Tommy on Olynyk

[BballTim]

  Per36 isn't a projection of potential, it's an actual stat produced by a player

Not if they don't play 36.   There is no accounting for fatigue or the like.   If they play 36 minutes fine bu other than that is a projection of their projection.

Stats to me are numbers you earn, per 36 is abstract and a projection.   Guys often do not live up to their per 36.

  That's the production for every 36 minutes the player is on the court. That could be in one game or it could be over the course of 4-5 or more games.

  If you play 100 minutes in January and score 100 points your per36 is 36 points. Your per10 would be 10 points, your per88 would be 88 points. You scored 1 point per minute over that time, whether that 100 minutes came as 10 minutes a game for 10 games or 100 minutes in the longest game in nba history and sat out the rest of the month due to extreme exhaustion.
 

[snively]

Tommy loves offensive skill - that's why he was such a big Marshon Brooks booster too.

I don't think he's all that far off on Olynyk either.  If we can move on from Hump or Bass and give KO a permanent, sizable spot in the rotation, I think we'll see marked improvement.

His defense has been awful and he looks like a gawky boy among men in the paint, but Kelly's meal tickets in the NBA are his shooting touch and guard skills at 7 feet tall.  Once he gets the confidence and playing time to play to those strengths, we'll have a much better perspective on his future.

[kozlodoev]

I don't think he's all that far off on Olynyk either.  If we can move on from Hump or Bass and give KO a permanent, sizable spot in the rotation, I think we'll see marked improvement.

Yeah, giving cushy minutes with no accountability whatsoever to young players is certainly the best way to build a winning team.

[Snakehead]

Another thread where we talk about Olynyk being bad like half way into his rookie year when his numbers are perfectly acceptable. 

Good I was worried we wouldn't have one today!

[nickagneta]

Sizable playing time is no guarantee of future development. Never has been. Never will be.

[clover]

  Per36 isn't a projection of potential, it's an actual stat produced by a player

Not if they don't play 36.   There is no accounting for fatigue or the like.   If they play 36 minutes fine bu other than that is a projection of their projection.

Stats to me are numbers you earn, per 36 is abstract and a projection.   Guys often do not live up to their per 36.

Per 36 merely gives you a comparable rate of production. Sure, it doesn't necessarily project to the same rate of performance over 36 minutes in a single game, but it gives you a rate of performance than can be compared among different players playing different levels of minutes.

[vinnie]

During the Orlando game, when they had Jackie M. as a guest, Tommy said Olynyk was going to be a "sensational" player. Neither Jackie nor Mike responded.I laughed and said to myself, "I wish Tommy would retire."

Basically, Tommy praises every guy the Celtics have and proclaims that most young players are going to be terrific. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[tarheelsxxiii]

During the Orlando game, when they had Jackie M. as a guest, Tommy said Olynyk was going to be a "sensational" player. Neither Jackie nor Mike responded.I laughed and said to myself, "I wish Tommy would retire."

Basically, Tommy praises every guy the Celtics have and proclaims that most young players are going to be terrific. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I agree. I like Tommy (and am upset I can't see him more while in GA) but understand his homerism well. I just happen to enjoy it. The overall sentiment on KO seems off, though.

"Big men take longer to develop" - that's reasonable, I think there's enough evidence for that. My contention is the dude plays like a 2/3 in a 7 foot body - much different question at hand. And as others have expressed, I'm not sold on a per 36 min stats, or stats at all, to that point... dude doesn't pass the eye test (and that eye test includes his upside).

He doesn't anticipate that well yet. He'll improve on that. What he won't improve on is his ability to do anything with it. He'll never be a great rebounder, finisher around the basket, post defender, or rim protector. He stretches the floor. He has a career off the bench for the reason alone (pending he improves his 3). That is super far off from being great or having a ton of upside.

[Boris Badenov]

Red like Forte too and drafted Michael Smith too.   Everyone gets them wrong once in a while.

Oly could be an improved version of Michael Smith.

Among qualified rookies, KO is

That is like saying among toddlers.  That BPG of 0.5 is really 9th among rooks, wow.   I take back all the things I have said about him.  6.6 PPG means he is heading to Cooperstown.   All among rookies is a clever way to frame it so he doesn't look a disaster.   It is still not good by any means.   This last draft looks to be a weak one one year out.

his per 36 stats are 13.1 points, 8.5 boards and 3.0 assists;

PER 36 is a silly stat considering it is nothing more than a projection of their potential and not an actual stat produced by a player.   He plays half of that in reality with 18.1 MPG.  In that time he averages 3.1 PF.

  Per36 isn't a projection of potential, it's an actual stat produced by a player. It simply normalizes minutes for (fairly) apples to apples comparisons, to avoid claims that someone who gets 15ppg in 35 minutes a game scores a lot more than someone  who gets 11 ppg in 15 minutes a game. It's per minute production. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes and no.  It allows normalization for comparisons, as you suggest.  It's still a projection, though, and a faulty one.  It suggestions that someone who performs at a certain level at 18 minutes would perform at the exact same level over 36 minutes; the production would exactly double, in a linear fashion.

For a lot of players, that's simply not true, whether it be due to quality of competition, a player's conditioning, his foul rate, etc., etc.

  It's not a projection at all. It's a normalized way of expressing the per minute production of a player. It's a measure of what player does and not at all a suggestion that a player would maintain their current level of production in they were placed in different situations. That's just a relatively common misuse of the statistic(s).

Yeah. It's puzzling to me that people are so confused about this.

Here's an analogy: Usain Bolt runs around 23 miles per hour when he sprints.

Now suppose I say "Wait, Bolt didn't run 23 miles when that was measured! He didn't run for an hour! We don't know that he could run 23 miles in an hour! This metric is therefore flawed!"

Silly, right?

[CelticsWest714]

Its took some time for KO to adjust at gonzaga and it will take some time for him to adjust to the NBA. The kid will be fine, and he will find his way.

[clover]

Red like Forte too and drafted Michael Smith too.   Everyone gets them wrong once in a while.

Oly could be an improved version of Michael Smith.

Among qualified rookies, KO is

That is like saying among toddlers.  That BPG of 0.5 is really 9th among rooks, wow.   I take back all the things I have said about him.  6.6 PPG means he is heading to Cooperstown.   All among rookies is a clever way to frame it so he doesn't look a disaster.   It is still not good by any means.   This last draft looks to be a weak one one year out.

his per 36 stats are 13.1 points, 8.5 boards and 3.0 assists;

PER 36 is a silly stat considering it is nothing more than a projection of their potential and not an actual stat produced by a player.   He plays half of that in reality with 18.1 MPG.  In that time he averages 3.1 PF.

  Per36 isn't a projection of potential, it's an actual stat produced by a player. It simply normalizes minutes for (fairly) apples to apples comparisons, to avoid claims that someone who gets 15ppg in 35 minutes a game scores a lot more than someone  who gets 11 ppg in 15 minutes a game. It's per minute production. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes and no.  It allows normalization for comparisons, as you suggest.  It's still a projection, though, and a faulty one.  It suggestions that someone who performs at a certain level at 18 minutes would perform at the exact same level over 36 minutes; the production would exactly double, in a linear fashion.

For a lot of players, that's simply not true, whether it be due to quality of competition, a player's conditioning, his foul rate, etc., etc.

  It's not a projection at all. It's a normalized way of expressing the per minute production of a player. It's a measure of what player does and not at all a suggestion that a player would maintain their current level of production in they were placed in different situations. That's just a relatively common misuse of the statistic(s).

Yeah. It's puzzling to me that people are so confused about this.

Here's an analogy: Usain Bolt runs around 23 miles per hour when he sprints.

Now suppose I say "Wait, Bolt didn't run 23 miles when that was measured! He didn't run for an hour! We don't know that he could run 23 miles in an hour! This metric is therefore flawed!"

Silly, right?

Exactly. A projection would be to, for example, shave 5% off of his rate at 18 minutes per game to account for if he were playing for 36 minutes, including, presumably, more starter minutes.

[Celtics4ever]

When Tommy started to say stuff about him being a leaper last night, I almost laughed my rear off.   Good to have an Old Drunk Uncle calling games, good times.  I love Tommy and he has earned the right to do it until he can't but that was over the top and vintage Tommy.

  It's not a projection at all. It's a normalized way of expressing the per minute production of a player. It's a measure of what player does and not at all a suggestion that a player would maintain their current level of production in they were placed in different situations. That's just a relatively common misuse of the statistic(s).

If you don't have the numbers in a stat book it is not production.  Coaches don't play guys who have one glorious minute and project at PER 36.   They play guys who produce.   It is a tool that we fans use more than anything but those numbers are not real.    Your funny as heck, though.

[vjcsmoke]

If you don't have the numbers in a stat book it is not production.  Coaches don't play guys who have one glorious minute and project at PER 36.   They play guys who produce.   It is a tool that we fans use more than anything but those numbers are not real.    Your funny as heck, though.

"You're right.  Let's cut KO.  His rookie season has been a lost cause.  He's the next Fab Melo." 

Does that make you feel better now?

It's almost like some posters enjoy seeing this team fail.

To me, KO reminds me of a better passing Troy Murphy.  And that wouldn't be the worst thing to get in the world with a mid teens pick.

Check out Murphy's career path
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/murphtr01.html

I wouldn't mind having a 7' big who could give 12-15 ppg with ~45% FG shooting with 30+% from 3 point land.  But what do I know.  Obviously Ainge sucks at picking players according to some of you guys and KO is obviously doomed to fail.

[D.o.s.]

If you don't have the numbers in a stat book it is not production.  Coaches don't play guys who have one glorious minute and project at PER 36.   They play guys who produce.   It is a tool that we fans use more than anything but those numbers are not real.    Your funny as heck, though.

"You're right.  Let's cut KO.  His rookie season has been a lost cause.  He's the next Fab Melo." 

Does that make you feel better now?

It's almost like some posters enjoy seeing this team fail.

To me, KO reminds me of a better passing Troy Murphy.  And that wouldn't be the worst thing to get in the world with a mid teens pick.

Check out Murphy's career path
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/murphtr01.html

I wouldn't mind having a 7' big who could give 12-15 ppg with ~45% FG shooting with 30+% from 3 point land.  But what do I know. Obviously Ainge sucks at picking players according to some of you guys and KO is obviously doomed to fail.

To go recap a little very shortly, Ainge drafted Fab Melo, Kelly Olynyk, and Jujuan Johnson in back to back to back drafts.

Even if you count Sully as a hit (you should) and E'twuan (maybe half?), that's not even close to grabbing winners every time out. Of course, very few players really stick in the NBA, so that's something to consider too.

[lantinm]

Personally, I don't understand the negative view of Olynyk's game.  He's actually having a pretty decent rookie season.  Would I like to see his FG% and 3pt% go up, no doubt, but he's played pretty well for a rookie.  In fact, he's rebounded a lot better (9 per 36 minutes) than we all thought he would.

We need to remind ourselves that he's not a traditional big man, and that his game is more like a poor man's Keith Van Horn right now.  Van Horn shot .426 percent from the field in his rookie season and only .308 from deep. Olynyk's shooting #'s are pretty identical, and Kelly plays roughly half the time Van Horn did.  Having said all of that, can we give the kid at least three years before we make any judgments about him?  A lot of us were very quick to give up on Avery early on, but he's proved most of us to be wrong.