Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North Philly, PA
Situational Statistics: Power Forwards (good read)
Derrick Favors didnít get a ton of possessions to work with at Georgia Tech last year, but he has some impressive and concerning statistics on his situational resume.
At 12.1 possessions per-game, Favors ranks right around the average in terms of usage in our rankings. He actually falls behind Patrick Patterson, who notably sacrificed some of his touches to Kentuckyís freshman class. Favors didnít benefit from playing next to a host of combo guards and no true playmaker with the mentality to get him the ball as often as possible around the rim. In limited touches, Favors shot an impressive 61.3% from the field (1st) and scored 1.0 PPP (5th).
Receiving some 92% of his touches in half court sets, Favors shot an incredible 84.2% in one fast break touch per-game, but still managed to connect on 59.5% of his other shots. He received roughly 35% of his possessions in post up situations, scoring a point on 43% of those touches. His 0.844 PPP is just average, and his turnover percentage of 21.5% ranks pretty high. Ranking as the fourth most turnover prone player in this sample at 20.9% overall, Favors clearly has to improve his ability to hold onto the ball and likely could have been the most efficient scorer in our sample if he hadnít given away such a large portion of his possessions.
Favorsí role at GT is clear in the percentage of possessions he had to create for himself by crashing the glass. While his athleticism certainly played a role, Favors got nearly 20% of his touches by pulling down his teammateís missed shots, something that his future coach probably wonít mind in the least bit. His interior oriented role is very evident in the 0.4 spot-up possessions per-game Favors used.
Favors may have get just 0.62 PPP on his 0.9 jumpers per-game, showing that heíll need time to develop as a midrange, but his 72.1% shooting on finishing opportunities is outstanding. It seems clear that when Favors got the ball in position to score last season, he excelled, and that will help him early in his career, but the development of his post and midrange arsenal will be a key to his learn-term success as a player.
Ranking right around average with a usage of 12.3 possessions per-game, Patterson ranks first amongst all power forward prospects at 1.139 PPP overall. The only player with a higher overall PPP in our 2010 draft rankings is Syracuse center Arinze Onuaku. On top of his excellent efficiency, Patterson turned the ball over on just 8.3% of his possessions, the second lowest mark in our rankings.
From a situation specific perspective, Patterson was one of the more versatile forwards on the list. He received some 18% of his total offense in spot-up situations (3rd), 16% in transition (2nd), and 15.4% from offensive rebounds (8th). The impact of Kentuckyís freshman on Pattersonís role is clear in the decline we see in his opportunities to create his own shot. After receiving 35.8% of his possessions in the post last season, he got to go one-on-one on the block just 18% of the time this year. Despite that drop in usage, he led our sample with 65% shooting in the post.
Patterson is capable of contributing on the next level in a number of ways, as his tools give him the ability to score in all sorts of set plays. His 0.894 PPP in jump shooting situations ranks above average, and it wouldnít be surprising to see Patterson continue to make progress in that part of the game. Around the rim he ranks above average at 1.368 PPP.
Udohís 15.3 possessions per-game rank him above average in terms of usage, but his 0.885 PPP ranks him as the third least efficient player in our sample overall. Aside from his lack of efficiency, Udoh is a unique player in terms of where his shots come from. Heís able to step out to the midrange and make an impact while also displaying the length and fluidity to get to the rim.
Udoh ranks 5th in our sample in both jump shots per-game (3.4) and spot-up PPP at 1.08. He also used an impressive 14.1% of his offensive possessions in isolation situations, which would have ranked him right around average amongst small forwards. Udohís 0.831 points-per possession in isolation situations would have ranked him 8th amongst small forwards, and is a prime example of what he can bring to the table at the next level as a mismatch threat.
Some of Udohís overall inefficiency stems from the fact that he was often the one creating his own shots in Baylorís offense and didnít finish at a high rate. Nearly 54% of his offense came off post ups, isolations, or offensive rebounds, which is certainly impressive, but his 53.3% shooting in finishing situations is well below average. Udohís lack of physical strength, especially in his lower body, and average explosiveness, remain a concern moving forward.
Davisí 12.5 possessions per-game rank him just above Patterson in terms of usage and still right around the average for our sample of power forwards. His 1.0 overall PPP is good for 6th, and shows that despite being a raw offensive player, he still gets the job done efficiently. He certainly helped his cause last season by getting fouled on 12.3% of his shots (3rd).
Though Davis was pretty productive overall relative to his touches, he ranked right around the average in post up situations in terms of efficiency (0.84 PPP) and usage (4 Pos/G). He benefitted from the play of his teammates, finishing his possessions from basket cuts at an excellent 77.8% clip. In contrast, he shot just 28.6% in a meager sample of spot-up opportunities (0.4 Pos/G). Clearly, Davis still needs to improve his midrange game to become a more capable threat from the elbows and a more versatile scorer.
Attempting the fewest jump shots on our list at just 0.4 shots per-game, Davis got a larger percentage of his shots in finishing situations than every player on our list aside from Latavious Williams. Though Davis was able to be pretty effective on the whole, heís a bit limited in what areas he can help a team at this time.