Closer Look: Otto Porter

[KB]

I think they are pretty happy with Singler and Jerebko. They need guard help.

They need a real PG, unless they plan on keeping JC (Knights more of combo guard imo)

I could see them using their pick to drop down in the first so they can move Charlie V or Stuckey

 

[I'mWithDan]

The more concerning thing to me is weight. A guy that could be listed at 6'9" couldn't break 200 lbs? I was hoping he would hit 210 as he does have a nice frame.

Porter is going to need to spend significant time in the weight room.

Biggest concern with Porter is his lack of spring. The guy is a bean pole and has just pedestrian vert numbers. 27" standing vert with nothing on his frame is the definition of average. Given he's not very athletic now, I doubt his body could carry around 20 more pounds without him being a plodder.

If you take him, you gotta be confident he can play at the NBA level within 10 lbs of his current weight. Given he came in at 7% body fat, he doesn't seem like a candidate to bulk up.

 

[The Process God]

Biggest concern with Porter is his lack of spring. The guy is a bean pole and has just pedestrian vert numbers. 27" standing vert with nothing on his frame is the definition of average. Given he's not very athletic now, I doubt his body could carry around 20 more pounds without him being a plodder.

If you take him, you gotta be confident he can play at the NBA level within 10 lbs of his current weight. Given he came in at 7% body fat, he doesn't seem like a candidate to bulk up.

We've seen guys like Howard and Wade put on significant weight, yet actually increase their athleticism. Howard entered the league at 240 lbs with a vertical of 35.5". On Sport Science, he weighed in at 280 lbs, and he recorded a vertical of close to 40". It's perfectly possible to increase body weight and athleticism. It just has to be done in the right way. Durant's put on at least 20 lbs since he came into the league (235+ lbs compared to 215 lbs when he entered the league), and videos have shown that his vertical has also increased a couple of inches. Strength to weight ratios are favorable with most athletes as they put on weight. I, myself, am more athletic at 250 lbs (not to mention literally about 4x stronger) than I was at 180 lbs.

There's a reason why the world's most athletic players are also usually extremely muscular. See sprinters, for example. As they increased in body weight, their speed actually increased as well because their strength weight up at a much higher rate than their weight, thus justifying it. It all comes down to justifying the weight gains. Hell, even many of the world's most elite powerlifters and olympic weight lifters have recorded verticals in the realm of 40", and some of those guys actually have a faster 10-meter time than olympic sprinters simply due to their power. There's more to it than just "gaining weight reduces athleticism." Gaining weight and losing athleticism certainly happens, but that certainly also does not have to be the case.

Also, 7% body fat for a basketball player isn't terrible for an NBA player. 5% may be a little more preferable, but you really wouldn't want to go much lower than that. Hitting the 3% minimum required body fat for survival isn't worth the cost of acquiring it unless the person reaches that level with relative ease. Some players just naturally sit at that level of body fat without sacrificing too much, but, for other players, it isn't worth it to drop to that level or even 5%. Also, 7% body fat does not in any way correlate with Porter not being "a candidate to bulk up." That's just bro science talking there.

Suffice to say that, in my opinion, Porter could bulk up to 230 with no detriment to his athleticism (actually, while even helping it) so long as it is done correctly.

 

[I'mWithDan]

I don't really disagree with any of that but the massive crater between a 27" vertical leap and a 35.5" vertical leap is astronomical.

Howard weighed nearly 50 more pounds than Porter and had a 30+% higher vertical leap. Those two are on completely different tiers athletically.

Highlighting his body fat number wasn't a negative as it pertains to a raw number, just a footnote that he doesn't have a ton of room to grow. He's skinny and doesn't carry body fat, which means his frame is nearly all muscle. Given muscle is more dense than fat, it would actually be a plus if he was in the 11-13% body fat range and weighed what he did. Because in that scenario he could strip fat off and replace it with muscle, which would push his weight number up considerably.

As it stands, he's nearly all lean muscle and not even pushing 200. NBA weight training will help but his shoulders and legs tell you he doesn't have a ton of frame to fill out. Go look a Howard's lower body and shoulders from his high school pictures. The frames are not even in the same ballpark.

I like Porter and would love to have him but if I had to bet my life, my guess would be he's going to play within 10 LBS of his current weight. He can put on some weight and certainly get stronger but he's likely to be one of the skinner SF's throughout his career.

 

[The Process God]

I don't really disagree with any of that but the massive crater between a 27" vertical leap and a 35.5" vertical leap is astronomical.

Howard weighed nearly 50 more pounds than Porter and had a 30+% higher vertical leap. Those two are on completely different tiers athletically.

Highlighting his body fat number wasn't a negative as it pertains to a raw number, just a footnote that he doesn't have a ton of room to grow. He's skinny and doesn't carry body fat, which means his frame is nearly all muscle. Given muscle is more dense than fat, it would actually be a plus if he was in the 11-13% body fat range and weighed what he did. Because in that scenario he could strip fat off and replace it with muscle, which would push his weight number up considerably.

As it stands, he's nearly all lean muscle and not even pushing 200. NBA weight training will help but his shoulders and legs tell you he doesn't have a ton of frame to fill out. Go look a Howard's lower body and shoulders from his high school pictures. The frames are not even in the same ballpark.

I like Porter and would love to have him but if I had to bet my life, my guess would be he's going to play within 10 LBS of his current weight. He can put on some weight and certainly get stronger but he's likely to be one of the skinner SF's throughout his career.

First off, you're comparing Howard's max vertical leap with Porter's standing vertical leap, which is unfair. Porter's max vertical leap is actually 36", which is .5" higher than Dwight's was at the combine.

Also, your logic as to his ability to put on muscle is completely flawed. There is no way that him being 197 and 11-13% body fat would be positive in comparison to his present condition of 7% body fat at that same weight. If he were to be at 13% body fat at 197, he'd have to lose about 13 lbs of fat in order to get back down to where he is right now at just below 7% body fat. He would then weigh 184 lbs, which puts him in even worse position. Your mentioning of how muscle weighs more than fat has nothing to do with anything. It is irrelevant. Muscle is more dense than fat, yes, but it does not weigh more. A ton of feathers and a ton of bricks are still the same weight. Having to put back on 13 lbs of muscle is no easy task. If we're wanting him to ultimately get to 230 lbs, it's better for him to only have to gain 33 lbs than 47 lbs. Don't forget that he would also have to cut weight first. He couldn't even focus on building muscle until he did that. You cannot both build muscle and lose fat at an effective pace at the same time. It is more efficient to focus on one, and then focus on the other one afterward. It would easily take Porter 4-6 months to get back to where he is now if he were 197 at 13% body fat. Also, what would it say about his work ethic if he were to be sitting at that kind of body fat percentage as a small forward? It certainly wouldn't say good things. A higher body fat percentage is only good in a few things in the athletic world such as swimming and sumo wrestling. There is not much room for it in the world of basketball and especially at a perimeter position in basketball.

Also, I don't know what pictures you've been looking at because Porter's frame is actually quite large.

 

[Kouki]

Highlighting his body fat number wasn't a negative as it pertains to a raw number, just a footnote that he doesn't have a ton of room to grow. He's skinny and doesn't carry body fat, which means his frame is nearly all muscle. Given muscle is more dense than fat, it would actually be a plus if he was in the 11-13% body fat range and weighed what he did. Because in that scenario he could strip fat off and replace it with muscle, which would push his weight number up considerably.

The heck are you even saying...this sounds like "broscience" to me

(thank you Tank God)

 

[Fuggles]

I don't really disagree with any of that but the massive crater between a 27" vertical leap and a 35.5" vertical leap is astronomical.

Howard weighed nearly 50 more pounds than Porter and had a 30+% higher vertical leap. Those two are on completely different tiers athletically.

Highlighting his body fat number wasn't a negative as it pertains to a raw number, just a footnote that he doesn't have a ton of room to grow. He's skinny and doesn't carry body fat, which means his frame is nearly all muscle. Given muscle is more dense than fat, it would actually be a plus if he was in the 11-13% body fat range and weighed what he did. Because in that scenario he could strip fat off and replace it with muscle, which would push his weight number up considerably.

As it stands, he's nearly all lean muscle and not even pushing 200. NBA weight training will help but his shoulders and legs tell you he doesn't have a ton of frame to fill out. Go look a Howard's lower body and shoulders from his high school pictures. The frames are not even in the same ballpark.

I like Porter and would love to have him but if I had to bet my life, my guess would be he's going to play within 10 LBS of his current weight. He can put on some weight and certainly get stronger but he's likely to be one of the skinner SF's throughout his career.

You have bizarre notions of how the human body works.

edit: dammit, IWantAKouki stole mah thunda

 

[KB]

In regards to the verticle leap

http://www.anonymouseagle.com/2013/5...es-vander-blue

10:02:

The desk crew looks at the highest vertical jumps at the combine since 2000, and Nate Robinson is the only significant NBA player in the top 5. They do mention that Darius Johnson-Odom had the best jump last year.

Also here are the

Athletic Testing Results (added to OP also)

http://nbadraft.net/forum/2013-nba-combine-athletic-testing-results

Three-quarter time 3.4

Lane agility time 11.25

Modified time 3.06

Standing leap 27

Maximum leap 36

Porter has 36 inch vert while moving (i think they call it the one step vert as a drill) 9 inches higher than his standing..I think he'll be fine

 

[Soar]

I sort of see Porter as Shane Battier. Can hit a corner three, create some shots, defend multiple positions, and relies more on basketball IQ rather than raw athleticism. Nice player to have but not a player that will wow you.

 

[Fuggles]

Is it me or has Porter's stock been the same for months despite all this debate?

It seems like a repeat of last year and its making me uncomfortable. We go for the safe boring pick (Barnes) or the flawed yet promising center (Drummond). I am going to keep the fantasy going in my own mind that he isn't going to wildcard us again.

 

[I'mWithDan]

Also, your logic as to his ability to put on muscle is completely flawed. There is no way that him being 197 and 11-13% body fat would be positive in comparison to his present condition of 7% body fat at that same weight. If he were to be at 13% body fat at 197, he'd have to lose about 13 lbs of fat in order to get back down to where he is right now at just below 7% body fat. He would then weigh 184 lbs, which puts him in even worse position. Your mentioning of how muscle weighs more than fat has nothing to do with anything. It is irrelevant. Muscle is more dense than fat, yes, but it does not weigh more. A ton of feathers and a ton of bricks are still the same weight. Having to put back on 13 lbs of muscle is no easy task.

It's not flawed logic, it is science. Muscle weighs more than fat by volume. The whole feathers vs bricks thing is irrelevant when discussing how a persons frame supports muscle mass.

If you put a guy who's 197 with 11-13% body fat next to a guy who's 197 with 5-6% body fat, the first will have vastly superior room for growth.

Muscle is far more dense than fat. When the more fatty person strips off weight, their frame is already built to support more muscle, as it has been carrying around that fatty tissue (which takes up far more space on your frame). So if you strip off 13 pounds of fat, 16-18 pounds of muscle can replace it (in the same volume space), pushing a persons weight up.

It's the same phenomenon that lets chubby teenagers turn in to division 1 football players.

The notion that you have to strip fat off before building muscle is categorically false. Muscle burns fat reserves, so as the more fatty person builds muscle mass, their body fat would adjust in concert.

 

[gratefuldead]

im 6' 6" and about 225lbs with roughly 9-10% bodyfat

when i was porter's age i was like 6' 6" 180lbs

it took me about 2yrs of lifting to put that weight on...ive maintained for years now, no PEDs obviously

squats and deadlift with oats and protein ...porter will be big enough

 

[Fuggles]

It's not flawed logic, it is science. Muscle weighs more than fat by volume. The whole feathers vs bricks thing is irrelevant when discussing how a persons frame supports muscle mass.

If you put a guy who's 197 with 11-13% body fat next to a guy who's 197 with 5-6% body fat, the first will have vastly superior room for growth.

Muscle is far more dense than fat. When the more fatty person strips off weight, their frame is already built to support more muscle, as it has been carrying around that fatty tissue (which takes up far more space on your frame). So if you strip off 13 pounds of fat, 16-18 pounds of muscle can replace it (in the same volume space), pushing a persons weight up.

It's the same phenomenon that lets chubby teenagers turn in to division 1 football players.

The notion that you have to strip fat off before building muscle is categorically false. Muscle burns fat reserves, so as the more fatty person builds muscle mass, their body fat would adjust in concert.

 

[Randolphkeys]

I think they are pretty happy with Singler and Jerebko. They need guard help.

I agree on Singler, but Jonas has bulked up significantly. He's a backup PF/C going forward.

 

[Birdy89]

They need a real PG, unless they plan on keeping JC (Knights more of combo guard imo)

I could see them using their pick to drop down in the first so they can move Charlie V or Stuckey

The Detroit News said the Pistons are extremely interested in him were they to get lucky with the ping pong balls.

He sees himself as a Prince type player, and they think that fits perfectly with what they have already.

Porter/Monroe/Drummond would be ridiculous length, and they have had success with the big front line when they had Prince/Wallace/Wallace.

Like the Cavs they are looking to build around defense again with Drummonds emergence last year as a potential stopper in the lane going forward.

I doubt it will be an issue because they would have to get really lucky to jump that high, but they are a team that wouldn't pass on Otto Porter if he was on the board when they picked from what their locals are saying.