The Point Problem: Darren Collison
by Mike Payne on May 31, 2010 1:04 AM EDT
Email
PrintThe Pistons' big problem is and will remain the roster's number one priority: bigs. With the draft soon approaching, we're all focused on big men who can be plugged into this lineup and help this team get back into the playoffs. However, as discussed earlier, Detroit needs to consider an upgrade at the point. While this isn't the most pressing need, upgrades must be considered now while the Pistons have the trade chips and the draft picks that could facilitate the right upgrade.
Earlier this month, we explored the free agent class and the trade options that could improve our team at point guard. During that early research, DBB's own senior scout Bearded Thundar examined just what Darren Collison could bring to this team. While yours truly would have loved to bring this to you sooner, a move across the country tossed a wretched wrench in the proverbial schedule. I've arrived, and now BT's brilliant research has done the same.
"I don't want to be just an offensive player, I want to play defense."
Those are the words Darren Collison used to describe his goals for the NBA, stating that he believes he can guard just about any other point guard in the league because of his quickness and commitment to full court basketball. That's one category that the expeditious Collison has already superseded LeBron, who if you notice, prefers to guard the other team's worst player in order to avoid foul trouble. In addition, he pointed out that when he was playing for UCLA, his coach demanded that they play team basketball and have attention to detail. While many players claim that, I think that by the end of this preview you will find those words uphold to the truest point of the mountain the young man has ascended.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you Darren Collison:
6'1"
160 pounds
extremely quick
quite the leaper (can dunk)
a bit turnover prone
athletic hands
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Strengths:
Unlike DeMarcus Cousins, you cannot easily find Darren in the paint. In fact, half the time when he drives, he seems to disappear around a crowd of men twice his size. But that is what makes him so special, even when it seems that he is trapped in a sauna with 3 massive, sweaty, rampaging guys, the ball seems to magically float between someone's legs into the hands of Emeka Okafor for an easy dunk. For you see, while many NBA players can jump through the roof or outrun the falling US economy, only the truly creative ones are tagged as "special."
This table includes all the games during his first run as a starter. The game that really stands out is the highlighted one, where he had a true shooting percentage of 75%, netting 22 points and 11 assists. This is because like Stuckey, he has an uncanny ability to get to the rim. Where they separate is that Collison, having played for a major college, knows how to outsmart the second line of defense. When someone rotates over to the key, Collison dumps the ball off to Okafor (either via the bounce pass or ally-oop). When the defender sticks with Okafor, he either lays it in for an easy layup or explodes with a ferocious throw down. And when he cannot find his way to the rim, he has 3 effective options: utilize his pull-up jumper, push-off with a smooth floater or snap the ball to either a posting David West or spotting up Peja/Thornton.
On top of mean, I calculated the standard deviation and normality of the data (based off the chi-squared test). He has a relatively small deviation, only 4.5 points and 2 assists. This points to consistency in his style of play. I have not calculated Stuckey's standard deviation, but I would be willing to bet it's quite large, seeing how he can scored 30 one night and then 15 the next. The normality test is essentially 1, meaning that the data is consistent - no outliers or in essence, all data is accounted for.
These numbers are from his second stint as a starter, and they are up in every category but rebounds and free throws - and we are not talking small gains. Averaging 19 points and 10 assists, he was putting up CP3 numbers. In fact, he was much more efficient than Paul ever was (his best year, he had a true shooting percentage of .534). Now in this case, the deviation is also worse - but that is explainable by his rapid improvement as he slowly took over as team leader. Highlighted are his career highs, which include 1 triple double, scoring 35 points and delivering 20 assists. I remember February 28th, it was against Dallas. Kidd just could not stop anything Collison tried; had David West remembered that he is supposed to be a good player, they would have easily won that game. Most impressive is 80% true shooting percentage when he scored 35 points. In addition, he kept his word about being defense, garnering 1.5 steals per game.
The amazing thing is that he has done all of these things without getting superstar calls. Averaging a pathetic 3 free throw attempts per game, he is achieving success almost entirely off skill - not off David Stern's deep pockets. This leads me to think that Collison will improve quite a bit in the future.
Weaknesses:
To be honest, Collison is so under the radar that there is not much information on him yet. And unlike Kentucky, the Hornets were rarely ever nationally broadcasted, so I have not been able to see him play as much as I would have liked.
However, a few things do come to mind. The first being pace. Collison tends to play at a hundred miles an hour, Detroit simply is not built to play at that pace. But more importantly, that means that some of his statistics are a bit inflated. The fact that Chris Paul put up better numbers while playing in a half court system shows that Collison is not on his level yet, and possibly never will be. But still, for a rookie, his prowess cannot be denied, and there is plenty of reason to believe that he is smart enough to learn he will learn in the future.
Also because he plays at such a fast pace, his turnovers are amplified. While he had a better than 2:1 assist to turnover ratio, getting 4 per 40 minutes is not what you want to see out of your point guard. But once again, he still very young, very talented, and very smart. This should improve in the future.
Lastly size could be an issue in the future. I am not talking about height, but rather weight - he is only a measly 160 pounds. Because he went rather under the radar this year, teams did not seem to force the issue. Next year people will likely try to post him up more, akin to how Stuckey would have stretches of dominance, but once teams learned how to cut off his drives, he seemed to struggle. However, true to his word, he was in fact a pretty effective defender.
Here are the statistics of some of the better guards he face (Hill=blue, Curry=red, Rondo=green, Chauncey=purple and D-Will=yellow):
As you can see, against the best point guards in the league he only gave up 15 and 6.5 with a true shooting percentage of 50%. All the %s are a bit high, overall he did a very good job. Only Williams was able to get all of his teammates involved (averaging 10.5 assists), so it looks like his hands are pretty effective.
Immediate thoughts:
To be honest, if Dumars should somehow pull off this trade, Collison will have instantly become likely the best talent Detroit has had since Grant Hill. I am not sure if it was Chris Paul rubbing off on him, or if he simply knew what to do with the ball coming into the league, but he seems to have a lot of Isiah's creativity. Not to mention, he's a tough kid, just look at the first photo.
If I were in charge of the Pistons, getting Collison would be my number 2 priority. First priority would be capitalizing off the draft; we need a center and this is probably our best shot at one for the next 3-5 years. But next in line we need a point guard, and this could be one of the very few times that a player of this caliber would be actually within grasp (and that is solely because of CP3). The Hornets need cap space and a legitimate small forward (Peja is falling apart). I would have no problem giving them Tay and a 2009 rookie in exchange for Peja, Collison and a second rounder. Better yet, since they are about to be sold, if they want us to take Emeka's contract off our hands, that's killing 2 birds with one very efficient stone. But once again, that's only if I was in charge.
49 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
agreed.
BT is to beards and thundar as Zeus is to, well, beards and thunder.
Uh, me, new?
by Mike Payne on May 31, 2010 1:17 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Funny thing is, I originally wanted the name bearded thunder, but I didn’t realize that you needed a valid email address for confirmation. So I ended up being stuck with bearded thundar instead, as it sounded similar and just seemed a bit funnier
by bearded thundar on May 31, 2010 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions
I always just assumed you kind of looked like this:
by garrettelliott on May 31, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
closer to this
Only I can’t get the crossbars to come in, I only have the chinstrap and mustache and my muscles aren’t airbrushed.
I happen to be Persian, and ironically, Butler happened to have a very Iranian appearance in that movie.
And on a side note, for those who don’t know, Iranians don’t consider themselves to be arabs. The name stems from “land of the Aryans”, who were actually Germans. And thus Persian happens to be an indo-european language that really has nothing to do with arabi,c aside from the characters. The name Persia happens to stem from “land of the Pars”, another of the 3 major initial groups. Also I happen to think that Ahmadinejad is as much as dumbass as you guys do (just thought I’d let you know).
by bearded thundar on May 31, 2010 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I always thought Russell Crowe must be pissed at Gerald Buter
for such swaggerjackery
"The Lakers were favored 8 to 1 odds to beat the Pistons. Bullshit." - Bill Davidson, Championship parade, 2004
once you said persian, i pictured you like this.....
Maxiell and I once shared a box of baby-ohs for breakfast.
I'm just curious
Do you think New Orleans goes for that? Yes, Prince is an improvement over Peja, but enough to warrant a Daye or Jerebko for Collison swap?
Honestly, I think we’d have to include our pick. Something like Prince/Daye/#7 for Okafor/Collison/#11 swap. Mainly because I think they want out of Okafor’s deal more, and having both Prince and Peja’s expiring deals would give them a lot of money to work with in 2011 (maybe go after Carmelo?).
by Terrence J. Lynch on May 31, 2010 3:08 AM EDT reply actions
I agree we would have to give more...
…However Collison would be high on my list of guys that id like to play the point.
by BennieBladesFan on May 31, 2010 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
I'd look into that
I wrote this article, basically anything that can get us Collison would be worth our time. Especially if we land Okafor in the deal, because then we are no longer in a boom or bust situation with our pick
by bearded thundar on May 31, 2010 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions
*whoops
I didn’t notice that Mike already credited me at the top
I think this series as a whole should be a very good one, I’m already brainstorming ideas for the next piece
by bearded thundar on May 31, 2010 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Really it boils down to money
IF management allows Dumars to take on salary, then I think getting Collison would be doable, as cutting costs is NO’s #2 priority (behind keeping Chris Paul). However I don’t think ownership will do that, meaning it would still be doable, but we’d likely have to thrown in future picks to match what other teams will offer.
I happen to trust in Joe, for the most part he is very good at stealing young talent from faltering teams. I still think the Gordon/CV moves were management based to sell tickets, and not his own decisions. Alas, only time can tell what he does in the off-season (but be prepared for several blockbuster trades at the deadline).
by bearded thundar on May 31, 2010 10:11 AM EDT reply actions
I honestly don’t know what I think about the whole Gordon/CV were ideas to sell tickets thing. Charlie Villaneuva’s kind of an obscure player, and he was a third option on a mediocre/shitty Bucks team. On the other hand, I could see the Ben Gordon ticket selling thing. But I think if that’s true, Ben Gordon was both a move to sell more tickets and get a shooter, but the Villaneuva thing was Joe D’s money burning a whole in his pocket.
by Biz Markie Moon on May 31, 2010 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
but the Villaneuva thing was Joe D’s money burning a whole in his pocket.
Thing is, in losing Rasheed and Dyess to free agency we had zero frontcourt scoring. I think Villanueva was a big part of Jod’s off-season plans, likely something discussed ahead of time between he and Hammond. I imagine that Joe assumed Villanueva could replace Sheed pretty easily, but the injury and lack of a clear identity in Kuester’s system turned Villainy to Vagina.
Uh, me, new?
agreed
It became obvious when Joe threw in Amir that he and Hammond had struck a deal together, especially after John didn’t bother giving CV an offer. It wouldn’t have made any sense to trade away a young productive big for cap space, but if you get a slightly better “prospect” in return, then you make the deal.
I do believe that a motivated CV can be a very productive big, all the tools are there. But he dearly needs to work on fundamentals and conditioning before he can make the step to legitimate starter.
by bearded thundar on May 31, 2010 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions
CV
His lack of effort on D and conditioning is a concern. His injuries and identity in Kuester’s system werent the main reasons for his effort and conditioning lacking. They didn’t help, but he defenitly needs to rededicate himself, train harder…
Favre's ankle, Starcaps BS and hopefully a busy Piston offseason, oh my. Go Netherlands/Holland/Dutch Soccer(no its not Football)! Also, Lesnar, Lesnar, Lesnar!!!!!!!
Don't forget, though, New Orleans has new ownership.
And said ownership isn’t as cheap as Shinn (he’s actually a legit billionaire which helps).
Don’t be surprised if cost-cutting is less important than “win now.”
by Terrence J. Lynch on May 31, 2010 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Great article
props to BT and MP.
I watched a lot of games last season while CP was out and I do really like what NC brings to the table.
it’s all BT’s work, I just posted it for him— all props due to BT, but thanks Wheaties :)
Uh, me, new?
it was your series, so I can’t take all the credit as I probably wouldn’t have done it if you hadn’t asked me :)
by bearded thundar on May 31, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Awesome Article!
This is superior to almost anything else you can find at established sports publications/web sites. BT clearly put in a fair bit of work culling the data and busting out the old chi square. Goodness of Fit FTW!
I appreciate the feedback :)
Math and science are my strongest suits (I actually never even took a statistics course, instead I read the book in 6 days and aced the AP test), so I thought that would be the best way of approaching such a sample of data. As you know, the chi square test is quite useful when dealing with a large standard deviation, just to make sure the test is normal enough to compare with other data.
Honestly I think the reason why this work is better than many other sites, such as ESPN or mlive etc, is that the writers here not only appreciate statistics, but legitimately care about their team. It’s not like we get any money out doing this stuff.
I think already have my next project in mind, but it’s going to be difficult. The information on that player isn’t nearly as available as the stuff on some of my other work (such as Cousins or Aldrich). I’ll see what I can find, but so far I’ve only found a single interview and a compilation of his performance.
by bearded thundar on May 31, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not so sure stuckey is far enough gone to warrant trading our 2 best assets.
I still want to see him with a low post scoring big, a healthy ben gordon, a pulled together cv, and an improved jerebko. His biggest problem is his low scoring efficiency. I want to see him in a situation where he doesn’t need to be a scorer so he can just focus on distributing before I give up the pieces we need to acquire a big man.
I want to see him in a situation where he doesn’t need to be a scorer so he can just focus on distributing before I give up the pieces we need to acquire a big man.
If there was a single shred of consistent evidence in Stuckey’s career to suggest he actually could be an apt distributor, I might agree. But since he can’t shoot, doesn’t pass well and isn’t good at what he’s considered to be good at (dribble penetration), a big MFing pass.
Uh, me, new?
1. I wish lebron a career of dissapointment achieving zero championships as far away from detroit as possible.
2. He is an ok passer, not good but akso not awful. His shooting had been improving until the a.i. shit last year and the injuries and dissaray this year, so there’s reason to believe under normalcy he will continue to improve his shooting. I’m talking jump shots also, not stuckey needs to be the man go in and attempt a wild layup shot. Then there are the other parts of being a true point guard like controlling the pace of the game and passing to the right players at the right time. The things chauncey was so good at. He’s never been asked to be that player. He constantly gets fed be aggressive be be aggressive and he ends up looking like that hs kid trying to impress the chearleaders. There’s no evidence of his turning into a pure point because he’s never tried to before.
Not sold yet (don't hurt me)
I am very wary of throwing the kitchen sink at a player without more experience under his belt. Granted, I have never seen him play nor do I care to analyse his stats, you guys far exceed my ability to do so. I just get nervous about what could be a ‘one hit wonder’. The way I see it, to get him now we have to overpay. If we wait and he breaks out even more, we have to overpay.
If Joe manages to spike someones drink and trade rapes someone into taking Rip, then I’m all in.
Well, there was the bit that you missed where I distracted him with the cuddly monkey then I said "play time's over" and I hit him in the head with the peace lily.
Forgot to mention
GREAT job BEarded thuNDar, I really enjoy your work.
E-FACT.
Well, there was the bit that you missed where I distracted him with the cuddly monkey then I said "play time's over" and I hit him in the head with the peace lily.
by Laughton on Jun 1, 2010 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nice post, BT
You killed this post! Great explanation of the strengths he possesses. Nice job. A rookie PG as solid as he is with a potentially high ceiling is rare.
A couple things to add. If the point of comparison is CP3 (and I’m not sure you are making it that, and I’m not saying it should be), there’s a couple weaknesses that jump out to me: FTA, AST% relative to TO%, steals, rebounds, and TS%.
Rookie Year Comparisons here.
- While DC’s FG% is markedly higher, their TS% are identical in rookie seasons (and Paul’s FG% has improved dramatically since his rookie year).
- Paul has also gotten to the FT line a lot more throughout his career, which helps explain the TS% (this year as an outlier).
- Paul’s AST % relative to TO% is also much better (almost superhuman, really), both career averages and rookie campaigns.
- Paul’s a better rebounder, though not by a ton, but that’s not the reason we’d be interested in him anyway.
- Paul’s much better at stealing the basketball — I’ve not observed DC’s on the ball defense that much, so I’ll defer to you there.
To sum up, DC’s a fine, fine young PG, and it looks like he’s got a bright future. You’ve explained his strengths brilliantly. But, he doesn’t quite measure up to Chris Paul in terms of possessionary factors, assists, or rebounds, which still makes Paul significantly better. Paul was better as a rookie and is still a long way ahead. I like DC, he’s just not the next CP3 (IMO). Certainly capable of being a starter on a quality team somewhere.
Lastly, DC’s already 22, which isn’t old or anything, just older for a rookie. How long ‘til he reaches his ceiling? I don’t know the answer, just posing the question.
pace plays a big factor
I mentioned that in the weaknesses, Collison prefers to play at the speed Stuckey wants (only he’s got the balls to force the vets into it) where as Paul is very good at running the half court offense. There’s no question that Paul is the better player because he generates more offense as a whole with fewer possessions (which is why his turnover rate is top notch).
As for defense, I’ll take Collison. Look at what he did with some of the best point guards in the league, he contained them very well. Paul gets a lot of steals because he gambles a lot, just like AI – not because he’s some superb defender.
Also I disagree with those numbers you put up br, you of all people show know that you have to compare apples to apples. In those numbers, half of the time DC was coming off the bench where as Paul started just about every game. You have to compare the starting numbers, and in that case Darren actually put up better numbers across the board except rebounding.
by bearded thundar on Jun 1, 2010 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Also I disagree with those numbers you put up br, you of all people show know that you have to compare apples to apples. You have to compare the starting numbers, and in that case Darren actually put up better numbers across the board except rebounding.
Actually, I think comparing the larger sample sizes, which includes Collison’s bench play is more apples to apples than focusing exclusively on his play as a starter. I’m not in any way saying the great work you did is wrong at all, so don’t take it that way. It’s not an objection so much as it is a qualifier. The smaller the sample size, the more likely the conclusions generated by it will be misleading. And in this case, we have a relatively small sample size if we limit our analysis to DC as a starter — does that make sense?
Again, I’m not saying your conclusions are wrong. I don’t think they are. I think DC is going to be a very good PG — all signs point to that. I’m just reluctant to limit my analysis at this point. Will DC consistently be the player he was while starting this year? There’s good reasons to think so. But we can’t say with certainty yet, because we haven’t seen enough.
Collison prefers to play at the speed Stuckey wants
Right, but that’s the reason I pointed out rates rather than raw totals. Rates aren’t impacted by pace the same way that totals are, because they reflect TOs/ASTs related to the number of possessions. When pace goes up, so do possessions, and thus so do totals. But rates stay the same.
As for defense, I’ll take Collison. Look at what he did with some of the best point guards in the league, he contained them very well. Paul gets a lot of steals because he gambles a lot, just like AI – not because he’s some superb defender.
As to the former, again, I’ll defer to you. I haven’t watched Collison intently. But as to the latter … comparing Paul’s defense to AI’s? That seems like a stretch to me. AI was horribly undersized, and the only attempts he made at defense were gambles. You can’t say that about CP3, or, at least I can’t. That said, steals matter. Every steal ends a possession for an opponent and generates a new, unexpected possession for your team (converse for TOs).
To put that in context, if on average, your team scores 1 point per possession, as does your opponent, then on average, each steal and each TO is a two-point swing (I realize that’s not entirely accurate, but I’m simplifying for the sake of brevity and clarity). So if Paul is one steal and one assist better per 36 (which he is, roughly), then there are four hidden points buried in those possesionary factors. Again, that’s not technically 100% correct, but hopefully it’s clear where I’m going.
And again, none of this is to say you are wrong to do what you do. I think you did a great job. And none of this suggests that DC won’t be a spectacular PG; in fact, everything seems to suggest he will become that. All I am saying is that I think there’s still a big gab between him and CP3, and that’s not as much as criticism of DC as it is praise of CP3 (who is, IMO, the most complete PG in the game).
I tend to have a distaste for steals because they are sometimes misleading.
AI being the prime example of that. I have to admit I have not seen too many games of Chris Paul, but when it comes to defense and from what I have seen, he is closer to AI than he is to a good defensive player.
I look at it this way, yes a steal takes away a possession, but how many gambles were made prior to that possession being taken away therefore causing a break in defense and allowing a score or at least presenting a good opportunity to score?
Again, I have not seen too many games of Paul, so I may be talking out of my ass. This is what I gather from a limited sample.
Where in the world is Cheikh Samb?
I haven’t watched him much either, but you make a good point. AI was crafty at getting into passing lanes, but does anyone know how Paul generates his steal numbers?
Uh, me, new?
I don't watch him much
But from what I have seen, he, just like Will Bynum, would gamble a lot on drives and the passing lanes. Granted CP3 doesn’t get called for touch fouls like WB, but it still isn’t fundamentally good defense
by bearded thundar on Jun 1, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
There’s also an assumption here that I’m not sure is sound, namely, that all players who play the passing lanes inevitably lose more than win when they gamble.
I’d say that was true for AI, but I wouldn’t say that’s true for all players by necessity. Manu is a great example. He’s a very solid defender, and he picks his spots in the passing lanes very well, as to not put the rest of his team at a disadvantage when he does.
I don't assume that because they get steals they are bad defenders, I just don't like the assumption that because they get steals they are good defenders.
Meaning I know some guys who get steals get them as a good calculated risk and at a high rate, while I also know others just gamble, failing a number of ocassion therefore failing their defensive assignment.
Like I said, from what I have watched, he looks more like an AI to me. I don’t dispute there are a number of guards who know how to pick their spots while providing good defense. And I also clarify that I don’t feel I have watched him enough to make a definitive assessment.
Where in the world is Cheikh Samb?
Collison v Bynum
If you put Collison’s stats side by side with Bynum, they are very comparable. I would imagine if you adjust for pace, Bynum’s are even better. I say this not to praise Bynum, though I would like to see him return, but rather to point out that it is easy to apply a little bit of statistics to overstate the value of a reserve player.
While I agree Collison seems to be a better player than Bynum, making Collison the centerpiece of our off-season moves would be disastrous.
no they aren't
They aren’t even close, Collison is a much better player than Bynum.
As a starter this year, Will put up 10.4 points, 5.4 assists and 2 rebounds shooting 46% from the field and 20% from three (in 32 minutes of play).
Collison is a much better shooter, as seen by the 3 point efficiency. And no doubt a better defender. Not to mention he also is much younger, so while Will will likely never correct his turnover problems, DC still can.
You could make the point about assists that Darren had better teammates, but one thing I’ve never liked about Will is that he forces the drive and kick game way too much. That doesn’t actually work against good defenses; the thing I liked most about his 20 assist game was that he was finding holes in the zone, not forcing the issue. From what I saw, Collison had a much better ability of creating space and finding holes within the flow of the game and not having to kill the shotclock to do so.
by bearded thundar on Jun 2, 2010 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions
On they year Collison played slightly more minutes and had 12.4ppg, 2.5rpg, 5.7 apg and 2.7 TOpg compared to Bynum’s 10ppg, 2.3rpg, 4.5apg and 1.8 TOpg.
That makes them very comparable players. If you want to focus on the dozen or so games that each of them started you really don’t have a big enough sample to say anything meaningful. Collison is probably better now and certainly has more potential to develop, but my overall point is that manipulating the stats from a reserve player can be highly misleading.
you must have misunderstood this article
I never manipulated any stats, there are no efficiency numbers or extrapolated numbers in the entire piece.
Collison was not a just a reserve, he took over the entire offense for about half the season. He didn’t just start a week, he held that spot for 37 games, averaging 40 minutes (which is 8 more than Bynums, but not enough to justify the huge disparity in points). In those 37 games, he averaged 19, 9 and 3.5.
If anything, you are manipulating the numbers into your fashion by looking at seasonal numbers due to the bench play time disparities. If you want a good comparison of true ability, you have look at starting game performances (preferably at least 20 games).
Will Bynum might have started fewer games, but he also played more minutes off the bench than Collison which is why their stats are that close. Collison only got 15 minutes of (inconsistent) play time coming off the bench, where as Will got a solid 25. Of course his numbers off the bench would be better; that’s why you look at starting performances, both players are guaranteed consistent play time and are surrounded by good players (which is important when looking at assists).
That’s why their seasonal numbers look closer than they actually were. The only way to get a good estimate for seasonal performances due to the disparities would be to actually manipulate the numbers to project them on equal footing. But that wouldn’t be very fair, not to mention wouldn’t be good writing to do that, which is why I didn’t.
by bearded thundar on Jun 2, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Darren Collison started 37 games last season. He didn’t have a handful of good games throughout that stretch, he consistently produced excellent games from start 1 through start 37. The sample size of that stretch is most certainly meaningful, and to dismiss it as an aberration is unwise and ignorant.
Throughout that 37 game stretch for Collison, he produced 19/9/3.5 on 48.5% shooting with 42.9% from three. That can’t be ignored, and it is borderline crazy to suggest he and Bynum are similar players and producers.
Uh, me, new?
Bynum and Collison
Collison started 37 games last year. Bynum, started 20. You can get a decent comparison by looking at their per 36 stats as starters. You really have to normalize it to per 36 to do much comparison since Collison averaged 40.3 minutes as a starter, and Bynum averaged 31.7 minutes as a starter. Anyway, here their stats per 36 as starters:
Collison
reb a s b p
3.1 8.1 1.3 0.09 16.8
Bynum
reb a s b p
2.5 6.1 1.4 0.2 11.8
Collison shot 49%, and Bynum shot 46%. Three point percentage isn’t even close at 43% for Collison and 20% for Bynum.
Collison’s stats are definately superior, although I’ll give you that a difference of 5 ppg and 2 asg don’t constitute an enormous disparity.
I’d say those stats line up pretty well with most people’s thoughts. Collison has a chance to be a very good starting point guard. Bynum is a good back up with (maybe) a chance to be a good starting point guard.
It will be very interesting to see how teams adjust to Collison next year. Bynum also enjoyed a very successful run as an “unknown”. Teams have since adjusted a bit. I guess you could look at some of Bynum’s stats from last year, but I’m out of time and I’d bet the sample size would be pretty small.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Detroit Bad Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
