A Substitute for War

Basketball philosophy

Posts Tagged ‘Otto Porter

2013 NBA Draft Talent Grades: The Small Forwards

leave a comment »

2013 NBA Draft Talent Grades: The Shooting Guards

2013 NBA Draft Talent Grades: The Point Guards

Here are my talent grades for the Small Forwards in the 2013 NBA draft. The SFs I felt comfortable ranking or worth it were Otto Porter, Shabazz Muhammad, Giannis Antetokoumpo, Sergey Karasev, Reggie Bullock, Tony Snell, Solomon Hill, Adonis Thomas. (Dario Saric, James Southerland, C.J. Leslie, Tony Mitchell, Deshaun Thomas, D.J. Stephens are notable prospects who are rated as PFs)

My grades are from 1 to 11 in 3 categories: Physical impact talent, skill impact (shoot, post, pass) talent and feel for the game talent. The grades go by this rubric:

11: Transcendent, 10: Incredible 9: Elite, 8: Great, 7: Very good, 6: Decent, 5: Average, 4: Lacking, 3: Weak, 2: Very poor, 1: Awful

What the overall grades mean:

25+: Perennial all-star talent, 23-24: Blue Chip starter to Perennial all-star talent, 19-22: Blue Chip starter talent, 17-18: Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent, 14-16: Rotation player talent, 12-13: Deep bench to rotation player talent, 11 or lower: Deep bench player talent

Here are my grades in the 3 categories first, before getting to individual breakdowns:

Physical impact talent grades:

Solomon Hill: 8 / Great

Adonis Thomas: 7 / Very good

Giannis Antetokoumpo: 5 / Average

Tony Snell: 4 / Lacking

Sergey Karasev: 4 / Lacking

Otto Porter: 3 / Weak

Shabazz Muhammad: 3 / Weak

Reggie Bullock: 1 / Awful

Hill leads the way in physical impact talent with his explosive ability to get to the basket, with a strong frame to finish. Adonis Thomas is the best athlete of this group, though raw ballhandling hurting his ability to slash, prevents him from topping the group for physical impact. Snell is a good, long athlete, but doesn’t get to the rim as much as his athleticism, because of ballhandling problems. Giannis and Karasev are underwhelming athletes but can get to the rim based on ballhandling talent, Giannis also freakishly long.  Porter is freakishly long but lacks speed and ballhandling. Shabazz is also an unimpressive slasher due to explosiveness and ballhandling problems. Bullock is almost entirely a perimeter orientated player, without the speed or ballhandling to have a slashing game.

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grades:

Tony Snell: 8 / Great

Sergey Karasev: 8 / Great

Otto Porter: 7 / Very good

Solomon Hill: 6 / Decent

Shabazz Muhammad: 6 / Decent

Reggie Bullock: 6 / Decent

Giannis Antetokoumpo: 5 / Average

Adonis Thomas: 4 / Lacking

Snell and Karasev are the standout shooters of the group. Snell has more trustworthy spot up shooting ability, but Karasev is better off the bounce. Both are solid passers. Hill, Porter, Muhammad, Bullock shot the ball well from 3 in college, but FT%s in the 70s makes me believe their shooting can go either direction in the pros. Porter also has impressive post and passing skills. Giannis and Thomas are unproven shooters, but I give most players the benefit of the doubt that they can develop into average shooters. Giannis is also a strong passer and has post potential.

Feel for the Game talent grades:

Otto Porter: 10 / Incredible

Sergey Karasev: 8 / Great

Tony Snell: 8 / Great

Giannis Antetokoumpo: 8 / Great

Shabazz Muhammad: 8 / Great

Reggie Bullock: 8 / Great

Solomon Hill: 5 / Average

Adonis Thomas: 5 / Average

Porter is the standout in this group, truly elite in the area for his controlled, slow, smooth game. Karasev, Snell, Giannis, Shabazz, Bullock are also smooth, strong feel for the game players. Hill and Thomas are not particularly natural players.

Ranking it individually:

Blue Chip starter talent (Grades between 19-22)

Tony Snell

Physical impact talent grade: 4 / Lacking

Skill impact (shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 8 / Great

Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 20 (Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Snell is one of the better shooters in the draft, hitting 39.0% and 38.7% from 3pt in his junior and sophomore seasons respectively. Importantly, he backed this up with strong 84.3% and 83.1% FT clips those years. Snell excels at spot-up shots off the ball, but is not as impressive shooting off the dribble. He also shows flashes as a passer and has the length to develop a post game at SF. My skill impact (shoot, post, pass) grade for Snell is thus strong.

Tony also has an impressive feel for the game. He’s a smooth, fluid player and on the occasions he does drive, he makes it look easy. Snell moves well off the ball and sees teammates well when passing.

Snell’s physical impact talent is a mixed bag. Although he’s a good athlete, Snell’s lack of ballhandling makes him a near non-threat as a slasher, instead relying on perimeter shots. A skinny frame may also hurt his ability to finish. In his favor, Snell has a long wingspan which should help him have physical impact defensively. The physical impact package when taken as a whole is unimpressive to average.

Snell has an excellent chance at being a starting SF who’s a sharpshooter and floor spacer from 3, while on the defensive end standing out because of length, athleticism and feel. This combination is very coveted, especially for advanced metrics favoring teams. If he fails to reach this, it’s likely by his 3 point shot failing to translate despite his strong present splits. While if Snell can develop to attack the basket at an above average level, it may push him towards star potential.

Otto Porter

Physical impact talent grade: 3 / Weak

Skill impact (shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 7 / Very good

Feel for the Game talent grade: 10 / Incredible

Total talent grade: 20 (Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Otto Porter is a feel for the game freak of nature. I came to close to giving an ultra rare perfect grade of 11 in the category, but settled for a conservative 10. Otto plays with a natural smoothness, control and “slow-mo” pace reminiscent of players like Paul Pierce and Andre Miller. The instincts also show themselves in his rebounding, passing and defensive anticipation.

Porter lacks tools as a slasher. Otto is a subpar athlete, which with middling ballhandling hurts his ability to drive to the rim. Lacking strength there also hurts his ability to finish. On the positive side, freakish length for a SF should help his physical impact talent defensively.

Otto’s career to me hinges on his 3pt shooting. Although shooting an elite 42.2% from 3 as a sophomore, his 22.6% freshman 3pt clip combined with average 77.7% and 70.2% free throw campaigns, give doubt about trusting Otto as an elite shooter. His length does him post skill potential and he’s shown flashes as a playmaker. I settled on a very good, but not great skill impact (shoot, post, pass) talent grade.

If Porter can become a standout 3pt and midrange shooter for a SF, pushing his skill impact grade higher than I pegged, he’d be a blue chipper and in the mix for top 5 players in this draft class. However if his shot fell apart in the pros, when combined with slashing flaws, his offensive game would struggle to find any foothold. For this reason I consider Otto a pick with significant blue chip upside, but also risk of him falling to an average career.

Sergey Karasev

Physical impact talent grade: 4 / Lacking

Skill impact (shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 8 / Great

Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 20 (Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Karasev has an impressive combination of skill and feel for a SF. Plays with a high level of fluidity, control and recognizes teammates well. A crafty player with the ball in his hands. A clear case of high feel for the game.

Has turned himself into a great 3 point shooter, backed up by a FT% routinely over 80%. His excellent ballhandling helps him create shots off the bounce as well. Has shown signs of a playmaking game and has the height to have potential in the post. It’s not easy to find SFs with legitimate 3 point range and shot creating ability on the perimeter, Karasev deserves a high skill impact (shoot, post, pass) grade.

Physical impact talent is his question mark. While he has impressive ballhandling to drive to the basket, his first step and speed is not impressive. At the rim he’s relatively grounded with an average body, which may hurt his finishing. His offensive game is likely to rely on perimeter scoring more than slashing. His average lateral quickness makes him a defensive question mark as well.

Presuming his shooting comes through like my skill impact grade projects, I believe Karasev has an excellent chance of starting at SF. Spacing, IQ and shot creating at the position, is valued in a starting lineup. Karasev fits a stereotype of skilled, smart European wing players in a good way. Put it this way, he’s Houston Rockets and San Antonio Spurs-y.

Solomon Hill

Physical impact talent grade: 8 / Great

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 6 / Decent

Feel for the Game talent grade: 5 / Average

Total talent grade: 19 (Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Solomon Hill has a near elite first step, which when combined with good ballhandling and a strong frame, allows him to attack the basket and finish hard. Impressive length should also help his physical impact potential defensively. As a whole I rate him a great physical impact talent. Solomon’s understated physical impact talent reminds me of James Harden, where Harden not being a high flying type of athlete, hid how dynamic his speed and power attacking the rim was.

Hill has turned himself into a good NCAA 3pt shooter, hitting 39.0% and 38.9% his junior and sophomore seasons. However hitting 76.6% and 72.4% of his FTs is middling enough to make his shooting a question mark. His 3pt shooting in college is enough for me to give him a decent skill impact (shoot, post, pass) grade.

Solomon’s feel for the game appears to be average. He at times can look out of control when driving to the rim, instead of fluid and natural. Nevertheless he recognizes teammates fairly well.

As a whole Solomon is an impressive talent. His ability to attack the basket should make him a starter presuming he can hit open jumpshots. If he turns himself into a dynamic perimeter scorer to compliment his driving game, he could be a true blue chip and near star at SF. With a poor shooting game his role would likely be caught between starting and the bench.

Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent (Grades between 17-18)

Giannis Antetokoumpo

Physical impact talent grade: 5 / Average

Skill impact (shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 5 / Average

Feel for the Game talent: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 18 (Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Giannis is clearly hard to nail down without great competition or footage out there, but this is the best I can do:

His strengths start with his strong feel for the game. Giannis is a fluid, controlled player who’s instincts and ability to sense teammates has apparently helped him be used in a point forward role.

However the one who may one day be nicknamed Scrabble is an underwhelming athlete for a SF, meaning despite solid ballhandling for a 3, his ability to create offense slashing to the rim may be limited. A skinny frame may hurt his ability to finish at the basket. Tremendous length for a SF helps his physical impact talent on the defensive end.

Antetokoumpo’s future as a shooter is difficult to peg. His FT% in the low 70s and that he’s not known as a shooter, indicate giving him a high grade in the area may be unwarranted. His length indicates post potential is there and he’s a good passer. My skill impact (shoot, post, pass) grade for Giannis is average, however depending on the development of his shooting that grade could go higher or lower in the future. With my other talent grades, I project Giannis with a reliable 3 point shot and perimeter scoring game is a likely starter, if not blue chipper. With an average or poor shot, I suspect he’d be just average. As a whole Giannis is a poor man’s Otto Porter, with the high feel for the game, length, but underwhelming athleticism and a shooting game that could go either way.

Shabazz Muhammad

Physical impact talent grade: 3 / Weak

Skill impact (shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 6 / Decent

Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 17 (Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent)

Muhammad is highlighted by an impressive feel for the game, with fluidity, craftiness and instincts. His feel helps him use his body against defenders well.

As a slasher Shabazz shows little tools. He has mediocre explosiveness and subpar ballhandling, the combination making it unlikely he blows by defenders to the rim. The strength advantages he’s had in high school and college should also disappear against NBA SFs, where his size doesn’t stand out. Shabazz does have a long wingspan which should help his physical impact defensively.

Muhammad shot 37.7% from 3 his freshman year at UCLA which is fine, but a mediocre 71.7% from the FT line is a worrying number that his outside shot could go in the wrong direction in the NBA. Shabazz does have strong touch around the basket and some post skills. Taken as a whole, my skill impact (shoot, post, pass) grade for Shabazz is a decent one, but not great or elite.

If Shabazz turns himself into an elite 3pt shooter for a SF, he has the feel and length to be a starter and blue chipper. However that comes with the equal risk that his shooting doesn’t translate, which without a great slashing game gives Bazz little to lean on offensively.

Rotation player talent (Grades between 14-16)

Adonis Thomas

Physical impact talent grade: 7 / Very good

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 4 / Lacking

Feel for the Game talent grade: 5 / Average

Total talent grade: 16 (Rotation player talent grade)

Adonis Thomas has a strong combination of athleticism, strength and length for a small forward that made him a top high school recruit once upon a time. He can get to the rim, albeit raw ballhandling prevents a more dynamic slashing game. He’ll likely physical impact the game defensively at a respectable level.

Thomas appears to have a middling feel for the game, neither standing out in a positive or negative way. He does particularly show fluidity when driving, but isn’t out of control either.

Adonis perimeter shooting game is raw right now with a 29.2% 3pt, though a free throw percentage of 75.2% gives hope his mechanics aren’t broken. My skill impact (shoot, post, pass) talent grade for Adonis is a lacking 4, giving benefit of the doubt he can develop from poor to average in the area.

Thomas is likely to stick long term in the NBA regardless of his shot, because of his physical tools which will likely allow him to defend SGs and SFs. If he can develop a 3 point shooting game he can make a run at a consistent starting role. Thomas should look to a player like Quincy Pondexter as a model to follow, Quincy starting as an athletic defensive specialist before developing his perimeter skill enough to find a foothold in NBA rotations.

Reggie Bullock

Physical impact talent grade: 1 / Awful

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 6 / Decent

Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 15 (Rotation player talent grade)

Bullock’s feel for the game is a strength. He plays a smooth, fluid, easy game. Known as a lockdown shooter after hitting 38.2% from 3 as a sophomore and 43.6% as a junior, however middling FT% of 72.7% and 76.7% gives doubt to those numbers and indicates Reggie is not a lock as a shooter. Bullock is also more of a spot up shooter than one who excels shooting off the bounce. My skill impact (shoot, post, pass) talent grade for Bullock is decent, but not great.

His weakness is scoring attacking the basket. Bullock is a mediocre athlete and has nearly non-existent ballhandling skills. An average body also doesn’t help him finish or make a physical impact defensively. Bullock may end up one of the most perimeter orientated SFs in the league.

For Bullock to start in the NBA he needs his 3pt shooting to be among the best for his position. That’s conceivable, however with an average or poor jumpshot he may be nearly unplayable without a slashing game to lean on.

Factors outside of talent grades: Unless Karasev or Antetokoumpo have buyout issues I’m unaware of, I see no reason to differentiate by character or health for these players. One could make an argument Shabazz being groomed into a future NBA star his whole live could create a conceivable problem if he’s not ready to accept he’s more Wesley Matthews than Kobe Bryant as a talent. But I tend to shy away from judging players characters like that without further information about them. Karasev, Shabazz, Thomas, Bullock may be able to fill minutes at the SG spot. Hill and Porter, Antetokoumpo if they bulk up, may be able to challenge PF minutes.

If ranking by upside alone I’d rank the SFs 1. Tony Snell 2. Otto Porter 3. Sergey Karasev 4. Solomon Hill 5. Giannis Antetokoumpo 6. Shabazz Muhammad 7. Adonis Thomas 8. Reggie Bullock. If ranking by downside: 1. Tony Snell 2. Sergey Karasev 3. Otto Porter 4. Solomon Hill 5. Giannis Antetokoumpo 6. Shabazz Muhammad 7. Adonis Thomas 8. Reggie Bullock. The only difference is Porter’s upside if he can develop into an elite shooter, moves closer to elite than players like Karasev and Hill. Otherwise, all these players at their best are blue chip starters (with Snell and Porter stars at best) and at worst, between tweener starter/bench players and bench player.

Final SF rankings and where I’d consider taking them:

1. Tony Snell (top 10)
2. Otto Porter (top 10)
3. Sergey Karasev (top 10)
4. Solomon Hill (top 20)
5. Giannis Antetokoumpo (top 20)
6. Shabazz Muhammad (top 30)
7. Adonis Thomas (top 30)
8. Reggie Bullock (top 40)

Cumulative list (I’ve ranked PGs, SGs and SFs so far) and where I’d consider taking them:

1. SG Victor Oladipo (top 5)
2. SG Ben McLemore (top 10)
3. SF Tony Snell (top 10)
4. PG C.J. McCollum (top 10)
5. SF Otto Porter (top 10)
6. SF Sergey Karasev (top 10)
7. PG Trey Burke (top 10)
8. PG Lorenzo Brown (top 14)
9. PG Matthew Dellavedova (top 14)
10. SF Solomon Hill (top 14)
11. PG Myck Kabongo (top 20)
12. SG B.J. Young (top 20)
13. SG Jamaal Franklin (top 20)
14. SF Giannis Antetokoumpo (top 20)
15. SG Seth Curry (top 20)
16. PG Erick Green (top 20)
17. PG Shane Larkin (top 20)
18. PG Nate Wolters (top 20)
19. PG Isaiah Canaan (top 20)
20. PG Pierre Jackson (top 20)
21. SG Glen Rice, Jr. (top 30)
22. SG Tim Hardaway, Jr. (top 30)
23. SF Shabazz Muhammad (top 30)
24. SF Adonis Thomas (top 30)
25. SG Ricardo Ledo (top 30)
26. PG Michael Carter-Williams (top 40)
27. PG Dennis Schroeder (top 40)
28. SF Reggie Bullock (top 40)
29. SG Archie Goodwin (top 40)
30. SG Allen Crabbe (top 40)
31. SG Alex Abrines (top 40)
32. PG Phil Pressey (top 50)
33. PG Ray McCallum (top 50)
34. SG Kentavious Caldwell-Pope (top 60)
35. SG Brandon Paul (undrafted)

Why Otto Porter could be the #1 pick in the 2013 NBA Draft

leave a comment »

The Cleveland Cavaliers just won their 2nd lottery in 3 years, following the 2011 win that netted them Kyrie Irving. Many are all but writing in Nerlens Noel as the pick, widely the favorite to go 1st all year and a defensive compliment for a team who’s been terrible on that end.

Not so fast.

First, it bears noting how it’s no secret Cleveland is leading the way among NBA teams who are relying on advanced metrics to pick players. The Tristan Thompson and Dion Waiters 4th overall picks that came out of nowhere, appear to be have been on the back of what the stats said. Nerlens Noel and Otto Porter have been the advanced metrics community’s favorites all year. This is because most draft regression studies, favor players who fill the statsheet in non-scoring ways – such as rebounding, blocks, steals, assists. Noel averaged an exceptional 11.9 rebounds, 5.5 blocks, 2.6 steals, 2.0 assists per 40 minutes. His 27.7 PER for a freshman big and .58 TS% on 13.1 pts per 40, also could help his case. Porter averaged 8.5 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 2.1 steals, 1.0 blocks per 40 minutes, rare all-around numbers for a sophomore SF, in addition to 27.8 PER .59 TS% on 18.3 pts per 40 .

I’ve been using statician Ed Weiland’s site hoopsanalyst.com as a Cavaliers canary since last year. In 2011 he ranked Tristan Thompson as his 2nd best prospect after Kyrie Irving and in 2012 he ranked Dion Waiters 2nd after Anthony Davis. Considering Cleveland went on to surprise and take Thompson and Waiters top 5, he seems an excellent indicator of the statistical method they’re using. On Weiland’s last big board update, Noel and Porter ranked as his #1 and #2 respectively, followed by Trey Burke 3rd, out of the question for the Cavaliers. Another well respected statician draft site, shutupandjam.net, ranks Porter 1st and Noel 3rd (with Trey Burke 2nd).

In a vacuum, the evidence would still seem to point to Noel. Although Porter’s rebounding, passing, and blocks/steals for a SF are exceptional, Noel’s rebounding, block and steal rate is even more freakish and he rates 1st on Weiland’s site. However, other factors are playing towards Porter:

– Noel is recovering for a torn ACL. While ACL recoveries are reliable in this day and age, there’s still a risk that a loss of explosiveness will occur. A problem magnified by how much Noel relies on not just great, but transcendent athleticism for a big man. Furthermore, Noel had a fractured growth plate in the same leg that ended his sophomore year in high school. Multiple knee injuries this early in his career is a huge concern, especially with a frame as light as his.

– Porter is the superior fit positionally, sliding into the SF role beside Irving at PG, Waiters at SG, Thompson at PF and Varejao at C. Noel and Thompson is not a great fit. For one, Noel may be too light to play center, pushing him to long term starting PF status, leaving Thompson’s spot out to dry. Secondly even if they play together, it’s lacking in offense. A lack of floor spacing would hurt on a team with guards who want to drive into the paint

– The Cavaliers appear to be impatient to win. As they stated on the lottery telecast, they hope this to be their last lottery for a long long time. They’ve tanked 3 long years post Lebron and with Kyrie heading into his 3rd season, appeasing him by pushing towards winning is now important. Noel’s ACL recovery means he doesn’t help them win next year, while Porter would likely immediately start at SF for them.

When Noel’s health, positional fit and the desire to win soon is taken into account, the Cavaliers choosing Porter becomes a real possibility even if their statistical methods give the edge to Noel. If Noel is ahead, it depends by how much. I imagine any narrow gap is made up for health, fit and immediate production. If Noel has a large lead on Porter in their advanced metrics, they may feel the best move is taking him and dealing with the other consequences. Right now I’d call it a near toss-up, but I’m actually leaning towards Otto Porter grabbing this. Of course, the Cavaliers could also rectify this by trading down, perhaps to 3rd overall if the Wizards wanted Noel more than Porter. With Tobias Harris and Moe Harkless on the team, the Magic taking Porter at the 2nd overall spot is unlikely. Though because #1 picks are a source of pride, I’d bet against the Cavaliers moving down just for a small asset.

This has been the most up in the air year for the #1 pick since 2006 and lottery night didn’t change it. I see two major contenders if the Cavaliers keep the pick, but they could be deadly tight.

Written by jr.

May 21, 2013 at 7:03 pm

Why Otto Porter is a high risk, high reward prospect

with 2 comments

Otto Porter is widely considered a sure bet to be picked top 5 or 6 in the draft. A buzz word for Porter is “safe”. Porter’s intelligence, maturity and production in college supposedly makes him a more reliable bet than more volatile prospects.

My main reason for believing Porter is risky, is his offensive game will rely on shooting. Porter is not a dynamic slasher, due to a lack of explosive athleticism or great ballhandling. He is unlikely to be dynamic scoring points in the paint and at the FT line. Porter’s offensive strengths in college come from midrange and 3 point shooting which means he has to produce in those areas.

Although Porter hit 42.2% from 3 in the NCAA, hitting 43 from 102 from 3 point line is on  a small sample size. If Porter had hit 33 of 102 3s, he’d have hit 32.4% from the 3pt line, a mediocre number. These 10 3s over the course of the season, is well within variable range. Porter’s 77.7% from the FT line from this season on the other hand was mediocre for a 3 point shooter. Another warning sign is Porter shot 22.6% from 3 and 70.2% from the FT line as a freshman at Georgetown.

Porter’s strength is his feel for the game, arguably the best in the class. Calling his instincts, control and fluidity elite is an understatement, he plays the game at an Andre Miller like slower pace than everyone else. I also give most of the credit of his rebounding numbers, to his instincts and feel for the game. In addition to that he has great size, length and rebounding for a small forward. However for him to make an offensive mark in the NBA, I need to see him either attack the basket at a standout level (unlikely), or for him to be a noted 3pt threat. I would suspect a Porter with a non-existent 3pt shooting/perimeter scoring game in the NBA, in addition to a lack of slashing, makes him a widely considered bust if taken top 5. He would simply have nothing to provide offensively. Furthermore this will be trouble early in his career, since the majority of young players struggle on defense due to inexperience. Porter will likely need offense to be a useable starter early in his career.

Here are my talent grades for Otto, using this rubric in each category – 11: Transcendent, 10: Incredible 9: Elite, 8: Great, 7: Above average, 6: Decent, 5: Average, 4: Lacking, 3: Below average, 2: Very poor, 1: Awful

Overall grades: 25+: Perennial all-star talent, 23-24: Blue Chip starter to Perennial all-star talent, 19-22: Blue Chip starter talent, 17-18: Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent, 14-16: Rotation player talent, 12-13: Deep bench to rotation player talent, 11 or lower: Deep bench player talent

Physical impact talent grade: 4 – If judged only on his ability to physically impact the game by attacking the basket, I’d have him graded lower than this. I bumped up his score for his length which should help him make him a physical impact defensively.

Skill impact (Shooting, post, passing) talent grade: 6 – I will give Otto the benefit of the doubt, that he can learn to be a solid 3pt shooter in the NBA, which has value at a SF position where a lot of its players don’t hit 3s. Furthermore he gets some credit for passing for his position and upside in the post with his length.

Feel for the Game talent grade: 10 – Otto is a clear cut monster in this category.

Total talent grade: 20 (Blue Chip starter talent grade)

This indicates Porter passes the sniff test as a top 10 pick. If he can hit 3s in the NBA, that in combination with his feel, length and passing and post upside, make him a likely starter. Two players Otto reminds me of are Tayshaun Prince and Chandler Parsons.

However I feel he is a high risk prospect because of the unpredictability of his skill category. If his outside shooting ability rolls a snake eyes in the NBA, this would be enough to push him down to marginal, average talent (15-17). I would suspect that Otto without 3pt range is such an ineffective offensive player, that becoming a starter instead of a journeyman would be difficult. At the same time if he became one of the most skilled perimeter options in the league, the grade I gave to Otto could also conceivably be too low. The most likely scenario is somewhere in the middle, but still I find the label of Porter as a low risk, low upside player, to be misguided due to the relationship between shooting and unpredictability for draft prospects.

Written by jr.

April 22, 2013 at 1:56 pm

Posted in Basketball, NBA Draft

Tagged with ,