Author Topic: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?  (Read 1679 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2017, 01:52:59 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1473
  • Tommy Points: 225
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.
exactly. The signs were there. Even during phillys workout we all saw he shot badly: https://youtu.be/aUmw6anaSps
Wow. That looks so bad.

Ballhandling looks poor, brings the ball down on spot-up shots, can't make threes, free throws have a hitch.

If I didn't know better, I'd guess it was Demetrius Jackson of Phil Pressey working out.

The other side of this argument is "everyone else thought he'd be a perennial all star". Fortunately, Danny and Brad aren't everyone else.

They clearly saw some alarming things in Fultz's workouts. I imagine Tatum looked NBA ready in his Celtics workouts.

Or, they simply saw a lot of good things in Tatum.

It's a false dichotomy to assert that because they liked Tatum (plus a pick) more that they must have NOT liked Fultz.

You are right.

I was thinking that they didn't like Fultz for the first pick. I imagine if Fultz was available at #10 and they had the 10th pick, Danny would have pulled the trigger on him.

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #31 on: November 14, 2017, 02:16:28 PM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4275
  • Tommy Points: 275
I think the only way you pick a guard at #1 is if he has some really special talent. Kyrie and John Wall each were unanimously the 1 pick. You can tell fultz isn’t a special shooter from his free throws.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 02:22:32 PM by CelticsElite »

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2017, 02:26:43 PM »

Offline DooVoo

  • Aron Baynes
  • Posts: 117
  • Tommy Points: 24
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.

There has been some analytical data being done that shows that poor free shooting in college is a major red flag and could give a lot of insight into someone's future as a shooter in the NBA. So Ainge might have been already weary of Fultz.

Fultz had other issues. Even before the shoulder injury he was reportedly messing around with his shot cause he wanted a quicker and higher release. He was finding it hard to get his shot off against NBA level players he was playing pickup games with. He also was said to feel his shot was too slow coming off the ball and wanted it out of his hands quicker. He knew he was going to be the #1 pick but he was trying to get his game more ready for the NBA. Admirable, but it might have exposed flaws or created new ones.

So the red flags might have been happening way before the draft and a smart GM pays attention to stuff like this. 

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2017, 02:28:38 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3147
  • Tommy Points: 303
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Redick isn't a shooter?  Covington's shooting has been streaky in past year's but he's been killing it this year.  Bayless can shoot.  Korkmaz isn't ready to play yet but shooting is a strength of his.  Embiid, Simmons, Covington and Redick are good fit and definitely not stepping on each other's toes. 

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2017, 02:53:04 PM »

Online Birdman

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3226
  • Tommy Points: 185
Cause they listen to the so called experts who said fultz was a no brainer

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2017, 02:55:23 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1473
  • Tommy Points: 225
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Redick isn't a shooter?  Covington's shooting has been streaky in past year's but he's been killing it this year.  Bayless can shoot.  Korkmaz isn't ready to play yet but shooting is a strength of his.  Embiid, Simmons, Covington and Redick are good fit and definitely not stepping on each other's toes.

I don't think Redick is part of their long term future. Covington may be, but I put him in the Smart/Bradley/Crowder camp.... If you can sign them at short $, great. If not, Cya.

Lonzo and Simmons would not be a good pairing. I think this is obvious.

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2017, 03:03:35 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16968
  • Tommy Points: 805
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Redick isn't a shooter?  Covington's shooting has been streaky in past year's but he's been killing it this year.  Bayless can shoot.  Korkmaz isn't ready to play yet but shooting is a strength of his.  Embiid, Simmons, Covington and Redick are good fit and definitely not stepping on each other's toes.

I don't think Redick is part of their long term future. Covington may be, but I put him in the Smart/Bradley/Crowder camp.... If you can sign them at short $, great. If not, Cya.

Lonzo and Simmons would not be a good pairing. I think this is obvious.
Philly has 10 players that have played at least 100 minutes this year.  Only 3 of those players are shooting less than 2.7 three's a game, they are Simmons, Johnson, and McConnell.  McConnell is a good shooter, the other two are not.  Of the 7 players with at least 2.7 three attempts a game, only Embiid is shooting less than 37.5%.  In other words, the Sixers are loaded with shooters. 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2017, 03:31:25 PM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4275
  • Tommy Points: 275
Over at the Sixers forum, they’re having huge arguments about the trade, fultz, and Tatum. Some are saying the trade was a robbery and Celtics won, saying Tatum is amazing, and others saying Tatum isn’t that good “he’s only scoring like 14 pts”  ;D ;D the coping Sixers fans are hilarious: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1625825&start=1340#start_here

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2017, 03:53:51 PM »

Offline No Nickname

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 259
  • Tommy Points: 20
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

He even looked pretty darned good in the Summer League.  Something happened in between SL and the preseason.  Did he get some bad advice from a trainer and try to change his shot?  Was he injured?

If he can just revert back to what he was doing in SL he'll be fine.  He has the skills.  The only question is whether he has some sort of confidence issue that he can't get over.

I expect he'll return to form and by the end of the year he'll be a key part of their rotation.

There is a massive difference in the quality of competition he faced in SL versus what he currently faces in the NBA.

Oh jeez, gimme a break.  It's not like SL is filled with 2nd graders. But more precisely, I'm talking about Fultz' ability and willingness to shoot/make outside shots.  He didn't seem to have a problem with that in SL.  But he looked like a completely different player in the regular season. 

My point isn't to compare the quality of SL and the NBA.  But that his playing style changed drastically.

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2017, 03:54:53 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7820
  • Tommy Points: 894
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Redick isn't a shooter?  Covington's shooting has been streaky in past year's but he's been killing it this year.  Bayless can shoot.  Korkmaz isn't ready to play yet but shooting is a strength of his.  Embiid, Simmons, Covington and Redick are good fit and definitely not stepping on each other's toes.

I don't think Redick is part of their long term future. Covington may be, but I put him in the Smart/Bradley/Crowder camp.... If you can sign them at short $, great. If not, Cya.

Lonzo and Simmons would not be a good pairing. I think this is obvious.
Philly has 10 players that have played at least 100 minutes this year.  Only 3 of those players are shooting less than 2.7 three's a game, they are Simmons, Johnson, and McConnell.  McConnell is a good shooter, the other two are not.  Of the 7 players with at least 2.7 three attempts a game, only Embiid is shooting less than 37.5%.  In other words, the Sixers are loaded with shooters.

Instead of cherry picking random arbitrary numbers lets just go through their rotation players and decide if they are good shooter (also even die hard Philly fans wouldn't call McConnell a good shooter, that is fairly hilarious)

Embiid - Shooting 22% from 3 on 3 pointers a game. Most 76er fans are pretty adamant that they would like to see him shoot less 3's right now. He shot 37% last year which is great for a rookie. Right now though he is not much more than an average shooter
Simmons - Has not hit one. Is obviously not a good shooter
Reddick - All-time great shooter
Amir Johnson - Shooting 12% on 3's, not a good 3 point shooter
Covington - Between average and very good shooter (35% and 33% last two years, 50% this year)
Anderson - He is a career 29% shooter from 3 that is renowned for being a bad shooter. He is shot a bit better this year but it is on 44 shots. Would be similar to Marcus Smart becoming a shooter if he takes a huge leap.
Saric - Shot 32% last year, 37% this year. Probably an average shooter
McConnell - Shoots very few 3 pointers (11 all year, is considered a poor shooting guard overall)

Out Injured -but would be in rotation
Bayless - Good shooter
Fultz - Can't physically shoot, not a good shooter.

Calling that team loaded with shooters when they only clearly good ones are Reddick and Covington is fairly ridiculous. Furthermore, if the metrics you choose make Justin Anderson and TJ McConnell good shooters you either have a small sample size or bad metrics. Both players are known for being hustle players that survive on their grit in SPITE of their shooting.


Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2017, 03:56:20 PM »

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3840
  • Tommy Points: 394
I love when Danny trades with someone and gets exactly what he wants, even though no one is bidding against the team that he is trading with.

6ers got their sights on Fultz and thought that Simmons & Tatum would be in each other's way.  They did the double 1st overall protection set up and thought that was enough.  I think we're going to get the 3rd overall pick in the 2019 draft from the Kings, plus we have Tatum.  We'll get another amazing rookie right when Jaylen gets his first contract, so we'll still have a high impact young guy on a good contract to balance out our cap.

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #41 on: November 14, 2017, 04:00:43 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4521
  • Tommy Points: 918
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.
exactly. The signs were there. Even during phillys workout we all saw he shot badly: https://youtu.be/aUmw6anaSps
Wow. That looks so bad.

Ballhandling looks poor, brings the ball down on spot-up shots, can't make threes, free throws have a hitch.

If I didn't know better, I'd guess it was Demetrius Jackson of Phil Pressey working out.

The other side of this argument is "everyone else thought he'd be a perennial all star". Fortunately, Danny and Brad aren't everyone else.

They clearly saw some alarming things in Fultz's workouts. I imagine Tatum looked NBA ready in his Celtics workouts.

Or, they simply saw a lot of good things in Tatum.

It's a false dichotomy to assert that because they liked Tatum (plus a pick) more that they must have NOT liked Fultz.

That quote should be cut and pasted into every thread about Kyrie Irving and Isaiah Thomas.

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #42 on: November 14, 2017, 04:10:43 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16968
  • Tommy Points: 805
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Redick isn't a shooter?  Covington's shooting has been streaky in past year's but he's been killing it this year.  Bayless can shoot.  Korkmaz isn't ready to play yet but shooting is a strength of his.  Embiid, Simmons, Covington and Redick are good fit and definitely not stepping on each other's toes.

I don't think Redick is part of their long term future. Covington may be, but I put him in the Smart/Bradley/Crowder camp.... If you can sign them at short $, great. If not, Cya.

Lonzo and Simmons would not be a good pairing. I think this is obvious.
Philly has 10 players that have played at least 100 minutes this year.  Only 3 of those players are shooting less than 2.7 three's a game, they are Simmons, Johnson, and McConnell.  McConnell is a good shooter, the other two are not.  Of the 7 players with at least 2.7 three attempts a game, only Embiid is shooting less than 37.5%.  In other words, the Sixers are loaded with shooters.

Instead of cherry picking random arbitrary numbers lets just go through their rotation players and decide if they are good shooter (also even die hard Philly fans wouldn't call McConnell a good shooter, that is fairly hilarious)

Embiid - Shooting 22% from 3 on 3 pointers a game. Most 76er fans are pretty adamant that they would like to see him shoot less 3's right now. He shot 37% last year which is great for a rookie. Right now though he is not much more than an average shooter
Simmons - Has not hit one. Is obviously not a good shooter
Reddick - All-time great shooter
Amir Johnson - Shooting 12% on 3's, not a good 3 point shooter
Covington - Between average and very good shooter (35% and 33% last two years, 50% this year)
Anderson - He is a career 29% shooter from 3 that is renowned for being a bad shooter. He is shot a bit better this year but it is on 44 shots. Would be similar to Marcus Smart becoming a shooter if he takes a huge leap.
Saric - Shot 32% last year, 37% this year. Probably an average shooter
McConnell - Shoots very few 3 pointers (11 all year, is considered a poor shooting guard overall)

Out Injured -but would be in rotation
Bayless - Good shooter
Fultz - Can't physically shoot, not a good shooter.

Calling that team loaded with shooters when they only clearly good ones are Reddick and Covington is fairly ridiculous. Furthermore, if the metrics you choose make Justin Anderson and TJ McConnell good shooters you either have a small sample size or bad metrics. Both players are known for being hustle players that survive on their grit in SPITE of their shooting.
Fultz was a 41+% shooter in college and you are claiming he is a not a good shooter.  That one is pretty funny.  He obviously has something wrong with him, maybe he never gets it fixed, but that seems pretty unlikely.

Luwawu-Cabarrot is a good shooter (much more comfortable in the pros in his second year).  So is Saric (again much more comfortable in year 2).  Anderson is young, but is currently shooting 37.5% on 2.7 attempts a game.  That is certainly respectable.  Are we supposed to just ignore those numbers?.  Bayless is a lot better shooter than just good.  When he gets attempts, he is 40%+ shooter in the pros (again when he gets attempts).  Redick, as you acknowledge, is one of the best shooters in NBA history.  Covington started off last year terribly, and finished at his career worst 33.3% (the prior 2 years though he was 37.4 and 35.3), but since that start has been near a 50% shooter (which he is at this year).

Embiid has struggled this year.  Simmons, Johnson and Holmes don't shoot any three's (nor should they).  As for, McConnell he is 5 of 11 this year.  He clearly doesn't shoot many from deep, but he is making the best of them.  His rookie year he shot 34.8 before shooting a very poor 20 last year.  I'd say he is much closer to a 35% shooter than a 20% shooter.
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #43 on: November 14, 2017, 04:20:41 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 390
  • Tommy Points: 43
Too be fair to the sixers it's waaaay to early to say the made the wrong pick. Fultz may yet cone back and end up a top player. They didn't draft him for the first 14 games of 2017.

Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
« Reply #44 on: November 14, 2017, 04:25:16 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7820
  • Tommy Points: 894
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Redick isn't a shooter?  Covington's shooting has been streaky in past year's but he's been killing it this year.  Bayless can shoot.  Korkmaz isn't ready to play yet but shooting is a strength of his.  Embiid, Simmons, Covington and Redick are good fit and definitely not stepping on each other's toes.

I don't think Redick is part of their long term future. Covington may be, but I put him in the Smart/Bradley/Crowder camp.... If you can sign them at short $, great. If not, Cya.

Lonzo and Simmons would not be a good pairing. I think this is obvious.
Philly has 10 players that have played at least 100 minutes this year.  Only 3 of those players are shooting less than 2.7 three's a game, they are Simmons, Johnson, and McConnell.  McConnell is a good shooter, the other two are not.  Of the 7 players with at least 2.7 three attempts a game, only Embiid is shooting less than 37.5%.  In other words, the Sixers are loaded with shooters.

Instead of cherry picking random arbitrary numbers lets just go through their rotation players and decide if they are good shooter (also even die hard Philly fans wouldn't call McConnell a good shooter, that is fairly hilarious)

Embiid - Shooting 22% from 3 on 3 pointers a game. Most 76er fans are pretty adamant that they would like to see him shoot less 3's right now. He shot 37% last year which is great for a rookie. Right now though he is not much more than an average shooter
Simmons - Has not hit one. Is obviously not a good shooter
Reddick - All-time great shooter
Amir Johnson - Shooting 12% on 3's, not a good 3 point shooter
Covington - Between average and very good shooter (35% and 33% last two years, 50% this year)
Anderson - He is a career 29% shooter from 3 that is renowned for being a bad shooter. He is shot a bit better this year but it is on 44 shots. Would be similar to Marcus Smart becoming a shooter if he takes a huge leap.
Saric - Shot 32% last year, 37% this year. Probably an average shooter
McConnell - Shoots very few 3 pointers (11 all year, is considered a poor shooting guard overall)

Out Injured -but would be in rotation
Bayless - Good shooter
Fultz - Can't physically shoot, not a good shooter.

Calling that team loaded with shooters when they only clearly good ones are Reddick and Covington is fairly ridiculous. Furthermore, if the metrics you choose make Justin Anderson and TJ McConnell good shooters you either have a small sample size or bad metrics. Both players are known for being hustle players that survive on their grit in SPITE of their shooting.
Fultz was a 41+% shooter in college and you are claiming he is a not a good shooter.  That one is pretty funny.  He obviously has something wrong with him, maybe he never gets it fixed, but that seems pretty unlikely.

Luwawu-Cabarrot is a good shooter (much more comfortable in the pros in his second year).  So is Saric (again much more comfortable in year 2). Anderson is young, but is currently shooting 37.5% on 2.7 attempts a game.  That is certainly respectable.  Are we supposed to just ignore those numbers?. Bayless is a lot better shooter than just good.  When he gets attempts, he is 40%+ shooter in the pros (again when he gets attempts).  Redick, as you acknowledge, is one of the best shooters in NBA history.  Covington started off last year terribly, and finished at his career worst 33.3% (the prior 2 years though he was 37.4 and 35.3), but since that start has been near a 50% shooter (which he is at this year).

Embiid has struggled this year.  Simmons, Johnson and Holmes don't shoot any three's (nor should they).  As for, McConnell he is 5 of 11 this year.  He clearly doesn't shoot many from deep, but he is making the best of them.  His rookie year he shot 34.8 before shooting a very poor 20 last year.  I'd say he is much closer to a 35% shooter than a 20% shooter.

it is on 44 shots. Considering he is about to turn 24 and has shot over 300 3's in the pro's at a 29% clip, yea, you can ignore it for the time being. Do I really have to tell you that?
Regarding Bayless the guy played 3 games last year, is currently out indefinitely with a different wrist injury and will be very unlikely to be on the team next. It probably doesn't matter if he shoots well in these 12 games across 2 seasons.

Regarding Fultz, right now he is not considered a good shooter. You can think that is funny but it there were concerns from our staff about his shooting, he shot 65% from the free throw line and is trying to work on his form to improve his shooting....

I follow the 76ers pretty closely and most of their beat writers and fans acknowledge that shooting is currently a bit of a weakness for the team (this is also one of the reason Klay Thompson is their dream). You saying they are loaded with shooters and trotting out Justin Anderson's stats for 44 3 point attempts seems pretty disingenuous. I am not really understanding your angle on this.