Sorry if we are going off the rails here
.....it isn’t that I don’t think stuff like this is out there, I just don’t get it as a prevailing opinion, relative to the data available.
It seems like a lot of people think he’s a good shooter when he is a below average one. And at this point, there hasn’t really been improvement during a period of time where you would hope to see it.
I honestly don’t get why people call a guard that is a 33/76 split guy a good shooter. NBA splits.....Dame is 37/90, Kyrie is 39/88, Steph is 43/91, Paul is 37/87. I’m just personally worried that that is such a giant leap for someone.....to see that big of an improvement with below average production at shorter distances and also being such an average FT shooter. It just seems less realistic relative to past performance and historical shooting marker data.
That is just my argument with Suggs, that he’s not as efficient of a scorer as a typical PG you’d take in the top 5 and I struggle with where his offensive value comes from at the NBA level without marked shooting improvement (that then trickles in to scoring efficiency). If I knew he was going to be a better shooter, or draw fouls more at a rate of a typical #1 scorer, I would like him more but I’m concerned that someone like him is just going to be a good NBA guard but not a star. And relative to how easy it is to find a good NBA guard, I just wouldn’t want to spend a top 5 pick in a draft like this on a good NBA guard.
It is possible I eat crow on this one but I would be really surprised if a guard profile like Suggs is one of the 3 best players in a draft like this.