Tyler Harris best vert on the team?
- Thread starter Hayes30
- Start date
More important for rebounding and blocking shots (defense) than making shots (offense). Less important for the shortest and tallest players.
I saw that and was surprised too. I've watched a ton of highlight videos and no doubt he has some athleticism, but he seems to be more finesse than explosive. If he has a 41 inch vertical he really doesn't use it very often.
Tyler's game is more perimeter. He's much more likely to take a step back 3 than attack the rim regularly. Considering his ability to hit from deep vs his size (even with a good vert) it is the smart decision. He would complement Bolton who can finish in the paint and JC-L well for ISU, Tyler will space the floor for both and the posts if he gets his waiver.
MJ’s positionally good vertical did turn out to be foretelling. Prior to learning of his testing numbers, I wouldn’t have guessed he would be as productive as Lard, even having a higher rebounding percentage in 2018-19. I believe the example you’re looking for is Zion Griffin. His one attribute is athleticism, but limited potential due to lacking in nearly every other aspect.
Verticals are overvalued, except perhaps for tiny pgs. A 5’9” pg in the Big 12 that has abnormally good reach/wingspan and vertical numbers should have a significantly higher chance of success than a guy like Corey McIntosh imo.
Dubar seems similar to MJ in athleticism in the sense he’s a decent athlete that becomes better playing up a position. For a guard or wing he’s not as quick or as explosive as the vertical will suggest. But he does have length that MJ didn’t, and that’s as important. I’m excited to see what he can do as a 3/4.
Oh I wasn't talking about Tyler. He's very athletic. He's short so he isn't yamming on people left and right, but the dude has some bounce in his game. I was talking about Dubar, who someone said had a 41 inch vertical.
I agree with everything you said above though. He is a perimeter type guy and I think he's going to do very well here. I'm excited about him, as I was pretty high on him coming out of high school.
I would argue that vertical in itself is almost meaningless in a PG, particularly a short one. Obviously it helps, but mainly if they are expected to carry a heavy rebounding load. Tyrese or Bolton released the ball when their feet were only a few inches off the ground anyway. Very rare for a shorter guard to finish or shoot over someone where quick release or creating space using quickness isn't much more effective. If your vertical is 15" or 45" it's always a tradeoff of quickness in release vs height of release. For shorter guards the former always wins.
I like to see vertical as a general indication of explosiveness for a guard, however.
This seems to be up there with players running 4.4 40 yard dash times. I swear half the players we recruit claim to run a 4.4. and half the basketball recruits claim to have a 40 inch vertical.
Yeah 40 times are weird because you can be extremely fast and still suck at the game of football. I could care less how fast a guy can run in a straight line if he can't get open, make any sort of move to beat a defender with the ball or off the line, etc.
For verticals, you might be able to jump really high but don't have the coordination to do anything with it. Look at Zion Griffin as an example. That dude was pretty athletic but he really didn't know how to use it well at all. I bet he had a pretty high vertical. Then look at Deonte Burton as the opposite in how much body control that guy had.
Agree. Also, just to give some context there is generally only maybe 3 players a year at the combine that have a vert of 41 or more.
Burton doesn’t even have a 41 inch vert.
Yeah having an above 40 inch vert is pretty elite. Funny enough, Mac McClung probably has one of the highest verticals in the country at 47 inches.
Almost meaningless is extreme. Again, verticals are overvalued, but less so on vertically challenged (very short) guards. That is not saying it’s the only attribute needed.
We use height as a proxy for ability to get shots off and defend, hence a very short guard that has good reach/wingspan and vertical, isn’t actually that short.
The fact you say it’s a trade off between a quick release and height (vertical ) contradicts saying a vertical is nearly meaningless. A 5’9” point guard with an extreme vertical is much more likely to be successful, as it negates the lack of height. Even having a quicker release would require great range if the vertical poor and not utilized on the outside shot, plus the release does nothing to in regards to the ability finish.
I’m uncertain how shots of Haliburton or Bolton come into a discussion of why verticals are more important to tiny point guards. But Bolton’s vertical is a big reason as to why he’s just as effective at driving as the longer Haliburton. Same with LW, who also utilized his great vertical to create space on perimeter shots.
Doesn’t he have “short” reach/wingspan?
If he had the length to go with that, he’d be a generational dunker.
