Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Statistics: This Year’s Power Forward Crop

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Statistics: This Year’s Power Forward Crop

    I found this on Draft Express. This one is on the Power Forwards, they've have a post for the centers & small forwards as well.

    http://www.draftexpress.com/article/...ward-Crop-3190

    Situational Statistics: This Year’s Power Forward Crop

    by: Matt Kamalsky
    April 23, 2009
    Though Blake Griffin is clearly the headliner of this year's group of power forwards, we’ve compiled significant data to thoroughly investigate the depth and versatility of this class from top to bottom to identify trends and make some observations.

    Thanks to our friends over at Synergy Sports Technology, we have access to the most thorough situational statistics available today. Synergy keeps track of every possession of a huge amount of college basketball games—thus accumulating an incredible wealth of extremely informative data. Many of these statistics offer excellent insight into the players we evaluate, so we’ve taken the time to compile and sort through them in an effort to distinguish which players are, for instance, the most productive back to the basket threats, the most effective finishers around the basket, the most likely to draw fouls on a given possession, and the most efficient jump shooters. With 24 of the top power forwards tabulated on our spreadsheet, we’ve created a short list of the most interesting things we’ve learned about this year’s crop of prospects.

    Before you look at our findings, it is important to realize that there are some limitations to our analysis. For example, prospects on lower level teams will have some games and thus possessions missing each year. The exact breakdown of specific possession types can be highly subjective and thus somewhat inconsistent at times as well, which means that this data always needs to be taken with a grain of salt. We’ve tried to steer away from utilizing data that wouldn’t be considered statistically significant, but considering how short the college season is, that’s not always easy. Our data obviously does not account for neither the strength of a player’s teammates, nor his level of competition.

    Findings

    • Blake Griffin’s spot at the top of draft is more than justified by breaking down his advanced statistics, as it truly emphasizes just how impressive a prospect he is from a physical standpoint.

    Not only did Griffin garner the most possessions of any PF in the draft at finishing around the basket per game (7.9), but he's also the #1 finisher as well, connecting on an outrageous 75.5% of his short range attempts, not including post ups. While his overall points per possession (PPP) of 1.08 ranks fourth, thanks to the fact that he’s fouled on 18.5% of his possessions, has finished 51 of his 61 attempts in transition, and ranks amongst the best finishers when cutting to the rim at 1.52 PPP. Athleticism, strength, and tenacity aside, those numbers alone go a long way towards explaining why he’s such a coveted prospect considering he’s managed to generate 20.2 total possessions per game (good for 3rd on our list) while still getting the job done in the post (53% on 7.9 Pos/G).

    Another player who really stands out with his ability to finish around the rim is Patrick Patterson, who converts 73% of his opportunities around the basket (4th best), on an outstanding 1.48 PPP (2nd best). Patterson's terrific length and athleticism, combined with his huge hands and tenacity made him quite a force at the college level--which also shows up in his ability to produce efficiently in transition and off basket cuts. His jump-shot, post-up game and ability to create his own shot appear to lack polish, though.

    • The age old debate over potential and production will be a key point of debate in the lottery.

    Looking over the numbers of our top power forwards, we noticed a number of players who are projected as lottery picks that don’t look the part on paper. Sitting just behind Griffin in our rankings, we find Jordan Hill, who’s overall Points Per Possession of.94 places him slightly below the mean of .98, not quite what one would expect from a potential top-5 draft pick. Looking deeper, we realize that Hill ranks right around the average in a number of areas. He surprisingly connects on just 63.87% of his finishing opportunities not including post ups, and only scores on 49.6% of his logged possessions –sitting just off the mean in both categories. Much of Hill’s lack of efficiency can be attributed to the fact that he only gets fouled on 10.4% of his possessions and gets very few touches in transition (16th at 1.1 Pos/g) and basket cut situations (15th at 1.8), two scenarios where he’s effective ( 1.33 and 1.43 PPP respectively). The other factor working against Hill is his jumper, which we’ll discuss later.

    Clearly teams are valuing Hill’s upside quite a bit. He’s already a productive rebounder and has a lot of potential long-term as a defender, but his offense doesn’t stand out amongst his peers. He’s raw, but some teams see his physical profile and athleticism and assume he will be a player that develops into a bigger threat on the next level.

    Another player in that boat is Earl Clark, but his production looks a bit poor for other reasons.

    One of the more perimeter oriented players in this pool, Clark earns two dubious distinctions. First, he’s the most turnover prone, giving the ball away on 18.7% of his logged possessions. Second, his Points Per Possession of .85 ranks him last on our list. A bit stuck between the three and four position, Clark’s poor PPP stems from the fact that he took 5.3 jump shots per game (1st in our sample) and only managed to get fouled of only 9.3% of his possessions (23rd). Unfortunately, his ability to play the three doesn’t excuse the fact that he falls below the mean FG% in post ups (46% - even), fast breaks (54% - 16% below), pick and rolls (38% - 11% below), isolations (38% - 4% below), and basket cuts (55% - 13% below).

    Given Clark’s lack of efficiency across the board, the team that picks him will be banking on him utilizing his athleticism to his advantage to create mismatches and develop the type of consistency he’ll need to be productive. Obviously players who have as many tools as Clark deserve some credit for what they could bring to the table down the road, particularly defensively, but how much remains to be seen.

    Clark's Big East counterpart, Luke Harangody, not only appears to lack significant upside for the NBA level, but he falls short in many of the key areas we looked at in this study, particularly everything related to efficiency, starting with his post-game, continuing with his jump-shot, as well as his ability to finish effectively around the basket.

    • The lack of quality big men in the NCAA allowed DeJuan Blair to overcome his lack of size and then some.

    Looking at the post production of the players on our list, Blair’s productivity was impossible to ignore. He posted the highest FG% (59%) and the highest PPP (1.12) of any player on our list in back to the basket situations. Standing 6’7, Blair displayed incredible strength in overcoming his height disadvantage, on a nightly basis. However, he would be well served to improve his jumper to help compensate for the issues he’s bound to run into trying to score against bigger and more athletic players in the NBA on a nightly basis, which could be tough given that his .2 jump shots per game rank last in our sample. He also isn't a great finisher around the rim on non-post up situations, ranking 4th worst in that category.

    • Most college PFs will have to adjust their game significantly to be effective in the NBA. A lot of that starts with their ability to face the basket and make mid-to-long-range jumpers.

    Blair wasn’t the only player in our database that didn’t do a lot of jump shooting, and many of those that did, didn’t do so very efficiently. Touching on the players we mentioned earlier in this article, it is clear that the top players aren’t exempt from this trend. Blake Griffin made only 9 of the 22 jumpers he attempted this season, meaning he attempted only .7 jumpers per game. Jordan Hill did take more jumpers than the average player on our list at 2.5 per game, but knocked down only 22 of his 76 attempts, or 29%. Earl Clark landed right around the average in terms of FG% on his jump shots at 36% (68/191), but hit a bit more respectable 38% of his pull ups. Clark, along with Damion James and Craig Brackins led the group in jump-shot attempts per game at roughly five, but none of them surpassed 39% accuracy on those attempts.

    There are a few bright spots though, the most notable of which is Wake Forest’s James Johnson, who shot 48% on his 2.1 pull-up jumpers per game. Though he hit only 39% of his overall jump-shots, Johnson’s ability to hit jumpers off the dribble bodes well for his face up game moving forward. He also ranks quite well in his ability to operate out of isolation situations, and gets out in transition at a prolific rate. Xavier’s Derrick Brown finished a close second to Josh Heytvelt in jump shot PPP at 1.01 on 138 attempts, but shot under 30% from the field on his 58 pull up jumpers. Clearly he has improved his ability to make shots with his feet set significantly, but still needs to work on his off the dribble attempts. As you can see, even the players that stood out in one area didn’t look quite as good in the other.

    What about Tyler Hansbrough you ask? He actually fared quite well, in a number of different categories in fact. For one, he ranked third amongst all PFs in points per possession in terms of finishing around the basket, at 1.39. His field goal percentage was fairly average here—64%, just slightly under the mean—but the fact that he draws fouls on an outstanding 20% of his possessions (easily ranking him first) made him substantially more efficient in that regard. He also managed to keep his turnovers extremely low, and also did a nice job converting on his jump-shot attempts—making a very solid 42% on an admittedly small 2.7 possessions per game. His ability to operate out of isolation situations looks very encouraging (50% FG), while he was the second most efficient PF in post-up situations as well. From a pure statistical standpoint, Hansbrough obviously looks like a solid prospect based on his college data.

    • Players whose teams play at a slower pace tend to have better efficiency numbers.

    Arguably the biggest winner of our analysis was Jeff Pendergraph, who ranked first with 1.19 PPP overall and second in finishing around the basket at 75.36%. A consummate hustle player, the only areas where Pendergraph didn’t rank near to the top in terms of efficiency were post up PPP, where he was about average at .91, and jump shooting, where his 1.05 is well above average, but came on just .6 attempts per game. Arizona State’s methodical half court offense clearly allowed Pendergraph to become an incredibly efficient player. The same can be said for Southern California’s Taj Gibson, who shot 75.36% on his finishing attempts (3rd), but seemingly sports no face-up game whatsoever.

    • Guard play is hugely important to the efficiency of many of the prospects at the power forward position.

    Craig Brackins is getting plenty of love these days from various NBA decision makers, but he was obviously not a very efficient player at the collegiate level, as his situational stats indicate. Brackins indeed ranks dead last in overall efficiency (44.3%) of the 24 PFs, which tells us a little bit about his shortcomings, but also quite a bit about how he was utilized at Iowa State.

    Brackins ranks last in possessions finished around the basket (which does not include post-ups)—indicating the problems Iowa State's guards in creating easy looks for him around the rim. He shot quite a few jumpers, with mixed results (making just 32%), many of which he had to generate on his own in tough off the dribble situations. He saw a considerable amount of time grinding with his back to the basket in the post—over 10 possessions per game, second amongst all PFs to just Luke Harangody—and only saw moderate success there as well (45% FG).

    Iowa State rarely got out in transition from what we could see (Brackins ranks last in that category), and Brackins rarely saw the ball as a pick and roll finisher or moving off cuts to the rim either, which helps explain his lack of efficiency compared with the Jeff Pendergraphs and Patrick Pattersons of the world.

    These are all things Brackins will probably think about when he makes the final decision to return to school or not next year. With that said, Brackins’ excellent skill level still does jump off the page when you see how favorably he ranks in his ability to operate out of isolation sets (being the second most prolific PF in this category, while converting on 49% of his attempts), as well as his ability to make pull-up jumpers (he ranks 3rd).

    One thing to keep in mind is that Iowa State is one of the teams that Synergy’s is missing stats for from their much weaker out of conference schedule—they currently have data for about 71% of Brackins’ possessions.

    Damion James found himself in a similar situation as Craig Brackins, with one significant different. While ISU's guards weren't talented enough to take pressure off of their star, Texas had ample talent in their back court, but didn't have an ideal distributor, or one that could even scratch the surface of what D.J. Augustin brought to the table. James is one of the most perimeter oriented players on our list, shooting 5.3 jumpers per game, ranking him at the top of our list in that category. He only got 7.9% of his offense in the post last season, and saw his touches coming from cuts and offensive rebounds turn into additional one-on-one chances –he got nearly 15.5% of his touches on isolations. Scoring on only 43.8% of his possessions, James is another hustle player who isn't benefiting from the guards around him or his efforts to become a small forward.

    • The stylistic gaps between Europe and the NCAA are apparent from this perspective.

    A rookie in the ACB, Henk Norel was one of the least involved players in our rankings, getting only 5.4 possessions per game due to the 7+ fouls he was committing per-40 minutes pace adjusted. Though his 15.9% turnover rate and 48.8% scoring percentage sit right around the average for this group, his situational stats highlight the unique characteristics of the European game. For instance, Norel gets 15.2% of his touches as a roll man in pick and roll situations –more than 10% higher than average and almost 5% more than the next highest player on our list.

    That discrepancy is not a unique product of the system he's playing in, but rather a notable characteristic of the European game. His .53 PPP on post ups offers more insight. That figure is only slightly more than half of the average of all the players in the pool. After examining the numbers, Norel isn't alone in that regard, as most European players have a significantly smaller PPP in the post than the NCAA players they are jockeying with for draft position.

    The European game is a man’s game after all—players like Norel are forced to go up against grown men who are physically developed, while the game is called much looser by referees in terms of the amount of contact they allow in the lane. These major differences are a prime example of why NBA teams employ scouts specializing in the European game alone. The contrasts in situational composition and statistical evidence make such a position very necessary.

    You’ll see more evidence of the difference between the College and European game as we look through the other four positions as well.

    Stay tuned for that over the next few days.

  • #2
    Re: Statistics: This Year’s Power Forward Crop

    Nice article. Thanks for posting.

    There are a couple of interesting points.

    1. James Johnson. The few times I watched Wake play this season, I wasn't all that impressed, but I was mainly watching Teague. It's good to know that he's a fairly efficient scorer with a decent jumper. If you combine that with his athleticism, he becomes a fairly intriguing player.

    2. Earl Clark. I'm not a big Clark fan, but I wouldn't have guessed that his numbers would look quite that bad.
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Statistics: This Year’s Power Forward Crop

      The Earl Clark analysis is right on the money...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Statistics: This Year’s Power Forward Crop

        Lots of this was discussed in the prospect thread actually, but without numbers.

        1) Clark - I was turned off on him some time ago. He got better, but his awareness stinks, he's just not a smart player, and that's where you get TOs I think. He's got an athletic jumper and can Odom-drive to the lane. That's it. But it's enough to get interest going. Just another reason TWill was able to draw my attention, I went in looking for Clark and found this other kid playing much better ball.

        2) Patterson - his post moves are outstanding, but the few times I saw him he wasn't connecting. So I've had to wonder if he really "has" those shots. It's a bit like Hibbert making a decent hook move or something but not connecting on it. With these stats it appears that Patterson normally does connect and if so then he's worth a look. Not a great defender at this point but does like the shot block.

        3) Hill - not quite the low post guy Patterson is, more face up. Very athletic though and not shabby with the ball. As they point out, put the ball in his hands in different situations and he's better, so to some extent this could be a guy that looks much better in the right system.

        4) Pendergraph - Several of us got on him awhile back so his good numbers aren't a surprise. He's not as talented as Hill and I have a Tivo of them head to head to back that claim (need to find a good way to share that game), but he's a worker and a pretty smart player. Keep in mind that he benefitted from Harden playing inside-outside with him.

        5) Blair - he was the darling of the prospect thread several months ago. Opinions fluctuated since then but few doubt his overall ability. The question is on desire and full-game effort. This is complicated by his own need to avoid foul trouble. However his whole team had fits of laziness so it's hard to totally ignore.



        One thing about style here: stats are affected by style, but coaches also adjust style to fit the talent they have. Pitino didn't put Clark in the low post but did put his two freshman bigs there. At times Clark was basically playing SG early in the year, playing smaller than teammate TWill.

        And regardless, if you are Patterson and KY is constantly posting you up and building around that, then you are not just getting better stats, you are learning to play that way. That's a positive, at least if you want a player that understands that style. Patterson has good low-post moves and because of that he got more chances to work on those moves.

        So the grain of salt cuts both ways, guys have factors that impact their results, but they got the chance to learn the game with those factors involved too. Pendergraph and Hill played with NBA caliber SGs (Harden, Budinger) so they have a better feel for what players that good can do. It helps their stats but also helps their learning.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Statistics: This Year’s Power Forward Crop

          If we had a 2nd 1st round pick and any of these players were available, with many questions surrounding their game....I wouldn't mind picking any of them up after the 13th pick. But with our 1st pick, whoever we pick, I want to be sure that we draft someone that is NBA-Ready that can contribute by the end of the 2009-2010 season. I have no clue who that is, but we need to infuse some talent into this roster that can help now...not potentially help 2 or 3 seasons down the road.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment

          Working...
          X