We grabbed the tougher player. Bullock is more finesse. Hardaway has the pedigree, and thus possesses a better understanding of what he needs to succeed at this level... He is a better defender and is more athletic. Better at creating his own shot. I watched a lot of both players last few seasons.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Bullock is about 3 levels above Hardway in shooting and toughness. Bullock averages almost 7 rebounds a game at UNC. Hardway was averaging 3-4 rebounds per game. Even though Bullock is a corner 3pt shooter, he moves around the floor and especially around the rim.
Hardaway only takes 14% of his shots at the rim and he doesn't take it hard to the basket, he averages 3 FTA per game, lowest amongst all SG prospects in the draft.
Bullock easily attacks the glass more than Hardaway does, has super intangibles.
Bullock defended the opposing team's best scorers...superior defender to Tim Hardaway who's far way from being a better defender than anyone in this draft. If you think Hardaway is a better defender then please show me 4 games where Hardaway had his defensive presence felt on the perimeter because perimeter defense is one of his major weaknesses.
Hardaway's shot selection is trash and he's very inconsistent.
Hardaway isn't even good at creating his own shot, you're making this stuff up.
Tim can create a shot, but most of the time it isn't a good one.
Contested and whacky floaters are most of his shot creations.
He's athletic but not explosive or quick enough with his moves to beat the average NBA defender.
His moves are average in ISO/PR...thus making him predictable than unstoppable.
I give Hardaway respect for being athletic and scoring off the dribble.
But this isn't anything close to Charlie Ward, A level defensive PG who can distribute and nail the 3. Charlie Ward went on to be an important role player/starter for the Knicks 22-28 minute per game player.
We have Shumpert.
What's the need for Hardaway? especially considering Hardaway is average as it gets. He possesses no real strength.