Otto Porter Part 2

[nate33]

When Ernie nutted the Max deal for Beal (cra cra), do you think he factored-in Porter being on a trajectory for deserving his own pay day? I admit that Porter is improving yearly, 15 more lbs on muscle and the guy could play his was to where he was picked in the draft.

Porter looks like the 3rd best player in his draft. It was a weak draft so perhaps he hasn't yet lived up to the expectations of a generic #3 pick, but he's pretty close. If his year-over-year improvement this year is as good as it was last year (and so far that seems to be the case), then I think we can confidently state that he has met the expectations of a #3 pick. Even if he dips a bit in production relative to his first 7 games, he's still good for 17/8/2 on extremely high efficiency with solid D. That's a fringe All-Star candidate.

[Ruzious]

When Ernie nutted the Max deal for Beal (cra cra), do you think he factored-in Porter being on a trajectory for deserving his own pay day? I admit that Porter is improving yearly, 15 more lbs on muscle and the guy could play his was to where he was picked in the draft.

If that draft was held again Porter might get picked at 3 again. Off the top of my head Gobert and Giannis might be 1 and 2.

C'mon, Trey Burke would be up there, no?

Stephen Adams would be a wildcard, then Noel and Dipo, then Schroeder. I really wanted Noel but thought Porter was a reasonable pick. It's possible we end up with both.

[payitforward]

Last year Porter's rebounding was pretty weak. Looks like he got the memo. His offensive rebounding isn't sustainable though. The scouting report will catch up to him. Right now he is catching teams by surprise.

"pretty weak" -- ?

In rebounding last year, Otto was #11 of 32 guys who played 30+ minutes a game at SF. He was #7 in offensive rebounding.

This year so far he's #3, & #1 in offensive rebounding -- 33% ahead of the next guy! It's a tiny sample of course -- you are certainly right to question whether that level of performance can be sustained. I.e. he's also shooting almost .92 on FTs! & .72 on 2-pointers!

Holy arbitrary cutoff Batman! Why not make it "players who played 29-31 minutes, are under 25 years old and weight less than 220 pounds"? Then Porter could be number 1.

Porter's rebounding rate ranked 25th among 3s last season.

http://insider.espn.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/position/sf/sort/reboundRate/year/2016

For a guy will his length/hustle/iq that was not good. Maybe "weak" was overstating it but it was certainly weaker than it should be, as it was the previous season as well.

Tontoz, do me a favor, please, and cool the rhetorical jets, ok?

I used 1000 minutes for the obvious reason: avoid small sample size. I used 30 minutes because it struck me that playing a lot of minutes/game might isolate the best players. Take it to 25 minutes instead, and he's #19 of 51 -- down from top 34% to top 37% of the list. Prefer 20 minutes/game? He was #23 of 68. Back up to top 34%.

How about all players at SF, any number of minutes, no restrictions of any kind: I get 127 players w/ that query (which seems weirdly high, but... whatever). Otto is at #43.

Actually, your number "25th among 3s last season" would do the trick, wouldn't it? Even if we just use the rough number of 90 for total SFs (i.e. 1/5 of 450 players -- though more than that number actually played in the league of course).

Hence "pretty weak" did seem to warrant a correction -- as you yourself just pointed out! As to "weaker than it should be," if you mean weaker than we all want it to be -- of course! If you mean that you know what the rebounding rate ought to be for "a guy with his length/hustle/iq" -- not so much.

In short, sorry if you'd have preferred someone else to correct your assessment. But that's all I was doing. Don't pick a fight with me.

[tontoz]

Tontoz, do me a favor, please, and cool the rhetorical jets, ok?

I used 1000 minutes for the obvious reason: avoid small sample size. I used 30 minutes because it struck me that playing a lot of minutes/game might isolate the best players. Take it to 25 minutes instead, and he's #19 of 51 -- down from top 34% to top 37% of the list. Prefer 20 minutes/game? He was #23 of 68. Back up to top 34%.

How about all players at SF, any number of minutes, no restrictions of any kind: I get 127 players w/ that query (which seems weirdly high, but... whatever). Otto is at #43.

Actually, your number "25th among 3s last season" would do the trick, wouldn't it? Even if we just use the rough number of 90 for total SFs (i.e. 1/5 of 450 players -- though more than that number actually played in the league of course).

Hence "pretty weak" did seem to warrant a correction -- as you yourself just pointed out! As to "weaker than it should be," if you mean weaker than we all want it to be -- of course! If you mean that you know what the rebounding rate ought to be for "a guy with his length/hustle/iq" -- not so much.

In short, sorry if you'd have preferred someone else to correct your assessment. But that's all I was doing. Don't pick a fight with me.

You are taking "pretty weak" to literally mean below average, which i can understand but i didn't actually say that. Disappointing would have been a better word choice, since it would convey that it is based on my expectations, not necessarily his ranking relative to other players.

[DCZards]

Rebounding is the aspect of Otto's game that I'm least surprised by. He averaged 14 rebs in hs and pulled down 35 boards in a Missouri state championship game. His strength as a rebounder was one of the first things I noticed about Otto in his frosh year at G'Town. He is especially instinctive as an offensive rebounder where he makes cuts to the basket in very much the same way he often does when looking for a pass from a teammate.

What I've been most impressed by is OP's ability to consistently knock down the midrange jumper....something that others here have already pointed out.

What we've yet to see a lot of is Otto's outstanding passing ability, which he displayed at G'Town where he often facilitated the offense from the high post.

[tontoz]

Finally got to watch the 4th quarter last night. The variety of shots he hit in that game was almost comical.

[Kanyewest]

When Ernie nutted the Max deal for Beal (cra cra), do you think he factored-in Porter being on a trajectory for deserving his own pay day? I admit that Porter is improving yearly, 15 more lbs on muscle and the guy could play his was to where he was picked in the draft.

If that draft was held again Porter might get picked at 3 again. Off the top of my head Gobert and Giannis might be 1 and 2.

C'mon, Trey Burke would be up there, no?

Stephen Adams would be a wildcard, then Noel and Dipo, then Schroeder. I really wanted Noel but thought Porter was a reasonable pick. It's possible we end up with both.

The other player that I would add in a potential re-draft is CJ McCollum.

[Ruzious]

Otto is a combo of Larry Bird and George Gervin... or Tayshaun Prince and the Prince of Belair?

[deneem4]

Otto leads the league in offensive rating....wow

[stevemcqueen1]

Otto is averaging 17 PPG on 16% usage. And he isn't doing it with the three ball or by getting to the line. That's pretty incredible. He's just automatic from mid range.

[stevemcqueen1]

Holy arbitrary cutoff Batman! Why not make it "players who played 29-31 minutes, are under 25 years old and weight less than 220 pounds"? Then Porter could be number 1.

This is where you show your ass. PIF was perfectly reasonable in citing 30 MPG as a cutoff because that's minimum starter's minutes for a SF. Who doesn't know that?? Less than 30 MPG at the position and you're a timeshare player or a back up.

[tontoz]

Holy arbitrary cutoff Batman! Why not make it "players who played 29-31 minutes, are under 25 years old and weight less than 220 pounds"? Then Porter could be number 1.

This is where you show your ass. PIF was perfectly reasonable in citing 30 MPG as a cutoff because that's minimum starter's minutes for a SF. Who doesn't know that?? Less than 30 MPG at the position and you're a timeshare player or a back up.

There are plenty of productive players who don't play 30 minutes and who don't start.

You show your ass with your hands-lite nonsense. 52 wins? Beal better than Porter?

[payitforward]

Tontoz, do me a favor, please, and cool the rhetorical jets, ok?

I used 1000 minutes for the obvious reason: avoid small sample size. I used 30 minutes because it struck me that playing a lot of minutes/game might isolate the best players. Take it to 25 minutes instead, and he's #19 of 51 -- down from top 34% to top 37% of the list. Prefer 20 minutes/game? He was #23 of 68. Back up to top 34%.

How about all players at SF, any number of minutes, no restrictions of any kind: I get 127 players w/ that query (which seems weirdly high, but... whatever). Otto is at #43.

Actually, your number "25th among 3s last season" would do the trick, wouldn't it? Even if we just use the rough number of 90 for total SFs (i.e. 1/5 of 450 players -- though more than that number actually played in the league of course).

Hence "pretty weak" did seem to warrant a correction -- as you yourself just pointed out! As to "weaker than it should be," if you mean weaker than we all want it to be -- of course! If you mean that you know what the rebounding rate ought to be for "a guy with his length/hustle/iq" -- not so much.

In short, sorry if you'd have preferred someone else to correct your assessment. But that's all I was doing. Don't pick a fight with me.

You are taking "pretty weak" to literally mean below average, which i can understand but i didn't actually say that. Disappointing would have been a better word choice, since it would convey that it is based on my expectations, not necessarily his ranking relative to other players.

You're right, that's how I took it. Looks like you meant "weak" compared w/ his other numbers. Fair enough -- and much better this season (which is what you were pointing out!). Peace!

[payitforward]

Holy arbitrary cutoff Batman! Why not make it "players who played 29-31 minutes, are under 25 years old and weight less than 220 pounds"? Then Porter could be number 1.

This is where you show your ass. PIF was perfectly reasonable in citing 30 MPG as a cutoff because that's minimum starter's minutes for a SF. Who doesn't know that?? Less than 30 MPG at the position and you're a timeshare player or a back up.

There are plenty of productive players who don't play 30 minutes and who don't start.

You show your ass with your hands-lite nonsense. 52 wins? Beal better than Porter?

Peace-maker that I am (!!), I'll just point out that we all "show our ass" from time to time, and if a person isn't willing to be wrong some of the time, he won't be right very often!

In my case, I'm willing to be wrong -- it just doesn't happen very often. What, is that my fault?

[AFM]

I'm here to show my ass.

[deneem4]

Porter jus might be better than beal....the way he's playing he deserves a derozan green light...let him jack up midrange whenever he's open...Wall and Beal does it already..
I'm comfortable with porter taking 20shots a game if his ts% is better than curry

[stevemcqueen1]

Holy arbitrary cutoff Batman! Why not make it "players who played 29-31 minutes, are under 25 years old and weight less than 220 pounds"? Then Porter could be number 1.

This is where you show your ass. PIF was perfectly reasonable in citing 30 MPG as a cutoff because that's minimum starter's minutes for a SF. Who doesn't know that?? Less than 30 MPG at the position and you're a timeshare player or a back up.

There are plenty of productive players who don't play 30 minutes and who don't start.

You show your ass with your hands-lite nonsense. 52 wins? Beal better than Porter?

Eh, now I remember why I usually don't bother engaging with you. Reading your **** posts aren't worth the trouble of dealing with your defensiveness and nastiness.

[payitforward]

This is where you show your ass. PIF was perfectly reasonable in citing 30 MPG as a cutoff because that's minimum starter's minutes for a SF. Who doesn't know that?? Less than 30 MPG at the position and you're a timeshare player or a back up.

There are plenty of productive players who don't play 30 minutes and who don't start.

You show your ass with your hands-lite nonsense. 52 wins? Beal better than Porter?

Eh, now I remember why I usually don't bother engaging with you. Reading your **** posts aren't worth the trouble of dealing with your defensiveness and nastiness.

What? You missed my peace-making post????

[tontoz]

Eh, now I remember why I usually don't bother engaging with you. Reading your **** posts aren't worth the trouble of dealing with your defensiveness and nastiness.

You come into the conversation out of the blue and say i showed my ass then turn around and talk about me being nasty.

[montestewart]

Chill out, every buddha!