next »

[kozlodoev]

Anything under 6'10" is undersized for a PF in my book.

Undersized does not necessarily equate to an inability to play the position, however.

6-10 is ideal. But I bet the average is around 6-9.

This is a curious question, and I could find very little on it around the net. But I did find this tool:

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=avepos&year=2008&source=All&draft=100&sort=

Apparently, the average height of drafted PFs for the last 4 years is 6'7.5 to 6'8.5 without shoes. Given that by rule you can only add 1'25 to height for shoes, this translates to something like 6'9-6'10, give or take a quarter of an inch.

This is, of course, biased, given that a lot of big men get drafted solely on size, and then wash out. But I haven't found anything better, surprisingly enough.

[kozlodoev]

There's no use cherry-picking stats to prove a point that's not there.

DraftExpress measurements clearly indicate that Sullinger is less athletic than Love in every aspect, despite the fact Love had higher % of body fat at measurement time (sprint, lane agility, max vertical).

What measurements are you referring to, exactly? You accuse the OP of cherry-picking stats and you don't even provide your own? From looking at DraftExpress, overall their measurements are incredibly similar. The only clear advantage I see is Love's maximum vertical is higher; everything else the measurements are so close as to be broadly considered analogous.

I've listed the measurements in the post you cited: max vertical, 3/4 court sprint, lane agility. Toss bench press to that if you'd like. The differences are not at all trivial, and Love clearly has the edge in all of these. Love also has the higher standing reach.

They're only equal in no-step vertical, and Sullinger has a couple of inches of wingspan extra, the only two stats that the original poster conveniently cites as proof of his thesis -- clear cherry picking.

[ScottHow]

I don't think their rookie numbers are comparable. I think fans should stop trying to say he is a Love type. Comparing players to others is too hard bc no one player is the same.

Trying to guess future stats is fine, but trying to fit him into a Love mold gets tricky. He's just gonna be Sully

[kozlodoev]

He's just gonna be Sully

And he's going to be great. Maybe not 20/12 great, but still.

[danglertx]

Not sure why people seem to want to put Sully into the All Star or top player slot.  Can't he just be a really solid 4 who gobbles up rebounds and uses his IQ to be a good defender and score when needed?

You don't need to have all stars at every position, you need role players at at least two spots, if not three and then on the bench.

I'd be thrilled if Sully really never gets appreciably better than he is now and we get a cheap role guy for 5 years and maybe more. 

If the guy does get better, icing.