Nah better team player that's about it thou

Comparisons are all speculative unless you're talking about players filling a position on the same team because you see the results directly affected, the LeBron vs MJ comparison for example can only be opinion based with how you then weigh up the stats, Near vs Ball you actually watch the change from game to game.

Apart from the obvious troll topic. Naar has really stepped up it just shows that there are many young guys in the NBL that given game time can step up to develop into good players. Sorry to be positive in this forum....

Naar is a much better floor general than Ball, that's hardly controversial. He's seven or so years older than LaMelo with a lot more experience so it's hardly surprising. In seven years' time Ball is going to be very damn good!

Last season Naar showed great improvement as the year went on and was ready to step up this season, but obviously Ball wasn't coming to the Hawks to be a back-up so it set Naar back a little, but he's certainly making up for lost time.

The title was to draw in the Lamelo lovers, the post to make a point that the Naar is better than Lamelo on court for the Hawks.

Yes, Naar is a better fit for the Hawks but LaMelo is 10x the player Naar is.

On a related matter, do people think Flinn is coaching better now that he presumably has more control over who gets to play where and for how many minutes? Is that a factor in the Hawks^ apparent on court improvement over the last 3 weeks? I haven't seen their games.

Different players but both like to pass.

Naar did well at college and is a good, composed point guard who can find the open player and, more recently, shown he can score himself. Maybe he's not the most athletic PG in the comp but he is smart and athletic enough. Maybe if he had the higher level of athleticism, he would've followed his college alumni into the NBA (you know, the ones he overtook on college assists record)

Lamelo is very composed for an 18-year-old, can create for himself, and looks for his team=mates. In fact, if some of them were catching and finishing the passes Lamelo gave, his assist stats would look even better (an extra 3 a game give him a double-double average). And stat padding? While his shooting percentage could be better, he does well in both assists and rebounds, and has pretty low T/O for someone who has the ball in his hands so much (on par with Casper and Bryce).

So, both are good players and I'm happy they are on the Hawks roster

"Yes, Naar is a better fit for the Hawks but LaMelo is 10x the player Naar is."

LaMelo will be a much better player than Naar, he isn't now. Interesting comment above about the Hawks' defence. Having someone run organised offence like Naar does certainly helps your D, whereas unpredictable O like Ball sometimes plays can open up your d-trans.

LaMelo will be a much better player than Naar, he isn't now.

"Why does it all have to be a comparison based thing!?"

Exactly, why should we go through this needless process of making comparisons? Each game we should just have an uncontested jump ball then go straight to the teams shaking each others' hands, content with a 0-0 result, because we shouldn't need to compare players nor teams.

"Let me know when Naar has back to back triple doubles."

If we are talking just about stats or pure talent, then yes.

However, I'm talking about the ability to make a team better, and in the NBL, at the moment, Ball isn't better at that than Naar, who is superior at reading defences and running offences.

In the past four games, Illawarra are averaging 92.3 points at 48% from the field. They are 2-2, and +49 with Naar on the floor and -49 with him off.

In Ball's 12 games they went at 85.9 points at 42%, they were 3-9 and were -69 with Ball on the court and -25 with him off, which adjusted for time means they were a little better off with Ball on the court.

That isn't conclusive proof by any means, but it certainly fits the eye test that Naar runs the team better than Ball, despite not having near his individual talent.

This is the perfect is example of how the league has put all of its effort into the short term benefit of media hype, over longer term goals such as providing pathways for Aussie/Kiwi players and putting competitive teams on the floor across the league.

Ball will be the better player over the course of their respective careers. On that there is little doubt, but Naar is a guy who will be in the league the next 5-10 years and we will see the best he has to offer, given the right opportunities.

Ball will be long gone by the time he's playing his best hoops, so too any of the short term hype he generated.

If we are talking just about stats or pure talent, then yes.

"How many coaches in the nbl would take Naar over Ball. I'd guess none."

Consdiering Ball will be gone soon (if not already) and showed he's not ready to contribute to a successful team and Naar could be with the team for 10 years and could be part of a future winning core, I'd say most would pick Naar.

As talented as ball is the Hawks seem to be doing better without him.

"However this is what you went onto say "LaMelo will be a much better player than Naar, he isn't now." which was a stupid thing to say."

Not at all. In terms of professional basketball, how else would you measure someone's value than by how much they help their team? If we were talking about for a one-on-one tournament then Ball is better than Naar now, but we're talking about a professional team game.