Rockmaninoff wrote:ManualRam wrote:Superiorblogman wrote:Meyers Leonard totally failed for a C his size. I want my C rebounding and blocking shots he does neither on the level of undersized guys like Al Horford did as a sophomore. He does neitheron the level of Roy Hibbert as a sophomore. De-Andre Jordan had more upside and produced better than Leonard and he dropped to the 2nd rd. Leonard is the biggest example of how blown out of proportion this draft is.
no, he did not totally fail for a C his size.
% of team's total rebounds
Horford (soph)- 21
Hibbert (soph)- 21
blks per 40
the difference is not statistically significant.
jordan's college stats were insignificant since he was just a 20mpg player.
jordan HAD more potential, but he had no discernible offensive skill coming out of college and still doesnt. leonard is already more offensively skilled than jordan is now.
I guess I keep wondering why Leonard was so worthless as a freshman? All they guys listed above were much more productive. If we want to just look at sophomore numbers:
Code: Select all
D-Reb T-Reb S+B/PF A/TO WS/40
Hibbert 0.175 0.287 0.857 0.98 13.9
Horford 0.208 0.293 1.080 1.04 14.4
Leonard 0.185 0.258 0.828 0.63 11.5
I'm looking at per minute defensive rebounds, total rebounds, ratio of steals and blocks over personal fouls, assist to turnover, and the flawed but generally accepted metric Win Score. Leonard appears to be significantly worse than Horford in every catagory. Leonard is closer to Hibbert, but still lacking. Looking at this, I can guess why Leonard was triple-teamed when in possession of the ball and in the post: it appears that it would result more regularly in a turnover rather than an assist.
If I went just off of the numbers, I would project Leonard to be a serviceable NBA player. Considering what I perceive to be a lack of physical and mental toughness, my estimate is more conservative. I would be absolutely shocked if he ever becomes an All-Star level player.
because he was not physically ready to play as a freshman on a team that leaned heavily on a senior frontcourt, but his rate of improvement physically, skill-wise and in terms of understanding the game was immense. it showed both in his play for team USA and his first yr transitioning from a bystander to the focal point of the illini offense.
those other guys were MUCH more productive as sophomores? no
slight differences in per minute rebounding rates in college dont mean much because there is a big variance in pace/possessions per game among teams.
and no, that isnt the reason why leonard was double and triple teamed. he was double and triple teamed because of how effective he was in the halfcourt when he was able to get good touches and shots off. 60.4 FG% on 2PTa is only 2nd to anthony davis among all projected first rounders.
2.1 TOs while constantly being doubled is not a high rate either. if a player sucks offensively, then he'd be treated like andre drummond defensively: no extra defensive attention, never doubled and often times ignored on that end of the floor.
projecting nba careers strictly off of college numbers is never a good practice either, especially for big men. there is no consideration for the player's stage of development or rate of improvement. when projecting prospects out i think it's more important to focus on the player's: size, athleticism, skill, rate of improvement, bball IQ, approach, mentality, on court demeanor...among other intangibles. i try not to just rattle off stats or rates when giving my take on prospects. its too simplistic an approach. anybody can do that and make a prospect look good or bad (regardless of how much they actually saw them play) depending on how they cherry pick the stats. to me, reading details of how a player plays and observing how a player plays basketball is more important than pouring over stats that may or may not translate.