C's looking at shane larkin. nate robinson clone.

[jyyzzoel]

our old friend nate robinson.

larkin is actually a nate robinson clone.

basically the same height, nearly same wingspan, same body type, same vertical leap, same speed - all verified from the combine... and most importantly very similar number in college. what you want to do is go here:  http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Shane-Larkin-40769/stats/

and here: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/nate-robinson-67/stats/

what you want to look at is usage metrics firstly.  nate had a better first year, but second year in college that are nearly exactly the same when weighed against each other.

WS/40: nate - 8.1        larkin - 8.1
EFF/40:     - 20.3              - 18.1
EFF:        - 13.6              - 16.5
PER:        - 21.4              - 22.9

then you add to this pace adjusted per 40 statistics:

POINTS:  nate - 17.5     larkin - 16.4
REBS:         - 5.2             - 4.3
ASSISTS:      - 3.6             - 5.1
STLS:         - 2.3             - 2.2
BLKS:         - 0.1             - 0.1
T/O:          - 2.6             - 2.6

now the question is, would you take a nate robinson clone at #16 in the draft?  personally i wouldn't. i would actually look to move up or down in the draft. there are actually a lot of really good players in this draft who will be all-stars (i don't know why people are saying it's a weak draft), but i want to know if you would take nate at #16?

[Evantime34]

Larkin is two inches taller than Nate. The difference is Larkin is undersized Nate is tiny.

Larkin is also a much better defender, he doesn't just go for constant steals, he stays in front of guys and makes life difficult for opposing guards.

[jyyzzoel]

Larkin is two inches taller than Nate. The difference is Larkin is undersized Nate is tiny.

Larkin is also a much better defender, he doesn't just go for constant steals, he stays in front of guys and makes life difficult for opposing guards.

problem is, their advanced stats are nearly exactly the same, which says they have nearly the exact same impact on a game as each other.  but would you take nate at #16?

[tarheelsxxiii]

Nate was largely undervalued here, just as he was in Chicago. I like Larkin a lot, but at this point, this is an insult to Nate. And at 16, in this draft, we would be lucky to land someone that is comparable to Nate at the next level.

[PhoSita]

I'd be fine with getting a guy at #16 in a "weak" draft who can capably fill in as a starter here and there and who can give you instant offense off the bench with really nice scoring efficiency. 

The main reasons Nate is limited as a player is his size and the fact that he's not very disciplined.  He can shoot you in and out of games.

If Larkin is a bit taller than Nate and has the same ability and athleticism but is a bit more fundamentally sound and smart, he could be a nice player.

[Evantime34]

Larkin is two inches taller than Nate. The difference is Larkin is undersized Nate is tiny.

Larkin is also a much better defender, he doesn't just go for constant steals, he stays in front of guys and makes life difficult for opposing guards.

problem is, their advanced stats are nearly exactly the same, which says they have nearly the exact same impact on a game as each other.  but would you take nate at #16?

I am a big advanced stats guy, but only when they back up what you see on the court. Are those numbers conference weighted? Are they effected by pace? Just because two players have similar outputs in college does not necessarily mean they will play at the same level in the pros

Nate is a jacker who often loses focus and takes bad shots, when he gets hot he can be great, but in the end he's a volume scorer. Nate has all the talent in the world but often has trouble harnessing it, which is why he was out of the league for a little while.

 Larkin is a better creator, plays better defense, barely takes any bad shots at all. He doesn't lack consistent focus like Nate and gives more consistent effort than Nate.

In the end this is all conjecture at this point. We won't know if Larkin will be the same player as nate is in the league. My opinion is that he will be though.

That being said I would rather us pick a big

[ManUp]

I'd love to see the list of guys you think will be all-stars. I'd take Larkin if he's BPA, but i don't think that will be the case at 16. Although, a couple spots later he probably will be.

[jyyzzoel]

I'd love to see the list of guys you think will be all-stars. I'd take Larkin if he's BPA, but i don't think that will be the case at 16. Although, a couple spots later he probably will be.

i would give you a full list, but i havent really put it all together yet. cj mccollum would be one.

[bfrombleacher]

I'd love to see the list of guys you think will be all-stars. I'd take Larkin if he's BPA, but i don't think that will be the case at 16. Although, a couple spots later he probably will be.

i would give you a full list, but i havent really put it all together yet. cj mccollum would be one.

McCollum is almost definitely lottery, no?

[Celtics4ever]

So they show their hand, I think he is a decoy.  Why show whom they like.

[CFAN38]

They are very similar but I think Larkin is more of a true PG. Nate really is a SG who is forced to play point do to his size.

If Shane does become the same player in the NBA that Nate is then I still would take him at #16.

[CelticConcourse]

Nate Robinson?

I'll take a guy who can score 25 points every four games and averages per36 stats of 21ppg, 5apg, 1.5spg...



Pipe dream