Rob Dauster

AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast

2017 NBA Draft Prospect Profiles: Will De’Aaron Fox ever shoot well enough to be a star?

2 Comments

Early in John Wall‘s career as the point guard of the Washington Wizards, there was serious doubt about whether or not he would ever become the kind of player that was deserving of being the No. 1 pick in a draft. That is typically reserved for the kind of franchise changing talent that Wall has, but the problem was, simply, that he could not shoot.

As a freshman at Kentucky, he shot just 32.5 percent from beyond the arc. He made three fewer threes as a rookie in the NBA than he did as a rookie in the SEC, and he made a total of 15 threes in his second and third seasons in the NBA which included a spectacular 3-for-42 performance for an entire season.

But Wall got better. In two of the last four years, he’s shot better than 35 percent from beyond the arc and has at least become enough of a threat that a defense has to be conscious of the fact that he can hit a three, and it’s not a coincidence that has come at the same time that Wall has emerged as one of the four or five best point guards in the NBA.

De'Aaron Fox, who was Kentucky’s engine on both ends of the floor this past season, is, more or less, a John Wall clone. He’s not quite as tall and he’s not quite as long as his sprinter’s-speed is not quite superhuman, but looking at this from a big picture perspective, they’re mostly the same: A defensive menace and a nightmare in transition that may never be able to effectively run an NBA offense if he cannot find a way to fix his jump shot.

Height: 6’3″
Weight: 170 pounds
Wingspan: 6’6″
2016-17 Stats: 16.7 points, 4.6 assists, 4.0 boards, 1.5 steals, 24.6% 3PT

De’Aaron Fox (Photo by Andy Lyons/Getty Images)

STRENGTHS: The intrigue with Fox as a player starts with the physical tools. He has elite size (6-foot-3), length (6-foot-6 wingspan), athleticism (his vertical is nearly 40 inches) and speed for a point guard. He has game-changing ability in transition, whether it’s leading the break or running away from the defense in a lane. More than 31 percent of his offense came in transition this past season, nearly six points per game.

Transition isn’t the only place where his speed made him dangerous. He was nearly impossible to keep out of the lane when he wanted to get there; not only is Fox an explosive leaper — he threw down a number of highlight worthy dunks this season — but he has terrific burst and a quick first step off the dribble and off the standstill. When he gets into the paint, he showed off really impressive touch on his floaters, shooting nearly 60 percent in the lane, a very respectable number for a guy that still needs to add weight and strength to his frame to handle getting bumped off his angle.

Fox’s ability to get into the paint is even more impressive when you consider just how far defenses played off of him; defenders would often slough off as far as the foul line when Fox had the ball beyond the arc. He puts pressure on a defense in a way that cannot be taught.

A good passer that doesn’t turn the ball over, Fox was good enough to make plays at the college level — he was excellent throwing lobs and finding bigs at the rim in Kentucky’s offense — but he could stand to develop the rest of his pick-and-roll game.

Defensively, Fox has the tools to be an above average defender in the NBA. He’s big, he’s long, he’s laterally quick, he has terrific anticipation and he has quick hands. When he’s engaged, he can be a nightmare when applying ball pressure. He wasn’t always engaged, however, and his lack of strength means that he would die on screens too often and struggled defending bigger, more physical players, but that will come with time.

De’Aaron Fox (Photo by Joe Robbins/Getty Images)

WEAKNESSES: His jump shot.

That’s not the only area of the game that he struggles, mind you. He weighs all of 170 pounds, which is far too light for a player that is 6-foot-3. He’s heavily reliant on his left-hand, both when he’s attacking the rim and when he’s finishing around the bucket. His ability in the pick-and-roll needs to be expanded. He needs to continue to develop as a playmaker, particularly in the half court, as he has a habit of deciding what he wants to do before the play instead of reading a defense, and he can be somewhat inconsistent as a defender.

But that jumper, man.

That is what’s going to determine his future. We’ll get into that, but first, some numbers: Fox shot 24 percent from three this season. He was just 9-for-45 on catch-and-shoot opportunities this season and averaged 0.65 points-per-possession on pull-up jumpers, shooting 31 percent on the season.

Simply put, that’s not going to be good enough at the next level.

NBA COMPARISON: The obvious comparison here is John Wall, as I mentioned earlier. Another comparison that I’ve seen is Mike Conley, who isn’t quite as explosive as Fox but who has similar question marks about his jumper; Conley now has the largest contract in the NBA. That’s Fox’s ceiling. That’s why he has the chance to be a top three pick in this draft. That’s why there are people that would legitimately pick him over Lonzo Ball.

They’re doing that based on the idea that they’ll be able to teach Fox how to shoot. But what happens if they can’t? What happens if Fox, four years into his NBA career, is still shooting in the low-20s from three? Well, he’ll likely find himself following the career path of someone like Elfrid Payton, Kris Dunn or Michael Carter-Williams, lottery picks that were supposed to be two-way stars at the point in the NBA if they only learned how to shoot the ball.

OUTLOOK: There are two questions that we need to ask about Fox in the longterm.

The first is whether or not a point guard that is not a great shooter can be a starter, let alone a star, on a team with playoff aspirations, and the answer is probably not. Four playoff teams had starting point guards that shot under 35 percent from three this past season. One of them was Russell Westbrook, and he shot 34.3 percent from three and is disqualified from this discussion for not being human. One of them was Tony Parker, who, against, is disqualified because the Spurs are the Spurs. Wall was a third and the fourth was Dennis Schroder of Atlanta, who still made 34.0 percent from beyond the arc, a number that is vastly more impressive than the 24.6 percent that Fox shot from the college three point line.

Which leads us to the obvious second question: Is Fox’s jump shot beyond repair?

De’Aaron Fox (Photo by Andy Lyons/Getty Images)

That question is trickier to answer. Let’s start here: Fox shot 73.6 percent from the free throw line this season, attempting nearly six per game. That’s typically a good sign. Free throws isolate form, and if Fox is hitting those, the thinking is, there’s a foundation to work with. And, frankly, most NBA people will tell you that Fox’s stroke isn’t quite as bad as the numbers will make you believe. In March, when Fox was at his healthiest, he made 55 percent of his pull-up jumpers and 36 percent of his spot-up jumpers in a half-court setting. He also shot 9-for-17 from three in the final month of the season. It’s a small sample size, yes, but it’s still an improvement.

Most people believe that all it takes is time and effort to improve player’s jump shot, and to a point that is true. Shooting is always going to be the easiest skill to develop — it’s hard to teach someone to see the floor, and you cannot make a player grow or get a longer wingspan no matter how hard you try — but if that player is shooting with a stroke that is broken, often times it won’t matter how many jumpers he takes in the offseason. For every Kawhi Leonard and Kyle Lowry there is a Ricky Rubio or a Rajon Rondo.

So which is Fox?

Well, his stroke isn’t awful, but there is a lot of movement; he has a slingshot action in there where he releases the ball from the side of his head at times. Some scouts will tell you that the biggest issue with Fox is his confidence, that he missed a few early, it got in his head and, since no one could keep him out of the lane, he just drove as often as possible. Others will tell you that his shot is all arms and that he’ll be better when he gets into an NBA strength and conditioning program. Still others believe he’s just never going to be a good shooter.

Me?

I think he’ll be a capable three-point shooter in the NBA, somewhere in that 32-35% range, which will be enough to make him a starter on a playoff team but not enough for him to get into the conversation as one of the best point guards in the league.

2017 NBA Draft Prospect Profiles: Is Jayson Tatum the next Carmelo Anthony?

1 Comment

Jayson Tatum had the slowest start of anyone in the 2017 NBA draft class, and it probably had quite a bit to do with the fact that his season didn’t actually begin until early December.

Tatum suffered a foot injury during a Duke practice in October, one that kept him off the floor for roughly a month and out of the lineup for the first eight games of Duke’s season, and despite an impressive performance in a win over Florida in Madison Square Garden in just his second game as a collegian, Tatum was not all that good for the first half of his freshman campaign.

Through 13 games, he was shooting under 43 percent from the floor, below 30 percent from three and had more turnovers than assists as Duke dealt with what can best be described as a power struggle amongst the stars on their roster. At one point, Duke was 3-4 in the ACC. But by the end of the year, Tatum was averaging a more-than-respectable 16.9 points, 7.3 boards and 2.1 assists while shooting better than 50 percent from the field and 34 percent from three while thriving in a small-ball four role previously occupied by the likes of Jabari Parker, Justise Winslow and Brandon Ingram.

The question now is whether or not Tatum can do the same at the NBA level. Will he be tough enough and strong enough to play the four at the highest level of the game? If not, does he actually have the physical tools to be able to create offense against NBA perimeter defenders?

Height: 6’8″
Weight: 205
Wingspan: 6’11”
2016-17 Stats: 16.8 points, 7.3 boards, 2.1 assists, 50.4% FG, 34.2% 3PT

Jayson Tatum (Photo by Andy Lyons/Getty Images)

STRENGTHS: You cannot talk about Jayson Tatum without talking about just how good of a 1-on-1 scorer he is. According to Synergy, there was no high-major player that averaged more isolation possessions per game than Tatum did, and he did so while posting a solid 0.896 points-per-possession, the 70th percentile nationally. He also led all high-major players in efficiency on post-up possessions, scoring 1.303 PPP.

Tatum’s offensive repertoire is as polished as any one-and-done you’ll see. His bread-and-butter is his jab series — his footwork, whether facing up or playing with his back to the basket, is impeccable — but he has the entire package offensively: crossovers, step-backs, turnaround jumpers, fadeaways, jump hooks, in-and-outs, rip-throughs and he even pulls out the Dirk Nowitzki one-foot fallaway jumpers from time-to-time.

He’s only gotten better offensively as his jumper has continued to develop. In high school, one of the knocks on Tatum was that he didn’t have three-point range; he thrived on mid-range pull-ups. As a freshman, however, he shot a solid 34.2 percent from beyond the arc, getting better as the season progressed. The stroke is there — he shots 85 percent from the free throw line and averaged 1.22 PPP on unguarded jumpers at Duke — but his release, at this point, is still somewhat slow. If he doesn’t have time and space, when he rushes his shot, is when the inconsistency kicks in.

Tatum has a reputation for having a tremendous work ethic, and this is precisely the kind of issue that gets fixed with reps. I’m not concerned about his ability to make shots in the NBA, including from the NBA three-point line. He’ll get there in time.

The other thing that Tatum has going for him is his frame. He stands 6-foot-8 with a 6-foot-11 wingspan, which is more than respectable for a guy that is projected to play the combo-forward — or a hybrid 3-4, a small ball four, a big wing, however you refer to it — role in the NBA. He already looked much bigger as a freshman than he did as a high schooler, and his broad shoulders suggest he has a frame that can hold more weight.

In addition to weight, he needs to add lower body strength and quickness (we’ll get to that in a minute) but Tatum not only showed flashes of having the toughness to guard in the paint. He was more of a play maker defensively than you may realize, averaging 1.3 steals, 1.1 blocks and 6.0 defensive rebounds per game.

Put another way, Tatum has the tools to potentially be a versatile, multipositional defender at the next level.

That versatility, both offensively and defensively, is incredibly valuable the way the NBA has been trending.

Jayson Tatum (Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images)

WEAKNESSES: Generally speaking, the biggest concern that scouts have with Tatum is his jump shot, but as I mentioned earlier, I’m not all that concerned about whether or not he will be able to develop NBA range in time.

To me, the bigger concern is his shot selection. According to hoop-math.com, roughly 40 percent of Tatum’s shot attempts in the half court came on two-point jump shots, and he only made 40.2 percent of them. This is why Tatum’s efficiency numbers are relatively low given his skill level; he’s not getting the extra point that comes with shooting a three, and he’s not drawing fouls at the rate that he would by getting all the way to the rim.

This goes to a broader concern that I have with Tatum: Just how high is his basketball IQ? Tatum had a bad habit of being a ball-stopper with the Blue Devils, particularly early on in the season, and he didn’t seem to read the game all that well. He missed the extra pass on ball rotations, he struggled to identify where help defense was coming from, he seemed to decide on the play he wanted to make instead of reacting to what the defense gave him. For example, often he’d try to force a dump-off to a big man instead of seeing the defense collapse, leaving shooters open on the perimeter.

To be fair, he did get better as the season progressed, and this may have just been a case of a freshman doing freshman things when his season started six weeks after everyone else. But it is something to keep in mind; sometimes workout warriors with every move in the book don’t know when to use those moves.

There are also questions about Tatum physically. For starters, he’s not all that explosive. He does have a decent first step going to his right, and his long strides make it tough to catch up to him once he gets a step, but he does struggle to turn the corner against quicker defenders, particularly off the bounce. This is an issue that is magnified by Tatum’s loose handle, and it begs the question: Just how effective of a perimeter scorer is he going to be if he’s guarded by NBA wings?

Tatum also has a habit of “playing high” — he doesn’t sit in a stance and he isn’t all that low when he puts the ball on the floor, which is part of the reason he lacks some initial burst. Some of this can be fixed as he adds lower-body strength, which is something that he is going to need to be able to handle defending NBA fours. I’d also guess he probably needs to add at least 15-20 pounds to his 205 pound frame.

The question, essentially, is this: Tatum needs to develop one of two skills — the quickness to score on (and guard?) NBA wings, or the strength to be able to handle NBA fours in the post.

(Photo by Michael Reaves/Getty Images)

NBA COMPARISON: Anyone that watched Tatum play last season will understand why the easiest comparison to make is to Carmelo Anthony. They’re both roughly the same size with roughly the same skill-set — isolation scorers that can face-up, score in the post and thrive on making tough, two-point jumpers. The difference, however, is that Melo was a good 30 pounds heavier than Tatum after his one-and-done season, which is why he averaged 22 points and 10 boards and led Syracuse to a national title. Melo is the prototype for the kind of big wing or small-ball four that has become so valuable in the NBA.

I don’t think Tatum will ever be as good as peak-Melo was, and that’s assuming he puts on the bulk to be able to play the four. Perhaps the better comparison, then, is Paul Pierce, who was more of a natural wing scorer, a guy with less-than-stellar athleticism and a terrific mid-range game.

Either way …

OUTLOOK: … it’s probably unfair to put Tatum’s name in the same conversation as a pair of 10-time all-stars would could both end up in the NBA Hall of Fame one day, but if everything comes together for him, I don’t think it’s out of the question that he could average 20 points in the NBA for the next decade.

That’s how good of a scorer, and how hard of a worker, he is. I have little doubt that he’ll iron out some of the wrinkles in his jump shot and tighten up his handle.

For me, Tatum’s ceiling is going to be determined by his ability to do one of two things: Putting on the strength to be able to play the four in the NBA, where he is going to be able to have matchups that he can exploit, or adding enough initial burst and explosiveness that he’ll be able to create offense against NBA wing defenders.

2017 NBA Draft Prospect Profiles: Malik Monk thrived at Kentucky, but does he have NBA star potential?

Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
Leave a comment

There wasn’t a player in college basketball last season that was required viewing in the way that Malik Monk was required viewing.

He had nights where he struggled, as any college freshman does. But when Monk got it going it was unlike anything that we’ve seem in college basketball in quite sometime.

It started with the seven threes that he hit against Michigan State in his first collegiate game against high-major competition. Then there was the 47 point outburst that he had in Kentucky’s win over North Carolina. He scored 31 points in a half in a come-from-behind win over Georgia. He had 30 second half points to lead Kentucky to a win over Florida that just about locked up an SEC title for the Wildcats. Two nights later he had 20 second half points in a win over Vanderbilt in which Kentucky erased a 19 point deficit. He scored at least 20 points in a half six times.

Without question, Monk is an elite shooter and scorer.

But given the lack of diversity in his game and the fact that he is just 6-foot-3 with a short wingspan and narrow frame, is he a good enough shooter that he can rely on carving out on NBA career based on shooting alone? Or will he have to rely on becoming a combo-guard — a scoring point guard — if he wants to pay off on being a potential top five pick?

Height: 6’3″
Weight: 197
Wingspan: 6’3.5″
2016-17 Stats: 19.8 points, 2.3 assists, 2.5 boards, 39.7% 3PT

STRENGTHS: There wasn’t a more explosive scorer in college basketball last season than Malik Monk. When he got into a rhythm, when his confidence was high and he saw a couple of shots go down, he was capable of putting up NBA Jam numbers: Twice he went for 30 points in the second half of a game Kentucky was losing. He had 47 points against National Champions North Carolina in a game in December.

And frankly, there isn’t really anything that he can’t do as a shooter. He’s dangerous in transition, whether he’s spotting up on a wing or leading the break with the ball in his hands. He’s terrific moving without the ball — he has an innate feel for where to slide to create an opening for himself to spot-up on a teammate’s penetration, and he knows how run off of screens. He can score on curls and he can read the defense, fading a screen if a defender tries to go over; 64 percent of his offense in half court settings came when he was spotting up or coming off of a screen.

Monk also understands how to attack close-outs, using pump-fakes and jab-steps and rip-throughs to get into his pull-up jumper, which is dangerous. He makes 43 percent of his off-the-dribble jumpers in the half court, many of which were three-pointers and deep twos. Everyone know about just how athletic he is, but Monk’s footwork is terrific, too — he has the first-step burst and the elevation to 1-2 step into one-dribble pull-ups going either direction. He’s the prototype of what you would call a tough shot maker.

Here’s the proof, and also the weirdest Malik Monk stat: He’s a much better shooter when he’s guarded than when he’s ‘unguarded’. According to Synergy, he shot 43.2 percent and averaged 1.271 points per possession on guarded jumpers, good for the 87th percentile nationally. He shot 36 percent and averaged 1.056 PPP on open jumpers, good for the 41st percentile.

Lastly, Monk just so happens to be a guy that, time and again, hit huge jumpers for the Wildcats. He’s got the clutch gene.

Put simply: I don’t know what there is when it comes to shooting that Monk doesn’t do well, except for, you know, making open shots.

Malik Monk (Photo by Andy Lyons/Getty Images)

WEAKNESSES: This is where it gets complicated with Monk, because he doesn’t do all that much else to affect a game.

Let’s start with the offensive side of the ball, where roughly 75 percent of Monk’s offensive came in quick actions — transition, spot-ups or running off of screens. Just 10 percent of his offense came in pick-and-roll actions or isolation. Some of that is a result of being the one guy that is capable of shooting in a back court that also includes playmakers De'Aaron Fox and Isaiah Briscoe, but when Monk did have the chance to put the ball on the floor, he was not all that effective getting to the rim or playing through contact once he got there. Monk penetrated looking to pull-up.

He’s capable in pick-and-rolls, but what he does is predictable — he’s either looking to shoot a three if a defender goes under the screen or trying to find the screener for a lob if he rolls or a three if he pops. He’s not throwing pocket passes and he’s not getting all the way to the basket.

This is a concern because Monk is just 6-foot-3 with a 6-foot-4 wingspan and a slight, narrow frame that many not be able to add all that much weight. Put another way, he’s the size of a point guard but still has a long way to go to develop NBA-caliber point guard skills.

He has the quicks to be a good defender when he’s locked in, although he projects as a guy that is only going to be able to guard point guards at the next level. He also developed a bad habit of ball-watching and losing track of his man defensively this past season, and got beaten on straight line drives far too often by guys that have no business beating him to the rim. Monk doesn’t provide much help on the defensive glass, either, and can disappear on the floor when he’s not making shots.

Ironically enough, the knock on Monk coming into college was that he was a streaky shooter, a guy that could make six in a row just as easily as he could go 2-for-18. Some of that was still there at Kentucky — he often let the game come to him, taking over in the second half, and went through a couple of elongated cold stretches late in the year — but for the most part, Monk ran hot for long stretches of time without having too many terrible nights. It’s hard to quibble with a guy that shot basically 40 percent from three while shooting nearly seven per game.

Malik Monk (Kentucky Athletics)

NBA COMPARISON: It’s hard to think of a direct comparison for the player that Monk will be at the next level. Generally speaking, it’s hard for someone that is nothing but a shooter to to carve out a role for himself in the NBA, particularly when that player in the size of an average point guard. It’s a testament to how good Monk is at what he does that he’s being discussed as a potential top five pick.

We can, however, talk about the role that Monk will play, and I think it will end up being somewhere between JR Smith and Lou Williams. Williams is closer to Monk’s size and comes off the bench — I see Monk’s ideal role being as a scorer for a playoff team’s second unit — while Smith, who is 6-foot-6 and a physical specimen, plays more like Monk does, a three-point gunner that is streaky but that can rip off five threes in a half when he gets rolling.

OUTLOOK: I just don’t see Monk being a star at the next level. I don’t think he develops the ability to play the point full time, and given his size and inherent defensive limitations, as an off-guard he likely would need to be teamed in a back court with a point guard that’s big enough to guard NBA wings. There’s a reason that 6-foot-3 scoring guards aren’t all that common in the NBA.

That said, I do think that Monk is good enough at what he does to have a role in the NBA for a long time, and he may actually be the best fit for Philadelphia, who is picking third. With 6-foot-9 Ben Simmons expected to handle point guard duties, it would allow Monk to slide over and defend opposing point guards while providing some much needed floor-spacing. Think about the way that Cleveland uses Kyrie Irving, an unbelievable 1-on-1 scorer with limitations when it comes to defending or creating for others. They play him off the ball, allow the offense to run through LeBron and put Kyrie in a position where all he has to do is what comes naturally to him.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that Monk will be Kyrie or that Simmons is the next LeBron, and it would be silly for Philly to use the No. 3 pick on Monk when they can get the likes or Josh Jackson, Lonzo Ball or Jayson Tatum anyway.

But finding a place like that to land, a place where he isn’t going to be asked to do much more than what he’s capable of doing, is where he will be at his best.

2017 NBA Draft Prospect Profiles: Is Josh Jackson a better prospect than Lonzo Ball?

Andy Lyons/Getty Images
7 Comments

Josh Jackson, at this point, seems to be the consensus best prospect not named Markelle Fultz or Lonzo Ball.

He’s 6-foot-8. He’s super-athletic. He’s competitive as hell. He’s skilled enough to play the point in a pinch and tough enough that he played the four at Kansas. On paper, he’s Andrew Wiggins physically with all the intangibles that we wish Wiggins had.

Then there’s the other side of it.

Jackson’s jump shot, which went in at a 37.8 percent clip from beyond the arc last season, has enough of a hitch in it that there is legitimate concern about just how good of a shooter he’ll end up being without a complete overhaul of his stroke. There’s also the mental side of the game: Jackson’s an instinctual playmaker that has a bad habit of being a space cadet defensively.

I’m not here to tell you those red flags don’t exist. They do. He has room to grow there.

But I am here to tell you that Josh Jackson is closer to being the best prospect in this draft than the third-best, and by the time I’m done here, you’ll be agreeing with me.

Height: 6’8″
Weight: 207
Wingspan: 6’10”
2016-17 Stats: 16.3 points, 7.4 boards, 3.0 assists, 1.7 steals, 1.1 blocks, 37.8% 3PT

STRENGTHS: The reason that Jackson is so coveted as a prospect are the things that he does that you cannot teach.

It starts with his competitiveness. Jackson is a fiery, he’s intense and it manifests itself in the way that he plays, almost to a fault; Jackson picked up four fouls in 11 of 35 games as a freshman and picked up a handful of technical fouls after interactions with officials. There’s also a toughness to him that outweighs his 207 pound frame. He’s not afraid to get into tangles for loose balls, he’s not going to get backed down easily and he’s more than willing to put his body on the line to take a charge. Simply put: I’d rather try to keep the reins on a player that may care just a little too much than have to find a way to fire up an apathetic talent.

Then there are the physical tools. Athletically, he’s a bouncy, quick-twitch player that can move laterally with terrific body control and the ability to changes speeds on the move. He’s quick enough to stay in front of point guards and explosive enough to block shots, catch lobs and throw down tip-dunks, and his 6-foot-8 size allows him to be a versatile, multi-positional defender. I hesitate on saying he has a elite physical tools due to his wingspan and frame, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

Lastly, there are his instincts. He’s a read-and-react player, a guy that can make plays defensively by jumping passing lanes, getting weak-side blocks and taking charges. He has a knack for getting easy buckets cutting to the rim and is aggressive on the glass on both ends of the floor.

Those are things that cannot be taught. You either have it in you or you don’t, and Jackson has it.

He also has some skills. We’ll get into the issues with his jump shot in a minute, but Jackson did make 37.8 percent of his threes as a freshman, including a 25-for-52 stretch to close the season. He utilizes ball-fakes and has a good enough first step to attack close outs, and while he isn’t the best or most creative finisher at the rim, he is capable of using both hands and has shown that he can make a floater.

Josh Jackson (Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images)

What’s more promising, however, is that Jackson has the potential to be a secondary ball-handler and creator. He has above-average vision and is an unselfish player and willing passer, averaging 3.0 assists as a freshman. He can operate in pick-and-rolls and is capable of bringing the ball up against pressure.

He’s still raw offensively — he makes some bad decisions, commits some turnovers — and, at times, looks like he hasn’t been coached all that much defensively, but the skills he does have combined with the things he does that cannot be taught are a fantastic foundation for an NBA organization to work with.

In a sport that is becoming increasingly positionless, Jackson provides starpower potential with versatility on both ends of the floor.

WEAKNESSES: The biggest issue with Jackson as a prospect is his jump shot. Yes, he shot 37.8 percent from beyond the arc, but it’s hard to tell whether or not that’s just the result of Jackson getting hot in a small sample of catch-and-shoot jumpers.

According to Synergy, Jackson shot just 57 percent from the free throw line, 35.9 percent on all jump shots, 32.3 percent on jumpers off the dribble and just 20.8 percent on two-point jumpers. The main concern is that Jackson has a hitch in his release that creates a lot of moving parts in his stroke, resulting in different release points. You can see it in the video below, there is a slingshot action in his release:

The question marks surrounding Jackson’s jumper sink his stock because, despite his height, he doesn’t project as a guy that can play the small-ball four role in the NBA the way that he did at Kansas. Jackson’s 6-foot-10 wingspan is relatively short — for comparison’s sake, Draymond Green has a 7-foot-2 wingspan and Kawhi Leonard has a 7-foot-3 wingspan — and his slender frame makes it hard to project just how much more muscle mass his body can hold.

Put another way, Jackson can guard twos and threes — and potentially ones — at the next level, but he’s not guarding fours. He’s going to be playing a position where he either needs to be an knockdown shooter or capable of creating in isolation in the half court, and Jackson scored just 0.609 points per possession in isolation as a freshman, the 23rd percentile, despite being guarded predominantly by college four-men on a team with three three-point snipers around him.

It begs the question: Is he ever going to be great at anything on the offensive end of the floor?

And that’s before you factor in that he turned 20 years old in February; he’s older than one-and-done freshmen drafted in 2016.

The other issue you’ll hear mentioned with Jackson is that he has bad habits defensively and he gets beaten on the dribble more easily than you would expect from someone with his athleticism. The bad habits — specifically, the tendency to lose focus on who he is guarding — seems to me to be a result of Jackson trying a little too hard to be a playmaker off the ball, and getting beaten off the dribble has a lot to do with his overactive, choppy feet.

Neither are all that concerning to me, particularly when you factor in his intangibles on that end of the floor. Those issues can be coached away, and there’s not better place for that to happen than in the NBA.

NBA COMPARISON: The easy — and lazy — comparison to make is Andrew Wiggins, who is another 6-foot-8, freakishly-athletic small forward to come out of Kansas, and it’s not the worst comparison I’ve ever seen. The two have similar physical tools and question marks about their jump shots. The problem with that comparison, however, is that the things that make Jackson so intriguing are precisely the skills that Wiggins struggles with.

Jackson is a tough, versatile defender and a fiery competitor that is well-rounded offensively: unselfish with promising court vision and a knack for making instinctual, read-and-react plays. His ceiling is as a player that can average more than 20 points, act as a secondary ball-handler and play maker while potentially being a shutdown defender for twos and threes. Andre Igoudala, before he landed with Golden State and turned into a role player in the twilight of his career, had a seven-year stretch where he averaged 12 points, five boards, five assists and 1.5 steals, scoring more than 17 points per game in four of those seasons.

OUTLOOK: The way I see it, Josh Jackson is the the second-best prospect in this draft. I’d draft him over Lonzo Ball, and I think the gap between Markelle Fultz and Josh Jackson is smaller than the gap between Josh Jackson and Ball, who would be third on my draft board.

Jackson has some issues that need fixing — his jump shot, his tendency to be a space cadet defensively — and there are some valid concerns about his age and the fact that his slender frame may not be able to hold all that much more weight, but those issues are coachable. What isn’t coachable, however, is his competitiveness, his intensity, his unselfishness, his instincts and his ability to read the game and be a playmaker, both offensively and defensively.

He’s a gifted athlete that is going to fight — quite possibly in the literal sense — for the team that he’s on. If he puts in the time to develop his jumper, his body and his focus on the defensive side of the ball, I don’t think it’s out of the question that he could average 25 points, five boards and five assists as a shutdown wing defender.

2017 NBA Draft Prospect Profiles: Will Lonzo Ball justify LaVar Ball’s hype? Does he fit on the Lakers?

12 Comments

Lonzo Ball is unlike anything that we’ve seen come through the college ranks in recent years.

It’s not simply that he’s a 6-foot-6 point guard with range out to 30 feet on his jump shot and court vision that is probably more aptly described as radar. Lonzo is the son of LaVar Ball, who has become a viral sensation and a quasi-celebrity due to the nature of the way the media operates today and his desire to turn the Ball family into an athletic apparel brand.

Put another way, the circus surrounding Lonzo isn’t just a result of him being the closest thing we’ve seen to Jason Kidd since he was torching Pac-12 defenses with Cal back in the early-90s.

It’s unfortunate that the discussion about Lonzo’s potential has a pro has been dominated by whether or not LaVar is too involved in his son’s life, because the conversation about whether or not the oldest of the three Ball kids can transform an NBA team the way that he’s transformed his high school and college teams is far more intriguing, and frankly, more relevant.

Lonzo’s strengths are elite in every sense of the word. But he has some pronounced weaknesses that, at the very least, make you wonder if the team he ends up on will have to tailor their roster to cover those holes.

What kind of a pro will Ball end up being?

Height: 6′6″
Weight: 190
Wingspan: 6′9″
2016-17 Stats: 14.6 points, 6.0 boards, 7.6 assists, 73.2% 2PT, 41.2% 3PT

STRENGTHS: What Lonzo Ball does well he does at an absolutely elite level, and you can’t talk about Ball without first mentioning his unbelievable skill in transition.

It starts with his ability to get from one end of the floor to the other. He isn’t the quickest or most explosive guard in this draft, but once he hits his top gear, he can run away from the defense; 30 percent of his offense, according to Synergy, came in transition possessions. He creates transition opportunities himself. He not only runs on turnovers or off of an outlet, he’ll go and grab a defensive rebound himself and lead the break. This not only creates layups for himself, where, at 6-foot-6, he can finish at or above the rim with either hand, but it puts pressure on the defense to stop the ball. He also runs hard without the ball, and his size and athleticism allows him to be a lob target in transition.

As good as Ball is going running, he’s even better passing the ball in transition. It’s incredibly entertaining to watch. His vision and understanding of where his teammates are going to be is on another level — his basketball IQ is off-the-charts — and he is able to vary the angle, the height or the hand that he passes with in order to get the ball where it needs to go. He’s a quick, decisive and creative decision-maker with the size to see over the defense and accuracy that would make Aaron Rodgers jealous.

It’s not just in transition where he has that kind of success. He can make just about any pass you need to make coming off of a ball-screen — a big popping, a big rolling to the rim, same-side shooters, weak-side shooters. Again, his size here is an incredible advantage, allowing him not only to see over the defense but to make passes over the defense.

His unselfishness permeates a team. His teammates fill lanes and run to spot-up because they know he’ll reward them for doing it. They make the extra pass because they know the ball will eventually find its way back to them. It’s contagious, and it starts with Ball.

As a scorer, he does have some limitations — we’ll get to that — but the things he does well he’s very good at. It starts with his three-point shooting, where he has range well beyond the NBA three-point line, either off the catch, off the dribble or off of a vicious step-back jumper that was borderline-unstoppable in college. He shot 41.2 percent from beyond the arc as a freshman, many of those from out to 30 feet. He also shot 73.2 percent from inside the arc, which speaks to his effectiveness at getting to, and finishing at, the rim; Ball only attempted 13 shots inside the arc that weren’t layups or dunks, as he’s a very good straight line driver going right.

Ball is also better moving off the ball than he gets credit for. He can run off of screens and bury threes off the catch or off of a one-dribble pull-up, and his size and ability to make back-door cuts made him a lob target for UCLA this past season.

Defensively, Ball must add strength to his frame, but he proved to be a pretty effective defender one-on-one when he was actually engaged on that end. His physical tools, his anticipation and his basketball IQ make him a dangerous defensive playmaker as well, and that should carry over to the next level as well.

WEAKNESSES: What Ball does well he does as well as anyone that we see at the college level, but his struggles are just as glaring as his strengths are obvious, and it all stems around one, simple question: Will Ball be able to create offense in a half-court setting?

The biggest issue is his jump shot. When he’s knocking down threes, be it off the catch or off of that deadly step-back, he’s bring the ball all the way over to the left side of his body and his feet are pointing well off to the left of the rim. On catch-and-shoot opportunities, this isn’t all that much of an issue — there are shooting coaches that will teach players to have a slight turn; watch Stephen Curry‘s feet when he shoots threes — and when Ball shoots his step-back, his feet are naturally going to be angled in that direction.

The trouble comes when he’s attempting to pull-up, particularly when he is going to his right. His feet are out of whack and he has to bring the ball all the way to the other side of his body, which is part of the reason Ball appears to fumble with the ball quite often when shooting off the dribble. As a result, Ball essentially has no mid-range game. On the season, Ball made 189 field goals: 80 of them were threes, 102 of them were layups or dunks and only seven were either floaters or two-point jumpers.

This issue is also evident when he shoots free throws, as his toes are pointed directly at the rim. That’s why a guy that shoots 73 percent from two and 41 percent from three makes just 67 percent of his free throws.

Ball’s other issue is in the pick-and-roll, where he never proved to be much of a scoring threat. There were just 49 pick-and-roll possessions all season where Ball wasn’t a passer — for comparison’s sake, Markelle Fultz had 184 while playing 11 fewer games — and he turned the ball over on 32 percent of them. He had nearly three times as many pick-and-roll possessions as a passer, and all of 33 possessions in isolation.

The result is that Ball is entirely too predictable in the half court. If he’s getting a ball-screen, he’s going to be a passer three out of four times. If he’s going right, he’s going all the way to the rim. If he’s going left, you know it’s going to be a pull-up. Throw in questions about whether or not he has the first-step to turn the corner at the next level, and there are certainly legitimate concerns about his effectiveness against NBA defenders.

UCLA guard Lonzo Ball (AP Photo/Matt York)

NBA COMPARISON: Jason Kidd is the obvious one, and it mostly works. Both are big guards with unbelievable court vision and an unselfishness that permeates a team. Both are average athletes by NBA standards. Both thrive in transition. Both make a lot of threes — Kidd is eighth all-time in three-pointers made — even if there are questions about how good, or effective, they are as shooters. All that left is to find out whether or not Ball can put together a Hall of Fame career, or if he can sell signature shoes, like Kidd.

OUTLOOK: Ball is going to end up being drafted by the Lakers with the No. 2 pick. We can pretend like there is going to be drama here, like Magic Johnson is going to look at a big point guard, a local kid, with an innate ability to lead the break and see anything other than himself and the reincarnation of the Showtime Lakers, but that would be a waste of time.

What that means is that Ball, the No. 2 pick in the 2017 NBA Draft, will be teamed up with D'Angelo Russell, a point guard that was the No. 2 pick in the 2015 Draft, and Brandon Ingram, a wing that was the No. 2 pick of the 2016 NBA Draft.

And, frankly, I think that works. What Russell and Ingram do well make up for where Ball struggles. Russell operates in the pick-and-roll as a ball-handler in the half court. Ingram is an isolation scorer that shot better than 41 percent from three in his one season at Duke. If Ball struggles to create in half court settings, he can act as a floor-spacer thanks to his ability in catch-and-shoot actions.

That’s before you consider that Luke Walton, the second-year head coach of the Lakers, spent two seasons as an assistant — one of which where he spent half of the season as the interim head coach — with the Warriors, and the offense UCLA ran this year, one heavy on spacing, ball-movement and player movement, is quite similar to what the Warriors run.

Put another way, on paper, Los Angeles looks like the perfect place for Ball, a exquisitely skilled albeit flawed prospect, to end up.