Reply With Quote
I'd still take him at #4. Even if he never becomes an all-star, he fits this team like a glove. He has the skillset as a 3-and-D wing that this team desperately needs and fits our other pieces perfectly.
I'd still take him at #4. Even if he never becomes an all-star, he fits this team like a glove. He has the skillset as a 3-and-D wing that this team desperately needs and fits our other pieces perfectly.
This one is not gonna age well."First of all, according to all of the analytic models I’ve seen behind the scenes, Risacher grades out as a second round pick"
What those "analytics models behind the scenes" don't factor in, and that's their limits, is context.
Risacher wasn't the top dog in a College team, he was a 19 old kid in a pro, compe ive team playing for a ship and Eurocup le, filled with higher paid american guys asked to justify their salary. This is not wemby and the Mets build to showcase him.
It's is notable than when asked to take more resposabilites in the PO, Risacher stepped up his game, became more agrressive and in 7 games posted 15.1pt, 7.4 rebounds, 52% (38% on 3). He defintely cleared, or let say made scouts less worried about some issues you could have with him, notably rebounding.
Now he's still not a playmaker and will have to work on his FT routine and mechanics that's for sure. But he wouldn't be asked to be a playmaker with the spurs.
He fits but his ceiling is as a role player which makes it weird for a lottery pick
He'll be gone at 4 anyway so it'll be aother team's headache
He's not 6'10", he's a hair under 6'8" (2.03m) according to the official site of the French league and the FIBA site
As for the concerns about his ceiling, it's true that there isn't any aspect of him that screams star and he struggles handling the ball in traffic, but this is an especially rough class at the top where nobody is without huge question marks, at least in his case he checks a few key boxes (can shoot, can defend, can pass a bit, has positional size, good sample of compe ive games) and that's more than enough to get him in the lottery. How high he is projected is more of a reflection on everyone else, but even if he's a French Cam Johnson that is both better than most lottery prospects and better than the Spurs currently have, so it'd be hard to pass on him if he's available at 4. But yes, he isn't the kind of guy you overpay to go get.
PS: anyone who complains about Risacher's risks, go take a look at Salaun's tape and then get back to me...
That's a very good point espacially considering players like Topic who's the extrem opp case
What I'm wondering tho is how would you showcase his game considering he's not a go to guy?
I think his ceiling is a (very good) role player and will need to have expectations managed by whatever team who drafts him.
And to sum up the article:
- "Risacher might be a multi-positional, multi-skilled players."
- "he’s a really good perimeter defender and looks like he could step into the league and be a plus defender from Day 1."
- "Offensively, Risacher was a knockdown shooter for a majority of the season"
- "The 19-year-old is outstanding in transition"
- "Even though he was young, Risacher exhibited a lot of maturity this season.
-
"in the French league. He played a winning role and rarely tried to do too much."
"In the playoffs, he stepped up in a big way and it was clear that he’s a tall, talented prospect who may one day be a very good player in the NBA."
But...
analytics behind the screens, say he's a second rouncer...
So he is a walmart Michael Porter Jr
where does this come from, that you think Risacher is smaller than the latest listings? I mean, just look at him now and you see he is meanwhile taller than 6'8". might have been numbers from last year or whatever.He's not 6'10", he's a hair under 6'8" (2.03m) according to the official site of the French league and the FIBA site
As for the concerns about his ceiling, it's true that there isn't any aspect of him that screams star and he struggles handling the ball in traffic, but this is an especially rough class at the top where nobody is without huge question marks, at least in his case he checks a few key boxes (can shoot, can defend, can pass a bit, has positional size, good sample of compe ive games) and that's more than enough to get him in the lottery. How high he is projected is more of a reflection on everyone else, but even if he's a French Cam Johnson that is both better than most lottery prospects and better than the Spurs currently have, so it'd be hard to pass on him if he's available at 4. But yes, he isn't the kind of guy you overpay to go get.
PS: anyone who complains about Risacher's risks, go take a look at Salaun's tape and then get back to me...
the Euroleague site this season had him at 6'9".
look at the team picture from the euroleague site and tell me this kid is under 6'8"...
(guy next to him is listed 6'6.5", the number 34 is listed 6'8" and the number 11 is listed 6'11")
Mincidelice JL Bourg en Bresse Roster | EuroCup (euroleaguebasketball.net)
He's a Wizard I fear.
Youth basketball doesn't work like in France like in the USA. When a young player is really good, he plays against older players instead of dominating player of his age. When Risacher was 15/16 years old, he was playing in an U21 team. At 17 years, old, he started to play with adults. He was never asked to carry offensively these teams unlike most American prospects in high school.
Doubts are legit about Risacher end up as a role player in the NBA. His self creation is quite poor. My point is that a reason why his development is late in that area is how French youth basketball is structured.
Zach is a 100x better Julian Champagnie
There is some burying the lede in these articles. Risacher, slated to go around #2, grades out in some analytical model as a second-round pick. Stephon Castle, slated to go around #4, grades out as a mid- to late-first round pick.
Are there ANY players that grade out as lottery picks? Does Reed Sheppard, whose analytics are supposedly off the charts? And if he does, what the is wrong with the Spurs if they don’t like him because he isn’t big enough? Doesn’t that suggest they are are inflexible front office in love with some archetype of player that may not actually be available, and willing to ignore elite talent to shoot craps to get it?
Sheppard grades out high... and we have no idea if the Spurs like him or not... he could be at the top of their board or not.... nobody here knows how the Spurs view this draft.
That the Spurs prioritize “positionless” basketball with taller, multi-skilled players is not a mystery. They want a defense where they can switch on every screen. We’ve heard it directly from the horse’s mouth for years. It’s why they draft guys like Sochan and take flyers on guys like Primo. It’s why they would lean towards a guy like Castle and cross their fingers his shooting would come around.
Every team has an analytics department. The difference among teams is how much influence they have on decision-making.
I’m not saying the Spurs definitely think this way, because ultimately I don’t know. But if Sheppard grades out that high, and he and Castle are both on the board at 4, and the Spurs select the guy who grades out much lower because he fits their model, then I think we’d have definitive evidence that the Spurs have a bad front office. And so would Wemby.
The Rockets may bail the Spurs out of being exposed in their decision-making by taking Sheppard at 3. I hear they view him hyperbolically.
Funny reading these scouting reports that make everyone but Sarr sound like ty picks. Tanked the season with Point Sochan and Point Bran Ham for this bull .
This is a player whose fit will matter a lot. If he goes to Atlanta, he'll get shots from deep. If he goes to Washington, we'll never hear from him again.
Bust potential is probably similar to anyone else in this draft. His top end is very unlikely and I'm not even sure how good that is. Klay Thompson? I doubt it. By far most likely we'll see a bang average player.
Pathways to success involve vastly improving his ball-handling under any duress, processing, shake, ability to attack close-outs. You also want him to rebound much more. Hopefully improve the defense, where he's good on-ball but not great elsewhere.
Some of those items he'll improve. The rest... I'm not sure. The poor rebounding, the awful inability to pass or read the floor, the uselessness when he has to do anything with the ball and the basket isn't right in front of him. Scary is how he's not really knock-down as a shooter, although maybe he becomes one.
I hope he goes to Atlanta or Washington. Definitely don't want to trade up for him. I would take him around 8, expect that we would take him at 4, but expect we're all going to be extremely frustrated with him before long.
We still need self creation on offense from somewhere, hopefully sooner than later. If we get Risacher next year and don't fix that deficiency, could be a lot of frustration next year. So, Risacher could work in context I suppose. But he probably won't be much better than Champagne next year.
The Spurs need (1) self-creation, (2) shooting, and (3) defense. Risacher provides some of 2 and 3, but not 1. Sheppard provides 2, some of 1, and maybe some of 3, except that he’s small and might get hunted. Castle provides 3, some of 1, but not 2. Dillingham provides 1 and 2, but is really bad at 3. Holland, Salaun, Buzelis, and Williams are all projects. Carter provides some of all 3, but has a low ceiling.
It’s a shaky draft.
That is the picture you mention:
and these are their listed heights (at team's site first, then LNB site)
#: PLAYER, Bourg site / LNB site
20: Jeremy Morgan, 2.00m / 1.96m
34: Kevin Kokila, 2.04m / 2.04m
11: Bodian Massa, 2.10m / 2.08m
3: Maksim Salash, 2.07m / 2.06m
So yeah, it seems you're right... growth spurt?
What if the guy who grades out much lower ends up having a better career?
It's not as if it doesn't happen evey year...
(point is there are too many factors others than analytics that influence a career that we or any FO don't know yet)
That's too rough a description, I do think he can attack close outs, pass and make good reads, also put the ball on the floor a bit especially in transition. If the defense is set, then yes, you cannot give him the ball and expect him to create, his handle isn't tight and probably it ends in a turnover. But it should be noted that the spacing is worse than he'll find in the NBA and that won't be his role either, I'm more concerned with how his defense translates and just how good his shot actually is. If I buy these 2, then I'm not so worried about the present self creation issues, you need guys who will be efficient off ball and he seems like a very good fit there. Honestly, I find it kind of ironic that so much fuss is made about the lack of self creation for a 6'9" wing, but not for a 6'2" point guard (not you specifically).
I don't think he's ever much better than Champagnie, that's how awkward I think Risacher is as a fit. If we get frustrated with Keldon for not being able to make reads other than barreling into the lane, that's Risacher, but with even less self-creation. Keldon can actually attack close-outs, Risacher doesn't really. If there's a second defender around him, he's toast. Forget about kicking the ball out to a shooter.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
