No to Jared. (Danny's Infatuation w/ Undersized Bigs)

[Fafnir]

Wow I am amazed with some of the excuses people come up with to explain how averaging 19 and 9 in a playoff series against a number 5 seed in the league playing against a 7'2 ALL STAR center, filling in for a top 5 player in the league.  I mean... come on.  Seriously?  Probably the same people who go well Rondo had a triple double and we won... but.

KG's averages through the playoffs were 19 10 in 37 MPG. Do you think 1 raw rebound captures the difference in their impact?

Quoting raw numbers and then pumping up the opposition in exasperation is a poor substitute for a more detailed analysis.

[erisred]

He's 6'8 6'9 but plays way bigger than his size.

Does he play way bigger than his height, though? I watched Sullinger in quite a few games and he hardly ever got above the rim. He did all of his offensive work with hooks, short jump shots, and post moves leading to layups. He seldom dunked the ball. Yes, he was double and triple teamed, and yes he worked hard on the glass...clearly a force to be reckoned with in college, but I worry a lot about it transfering to the NBA.

To me, it isn't that Sullinger is undersized, or even really un-athletic...he has good foot work and is pretty nimble in the paint...it's his lack of lift and his lack of speed (both laterally and straight line) that really trouble me. He is going to be as ground bound as Larry Bird was (and about the same height) but without Larry's shot, speed, or ball handling. He is going to plod up and down the court like Perkins and he is going to struggle to play the C's defense. He'll be too slow on rotations and he's never going to be able to show and recover on pick and rolls.

Still, if Danny picks him, I'll hope I'm wrong and he's right. IIRC, Sullinger wasn't nearly as ground-bound as a Freshman as he was as a Sophomore. Maybe, just maybe, he's had "the back" all year. A bad back will certainly slow you down and hurt your lift...a lot.

Ryan Hollins fits your description of a tall, athletic big.

A tall, athletic big with very poor skills, almost no fundamentals and minimal BBIQ. Still, he was playing passable team defense for the C's within a few weeks of being picked up just off energy and effort.

[Yogi]

Wow I am amazed with some of the excuses people come up with to explain how averaging 19 and 9 in a playoff series against a number 5 seed in the league playing against a 7'2 ALL STAR center, filling in for a top 5 player in the league.  I mean... come on.  Seriously?  Probably the same people who go well Rondo had a triple double and we won... but.

KG's averages through the playoffs were 19 10 in 37 MPG. Do you think 1 raw rebound captures the difference in their impact?

Quoting raw numbers and then pumping up the opposition in exasperation is a poor substitute for a more detailed analysis.

First of all, numbers matter in the NBA.  You can argue numbers aren't everything.  That's very reasonable.  But numbers are 75%.  Glen Davis put up 19 ppg and 9 rebounds.  He was shooting pretty darn well for the playoffs as well.  Why not compare his shooting percentages with people who averaged 19ppg.  
No one compared Baby's contribution to KG. That is called a straw man and is a cheap way to try and make a point.
How did I pump up Indiana?  Every thing I stated is a matter of FACT, not opinion, or even statistics.  
Statements like oh the offense was designed for the 5 so his numbers were inflated are not FACT.  They are also insulting to the intelligence of Stan Van Gundy who apparently doesn't change the offense when Dwight is not even playing.  Furthermore under your same argument Indiana's defenses would be geared towards stopping the 5.  Pure nonsense.
If Sullinger can perform at the level Davis is performing right now that's pretty successful for even a lottery pick.  How many lottery picks from the last 5 years are putting up that production?

[Fafnir]

You were stating that 19 and 9 were hard concrete and indicate his level of performance, KG was an example to showcase that similar numbers can occur for a player and the level of play and impact are vastly different.

Your pivot to Indiana's players did state facts about their team, but you're deflecting from the overall issue of Davis's play.

Players averageing 19 PPG in the playoffs with TS%:
LBJ  .576
Kobe .525
Durant .632
Anthony .489
Dirk .560
Westbrook .514
Rose  .482
Wade .523
Parker .535
KG .541
Griffin .533
Gay .505
Lawson .567
Davis .481
Pierce .515

Davis scored with the worst efficiency on that list and all three below .500 were eliminated in the first round. (Rose deserves an * as he only got to play one game that series) Several players with excellent TS%s were also eliminated, but this is just to illustrate how 19 points can be achieved but how you do so is very important. Taking that many shots and only putting up such low efficiency hurts your team's chances of winning.

Not all 19s are created equally and minutes and freedom to fire away can inflate to give you performances like Davis's 19 and 9. You can look at the list sorted by rebounding rate as well, Paul Pierce got defensive rebounds at the same rate as Glen Davis while playing the SF position....

[KevinConnor]

There is all kinds of back problems. some are serious and some are not. From what i've read this isn't very serious and shouldn't hamper him in the future. Would you rather have a total scrub in Melo or a very skilled player with some not to serious health concerns in Sullinger? I very much hope he slides to us in the draft.

Quite the contrary.  If his back issues aren't as serious as we are lead to believe than this entire argument is a moot point.  He won't be available pass #10.

Also, on a side note.  For someone who was supposed to be a top 3 pick last year only to go back to school and all of a sudden be top 10 this year (without back problems, mind you) its rather interesting.  Did he regress?  Was he simply overhyped?  Was it based more on potential?  Or did people get another year to see what he really is.  Actually, very similar to Harrison Barnes.  

Comparitavely, its also similar to the fact more players are deciding not to participate in the draft combine or not going back to school another year.  These players are being advised (by their agents) to sell their HYPE and POTENTIAL through limited playing time/highlights rather than have the opportunity to show any of their flaws.

I'ld be curious to see, if he stayed in school next year, where he would go in next year's draft.  Would his back be worse?  Would he gain or lose any more weight?

And, no, I don't like Melo, either.  I'm not saying its easy drafting the right players.  Thats why Danny makes the big $$$$!

Dajuan Blair is a prime example of a player who because of a medical redflag slid all the way to the bottom of the second round. Yet he never had any problems with his knees since being drafted. GM's tend to exaggerate on these matters. I for one would be very happy if Sullinger was drafted with one of the celtics picks.

[Yogi]

You were stating that 19 and 9 were hard concrete and indicate his level of performance, KG was an example to showcase that similar numbers can occur for a player and the level of play and impact are vastly different.

Your pivot to Indiana's players did state facts about their team, but you're deflecting from the overall issue of Davis's play.

Players averageing 19 PPG in the playoffs with TS%:
LBJ  .576
Kobe .525
Durant .632
Anthony .489
Dirk .560
Westbrook .514
Rose  .482
Wade .523
Parker .535
KG .541
Griffin .533
Gay .505
Lawson .567
Davis .481
Pierce .515

Davis scored with the worst efficiency on that list and all three below .500 were eliminated in the first round. (Rose deserves an * as he only got to play one game that series) Several players with excellent TS%s were also eliminated, but this is just to illustrate how 19 points can be achieved but how you do so is very important. Taking that many shots and only putting up such low efficiency hurts your team's chances of winning.

Not all 19s are created equally and minutes and freedom to fire away can inflate to give you performances like Davis's 19 and 9. You can look at the list sorted by rebounding rate as well, Paul Pierce got defensive rebounds at the same rate as Glen Davis while playing the SF position....

Who said all 19 and 9's are created equal.  You can't introduce your own points and then refute them as if they were mine. 
I am not sure how pointing out that Glen Davis played against a top 5 team, and probably one of the biggest starting 5 in the league is not relevant to Davis' play. 
If you want to judge the performance of Davis, take a gander at the list of the names you posted.  Take away those who put up 9 rebounds and/or equal production in other categories.  He's slightly worse than the names that remain.   

[LooseCannon]

It depends a lot on how you think Sullinger's injuries will affect him.  If you think he's going to have a string of seasons where he plays 40-50 games, then you should avoid him.  If you think he is going to be a good player with 6-8 productive seasons rather than 10-12 before he falls of a cliff performance-wise, then it would be a mistake to pass him up.

It is horribly wrong to categorically rule out drafting undersized bigs.  In 2011, the Celtics originally had the 25th pick (before trading down).  The 22nd pick was a 6'7" power forward who some people on this board loved and who The Wages of Win tabbed as the best player in the draft.  If Kenneth Faried had dropped a few spots and been available, I wonder how many fans here would have said the Celtics can't draft a big who is that short.