Consensus is that Philly won their recent mega deal with Boston as there is a steep decline from #1 to #3 in this draft. I largely agreed with this consensus, and I explained why I believe Josh Jackson does not have the upside to merit passing on Lonzo Ball and Markelle Fultz.
Boston is also rumored to be interested in Jayson Tatum. To provide a deeper analysis of the deal, I will break down the elite prospects in question.
Fultz scouting report
Fultz is essentially a James Harden doppelgänger. They share similar dimensions, frames, and athletic profiles. Neither is particularly explosive, but both are able to navigate through the defense with smooth footwork and great body control. They also similarly stuff the statsheet as offensive centerpieces with SG size, and they both play lackadaisical defense in spite of strong rebound, steal, and block rates.
Harden is clearly a strong return on a #1 overall pick, and if Fultz becomes similarly good this trade will sting for the Celtics. But they are not actually the same person, so let us examine the flaws that may keep Fultz from attaining his upside.
Is Fultz a Loser?
James Harden joined an Arizona State program coming off a down year. As a freshman 3 months younger than Fultz, he revitalized their offense and led the team to its 4th best team in 16 seasons of kenpom records. Then as a sophomore he led them to easily their best offense and overall season over that span before hightailing it to the NBA. Like most NBA stars, he made a clear positive impact for his NCAA team.
Conversely, Markelle Fultz’s Washington team was the worst in 15 years coached by Lorenzo Romar, and the worst offense since his first season in 2002-03. Romar is a dreadful coach who has recruited more NBA talent than Arizona State, but Fultz is his first top 5 pick.
Fultz’s team was extremely bad, and it is amazing how many intelligent people are writing this off as lazy as the “rings” appeal. We are talking about the #1 pick in the NBA draft– you are trying to draft a superstar who makes a massive impact on his team’s win and loss column, and this impact is usually easy to discern at the team level.
He had a dreadful cast and coach to be sure, and it is not a death knell for an 18 year old with Fultz’s talent. But the bottom line did not add up like it should have, and there should be concern that the bottom line will not add for his NBA team in the future. There are a few possible weaknesses we can derive from this:
Passing
Fultz’s main selling point is his ability to carry an NBA offense, so it is disconcerting that his college offense struggled so badly. This is especially true since he is in the mold of a player who should elevate a poor team to adequacy. The fact that Washington couldn’t even muster a top 100 offense suggests that maybe his passing impact is not nearly as good as his assist rate implies. Fultz may lack the basketball IQ to make good decisions with the ball, even if he sees the floor well.
Perhaps as he matures and receives higher quality coaching, he develops into a good floor general. But it is also possible that he does not make nearly the same passing impact as Harden in spite of a higher NCAA assist rate.
Defense
Washington’s biggest issue was their catastrophic defense. And in the 6 games that Fultz missed, the defense actually performed slightly better (although the offense fell of a cliff with no other ball handlers to run the offense). Even though Harden is weak defensively, there is some chance that Fultz is worse.
Shooting
Another area of concern is Fultz’s 65% FT compared to 75% for Harden. Fultz shot well from 3 and was exceptional shooting off the dribble at an extremely high volume. But his poor FT% casts some doubt into the sustainability of that performance and the overall goodness of his shooting. And shooting is extremely important for Fultz, as he is not adept at getting to the rim as his peer De’Aaron Fox, and he relies heavily on pull-up jumpers.
Fultz’s Downside?
Fultz is an immense talent, and there are easily enough points in his favor to amount to an NBA MVP candidate. But there are enough flags in his passing, shooting, defense, and basketball IQ to create a downside tail as well, as he is far from a safe bet.
I could see him disappointing as a Kyrie Irving type. Irving is seen as a star by many casual fans, but advanced stats see him as a slightly above average starting point guard as his awful defense and poor passing vision detract from his excellent scoring ability.
Fultz has clear upside to trump Kyrie’s passing with better vision and his defense with much better length, but it is also plausible that he is similarly as poor on these ends. If Fultz struggles nearly as much as Kyrie in these areas, he will be a disappointing return on #1 overall as he is a clearly inferior shooter and likely does not come equipped with Kyrie’s clutch factor.
It is difficult to see Fultz busting entirely, but if Danny Ainge sees him as closer to Kyrie than Harden, it is understandable that he prefers to gamble on somebody else. His talent is undeniable and he is still the 2nd best prospect on my board, but there are good reasons for an NBA front office to be reluctant to stake their future on him.
Jayson Tatum
Tatum has an excellent body for a SF at 6’8″ with a 6’11” wingspan and an excellent frame, which is essentially the prototype for a PF in the modern NBA. He can score from all levels of the court, as he can get to the rim, score from the post, and has excellent shooting potential with 85% FT. He also stuffs the statsheet with rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks, and has good defensive upside with the quickness to guard SF’s and size to defend PF’s.
His flaws are that he is inconsistent defensively and he is surprisingly inefficient on offense for a player with his scoring talent. He had the lowest ORtg (albeit on the highest usage) of Duke’s 6 man rotation, and he has a slightly lower ORtg once adjusted for usage than his defensive specialist peers Jonathan Isaac and Josh Jackson.
Efficiency is Everything
It is surprising that a player who made 85% FT at an above average rate of attempts with as much scoring talent as Tatum had such pedestrian efficiency. There were a number of factors working against his favor:
–He is not a good offensive rebounder and does not move well off the ball– Jackson and Isaac did far more damage than him on putbacks and cuts
–Inconsistent finishing as he had average explosiveness and was rejected surprisingly often
–Turnover prone with a loose handle. In tandem with finishing issues may also have lackluster feel for finding space in traffic
–His 3 point shot is not currently a weapon
–Duke lacked a true point guard
There are reasons for optimism. It starts with his 85% FT, which is backed up by 87% FT in AAU play. Yet in AAU he hardly even attempted 3’s– who knows what level of coaching he was getting there. It is plausible that developing 3 point range only became a focus once he arrived at Duke, and any NBA team will stress this skill. And while a great NBA 3 point shot is not guaranteed, the upside is clearly there.
Everything else could go either way. He could improve his off ball movement, reduce turnovers, improve shot selection, tighten his handle, etc. Or he could struggle to shed his inefficient habits, operate as a team player, and make the necessary skill improvements to become a good player.
For players who thrive on volume scoring, their overall value heavily hinges on their efficiency. Tatum has a wide range of outcomes, and it is difficult to have a decisive opinion on him in either direction.
Tatum Summary
Tatum just turned 19 in March, and the framework for a future star is there. He has legitimate two way potential, as he offers creation, shooting, and passing upside offensively as well as potential for defensive versatility.
Whether he achieves his potential is a different question. His NBA future could entail empty calories scoring and matador defense, or he could be a two way stud like Paul Pierce or a version of Carmelo Anthony that plays defense.
Conclusions
The one clear conclusion about this deal is that the Celtics are betting against Fultz. I cannot state with any confidence that they are wrong for doing this. Fultz is a compelling talent, but he is no LeBron or Duncan and has enough holes in his profile to become an ordinary pro.
The other leg of the trade remains incomplete. If the plan is to trade #3 straight up for Jimmy Butler, that is a solid move. If the plan is to draft Jayson Tatum, I am not convinced this is smart, but see potential for the gamble to pay off. If the plan is to draft Josh Jackson, it feels a bit more like Danny Ainge was suckered by intangibles but nevertheless could work out. And if the Celtics somehow end up with Lonzo, the trade was masterful.
As much as I like to perceive myself as an expert, I am not particularly confident about many players in this draft. The only thing that can be said for sure is that Lonzo Ball should go #1 and everybody who passes on him is making a mistake. This is my only major qualm with swapping #1– betting against Lonzo is not as likely to succeed as a bet against Fultz.
Dean On Draft 
The trade doesn’t become “masterful” if Lonzo happens to fall to the Celtics and they take him over Tatum. It would just be dumb luck as Ainge had to assume Fultz/Ball would go 1-2 when he pulled the trigger given that just about every piece of information available suggests this will be the case. (Only exception to this is if Ainge somehow has a mole inside Lakers FO and is 100% certain Magic is doing something dumb like taking Fox or Jackson over ball)
With this trade Ainge is basically saying he doesn’t see much gap between Fultz/Ball and the next tier. I view that as a big mistake regardless of whether or not Magic does something stupid with the #2. The end result of the trade for the Celtics is certainly amazing if Ball falls to 3 and they take him but getting extremely lucky doesn’t mean a trade was a good idea – let along “masterful” – when made.
Well if Lonzo is for #3, there is a strong argument to be made that the deal was spurred by some intelligence that he would slide to #2. But of course we cannot be certain that it would not be luck, so you are right that it is dubious word choice.
I guess what I’m saying is if Ainge really likes Fultz or Ball by a significant margin over Tatum/whomever, he’s taking a massive risk. That risk just isn’t worth the Lakers/Kings pick (to me at least) particularly given that those picks don’t even have any Doncic/Bagley equity. If Ainge really thought Lonzo was the clear #1, he wouldn’t get cute, he would just take him #1 and be done with it.
Also, the odds that Ainge knows with any certainty that Lakers will pass on Ball and not trade the #2 to another team that will seem extremely low. Magic doing something stupid won’t be a strong argument that Ainge had intel. It will just be more evidence that Magic is a bad GM and Ainge dumb lucked his way into an undeserved amazing result.
Also, I’m not certain Ainge will take Ball over Tatum even if Ball does slip. He’s pretty horrid when it comes to drafting and his comments that he will likely take with #3 who he would have taken #1 suggest Tatum (or maybe Isaac) is inexplicably #1 on his board.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you are saying. Would not surprise me at all to see him take Tatum if the Lakers take Jackson.
I should probably change the word “masterful” to “favorable” to remove the implication of extreme skill.
I think that Lavar’s decision to only allow Lonzo to workout for the Lakers was a stupid decision. If they don’t pick him, how likely are teams to just pick him if the Lakers didn’t think he was worth it? He could drop to 5-6 and make his dad look really stupid if his son ends up stuck in the basketball hell that is Sacramento.
I don’t think it should make a difference. If I’m a GM who rates Lonzo top 2 and he’s there at 3 or 4, I’m snapping him up in a heartbeat. I wouldn’t care about the Lakers’ crappy opinion.
There are just a lot of Ball detractors, I’m not sure how much of that noise affects NBA GMs.
Markelle Fultz’s games where he didn’t play are sort of my giveaways for him not being a real difference maker, at least at this point. Those games he missed it Washington had 2 single digit losses, 1 blowout loss, 1 really bad blowout loss. That’s basically their whole season with a few lucky wins peppered in. He has talent and you can bet on that to a certain extent.
Every time someone wants to tell me his team sucking isn’t something to worry about they bring up Chris Bosh, Paul George, Ben Simmons. Those teams sucked but were still close to or way past the .500 mark in their draft year. Only one of those was in the conversation for #1 pick. Basketball is the one team sport where 1 amazing player can affect the success of even the worst teams (Put LBJ, KD on any team they make a .500 record).
Either way I’m calling it here, Boston takes Jonathan Isaac. He’s exactly the player that they need. They need rebounding, length and rim protection. Once he fills out he’ll be able to finish through contact better than others and he was surprisingly versatile on the offensive end if not particularly assertive. He’s got a lot of the benefits of Josh Jackson without the fear that his shot is an irreparable nightmare that turns him into MKG. He doesn’t move the ball THAT well but I think that Stevens can help him in that respect (everyone on that team looks like a good passer now).
They moved to 3 because they want to make sure they get him and if you can get an extra lotto pick out of getting the guy you want then it’s a no brainer.
I am totally on board with the Celtics taking Isaac, and I wouldn’t put it past them to surprise everybody with that pick. But personally I believe Tatum is the target–I think Ainge is going to shoot for the star scorer here and it would be awfully bold to have the pure role player as the top player in the draft.
Ben Simmons is a terrible example for a bad team not being a problem because he has major intangible issues and has yet to prove that he’s a good NBA player. Bosh’s Georgia Tech team wasn’t bad at all. Paul George is pretty much the only example, and he played for a mid-major team that is always bad.
And even if PG is a shining light to prove that Fultz and Simmons have hope, it still hardly guarantees anything. I am a strong bettor against Philly if Embiid isn’t healthy bc I agree with all of your points– talented losers are not the best bets for NBA stardom.
The Washington team had 2 first round draft picks on it the year before and didnt make the tourney either.
Fultz was a winner. He played very well and won tons in international basketball. Its not like Fultz couldn’t of went on a Duke, NC, UK, or any team with talent and won tons of games.
If anything him producing so well on a bad team is more impressive to me. Why? It’s more impressive because spacing. Good players space the floor for the pg and make it easier for him to score. This is why nba scouts dont care about the winning factor on these bad teams with Simmons and Fultz.
Players like Simmons and Fultz played with good players before college and won tons. They wouldn’t even go to college when the draft rules were diff. The college winning thing is just something casual fans like to use as a reason a player isn’t good when scouting.
Dejounte + Chriss were 11 pts per 100 better than Fultz’s team. That is a steep decline.
I’m not a casual fan, and I perceive team success as an noteworthy variable for high lotto picks. If Embiid does not stay healthy I would bet against Fultz and Simmons combining for too much success in Philly.
Maybe you are more casual than you are aware of? 😛
You’re putting to much value on NCAA team success. Any top recruit can go play for Coach K or Cal and automatically win a bunch of games. Winning NCAA games doesn’t mean anything for NBA success just like going to a school with a bad coach and bad teammates isn’t going to downgrade a prospect to NBA teams. These kids all play on all star teams and international competitions and are successful way before a small stop in college.
A good chance you’ll see another top recruit on a bad team this season with Porter on the tigers not making it in March. If he plays well and the tigers don’t make the tournament again hes still going to be a top 3 pick. NCAA team success is just such a non factor with these kids in the NBA’s eyes.
These kids are recruited so heavily before the NCAA season even starts. They are watching them all over the world. The fact a guy goes and plays for a team with a bunch of bad players but has amazing numbers isn’t going to change all the scouting they did before a 40 game sample size of losing games with bad teammates. Even guys like Skal or Giles who looked awful in the NCAA its going to effect where they get draft but not enough to change the years of data already taken down on the players
. Fultz played well just like Simmons. Their team success doesnt matter to nba teams it only matters when you hear fans talking about a player. Just like Kaminsky dominating the ncaa and winning doesnt matter to the NBA.
It’s not just about missing the tournament– that just means you aren’t a top 50 team. Washington wasn’t a top 150 team. That is a big fucking difference. It is the difference between a team that barely makes the tourney and an average mid-major.
Look at it this way– if Fultz and Ball switch roles, UCLA gets much worse and Washington gets much better. This is a good reason to give the edge to Ball over Fultz. But at the same time, I still have Fultz #2, so don’t mistake this for me saying it is everything. Just one thing to look at.
You’re judging that based on Balls play on a team with way more talent. UCLA has 2 other guys going in the first round of the draft. They also have multiple shooters spreading the floor for Lonzo. Its alot easier of Ball to operate with these players around them then Fultz who has to do everything alone.
This is why Fultz is consensus number 1 around the league and not Ball. Ball has talent but your judging him with the players around him which make it alot easier for him to look good.
Ike played all of 10 mins a game and is only getting drafted because he is young and has potential down the road. Leaf wasn’t considered a 1st rounder until he played with Lonzo.
And the talent gap between UCLA and Washington is not as substantial as the gap in team quality. I am extremely confident in this.
Leaf was a 5 star recruit ranked the 18th nationally which projects to being a 1st rounder. Ike was 46th overall recruit. Both talented 1st round picks.
http://ucla.247sports.com/Season/2016-Basketball/Commits
Bryce Alford is also a good player who shoots 43% from 3. Holliday,Hamilton,Welsh are good 3 pt shooters. Talking about all players who not only shoot good from 3 but are also between 80-90% free throw shooters on the line. Putting shooters like this around Lonzo makes his job so much easier then what Fultz has to do being the solo player on a huskies team.
It’s not just Ball makes everybody so good around him. The players have much more talent and fit around the pg better. Having a entire roster of more skilled players who are all excellent shooters provides so much spacing that it makes Lonzo job easy. The defense cant just focus on Ball because if they do its going to leave a automatic shot open for one of the sharpshooters around Ball.
Ike played 13mpg not 10mins. He would of played more on most teams in the nation but he had a solid junior 7ft playing ahead of him who was putting up 11 and 8 the past couple seasons.
Didnt mean to write Welsch was a solid 3pt shooter obv hes a big. Meant hes a solid NCAA big who is better then what most teams in the NCAA have as a center.
Operating in space makes the game much easier of a pg. It just does.
Pingback: 2017 Mega Board | Dean On Draft
At which point I think I may start looking for other jobs, and if we have to move, we have to move.