With the 58th pick in the second round of the 2023 NBA Draft, the Milwaukee Bucks took a chance on forward Chris Livingston, who last played for the Kentucky Wildcats.
After a disappointing postseason run where their youth and athleticism (or lack thereof) were exposed and picked apart, the Bucks are naturally hoping that the 19-year-old Livingston, along with the rest of their draft haul, can develop into a solid contributor off the bench. They’ve needed to add some youth and athleticism to their roster for quite some time now, and Livingston fits the bill quite perfectly while being a good fit with their defensive identity.
Why Milwaukee Bucks fans should be excited about Chris Livingston
Livingston has the physical tools to be something in the NBA — even if it’s still uncertain exactly what that is. It’s certainly hard to mine out diamonds in the rough with the final pick in the draft, but it’s been done before by lesser ball clubs. Fortunately for the Bucks, Livingston has the perfect body type to play a great many roles in this association today. He is 6’6″ and 220 pounds, with a wingspan of 6-foot-11.
There’s a lot of potential to be excited about with Milwaukee’s latest rookie. Livingston is an excellent athlete with a great first step and the ability to finish at the rim. On top of that, he has a serviceable shooting stroke and has shown the ability to hit shots from both inside and outside.
Now is as good a time as any to take a closer look at Livingston’s game and compare him to some of his potential ceiling and floor comparisons.
Dream ceiling for Bucks’ Chris Livingston – Paul George or Jaylen Brown
At his absolute ceiling, Livingston also has the potential to end up like a few players in the league, namely Paul George and Jaylen Brown.
Evaluating his body type alone, Livingston has a lot of the same physical tools as Clippers forward Paul George, including size, athleticism, and length, though that would obviously be a dream scenario that is far from guaranteed. Defensively, Livingston has the combination of size, speed and strength to defend multiple positions. He is not a finished product on that end of the floor, but he has the potential to be a good defender in the NBA.
But the similarities are there: Livingston also has a serviceable (if relatively inefficient) shooting stroke and is a capable defender. With his physicality and athleticism, Livingston is going to be a real threat in transition who likes to play above the rim from the get-go, which still gives him a lot of offensive upside to capitalize on in training camp. He also has the range to knock down triples, although he is not a prolific outside shooter. If Livingston over the years can come to develop his ball-handling, shot-creation, and playmaking skills and eventually become a more consistent scorer, he could have a similar ceiling to George.
Jaylen Brown is another player who has a lot of the same physical tools as Livingston. He is also a good scorer and defender, and he has shown the ability to be a playmaker.
That’s certainly a near-pipe dream for the Milwaukee Bucks, who don’t have much by way of cap space and draft capital to bring in top-level talent around Giannis Antetokounmpo in the coming years.
In this dream scenario, Livingston quickly develops into a starting-caliber point guard for the Bucks, averaging 15 points, 5 assists, and 3 rebounds per game. He becomes a key cog in the Bucks’ championship-contending machine, and is eventually named to an All-Star team.
If Livingston can reach any of these levels, he would be a very valuable player in the NBA.
In this scenario, Livingston would need to make a significant leap in his development. He would need to become a more consistent scorer, and he would also need to improve his playmaking and defense. The good news is that with a developmental mind like Adrian Griffin at the helm, these outcomes are more than possible.
Realistic comparison for Bucks’ Chris Livingston – Justise Winslow
Chris Livingston has also been compared by Draft Kings to Justise Winslow. Livingston and robust point forwards like Winslow are very similar players in terms of their size and athleticism. They are both capable of playing multiple positions, and they both have good defensive instincts. However, there are some key differences between the two players.
The key difference here is that Livingston, as it currently stands, is a more natural scorer than Winslow and has not been shown to have any of the lingering injury issues just yet. He’s healthier, has a better jumper, and he is more likely to take and make shots from beyond the arc. Winslow, on the other hand, is a better playmaker. He is a better passer and rebounder, and he is more likely to create shots for his teammates.
Given his age, play in college, and overall placing in this year’s draft, the realistic short-term scenario for Chris Livingston this season is a solid backup point forward who can provide scoring, playmaking, and defense off the bench. Think budget Draymond Green in this scenario, where most of his shot diet will come off smart cuts and rim-running, while he will very rarely take jump shots even when defenses dare him to do so.
In the long term, Livingston has the physical tools to become a solid backup point forward in this league, averaging around the ballpark of 8 points, 3 assists, and 2 rebounds per game with a shot diet of rim-running, shots at close range, and the occasional spot-ups while providing stout defense on the other end. In this scenario, he provides valuable depth and experience to the Bucks’ roster and is a reliable contributor off the bench.
Floor comparison for Bucks’ Chris Livingston – George Hill
One thing that makes it difficult to bet on his potential as a scorer is the fact that Livingston shot just 42.9 percent from the field and 30.5 percent from 3-point range in his college years. His shot is going to be clunky and inefficient from the get-go, which will allow defenses to sag off him and clog the paint until he can make them pay for the additional space.
For that reason, defensive, pass-first guards with a competent scoring ability like George Hill are a good starting comparison for Livingston’s floor. When healthy and younger than he is now, Hill has proven himself to be a solid player who has been able to contribute to winning teams in limited doses. He is not a star, but he is a reliable player who can be counted on to do his job. If Livingston can reach Hill’s level, he would be a valuable addition to the Bucks.
In this scenario, Livingston’s bread and butter will be the hustle and intangible side of the ball, as he’s also a good passer and rebounder for his size while playing with energy and effort any given night. He also has a strong work ethic and is a good teammate, which would make him a play-connector on offense more than anything else.
Mike Moser was another versatile player who could play multiple positions with a body type similar to Livingston’s. He was a good shooter and defender, and he also had some playmaking skills. If Livingston can develop just into a player like Moser, he would still be a valuable role player in the NBA.
Livingston is a talented player, but he is still very young and inexperienced. He is likely to need some time to develop before he can become a starting-caliber point guard. However, if he can continue to improve, he could become a valuable backup point forward type of player for the Bucks.
Stay tuned for more analysis on Milwaukee’s new youth movement.