CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: CFAN38 on January 03, 2013, 09:17:55 AM

Title: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: CFAN38 on January 03, 2013, 09:17:55 AM
I had previously posted this on the silver lining thread but it is on the thread page and went unnoticed.

I find it very interesting how non super athletic PFs stats seem to consistently project from there per 48 as rookies to their best seasons as pros. Their Pts stay the same and there rbs typicality drop 2-3 per game.

Per 48 (as rookies)

Sully   14.6pts 13.8rb 1.2blk 1.2stl 11.8 FGA  .49 fg%

Boozer  19.0pts 14.3rb 1.2blk 1.4stl 14.5 FGA  .53 fg%

BBD     16.0pts 10.6rb 1.0blk 1.6stl 11.3 FGA  .48 fg%

Brand   26.0pts 13.0rb 2.1blk 1.1stl 20.9 FGA  .48 fg%

Big AL  21.0pts 13.5rb 2.1blk 1.4stl 17.1 FGA  .49 fg%

Love    21.1pts 17.2rb 1.2blk 0.8stl 16.1 FGA  .45 fg%

at there best per game

Boozer  21pt 10rb

BBD     16pt 8rb

Brand   25pt 10rb

Big AL  23pt 11rb

Love    26pt 15rb


With these comparisons I expect Sully to develop into at least 15pt 10rb a game starter if he stay healthy and continues to develop. He could potentially surpass that 15pts a game if featured in an offense like boozer was but this isn't ideal.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: LooseCannon on January 03, 2013, 09:31:10 AM
His stats are probably a bit more similar to the rookie numbers of players such as David West, Lavoy Allen, Udonis Haslem, and Sheldon Williams than the players you cite.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: clover on January 03, 2013, 09:33:29 AM
I had previously posted this on the silver lining thread but it is on the thread page and went unnoticed.

I find it very interesting how non super athletic PFs stats seem to consistently project from there per 48 as rookies to their best seasons as pros. Their Pts stay the same and there rbs typicality drop 2-3 per game.

Per 48 (as rookies)

Sully   14.6pts 13.8rb 1.2blk 1.2stl 11.8 FGA  .49 fg%

Boozer  19.0pts 14.3rb 1.2blk 1.4stl 14.5 FGA  .53 fg%

BBD     16.0pts 10.6rb 1.0blk 1.6stl 11.3 FGA  .48 fg%

Brand   26.0pts 13.0rb 2.1blk 1.1stl 20.9 FGA  .48 fg%

Big AL  21.0pts 13.5rb 2.1blk 1.4stl 17.1 FGA  .49 fg%

Love    21.1pts 17.2rb 1.2blk 0.8stl 16.1 FGA  .45 fg%

at there best per game

Boozer  21pt 10rb

BBD     16pt 8rb

Brand   25pt 10rb

Big AL  23pt 11rb

Love    26pt 15rb


With these comparisons I expect Sully to develop into at least 15pt 10rb a game starter if he stay healthy and continues to develop. He could potentially surpass that 15pts a game if featured in an offense like boozer was but this isn't ideal.

Which in practicality would me he'd only start on a contending team that had a monster of a center or a couple of monsters out on the wing/pg positions--especially considering his limited defensive ceiling.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: Chris on January 03, 2013, 09:38:25 AM
His stats are probably a bit more similar to the rookie numbers of players such as David West, Lavoy Allen, Udonis Haslem, and Sheldon Williams than the players you cite.

I was going to say, it would be interesting to see some numbers from some of the lesser players as well to compare.

Per 48 minute stats can just be so misleading when guys are not playing close to that many minutes.  It is hard to make projections based on those. 
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: wdleehi on January 03, 2013, 09:39:55 AM
Can you throw Ike Diogu's numbers in there too? 


as a rookie

per 48

22.5 points

10.6 rebounds

52.4% shooting

1.4 blocks


Career highs

9.2 points

3.9 rebounds.






This is not a good way to project a player.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: CFAN38 on January 03, 2013, 09:45:50 AM
I should have noted that I only picked players who played decent minutes as rookies. This doesn't work for guys who played limited minutes in a few games.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: pearljammer10 on January 03, 2013, 09:47:14 AM
Yeah I can't stand per 48 stats. I just doesnt make sense to me because the numbers get inflated so much. If a player can make a huge impact in the 30 minutes they play thats great but no one can keep up that intensity and consistent production for a full 48 minutes every night.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: Chris on January 03, 2013, 09:54:26 AM
I should have noted that I only picked players who played decent minutes as rookies. This doesn't work for guys who played limited minutes in a few games.

Well Diogu played 15 minutes per game, and started a handful of games as a rookie.

A few more:

Carl Landry:
23.2 points
14.0 rebs
0.5 blks

Jason Maxiell:
17.0 pts
9.5 rebs
3.1 blks

Dejuan Blair:
20.5 pts
16.9 rebs
1.3 blks

Craig Smith (played 18.7 minutes per game as a rookie!):
19.0 pts
13.0 rebs
0.6 blks

I love me some Sullinger, but lets not play around with stats too much here. 
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: TripleOT on January 03, 2013, 09:59:02 AM
Per 48 or per 36 minute stats are really only good to measure and compare the rate of production for a player.  It really doesn't tell you if a player will be that productive if his minutes are stretched out to 36. 

Sullinger shows all the signs of becoming a solid rotation guy, at least. He has real good basketball instincts, a good shooting touch, and a natural ability to get his shot off over bigger guys.

What I'd like to see is the Celtics dump the ball to Sully in the low post against similar sizes or smaller covers, and also step out and drive against bigger guys. The Cs desperately need inside scoring, and Sully's their best bet right now.   

Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: LooseCannon on January 03, 2013, 10:01:49 AM
Yeah I can't stand per 48 stats. I just doesnt make sense to me because the numbers get inflated so much. If a player can make a huge impact in the 30 minutes they play thats great but no one can keep up that intensity and consistent production for a full 48 minutes every night.

It's a rate-based stat.  You can just as easily scale it to per 30 or per 36.  b-r.com uses the latter.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: bdm860 on January 03, 2013, 10:05:51 AM
Hey Clearance Weatherspoon did 23/11 as a rookie per 48.  Don Reid did 13/10.  Former Celtic Brandon Hunter did 15/14.  Jason Collins even did 11/10.  Vitaly Potapenko did 18/8.  Travis Knight did 14/13.  Mike Sweetney did 17/15.  Marcus Fizer did 21/9.  Corlis Williamson did 21/9.

Drawing conclusions from Per-48 numbers isn't going to get you anywhere.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: LooseCannon on January 03, 2013, 10:32:05 AM
Drawing conclusions from Per-48 numbers isn't going to get you anywhere.

Drawing conclusions from numbers derived from traditional box score stats, as per x minute numbers are, won't tell you much about a player's defense, and the probability that Sullinger becomes an above-average defender is more important to me than the probability that he becomes a 20ppg guy.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: Chris on January 03, 2013, 10:36:00 AM
Drawing conclusions from Per-48 numbers isn't going to get you anywhere.

Drawing conclusions from numbers derived from traditional box score stats, as per x minute numbers are, won't tell you much about a player's defense, and the probability that Sullinger becomes an above-average defender is more important to me than the probability that he becomes a 20ppg guy.

I honestly think that if he can just slow down on the fouls, he is already an above-average defender.  In fact, his defense has impressed me much more than his offense this year.  He just has such good positioning, and work so hard on the boards.  He just needs to learn to stop reaching in, and holding guys so much.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: relja on January 03, 2013, 10:41:51 AM
Per-48 stats is the stupidest thing ever.

Imagine if I played 2mpg and got 2pts, 1ast and 1rb, I would average 48pts/24ast/24rb. So no, it's stupid.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: pearljammer10 on January 03, 2013, 10:45:47 AM
Hey Clearance Weatherspoon did 23/11 as a rookie per 48.  Don Reid did 13/10.  Former Celtic Brandon Hunter did 15/14.  Jason Collins even did 11/10.  Vitaly Potapenko did 18/8.  Travis Knight did 14/13.  Mike Sweetney did 17/15.  Marcus Fizer did 21/9.  Corlis Williamson did 21/9.

Drawing conclusions from Per-48 numbers isn't going to get you anywhere.

This.

Per-48 stats is the stupidest thing ever.

Imagine if I played 2mpg and got 2pts, 1ast and 1rb, I would average 48pts/24ast/24rb. So no, it's stupid.

And to not quite the extreme but on the same wave length of this poster...This.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: LooseCannon on January 03, 2013, 10:53:28 AM
Per-48 stats is the stupidest thing ever.

Imagine if I played 2mpg and got 2pts, 1ast and 1rb, I would average 48pts/24ast/24rb. So no, it's stupid.

Per minute stats provide for better context than per game stats.  Not perfect context, but better and you still have to have some degree of intelligence to understand the numbers.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: LB3533 on January 03, 2013, 11:00:04 AM
I like Sulli, but he ain't no star, probably not a rotational player on a championship team.

He's Ryan Gomes part deux with less physical gifts and increased problematic medical history.

You don't win championships with guys like Sulli as part of your main core.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: mgent on January 03, 2013, 11:19:17 AM
Hey Clearance Weatherspoon did 23/11 as a rookie per 48.  Don Reid did 13/10.  Former Celtic Brandon Hunter did 15/14.  Jason Collins even did 11/10.  Vitaly Potapenko did 18/8.  Travis Knight did 14/13.  Mike Sweetney did 17/15.  Marcus Fizer did 21/9.  Corlis Williamson did 21/9.

Drawing conclusions from Per-48 numbers isn't going to get you anywhere.

This.

Per-48 stats is the stupidest thing ever.

Imagine if I played 2mpg and got 2pts, 1ast and 1rb, I would average 48pts/24ast/24rb. So no, it's stupid.

And to not quite the extreme but on the same wave length of this poster...This.
It's not for comparing 15mpg players and 35mpg players.  It's meant to compare 35mpg players and 28mpg players.  Or 15mpg players and 22mpg players.

It's only a dumb stat because it's self-explanatory.  Obviously two guys grabbing the same amount of rebounds in a different number of minutes aren't equal.  Obviously a guy grabbing 5 rebounds in 15mpg is a good rebounder, but people will still say he sucks because he's only averaging 5rpg.  Enter per xMP.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: Chris on January 03, 2013, 11:23:10 AM
Per-48 stats is the stupidest thing ever.

Imagine if I played 2mpg and got 2pts, 1ast and 1rb, I would average 48pts/24ast/24rb. So no, it's stupid.

Per minute stats provide for better context than per game stats.  Not perfect context, but better and you still have to have some degree of intelligence to understand the numbers.

I think you need both to really make sense of it.  You need to know what players are doing per game, to get a better idea what their role is, in order to project anything from their per minute stats. 

But anyways, my problem with this thread isn't as much about the per minute stats, it is the combination of per minute stats, and cherry picking guys who were successful and had similar per minute stats, when there were just as many guys who had much less success in their career, but had decent stats as a rookie. 
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: Who on January 03, 2013, 06:14:07 PM
I don't know what to make of Sully yet. I want to see him look for his own offense more. Try to create in the post a bit more and be more aggressive with that jump-shot of his.

Sully is still too passive offensively.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: snively on January 03, 2013, 06:59:45 PM
The early returns on his rebounding are rock solid if unspectacular.  A good rebounder on both ends.

His offensive potential is still so murky.  He's had what, 10 post ups all season?  He's playing too much like a garbage man/5th option offensively to get a read on how his post skills and all-around offensive skills will translate into NBA production.  One thing is for sure - he's too talented and too weak defensively to pattern his offensive game off of Dale Davis.  Needs to take more of a featured role offensively - we can afford to spend a few less possessions on Jeff Green isos from the top of the circle.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: Tr1boy on January 03, 2013, 07:59:04 PM
Sullinger has to figure out other ways to score outside of garbage baskets. He has a nice shooting stroke but not from garnett land. His post moves are scary to watch since it could be blocked. I thought he was al jefferson crafty from the post but as i see more and more pre nba highlights, he pretty much bulldozed most of his points near the basket.

Because of his lack of athleticism he has trouble making hook shots or acrobatic shots around the basket. 

He has to perfect the jumper this off season to keep his opponents on their toes.

really unfortunate he is not a few inches taller or can jump better. He would then be a dominant player. His iq and motor for such a young player is off the charts
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: Celtics4ever on January 03, 2013, 08:02:59 PM
He is a decent player but some people think he is going to be a perennial all star.  I want him to succeed but he projects as a Big Baby level guy.  This is not a bad thing BBD contributed here and Sully should be a better rebounder and more efficient.  But some here think he is the second coming, I swear.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: Tr1boy on January 03, 2013, 08:16:39 PM
from si article over the summer

"Yet Sullinger measured 6-9 in shoes while weighing 268.2 pounds, with a body fat of 10.7 percent that wasn't anywhere near the Oliver Miller territory that some had predicted. His body fat was the sixth worst at the combine, but there were eight players with body fat of 10 percent or higher.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/06/08/predraft.notebook/index.html#ixzz2GxsXr07i"

He is 260 pounds now, which i'm guessing , makes his body fat % in the high 9, instead of high 10. Nobody wants him to lose his strength, but what if he maintains his strength while shedding his body fat level to less than 8 percent. I wonder how much quicker and/or how much more lift he will get. I mean look at Kevin Love and what a more shredded body has done for him the last couple of years.

Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: D.o.s. on January 03, 2013, 08:23:28 PM
Sullinger has to figure out other ways to score outside of garbage baskets. He has a nice shooting stroke but not from garnett land. His post moves are scary to watch since it could be blocked. I thought he was al jefferson crafty from the post but as i see more and more pre nba highlights, he pretty much bulldozed most of his points near the basket.

Because of his lack of athleticism he has trouble making hook shots or acrobatic shots around the basket. 

He has to perfect the jumper this off season to keep his opponents on their toes.

really unfortunate he is not a few inches taller or can jump better. He would then be a dominant player. His iq and motor for such a young player is off the charts

if he was taller/more athletic than there's no way he falls to us at 21.
Title: Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
Post by: ScottHow on January 03, 2013, 09:17:33 PM
I really think if he loses 10 lbs it will change his game a ton for the better.