Yeah, look. Stacey King is annoying when he reduces pretty much all development to confidence. But it is true that confidence is both an important part of development/success and also a difficult thing to predict ahead of time. Matas's assertiveness in SL doesn't automatically mean he'll be really confident when playing in actual games with structure and real teammates. But it could be at least some kind of a signal in that direction.
even more specious reasoning is that somehow Matas's *confidence* will transfer to Patrick Williams (also erroneously assumes that's what's holding Pat back in the first place)
Well I don't know who on earth subscribes to that particular theory, but obviously it's a bit silly*. I do actually think Patrick would be better if he were more confident because he would probably shoot more 3s, so I disagree with you there.
*If this is a Reddit/Twitter thing, can you actually take your own arguments seriously? Like, you made fun of these people before for being a small irrelevant group of cranks. If that's true, can you just ignore them going forward? I think engaging with nonsense is actually having an ill effect on you as a writer.
It shouldn't take a rookie to push a vet headed into his 5th season in the league to elevate his game. That's always been the problem with Patrick Williams. He just doesn't seem like he's got the drive/ambition to play at this level.
At least in the abstract, that's a better point than the idea that confidence is contagious or whatever. You add a player, and it changes the competitive dynamics with the other players who play his position. Makes sense.
I find it difficult to believe that guy is Matas. SL is a worthless indicator. But like, if I were Patrick watching this SL, I wouldn't feel any threat at all from Matas. Patrick is so much more plug and play, as he has a well-defined NBA role. Matas is weird. The coaching staff will have to do things for him to optimize him. But they're already doing that for Vuc. And they will be doing that big time for Giddey. So what are the odds Matas is getting that treatment? Pretty low, I'd guess. Patrick's job is probably just fine, if he can only stay on the court.
Thinking about how this relates to the draft. How to think about risk, because "risk" is like "upside": everyone says it all the time, and no one knows what they're talking about. One risk is: this guy doesn't do enough. I think there are three ways a player avoids that: 1) high motor 2) high IQ and 3) high confidence. So if a prospect lacks all three, that's a big risk, whatever else might be going on with their size, position, athleticism, and skill level.
Patrick Williams has shown similar levels of aggression in SL games as we saw from Buzelis this summer. That's what led me to believe that he was better suited for a bench role as opposed to starting, because he has always looked more comfortable vs 2nd or 3rd string lineups. Buzelis at 19 is oozing with a level of confidence that I don't think Patrick Williams will EVER reach. I think that says more about Williams than anything. The hope/belief that he'll magically become a more aggressive player now that Demar is gone is a pipe dream at best in my opinion. 5 yrs and 90 million was most certainly an overpay. Be it his confidence/aggression levels or his inability to actually finish a full season, I believe the Bulls had multiple reasons as to why they could've given him less on that deal and justified it.
Just a little caveat regarding Phillips. He only shot 40% from the field but shot nearly 37% on almost five 3PAs a game, which was encouraging. His release also looked noticeably faster than I remember last year, so hopefully the shooting coach is actually making a difference.
Buzelis is clearly an upside guy, as has been almost every AK pick, but his motor and confidence combined with his size and athleticism at least make me feel pretty good about the pick. He's got a looooong way to go on offense and, as stated, he really needs to put on some weight. But the foundation seems to be there. I'm interested to see how he improves over the next few years.
I'm getting tired of Bulls fans calling for Sanogo to get a chance in the NBA. I like the guy and he's clearly worked very hard to get where he is today. The problem is he's short and unathletic. You just can't be short and unathletic in this league. He'll be able to go overseas somewhere and be a beast for the next 10-15 years but it most likely won't be in the NBA.
Steward was interesting. Clearly a talented guy, but probably too short to make it in the NBA. Honestly, he's a lot like Carlik Jones. Jones was a beast in the G-League and is tearing it up playing international ball, but he's just too physically limited to do much in the NBA. I have a feeling that's probably how it'll be for Steward too. He and Sanogo both probably have the skills necessary to play in the NBA, but they don't have the size and/or athleticism.
I think it's interesting that AK is so enamored with size and athleticism when it comes to players he drafts, but he hands out two way contracts like they're candy to guys who lack those things - Jones, Steward, Sanogo, Funk, etc.
That was the problem I had with taking Buzelis. He felt like another "project" and AKME have already proven they have a thing for projects. Would've been nice to get a guy that filled an obvious need (Knecht was available and fills a need as a shooter) as opposed to just another young player who needs time to develop into something better. Thus far only Ayo has developed into something for this front office. Coby was a GarPax selection so you can't count him as a "win" for them. Williams, Terry, Simonovic, Philips, Bitim, Sanogo, and now Buzelis. Will this front office ever draft a talented player that can ACTUALLY contribute at more than a basic level in the NBA?
I do get your point and if this team had insisted on running it back again, I probably would have been all aboard the Knecht train or maybe Devin Carter. But they're rebuilding now (whether they even realize it is another matter), and when you're rebuilding you need to take big swings on high upside guys. Due to that, I very much do like the Buzelis selection. Do I have faith that the Bulls can help him reach his potential? Nope. But maybe he'll reach his potential on his own and benefit the Bulls because of it.
Drafting Knecht or Carter or even Edey wouldn't have made sense for a team that's rebuilding like the Bulls now are, so I'm glad they didn't go with any of those guys.
I was really feeling Carter as a less talked about nepo baby coming in (Dad, Anthony Carter, is a former NBA guy and currently on the Grizzlies bench as a coach) but alas both he and Knecht fell into the GarPax of old mold. Older prospect with a possible ability to contribute immediately, but probably not as good as they thought he'd be. I'd just like to see the FO actually draft someone and he becomes a force multiplier or positive addition to the roster. If AKME were out here building a pipeline of promising players and swindling other organiziations for draft picks a la Sam Presti we might be having a different discussion. But the fact that they're still unproven in that regard makes it hard to trust that they're steering this ship in the right direction moving forward. I guess we can only hope that they get it right eventually.....
I really didn't much like that in spite of all that "activity" he engaged in, a 6'10" guy only managed to get 5 rebounds per 36 and posted a 1/3 A/TO ratio.
That, coupled with his bottom of the summer league level shooting, makes me question whether he's really much of a prospect.
Isn't that kind of the point of a prospect though? Maybe I'm just mis-defining the word, but I usually think of prospects as guys who really aren't very good right now, but have the tools needed to become quite good. Usually those tools are physical. Like a guy who's either super athletic or has really good size. Or better yet, a combination of those two.
That's why Pat Williams, a guy who wasn't even a starter in his one year at college, was considered a lottery pick. He had good size and athleticism and then these little sprinklings of other things that would make him really good if he could develop them. He was a pretty good defender and he looked like he could be a pretty good shooter and he looked like he could be a decent playmaker. If he had become good-to-great at all of those things, he'd be an All-Star.
I believe that's how people view Buzelis. He's got excellent height and athleticism. He's got pretty solid handles on offense, he seems to be a legitimately good help defender and he also seems to have a really solid feel for the game. He's pretty bad right now, but if he can develop a good three point shot and put on some weight, he'll instantly be a very solid player.
I think that's how most people would define a prospect, but that's just my opinion.
"Wasn't even a starter in college" can be applied to 3 players on this team (who went to college). I'm not sure what that says, but it's a weird quirk.
I can't say what anyone else does, but I would say a prospect is any young player you think is going to get better.
Wemby or Lebron were still a "prospects" on day one. And even after a year. They were great generational prospects because relative to everyone else, they were showing amazing talents and abilities.
Or, if you were to say, something like, "rank the best prospects for the year based on your study of the draft and summer league", you aren't going to leave out the guys who really looked great like Ware or Sheppard. They're going to be at the top of the list.
Matas... is not. He seemed to be one of the worst shooters of the rookies in summer league. His "feel for the game" and "handle" didn't translate into taking care of the ball or finding teammates compared to what similarly hyped players did. His size didn't seem to translate into rebounding.
Basically, he showed exactly the same kind of profile he did in the G-League. Which was of a tall athletic guy who doesn't have any real basketball skills.
To draw comparisons, Pat was a good shooter from day one. Didn't shoot enough, but you could look and say, "OK, that guy has a good shot". Or, Ron Holland. A guy who's basically the same size as Matas, also can't shoot, but was collecting lots of rebounds, dropping dimes, and taking care of the ball.
Those guys are prospects too, and I can point to specific things and tell you why there's reason to be hopeful about them. With Matas, well, there's a couple things that are decent, but the things that are decent are things that are generally kind of secondary. And the things that are really important, like being able to shoot, pass, and take care of the ball... they are at concerning levels.
He definitely isn't ready to immediately contribute to the Bulls this season, but his aggressiveness on offense and fearlessness on defense will be a welcome addition to a team that as of now, doesn't have very much going for it looking forward.
No his rebounding and passing abilities don't immediately jump off the screen at you, but that's because he wasn't asked to do those things consistently in the G-League. His size is comparable to that of Lauri Markannen's when he came out of 'Zona. He should be watching a lot of Lauri highlights to see what he has the potential to become in this league. It took Lauri a while to find his footing, but that's not because he lacked the skill. He was simply being played out of position in Chicago. Buzelis will have to get stronger/better defensively, but he should be the starting 3/4 depending on if Patrick Williams can figure his shit out at some point.
Thanks for giving me your take, and I definitely agree with a lot of what you said. While he doesn't have the shooting ability Pat had, he does have a higher motor and what appears to be a better feel for the game. Those aren't exactly quantifiable, but they do still make a difference. That's why people want Pat to have more of those things.
I'm not trying to say Buzelis is going to be a stud or anything like that. More than likely he won't. But when it comes to prospects, I'd rather have a guy that has the things that can't really be taught (size, athleticism, motor, etc.) than the guy who has more skills but less of the things that they can't just learn.
Obviously I'd rather the guy that has both (LeBron, Wemby), but as far as I know there weren't really any of those guys in this draft and especially not at 11. I am curious if there's someone you would have rather had at 11 over Buzelis?
3. I think Ware would have also been a reasonable pick at 11.
3. This is a draft I think I would have been happy to trade down in. If they could trade back and pick up a 2nd 1st or a couple of high seconds, there were a lot of guys to like.
- Shannon rated out really will to me. Took lots of 3s, really high TS%, got to the line a lot, all with high usage. I'm pretty sure he'll be a good pro.
- Likewise Holmes. Maybe he'll never pan out since he tore his achilles and we'll never really know.
Those are the two guys that seemed like the obvious targets if we dropped down. Depending on what we got by trading down, I'd also have been interested in Furphy, Tyler Smith or Klintman. Missi went 21, so I don't know if we could have gotten him and Shannon, and honestly I would probably have taken Holmes first anyway.
So I guess my best case scenario would be trade down and take Holmes and Shannon.
Sure, I wouldn't have minded trading down, but that's also not what happened. They wanted to pick 11th so that's what they did.
With regard to who was available at 11, I do think Topic was probably the only other high upside guy I would have been interested in. This probably isn't being fair to him, but I'm definitely a little wary of another 6'6" point guard with knee problems...
Carter and Ware are both better players currently than Matas, but I think both would be considered lower ceiling guys. Carter is undersized, although his athleticism helps make up for that some, and he still needs to prove his three point shooting is here to stay. Plus, he's not exactly a point guard and is probably too small to play shooting guard, which means he needs to work on his point guard skills kind of like Coby has had to do.
Ware is the one I've really been wondering if we missed out on. He looks like a beast and he fills the defense-first center hole we've had for a long time. But I also don't know how high his ceiling is, and I'm not sure drafting a high floor guy makes sense in a rebuild.
Regardless, all of this stuff is just hypotheticals since we have an idiot front office who will inevitably always do the dumbest possible things.
I think this particular bit may be misleading. In the bit of SL I watched, it appeared they told Matas to shoot first and everyone else to do their best to feed it to him. If that's what they told the team to do, then he was primarily passing out of bad situations which would almost certainly worsen his A/TO ratio.
I'm not saying he's a great passer or anything. Just that this particular stat from SL is probably not a good representation of his actual skill level considering how he was used. His A/TO ratio was much better in the G-League at about a 1/1. Not great, but probably a better representation of where he is as a passer.
> His A/TO ratio was much better in the G-League at about a 1/1
But... that's still bad! Kind of my point. I see some folks talking him up like a had a great G-League and really wowed people. But outside of Bulls fans who want him to be that, I'm not seeing anyone at a national level saying things like that. And I'm not seeing it in the stats.
He didn't look at all like a guy I want making decisions at this point.
And that is not cherry picking. That's just pulling up SL rankings and seeing what they say. Everything I've seen from national media ranks him near the top of the class for summer league.
Matas has the soul of a gunner. He's not going to start at the 3 as long as Zach is here. He's not going to be the 4 in _any_ lineup until he gains strength. He's going to have to fight for minutes, and hopefully that helps him hone in on where he can score most effectively.
I see some Zach LaVine in him. Why take a quick set shot 3 when you can take a defender one-on-one and drill a step back? He's got moves, he's going to want to show them off.
He gives me more Lauri vibes than Zach vibes. He has some of Zach's athleticism, but his size matches up with Lauri's almost perfectly. Bulking up should help him out in the defense/rebounding category. He doesn't have to just be a gun. But that's how they were using him in the G League, so he's just playing how he knows how at this point. The question is will Billy Donovan give him the necessary minutes to help develop his game into something more well rounded?
Lauri came into the league taller, a much better shooter, and a much better rebounder. He didn't have the handle, but he let his teammates generate shots for him.
Lauri Markannen?!?! Other than being tall and white and European, what do they do similarly?
Markannen was 7'0", 230 lbs, and built like a tank, even as a rookie. He basically looks like what we would dream of Buzelis looking like, though 3" shorter. Buzelis is 6'9", 197 lbs.
Throw in that one is was a 42% 3-pt shooter in college, the other was under 30% in the worse G-League. Like, there's just nothing there.
I like a Franz Wagner comparison better, though that's not saying that's great either.
When I look at Matas, the guys I see him as similar do would be:
Good outcomes
Jaden McDaniels
Jon Kuminga
OKish
Deni Avdija
Bad outcomes
Jalen McDaniels
Jarred Vanderbilt
Dyson Daniels w/o any PG aptitude
Ziaire Williams
The average outcome for a guy is usually somewhere close to the median, and the median of those guys is not all that spectacular. The high end of those guys is also not that high. Kuminga and the better McDaniels are obviously good players, but they're guys who seem like maybe fringe all-stars at best. Most likely, they're high level role players.
I think he's weirder than those guys. I actually think it was under-remarked here by everyone (including me) just how weird Matas is. It's one of the reasons I did not have him as a lottery pick (weird is a risk), and why I think he's a weak pick for this franchise specifically. The only guys I can think of who even remotely resemble Matas are Jerami Grant, and going back a bit, Jonathan Bender.
Side note. When I heard about Matas I thought I was going to have him ranked absurdly high. Like #1 overall pick. Reason was I heard about this lanky 6'10'' slasher with a Euro name who didn't rebound too much but was a really good shot blocker and I just thought "Oh shit, they made another Kirilenko". I fucking loved Kirilenko. But it turns out it's hard to look at Matas and really see Kirilenko. Like, if I take an edible and squint it kinda works. But no.
My best case scenario is Franz Wagner-like. I don't think he gets there because Buzelis seems to have more of a SG/Wing and score-first mentality rather than the play-making Wing/PF mentality of Wagner, but I could see something like that. A guy whose traditional stats are fine (again, not saying this is Buzelis but his best-case), but advanced on-off stats really like him.
It's the passing and rebounding that would need to greatly improve to get to that level though. Not likely, I could see that path as more likely than the one where he becomes a good shooter and great scorer.
Ron Holland is a guy I heard about and hoped might fall to the Bulls. Watching them play a bit, I'm glad we ended up with Matas. He looks like a really good value at 11 in this draft. SummerBulls caveats and all that.
I think there are different ways that stats have meaning or not.
In the sense of "does this five game sample of stats have mean something definitive about a player" the answer is no.
But in another sense, stats for any single game have meaning to ground the "eye test" in reality. When we're watching a game, we get impressions of things that may or may not be accurate? How do we judge them?
Well, that's where game stats come in handy. Sometimes, we see a guy have a couple of memorable plays, like big dunks and blocks and that sticks in our memory. We're like... wow. When we look at the stats though, we some facts to set up against our visual impressions. Most of the time they kind of line up, but sometimes we start seeing that guys who look like they're doing a lot actually aren't, and guys who aren't as visible are actually more productive than they look.
At least IMO, yes. Like every stat, more is better, but my feeling is there's a huge amount of variance in shot blocking generally, and especially for wing players.
He's a consistently good shot blocker, but in the context of being consistently bad at everything else, I'm not sure where to go with that. Like, to draw a comparison, what type of guy can you play who blocks shots well and does everything else badly?
Maybe defensively he'll actually be a good enough fit next to Vuc if they can figure out some way to kind of hide Vuc and let Matas freely help off guys.
But I guess what I really think is, his block% numbers are kind of a party trick that's not gonna hold up in the NBA or very relevant to the role he's going to play.
Ok, I think I know what you mean. Given that he only does one big man thing well (shot blocking), he needs + passing or shooting to validate the shot blocking. Otherwise why is he out there? No one is that much of a specialist.
I still think it's actually really important though. Because he is young and can improve in passing and shooting. And if he does, the shot blocking that unlocks is really interesting. I mean, he blocks shots just like a center. His G-League block rate would be just about top 10 in the NBA. It's impressive.
That's why I said a bunch of threads ago that I actually really like the defensive pairing of Matas and Patrick. That you can just put Patrick on the other team's best wing should allow Matas to roam against most opponents, unlocking his defensive potential. Because I also don't think he's Kirilenko as a 1v1 defender. Like, 2005 Kirilenko used to lock up Kobe. I don't see that in Matas. And Patrick is a good shot blocker in his own right, which could also give them more flexibility in what kind of center they play.
He shot 17.6% on 3.4 3PAs per game in Summer League. If your one skill is being a good three point shooter and you can't even do that well, it might be time to find a new career.
Nah, they're definitely bringing back Javon Freeman-Liberty. He just got waived by the Raptors and we know this FO loves fringe guys whose skillsets are already pretty complete, but lack the physical/athletic abilities needed to play at the NBA level.
Yeah, look. Stacey King is annoying when he reduces pretty much all development to confidence. But it is true that confidence is both an important part of development/success and also a difficult thing to predict ahead of time. Matas's assertiveness in SL doesn't automatically mean he'll be really confident when playing in actual games with structure and real teammates. But it could be at least some kind of a signal in that direction.
even more specious reasoning is that somehow Matas's *confidence* will transfer to Patrick Williams (also erroneously assumes that's what's holding Pat back in the first place)
Well I don't know who on earth subscribes to that particular theory, but obviously it's a bit silly*. I do actually think Patrick would be better if he were more confident because he would probably shoot more 3s, so I disagree with you there.
*If this is a Reddit/Twitter thing, can you actually take your own arguments seriously? Like, you made fun of these people before for being a small irrelevant group of cranks. If that's true, can you just ignore them going forward? I think engaging with nonsense is actually having an ill effect on you as a writer.
I agree I should not and will not amplify Reddit/Twitter doofuses
This was the CHGO podcast
Also I think KC said this on a radio hit but that is also an opinion I should ignore
This too. And also I'm giving myself a break this wasn't in my post just comments
https://nitter.poast.org/Doug_Thonus/status/1812809906359042235#m
It shouldn't take a rookie to push a vet headed into his 5th season in the league to elevate his game. That's always been the problem with Patrick Williams. He just doesn't seem like he's got the drive/ambition to play at this level.
At least in the abstract, that's a better point than the idea that confidence is contagious or whatever. You add a player, and it changes the competitive dynamics with the other players who play his position. Makes sense.
I find it difficult to believe that guy is Matas. SL is a worthless indicator. But like, if I were Patrick watching this SL, I wouldn't feel any threat at all from Matas. Patrick is so much more plug and play, as he has a well-defined NBA role. Matas is weird. The coaching staff will have to do things for him to optimize him. But they're already doing that for Vuc. And they will be doing that big time for Giddey. So what are the odds Matas is getting that treatment? Pretty low, I'd guess. Patrick's job is probably just fine, if he can only stay on the court.
Thinking about how this relates to the draft. How to think about risk, because "risk" is like "upside": everyone says it all the time, and no one knows what they're talking about. One risk is: this guy doesn't do enough. I think there are three ways a player avoids that: 1) high motor 2) high IQ and 3) high confidence. So if a prospect lacks all three, that's a big risk, whatever else might be going on with their size, position, athleticism, and skill level.
Patrick Williams has shown similar levels of aggression in SL games as we saw from Buzelis this summer. That's what led me to believe that he was better suited for a bench role as opposed to starting, because he has always looked more comfortable vs 2nd or 3rd string lineups. Buzelis at 19 is oozing with a level of confidence that I don't think Patrick Williams will EVER reach. I think that says more about Williams than anything. The hope/belief that he'll magically become a more aggressive player now that Demar is gone is a pipe dream at best in my opinion. 5 yrs and 90 million was most certainly an overpay. Be it his confidence/aggression levels or his inability to actually finish a full season, I believe the Bulls had multiple reasons as to why they could've given him less on that deal and justified it.
Just a little caveat regarding Phillips. He only shot 40% from the field but shot nearly 37% on almost five 3PAs a game, which was encouraging. His release also looked noticeably faster than I remember last year, so hopefully the shooting coach is actually making a difference.
Buzelis is clearly an upside guy, as has been almost every AK pick, but his motor and confidence combined with his size and athleticism at least make me feel pretty good about the pick. He's got a looooong way to go on offense and, as stated, he really needs to put on some weight. But the foundation seems to be there. I'm interested to see how he improves over the next few years.
I'm getting tired of Bulls fans calling for Sanogo to get a chance in the NBA. I like the guy and he's clearly worked very hard to get where he is today. The problem is he's short and unathletic. You just can't be short and unathletic in this league. He'll be able to go overseas somewhere and be a beast for the next 10-15 years but it most likely won't be in the NBA.
Steward was interesting. Clearly a talented guy, but probably too short to make it in the NBA. Honestly, he's a lot like Carlik Jones. Jones was a beast in the G-League and is tearing it up playing international ball, but he's just too physically limited to do much in the NBA. I have a feeling that's probably how it'll be for Steward too. He and Sanogo both probably have the skills necessary to play in the NBA, but they don't have the size and/or athleticism.
I think it's interesting that AK is so enamored with size and athleticism when it comes to players he drafts, but he hands out two way contracts like they're candy to guys who lack those things - Jones, Steward, Sanogo, Funk, etc.
That was the problem I had with taking Buzelis. He felt like another "project" and AKME have already proven they have a thing for projects. Would've been nice to get a guy that filled an obvious need (Knecht was available and fills a need as a shooter) as opposed to just another young player who needs time to develop into something better. Thus far only Ayo has developed into something for this front office. Coby was a GarPax selection so you can't count him as a "win" for them. Williams, Terry, Simonovic, Philips, Bitim, Sanogo, and now Buzelis. Will this front office ever draft a talented player that can ACTUALLY contribute at more than a basic level in the NBA?
I do get your point and if this team had insisted on running it back again, I probably would have been all aboard the Knecht train or maybe Devin Carter. But they're rebuilding now (whether they even realize it is another matter), and when you're rebuilding you need to take big swings on high upside guys. Due to that, I very much do like the Buzelis selection. Do I have faith that the Bulls can help him reach his potential? Nope. But maybe he'll reach his potential on his own and benefit the Bulls because of it.
Drafting Knecht or Carter or even Edey wouldn't have made sense for a team that's rebuilding like the Bulls now are, so I'm glad they didn't go with any of those guys.
I was really feeling Carter as a less talked about nepo baby coming in (Dad, Anthony Carter, is a former NBA guy and currently on the Grizzlies bench as a coach) but alas both he and Knecht fell into the GarPax of old mold. Older prospect with a possible ability to contribute immediately, but probably not as good as they thought he'd be. I'd just like to see the FO actually draft someone and he becomes a force multiplier or positive addition to the roster. If AKME were out here building a pipeline of promising players and swindling other organiziations for draft picks a la Sam Presti we might be having a different discussion. But the fact that they're still unproven in that regard makes it hard to trust that they're steering this ship in the right direction moving forward. I guess we can only hope that they get it right eventually.....
Yep, completely agree. Ultimately we're just arguing about how AK can screw things up the least, which is pretty sad when you think about it.
If only Jerry cared more about winning and not just owning an NBA franchise.....
Rebuilding or not, I think you always have to draft the guy you think is gonna be the BPA if you think there’s a clear difference between prospects.
Usually the guys who hit it big are guys that show some evidence of that.
I like that Matas was active and got to the line.
I really didn't much like that in spite of all that "activity" he engaged in, a 6'10" guy only managed to get 5 rebounds per 36 and posted a 1/3 A/TO ratio.
That, coupled with his bottom of the summer league level shooting, makes me question whether he's really much of a prospect.
Isn't that kind of the point of a prospect though? Maybe I'm just mis-defining the word, but I usually think of prospects as guys who really aren't very good right now, but have the tools needed to become quite good. Usually those tools are physical. Like a guy who's either super athletic or has really good size. Or better yet, a combination of those two.
That's why Pat Williams, a guy who wasn't even a starter in his one year at college, was considered a lottery pick. He had good size and athleticism and then these little sprinklings of other things that would make him really good if he could develop them. He was a pretty good defender and he looked like he could be a pretty good shooter and he looked like he could be a decent playmaker. If he had become good-to-great at all of those things, he'd be an All-Star.
I believe that's how people view Buzelis. He's got excellent height and athleticism. He's got pretty solid handles on offense, he seems to be a legitimately good help defender and he also seems to have a really solid feel for the game. He's pretty bad right now, but if he can develop a good three point shot and put on some weight, he'll instantly be a very solid player.
I think that's how most people would define a prospect, but that's just my opinion.
"Wasn't even a starter in college" can be applied to 3 players on this team (who went to college). I'm not sure what that says, but it's a weird quirk.
I can't say what anyone else does, but I would say a prospect is any young player you think is going to get better.
Wemby or Lebron were still a "prospects" on day one. And even after a year. They were great generational prospects because relative to everyone else, they were showing amazing talents and abilities.
Or, if you were to say, something like, "rank the best prospects for the year based on your study of the draft and summer league", you aren't going to leave out the guys who really looked great like Ware or Sheppard. They're going to be at the top of the list.
Matas... is not. He seemed to be one of the worst shooters of the rookies in summer league. His "feel for the game" and "handle" didn't translate into taking care of the ball or finding teammates compared to what similarly hyped players did. His size didn't seem to translate into rebounding.
Basically, he showed exactly the same kind of profile he did in the G-League. Which was of a tall athletic guy who doesn't have any real basketball skills.
To draw comparisons, Pat was a good shooter from day one. Didn't shoot enough, but you could look and say, "OK, that guy has a good shot". Or, Ron Holland. A guy who's basically the same size as Matas, also can't shoot, but was collecting lots of rebounds, dropping dimes, and taking care of the ball.
Those guys are prospects too, and I can point to specific things and tell you why there's reason to be hopeful about them. With Matas, well, there's a couple things that are decent, but the things that are decent are things that are generally kind of secondary. And the things that are really important, like being able to shoot, pass, and take care of the ball... they are at concerning levels.
He definitely isn't ready to immediately contribute to the Bulls this season, but his aggressiveness on offense and fearlessness on defense will be a welcome addition to a team that as of now, doesn't have very much going for it looking forward.
No his rebounding and passing abilities don't immediately jump off the screen at you, but that's because he wasn't asked to do those things consistently in the G-League. His size is comparable to that of Lauri Markannen's when he came out of 'Zona. He should be watching a lot of Lauri highlights to see what he has the potential to become in this league. It took Lauri a while to find his footing, but that's not because he lacked the skill. He was simply being played out of position in Chicago. Buzelis will have to get stronger/better defensively, but he should be the starting 3/4 depending on if Patrick Williams can figure his shit out at some point.
Thanks for giving me your take, and I definitely agree with a lot of what you said. While he doesn't have the shooting ability Pat had, he does have a higher motor and what appears to be a better feel for the game. Those aren't exactly quantifiable, but they do still make a difference. That's why people want Pat to have more of those things.
I'm not trying to say Buzelis is going to be a stud or anything like that. More than likely he won't. But when it comes to prospects, I'd rather have a guy that has the things that can't really be taught (size, athleticism, motor, etc.) than the guy who has more skills but less of the things that they can't just learn.
Obviously I'd rather the guy that has both (LeBron, Wemby), but as far as I know there weren't really any of those guys in this draft and especially not at 11. I am curious if there's someone you would have rather had at 11 over Buzelis?
I didn’t look too hard at this draft but I think:
1. Topic seems like a real high upside pick.
2. Carter had some things to like.
3. I think Ware would have also been a reasonable pick at 11.
3. This is a draft I think I would have been happy to trade down in. If they could trade back and pick up a 2nd 1st or a couple of high seconds, there were a lot of guys to like.
- Shannon rated out really will to me. Took lots of 3s, really high TS%, got to the line a lot, all with high usage. I'm pretty sure he'll be a good pro.
- Likewise Holmes. Maybe he'll never pan out since he tore his achilles and we'll never really know.
Those are the two guys that seemed like the obvious targets if we dropped down. Depending on what we got by trading down, I'd also have been interested in Furphy, Tyler Smith or Klintman. Missi went 21, so I don't know if we could have gotten him and Shannon, and honestly I would probably have taken Holmes first anyway.
So I guess my best case scenario would be trade down and take Holmes and Shannon.
Sure, I wouldn't have minded trading down, but that's also not what happened. They wanted to pick 11th so that's what they did.
With regard to who was available at 11, I do think Topic was probably the only other high upside guy I would have been interested in. This probably isn't being fair to him, but I'm definitely a little wary of another 6'6" point guard with knee problems...
Carter and Ware are both better players currently than Matas, but I think both would be considered lower ceiling guys. Carter is undersized, although his athleticism helps make up for that some, and he still needs to prove his three point shooting is here to stay. Plus, he's not exactly a point guard and is probably too small to play shooting guard, which means he needs to work on his point guard skills kind of like Coby has had to do.
Ware is the one I've really been wondering if we missed out on. He looks like a beast and he fills the defense-first center hole we've had for a long time. But I also don't know how high his ceiling is, and I'm not sure drafting a high floor guy makes sense in a rebuild.
Regardless, all of this stuff is just hypotheticals since we have an idiot front office who will inevitably always do the dumbest possible things.
"posted a 1/3 A/TO ratio"
I think this particular bit may be misleading. In the bit of SL I watched, it appeared they told Matas to shoot first and everyone else to do their best to feed it to him. If that's what they told the team to do, then he was primarily passing out of bad situations which would almost certainly worsen his A/TO ratio.
I’d find that more believable if he hadn’t been pretty negative in that respect in the GLeague too.
Holland turned it over a lot too, but was much higher usage and more productive with the Ignite.
And he was better in the Summer League. I’m just not seeing it. Maybe it will emerge, but right now he hasn’t shown very good instincts
I'm not saying he's a great passer or anything. Just that this particular stat from SL is probably not a good representation of his actual skill level considering how he was used. His A/TO ratio was much better in the G-League at about a 1/1. Not great, but probably a better representation of where he is as a passer.
> His A/TO ratio was much better in the G-League at about a 1/1
But... that's still bad! Kind of my point. I see some folks talking him up like a had a great G-League and really wowed people. But outside of Bulls fans who want him to be that, I'm not seeing anyone at a national level saying things like that. And I'm not seeing it in the stats.
He didn't look at all like a guy I want making decisions at this point.
Everything I've seen puts his scores for SL very high.
Here is one article I saw today that put him at an A- : https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-summer-league-grades-for-every-lottery-pick-reed-sheppard-earns-a-no-2-pick-alex-sarr-struggles/
The next one I looked at put him at a B+ : https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10128825-grading-every-nba-teams-top-rookies-at-las-vegas-summer-league
SB Nation ranked him fourth for SL rookies, behind Da Silva, Ware, & Sheppard: https://www.sbnation.com/2024/7/23/24200222/nba-rookies-summer-league-rankings-2024-rockets-heat-bulls-magic
And that is not cherry picking. That's just pulling up SL rankings and seeing what they say. Everything I've seen from national media ranks him near the top of the class for summer league.
Matas has the soul of a gunner. He's not going to start at the 3 as long as Zach is here. He's not going to be the 4 in _any_ lineup until he gains strength. He's going to have to fight for minutes, and hopefully that helps him hone in on where he can score most effectively.
I see some Zach LaVine in him. Why take a quick set shot 3 when you can take a defender one-on-one and drill a step back? He's got moves, he's going to want to show them off.
He gives me more Lauri vibes than Zach vibes. He has some of Zach's athleticism, but his size matches up with Lauri's almost perfectly. Bulking up should help him out in the defense/rebounding category. He doesn't have to just be a gun. But that's how they were using him in the G League, so he's just playing how he knows how at this point. The question is will Billy Donovan give him the necessary minutes to help develop his game into something more well rounded?
Lauri came into the league taller, a much better shooter, and a much better rebounder. He didn't have the handle, but he let his teammates generate shots for him.
Lauri was a historically good shooter and highly efficient offensive player as a prospect.
Matas is historically inefficient and a bad shooter.
That's not to say he doesn't have talent, but we ought to be realistic about whom he's similar to as a prospect and who he's not.
Lauri Markannen?!?! Other than being tall and white and European, what do they do similarly?
Markannen was 7'0", 230 lbs, and built like a tank, even as a rookie. He basically looks like what we would dream of Buzelis looking like, though 3" shorter. Buzelis is 6'9", 197 lbs.
Throw in that one is was a 42% 3-pt shooter in college, the other was under 30% in the worse G-League. Like, there's just nothing there.
I like a Franz Wagner comparison better, though that's not saying that's great either.
When I look at Matas, the guys I see him as similar do would be:
Good outcomes
Jaden McDaniels
Jon Kuminga
OKish
Deni Avdija
Bad outcomes
Jalen McDaniels
Jarred Vanderbilt
Dyson Daniels w/o any PG aptitude
Ziaire Williams
The average outcome for a guy is usually somewhere close to the median, and the median of those guys is not all that spectacular. The high end of those guys is also not that high. Kuminga and the better McDaniels are obviously good players, but they're guys who seem like maybe fringe all-stars at best. Most likely, they're high level role players.
I think he's weirder than those guys. I actually think it was under-remarked here by everyone (including me) just how weird Matas is. It's one of the reasons I did not have him as a lottery pick (weird is a risk), and why I think he's a weak pick for this franchise specifically. The only guys I can think of who even remotely resemble Matas are Jerami Grant, and going back a bit, Jonathan Bender.
Side note. When I heard about Matas I thought I was going to have him ranked absurdly high. Like #1 overall pick. Reason was I heard about this lanky 6'10'' slasher with a Euro name who didn't rebound too much but was a really good shot blocker and I just thought "Oh shit, they made another Kirilenko". I fucking loved Kirilenko. But it turns out it's hard to look at Matas and really see Kirilenko. Like, if I take an edible and squint it kinda works. But no.
My best case scenario is Franz Wagner-like. I don't think he gets there because Buzelis seems to have more of a SG/Wing and score-first mentality rather than the play-making Wing/PF mentality of Wagner, but I could see something like that. A guy whose traditional stats are fine (again, not saying this is Buzelis but his best-case), but advanced on-off stats really like him.
It's the passing and rebounding that would need to greatly improve to get to that level though. Not likely, I could see that path as more likely than the one where he becomes a good shooter and great scorer.
Ron Holland is a guy I heard about and hoped might fall to the Bulls. Watching them play a bit, I'm glad we ended up with Matas. He looks like a really good value at 11 in this draft. SummerBulls caveats and all that.
Ok, here’s a comparison of these two
Guy A
TS .470
PER 20.6
Trb% 12.0
Ast% 15.7
To% 4.7
Stl% 3.0
Block% 3.0
Guy B
TS .432
PER 13.1
Trb% 7.3
Ast% 5.0
To% 11.2
Stl% 3.2
Block% 6.3
Guy A is a whole lot better in several important categories. Guy B is a whole lot better in one not super important category.
Are these summer stats or G League stats? Either way, I was admittedly going by the eye test. I think summer league stats are pretty meaningless.
I think there are different ways that stats have meaning or not.
In the sense of "does this five game sample of stats have mean something definitive about a player" the answer is no.
But in another sense, stats for any single game have meaning to ground the "eye test" in reality. When we're watching a game, we get impressions of things that may or may not be accurate? How do we judge them?
Well, that's where game stats come in handy. Sometimes, we see a guy have a couple of memorable plays, like big dunks and blocks and that sticks in our memory. We're like... wow. When we look at the stats though, we some facts to set up against our visual impressions. Most of the time they kind of line up, but sometimes we start seeing that guys who look like they're doing a lot actually aren't, and guys who aren't as visible are actually more productive than they look.
Is BLK% the not super important category?
At least IMO, yes. Like every stat, more is better, but my feeling is there's a huge amount of variance in shot blocking generally, and especially for wing players.
He's a consistently good shot blocker, but in the context of being consistently bad at everything else, I'm not sure where to go with that. Like, to draw a comparison, what type of guy can you play who blocks shots well and does everything else badly?
Maybe defensively he'll actually be a good enough fit next to Vuc if they can figure out some way to kind of hide Vuc and let Matas freely help off guys.
But I guess what I really think is, his block% numbers are kind of a party trick that's not gonna hold up in the NBA or very relevant to the role he's going to play.
Ok, I think I know what you mean. Given that he only does one big man thing well (shot blocking), he needs + passing or shooting to validate the shot blocking. Otherwise why is he out there? No one is that much of a specialist.
I still think it's actually really important though. Because he is young and can improve in passing and shooting. And if he does, the shot blocking that unlocks is really interesting. I mean, he blocks shots just like a center. His G-League block rate would be just about top 10 in the NBA. It's impressive.
That's why I said a bunch of threads ago that I actually really like the defensive pairing of Matas and Patrick. That you can just put Patrick on the other team's best wing should allow Matas to roam against most opponents, unlocking his defensive potential. Because I also don't think he's Kirilenko as a 1v1 defender. Like, 2005 Kirilenko used to lock up Kobe. I don't see that in Matas. And Patrick is a good shot blocker in his own right, which could also give them more flexibility in what kind of center they play.
Fringe roster spot update: Bulls waived Andrew Funk (he was signed on a two-way last year)
He shot 17.6% on 3.4 3PAs per game in Summer League. If your one skill is being a good three point shooter and you can't even do that well, it might be time to find a new career.
Funk is sunk. Assuming we will do something boring like give that spot back to Drell?
i think they determine this by who already has a parking pass and building fob
Nah, they're definitely bringing back Javon Freeman-Liberty. He just got waived by the Raptors and we know this FO loves fringe guys whose skillsets are already pretty complete, but lack the physical/athletic abilities needed to play at the NBA level.
Felicio sighting in the Olympics. He was not bad! Looked like a serviceable backup center.
What are we thinking? Four years for $32 million to bring him back??
Don't lowball the man!