We are in an unfortunate situation

[littleteapot]

Celtics18 I'd save your time because there are a million young scoring bigs who scored around 10 ppg and 15 pp/36 at the start of their careers. All it really shows is that their teams put them on the court and gave them the ball, and that it sometimes went in. It says nothing about if they were efficient scorers or even where there scoring opportunities came from.

[Who]

I did a search on B-Ref.com to check for 2nd year guys who were taller than 6-10 that played forward or center who (1) scored 10+ppg (2) had 16+ points per 36 minutes. Olynyk's stats as mentioned above.

Only 52 guys have done that since the 1984 draft.

It is a very impressive list but most of those guys (37 out of 52) were scoring more than 15ppg by their 2nd season.

So, if we look only at the guys scoring below 15ppg, we have:

#52 = Olynyk = 10.3ppg
#51 = John Ameachi = 10.5ppg .... 29 years old
#50 = Eddy Curry = 10.5ppg ... high school guy, 3 years younger than Olynyk
#49 = Stanley Roberts = 11.3ppg
#48 = Sharone Wright = 11.6ppg
#47 = Roy Hibbert = 11.7ppg
#46 = Clifford Robinson = 11.7ppg
#45 = Charlie Villanueva = 11.8ppg ... only 39 games played

Then an uptick in the scoring

#44 = Arvydas Sabonis = 13.4ppg .... 32 year old
#43 = Roy Tarpley = 13.5ppg ... plus 11.8rpg and won the 6th man of the year award
#42 = Greg Anderson = 13.7ppg
#41 = Steve Stipanovich = 13.7ppg
#40 = Melvin Turpin = 13.7ppg
#39 = Nikola Pekovic = 13.9ppg
#38 = Kevin Love = 14.0ppg ... plus 11.0rpg

[footey]

I did a search on B-Ref.com to check for 2nd year guys who were taller than 6-10 that played forward or center who (1) scored 10+ppg (2) had 16+ points per 36 minutes. Olynyk's stats as mentioned above.

Only 52 guys have done that since the 1984 draft.

It is a very impressive list but most of those guys (37 out of 52) were scoring more than 15ppg by their 2nd season.

So, if we look only at the guys scoring below 15ppg, we have:

#52 = Olynyk = 10.3ppg
#51 = John Ameachi = 10.5ppg .... 29 years old
#50 = Eddy Curry = 10.5ppg ... high school guy, 3 years younger than Olynyk
#49 = Stanley Roberts = 11.3ppg
#48 = Sharone Wright = 11.6ppg
#47 = Roy Hibbert = 11.7ppg
#46 = Clifford Robinson = 11.7ppg
#45 = Charlie Villanueva = 11.8ppg ... only 39 games played

Then an uptick in the scoring

#44 = Arvydas Sabonis = 13.4ppg .... 32 year old
#43 = Roy Tarpley = 13.5ppg ... plus 11.8rpg and won the 6th man of the year award
#42 = Greg Anderson = 13.7ppg
#41 = Steve Stipanovich = 13.7ppg
#40 = Melvin Turpin = 13.7ppg
#39 = Nikola Pekovic = 13.9ppg
#38 = Kevin Love = 14.0ppg ... plus 11.0rpg

Kelly likely would have averaged closer to 13-14 ppg last season if he had not been injured so much.  His scoring average dropped considerably after he got hurt. As did his confidence.

[Celtics18]

Thank for chiming in guys. 

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that Kelly Olynyk is destined to be an all star.  Rather, I'm arguing that I wouldn't write off his chances of ever becoming one based on his first couple of years' performance.

[flybono]

You can either hope for the best or expect the worst.  Its up to you.  You choose to be negative.

I believe in Danny Ainge and Brad Stevens.

Your right brother.. And finally after all those big 3 yrs the Celts have CASH to spend..

This offseason could define Danny's legacy as a Hall Of Fame GM..

[Celtics4ever]

Is his scoring really the problem, he is inconsistent.   But he is a poor rebounder and not exactly a rim protector either.   You can polish a you know what but it is still a you know what.

[LooseCannon]

Finally, I don't know that these numbers prove anything or have any real statistical merit, but it was fun to look up for comparison to some other proven scoring bigs around the league and see how our Kelly stacked up in his first couple of years.

Its meaningless because you only looked up good players and didn't check out guys like Charlie Villanueva, Anthony Randolph, and Zeljko Rebaca.

perhaps you mean celetis18's post needs context, because it certainly has meaning as written.

next, you mention villanueva and others, but why? and what would their stats show us that would improve on celtics18 post? these are real questions since i am not sure what your exact point is in the post.

The methodology has little statistical merit because it is based on anecdotal evidence.  The rigorous method would involve a search for bigs who scored above a certain threshold early in their career.  My guess is that players with a history similar to Olynyk are more likely than not to end up being a valuable player, but just comparing him to players who were successful can give a false impression of just how likely it is for Olynyk to be a huge success.

[LooseCannon]

Celtics18 I'd save your time because there are a million young scoring bigs who scored around 10 ppg and 15 pp/36 at the start of their careers. All it really shows is that their teams put them on the court and gave them the ball, and that it sometimes went in. It says nothing about if they were efficient scorers or even where there scoring opportunities came from.

b-r.com lists 290 players lists as a center or forward (but not G/F or F/G) who averaged at least 9ppg and 14 pts/36 over their first two seasons in the history of the NBA while playing at least 1000 minutes.  If you narrow that to players 6'9" or taller in the three-point era who were 26 or younger, that narrows the field to 129 names. 

[Celtics18]

Finally, I don't know that these numbers prove anything or have any real statistical merit, but it was fun to look up for comparison to some other proven scoring bigs around the league and see how our Kelly stacked up in his first couple of years.

Its meaningless because you only looked up good players and didn't check out guys like Charlie Villanueva, Anthony Randolph, and Zeljko Rebaca.

perhaps you mean celetis18's post needs context, because it certainly has meaning as written.

next, you mention villanueva and others, but why? and what would their stats show us that would improve on celtics18 post? these are real questions since i am not sure what your exact point is in the post.

The methodology has little statistical merit because it is based on anecdotal evidence.  The rigorous method would involve a search for bigs who scored above a certain threshold early in their career.  My guess is that players with a history similar to Olynyk are more likely than not to end up being a valuable player, but just comparing him to players who were successful can give a false impression of just how likely it is for Olynyk to be a huge success.

I tried to be pretty clear that I didn't consider my search or my findings to represent any kind of statical certainty.

I just thought it was interesting to note that some very good players and quite a few all stars didn't have better stats over the course of their first couple of seasons than Kelly Olynyk. 

I also realize that there are a number of players that had not so impressive careers who averaged similar or better numbers than Kelly over the course of their first two years.

This was all in response to the claim that Kelly and Marcus ceilings are below all star and no better than fourth best starter on a contender based on their early performances.

I disagree with that claim.  I'm not saying that anything I researched represents incontrovertible of how their careers will pan out. 

On the other hand, I doubt very strongly that anyone could say incontrovertibly that there is proof that neither Kelly Olynyk nor Marcus Smart has the capability of being an all star or better than fourth best starter on a contender based on their NBA performances to date. 

[mctyson]

It is a sad thing

I think people on this board dramatically underestimate how good defensively Smart, Bradley, and Crowder are...and how defense was what won our last championship.

I would counter that you are dramatically underestimating just how good our defense was in 2008. Because it was historically great.

So I said defense won our last championship and you say I underestimated it?  What else do I have to say?

My point was in reference to OP that it is a "sad thing" the situation we are in...as a season ticket holder I could not be more happy about the direction of this franchise right now.

You are insinuating that Smart, Crowder, and Bradley could be the bedrock of a defense that is good enough to win an NBA championship, just like the last ring we won.

That is like looking at Nick Young and thinking he could be the next Kobe Bryant, or Isiah Thomas and thinking he could be the next Allen Iverson, or Kelly Olynyk and thinking he could be the next  Chris Webber. Superficially there's a slight similarity, but the comparison (by insinuation) is laughable.

First, there is nothing in my original statement that insinuated anything that you are stating above.  I quite literally said that people on this board underrate Smart, Bradley, and Crowder's value on defense.   

Second, I followed up with a statement clearly indicating what I meant, and you continue to speculate on what I actually meant.  So I may need to clarify further:

Avery Bradley, Marcus Smart, and Jae Crowder are defensively-talented NBA players who put this team in a position far ahead of where it was a year ago.  This is a very good thing.