REAL-IZING Randolph **ADDED 2nd BONUS SECTION**

REAL-IZING RANDOLPH

Skies the limit?

Anthony Randolph.

Bring that name up amongst Warrior fans and you would hear a wide range of opinions. Some would proclaim the lanky and explosive forward is destined for multiple trips to the All*Star Game and others would say we should send him packing for Kevin Love or the chance to draft Cousins, Favors, Johnson, or Monroe. So who is right? There is no doubt that Randolph is the key to the Warriors future but is it grabbing rebounds and blocking shots with the Bay Bridge across his chest or is it as a poker chip in Riley's game versus other GMs? In order to answer this question we need to get a REALISTIC picture of where Randolph is after two seasons and what he can become.

The following study is far from a scientific because it is only meant to be a quick and dirty attempt to put the prospect of Randolph realizing his potential into perspective. I think the one thing every Warrior fan can agree on is that Randolph is a rebounding, shot blocking, and pocket picking monster so this article will only look at the offensive end. If you don't agree check out this Basketball-Reference (B-R) link regarding the defensive stats AR puts up. There are only 14 other players who have averaged TRB% >15, BLK > 4%, and STL > 1.5% and among them are players like The Dream, The Admiral, Big Ben, and Camby. His defensive stats are a great base to build from defensively but what about the offensive end? Those who say Randolph is destined for greatness state that Randolph ONLY needs to decrease his turnovers, drop dimes like Odom, develop a jumpshot like Amare, and a post game like KG in order to become a stud. Well to me that sounds like an awful lot to ask and expect from one player.

So let's take a look at each facet of Randolph's offensive game and where it ranks compared to similar players.

Turnovers

Randolph 's Rookie+Soph TO% vs Others

The link above shows that compared to the first two years of other big men (6'9" or taller) who played at least 82 games combined in their first two seasons and had similar Usage Rates (USG% 20-25) Anthony Randolph's 13 TOV% ranks 45th best out of the 122 players eligible. So historically AR is actually starting at a decent place regarding his TO compared to other big men. This is surprising because one of the negatives we often hear about Randolph is that he makes so many bone headed decisions but the data shows otherwise. However, most of his boneheaded decisions are choosing to attempt a jumpshot instead of driving or passing which doesn't count as a TO. In the end it looks like Randolph is in the middle of the pack turnover wise compared to other bigs...at least he's not starting so far behind.

However.... maybe in this one case a HIGH turnover rate is more desirable?

Hollinger on 2009 ROY

"Westbrook also is the youngest of the three, the best defender and the only one who had to change positions upon arriving in the NBA. All of which suggests he's only scratching the surface of his potential -- as does the fact that he has a higher turnover ratio than the other two, which, in a paradoxical twist of logic, is actually a good thing for a rookie. Historically, those with high turnover rates have had much higher rates of improvement in subsequent seasons. "

If you believe Mr. Hollinger or have read the study he alludes to then maybe Randolph's 45th ranking is not as good as we hoped. A quick look at what the list brings is pretty interesting:

TOV% less than Randolph

Dirk

Bosh

Aldridge

Chuck V

Z-Bo

Donyell Marshall

Ilgauskas

Brad Miller

Al Jefferson

Okafor

TOV% greater than Randolph

Pau Gasol

McDyess

Yao

Amare

Kemp

Webber

Odom

Moses Malone

Camby

Kenyon Martin

Take from my quickly cherry picked list (or look for yourself at the link) what you want but those who had a higher TOV% seem to be a stronger group compared to those who had a lower percentage than Randolph. Oh yah and one player who had the exact same TOV% is Mehmet Okur. Not exactly franchise big man we imagine AR to become. I haven't read the study or seen the data so I don't know how much stock to put into it, but I found it interesting.

VERDICT: Randolph is not as TO prone as we thought compared to other big men and decreasing his TO is a realistic possibility, but maybe his ceiling isn't as high anymore?

Passing

I love the idea of a Point-Forward as much as Nellie but is Randolph that player?

Randolph AST% vs Others

I think those who see Randolph's ability to dribble the ball so fluidly automatically assume he can become a point-forward. However, dribbling is only half of the equation... you still need to be able to SEE the floor like a point guard. Compared to the same peer group used for turnovers, Randolph ranks 62/125 so he's pretty much average at passing. However, just for fun I compared Randolph's Assist Rate and Turnover Rate (using the Hoopdata formula) to some of the game's best passing big men. Take a look.

While Randolph's turnover rate (TOR) is about the same as those guys, his assist rate (AR) is the lowest of the sample. He is so far behind point-forwards like Kukoc or Odom that even if you doubled Randolph's AR he would still fall short of Euro Magic and Mr. Kardashian. If we set our expectations lower and just hope AR becomes a "good passing big man" like Webber and KG, Randolph is still starting way behind those two after their sophomore seasons. Hedo may seem misplaced but people forget he is 6'10" and has the skills that Randolph supporters say Anthony will eventually develop (jump shot, passing, etc) but when I watch their offensive games they look completely different. However, there maybe some hope that Randolph becomes a competent passer because Divac, one of the greatest passing big men, was almost as bad yet he still bumped his career AR to 19.29! So the skill can be developed even with such a poor start.

VERDICT: I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Randolph to become a point-forward and I find it unlikely he will develop into a passing big man but who knows? He was born in Europe like Vlade afterall.

Scoring

We'll breakdown scoring in a variety of ways: TS%, FT%, 3 PT%, Close eFG%, and jump shot eFG%.

First let's compare AR overall scoring efficiency by looking at his TS% compared to the same group of big men (6'9" or taller) with at least 82 games played in their first 2 years in the NBA and usage rates between 20-25%.

Randolph TS% vs Others

As you can see Randolph starts out way at the bottom with his 51.2 TS% ranking 90 out of the 125 big men. Antonio McDyess had the same TS% and those who had lower TS% are limited offensive players like Drew Gooden, Kenyon Martin, Camby, and Okafor.

Randolph FT% vs Others

One of the great parts about Randolph's game is that his FT% is above average for a young big man in the game. After two years he ranks 34th out of 125. Not too shabby especially since FT% tends to improve.

Randolph 3pt% vs Others

If Randolph is going to be the SF of the future he will need to develop 3 pt shooting to stretch the floor and he'll need to devote major time as his 11.1 three point % ranks 70 out of the 90 big men. To his credit AR has only shot a total of 9 threes for his career.

Now let's look at specific parts of scoring ability. This data was compiled by comparing Randolph to players using data available on 82games.com which went back the furthest regarding close and jump shot shooting percentages (since the 2002-2003 season). The players were picked as they have their rookie AND sophomore seasons on 82games and they represented the "best" jump shooting big men or post player. Again not scientific but quick and dirty.

Many like to say if Randolph develops a post game he will become an effective scorer. Let's take a look where he is compared to other big men by looking at their "close shot" and "blk'd" shot percentages. Now close shots doesn't exactly mean Randolph has a back to the basket game but it can show us if he can score efficiently in the paint.

NOTE: The 1st year and 2nd year numbers are reversed for ALL players. So 2nd year stats are really first year stats for this table!

In Randolph's rookie season he was well below the eFG% average of the sample group and had the highest percentage of "close shots" blocked at 22%. However, in his 2nd season AR was able to become a more effective finisher down low and also decrease his blk'd shots to a very good 14%. In fact his 54% close eFG and 14% blk'd shots compare favorably to veteran players who are known as good finishers.

EDITED

Thanks to Homer but all the players 1st and 2nd year stats on the chart are reversed. Randolph was actually more efficient his rookie year and his blocked shots were less. This actually makes sense to me as one of my biggest peeves with Randolph is that he is a soft finisher. Most of his trips into the lane end up with Randolph in some of the most awkward layups as he contorts his body to avoid contact. From someone with his length and jumping ability he should be attacking the rim and not relying on finesse. Is this reason for alarm? I don't think so but just another thing AR needs to work on. David West's eFG dropped slightly and Bosh remained the same and both are great finishers now.  Also, while Bosh's eFG stayed the same his eFG% was actually lower than Randolph's and Amare went from 44.6 to 44.8 so he end up around the same spot in his sophomore season.

So how does Randolph's jump shot stack up to the big men considered to be good jump shooters?

It looks like Randolph will have a long way to go to improve his jump shot. Of the 9 big men in the sample only Amare, West, and Boozer failed to hit 40% eFG jump shot in either their rookie or sophomore seasons. Fortunately for Randolph, Amare and West are two of the best jump shooting big men in the NBA and both were actually WORSE than Randolph in their rookie years. However, both also had much larger improvements between their rookie and sophomore seasons. So it looks like that while most big men demonstrated the ability to shoot the jumper early on, there are those who significantly improved their jump shots.

VERDICT: Randolph is already a decent free throw shooter and finisher down low but in order to increase his TS% he will need to put in tons of work into improving his jumper.

Conclusion

The point of the article is not to say Anthony Randolph will or won't improve in each of these categories but it was to put his offensive performance into perspective. As it stands Randolph's strengths on offense are his low TOs, high FT%, and ability to finish inside compared to his peers at the same point in time. What's funny is that the aspects of his offensive game that are needed to become a small forward/point forward, passing and outside shooting, are his biggest weaknesses and are actually very poor compared to his peers. If he is to become an All-World forward he will need to put in enough work to become the exception rather than the norm considering his Assist Rate and Jump Shot eFG%. Do you really want to depend on a player significantly improving his two weaknesses in the NBA?

If anything this study proves that Randolph should be groomed as a power forward rather than a perimeter oriented SF. He has the defensive side covered and his strengths on offense: ability to finish at the rim and good FT% are exactly what great PFs have and since he has a solid foundation he is more likely to reach more effective levels. His ability to handle the ball will be more effective at the PF spot where he can take bigger slower guys off the dribble to make use of his close range effectiveness and free throw shooting. Compare that to the SF position where smaller, quicker players will cut off his path to the basket and make Randolph settle for a jumpshot.

After the study it looks like there are still more questions than answers. Randolph clearly has his weaknesses but as bad as they are there are others who have succeeded in improving them. We now know where Randolph is at regarding his offensive game. We now know that others have worked on those same weaknesses and improved but they seem to be the minority. Just be cause we know it can be done does not mean it will be done.

Now the ball is in Randolph's court. Is he willing to put the work in? Will the coaching staff put him in the best position to utilize his talents? Is he willing to do the dirty work inside? Etc.

Before you finish I have two more questions for you:

Knowing what you know now.... what is Anthony Randolph's upside player wise? Is he still a lock for Multiple All*Star Games or are you now more willing to trade him?

BONUS - Age

I can't believe I forgot this but GSW9 reply reminded me of everyone's favorite crutch: AGE! People often say since AR and Wright are so young that they have the potential to get better... well they do but most impact players come into the league and show their worth immediately. Below is the link comparing Randolph to Big Men (6'9" or taller) who finished their sophomore season by the age of 21 sorted by WS/48 to put everyone on even ground.

Young Big Men Sorted by WS/48

Looking at the list AR ranks 44 out of 71 regarding WS/48. So he is slightly a below average player (WS/48 of .100 is average).

Stud big men like Duncan, Howard, Moses Malone, Webber, Gasol, Jefferson, Bogut, Bosh, Kemp, Amare, Dirk, and KG all had WS/48 > .100 which is considered average.

Notable players within the same range as Randolph (.80 WS/48) are Joe Smith, Beasley, Durant, Tyson Chandler, Uncle Cliffy, Odom, and Shareef Abdur-Rahim. Not exactly the caliber of players compared to the first group. 

Those who had WS/48 lower than Randolph's are Jermaine O'Neal, Zaza, Kwame Brown, Josh Smith, Marvin Williams, Rudy Gay, Troy Murphy, and Chris Kaman. Again that group is not as strong as the first group, but it is stronger that the group in Randolph's range.

So the point is if you're expecting a perennial All*Star big man AR production so far again will make him the exception rather than the norm.

BONUS 2 - FGA/Volume

This was added for Missing Barry who wanted to see components of volume or shot creation added in. Since Randolph lost a ton of games due to injury I'll be looking at FGA/game and FG% compared to the same set of players.

Randolph FGA/G vs Others

Randolph FG% vs Others

So looking at the link we see Anthony Randolph rank 86 out of 125. Meaning he took less shots than other players which not a bad thing considering he ranks 91st in FG% (using FG% instead of TS% because we are only looking at FGA and not including free throws). However, if you look as FGA as an indicator of team importance/dependence than Randolph's low FGA game (7.7) doesn't bode well. Players who had as many or less FGA/game are Tim Thomas, Mehmet Okur, Hakim Warrick, Eddy Curry, Rashard Lewis, Al Jefferson, Zach Randolph, Brad Miller, and Tyrus Thomas. While that is a decent list of players that doesn't include studs like Bosh, Amare, Pau, James Worthy, Dirk, Webber, Hakeem, Moses Malone, and Yao who all averaged more than 10 FGA/G. The best player who averaged more than Randolph but less than 10 FGA/A I believe is Shawn Kemp who averaged 8.2 FGA (79th) but was 42nd in FG%. So again it looks like the stud players become offensive options on their teams early in their careers.

Things get interesting when you look at FGA vs FG%

Player/ FGA rank/ FG% rank

Randolph - 86/91

Bosh - 48/76

Amare - 32/70

Odom - 15/95

Webber - 5/17

McDyess - 14/72

Gasol - 18/25

Kemp - 79/42

Jefferson - 103/27

Zach Randolph- 109/39

As you can see Randolph was the LEAST efficient big man (aside from Odom) I looked at, but yet he took more shots than players like Jefferson and  Randolph who absolutely killed him in efficiency and in relation to others who carried more of a scoring load he STILL was LESS efficient than them. As we can see Odom took a high amount of shots early in his career as the Clippers #1 option but wasn't that efficient, which we know is the truth now as he is best suited as 3rd or 4th offensive option.

Aiya. Again not looking good for Randolph into becoming an offensive power house.

Thanks for the Rec!