Jimmer's Future in the NBA

[New Mexican Disaster]

The comparison is closer than you might think. Average athletic, undersized, white boy shooter from northern NY that can light it up in a moments notice ( I am sure you remember 43 points in the first round of the tourney). G-Mac had a much better supporting cast that he was in charge of distributing the ball to, against stiffer competition. Put G-Mac in the MWC as a lead man and I think the comparison is closer than you would like to admit. Besides, we are talking about his future in the NBA.

That being said Jimmer is still Jimmer and I am loving the ride (as a non-bYu fan).

Jimmer is bigger and stronger and can finish at the rim which is a major difference between the two. Jimmer is also more consistent.

[MarkGrace]

Here is Thorpe's breakdown from the other day.

Who doesn't love a feel-good story? You know, the story about a player who doesn't pass the eye test, but still shines brightly on a big stage. College basketball always provides a few players each year that fall into this category -- guys who capture the nation's heart with their shot-making skills and high level of production. The NBA, of course, often plays the role of the black-hatted villain, dooming the hero to a pedestrian career, or worse. It starts during the draft process and continues. The clichéd line that "it's a whole 'nother level" is sobering and accurate, and when we consider that the NBA takes players from the entire world, it's not hard to understand just how difficult it is for a player to excel in the pro game like he did in college.

For every Kevin Durant there are five Adam Morrisons.

Why bring this up? Well, no player has captured the nation's interest this year more than Jimmer Fredette, the NCAA's leading scorer, who is rocketing up some draft boards. But I've studied the tape, and the history books, and I don't love what I see.

Let me acknowledge a few things right off the bat. I love players like Jimmer, and once predicted that J.J. Redick would be good enough to start for a playoff team. I'm still not sure if I was right on that one, but no one can doubt he's at least an average to slightly-above-average NBA player now. I know Fredette is more of a point and Redick a 2, but he reminds me most of J.J. in how he'll end up getting scoring opportunities in the NBA.

I watched Redick torch good to great college teams for years. He was, without a doubt, one of the best pure shooters we've ever seen in the college game. But he didn't crack the 40 percent mark from 3 until his fourth NBA season and didn't average one 3-pointer per game until his third year -- and he plays with the most dominant center in the NBA (a player who opens up the outside). Fredette has an excellent shot, both off the catch and off the dribble, but considering where he'll likely go in the draft (outside the top 10 but inside the top 25) and a few other factors, it's hard to imagine he'll be much more successful than Redick.

Fredette plays like a gym rat, with terrific ball skills and outstanding shot-creation moves. It's clear he's played thousands of hours of basketball. But to play as effectively as he has, a player must have the green light at all times. Watching him take so many bad shots in situations when he's well guarded, we know he has the permission of the coaches and teammates, which must give him both confidence and a narrow focus. In the NBA, however, he won't have anything close to that permission, at least not for many years. Adam Morrison suffered from this problem, and even in his rookie season he showed that scoring points inefficiently is not how to earn trust from coaches and teammates.

The NBA is so loaded with talent that it's often hard to find any kind of rhythm, because it's hard just to get on the court. Currently, the worst point guard in the league, statistically speaking, is Jonny Flynn, who backs up veteran Luke Ridnour. If Fredette is drafted by a team close to playoff-ready, or even already a playoff team, he'll have numerous guys to fight just to get a few minutes per half.

Those precious minutes will not be enough to let him feel comfortable making the shots he's making now. And if he's not making shots at a high rate, what's he doing for his team? He's not a special passer, which is where the comparison to Stephen Curry falls flat, and he's not projecting as a decent defender early in his career, either, though he could be at least solid in time.

This is the problem with Fredette's NBA future: It's hard to imagine he'll be able to play in the same manner he does now. But if he's allowed to play like Jamal Crawford or Jason Terry, I could see him shooting a decent percentage and being capable of numerous big scoring nights off the bench.

Last season, Marcus Thornton was allowed to play that role, and on a bad team he excelled. This year the Hornets are strong, and Thornton's role has lessened, as have his privileges as a shooter. He has to be more accountable now and, consequently, is less effective. It's one of the ironies of the league -- sometimes a team gets stronger by asking some players to do less.

How does Fredette fit into this formula? Can he be as efficient as either Crawford or Terry? Crawford has a few inches on him (and is longer) and both guys are quicker and better shot-makers than Jimmer. Watching Fredette on tape shows he creates most of his space by stopping quickly and launching a smooth jumper, not by changing speeds and blowing by his defender. Crawford and Terry were far better at attacking the rim in their prime. So was Thornton last year.

Fredette is adept at splitting screens, reminding me of Mark Price (the man most think invented the move), but NBA defenders are far better at preventing this than college kids, and it will help neutralize Fredette's best move. In the end, it would be surprising to see Jimmer have a better career than either Crawford or Terry, and he'll be hard pressed to even match Redick's.

On their best days, with a team perfectly suited for their talents, how many guys are certain to be better pros than Fredette? Not that many. If lightning strikes, he goes to a team in need of bench scoring with wings who are more defensively minded, giving Fredette a chance to do what he does best -- shoot from midrange, shoot from deep and shoot from really deep.

All this being evident, Fredette still projects to be a top-25 pick, and perhaps a late lottery pick, in a draft that has looked weaker and weaker over time. Not only does the class lack star talent, helping Fredette's cause, but it also lacks many guys who have the upside he does, even if many of them have higher floors.

[ame="http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog?name=nba_draft&id=6086200"]NBA Draft: Jimmer Fredette doesn't translate well to next level - ESPN[/ame]

[MartyFunkhouser]

Interesting points by Thorpe but I'm not nearly as down on Fredette's NBA chances as Thorpe. I think Fredette will have a solid 8-10 year career in the NBA as a fringe starter on a good team or a starter on a mediocre to bad team. It Steve Blake can make it in the NBA so can Jimmer Fredette. I still think the best NBA comparison for Fredette is Eddie House.

Aran Smith gave a pretty good breakdown of Fredette as an NBA player

Strengths: A prolific scorer who has developing point guard skills ... Has tremendous shooting ability. It's the aspect of his game that will undeniably get him serious looks from the NBA level ... An extremely effective player who understands shot selection and taking what the defense gives him ... Has a solid first step and the ability to blow by defenders and get into the paint ... Shows very good vision and passing ability, particularly driving and dishing the ball ... Very patient passer, never rushes his decisions allowing openings to materialize ... Has great speed and quickness for a mid-major player ... Has a strong frame with excellent strength that he puts to good use as he's not afraid of contact ... Very tough both mentally and physically. A competitor who will battle tooth and nail and wants the big shots at the end of games ... Has great accuracy shooting the ball and range. He is highly proficient at creating shots for himself, with a very quick release and use of change of direction ... Equally effective at isolating on opponents and spotting up for shots ... Has a quick release: He takes very little time to get the ball under his elbow and away, and squares to the basket in rhythm in a blink of an eye ... Has good finishing ability with touch while on the move ... Offensively there are few holes to his game ... An extremely hard worker. His conditioning sets him apart from the competition and allows him to shoot the ball incredibly well at the end of games ...

Weaknesses: Fredette lacks the athleticism of the average NBA point guard. However, being such a tremendous shooter helps offset some of his athletic shortcomings, in terms of making it in the league ... Not a natural point guard but is developing his skills. He came into college as a shooting guard but has steadily developed his point guard abilities and decision making ... His ball handling ability is efficient but lacks flash ... Lacks the athleticism to finish at the rim but is creative at finding ways to score on drives using floaters ... His speed is very good at the college level, but there are question marks about his ability to do the same things against NBA level athletes ... Will his lateral foot speed be a liability? Will he be able to create shots for himself against longer and more athletic opponents?

Notes: Projects as an instant offense bench type of player for the NBA level ... Has been on the NBA radar for some time but really opened some eyes with his 49 point effort against Arizona in late December of his junior year ...

http://www.nbadraft.net/players/jimmer-fredette

[MarkGrace]

Interesting points by Thorpe but I'm not nearly as down on Fredette's NBA chances as Thorpe. I think Fredette will have a solid 8-10 year career in the NBA as a fringe starter on a good team or a starter on a mediocre to bad team.

Isn't that what Thorpe's saying?

[cougjunkie]

Isn't that what Thorpe's saying?

Thorpe seemed to go back and forth and never really came to much of a conclusion.

[MarkGrace]

Thorpe seemed to go back and forth and never really came to much of a conclusion.

Probably. But based on the pool of guys he was comparing him to, I basically got out of the article what Funk was saying.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Probably. But based on the pool of guys he was comparing him to, I basically got out of the article what Funk was saying.

I got from him throwing in a guy like Morrison and saying that Fredette won't reach Redick levels that he was saying he would do worse than what I'm saying. Although, I guess Redick has reached that level of fringe starter on a good team.

[smokymountainrain]

There were a couple things Thorpe said that I took issue with...

First, that he isn't the shot-maker Terry or Crawford is. Give me a break... if there is one thing that defines Jimmer's game it is that he is a shot-maker. It's who he his. It's what he does. Shot-making is what makes him special. Terry and Crawford are excellent shot makers, but Jimmer is ahead of where they were at the same age. As he said, they are quicker, but he's a more creative, crafty, scorer than either of them.

Second, I'm not convinced Stephen Curry deserves to be called a "special" passer. He averages just 6 assists and 3 TOs - and that is on a fast paced team where it should be a bit easier to rack up assists. He averaged 5 assists to Jimmer's 4 in his senior season of college. I think to separate Curry from Jimmer due to Curry's superior passing ability is incredibly weak.

[MarkGrace]

I got from him throwing in a guy like Morrison and saying that Fredette won't reach Redick levels that he was saying he would do worse than what I'm saying. Although, I guess Redick has reached that level of fringe starter on a good team.

You mentioned Eddie House and Steve Blake. At this point Redick is better than either of those guys, so if he ends up just a notch below Redick, that puts him more or less in the House/Blake range in my mind.

[Surfah]

There were a couple things Thorpe said that I took issue with...

First, that he isn't the shot-maker Terry or Crawford is. Give me a break... if there is one thing that defines Jimmer's game it is that he is a shot-maker. It's who he his. It's what he does. Shot-making is what makes him special. Terry and Crawford are excellent shot makers, but Jimmer is ahead of where they were at the same age. As he said, they are quicker, but he's a more creative, crafty, scorer than either of them.

Second, I'm not convinced Stephen Curry deserves to be called a "special" passer. He averages just 6 assists and 3 TOs - and that is on a fast paced team where it should be a bit easier to rack up assists. He averaged 5 assists to Jimmer's 4 in his senior season of college. I think to separate Curry from Jimmer due to Curry's superior passing ability is incredibly weak.

I agree with your point on Curry. In fact, when I read this article by Thorpe earlier this week I had the same reaction? Special passer? Who has ever called Curry a special passer?

[MartyFunkhouser]

You mentioned Eddie House and Steve Blake. At this point Redick is better than either of those guys, so if he ends up just a notch below Redick, that puts him more or less in the House/Blake range in my mind.

To clarify I was not comparing Fredette to Blake as he will be substantially better than Blake. I was saying that if Blake can make it certainly Jimmer can.


Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[cougjunkie]

To clarify I was not comparing Fredette to Blake as he will be substantially better than Blake. I was saying that if Blake can make it certainly Jimmer can.


Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Anyone think Steve Blake would have a better career than Juan Dixon? In fact better than Juan Dixon and Lonny Baxter off that same Maryland team.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Anyone think Steve Blake would have a better career than Juan Dixon? In fact better than Juan Dixon and Lonny Baxter off that same Maryland team.

Anyone who says yes is either related to Blake or lying.



Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[New Mexican Disaster]

Anyone think Steve Blake would have a better career than Juan Dixon? In fact better than Juan Dixon and Lonny Baxter off that same Maryland team.

I sure didn't, but then I thought that none of them would have careers at all.

[New Mexican Disaster]

There were a couple things Thorpe said that I took issue with...

First, that he isn't the shot-maker Terry or Crawford is. Give me a break... if there is one thing that defines Jimmer's game it is that he is a shot-maker. It's who he his. It's what he does. Shot-making is what makes him special. Terry and Crawford are excellent shot makers, but Jimmer is ahead of where they were at the same age. As he said, they are quicker, but he's a more creative, crafty, scorer than either of them.

Second, I'm not convinced Stephen Curry deserves to be called a "special" passer. He averages just 6 assists and 3 TOs - and that is on a fast paced team where it should be a bit easier to rack up assists. He averaged 5 assists to Jimmer's 4 in his senior season of college. I think to separate Curry from Jimmer due to Curry's superior passing ability is incredibly weak.

I take issue also with him calling Terry a better at attacking the rim. I saw probably 15 games with Terry during his senior year and he did not finish at the rim much at all. He did have a better floater and to me that is the next piece of the game that Jimmer must develop more consistently. He will not get to the rim much at the next level, but if he develops (more, I have seen him do it a few times in the last few games) that shot he will continue to be a lethal scorer off the dribble.