Otto Porter Part 2

[payitforward]

Jesus, seriously? Otto is good and is about to be great. I don't see that much of a potential in KOubre as a lot of your guys (IMO he is too raw. Pure athleticism without BBIQ and with limited skill set).
Otto in a system like GSW or SAS would be massive. I won't be surprised if he sign with Spurs and become an all star.

Thing is - even gaining a few lbs - he's not strong even at the 3 - and he can't really hold his own over the long haul with guys like Leonard and George (I'm not even going to mention Lebron.). He's more like Green of San Ant - but Green's a better defender and ball-handler. And he's not a guy who's shown he can create for himself or for others. He's a good player I'm happy to have, but there are obvious limitations, imo. Before PIF jumps on me, pointing out Otto's limitations doesn't mean I think he's not a good player.

As the great poet Charles Olson once wrote: "Limits are what we are all inside of."

Otto Porter will never be the great player Kawhi Leonard is. For that matter, Paul George will never be the great player Kawhi Leonard is. Leonard has a chance to win multiple MVPs. No point in comparing anyone to him right now.

Paul George, however, is significantly over-rated. As usual, that's because he scores a lot of points. But, as TSW never tired of pointing out, when a player is on the floor you get everything he does. PG is a relatively inefficient shooter and turns the ball over a lot.

PG & OP came in the league after 2 years of college; they were the same age. So, lets compare their 3d season numbers. PG produced @ 3 more points per 40 minutes -- but at a significantly lower TS% (i.e. he needed @4.4 more possessions to get those 3 extra points).

[Ruzious]

Jesus, seriously? Otto is good and is about to be great. I don't see that much of a potential in KOubre as a lot of your guys (IMO he is too raw. Pure athleticism without BBIQ and with limited skill set).
Otto in a system like GSW or SAS would be massive. I won't be surprised if he sign with Spurs and become an all star.

Thing is - even gaining a few lbs - he's not strong even at the 3 - and he can't really hold his own over the long haul with guys like Leonard and George (I'm not even going to mention Lebron.). He's more like Green of San Ant - but Green's a better defender and ball-handler. And he's not a guy who's shown he can create for himself or for others. He's a good player I'm happy to have, but there are obvious limitations, imo. Before PIF jumps on me, pointing out Otto's limitations doesn't mean I think he's not a good player.

As the great poet Charles Olson once wrote: "Limits are what we are all inside of."

Otto Porter will never be the great player Kawhi Leonard is. For that matter, Paul George will never be the great player Kawhi Leonard is. Leonard has a chance to win multiple MVPs. No point in comparing anyone to him right now.

Paul George, however, is significantly over-rated. As usual, that's because he scores a lot of points. But, as TSW never tired of pointing out, when a player is on the floor you get everything he does. PG is a relatively inefficient shooter and turns the ball over a lot.

PG & OP came in the league after 2 years of college; they were the same age. So, lets compare their 3d season numbers. PG produced @ 3 more points per 40 minutes -- but at a significantly lower TS% (i.e. he needed @4.4 more possessions to get those 3 extra points).

PIF, I can't even respond to how absurd I think you are in comparing OP to George. Did you not watch Indiana in the playoffs at all? Did you not watch the Olympics at all? Imo, your view here is so absurd that it taints your other takes on the NBA.

[gtn130]

Jesus, seriously? Otto is good and is about to be great. I don't see that much of a potential in KOubre as a lot of your guys (IMO he is too raw. Pure athleticism without BBIQ and with limited skill set).
Otto in a system like GSW or SAS would be massive. I won't be surprised if he sign with Spurs and become an all star.

Thing is - even gaining a few lbs - he's not strong even at the 3 - and he can't really hold his own over the long haul with guys like Leonard and George (I'm not even going to mention Lebron.). He's more like Green of San Ant - but Green's a better defender and ball-handler. And he's not a guy who's shown he can create for himself or for others. He's a good player I'm happy to have, but there are obvious limitations, imo. Before PIF jumps on me, pointing out Otto's limitations doesn't mean I think he's not a good player.

As the great poet Charles Olson once wrote: "Limits are what we are all inside of."

Otto Porter will never be the great player Kawhi Leonard is. For that matter, Paul George will never be the great player Kawhi Leonard is. Leonard has a chance to win multiple MVPs. No point in comparing anyone to him right now.

Paul George, however, is significantly over-rated. As usual, that's because he scores a lot of points. But, as TSW never tired of pointing out, when a player is on the floor you get everything he does. PG is a relatively inefficient shooter and turns the ball over a lot.

PG & OP came in the league after 2 years of college; they were the same age. So, lets compare their 3d season numbers. PG produced @ 3 more points per 40 minutes -- but at a significantly lower TS% (i.e. he needed @4.4 more possessions to get those 3 extra points).

Nobody rates Paul George highly because "he scores a lot of points" lol. He's an elite defender and has improved on offense. He's asked to be the lead scorer for Indiana, which isn't his best role, and relative to the rest of the league he's somewhat inefficient at that.

But ask Otto Porter to be the #1 scorer/playmaker on the Wizards and then let's compare the two. Pair PG with Wall and there is zero doubt he'll be a lot more efficient.

[payitforward]

Thing is - even gaining a few lbs - he's not strong even at the 3 - and he can't really hold his own over the long haul with guys like Leonard and George (I'm not even going to mention Lebron.). He's more like Green of San Ant - but Green's a better defender and ball-handler. And he's not a guy who's shown he can create for himself or for others. He's a good player I'm happy to have, but there are obvious limitations, imo. Before PIF jumps on me, pointing out Otto's limitations doesn't mean I think he's not a good player.

As the great poet Charles Olson once wrote: "Limits are what we are all inside of."

Otto Porter will never be the great player Kawhi Leonard is. For that matter, Paul George will never be the great player Kawhi Leonard is. Leonard has a chance to win multiple MVPs. No point in comparing anyone to him right now.

Paul George, however, is significantly over-rated. As usual, that's because he scores a lot of points. But, as TSW never tired of pointing out, when a player is on the floor you get everything he does. PG is a relatively inefficient shooter and turns the ball over a lot.

PG & OP came in the league after 2 years of college; they were the same age. So, lets compare their 3d season numbers. PG produced @ 3 more points per 40 minutes -- but at a significantly lower TS% (i.e. he needed @4.4 more possessions to get those 3 extra points).

PIF, I can't even respond to how absurd I think you are in comparing OP to George. Did you not watch Indiana in the playoffs at all? Did you not watch the Olympics at all? Imo, your view here is so absurd that it taints your other takes on the NBA.

I didn't bring up the comparison, Ruz -- you did: Otto "can't really hold his own... with guys like Leonard and George."

They are different types of players. PG is a volume scorer. But that's not the only way to contribute to wins.

Let me approach this a different way: last year PG got to the line 9 times every 48 minutes and shot 86%. Otto only got to the line 2.7 times per 48 minutes, and he shot 75.4%. I'd say that Paul George is significantly better than Otto Porter at both those skills -- getting to the line and shooting FTs -- wouldn't you? Or do I have to watch the Olympics to draw that conclusion? Nah... I didn't think so.

Last year, Paul George shot 15.1 two-pointers per 48 minutes and made 6.75 of them. Otto Porter shot 9.5 of them per 48, and he made 5.1. IOW, to make 1.65 more two-pointers, Paul George required 5.6 more attempts. I'd say that Otto Porter is significantly better than Paul George at two-point shooting. Wouldn't you?

Now... here I expect you to reply "No, that's not what the numbers mean." But, keep in mind that at least when I say "better at X" I mean that his doing it helps his team more. Not that he looks smoother. Or substitute any honorific adjective you like. Keep in mind as well that Paul George's 2-point shooting is below average for an NBA 3; that would indicate that he hurts rather than helps his team shooting twos. Otto's 2-point shooting is way above average for an NBA 3.

Perhaps you don't like the blanket term "2-point shooting." But, there has to be something Otto is better at than Paul to produce those better numbers. Otherwise, we're happily counting PG's better FT numbers as evidence of how good he is, but we're not counting OP's better numbers at anything as evidence of anything.

In fairness, last year was very much an off-year statistically for Paul George. If we compare the players' 3d year in the league, all the numbers converge significantly. PG scores only @4 more points per 48 than OP. His efficiency still isn't good (slightly below average for a wing), but other things are better than his off year last year. The two players are quite close.

Or, you might think that there is no reason to look at numbers at all. The eye test tells you everything you need to know. In that case, you are right. Paul George is incredibly fluid, fun to watch. I remember watching video of him the Spring before he was drafted. Unbelievable. Otto looks like he's all elbows and knees! I'd much rather watch Paul George. And, after all, basketball is only partly competition -- it's also entertainment.

[gtn130]

As the great poet Charles Olson once wrote: "Limits are what we are all inside of."

Otto Porter will never be the great player Kawhi Leonard is. For that matter, Paul George will never be the great player Kawhi Leonard is. Leonard has a chance to win multiple MVPs. No point in comparing anyone to him right now.

Paul George, however, is significantly over-rated. As usual, that's because he scores a lot of points. But, as TSW never tired of pointing out, when a player is on the floor you get everything he does. PG is a relatively inefficient shooter and turns the ball over a lot.

PG & OP came in the league after 2 years of college; they were the same age. So, lets compare their 3d season numbers. PG produced @ 3 more points per 40 minutes -- but at a significantly lower TS% (i.e. he needed @4.4 more possessions to get those 3 extra points).

PIF, I can't even respond to how absurd I think you are in comparing OP to George. Did you not watch Indiana in the playoffs at all? Did you not watch the Olympics at all? Imo, your view here is so absurd that it taints your other takes on the NBA.

I didn't bring up the comparison, Ruz -- you did: Otto "can't really hold his own... with guys like Leonard and George."

They are different types of players. PG is a volume scorer. But that's not the only way to contribute to wins.

Let me approach this a different way: last year PG got to the line 9 times every 48 minutes and shot 86%. Otto only got to the line 2.7 times per 48 minutes, and he shot 75.4%. I'd say that Paul George is significantly better than Otto Porter at both those skills -- getting to the line and shooting FTs -- wouldn't you? Or do I have to watch the Olympics to draw that conclusion? Nah... I didn't think so.

Last year, Paul George shot 15.1 two-pointers per 48 minutes and made 6.75 of them. Otto Porter shot 9.5 of them per 48, and he made 5.1. IOW, to make 1.65 more two-pointers, Paul George required 5.6 more attempts. I'd say that Otto Porter is significantly better than Paul George at two-point shooting. Wouldn't you?

Now... here I expect you to reply "No, that's not what the numbers mean." But, keep in mind that at least when I say "better at X" I mean that his doing it helps his team more. Not that he looks smoother. Or substitute any honorific adjective you like. Keep in mind as well that Paul George's 2-point shooting is below average for an NBA 3; that would indicate that he hurts rather than helps his team shooting twos. Otto's 2-point shooting is way above average for an NBA 3.

Perhaps you don't like the blanket term "2-point shooting." But, there has to be something Otto is better at than Paul to produce those better numbers. Otherwise, we're happily counting PG's better FT numbers as evidence of how good he is, but we're not counting OP's better numbers at anything as evidence of anything.

In fairness, last year was very much an off-year statistically for Paul George. If we compare the players' 3d year in the league, all the numbers converge significantly. PG scores only @4 more points per 48 than OP. His efficiency still isn't good (slightly below average for a wing), but other things are better than his off year last year. The two players are quite close.

Or, you might think that there is no reason to look at numbers at all. The eye test tells you everything you need to know. In that case, you are right. Paul George is incredibly fluid, fun to watch. I remember watching video of him the Spring before he was drafted. Unbelievable. Otto looks like he's all elbows and knees! I'd much rather watch Paul George. And, after all, basketball is only partly competition -- it's also entertainment.

How many were off the dribble? How many were coming off screens? How many were wide open?

What you're presenting isn't adequate analysis and doesn't account for their role in the offense and their teammates.

[Ruzious]

As the great poet Charles Olson once wrote: "Limits are what we are all inside of."

Otto Porter will never be the great player Kawhi Leonard is. For that matter, Paul George will never be the great player Kawhi Leonard is. Leonard has a chance to win multiple MVPs. No point in comparing anyone to him right now.

Paul George, however, is significantly over-rated. As usual, that's because he scores a lot of points. But, as TSW never tired of pointing out, when a player is on the floor you get everything he does. PG is a relatively inefficient shooter and turns the ball over a lot.

PG & OP came in the league after 2 years of college; they were the same age. So, lets compare their 3d season numbers. PG produced @ 3 more points per 40 minutes -- but at a significantly lower TS% (i.e. he needed @4.4 more possessions to get those 3 extra points).

PIF, I can't even respond to how absurd I think you are in comparing OP to George. Did you not watch Indiana in the playoffs at all? Did you not watch the Olympics at all? Imo, your view here is so absurd that it taints your other takes on the NBA.

I didn't bring up the comparison, Ruz -- you did: Otto "can't really hold his own... with guys like Leonard and George."

They are different types of players. PG is a volume scorer. But that's not the only way to contribute to wins.

Let me approach this a different way: last year PG got to the line 9 times every 48 minutes and shot 86%. Otto only got to the line 2.7 times per 48 minutes, and he shot 75.4%. I'd say that Paul George is significantly better than Otto Porter at both those skills -- getting to the line and shooting FTs -- wouldn't you? Or do I have to watch the Olympics to draw that conclusion? Nah... I didn't think so.

Last year, Paul George shot 15.1 two-pointers per 48 minutes and made 6.75 of them. Otto Porter shot 9.5 of them per 48, and he made 5.1. IOW, to make 1.65 more two-pointers, Paul George required 5.6 more attempts. I'd say that Otto Porter is significantly better than Paul George at two-point shooting. Wouldn't you?

Now... here I expect you to reply "No, that's not what the numbers mean." But, keep in mind that at least when I say "better at X" I mean that his doing it helps his team more. Not that he looks smoother. Or substitute any honorific adjective you like. Keep in mind as well that Paul George's 2-point shooting is below average for an NBA 3; that would indicate that he hurts rather than helps his team shooting twos. Otto's 2-point shooting is way above average for an NBA 3.

Perhaps you don't like the blanket term "2-point shooting." But, there has to be something Otto is better at than Paul to produce those better numbers. Otherwise, we're happily counting PG's better FT numbers as evidence of how good he is, but we're not counting OP's better numbers at anything as evidence of anything.

In fairness, last year was very much an off-year statistically for Paul George. If we compare the players' 3d year in the league, all the numbers converge significantly. PG scores only @4 more points per 48 than OP. His efficiency still isn't good (slightly below average for a wing), but other things are better than his off year last year. The two players are quite close.

Or, you might think that there is no reason to look at numbers at all. The eye test tells you everything you need to know. In that case, you are right. Paul George is incredibly fluid, fun to watch. I remember watching video of him the Spring before he was drafted. Unbelievable. Otto looks like he's all elbows and knees! I'd much rather watch Paul George. And, after all, basketball is only partly competition -- it's also entertainment.

Pif, I do appreciate you, but some things don't need analysis. You might as well make a statistical case that the earth is flat. According to WikiLeaks, there's an e-mail from Warren Buffet showing Geico's insurance records for the year 1647 indicate that they paid for claims of 1,077 automobiles that fell off the face of the earth. Therefore...

[popper]

wait, there's a plan?

what is the plan supposed to accomplish?

False hope and mediocrity.

[payitforward]

Pif, I do appreciate you, but some things don't need analysis....

I appreciate you too, Ruz. To me, when analysis shows that things are different from what a surface examination shows, I don't think the correct way to respond is to suggest that analysis wasn't required in the first place.

PG and OP are very different kinds of players. The league is full of different kinds of players.

Games, however, are decided by numbers and nothing else. For fun, or to do me a favor, look at per 40 minute numbers for both these players' 3d seasons. Let me know what those numbers tell you.

[payitforward]

How many were off the dribble? How many were coming off screens? How many were wide open?

What you're presenting isn't adequate analysis and doesn't account for their role in the offense and their teammates.

Remind me, which counts more - a 2-pointer off the dribble or a catch and shoot 2-pointer?

[dckingsfan]

How many were off the dribble? How many were coming off screens? How many were wide open?

What you're presenting isn't adequate analysis and doesn't account for their role in the offense and their teammates.

Remind me, which counts more - a 2-pointer off the dribble or a catch and shoot 2-pointer?

Catch and shoot - it means your teammates care - and that is worth something, no?

[gtn130]

How many were off the dribble? How many were coming off screens? How many were wide open?

What you're presenting isn't adequate analysis and doesn't account for their role in the offense and their teammates.

Remind me, which counts more - a 2-pointer off the dribble or a catch and shoot 2-pointer?

you don't see how those things can affect efficiency?

[gtn130]

Pif, I do appreciate you, but some things don't need analysis....

I appreciate you too, Ruz. To me, when analysis shows that things are different from what a surface examination shows, I don't think the correct way to respond is to suggest that analysis wasn't required in the first place.

PG and OP are very different kinds of players. The league is full of different kinds of players.

Games, however, are decided by numbers and nothing else. For fun, or to do me a favor, look at per 40 minute numbers for both these players' 3d seasons. Let me know what those numbers tell you.

That would be a very poor way of evaluating them.

[Ruzious]

Pif, I do appreciate you, but some things don't need analysis....

I appreciate you too, Ruz. To me, when analysis shows that things are different from what a surface examination shows, I don't think the correct way to respond is to suggest that analysis wasn't required in the first place.

PG and OP are very different kinds of players. The league is full of different kinds of players.

Games, however, are decided by numbers and nothing else. For fun, or to do me a favor, look at per 40 minute numbers for both these players' 3d seasons. Let me know what those numbers tell you.

Looking at the numbers, I see a player who has been and is far and away the most depended on player on his team vs a player who has been and usually is the 4th or 5th option on his team. Both do well in those roles.

Why do you think they were/are given those roles?

Why do you think one of them started on the US Olympic Team and one wasn't considered for it? Do people like Coach K and Popovich know what they're doing?

[80sballboy]

Read on Twitter

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

I'm fine with this

But we need a new GM

[payitforward]

How many were off the dribble? How many were coming off screens? How many were wide open?

What you're presenting isn't adequate analysis and doesn't account for their role in the offense and their teammates.

Remind me, which counts more - a 2-pointer off the dribble or a catch and shoot 2-pointer?

you don't see how those things can affect efficiency?

A. define efficiency as you see it -- so we know we're talking about the same thing.
B. does efficiency win ballgames, or does it not?
C. If a team is less efficient than its opponent in a given game, can it still win the game? If so, how?

[gtn130]

Remind me, which counts more - a 2-pointer off the dribble or a catch and shoot 2-pointer?

you don't see how those things can affect efficiency?

A. define efficiency as you see it -- so we know we're talking about the same thing.
B. does efficiency win ballgames, or does it not?
C. If a team is less efficient than its opponent in a given game, can it still win the game? If so, how?

We're talking about Otto Porter and Paul George. You seem to think Otto is a better offensive player because he's superficially more efficient. My argument is that he's only more efficient because he's asked to do a lot less, and he benefits from playing next to Wall.

Just look at their USG%:

Over the last four years PG's USG has been between 27-30.4%. Otto peaked last year with a USG of 17%. It's not even remotely close how much more PG is used on offense than Otto - nearly 2x as much.

If you don't think this matters, you should check out this study: http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/06/diminishing-returns-for-scoring-usage-vs-efficiency/

Key takeaway:

The big finding from these regressions was that there was a positive, non-zero coefficient on csum%TmPoss in relation to diffORtg. This means that lineups made up of lower-usage players (negative csum%TmPoss) fail to score at the rate projected from the players’ season ORtg’s (negative diffORtg), suggesting they can’t maintain their efficiency levels as they are forced to increase their usage. One can infer that generally, when players in a lineup are forced to increase their usage, their efficiency decreases, and when players are forced to decrease their usage, their efficiency increases. This is evidence of a usage vs. efficiency tradeoff, or diminishing returns for scoring.

So, again, if you want to compare Porter and PG in terms of offensive efficiency, you should consider how nearly doubling Otto's usage would impact his efficiency.

[montestewart]

you don't see how those things can affect efficiency?

A. define efficiency as you see it -- so we know we're talking about the same thing.
B. does efficiency win ballgames, or does it not?
C. If a team is less efficient than its opponent in a given game, can it still win the game? If so, how?

We're talking about Otto Porter and Paul George. You seem to think Otto is a better offensive player because he's superficially more efficient. My argument is that he's only more efficient because he's asked to do a lot less, and he benefits from playing next to Wall.

Just look at their USG%:

Over the last four years PG's USG has been between 27-30.4%. Otto peaked last year with a USG of 17%. It's not even remotely close how much more PG is used on offense than Otto - nearly 2x as much.

If you don't think this matters, you should check out this study: http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/06/diminishing-returns-for-scoring-usage-vs-efficiency/

Key takeaway:

The big finding from these regressions was that there was a positive, non-zero coefficient on csum%TmPoss in relation to diffORtg. This means that lineups made up of lower-usage players (negative csum%TmPoss) fail to score at the rate projected from the players’ season ORtg’s (negative diffORtg), suggesting they can’t maintain their efficiency levels as they are forced to increase their usage. One can infer that generally, when players in a lineup are forced to increase their usage, their efficiency decreases, and when players are forced to decrease their usage, their efficiency increases. This is evidence of a usage vs. efficiency tradeoff, or diminishing returns for scoring.

So, again, if you want to compare Porter and PG in terms of offensive efficiency, you should consider how nearly doubling Otto's usage would impact his efficiency.

Rather than "superficially more efficient," I think of it as more efficient in a less demanding role. Some of the GOATs (LeBJ, MJ) surely could have upped their efficiency were they not the #1 option and the obvious last resort on certain plays, consistently counted upon to make something happen against defenses designed specifically to defeat them. Being one of several secondary options for a good passer, rather than the primary offensive option, might do wonders for a FG percentage.

If usage is irrelevant to efficiency, the best team building model would be to gather low usage, high efficiency players onto one team (they'd probably be cheaper, so the team could be pretty deep) and unleash a high efficiency game plan unto the league. Haven't really seen that done much, though Houston a few years back came close when TMac and Yao were injured and they ran off a crazy streak led by the likes of Shane Battier, etc. and the Pistons of 10 years or so back were maybe a little similar.

I guess I could see the ultra-efficient team building model working sometimes, but I sure don't see it as a black and white prescription. Maybe Paul George and Otto Porter would have similar efficiencies in different roles, but I don't really see the certainty of that. More data needed, perhaps with some example of other players whose roles changed while maintaining or not maintaining their efficiencies.

[payitforward]

...You seem to think Otto is a better offensive player (than Paul George) because he's superficially more efficient. My argument is that he's only more efficient because he's asked to do a lot less, and he benefits from playing next to Wall. ...

The big finding from these regressions was that there was a positive, non-zero coefficient on csum%TmPoss in relation to diffORtg. This means that lineups made up of lower-usage players (negative csum%TmPoss) fail to score at the rate projected from the players’ season ORtg’s (negative diffORtg), suggesting they can’t maintain their efficiency levels as they are forced to increase their usage. One can infer that generally, when players in a lineup are forced to increase their usage, their efficiency decreases, and when players are forced to decrease their usage, their efficiency increases. This is evidence of a usage vs. efficiency tradeoff, or diminishing returns for scoring.

Actually, the statistical data presents a statistical conclusion across all players. Hence, based on it, you might legitimately suggest that this could be the reason for Otto's greater offensive efficiency. Nothing stronger. And the, one would have to investigate further. Or, as you say:

...to compare Porter and PG in terms of offensive efficiency, you should consider how nearly doubling Otto's usage would impact his efficiency.

"consider" -- that's fair. But you can't simply "conclude" something -- as you do in the sentence I bolded above.

More importantly: I'm not trying to show that OP is a better offensive player than Paul George. He's not.

& I'm not trying to claim he's a better player overall than PG. They are at very different points in their careers; they are very different kinds of players; there would be no point in trying to do that. & I'm not trying to critique Paul George.

What I am trying to do is to show that Otto Porter is one of the very best young players in the league, certainly the very best young 3 -- assuming we leave out Kawhi (who's now reached the ripe old age of 25).

In other words, I'm trying to correct the way he's viewed by a lot of posters here. & I'm using Paul George to make that point.

That's why I suggested comparing PG's 3d season ('12-13) with Otto's 3d season ('15-16). It's a fairer comparison in other ways too -- they were the same age, etc. The usage delta is much smaller in the two players' 3d seasons.

In fact, if you want to see two sets of numbers that are uncannily close, compare PG's second season with Otto's third season. Obviously that's a little unfair to PG, but given that Otto barely played as a rookie because of injuries, it's not as unfair as it otherwise it might be.

[nate33]

One thing I've noticed about Porter is that when he is forced to shoot a contested shot late in the shot clock, it's usually a fadeaway jumper from 18 feet of so, he makes them quite a bit. He actually seems like a really good midrange shooter, even when contested. He has a real high release point so it's hard to block

I looked at the 2015-16 numbers on NBA.com to investigate. Last season, on midrange 2P shots outside of 10 feet when fairly open (defender 4-6 feet away), Porter shot 51.7%. That's extremely high. For reference, Beal shot 43.3% under those same conditions. Batum shot 46.4%. Paul George shot 41.1% Those are the types of shots you get if a good screen is set for you.

On what NBA.com characterizes as "tight coverage" (defender 2-4 feet away) Porter doesn't fare quite as well, but he's not that bad. He shot 36.1%. For comparison, Beal shot 37.1, Batum shot 33.8, and George shot 36.8%.

I'd like to see some more offensive plays run for Porter. I think we could run the curl around the baseline and set him up for a clean look from 18 feet pretty often. Otto is also very smart about making backdoor cuts when the defender is overplaying, which could result in some very high percentage looks as well. It's certainly something to try during games when the opponent is using their best wing defender on Beal.