Jared Sullinger’s Future With Celtics Questioned In ESPN NBA Mock Draft

Jared Sullinger’s Future With Celtics Questioned In ESPN NBA Mock Draft


by Ben Watanabe on Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:52PM



Jared Sullinger might want to watch his back, if one of the more trusted NBA draft analysts is to be believed.

In his latest edition of the 2015 NBA mock draft, ESPN’s Chad Ford cast doubt on Sullinger’s future with the Boston Celtics on Tuesday. In predicting the Celtics will take Kentucky forward Trey Lyles with the No. 16 overall pick, Ford had this to say:

“He’s not going to be a superstar for Boston, but Lyles is the type of heady player that should thrive in Brad Stevens’ system. He has a soft touch around the basket, a sweet mid-range jumper and just understands the game. With Brandon Bass and Jonas Jerebko both hitting free agency this summer, there’s going to be need at the four behind (or maybe in front of) Jared Sullinger.”

That’s obviously a shot fired at Sullinger, who has started 93 of the 132 games in which he’s appeared over the last two seasons. But the 23-year-old big man has had an eventful third season in the NBA.

Sullinger was late arriving to the arena twice in four days in January and February, leading head coach Brad Stevens to remove him from the starting lineup. A broken foot, which was initially expected to shut Sullinger down for the season in February, prompted Celtics president of basketball operations Danny Ainge to rip Sullinger’s conditioning in a radio interview.

All that aside, though, Sullinger simply failed to take forward steps in what the Celtics hoped would be a breakout season. He averaged 13.3 points per game — an identical scoring average to last season — with 7.6 rebounds and 2.3 assists per game.

Sullinger, who made a surprise return with seven games remaining in the regular season, put up a stat line of four points, four rebounds and a blocked shot with three personal fouls in 13 minutes Sunday in the Celtics’ Game 1 playoff loss to the Cavs. He is signed through the 2015-16 season at $2.3 million before becoming eligible for restricted free agency in the summer of 2016.




bob



.

Not tall enough to be a 5; not agile enough to be a 4; not fast enough to run the floor consistently; not accurate enough to space the floor from outside as Brad wants his bigs to do?  Hopefully, Sully can get a head start on stating his case during the playoffs.  Otherwise, the operative question may become, "How much trade value does he represent?"

Sam

Not really sure what his future is, but I want to strangle him when he even looks to take a three pointer. A less than 25% three point shooter should NOT take any threes-pure and simple.

The announcer tonight basically said that Cleveland will let him shoot all the threes that he wants and they will not even bother to go out and cover him. With that said, I am not sure that Bass played more than about 4 minutes in the second half tonight.

He may just not fit into Stevens' offensive plans, and he does not play anywhere near good enough defense to warrant a roster spot if he does not fit into the offensive scheme.

Clyde, ditto. I hate seeing Sully at the three point line. Red would have cringed.

Red would have ripped this kid off the floor if he had already told him not to shoot them and then traded him to Rochester or somewhere for a bag of practice balls.

I can't blame Sullinger for taking three's. He's just doing what his coach wants him to do.

That's my only complaint with Brad, that he urges Sully to take 3's. Sully is obviously not the player Brad needs in his system.

Funny that besides the headline, when I read the article all it says is the Celtics might draft Lyles, if he's there (duh, ya think!). and that with BASS and JEREBKO as Free agents there would be a spot for him.

now I read that to say Bass and/or Jerebko's future with the team COULD be in doubt.

I dislike Lyles. He intentionslly wounded someone at final 4

Clyde, you're right on the money—4 minutes for Bass in the second half last night.

Do you believe Brad told Sully NOT to shoot threes?  Brad's still talking (including last night before the game) about how important it is for the bigs to stretch the floor.

My guess is that Sully, who doesn't lack for confidence, is simply trying his best to prove his worth by following orders.

Sam

Sam,
I'm not a professional (not even amateur) statistician. Therefore can argue only on one point, item #2, that is. Stagnation of the offense in both games came from iso balling, IMO. Whenever Celtics were moving the ball and patiently exploring penetration or a wide open mid-range jumper the score was ticking up.
As for Sully taking 3-pts, I don't like it. But in some cases he had no other choice: left alone, open, with no time to give the ball to somebody who's a much better shooter.

AK

sam wrote:1. Missing 67 of 100 gives the opposition 17 more possessions than missing 50 of 100.

I don't follow this logic.

Scenario 1: Celtics make a shot, the ball goes through the net, the other team gets a possession.

Scenario 2: Celtics miss a shot, the other team rebounds, thereby gaining possession.

In both scenarios, shot made or missed, the other team gets a possession when the Celtics' possession ends. It's not like playground basketball where it's "winners' outs."

In fact, the more misses you have (and three-pointers provide more of those), the greater the opportunity for an offensive rebound, which is the only way to stop the other team from gaining possession.

sam wrote:5. It's mathematically untrue that shooting 33% from the arc is the equal of shooting 50% from within the arc.  Because you're far more likely to be fouled shooting a two than a three.

A few counterpoints.

Most teams shoot better than 33% on threes and worse than 50% on twos:

• 24 of 30 teams shot better than 33% on threes.

• The median on threes is 34.7%, which isn't all that much better than 33.3%, but it is better.

• The best teams shoot threes very well. Nine teams shot 36% or better, led by the Warriors at 39.8%.

• Only seven teams shot 50% or better on twos this season (nine if you include the two teams that shot 49.9%).

• The median on twos is 48.6%.

There is some point at which shooting threes well is equivalent to or better than shooting 50% on twos. I don't have the information to say what that is, but there has to be a point at which that occurs. The best teams do both well; of the ten best three-point shooting teams, five (Warriors, Hawks, Clippers, Cavs, and Spurs) are also in the top ten for percentage on twos. Portland (8th on threes, 11th on twos) just misses being in that group.

The top 11 teams for three-point percentage made the playoffs. In today's NBA, it pays to shoot threes well.

The top five teams for three-point attempts, and eight of the top nine, made the playoffs. There's not quite the correlation between three-point attempts and making the playoffs that there is for shooting a high percentage because some teams jack up a bunch of threes no matter what -- Philly (6th in attempts, a woeful 29th in percentage) being the poster child for that. Boston was 13th in three-point attempts.

The Celtics, by the way, were 13th in three-point attempts, 27th in three-point percentage, and 14th in two-point percentage. When I consider that information, I wonder how they made the playoffs.


Sam, overall, I understand most of your points. I don't hate the three-pointer like you do, so I'm not on board with portraying the three-point shot as evil incarnate, but I understand the pitfalls you're pointing out.

Sinus,

My post dealt more with intangibles than with stats.  When I spoke of stagnation, it was a generality and not necessarily related to the first two games of this series.  In general, I believe three-point shooting can lead to a stagnated offense; and I believe that's more likely to be true of the Celtics' starters than the Celtics' bench (which I believe is energetic whether or not they're shooting threes).

As for Sully, here are a couple of stats:

• Each 100  two-point attempts he takes are likely to produce an average of 16.5% more points than each 100 of his three-point attempts.  (And that doesn't count the far greater number of free throw attempts drawn by two-point attempts than drawn by three-point attempts.)

• Each 100  two-point attempt he takes are likely to produce an average of 29.4% fewer available rebounds than each 100 of his three-point attempts.

For the Celtics as a whole (including players who were with them earlier but no longer):

• Each 100 three-pointers they attempt are likely to produce exactly the same number of points (0.98).  (And that doesn't count the far greater number of free throw attempts drawn by two-point attempts than drawn by three-point attempts.)

• Each 100  two-point attempts they take are likely to produce an average of 24% fewer available rebounds than each 100 of their three-point attempts.

Now, Brad might argue that the stats I've shown in favor of two-point shots wouldn't be as high as they are without the floor spacing provided by the three-point threat.  To which I'd reply that attempted threes produce 31% more empty possessions than attempted twos do—a particularly key factor when playing catch-up or down the stretch of games.  And on and on the debate goes.

Sam

Sam,

I am not a fan of the three point shot especially for this year's poorer shooting club, but it does have its place. Some factors, for me, either for or against the three point shot are:

How good a shooter at making threes? A 40% guy should get far more three point shots than a 25% guy.

What is the time left on the shot clock? Anyone less than the 40% shooter should not even think of shooting a three before at least half of the shot clock has expired. Nothing more deflating than playing good defense, getting the ball into the front court and boinging a three by some guy shooting 29% on threes.

What is the score of the game? If you have a fairly decent lead the three should be the last thing that most of the Cs shooters should think about.

How much time is left in the game (could even be how much time left in a quarter). Late game deficits sometimes call for more threes, and of course, sometimes there is just not enough time at the end of the quarter to attack the basket.

I am sure that both Ainge and Stevens will be searching for at least one much better shooter to add to next year's team as well as hope that some of the guys coming back from this year's team will shoot better from distance.

Good three point shooting teams should shoot more threes, and poorer shooting teams should certainly shoot less of them. I would like to see the Celtics shoot much better on threes or shoot much fewer of them.

Outside,

My entire post was predicated on the general 33%/50% myth with which I opened the post.  Those percentages are the "some point" you were searching for and the only point I was addressing.  (33% x 3 points = roughly 100 points; and 50% x 2 points - 100 points.)

My point about possessions was that there are two types of possessions: successful and empty.  A higher percentage shot stands a relatively better chance of resulting in a successful possession, while a lower percentage shot assumes a greater risk of forfeiting the possession.  I believe that forfeiting a possession (especially late in a game) is basically the equivalent of handing a free ensuing possession to the opponent because the worst that can befall the opponent is to break even on the two possessions.  A better wording on my part would have been: "Missing 67 of 100 gives the opposition 17 more opportunities to gain a scoring margin than missing 50 of 100."

As I stated, I believe that there are more than mathematical reasons behind the importance of successful possessions—especially in keeping the adrenalin flowing in a tight game.  A forfeited possession after a great defensive stop can be a real downer for the team (to say nothing of us fans).

Your specific examples are interesting, but they don't apply to what I was talking about because I wasn't referring to anything except the general mathematical formula.  In general, I don't care about teams other than the Celtics, which is why I specified that, when I spoke about "super-shooting teams," I mentioned that the description didn't describe the Celtics.  If it ever does describe the Celtics, maybe I'll go on a different rant.

Sam

sam wrote:My entire post was predicated on the general 33%/50% myth with which I opened the post.  Those percentages are the "some point" you were searching for and the only point I was addressing.  (33% x 3 points = roughly 100 points; and 50% x 2 points - 100 points.)

No, the point I was referring to was the point when the average productivity of a possession resulting in a three-point shot equals the average productivity of a possession resulting in a two-point shot, including any associated free throws.

You specifically said that 33% on threes isn't as good as 50% on twos because you get more free throws on twos. I was referring to the point at which you can shoot threes well enough to compensate for those extra free throws. Maybe it's 35% or 36% on threes. It's impossible to know without complete data, such as the number of free throw attempts generated from three-point shots vs. two-point shots, the rate at which those free throws are made (I'd expect that the average three-point shooter makes a higher percentage of free throws than the average two-point shooter), and the number of offensive rebounds generated from threes vs. twos. It's not as simple as 33% = 50%, and the point at which the productivity of threes and twos intersects will be different for each team.

sam wrote:My point about possessions was that there are two types of possessions: successful and empty. A higher percentage shot stands a relatively better chance of resulting in a successful possession, while a lower percentage shot assumes a greater risk of forfeiting the possession. I believe that forfeiting a possession (especially late in a game) is basically the equivalent of handing a free ensuing possession to the opponent because the worst that can befall the opponent is to break even on the two possessions. A better wording on my part would have been: "Missing 67 of 100 gives the opposition 17 more opportunities to gain a scoring margin than missing 50 of 100."

I still don't buy it. This is based on the simplistic 33% = 50%, where:

• 100 possessions that end in a three-point shot generate 100 points, or an average of one point per possession.

• 100 possession that end in a two-point shot generate 100 points, or an average of one point per possession.

Therefore the opportunities by the opponent to gain a scoring margin advantage are the same for threes and twos. Your 67 vs. 50 comparison isn't allowing for the increased point value of the three-point shot. What about the times when your team makes a three and the opponent makes a two on the ensuing possession? Both teams scored, but your team gained a one-point advantage.

Never argue with a statistician

worcester wrote:Never argue with a statistician

I know. What an idiot. You'd think I'd know better. I'm like Sullinger at the three-point line -- my odds of success are absurdly low, and I'm going to get him riled up even if it goes in.

Outside wrote:

worcester wrote:Never argue with a statistician

I know. What an idiot. You'd think I'd know better. I'm like Sullinger at the three-point line -- my odds of success are absurdly low, and I'm going to get him riled up even if it goes in.

outside,


good one.


bob


.

I'm not a stat guy, how about live by the 3 die by the 3.

Outside,

1. It may have slipped by, but I'll say again that I was posting ONLY about the widely quoted 33% three-pointer hit rate vs. a 50% two-poiner hit rate model.  You want to find ways to increase the three-pointer percentage, but that doesn't address my point.  Heck, seven NBA teams averaged more than 50% on their two-point attempts per season.  But I'm ONLY talking about the hypothetical 33% vs. 50% bromide.  Not 34%.  Not 51%.  Precisely 33% vs. 50%.

2. I've been trying to find some stats on the percentage of two-pointers and three-pointers that draw free throws.  I've been unsuccessful so far, but I'm virtually certain the difference is substantially more than the 2-3 percentage points you feel would compensate for the disparity.  I understand your point that, if a team could shoot well enough from the arc, they could overcome the point differential advantage of the twos.  Well, in the first place, you are assuming they'd shoot threes better without also shooting twos better.  Of the 17 NBA teams that shot better than 33% on threes this past season, 7 also shot better than 50% on twos.

3. As for the number of offensive rebounds left by threes versus two, there's no question that the average three-pointer yields a greater probability of an offensive rebound than the average two-pointer.  But what you fail to mention is that the average three-pointer also yields an even greater probability of a defensive rebound than the average two-pointer—somewhere around a 3-to-1 average of defensive to offensive rebounds.

4. But more important, in my opinion, is the type of rebound created by two-point misses vs. three-point misses.  On average, I believe it's true that missed threes leave longer rebounds than missed twos.  And longer rebounds contribute to more opponents' fast breaks (even breakaways) than shorter rebounds.

5. Moreover, I believe there are non-statistical implications of shooting lower-percentage shots rather than higher-percentage shots, and there's at least one very important implication that has more to do with the NUMBER OF INSTANCES of successful or failed possessions rather than the specific number of points associated with either type. 

6. The 67-50 differential refers only to NUMBER OF POSSESSIONS (or events), not number of points.  Energy, adrenalin, and even physiology (e.g., muscular tightness based on response to pressure) can be elevated or deflated based on the success/failure ratio of a given possession.  It's the number of EVENTS that count in that situation, not number of points.

7. When a team is successful on an offensive possession, it's my position that—on average—they're likely to perform defensively better on the ensuing opponent's possession; but, if the team is unsuccessful on an offensive possession, it's my position that—on average—they can often suffer just enough of a defensive letdown to fail at that end too.  (They say that good defense fuels good offense.  I believe the opposite is also true.)  Thus, I feel that failing two-thirds of the time on the offensive end can be more psychologically costly than failing one-half of the time—especially down the stretch, and most notably after experiencing the "high" of having made a key defensive stop.  That has nothing to do with points and everything to do with number of events.  When a team is frantically retreating after having missed a shot, believe me, they're not thinking, "It's okay, we'll make up for that failure by scoring three points on another possession."  They're thinking something more like, "Oh, crap" (or something to that effect).

8. Moreover, the possibility of tacking an "and one" onto a two-point score means that three points may often be obtained with less risk of an empty possession than taking a three-point attempt.

9. Moreover, "and one" points are scored without taking any time off the clock, which can be very important down the stretch.

10. Moreover, "and one" points have a higher average percentage of completion (aka success) than even the typical two-point attempt.  And they're undefended.

11. Moreover, taking a two-pointer rather than a three-pointer gives a team a greater chance of increasing the number of fouls on individual opponents.

12. Moreover, taking a two-pointer rather than a three-pointer gives a team a greater chance of drawing a defensive foul, thus expediting the opponents' foul total in a given quarter.

So, whether we're debating on a statistical basis or a less tangible basis, I'll stick with my hypothesis that, while threes are not only here to stay but also are achieving greater importance, there's nothing of such substance about them that I would consider switching away from my preference for both the functional and aesthetic appeal of an NBA game based primarily on two pointers.

Sam

Sam, you had me at defensive rebounds.
Very well expressed.

FYI, last night i missed the plsyoff game - a rare event - for an even rarer chance to take my gal to what turned out to be a TRULY EXTRAORDINARY Broadway play, an American in Paris at the Palace. All Francophiles will be especially thrilled to see this performance, a spectacular vombo of music, script, set design, and dance/ballet. Phenomenal. Do take Sally to see it while the actors still have their legs and voices

Sam,

Since I'm an optimistic soul and responding is in my nature, I have this primal urge to respond in the hope that I can somehow get you to understand my points. However, logic is telling me that it's somewhat of an exercise in futility and that you probably feel the same way, so I'll do my best to let it go after this.

sam wrote:1. It may have slipped by, but I'll say again that I was posting ONLY about the widely quoted 33% three-pointer hit rate vs. a 50% two-poiner hit rate model.  You want to find ways to increase the three-pointer percentage, but that doesn't address my point.  Heck, seven NBA teams averaged more than 50% on their two-point attempts per season.  But I'm ONLY talking about the hypothetical 33% vs. 50% bromide.  Not 34%.  Not 51%.  Precisely 33% vs. 50%.

I understand that you saying you're posting only about 33 vs. 50. And guess what? I agree that the 33 isn't as good as the 50. I'm not disagreeing with that in the least.

But points 2-12 in your most recent post are about all sorts of real-world basketball factors justifying why you like twos better than threes. When I discuss percentages other than 33 and 50, it's because that's a real-world basketball factor, too.

Where I disagree with your argument is that you use myriad real-world factors on a hypothetical 33 vs. 50 foundation to make the case that, in real-world basketball, threes suck and twos rule. From a real-world evaluation standpoint, I don't see the value in basing the discussion on a false premise that skews the results from the start and insisting that no percentages other than 33 vs. 50 are allowed in the evaluation.

If it was just about the hypothetical 33 vs. 50, then fine, that's a short discussion, because I don't see how anyone could disagree. But from my standpoint, you're using the result from that narrow hypothetical to make a blanket real-world judgment on twos vs. threes.

sam wrote:Well, in the first place, you are assuming they'd shoot threes better without also shooting twos better.  Of the 17 NBA teams that shot better than 33% on threes this past season, 7 also shot better than 50% on twos.

I didn't make that assumption. In my first post in this thread, I pointed out the same correlation between teams that shoot well on both twos and threes that you brought up here. The best teams do both well.

What I did point out was that the median for threes is above 33% and the median for twos is below 50%.

I'll also point out that I think you're off on the stats quoted above -- I ran a query that showed 24 of 30 teams shot better than 33.3% on threes during the season, not 17.

http://bkref.com/tiny/n9Teq

One reason that the best teams shoot better on both twos and threes is that they have better shooters (well, duh). But those teams leverage their three-point shooting accuracy by design to improve their two-point shooting percentage. When opponents have to defend more aggressively out to the three-point line, that opens up the inside, which the best teams of course take advantage of.

Teams like the Hawks and Warriors that don't have typical post scorers are able to shoot extremely well on twos because defenses have to focus constantly on guys like Korver, Curry, and Thompson at the three-point line, even when they have an off shooting night and even on the majority of possessions during a game that don't result in a three-point shot. When you shoot threes that well, the mere threat of the three opens up the inside for better opportunities.

For teams that have good post scorers, shooting the three well keeps the lane open for them to do their work. Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan are more effective because J.J. Redick and Jamal Crawford draw the defense away from the paint.

sam wrote:So, whether we're debating on a statistical basis or a less tangible basis, I'll stick with my hypothesis that, while threes are not only here to stay but also are achieving greater importance, there's nothing of such substance about them that I would consider switching away from my preference for both the functional and aesthetic appeal of an NBA game based primarily on two pointers.

That's fine. I'm not going to change your mind. It's not my intent to portray threes as the greatest thing in basketball. My objective was to counterbalance your arguments, which come across in a binary way -- threes bad, twos good -- with arguments supporting the idea that threes aren't all bad. I support a more balanced view.

Besides your personal preference against threes, I can see how being a Celtic fan this season would drive you into the "I hate threes" camp. They are dreadful at shooting it -- 27th out of 30 teams -- and demonstrate the disadvantages of threes far more than the advantages. However, given the offense that Stevens employs, I have no doubt that improving their three-point shooting is one of the most important factors they will consider when making roster moves. I daresay that it could be more important than getting a rim protector (and I say that as someone who was a shot-blocking, defensive-minded center in his playing days).

Better three-point shooting is coming. It has to, or Stevens' system won't work.

The Celtics are hanging tough with Cleveland despite the Cavs shooting 36.0% on 89 three-point attempts and Boston shooting 30.8% on 63 three-point attempts. Eliminate the whopping advantage that Cleveland has on threes and the Celtics would be winning, not just because of the extra point from a made three-pointer, but because all the other elements of Stevens' offense would work more effectively. Modern team-oriented offenses rely on the defense extending out to the three-point line to open everything up for ball movement and player movement. When done well, those three-point shots you hate will lead to those beautiful two-point shots that you love.