It doesn't mean that Mathurin is going to better.
Yeah of course there's no guarantees but it's a good sign when a player is 2 years ahead in his development.
It doesn't mean that Mathurin is going to better.
Yeah of course there's no guarantees but it's a good sign when a player is 2 years ahead in his development.
This question is an interesting philosophical one. On the one hand, the GM evaluates two players before his eyes today. On the other hand, the GM visualizes what the two players will be two or three years from now. To compare two players today is not all that easy. To compare two players in one's imagination two to three years from now is even more problematic. Therefore, it must be discounted somewhat in favor of the evaluation of today. In finance, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. It seem like for many a player evaluation today is worth less than an imaginary evaluation two or three years from now. There are some thing like length and skeletal frame that will not change. There are others like shooting percentage and improved basketball understanding that will change. To my mind, the variables that will change (shooting percentage, understanding of the game) for Mathurin vs Agbaji won't make up the difference in the constants that won't change (height, skeletal build, etc).
Yeah, and for Mathurin he's a better raw athlete than Agbaji. He's a beast physically, however Agbaji isn't a slouch either. At this point Agbaji looks like a more consistent and ready player relative to position for sure. Mathurin has a higher ceiling thanks to his athletic abilities but I don't think either are big risks to bust. This a pretty dang solid draft as far as that goes IMO. Then it comes to team needs. I'd be OK with either but I think Agbaji replaces some of the things they lost with Buddy being traded and Mathurin is a bit like a bigger version of Terence Davis simply in terms of play style. When it comes to most mocks, it's hard to see any players in the Kings range that can't come in and contribute immediately so there you go Monte.
Except for Jalen Duren, so that's probably our pick.
Perhaps. I don't see a smallish PF having a huge wealth of value around the league but all it takes is one team I guess. The question with players like that is why some players like Naz Reid go undrafted and players like Grant Williams go in the first. I'm thinking Grant Williams might hinder someone like Liddell around draft time. I can see plenty of reasons why Liddell would be a solid pick but value is value.
Any scouting report here? Is this a surprise he's declaring?
This question is an interesting philosophical one. On the one hand, the GM evaluates two players before his eyes today. On the other hand, the GM visualizes what the two players will be two or three years from now. To compare two players today is not all that easy. To compare two players in one's imagination two to three years from now is even more problematic. Therefore, it must be discounted somewhat in favor of the evaluation of today. In finance, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. It seem like for many a player evaluation today is worth less than an imaginary evaluation two or three years from now. There are some thing like length and skeletal frame that will not change. There are others like shooting percentage and improved basketball understanding that will change. To my mind, the variables that will change (shooting percentage, understanding of the game) for Mathurin vs Agbaji won't make up the difference in the constants that won't change (height, skeletal build, etc).
Duren would be the ultimate "BPA I know better" pick. Basically Monte would be banking on an Adebayo like growth in his game to where he could play long-term with Sabonis.
McNair knows the deal, he understands his job is on the chopping block. I'd be very very surprised if he stuck to a BPA that hard while passing on really good prospects that can play with Fox/Sabonis. Gotta think he'll have some self-preseveration
Yeah, and for Mathurin he's a better raw athlete than Agbaji. He's a beast physically, however Agbaji isn't a slouch either. At this point Agbaji looks like a more consistent and ready player relative to position for sure. Mathurin has a higher ceiling thanks to his athletic abilities but I don't think either are big risks to bust. This a pretty dang solid draft as far as that goes IMO. Then it comes to team needs. I'd be OK with either but I think Agbaji replaces some of the things they lost with Buddy being traded and Mathurin is a bit like a bigger version of Terence Davis simply in terms of play style. When it comes to most mocks, it's hard to see any players in the Kings range that can't come in and contribute immediately so there you go Monte.
Well if I can jump in here I'd start by saying that I don't think you can go wrong with either player. I think their close talent wise at this moment. As to projecting the future, that's harder to do with the one and done player. There's no growth record to go on. But in the case of both Agbaji and Mathurin, we do have some growth records to refer to. And in both cases, both players got better every year. Particularly Agbaji, who increased his percentages as his attempts went up. His freshman year he shot 30.7% from three on 3.4 attempts. His sophomore year he shot 33.8% on 4.4 attempts. Junior year 37.7% on 6.9 attempts, and his senior year 40.7% on 6.5 attempts. That's the kind of growth your looking for., It shows he capable of getting better, and that he's willing to put in the work.
In Mathurin's case we only have two years to look at. In his case, his percentages went down with more volume, but that's the norm. But his overall scoring went up and didn't take a huge nose dive. He was still good. His freshman year he shot 41.8% from three on 3.5 attempts. His Sophomore year he shot right at 37% from three on 6.1 attempts. He scored around 8 more points a game. Point is, he got better. Both players are above average athletes and both players are good defenders. As I said, I don't think you can go wrong with either one, but for the Kings. I would lean toward Mathurin. Mathurin can play SF. He's a legit 6'7" and the Kings need help at that position. Agbaji is a pure SG. He does have good length and could spot at the SF position at times. but so can Terrance Davis.
My choice for the Kings is still Keegan Murray, but I don't know if he'll be there when we pick. Murray is a plus defender. Matter of fact he as a better defensive rating than almost all the projected lottery picks. By the way since there was some questions about Jabari Smiths defensive potential, he held everyone he defended to a shooting percentage average of 25%. That should be good enough for everyone.
In my humble opinion, if were picking at 7, then Duren wouldn't be the best player available. He might be the best athlete available, but that's not the same thing. Murray, Mathurin, Griffin, Agbaji, Davis and Sochan are all better players. Three years from now, who knows, but right now, today, Duren isn't better than any of them. And, he's exactly what the Kings don't need. A player to clog the lane. He has no game away from the basket. He might develop a game away from the basket, but he might not. It wasn't until Adebayo's 3rd year that he started to look like the player we see today. And he still has no game away from the basket. Duren would be a very bad fit, and for that reason I seriously doubt that McNair would draft him.
One option on Liddell is trade down with the Spurs, draft Eason and hope Liddell falls and grab one of Liddell, Baldwin or JovicLiddell will go in the first round, and a borderline lottery pick. He's a very skilled player who plays much taller than he is. He can put the ball on the floor and kill close outs. He's a deadly outside shooter, and he has a very good mid-range game. I did my best not to like Liddell for the very reasons you keep bringing up, but after watching him play in over 20 games, I finally had to concede that the dude is a very good player. I don't see a scenario where he ends up on the Kings, but if somehow he did, he would be very good next to Sabonis. Liddell is an outstanding help shot blocker and his timing is excellent.
Your not going to back him down either. He's very strong, especially in his lower base. He's also a plus athlete. The only comp that stood out to me was Paul Milsap. Similar body, undersized at the time, except that I think Liddell is a better defender at the same point in time. Although Milsap eventually became a good defender. There is no way on Gods earth that Liddell goes in the 2nd round in my opinion, and neither does his running mate Branham.
Curious what you think about Eason? He appears to have good size and length 6’8” with 7’ 0” wingspan, is reputed to be a multi spot defender. His free throw rate is .805 which indicates he has good eye hand coordination and with some fixes to his shot mechanics could be a good shooter.
I like Eason a lot. Defensively, he can defend 1-4 and is a good rebounder. The question is his offence. If you start him as a 3pt shooter & rim runner he could be effective. Just need to work out the kinks in his shot.I'm curious to see what Baja thinks of Eason now too. We talked about him a bit at the beginning of the season but I'm sure Baja has watched more LSU games since.
I'm high on Eason, but he's a bit tough to evaluate because he was essentially LSU's sixth man and played a lot of his minutes as a backup center.
He'll have to be more perimeter oriented in the NBA. His FT% and his 3P% (albeit on fairly low volume) took a big jump after he transferred so there's some hope there. He plays a little wild right now, on both sides of the ball. But I'll take the fouls and moments of tunnel vision/turnovers because his motor runs hot. He was a major cog in that swarming LSU defense and is very active off ball.
If he can become a consistent outside shooter, he'd be a nice fit with Fox & especially Sabonis.
This question is an interesting philosophical one. On the one hand, the GM evaluates two players before his eyes today. On the other hand, the GM visualizes what the two players will be two or three years from now. To compare two players today is not all that easy. To compare two players in one's imagination two to three years from now is even more problematic. Therefore, it must be discounted somewhat in favor of the evaluation of today. In finance, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. It seem like for many a player evaluation today is worth less than an imaginary evaluation two or three years from now. There are some thing like length and skeletal frame that will not change. There are others like shooting percentage and improved basketball understanding that will change. To my mind, the variables that will change (shooting percentage, understanding of the game) for Mathurin vs Agbaji won't make up the difference in the constants that won't change (height, skeletal build, etc).
I'm curious to see what Baja thinks of Eason now too. We talked about him a bit at the beginning of the season but I'm sure Baja has watched more LSU games since.
I'm high on Eason, but he's a bit tough to evaluate because he was essentially LSU's sixth man and played a lot of his minutes as a backup center.
He'll have to be more perimeter oriented in the NBA. His FT% and his 3P% (albeit on fairly low volume) took a big jump after he transferred so there's some hope there. He plays a little wild right now, on both sides of the ball. But I'll take the fouls and moments of tunnel vision/turnovers because his motor runs hot. He was a major cog in that swarming LSU defense and is very active off ball.
If he can become a consistent outside shooter, he'd be a nice fit with Fox & especially Sabonis.
I'm curious to see what Baja thinks of Eason now too. We talked about him a bit at the beginning of the season but I'm sure Baja has watched more LSU games since.
I'm high on Eason, but he's a bit tough to evaluate because he was essentially LSU's sixth man and played a lot of his minutes as a backup center.
He'll have to be more perimeter oriented in the NBA. His FT% and his 3P% (albeit on fairly low volume) took a big jump after he transferred so there's some hope there. He plays a little wild right now, on both sides of the ball. But I'll take the fouls and moments of tunnel vision/turnovers because his motor runs hot. He was a major cog in that swarming LSU defense and is very active off ball.
If he can become a consistent outside shooter, he'd be a nice fit with Fox & especially Sabonis.
Liddell will go in the first round, and a borderline lottery pick. He's a very skilled player who plays much taller than he is. He can put the ball on the floor and kill close outs. He's a deadly outside shooter, and he has a very good mid-range game. I did my best not to like Liddell for the very reasons you keep bringing up, but after watching him play in over 20 games, I finally had to concede that the dude is a very good player. I don't see a scenario where he ends up on the Kings, but if somehow he did, he would be very good next to Sabonis. Liddell is an outstanding help shot blocker and his timing is excellent.
Your not going to back him down either. He's very strong, especially in his lower base. He's also a plus athlete. The only comp that stood out to me was Paul Milsap. Similar body, undersized at the time, except that I think Liddell is a better defender at the same point in time. Although Milsap eventually became a good defender. There is no way on Gods earth that Liddell goes in the 2nd round in my opinion, and neither does his running mate Branham.
There is a reason why freshmen with lesser numbers get taken over seniors who not only have better numbers, but are currently better players. That's because they have more time to grow and with 4 years of NCAA experience, they'll more than likely be better than that senior by the end of their stay. Frank Mason is a lottery pick if you're just going off of what he did as a senior.
I agree on the variables that won't change and that's a big part of it as well but give me the freshman who comes out of the gate running over a senior who took a couple years to hit his stride. Odds are that the freshman would be better than the senior by the end of his 4 years.
I don't think Mathurin is a "beast" physically. He's not that big, skeletal frame isn't anything to rave about. His announced height of 6'7" is definitely exaggerated imo. He's not a "big" guard or a smallish forward; he's at best average height for his position of SG. He does have good quicks and speed though.
You have more faith in NBA scouts than I do, haha. I agree, I like both the Ohio State guys as well. You've got a lot of the same teams in the back of the 1st again so getting a true 4/5 would be something I think a team would have to look at as a need more than anything.
My prediction has nothing to do with NBA scouts. It's just my opinion from watching him play. If I can see how good a player he is, then I'm sure everyone else can as well. Hey, I wish I had the ability to discover a great player that no one else notices, but not going to happen.
I don't think Mathurin is a "beast" physically. He's not that big, skeletal frame isn't anything to rave about. His announced height of 6'7" is definitely exaggerated imo. He's not a "big" guard or a smallish forward; he's at best average height for his position of SG. He does have good quicks and speed though.
You never know. Tyrese was slotted to go 4th or 5th in his draft and fell to 12th. Davion had some slotted slippage but was also getting mocked to the Warriors or Magic in a ton of mocks.Murray at 7 or 8 ship has apparently sailed. From most mocks he’s looking top six but you never know how it will shake out.
This is where it will get interesting, the rest of the lottery should be all over the place and so far I’ve only heard Monte put emphasis on shooting.