Slather me, Lather me, Blather me - 2011 Draft Thread 5

[Hoopalotta]

Now granted, their win prediction was far better than our on-board pundits, but still...

My recollection is that, while they had us pegged as it so happened, there were a lot of way kinds of wonky projections on some other teams (I seem to recall they thought the Kings were going to make a big move).

And they might of lucked out with the Wizards as Gil having been mojo-less was at least slightly flukey if we're talking about what was known last summer.

[sfam]

There is no sacred secret single number that will save the basketball world. Sometimes the eyeball test will tell you: dude can play.

You gotta believe that even in this era of ever increasing use of systems and formulas, you really still need a Jerry West or Bobby Beathard type who has the ability to "see" the talent in front of him. Sometimes there is no substitute to having someone who just "knows" the dude can play.

That said I'm not fond of administering the eye test because between knowing dick all about real basketball (triple screens are worth three points yeah?) and not being able to watch enough game tape, and definitely not being able to watch enough of the right sort of game tape, I personally think my eye for talent blows and that it would be fired if it had to make significant NBA decisions unless it had a butt like Isiah Thomas. My mathematical skills aren't NBA caliber either but they at least got me through college.

I really like the system approach almost as a counter-weight, both for finding additional talent and for testing assumptions. At least in Basketball, you'd have to do a lot to sell me that whatever magic stat we derive should be the first and foremost indicator of BBall success. Because every team is coached differently, and certainly different leagues like the Euroleague, for instance, I really don't buy into a unified theory of basketball stats. You might be able to come up with something using past data that shows that Euro players who score high on the mythical "SFAM Slam standard" have a better probability of success, for instance, even if the numbers don't work for US players.

[Nivek]

I don't see any honest way of assessing CCJ's views about Blair except to say that he was correct. Passing on him in lottery made sense because of concerns about his knees. Maybe even the first round. But he has been a great pick for the Spurs at 37, and a fantastic value considering how little he gets paid. I don't think he'd have changed the course of the Wizards franchise, but he'd be a valued piece of the future front line had the Wizards picked him.

Well to be clear CCJ wanted to draft him at #5, which may be way too high. (My boy Curry I guess? There are a few others a little a bit more productive. Taj Gibson, say. I dunno.) The Wiz however pi55ed away the selection entirely so we would have been better off with CCJ on the clock.

On the flipside of the flipside: John Wall. So, that.

Thing is, Blair's production has been better than the historical average for the 5th pick. He's producing (so far) more like a #3 or #4 overall pick. So, CCJ hypothetically picking Blair at 5 would be pretty defensible. Especially since if Blair had been the 5th pick he likely would have played more and would therefore have had higher totals, meaning his Win Shares would be higher even if his per minute production was a little lower.

It's sorta interesting to me that folks will call Blair -- a productive 22-year old (who doesn't turn 23 until April) -- stuff like "disappointment" and "plays like a second round pick." The Wizards would be ecstatic to have a guy who can play like Blair. Especially at his age.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, don't forget that not too long ago we all hated Vesely too for precisely these reasons -- statistically he looks like ass.

So lately we've been convinced by watching tape of him play, watching "the kiss," hearing about his superhero mentality -- and the fact that he was a primary contributor on a very successful, low budget team that won precisely because of it's massively superior teamwork. He was part of a well-oiled machine. Now, the problem with teams is they are precisely that -- there's lots of helping each other and sharing going on. Nice in kindergarten but not all that great for generating world beating stats.

Now I know this is America and we don't believe in teamwork. But Dallas just won a championship relying more on teamwork than on talent. And goshdarnit at the end of the day I'd rather lose with Superman than win with Darth Vader. You know?

[closg00]

Jimmer-Mania in effect, I wonder what we could have bullied out of SAC had we shocked them by taking Jimmer.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... nba_t11_a1

[DCZards]

Thing is, Blair's production has been better than the historical average for the 5th pick. He's producing (so far) more like a #3 or #4 overall pick. So, CCJ hypothetically picking Blair at 5 would be pretty defensible. Especially since if Blair had been the 5th pick he likely would have played more and would therefore have had higher totals, meaning his Win Shares would be higher even if his per minute production was a little lower.

It's sorta interesting to me that folks will call Blair -- a productive 22-year old (who doesn't turn 23 until April) -- stuff like "disappointment" and "plays like a second round pick." The Wizards would be ecstatic to have a guy who can play like Blair. Especially at his age.

I'd love to see Blair do well in the NBA. He is, after all, a Big East guy and I'm solidly in the tank for everyone who comes into the NBA from that conference. But there has to be a reason that he's playing a little over 20 minutes a game on a team with two aging frontcourt players (TD & McDyess). Is it Blair's knees? His weight? His conditioning? His attitude? All of the above. I don't have any idea.

But, if he ain't earning minutes, "prospective" stats showing his potential don't mean squat. The only stat that matters, imo, is that Blair's playing 20 mins. a game and averaging 8 pts., 7 rebs and shooting 60% from the FT line.

Yes, Blair "might" be playing more minutes and have better numbers if he were indeed a fifth pick, but I'm not very good at playing the "if" game. The world (and the NBA) is full of "woulda, coulda, shoulda." I prefer facts over speculation...and right now Blair's numbers are not even close to those of a fifth overall pick.

[Nivek]

As a stat guy who doesn't own a pocket protector, and can spot a staggered screen set without benefit of hints, lemme say that most of the time the "stats" and the "eye test" are pretty much in agreement. If a guy looks like he can play, typically it shows up in the numbers. If a guy's numbers look good, it's generally apparent when you watch him play. To me, one of the most important aspects of statistical analysis is making sure to understand what the numbers actually say. I see a lot of statements like, "The stats show..." when the stats don't actually say what the guy is saying they say.

For example, the Wiz "consulted" with Wayne Winston on the +/- stuff, and it was Winston who made the "Yi is pretty good according to +/-" claim. Background: Winston is the guy who Mark Cuban dumped/fired/did not renew so he could add Roland Beech to the coaching staff. Yes, COACHING staff, not front office. Winston never met a definitive statement based on a small sample size that he didn't love. Even then, Winston's conclusion about Yi -- that he was "pretty good" in New Jersey -- was a preposterous misreading of the adjusted plus/minus numbers (which is a dubious dark art anyway).

The APM numbers didn't say Yi was pretty good -- they actually said that New Jersey was horrific both with and without Yi. They said that New Jersey was very slightly less horrific while Yi was on the floor. With Yi, the Nets resembled a 21-win team over an 82-game schedule. Without him, a 15-16 win team. See what I mean?

Look at the ON numbers for the Nets with Yi that season. According to basketballvalue.com, the Nets had an ortg of 102.5 with Yi (98.8 without him) and a drtg of 110.7 with him (109.7 without). Consider that Yi's individual offensive rating was a 99, and it's unlikely that he was responsible for improving their offensive efficiency when he was playing. But, more to the point, consider that while he was on the floor, the team's ortg would have ranked 28th in the league. And the defense would have ranked 26th.

Back to doc's main point -- there is no magic number in basketball. There's no OPS or DIPS. There are LOTS of good measures in hoops that shed light. But you gotta know what you're looking at, you gotta interpret the numbers correctly, and in analysis you gotta look at numbers in combination with others numbers and (at least in my opinion) with scouting.

And, it's worth a mention that there's an ocean of difference between scouting and "watching." Watching is about entertainment. Scouting is about systematically studying what happens on the floor. Very, very, very few fans are doing anything resembling what a scout does. Very few even have the knowledge or eye to do what a scout does. I did scouting type stuff for a while when I was doing my defensive tracking project, and I quickly ran up against the limits of my own knowledge. I had to do some studying and ask questions of coaches, front office guys, players, scouts, etc. to get on the right track (and stay there). This is not a knock on us fans -- scouting is WORK, and few of us (even ardent fans) have the time or inclination to put in that much work. We're in it for the entertainment. As a group, we're a lot more invested in the Wizards than most fans, but few (if any) of us are putting in scouting hours or effort.

[Nivek]

Thing is, Blair's production has been better than the historical average for the 5th pick. He's producing (so far) more like a #3 or #4 overall pick. So, CCJ hypothetically picking Blair at 5 would be pretty defensible. Especially since if Blair had been the 5th pick he likely would have played more and would therefore have had higher totals, meaning his Win Shares would be higher even if his per minute production was a little lower.

It's sorta interesting to me that folks will call Blair -- a productive 22-year old (who doesn't turn 23 until April) -- stuff like "disappointment" and "plays like a second round pick." The Wizards would be ecstatic to have a guy who can play like Blair. Especially at his age.

I'd love to see Blair do well in the NBA. He is, after all, a Big East guy and I'm solidly in the tank for everyone who comes into the NBA from that conference. But there has to be a reason that he's playing a little over 20 minutes a game on a team with two aging frontcourt players (TD & McDyess). Is it Blair's knees? His weight? His conditioning? His attitude? All of the above. I don't have any idea.

Interesting perspective, but I don't agree. Blair was 20 and 21 years old and getting significant playing time on a team with champion aspirations. He's started more than half his games as a pro, and he's missed exactly 1 game in his career. I take that as a sign that he's good and that he has value.

But, if he ain't earning minutes, "prospective" stats showing his potential don't mean squat. The only stat that matters, imo, is that Blair's playing 20 mins. a game and averaging 8 pts., 7 rebs and shooting 60% from the FT line.

But, he IS earning minutes. He's a significant rotation player on one of the league's best teams the past 2 seasons.

And, per minute stats are NOT "prospective" unless we're talking about more minutes than he actually played. I am NOT suggesting that Blair would average 12.2 rebounds per game if he played 36 minutes per game -- that would be a projection. I am stating a fact that he has averaged 12.2 rebounds per 36 minutes. That's a valid statement considering that he's played 3,228 minutes.

Yes, Blair "might" be playing more minutes and have better numbers if he were indeed a fifth pick, but I'm not very good at playing the "if" game. The world (and the NBA) is full of "woulda, coulda, shoulda." I prefer facts over speculation...and right now Blair's numbers are not even close to those of a fifth overall pick.

This is simply incorrect. The research is out there. In Blair's 19.8 minutes per game so far in his career, he has produced the TOTAL Win Shares of a typical 3rd or 4th pick. I'm talking TOTALS here, not per minute or per game. TOTALS. Even as a "mere" rotation player, his overall production is at the level of a high lottery pick.

[Illuminaire]

DC and Nivek both have excellent points.

It seems like the big question regarding Blair's current value is all about why he's only getting twenty minutes a night. If the limiting factor is his health or conditioning, then he can't be valued as a starting player and calling him worthy of a top pick is ridiculous.

If the reason is some kind of missmatch that Pop believes hurts the team, that also subtracts from his value, but could be fixed in the right situation.

If the reason is purely arbitrary, like Pop wanting to ease Blair into the NBA grind and protect his knees on a "just in case" basis, then Blair's value is higher and more like the picture Nivek has been painting.

[Nivek]

Illuminaire -- One minor clarification. Even at 20 minutes per game, Blair's production would have been worth the 5th pick in the draft. Blair himself wasn't worth the 5th pick because of the knees. Any team that signs him still needs to be concerned about the knees. He was a great pick for the Spurs in the 2nd round. He would have been a great pick for the Wizards in the 2nd round.

And, getting back to the whole reason I started posting about Blair, CCJ was correct about him. He's been productive on an excellent team. He'd have been an valuable player for the Wizards -- even at "just" 20 minutes per game.

[Illuminaire]

Illuminaire -- One minor clarification. Even at 20 minutes per game, Blair's production would have been worth the 5th pick in the draft. Blair himself wasn't worth the 5th pick because of the knees. Any team that signs him still needs to be concerned about the knees. He was a great pick for the Spurs in the 2nd round. He would have been a great pick for the Wizards in the 2nd round.

That's by one questionable metric that emphasizes Blair's greatest skill, rebounding.

I love advanced stats myself, Kev. I think they provide a ton of insight into building an effective roster, and DCzards shouldn't be dismissing them so quickly. On the other hand, stats like Winscore provide very little in the way of context, and sometimes that context is extremely important. As you noted yourself, it seems like taking Blair 5th would have been a mistake no matter how productive he's been - longevity matters.

I too would have loved to grab Blair when he fell to the second round. He certainly hasn't been a disappointment. At the same time, I find myself wondering why he's only getting 19-20 minutes a night on a team that, to be frank, is otherwise pretty weak at PF. (Tim Duncan may not think he's a center, but... really...) Pops is one of the sharpest coaching minds in the world. It seems strange, even inconceivable, that he is simply choosing not to play such a seemingly productive player for 60% of most basketball games.

The answer could be that Pops is making a mistake. It could also be many other things, including health, conditioning, or on-court negatives that the stats don't currently take into account.

I guess all I'm saying is we should take all of that into account when making these kinds of evaluations. If you take only the stats, you lose the context that makes them meaningful. If you take only the context, you lose the data that grounds it in reality.

[TGW]

For those who hate our draft, or liked it but enjoy contrary opinions, I came across this, I leave the link and comment w/o any comment of my own:

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/ ... nd-losers/

...2. Who lost the draft?
With the #6, #18, and #34 picks, the Wizards had a chance at a huge draft haul. Instead, they walked away with Jan Vesely, Chris Singleton, and Shelvin Mack. Vesely posted a PAWS/40 of 6.76 overseas, which was only good enough for 66th place among all the players who were drafted. Singleton (8.50, 47th) and Mack (8.67, 43rd) weren’t much better, but at least they were somewhat close to average (PAWS/40 of 10) and not below the cutoff line (PAWS/40 of 7)....

The Wins Score dingleberris all get my goat. This Galetti dude chief among them. They have their pet stat and tend to view the entire world through that lens without questioning what goes into the numbers. I laid out on a Galetti article's comments field the case for why the winscore numbers are skewed in Calipari's Dribble-Drive-Motion offense, that in essence you're going to see guards with suppressed rebounding and assist numbers in the system, thus lower overall PAWS. The response was: 'yes but my numbers say they are bad...' With no understanding nor interest in transition defense emphasis, zone defense schemes vs man, dribble-drive and kick attacks vs scripted plays to free catch-and-shoot attempts (thus assist vs Free throw numbers); coaching effects. They just want to make reality fit their pet number. (Well sure, quite often rebounding has a significant game effect Poindexter, but if your numbers keep coming up wrong for one winning team's players, ask yourself why. Can't call it 'Win' score if they suck but their teams keep winning. And please don't gimme no Joey Dorsey...)

Dude was still trying to say, as of preseason 2010 that Derrick Rose was a subpar player, overrated. And John Wall likely would be too.

Now granted, their win prediction was far better than our on-board pundits, but still...

Here's where they're quite possibly in error. Consider:

http://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankAdjDE

The Berrians would have Tristan Thompson and Chris Singleton as below-average players. Why? Largely because they have semi-weak rebounding figures for power forwards (the 'P.A.' aspect of Position Adjusted 'Win' Score). Yet somebody on those squads was forcing opponents to miss. FSU and Texas were the number one and number two best defensively efficient squads.

If Tristan Thompson and Chris Singleton showed anemic rebounding numbers it's in large part the Brendan Haywood effect -- that is, they were challenging the point of attack, roaming the middle ground to deter interior drives, defending the pick and roll on the perimeter. Thus Antawn Jamison could feel free to flit around untouched and snatch uncontested bounces. All you need to know is that the PAWSys loved Antawn Jamison because he rebounded, scored pretty efficiently and never turned the ball over, (because quite frankly he never held it long enough to pass it). Nevermind the fact that Brendan Haywood, for all his weak tea defensive rebounding numbers consistently showed the greatest effect on actual success on/off court (adjusted for personnel).

Here, Singleton had nobody behind him to rebound at all, but he pretty much singlehandedly forced the number one best defensive eFG% in the NCAA last year. Tristan Thompson is largely responsible for Jordan Hamilton's swollen rebounding totals. You see similar deflated numbers in JanVes' stats. However situational iso'ed video stats show that he forced opponents to shoot 30% when faced against him, and opponent possessions resulted in a turnover one time in three. If you watch video you see him often seal his man as his top priority while another player snatches the board. I suspect if you had good on/off numbers for these players (T2 and 1'ton in particular) you would see their teams rebounded the ball at a much higher rate when they were on court.

But the CrunchBerri's stick to their single stat out of fear of nuance, and desire for a simple clean reductive number that anygeek can understand even if you were commonly picked last at the playground and couldn't point out a triple staggered screen if you spotted them the first two.

There is no sacred secret single number that will save the basketball world. Sometimes the eyeball test will tell you: dude can play. Occasionally you can add depth and complexity to your numbers if you examine them more closely in context. Feel free to question your dogma. You don't have to be scared of the real world. Nobody is gonna laugh at you anymore because you can't figure out how to put on your athletic protector (hint: it don't go in your pocket to protect your shirt from inkstains).

Individually: yes, if you get a bunch of dudes who can rebound well and don't turn the ball over, chances are you have a swarm of good players. An efficient team. No genius needed. But sometimes you got to account for things that don't show up in a box score. Sometimes it's clear a player can flat out play. Question the numbers if they tell you otherwise.

numbers also informed him Ves was pretty much ass (this was also supported by my numbers, which I have chosen to conveniently ignore on the basis of what the hell else am I supposed to do a this point).

Which is where I always am at this point in the offseason. Shopping for rose tinted Foster Grants.

This is a great post.

Nominate for a hof'er, just because I think it's super well thought out. I cannot stand people who are obsessed with a singular stats and try and judge/evaluate someone off of it without seeing them play a lick. Just like you said doc...it's partly out of elitism (my way is better than yours) and laziness. Instead of taking time to watch video, you compile stats. Can't do one without the other.

[closg00]

Illuminaire -- One minor clarification. Even at 20 minutes per game, Blair's production would have been worth the 5th pick in the draft. Blair himself wasn't worth the 5th pick because of the knees. Any team that signs him still needs to be concerned about the knees. He was a great pick for the Spurs in the 2nd round. He would have been a great pick for the Wizards in the 2nd round.

That's by one questionable metric that emphasizes Blair's greatest skill, rebounding.

I love advanced stats myself, Kev. I think they provide a ton of insight into building an effective roster, and DCzards shouldn't be dismissing them so quickly. On the other hand, stats like Winscore provide very little in the way of context, and sometimes that context is extremely important. As you noted yourself, it seems like taking Blair 5th would have been a mistake no matter how productive he's been - longevity matters.

I too would have loved to grab Blair when he fell to the second round. He certainly hasn't been a disappointment. At the same time, I find myself wondering why he's only getting 19-20 minutes a night on a team that, to be frank, is otherwise pretty weak at PF. (Tim Duncan may not think he's a center, but... really...) Pops is one of the sharpest coaching minds in the world. It seems strange, even inconceivable, that he is simply choosing not to play such a seemingly productive player for 60% of most basketball games.

The answer could be that Pops is making a mistake. It could also be many other things, including health, conditioning, or on-court negatives that the stats don't currently take into account.

I guess all I'm saying is we should take all of that into account when making these kinds of evaluations. If you take only the stats, you lose the context that makes them meaningful. If you take only the context, you lose the data that grounds it in reality.

Because the Spurs are trying to incorporate Tiago Splitter into the rotation, the Spurs have waited 3-4 years for this.

[Illuminaire]

Because the Spurs are trying to incorporate Tiago Splitter into the rotation, the Spurs have waited 3-4 years for this.

That's certainly a possible argument, Closg.

It doesn't seem particularly compelling to me though. Tiago should be getting some of his minutes at C, so he shouldn't be taking much away from Blair at PF. He also only played 12 minutes a game total this season, not exactly a rotation crippling amount of time.

Add in the age factor (Splitter is 26 and a finished product) and the production factor (Blair was better than Splitter by pretty much every measurement) and I think you're still left with the question - why not more Blair?

[thinker07]

Fascinating discussion on stats.

To add another factor beyond stats and beyond the eye test -- it's also fortuity and fit. How has the arc of Jordan Crawford's career been changed because NY had to sit out? How has the arc of Yi been hurt by the fact that every time he was playing well and in a real rhythm, he got injured? For a player to be truly successful, his skill has to line up with an opportunity; with a beneficial scheme, with an appropriate style of play, with the confidence of a coaching staff and fellow players, with teammates who "work well" together. All the skill in the world won't overcome a lack of fit with some of these factors. And the reverse is true as well - a real good fit with these other factors can often overcome a bit of a lack of skill.

To me the real art of scouting players lies in watching a player on another team, with different teammates, different coaches, different schemes and styles of play, different roles, different opportunities and trying to project how that player will do on YOUR team with all of those variables changed.

I thought one of the most interesting points brought up on this board (sorry I forget by who) about Kawhi Leonard was around his rebounding. He's a great rebounder and the Wizards need rebounding BUT on the Wizards he'll have to play on the wing where his rebounding strength would be mostly negated. I think that is the kind of analysis that the professional scouts try to do. How do this player's skills translate to what WE are trying to do with the coaches and players WE have? The NBA isn't a fantasy league. Winning teams have guys that help you win despite average or below average stats, losing teams have guys who don't help you win with great stats.

The encouraging thing to me about the Vesely pick is that the Wiz have watched him for three years and they have a really good idea of what skills he has. And they've said "we think this is a perfect fit for what WE want to do." EG didn't say, "we were looking for a guy to come in and average 12 points, 6 rebounds, and 2 blocks per game." Instead he focused on skills and how those fit stylistically and personality and how that fits. The Wizards have focused on fit while others have focused on stats.

[Illuminaire]

I thought one of the most interesting points brought up on this board (sorry I forget by who) about Kawhi Leonard was around his rebounding. He's a great rebounder and the Wizards need rebounding BUT on the Wizards he'll have to play on the wing where his rebounding strength would be mostly negated.

Awesome post, Thinker.

Brief tangent: I was one of the people arguing for Leonard. I actually thought his rebounding skills would be even more helpful on the wing for us than from the box. Last year, it seemed like we were weakest at grabbing rebounds out-of-zone or off of long shots. Tip outs seemed to happen a lot too. Kawhi's rebounding ability seemed like a good fit for us - not despite being at the 3-spot, but because of it.

Ok, back to debating stats, scouting, and the ways we weight different kinds of data.

[Hoopalotta]

Personally, going by the eyeball test, I don't think Blair could play extended minutes and maintain his effectiveness. He's pretty much a specialist and he doesn't really make you want to scream "This guy could run all day!" like when you're watching Serge Ibaka. He's really best when playing next to a skilled center who can guard the rim too.

He's probably the top guy in the NBA for the "Could'a been a left tackle" tag and I don't know that we're going to see him add wrinkles to his game over the years. He's kind of a "what you see is what you get" guy in that I don't see what sorts of skills he can add with his body type which are going to work at an NBA level. In that sense, it was almost like drafting a veteran, high-efficiency 7th man, so I couldn't justify him with anything like a top 5 pick as I don't see his career arc building up off his rookie year like you'd think. Assuming that's true, I'd be highly dubious of any metric that suggested that this was a good idea in a strategic, team-building sense.

A guy like Demar Derozen might not shine by advanced metrics, but I've seen him sore over 30 points in a half, so, taking into account tools and character, that's more the type of guy I'd have wanted in the long run with a lottery pick as you're looking at legit eventual upside in that there's a whole host of things Demar can add.

[Nivek]

Illuminaire -- One minor clarification. Even at 20 minutes per game, Blair's production would have been worth the 5th pick in the draft. Blair himself wasn't worth the 5th pick because of the knees. Any team that signs him still needs to be concerned about the knees. He was a great pick for the Spurs in the 2nd round. He would have been a great pick for the Wizards in the 2nd round.

That's by one questionable metric that emphasizes Blair's greatest skill, rebounding.

I love advanced stats myself, Kev. I think they provide a ton of insight into building an effective roster, and DCzards shouldn't be dismissing them so quickly. On the other hand, stats like Winscore provide very little in the way of context, and sometimes that context is extremely important. As you noted yourself, it seems like taking Blair 5th would have been a mistake no matter how productive he's been - longevity matters.

Win Shares, which are based on Dean Oliver's work, not Win Score, which is David Berri's work. I read Berri, of course, but I don't use his stuff.

I'm actually working on a quick look at 5th picks in the lotto era -- looking at total production based on PER, not Win Shares. I'll be interested to see how Blair compares. Back in a few.

[Nivek]

Okay, took a look at how Blair compares to 5th picks in the lotto era (since 1985). I used PER, and I compared only the first two seasons since that's all Blair has completed.

The numbers:

Code: Select all

STAT    BLAIR   AVG
GMS     163     144
tMIN    3228    4217
MPG     19.8    29.2
PER     17.4    14.5
tPER    1404    1562



GMS = Games
tMIN = total minutes
MPG = minutes per game
PER = Hollinger's PER -- a per 40 minute stat; league average is 15.0
tPER = total PER "credits" -- not per minute or per 40 minutes

So, Blair is playing fewer minutes than the average 5th pick, but is more productive per minute. His TOTAL production is less than the 5th pick average, but note that total production is about 8% lower than the 5th pick average while his total minutes are about 23% lower.

For those interested in individual comparisons; Blair's total production would rank 16th among the 24 5th picks included (no Rubio because he hasn't played in the NBA yet; no Cousins because of only 1 seasons) -- right between Scottie Pippen and JR Reid.

His PER (Hollinger's per 40 minute stat) would rank 4th among 5th picks behind Vince Carter, Dwyane Wade and Kevin Love, and ahead of Mitch Richmond, Kevin Garnett and LaPhonso Ellis.

5th pick trivia through their first 2 seasons:

- Most Total Production: Vince Carter (followed by Wade, Richmond, Howard, and KG)
- Least: Jonathan Bender (preceded by Tskitishvili, Shelden Williams, Tony Battie and Devin Harris)
- Best PER: Vince, Wade, Love, Richmond, KG
- Worst PER: Tskita, Bender, JR Reid, Jeff Green, Jon Koncak

I think that's enough.

[Illuminaire]

Whoops. Thanks for catching my labeling error, Kev.

Interesting PER rankings. Maybe we should go ask the San Antonio board why they think Blair isn't playing more minutes. As you've established, per-minute he's an above average player doing exceptionally well for his age/years in the league. Whatever is holding him back appears to be the difference between a top lotto pick and a late 1st role player.