Closer Look: Otto Porter

[jmuxl]

Lol the Hoyas lost to a 15-seed behind their star players' piss-poor performance. Nothing about his game screams anything but mediocre. I don't understand!

Couldn't agree more. I have a feeling his stock will severely drop once workouts start.

 

[randymoss1881]

I have an eary feeling that Chris Grant is high on Shabazz Muhammad. This draft is not filled with superstar potential players so I feel if Chris Grant is going to go for a risky pick with our 1st pick he may take Shabazz Muhammad. He has great length, ok height for a SF and very good strength but the one reason Grant may take him is because he is possibly the most gifted scorer in the draft. If the Cavs can add a great scoring SF I think they would do it and Shabazz may be that guy.

I will put down money saying he isnt even on our the draft board dude plays no defense, not a team player, to small, and averages under 1assist per game.

Im not saying im an expert but why is this guy billed as a potential 20ppg player besides his high school hype. Name another wing player that scores over 15points but has no handles whats so ever and cant creat for themselves? At least beal and mclemore have elite jump shots

 

[MD13]

I listened to Ford podcast too. He seemed awfully certain, kind of implied inside knowledge, that we will take Porter almost no matter what (the context was even over Noel who they had spent five minutes saying he's the obvious almost-consensus #1 pick). So...that's a pretty big claim.

I hear the Granger comparison and am seriously underwhelmed. I wouldn't automatically sign up for that for a high lottery pick. Granger is overrated. His advanced stats for his entire career say that he's a slightly above average player. Never, ever more than that, not even for one season. His team is actually better with him injured and out.

In other words: he's a quality starter and nothing more. That makes him a 4th or 5th best player on a contending team. As I've said elsewhere, I'd take quality starter from this draft -- admittedly we could do worse especially in this draft -- but that hardly lights me on fire.

Well you have to keep in mind the difference in role. A lot of Granger's inefficiency was due to being the primary option on some bad Pacers teams, but here he'd be our 3rd or even 4th option. Granger has always been a good shooter from deep, a decent rebounder, and a good defender with the added bonus of being able to create his shot. Given the rest of the prospects in this draft, I'd say it's worth any pick after the two C's (Noel and Len).

 

[Jack Brickman]

Lol the Hoyas lost to a 15-seed behind their star players' piss-poor performance. Nothing about his game screams anything but mediocre. I don't understand!

Because we should judge a player's entire college career on one game. I get that it was an important game and all, but this is the very definition of making too much of a tournament performance. Porter had some absolutely electric games during the regular season, and you judge a player on the whole picture, not an individual performance.

 

[rosebowl89]

Lol the Hoyas lost to a 15-seed behind their star players' piss-poor performance. Nothing about his game screams anything but mediocre. I don't understand!

Pro potential isn't based off of 1 game.

 

[Sir John]

Well you have to keep in mind the difference in role. A lot of Granger's inefficiency was due to being the primary option on some bad Pacers teams, but here he'd be our 3rd or even 4th option. Granger has always been a good shooter from deep, a decent rebounder, and a good defender with the added bonus of being able to create his shot. Given the rest of the prospects in this draft, I'd say it's worth any pick after the two C's (Noel and Len).

I agree with you 100%. And I too would take Porter third after Noel and Len.

I was just meaning that I kind of hope he isn't just a Granger-level player. Ford was spouting that out like it was a major compliment which I find puzzling. But I also accept that on the Cavs, unless Porter surprises with upside, he probably would be a 3-4th option. It would just be nice if we could get someone even better but if not, I'm down with Porter. Going from Gee to Porter alone might improve the Cavs win total by ten games....

 

[Jack Brickman]

I agree with you 100%. And I too would take Porter third after Noel and Len.

I was just meaning that I kind of hope he isn't just a Granger-level player. Ford was spouting that out like it was a major compliment which I find puzzling. But I also accept that on the Cavs, unless Porter surprises with upside, he probably would be a 3-4th option. It would just be nice if we could get someone even better but if not, I'm down with Porter. Going from Gee to Porter alone might improve the Cavs win total by ten games....

This is a really weak draft. If you get a guy as good as Granger in a draft that lacks much firepower, you drafted pretty well. That's not to say he'll be the best player or anything, though.

 

[Just Checkin]

Pro potential isn't based off of 1 game.

Just ignore those flippant statements like the rest of us.

 

[Revenged25]

I think a Danny Granger type, or especially Granger himself, is the perfect type of player for this Cavs team. We need a player that can be a 3rd option, not complain about it, work off the ball, play defense, get rebounds, and knock down shots when Irving and Waiters get him open looks. The fact of the matter is thag Otto Porter is also ranked 2nd in WARP this year behind Noel. He might not ever be a superstar, but I could see an all star or two, but he's the type of player that would just make this team work. It's hard to explain it outside of using a term people dislike in a glue guy, but I think he will be more than just glue, he's just that guy. He fits the Cavs team perfectly on he does everything that the team needs without being a primadona about it.

 

[oasis05]

I thought warp was disproven? So many indicators.. What history of success does warp have anyway?

 

[Revenged25]

I thought warp was disproven? So many indicators.. What history of success does warp have anyway?

It hasn't been disproven or proven yet really, its still a rather new measurement and even the creator of it says that its just another tool, like PER, to use in your decision making process. Obviously WARP can be wrong, but so can the eye test, PER, other advanced stats, etc, but it puts a huge emphasis on age due to the fact thag most of a players improvement comes in the late teens to early 20's, so the older you are the more likely you are to be maxes out or limited in your ability to improve. I think the only exception to this rule should be when looking at young big men as they typically take a little longer to develop than other positions. But if you have a high WARP as a big man your potential is should be extremely high.

WARP currently has McLemore and Shabazz both rather low, and in the past people with low WARP typically end up no better than role players/busts, the best player so far to have a low WARP recently and produce is Harrison Barnes who had a .6 WARP. Len also has a low WARP but as a big man WARP means less to me if its low as they take time, but Porter has a 3.1 WARP which is really good.

 

[oasis05]

Where do you find warp ratings for draft prospects?

 

[oasis05]

I don't get the hate for porter because his team lost to a low seed. Georgetown didn't have the talent, they didn't have any other players. It was all on Porter. He did good to carry georgetown to the tournament, but when it comes down to it teams win, not individual players.

 

[shoes22]

I don't get the hate for porter because his team lost to a low seed. Georgetown didn't have the talent, they didn't have any other players. It was all on Porter. He did good to carry georgetown to the tournament, but when it comes down to it teams win, not individual players.

The main argument against picking Porter isn't because his team lost, it's because his ceiling isn't very high. Players like Noel or McLemore have potential All-Star ceilings, most think Porter's ceiling is Tayshaun Prince.

 

[MRMsix6]

most think Porter's ceiling is Tayshaun Prince.

Where did you come up with that? People bring up Prince as a comp because stylistically and body-wise they are similar, but Porter is better in nearly every way. To me, it's more likely that his floor is a Tayshaun Prince level player than his ceiling. I honestly don't know what his ceiling is, but it's certainly higher than Tayshaun Prince. At the same stage in their college careers Porter is the significantly better player. Porter also has a slightly thicker frame that should be able to support more weight.