the UCLA coaches tweaked his shot to get the ball on the right side, Lonzo shot poorly and there was a bunch of press about how overrated he was, how he was arguably the 4th best guard UCLA had during the australia trip. When he got back home, he told Alford he was going back to his old shot, and shot great all year. His TS% was off the charts.

now if he can't get that shot off against NBA players then yes it'll be a problem.

it's an unknown so it scares people. What impressed everyone in college is how easily he got room to shoot, Kenny Smith was gushing about it during the tournament as was Jay Williams, you ask why don't teams just play up on him and deny that shot, the answer is they tried, and he was able to get room to get it off.

Fultz has a much quicker release and a higher release point.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

The reason people are concerned about Ball's shooting is because his shooting form is really unusual. He basically pulls the ball next to his face before he shoots. So it is unlikely he will be successful at mid range jumpers, which is the core of pick and roll basketball.

https://theringer.com/lonzo-ball-ucla-shooting-mechanics-6eeda2ef3e41

This article explains it best. Basically no one in the NBA has ever had success shooting at such a low release point except for Kevin Martin. It also goes into how much his shot is tied to the specific ball he used in college (Wilson) and that may be why his shot percentage was so much higher than he has exhibited in the past.

It also goes over his inability to go right when shooting off the dribble, something that is a big concern for some NBA Scouts.

It literally could be a bunch of nothing. He may be the one guy who is successful but it is really noteworthy.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I am going to go out on a limb and say Russ is a UCLA fan.

He is, but he's not wrong in his responses to you.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

He is, but he's not wrong in his responses to you.

Fair enough. Like I said we will see in a few years.