Otto Porter

[Wizardspride]

https://twitter.com/MrMichaelLee

Michael Lee ‏@MrMichaelLee


Otto Porter said he won't feel pressure as No. 3 pick. "I was picked for a reason, to come here & produce & that’s what I’m going to do."

[The Consiglieri]

I'm nervous about Otto Porter. I fear that he is a jack of all trades but a master of none. In the NBA, those kinds of players tend to fail, unless they're so good at everything that they can excel as a primary ball handler.

If he's really good at everything, then he becomes the next Scottie Pippen or at least a Paul George. But I consider it more likely that he is merely okay at everything and becomes the next Evan Turner.

This is how I've felt about him since he got more and more under consideration by the posters here during the winter. These kinds of players do fail. The last jack of all trades master of none was Jared Jeffries, and I screamed bloody murder when we drafted him a decade ago too. How'd that work out exactly?

However he does have a few assets that are borderline mastery, or even higher. Rebounding, as another poster pointed out to me, while not super elite like Faried, for his postion, was definitely very good to excellent overall. Additionally instincts/vision/BBIQ/length all would measure out extremely high on the evaluation meter. His fans boost the hell out of his defense, and he was an excellent defender for his position, but a ton of scouts have talked about his athletic issues hampering his ability to defend at the next level (not saying he'd be bad, just saying that what was very good to great w/Georgetown, could just be average to above average at the next level).

In terms of negatives, for me its the lack of athleticism, above the rim play, ability to finish, to drive through contact and the small sample size of 3 point shooting, that could be an aberration reminiscent for me of Singleton, who also improved his last season which boosted him from late first rounder/early 2nd rounder, to top 8-15 going into the draft. The good news with Porter is that he is young, very young, and that's always a good quality when you're projecting upside, and he only had the 2 college seasons, so he didn't have the track record of erratic shooting that Singleton and other one year wonders had. He's an unknown, we just don't know enough to know whether or not he's going to continue to be excellent from distances or not.

At the end of the day I think my board was:

1. Noel
2. Oladipo
3. Bennett
4. McLemore
5. Len
6. Porter

or something like that and I still feel that way.

Im really worried about the consequences of this in terms of asset allocation, seems to me that all of our players with upside are wing players, with the exception of Wall. We have no talented youth to speak of that are bigs w/the possible exception of Seraphin. That's a real lopsided team. I do like that the team is very, very smart, in some ways it reminds me of an opposite polarity Pacers, where the Pacers are super high BBIQ, but most of there talent is in the front court, we're super high BBIQ, w/the talent in the backcourt.

I think things are fixable, as next years draft is very deep and the bulk of the quality big men are projected to go 8-24 right now, which is right in our wheel house when it comes to our slotting in the draft. We'll also be flexible in terms of cap space for the '15 and '16 classes to make a run at a big, and by then we'll have shed all of the bad contracts, and figured out if any of the current "busts" aren't exactly busts.

We'll see how it goes. Noel would have been my pick, but as others have said, Otto wasn't a bad pick either considering what was available, just not the right pick in my view. The good news as others have said, is that whatever Porter can become as a basketball player, he will become, he's got that level of work habits, and mental make up, and considering the chemistry, and the atmosphere in the room, he now has a chance to develop unlike '07-'12.

[Nivek]

I'm nervous about Otto Porter. I fear that he is a jack of all trades but a master of none. In the NBA, those kinds of players tend to fail, unless they're so good at everything that they can excel as a primary ball handler.

If he's really good at everything, then he becomes the next Scottie Pippen or at least a Paul George. But I consider it more likely that he is merely okay at everything and becomes the next Evan Turner.

This is how I've felt about him since he got more and more under consideration by the posters here during the winter. These kinds of players do fail. The last jack of all trades master of none was Jared Jeffries, and I screamed bloody murder when we drafted him a decade ago too. How'd that work out exactly?

Jeffries was colossally overrated coming out of Indiana. His college numbers were surprisingly ordinary when I looked at him. In YODA, he had a "don't draft" rating. As in, not even in the 2nd round. Porter was a much better college player. He merited top 5 selection.

[barelyawake]

Funnily enough, my impressions of Porter have never been Prince. They have been Pippen or Jared Jeffries (I even see more Turkeyglue than Prince). I just don't see the in-game quickness that Prince banked on. But, Jared Jeffries with a jumpshot, and confidence, is still a very good player. I'm a little worried, but more excited. An elite glue guy is something that helps win championships. One only hopes management doesn't see him as a star, and still understands we need an elite big. If one goes in with that attitude, Porter will be a great pick.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Jeffries outplayed Boozer in a Final Four game, before the Terps beat Indiana. That NCAA tourney performance got Jeffries drafted. (It is also probably why Boozer dropped to round 2).

Porter has a chance to be really good. He fits the profile of a guy who's exceptionally skilled and has a very good work ethic and a drive to be the best. He will go as far as his physical limitations permit. What I like are his handle, his court vision, and his ability to both let a game come to him and to also score in midrange. Unlike Jared Jeffries, Otto Porter is going to be a viable offensive player. Wall and Beal are going to space the floor and Otto will have room to get his shot off.

Porter seems like an ideal facilitator/third scorer who will get after it on defense. The more I learn about his background the more I like Porter. This guy is driven and he's sharp. Comes from a strong family, too. Similar to Beal in that both his parents were strong athletes.

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1721421.html

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Funnily enough, my impressions of Porter have never been Prince. They have been Pippen or Jared Jeffries (I even see more Turkeyglue than Prince). I just don't see the in-game quickness that Prince banked on. But, Jared Jeffries with a jumpshot, and confidence, is still a very good player. I'm a little worried, but more excited. An elite glue guy is something that helps win championships. One only hopes management doesn't see him as a star, and still understands we need an elite big. If one goes in with that attitude, Porter will be a great pick.

Good comparison. He's also got even better handles than Jared IMO.

[Kanyewest]

I'm nervous about Otto Porter. I fear that he is a jack of all trades but a master of none. In the NBA, those kinds of players tend to fail, unless they're so good at everything that they can excel as a primary ball handler.

If he's really good at everything, then he becomes the next Scottie Pippen or at least a Paul George. But I consider it more likely that he is merely okay at everything and becomes the next Evan Turner.

This is how I've felt about him since he got more and more under consideration by the posters here during the winter. These kinds of players do fail. The last jack of all trades master of none was Jared Jeffries, and I screamed bloody murder when we drafted him a decade ago too. How'd that work out exactly?

If Jeffries was a jack of all trades he would have been a really good player but he didn't have a jumper at all. Brandon Roy also came out as someone who was not great at anything and wasn't much of an athlete either like Porter, I hope Porter follows that career path (aside from the injuries)

[Kanyewest]

Jeffries outplayed Boozer in a Final Four game, before the Terps beat Indiana. That NCAA tourney performance got Jeffries drafted. (It is also probably why Boozer dropped to round 2).

Porter has a chance to be really good. He fits the profile of a guy who's exceptionally skilled and has a very good work ethic and a drive to be the best. He will go as far as his physical limitations permit. What I like are his handle, his court vision, and his ability to both let a game come to him and to also score in midrange. Unlike Jared Jeffries, Otto Porter is going to be a viable offensive player. Wall and Beal are going to space the floor and Otto will have room to get his shot off.

Porter seems like an ideal facilitator/third scorer who will get after it on defense. The more I learn about his background the more I like Porter. This guy is driven and he's sharp. Comes from a strong family, too. Similar to Beal in that both his parents were strong athletes.

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1721421.html

From the box score, looks like Boozer had a really good game. Looks like Jason Williams should have given the ball to Boozer more. BTW, I believe Boozer's final miss was getting an offensive rebound off of a Jason Williams free throw miss with seconds to go; I remember at the time thinking he was fouled by Jeffries http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/box ... -duke.html

[Upper Decker]

Jeffries was colossally overrated coming out of Indiana. His college numbers were surprisingly ordinary when I looked at him. In YODA, he had a "don't draft" rating. As in, not even in the 2nd round. Porter was a much better college player. He merited top 5 selection.

Wait a second, Jeffries sophomore numbers are nearly identical with Porters:

PPG: 15.0 vs. 16.2
RPG: 7.6 vs. 7.5
APG: 2.1 vs. 2.7
BPG: 1.3 vs. 0.9
SPG: 1.5 vs. 1.8

FG% .457 vs. .480
3P% .380 vs. .422
FT% .667 vs. .777

How does one set of numbers say "undrafted" and another set says "top 5 selection"? I understand Jeffries shooting numbers are a bit less, but not substantially different to say there difference is top 5 vs. undraftable.

[Kanyewest]

Jeffries was colossally overrated coming out of Indiana. His college numbers were surprisingly ordinary when I looked at him. In YODA, he had a "don't draft" rating. As in, not even in the 2nd round. Porter was a much better college player. He merited top 5 selection.

Wait a second, Jeffries sophomore numbers are nearly identical with Porters:

PPG: 15.0 vs. 16.2
RPG: 7.6 vs. 7.5
APG: 2.1 vs. 2.7
BPG: 1.3 vs. 0.9
SPG: 1.5 vs. 1.8

FG% .457 vs. .480
3P% .380 vs. .422
FT% .667 vs. .777

How does one set of numbers say "undrafted" and another set says "top 5 selection"? I understand Jeffries shooting numbers are a bit less, but not substantially different to say there difference is top 5 vs. undraftable.

Look like Porter took more 3 point shots. But yeah, I didn't like Jeffries as a pick at the time but I thought he certainly warranted a middle to early 20s first round selection.

[Nivek]

Wait a second, Jeffries sophomore numbers are nearly identical with Porters:

PPG: 15.0 vs. 16.2
RPG: 7.6 vs. 7.5
APG: 2.1 vs. 2.7
BPG: 1.3 vs. 0.9
SPG: 1.5 vs. 1.8

FG% .457 vs. .480
3P% .380 vs. .422
FT% .667 vs. .777

How does one set of numbers say "undrafted" and another set says "top 5 selection"? I understand Jeffries shooting numbers are a bit less, but not substantially different to say there difference is top 5 vs. undraftable.

Good question. Superficially, their per game numbers look similar, but the differences are significant. And you've left out some important information.

Let's look at the numbers per 40 minutes (I'm guessing those are per game numbers that you posted). Per 40 actually makes Jeffries look a little better because he played fewer minutes.

Code: Select all

PER40   Porter  Jeffries
Min     35.4    32.6
efg     .541    .489
2p%     .504    .472
3p%     .422    .380
FT%     .777    .667
eOrtg   121     101
Usg     14.9    18.3
Reb     8.5     9.3
Ast     3.1     2.5
Stl     2.1     1.8
Blk     1.0     1.6
Tov     1.7     3.5
PF      2.2     3.0
Pts     18.3    18.3
YODA    8       -6


Look at the scoring. Both scored 18.3 points per 40 minutes, but Porter used 14.9 possessions per 40 while Jeffries used 18.3. Check out the eOrtg -- 121 for Porter (which is very good) to 101 for Jeffries (which is poor).

Jeffries had double the number of turnovers per minute and he fouled more.

Porter shot better from everywhere, including 2pt range. Jeffries shot 47% from 2pt range where PFs who get drafted and do well in the NBA typically shoot 10%+ better.

Jeffries held a slim edge in rebounding, but was below average for a PF.

I don't have my benchmark sheet handy, but as I recollect, Jeffries was subpar for a PF pretty much across the board. His steals were above average; blocks about average, if I remember right. Rebounding was below average. Assists were maybe a shade above average. His turnover were way higher than average, and his offensive efficiency was awful. It netted out to "don't draft."

[Jay81]

Wait a second, Jeffries sophomore numbers are nearly identical with Porters:

PPG: 15.0 vs. 16.2
RPG: 7.6 vs. 7.5
APG: 2.1 vs. 2.7
BPG: 1.3 vs. 0.9
SPG: 1.5 vs. 1.8

FG% .457 vs. .480
3P% .380 vs. .422
FT% .667 vs. .777

How does one set of numbers say "undrafted" and another set says "top 5 selection"? I understand Jeffries shooting numbers are a bit less, but not substantially different to say there difference is top 5 vs. undraftable.

Good question. Superficially, their per game numbers look similar, but the differences are significant. And you've left out some important information.

Let's look at the numbers per 40 minutes (I'm guessing those are per game numbers that you posted). Per 40 actually makes Jeffries look a little better because he played fewer minutes.

Code: Select all

PER40   Porter  Jeffries
Min     35.4    32.6
efg     .541    .489
2p%     .504    .472
3p%     .422    .380
FT%     .777    .667
eOrtg   121     101
Usg     14.9    18.3
Reb     8.5     9.3
Ast     3.1     2.5
Stl     2.1     1.8
Blk     1.0     1.6
Tov     1.7     3.5
PF      2.2     3.0
Pts     18.3    18.3
YODA    8       -6


Look at the scoring. Both scored 18.3 points per 40 minutes, but Porter used 14.9 possessions per 40 while Jeffries used 18.3. Check out the eOrtg -- 121 for Porter (which is very good) to 101 for Jeffries (which is poor).

Jeffries had double the number of turnovers per minute and he fouled more.

Porter shot better from everywhere, including 2pt range. Jeffries shot 47% from 2pt range where PFs who get drafted and do well in the NBA typically shoot 10%+ better.

Jeffries held a slim edge in rebounding, but was below average for a PF.

I don't have my benchmark sheet handy, but as I recollect, Jeffries was subpar for a PF pretty much across the board. His steals were above average; blocks about average, if I remember right. Rebounding was below average. Assists were maybe a shade above average. His turnover were way higher than average, and his offensive efficiency was awful. It netted out to "don't draft."

LOL. That is awesome. can i download Yoda from the App store or something?

[closg00]

You guys are depressing me the with the Ared Effries comparisons Porter is scrawny, but he will fill-out nicely in a couple of years. I am worried about his low% pull-up numbers, but he'll have a couple of years to adjust.

Porter/Beal/Wall will be good together in a couple of years. Heck, Price could be a surprise and might be a better fit with Beal/Wall, I hope they do some experimenting.

[fishercob]

I'm nervous about Otto Porter. I fear that he is a jack of all trades but a master of none. In the NBA, those kinds of players tend to fail, unless they're so good at everything that they can excel as a primary ball handler.

If he's really good at everything, then he becomes the next Scottie Pippen or at least a Paul George. But I consider it more likely that he is merely okay at everything and becomes the next Evan Turner.

Let me calm your jangled nerves with something a very wise man once wrote

Will anybody notice if I sneak back into this thread and delete any post where I made a negative prediction about Beal's ultimate upside?

This guy is really, really good. You gotta love how he plays the game. He just always makes good decisions. I loved that play near the end of the Knicks game when he missed a long 3, started to backpedal, but then recognized that the Knicks were slow in picking up the long rebound, he abruptly bolted for the ball, got it and drove the lane to draw the foul. Great recognition.

Porter and Beal look better playing in games than they do on highlight reels or charts of measurables. They're both very good basketball players, even if not elite athletes by NBA standards (though both are better than advertised). You will feel really good about Porter once he has gotten adjusted to the NBA game. He's going to be a good one.

[DCZards]

Porter seems like an ideal facilitator/third scorer who will get after it on defense. The more I learn about his background the more I like Porter. This guy is driven and he's sharp. Comes from a strong family, too.l

I have the same vibe about Porter. Love his family background, his smarts on both ends of the court, and his work ethic. I followed Porter's career closely at G'Town and I'm absolutely convinced that he'll exceed people's expectations of him.

[barelyawake]

The Jared Jeffries comparisons are actually a good thing IMO. Jared was good defensively and a decent facilitator. And he always went to the ground for the loose ball. And he always played with heart. The turnovers, poor decision-making and the lack of a jump shot killed his usefulness. Porter will accumulate less fouls than Jeffries because of his draft position (the higher you go, the more leeway you get from refs IMO). A Jared Jeffries with a jump shot (and good decision-making) is a quicker Turkeyglue with much better defense. That's a great thing -- if you don't bank on him being a star.

[pancakes3]

I'm actually the opposite of everyone else in thinking he'll be fine defensively and won't hit the ground running offensively.

I think offensively, Porter will be quick to adapt - as fast if not faster than Beal. Defensively though it's more of a coin toss. He could do well or he could find it hard to contain without getting handsy like Singleton and after a barrage of fouls, lose his defensive edge.

[Ruzious]

I'm nervous about Otto Porter. I fear that he is a jack of all trades but a master of none. In the NBA, those kinds of players tend to fail, unless they're so good at everything that they can excel as a primary ball handler.

If he's really good at everything, then he becomes the next Scottie Pippen or at least a Paul George. But I consider it more likely that he is merely okay at everything and becomes the next Evan Turner.

Let me calm your jangled nerves with something a very wise man once wrote

Will anybody notice if I sneak back into this thread and delete any post where I made a negative prediction about Beal's ultimate upside?

This guy is really, really good. You gotta love how he plays the game. He just always makes good decisions. I loved that play near the end of the Knicks game when he missed a long 3, started to backpedal, but then recognized that the Knicks were slow in picking up the long rebound, he abruptly bolted for the ball, got it and drove the lane to draw the foul. Great recognition.

Porter and Beal look better playing in games than they do on highlight reels or charts of measurables. They're both very good basketball players, even if not elite athletes by NBA standards (though both are better than advertised). You will feel really good about Porter once he has gotten adjusted to the NBA game. He's going to be a good one.

Agreed. Porter is the small forward elongated version of Beal, imo. They both seem to have a knack for doing the right things on the court. I spect it'll be a pleasure to watch them play fundamental synergistic basketbuckets.

[mohammed10]

Been a way for a while....interesting that when I come back, the Glen RIce Jr thread is longer than the Otto Porter thread...

[nate33]

Been a way for a while....interesting that when I come back, the Glen RIce Jr thread is longer than the Otto Porter thread...

That's mainly because we talked Otto Porter to death. Everything that can be said about him has already been said in the Draft Thread.