Keith Van Horn: better, worse, or the same in the modern game?

[Im Still Ballin]

I've been looking for a Matas Buzelis comparison, and KVH feels close enough. Thoughts?

Keith was a lengthy, sneakily athletic 6'10" combo forward who played from 1997-98 to 2005-06. He was initially a scoring forward before transforming into more of a stretch-four role player by the end of his run. Of that protomodern big forward with perimeter skills cloth, like Dirk, young Pau, Rashard Lewis, and T-Mac. I was looking at old Durant NBA Draft comparisons, and Nowitzki and McGrady were often mentioned. Rashard Lewis, some... and Keith Van Horn, LOL.

Question of the thread: Would Van Horn be better, worse, or the same in today's NBA? His style of play was ahead of its time, but was that a tactical advantage? Would he lose that potential in-era advantage playing today? Or are his strengths leveraged to a greater magnitude, while his weaknesses are mitigated?

For his career, KVH averaged:

- 31.6 mpg
- 16.0 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 1.6 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.5 bpg, and 2.2 topg
- 36.1% 3PT (2.9 3pa/g), 46.6% 2PT (10.4 2pa/g), 83.5% FT (3.8 fta/g; 28.4% FTr), 53.4% TS (103 TS+)

Seven-year prime from 1997-98 to 2003-04:

- 33.8 mpg
- 17.5 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 1.7 apg, 0.9 spg, 0.6 bpg, 2.4 topg
- 35.8% 3PT (3.0 3pa/g), 46.6% 2PT (11.6 2pa/g), 83.6% FT (4.1 fta/g; 28.4% FTr), 53.3% TS (103 TS+)

Three-year peak from 1997-98 to 1999-00:

- 36.3 mpg
- 19.9 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 1.8 apg, 0.9 spg, 0.8 bpg, 2.9 topg
- 33.5% 3PT (2.7 3pa/g), 45.4% 2PT (13.9 2pa/g), 85.0% FT (5.4 fta/g; 32.6% FTr), 52.5% TS (101 TS+)

One-year peak (1998-99):

- 37.5 mpg
- 21.8 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 1.5 apg, 1.0 spg, 1.3 bpg, 3.2 topg
- 30.2% 3PT (1.3 3pa/g), 43.8% 2PT (16.6 2pa/g), 85.9% FT (7.1 fta/g; 39.6% FTr), 51.9% TS (101 TS+)

Scouting reports from the 1997 NBA Draft:


Keith Van Horn has great size to be an NBA small forward (6'9", 230 lbs.)
and the rebounding and shot blocking skills to give some time at the 4 spot.
Many have drawn comparisons to Larry Bird. I don't feel he's as talented as
Bird was but he definitely has the potential. His all around game would be a
valuable asset to any team. He has proven in his four years at Utahthat he
is a great leader by taking them to the NCAA' tounament four times. I feel
that if Tim Duncan were not in this draft that he would be the first one
selected and even though Duncan is don't look for him to go any lower than 2
or 3.


Solid post player with great shooting range. ... Has drawn comparisons to Larry Bird, but not in the same class as "Larry Legend". ... "He plays big, sees the floor well, shoots with unreal range, and gets to the basket whenever he wants to," Orlando Magic general manager John Gabriel said. ... Can be slow-footed at times. ... Might have problems defending quicker NBA forwards, especially if matched with power players. ... Clutch at the free-throw line -- over 90 percent as a senior and 85 percent in four-year college career. ... Western Athletic Conference Player of the Year in 1995, 1996 and 1997. - 1997 AP


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwO0Pc9A8sg

[iamgine]

He'd be like MPJ

[tpols]

He'd be like MPJ

Way more dynamic player than MPJ who just a stiff 3pt robot spam type of player. KVH could put the ball on the floor and bust a move at 6'10. Porter Jr can barely dribble. :lol

[L.Kizzle]

Cooper Flagg

[tpols]

Cooper Flagg

Yea that's pretty spot on. His game would be perfect for today since he was a sniper level shooter form wise. It's rare a big man can do 90% from FT line and put the ball on the floor, make moves and dunks.

That's ridiculous talent that would thrive today more than early 2000s east basketball which was all time ugly. The ugliest offensive era and conference in the history of basketball.

[Im Still Ballin]

MPJ is more like Rashard Lewis, who was a comfortably better shooter than KVH.

[Im Still Ballin]

Cooper Flagg


Yea that's pretty spot on. His game would be perfect for today since he was a sniper level shooter form wise. It's rare a big man can do 90% from FT line and put the ball on the floor, make moves and dunks.

That's ridiculous talent that would thrive today more than early 2000s east basketball which was all time ugly. The ugliest offensive era and conference in the history of basketball.

Come on, fellas.

[j3lademaster]

Come on, fellas.

What? Van Horn had a smooth turnaround jumper, soft touch on one handed runners and went to the rim harder than MPJ. MPJ can't even dribble with his head up, the amount of times you see him just jump into defenders because he doesn't know what to do after putting the ball on the floor is frustrating to watch. Most dog shit court vision out of any starter.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3dx5K20OMo&ab_channel=DisciplineorRegret%3F

[Im Still Ballin]

What? Van Horn had a smooth turnaround jumper, soft touch on one handed runners and went to the rim harder than MPJ. MPJ can't even dribble with his head up, the amount of times you see him just jump into defenders because he doesn't know what to do after putting the ball on the floor is frustrating to watch. Most dog shit court vision out of any starter.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3dx5K20OMo&ab_channel=DisciplineorRegret%3F

Cooper Flagg, though? Defense and passing are big calling cards for him, and they weren't for RVH. He was a nice player but it just doesn't feel very apt for a guy getting comp'd with Pippen, Tatum, and Kawhi.

[Xiao Yao You]

He was soft so certainly better in todays soft charmin soft nba

[FKAri]

His game was ahead of his time but it doesn't mean he'd be better today than he was. While his talents are more useful in this era, they are also less rare in this era. Also, his career trajectory kind of got messed up so he might have been a different player even in his era under different circumstances.

[90sgoat]

He struggled back then with the physicality at the PF, so yeah, he'd likely be better today.

[Xiao Yao You]

He struggled back then with the physicality at the PF, so yeah, he'd likely be better today.

Might have to play center today which would make him a backup

[90sgoat]

Might have to play center today which would make him a backup

He's less unique today, but also doesn't have to fight for rebounds and defend Garnett, Webber, Dirk, etc.

Don't think he'd play center. If Markanen can play SF/PF then so can he.

Also, I don't see Matas Buzelis as Keith Van Horn. Matas is a much better ball handler.

[Xiao Yao You]

He's less unique today, but also doesn't have to fight for rebounds and defend Garnett, Webber, Dirk, etc.

Don't think he'd play center. If Markanen can play SF/PF then so can he.

Also, I don't see Matas Buzelis as Keith Van Horn. Matas is a much better ball handler.

Lauri can play sf on a bad team. No one will win with him at the 3 and maybe not at at the 4 or 5 either

[RRR3]

His skillset isn’t rare anymore. He wouldn’t be better, just used more intelligently by coaches.

[Xiao Yao You]

Cant quit me

[Kblaze8855]

More productive even if not more effective.

His athletic ability would show more I’m sure.

[Im Still Ballin]

He's less unique today, but also doesn't have to fight for rebounds and defend Garnett, Webber, Dirk, etc.

Don't think he'd play center. If Markanen can play SF/PF then so can he.

Also, I don't see Matas Buzelis as Keith Van Horn. Matas is a much better ball handler.

I find it hard to compare old players and new ones regarding handles. How much is it better skill and how much is it the looser rules regarding dribbling, carrying, and travelling? Matas has a nice ass handle, though! I came across this highlight reel on Twitter:

https://x.com/UsherNBA/status/1908533574044631225

[Im Still Ballin]

More productive even if not more effective.

His athletic ability would show more I’m sure.

You're a Bulls fan. Do you see Buzelis? A guy on the other forum said this:


I think Keith Van Horn had the raw talent to be good in any era, but Buzelis isn't a good comp. Buzelis has much better ball-handling abilities, and he can finish layups like a guard. Van Horn played the game much more upright. He spent some time at the three mostly because he could shoot, but the rest of his game wasn't really that of a three. He was either spacing the floor or near the basket. If he put the ball on the floor it was because someone bit on a pump fake, but he wasn't really using a dribble to create opportunities.

A better comp for Buzelis is AK47 crossed with Kukoc.

Other modern KVH comps dropped included Tobias Harris, a slightly rich man's Kuzma, Deni Avdija, and Bobby Portis.

[Im Still Ballin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwTy-POCcrQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UCWHXrRB4k


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GThwJ-09Ps4

[Im Still Ballin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v6rg98UcOc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3utMnAsN_4

[Im Still Ballin]

I like the Lauri Markannen comparison.

The general physicals, play style, FTr, and the lack of passing and an off-the-dribble game match. Maybe not quite as good a three-point shooter; not as capable above-the-break or on the move. More of a skilled two-point scorer - from the post, the elbows, back-to-the-basket, face-up & slash, triple-threat isolation, etc. Better rebounder, too.

Career shooting percentages are relatively close:

Markannen: 98 FG+, 101 2PT+, 103 3PT+, 102 EFG+, 112 FT+, 103 TS+
Van Horn: 100 FG+, 100 2PT+, 103 3PT+, 101 EFG+, 112 FT+, 103 TS+

And assisted rates:

Markannen: 64.7% of 2FGM assisted; 97.6% of 3FGM assisted
Van Horn: 56.9% of 2FGM assisted; 98.5% of 3FGM assisted

Lauri is the only guy to put up 200+ 3PM and 100+ dunks in a season, I believe. KVH feels like someone who could do that in today's game. Had 93 dunks and 84 3PM over 80 games in 1999-00. Would need to shoot roughly 37.5% 3PT on 6.5 3pa/g to get 200 3PM in 82 games. I think Keith can do that.

Markannen peaked at 25.6 ppg in 2022-23 and has put up 23.0 ppg over the last three seasons. That's about 3-4 ppg more than Keith, which feels like his modern era ceiling.

The other comparisons made on RGM (Portis, Kuzma) lack comparable FTr, and this combination of three-and-dunk.

[iamgine]

Keith was never good in any of his playoff appearance except that one run.

[MrFonzworth]

Cant quit me

:lol

[bizil]

He CERTAINLY wouldn't be a superstar level or perennial All Star type of player. I see the Markannen comp somewhat. But Lauri at his best is MORE CLOSER to a Tom Chambers type of player. He's not as good as Tom C as of now. BUT Chambers at his best was a legit alpha dog level scorer who was a multiple time All Star and scored 20,000 points. Hell you could make the case Tom C should be in the HOF. Point is Van Horn at his best wasn't as good as these guys. Quite frankly not very close. Size wise similar. Scoring skillset wise kinda similar. But it's WHAT YOU DO with your scoring skillset.

I could see Chambers being a superstar in today's league. And Markannen is still young and has room to grow. If Van Horn is your third to fourth scoring option, you are in good shape in terms of scoring depth. And have others have said, KVH's attributes are hella more commonplace in today's game. You got KD at the PINNACLE of it. Who on top of the size and scoring skillset is DAMN NEAR a positionless type of player when at the peak of his powers. So now you gotta factor guys who are WAY MORE VERSATILE in terms of positions and roles they can play. But KVH would still be a very good player. Just saying he wouldn't be close to a multiple All Star level player. LET ALONE a superstar level guy.

[Xiao Yao You]

He CERTAINLY wouldn't be a superstar level or perennial All Star type of player. I see the Markannen comp somewhat. But Lauri at his best is MORE CLOSER to a Tom Chambers type of player. He's not as good as Tom C as of now. BUT Chambers at his best was a legit alpha dog level scorer who was a multiple time All Star and scored 20,000 points. Hell you could make the case Tom C should be in the HOF. Point is Van Horn at his best wasn't as good as these guys. Quite frankly not very close. Size wise similar. Scoring skillset wise kinda similar. But it's WHAT YOU DO with your scoring skillset.

I could see Chambers being a superstar in today's league. And Markannen is still young and has room to grow. If Van Horn is your third to fourth scoring option, you are in good shape in terms of scoring depth. And have others have said, KVH's attributes are hella more commonplace in today's game. You got KD at the PINNACLE of it. Who on top of the size and scoring skillset is DAMN NEAR a positionless type of player when at the peak of his powers. So now you gotta factor guys who are WAY MORE VERSATILE in terms of positions and roles they can play. But KVH would still be a very good player. Just saying he wouldn't be close to a multiple All Star level player. LET ALONE a superstar level guy.

Chambers was overrated. Certainly be better today since he was also soft

[bizil]

Chambers was overrated. Certainly be better today since he was also soft

Chambers a MUCH BETTER PLAYER than Van Horn ever was! And MUCH MORE REVOLUTIONARY a player too. Scoring skillset wise, he had the McAdoo scoring bag, a bit of the Bird scoring bag and MIXED it WITH athletic ability on par or damn close to a Larry Nance. That type of PF in that 6'10 to 6'11 range hadn't really been seen before in the NBA at that point. PLUS he would swing to the SF and C spots at times. And his IN GAME DUNK CATALOG is in the top 10 of all time among PF's. TO THIS DAY! His in game dunk catalog is in there with Kemp, Amare, Blake, McDyess, etc. among PF's! And his BEST DUNK (the one on Jackson) is among the most legendary dunks of all time! Chambers was one of the players Van Horn was compared to coming out of college. He was MORE IN LINE with Chambers than Bird (another one he was compared to). Bird was the TOTAL PACKAGE in a way Chambers and Van Horn never were. BUT Chambers was still a great scorer. Not many PF's combined that type of scoring skillset and scoring numbers WITH that type of athletic ability back in the era. And Van Horn NEVER GOT CLOSE to the level of a peak Chambers! At one point Chambers was a top 5 level PF in the league.