I'm a big fan of Nurkic. BUT, I don't think he would give us anything that Zizic can't give us, and I think we need a center with much better lateral quickness than he has.
Not sure we can pencil in Zizic for 16/11 (what Nurkic averages in starter minutes) the way you could with Nurkic.
On the turnover issue - isn't that one of the more fixable problems someone could have, especially at age 22?
Heck, Terry Rozier is older than Nurkic and his flaws are far more worrisome.
He's also cost-controlled for this year and next.
I think if the price is right (meaning Rozier and a non-lottery draft pick or two), it's a good move. Helps our rotation, carries little long-term cost.
Can we pencil Nurkic in for that production? Extrapolating per-36 numbers seems extremely optimistic. He's yet to average above 8.6 points or 6.2 rebounds.
I'd be fine with paying a modest price, but I think we should limit our expectations.
I didn't extrapolate per-36 numbers. Those are his numbers (15/12 actually) when he plays starter minutes (30-39).
Even if you look at more reasonable number for a player with his physical profile, when playing 20-29 minutes he averages 11 and 8.
Taking the entire spectrum of minutes played, his per-minute production does not decline when he plays more minutes.
Well, as an actual starter he's averaging 9.8 points and 7.3 rebounds.
This year, he's played 30+ minutes in only one game. It stands to figure that he gets more minutes when he's playing well, so projecting any stat line based upon the limited numbers of games he gets extended playing time seems faulty.
I'm using his career totals, not his numbers this year.
And I understand the selection bias on minutes, but the data don't support it. If that were true, his per-36 figures would be better when he plays more. They're the same.
And if you take the starter numbers you quote above (which are, at least on a game-by-game basis, not subject to the "plays more minutes when playing well" bias), they come out to...you guessed it. 15 and 12 per-36.
Zero evidence that his productivity changes based on minutes played. Or starting vs. not. None.
Like anyone who understands what per-36 numbers are for, I'm not projecting performance. I'm describing it.
And if you want to say "yeah but he'd never play more than 20 minutes," fine. But then the question is whether Zizic's per-20 performance would match Nurkic's.
And just to get out of the weeds: I love Zizic and hope he ends up a better player than Nurkic. Perhaps he'd come in at age 21 and give us 10 and 7 in 22 minutes a game. I'm just saying that it's a lot to expect of someone who's never played a minute of NBA ball.