This topic contains 2 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by 
lisergx 12 years, 4 months ago.
lisergx
shannon92PROJECTED STARTERS
DEVIN HARRIS, PG
Projection: 19.0 pts, 3.2 reb, 8.5 ast per 40 min; 16.68 PER | Player card• Lightning-quick guard. Gets to basket at will and constantly draws fouls.
• Mediocre outside shooter. Doesn’t see floor well and tends to dominate ball.
• Takes charges but overall defensive effort has tailed off. Injury-prone.While Harris may not be everybody’s first choice as a teammate because of how much he dominates the ball, there’s no question he’s effective. His devastating first step allows him to get to the line at a rate few guards can match — his 0.49 FTA/FGA was third among point guards — and it wasn’t all about him either: He quietly upped his assist rate last season to a very respectable 8.9 per 40 minutes.
Defensively, Harris gave a bit more effort last season than the previous one, but that’s damning with faint praise — he was still a negative on that end, and with his quickness he shouldn’t be. While Harris is very good at taking charges, too often he seems focused on his offense and checked out at the other end; it’s so frustrating because early in his career he was one of the best defensive guards in basketball. Last season he was solidly below average in nearly every metric, continuing the trend ever since he was traded from Dallas.
Harris misses games every season with little hamstring tweaks and assorted bruises; last season he played 71, and he’s averaged just 67 over the past four campaigns.
C.J. MILES, SG
Projection: 19.4 pts, 5.0 reb, 2.8 ast per 40 min; 13.98 PER | Player card• Smooth, long, left-handed wing who can score from outside or attack basket.
• Decent athlete but an inconsistent defender. Needs to improve effort, foul less.
• Takes too many long 2s off dribble. Shot selection, court vision need work.Miles took a strong step forward as the go-to guy for Utah’s second unit, averaging better than a point every two minutes — the eighth-best scoring rate among small forwards. However, his percentages could stand to improve. Miles has a nice-looking stroke but his 3-point shooting continues to perplex; last season’s 32.2 percent mark leaves him at 33.3 percent for his career. He also made only 36.8 percent of his long 2s, although many of these came under duress.
Miles is a good finisher who shot 66.7 percent in the basket area, but only a third of his shots came from here. With his quickness and handle, he should be able to get to the rim more. That would also help him draw more fouls.
Defensively, Miles needs to step up his game. His foul rate was the seventh highest among small forwards and Synergy Stats rated him the third-worst small forward. According to 82games.com, he struggled particularly defending against 2s, who lit him for an 18.0 PER in 2010-11 and 19.1 in 2009-10. Thus, part of the problem for Miles may be how he’s used — we need to think of him less as a combo wing and more as a pure 3.
At 24, Miles can still improve, and he may be able to take another step forward as a full-time small forward this season. He’s an average player right now, but it’s not hard to envision him making a few more 3s, getting a bit more consistent defensively, and turning into a valuable asset.
ANDREI KIRILENKO, SF (FREE AGENT — UNRESTRICTED)
Projection: 13.7 pts, 6.4 reb, 3.5 ast per 40 min; 15.17 PER | Player card• Long-armed wing who excels at blocking shots from behind.
• Good ball handler and passer but lacks aggression and strength.
• Mediocre outside shooter but a very good finisher around the basket.Largely viewed negatively because of a millstone contract that just expired and a mellow demeanor that at times made you wonder how much he cared, it’s time now to see Kirilenko in a different light. He’s still a very valuable secondary player because of his ability to contribute in multiple ways and play both forward spots. At 30 years old we can expect him to decline, but he can drop a fair way and still have value.
Kirilenko ranked ninth among small forwards in PER, and he was good in nearly every sub-category save turnovers. While he forces some ill-advised passes, he also was 14th at his position in pure point rating, so the assists more than offset the negatives. He still blocks a ton of shots for a wing (fourth among small forwards), he’s a strong rebounder, and he draws lots of fouls (third among small forwards with 0.50 FTA/FGA).
While his shooting is an issue — he’ll have trouble repeating last season’s 3-point percentage — Kirilenko can also help as a small-ball 4 with the right team, which is something he hasn’t done in Utah for a few years because of its frontcourt depth. Additionally, his defense remains a plus due to his length — opposing small forwards mustered only a 12.2 PER against him. All told, he’s a very solid get for a contending team on a short-term contract, and he appears to be well under the radar.
PAUL MILLSAP, PF
Projection: 19.3 pts, 9.2 reb, 2.8 ast per 40 min; 18.81 PER | Player card• Undersized, high-energy 4 who can score around basket or hit midrange jumpers.
• Excellent rebounder with good hands and wide frame. Good hands for steals.
• Size a problem defensively. Good passer. Moves well without ball into openings.While the Jazz imploded around him, Millsap quietly had a career season that dispelled the notion that he can be effective only in limited minutes. Averaging 34.3 minutes a night, Millsap averaged better than a point every two minutes and flashed a devastating midrange game. Believe it or not, he led all players in shooting accuracy from 10 to 15 feet by making 51.6 percent. The season before he made 46.9 percent of his long 2s, so I would not treat this development as a fluke.
Top shooters from 10 to 15 feet, 2010-11
Player Team Pct. Paul Millsap Uta 51.6 Kobe Bryant LAL 51.5 Beno Udrih Sac 51.5 Steve Nash Phx 50.7 Shaun Livingston Cha 49.6 Min. 100 attempts. Source: Hoopdata.com Millsap isn’t a pure scorer — most of his attempts are assisted — but between pick-and-pops, dives to the rim and opportunistic plays around the basket he manages to put up consistently strong scoring and shooting numbers. His offensive boards have dropped off as he’s become more of a scorer, but his overall rebound rate isn’t bad.
Defensively, Millsap has quick hands and can stay in front of most players, but he struggles against length and isn’t a factor challenging shots at the rim; as a result, opposing power forwards lit him for a 19.5 PER. However, his other data wasn’t bad, and his lack of length is far more problematic because he’s paired with Al Jefferson in the frontcourt. Additionally, he cut his foul rate enough to be a full-time starter last season.
AL JEFFERSON, C
Projection: 20.3 pts, 10.7 reb, 2.0 ast per 40 min; 19.25 PER | Player card• Left-block post scorer with huge hands. Needs to improve versus double-team.
• Arsenal includes jump hook to 12 feet, great shot fake, and lethal drop step.
• Poor defender with slow reactions. Too slow for 4, but short for a 5.Jefferson’s isolating low-post game meshed terribly with Jerry Sloan’s system, but after the coaching change at midseason he found his groove and played very well offensively down the stretch. Jefferson’s post-All-Star splits dwarfed his pre-break numbers: 21.5 points compared with 17.6, 51.8 percent shooting compared with 48.4 percent, and 11.0 rebounds compared with 9.1. He even passed the ball once in a while, netting 2.5 assists after the break against 1.5 before.
Jefferson’s value comes not from the accuracy of his left-block shots (always the left block — though the right one is only 10 feet away, it might as well be in Tibet as far he’s concerned) — but rather that he can create so many without ever turning the ball over. Jefferson had the lowest turnover rate of any center at a scant 6.2, and while this is partly because he forced so many shots against double-teams, it’s also a tribute to his great hands and footwork in the post. He virtually never picks up charging fouls or fumbles the ball making his move.
Jefferson’s Synergy Stats numbers weren’t bad, just as they weren’t in Minnesota a season earlier, but his plus-minus numbers were again awful. Utah was an eye-popping 8.81 points per 100 possessions worse defensively with him on the court last season; a year earlier in Minnesota the carnage read -2.86. This reflects one fact: The problem with Jefferson isn’t the plays he guards, but the ones where he never comes into the picture to provide help. Although he blocks shots, Jefferson is lackadaisical weakside defender and rim protector.
The obvious solution would be to move him to the 4, except that exposes Jefferson in other ways — he’s not terribly mobile and is reluctant to chase players on the perimeter. As an undersized 5, however, he requires a very strong defensive frontcourt mate. If Derrick Favors becomes that type of player it will help Jefferson considerably.
RESERVES
DERRICK FAVORS, PF
Projection: 15.4 pts, 10.9 reb, 1.4 ast per 40 min; 15.00 PER | Player card• Mobile big man who likely will become elite defender in P.J. Brown mold.
• Fouls too much. Can finish and draw fouls, but offensive instincts are raw.
• Needs to improve ballhandling and low-post game to be long-term starting center.It remains to be seen whether Favors’ best long-term position is center or power forward, but he has the size and length to be a very good defender at either position and was already beginning to display those skills by the end of his rookie season — particularly in his on-ball post defense.
Favors also ranked ninth among power forwards in blocks per minute and had a very good rebound rate as well, strong indicators going forward given that he was only 19 years old. However, he has to stop fouling so much. Favors was the third most frequent offender among power forwards at one every 6.2 minutes, making it virtually impossible to give him extended minutes; one hopes that with experience he can slash that number to something more reasonable.
Offensively, Favors doesn’t seem to have a go-to move but is big enough to score some points anyway. The biggest issue right now is his free throw shooting. Favors drew a lot of fouls but made only 59.5 percent from the stripe, crushing his true shooting percentage.
Additionally, he’s a pretty brutal ball handler. Favors had a bad turnover rate, which is normal for rookies and often indicative of future growth, but his assist rate was even worse. His lack of comfort with the rock inhibits his post game as well, and may be his biggest limitation going forward. He’ll score some buckets just from his size and athleticism, but it’s not clear if he’ll ever be an instinctive offensive player.
MEHMET OKUR, C
No projection | Player card• Sweet-shooting 7-footer who can post up smaller defenders. Slow-footed.
• Rugged, physical post defender but can’t jump or defend rim. Decent rebounder.
• Excels at grabbing missed free throws. Recovering from torn Achilles.Okur played only 13 games after missing most of the season with a torn Achilles, and, well, looked like a guy who had just come back from not playing for a year. He shot only 35.5 percent and his rebounding numbers were way off from their norms.
He’s 32 years old and has never been a conditioning zealot, so there are reasonable concerns about how much of his former ability he can retain. The glass-half-full side is that bigs who can shoot usually retain most of their faculties even when they lose a step. One suspects Okur can contribute considerably more than he did in his late trial run last season, and if so the Jazz will have a frontcourt as deep as any in basketball.
RONNIE PRICE, PG (FREE AGENT — UNRESTRICTED)
Projection: 11.9 pts, 3.5 reb, 3.7 ast per 40 min; 6.91 PER | Player card• Athletic guard who lacks a position. Great leaper but takes off with two feet.
• Erratic handle for a point guard. Short for a 2 but can check bigger players.
• Poor outside shooter, but makes bad decisions on his drives. Fouls like crazy.An athlete in search of a game, Price’s brutal offensive display last season may have been a career-ending performance. His -2.48 pure point rating was unspeakably awful; it is virtually impossible to play the point for any length of time and post a mark this bad. He very nearly had both the worst assist rate AND the worst turnover rate among point guards, eventually settling for second- and fourth-worst, respectively.
Price also had the worst shooting percentage among point guards at a ghastly 35.2 percent, and the worst true shooting percentage too. Needless to say, his PER was the worst at the position and very nearly the worst in the league; only Atlanta’s Jason Collins and the Nets’ horrific Stephen Graham saved him from that distinction.
Defensively, Price had his moments. He pressures the ball, can guard bigger players and is very athletic. He had the third-best rate of steals among point guards, and a very strong defensive plus-minus for the second straight season. On the other hand, no guard fouls more often — his rate of once every 6.8 minutes was the most of any perimeter player and 19th in the league overall.
EARL WATSON, PG (FREE AGENT — UNRESTRICTED)
Projection: 10.2 pts, 4.2 reb, 7.1 ast per 40 min, PER 10.20 | Player card• Hard-nosed point guard with size and strength to check 2s effectively.
• Strong defender but overaggressive; makes bad decisions on both ends.
• A poor outside shooter but lacks great point guard instincts. Rebounds well.Watson’s defensive plus-minus numbers have been outstanding nearly every year of his career, and they were again last season: Utah gave up 3.91 points per 100 possessions less with him on the court. What made it particularly impressive was that he spent a big chunk of his playing time defending shooting guards, and did so very effectively. Watson also redoubled his efforts on the boards, ranking seventh among point guards in rebound rate.
Offensively, alas, he’s still a mess. Watson had a high assist rate at least, but compensated with the fifth-worst turnover rate among point guards. Meanwhile, he averaged an embarrassing 8.8 points per 40 minutes thanks to a ragged outside shot and a strange unwillingness to attack the rim. A third of Watson’s shots were 3-pointers, which is an odd choice for such an erratic outside shooter.
As a result, he’s a 10-minute point guard, but his skill set makes him particularly effective as backcourt partner with the 2-in-a-1’s-body types that are proliferating all over the league — Watson can distribute on offense and then defend the 2-guard on defense. That fact alone should keep him in a rotation for another season.
RAJA BELL, SG
Projection: 10.5 pts, 3.5 reb, 2.3 ast per 40 min, PER 7.76 | Player card• Feisty, physical defender who has lost a step or two from his prime.
• Spot-up, line-drive outside shooter off catch or after a single dribble to right.
• Lacks athleticism and can’t create own shot. Poor rebounder.I’m not sure why the Jazz settled on Bell as their solution at shooting guard last summer, and they’re probably thinking the same thing right now. He was supposed to be a stopper and long-range weapon but struggled in both roles, with the most amazing stat being that he played 2,097 minutes without drawing a single basket-and-1. He took 44 shots at the rim all season.
Instead Bell spent his year shooting 20-foot line drives, and while his stroke was decent (41.2 percent on long 2s, 35.2 percent on 3s), it wasn’t nearly enough to offset the total lack of easy points in the paint or the minuscule usage rate. Bell finished with the second-worst PER at his position; that he stayed on the court all season anyway speaks volumes to Gordon Hayward’s struggles.
Defensively, Bell was just OK — feisty and physical as always, but giving up too much athleticism on many nights to make a real impact. He’s under contract for two more years, but he’ll need to transition to a much lesser role if he isn’t bought out entirely.
GORDON HAYWARD, SF
Projection: 14.0 pts, 4.5 reb, 2.9 ast per 40 min, PER 11.95 | Player card• Athletic wing still figuring out how to translate skills to basketball court.
• Can jump and finish, but average shooter and ball handler.
• Offensive instincts need improvement, especially on pick-and-roll.The defining play of Hayward’s rookie season was an action I call the "pick-and-nothing." The Jazz would run a pick-and-roll for Hayward and he would neither turn the corner, nor shoot a jumper, nor hit the roll man. He’d just eat the ball and throw it back out. It’s confounding because he clearly has some skills, but his offensive instincts need to round into shape before he can contribute consistently.
Yet Hayward did show flashes, with top-of-the-square shot blocks, a couple of dazzling dunks and above-average rebounding numbers. He also shot 47.3 percent on 3s, albeit in just 74 attempts, and he can handle the ball. Plus, at 6-8 he’s about the biggest 2-guard in the league; one suspects he’ll eventually land at the 3.
Defensively, Hayward was wayward. Utah gave up 5.17 points per 100 possessions more with him on the court, opponents posted strong PERs against him at both wing positions, and Synergy Stats rated him among the league’s worst defenders. His height and feet indicate he should eventually be pretty good in this area, but last season he sure wasn’t.
Even with his struggles, his final stats on the season weren’t that bad for a rookie guard, thanks to a strong final month. It’s just a question of developing the aggression and instincts to take advantage of his skills.
KYRYLO FESENKO, C (FREE AGENT — UNRESTRICTED)
No projection | Player card• Enormous center whose size makes him a major defensive presence.
• Hugely foul-prone and mistake-prone offensively. Horrid foul shooter.
• Professionalism needs improvement. Also struggles to finish around rim.The best-kept secret in the NBA right now is Fesenko’s monstrous defensive stats. It’s not that one or two metrics point out his defensive value; it’s that all of them do, without any pointing to the contrary.
Last season the Jazz were an eye-popping 11.91 points per 100 possessions better on defense with Fesenko on the floor, and this is not a new trend. The season before it was 8.67; in limited minutes his first two seasons he also had a strong differential.
Synergy Stats, meanwhile, rated Fesenko as the second-best defender in the entire league among players who faced at least 150 opponent plays; the season before he was first. And according to 82games.com, opposing centers had a PER of just 10.4 against him; the season before it was 12.9.
Despite his size, Fesenko doesn’t block a ton of shots or dominate the boards. He just uglies up the game for opponents with his sheer hugeness, especially since he moves his feet fairly well for his size. And he can still get better — he wasn’t always fully engaged in Utah and needs to step up his commitment.
Now for the bad news. Fesenko has been fairly disastrous offensively. He tends to bring balls back into shot-blockers when finishing at the rim, he’s a 39.8 percent career foul shooter, he’s clumsy, and he has no shooting range or ball skills.
Additionally, his towering foul rate limits his impact — Fesenko commits one every 4.94 minutes for his career, making it virtually impossible for him to play extended minutes. Nonetheless, he can be a very effective, low-cost backup center, and if he can make a few more plays offensively he’ll have real value.
JEREMY EVANS, SF
No projection | Player card• Rail-thin, pogo-leaping forward who excels on alley-oop plays.
• Appears to have bad hands and few other basketball skills.
• Mobility makes him defensive plus but lacks strength to guard post.Jerry Sloan had a pretty good strategy for how to take advantage of Evans’ skills: He would check into a game late in the third quarter, and almost immediately Sloan would call an alley-oop for him. Often that would be his only basket of the game.
A pogo stick in search of a game, not to mention a muscle or two, Evans is trying to build a niche as a bench energy guy. His 66.1 percent shooting mark stands out, but it’s on only 115 attempts, so the jury remains out on whether he can be a rotation player. He rarely scored besides the dunks, fumbled passes, and had a very poor rebound rate for an alleged energizer. Additionally, he can’t be used against post-up 4s because of his complete and total lack of muscle.
FRANCISCO ELSON, C (FREE AGENT — UNRESTRICTED)
Projection: 8.7 pts, 7.4 reb, 2.5 ast per 40 min, PER 8.25 | Player card• Lanky big man who can run floor. Mobile enough to check guards on switches.
• Lacks strength and rarely rebounds. Can be overpowered near rim.
• Has no half-court offensive skills. Rarely scores around rim. Mediocre 12-foot J.Elson has value at the defensive end, where his mobility makes him a solid pick-and-roll defender and he has enough bulk to play some post defense. But his other contributions are so scant that the tradeoff is rarely worthwhile.
Elson had the fifth-worst PER among centers last season, primarily because he averaged only 8.8 points per 40 minutes. That it was his highest mark in three seasons underscores the trouble Elson has scoring. He’s also a below-average rebounder who ranked among the bottom 10 centers in rebound rate, and he doesn’t block shots either (55th out of 67 centers).
As a third center, one can live with these limitations, but that’s about the extent of his value. He’s had PERs of 6.77, 10.29, 5.48 and 8.98 the past four seasons; you can’t win with that in the rotation.
ENES KANTER, C
No projection | Player card• Skilled big man with strong outside shot and great feel around basket.
• Not a great athlete and may struggle to help guards and defend 4s.
• Strong build and rugged. Will rebound and bang inside.For all his skill, one of the big concerns about Kanter is that he’s hardly played the past two years due to an ill-fated sojourn through the wilds of college basketball. He’d have been much better served just continuing to develop in Turkey.
Nonetheless, he shined in the 2010 Hoop Summit game and offers a rare combination of size, physicality and shooting ability. Despite concerns about his athleticism and defensive chops, he’s almost certainly going to be a productive player — at worst, it seems, he’ll be an offensive big man in the mold of fellow Turk Mehmet Okur.
ALEC BURKS, SG
No projection | Player card• Smooth, slashing scorer with excellent size for position. Can get to rim and score.
• Solid ball handler who may be able to play point in a pinch. Rebounds well.
• Outside shot a major question mark. May need to add muscle. Makes free throws.Burks appears destined to have a long, solid career; though not an elite athlete, he has the prototype build for a 2-guard and his advanced ballhandling skills should be able to cover for some of his deficiencies as a shooter. Additionally, one must take encouragement from his 82.5 percent mark from the line last season — he’s not Ben Wallace, he’s just had trouble producing a consistent stroke at game speed. At his age, the potential to get considerably better is certainly there, making him one of the few players drafted outside the top five whom one could imagine playing in an All-Star Game someday.
0
lisergx
| You must be logged in to reply to this topic. | Login |