There is plenty of excitement in Philadelphia this year regarding the 76ers, and with good reason too. Trading away Andre Igoudala, amnestying Elton Brand, and bringing in Andrew Bynum, the team got rid of its two highest paid players and began in earnest its youth movement on the broad shoulders of one of the NBA’s best centers.
Having watched about 70 to 80 percent of Lakers games over the course of Bynum’s career, I feel it is important to give a realistic look at how he will fare as the main option/best player for Philly this season.
I have scoured Sixers forums and read the myriad posts from Philly fans who are over-the-moon that they finally have a legitimate post presence. There is no denying Bynum’s talent. He’s seven feet tall. He’s a robust 290lbs. He has GoGo Gadget arms along with a feathery touch that has allowed him to shoot 70 percent from the freethrow line for his career. He’s continued to show improvement in his game. And he’s only 24.
Of course, there are a number of negatives as well. Struggles with maturity and issues with conditioning and consistent effort are worrisome trends, but trends that can largely be solved with good coaching/training and the added motivation of being the main breadwinner for a team. He does appear to be the kind who would find that motivating. Bynum is an intelligent person and handicap parking aside, a solid citizen. Maturity will come with age.
The far more concerning issues, however, have to do with his health and his style of basketball.
Regarding health, in his seven-year career, Bynum has played 82 games only once—his sophomore season. He did play in all but six games last year during the lockout shortened 66-game season, missing four of them due to suspension. But in the four years in between his sophomore campaign and last, he’s had two major knee surgeries (one on each knee) and averaged only 51 games.
Besides last season, when he got in 2,112 minutes of action, Bynum has never been over 2,000 minutes in any of his six other seasons. For comparisons sake, Dwight Howard (who is often compared to Bynum) played the fewest minutes of his career last season at 2,070. In each of his other seven seasons he’s averaged 2,914 minutes. (This is a vitally important fact as I will discuss later when we compare the two centers.)
Whatever your theory is on wear and tear versus frailty, go down the list of franchise centers over the past 20 years and none of them played as few minutes as Bynum has over the course of their first seven years in the league. Even a guy like Alonzo Mourning, whose career was plagued by injuries, still managed four seasons over 2,500 minutes.
Of course, this could be a good thing moving forward. Look at 39-year-old Grant Hill, who missed all of three games from 2009 to 2011 after battling severe ankle problems during his prime. The big difference, besides their physical sizes, is that Hill was an iron man before he got hurt averaging 38 minutes a game and missing only five games over a four-year span.
Bynum’s track record is quite the opposite and the odds of him suddenly finding extended health are not in his favor. Bynum has a genetic disposition with ligamentous laxity which led to issues in his left knee in 2008 and then his right in 2009-2010 and could eventually lead to problems in the years to come. He will most likely have to wear that giant cumbersome brace for the rest of his career. Also, at only 24, he is getting the same procedure on his knees that a 33-year-old Kobe Bryant and a 36-year-old Alex Rodriguez got to prolong their careers.
The procedure very well could work for Bynum. My question is will he be able to play 35 minutes a night for 75+ games every season and put up a 20-11 statline?
In order to be a max money player or a franchise cornerstone, you have to play.
That might sound like a “no duh” statement, but with advanced stats (especially those that project averages over extended artificial minutes) increasingly dictating how players are evaluated, you’d be surprised how many times this obvious fact is completely disregarded.
For example, I’ve never agreed with those who tout or have touted that Manu Ginobili and Dwyane Wade are “better” than Bryant—mainly because they're more efficient. I agree that Wade plays a more efficient style of basketball and that Manu packs a knockout punch whenever he’s on the floor. Both have shown to be better than Bryant on any given day, week, or even month…but overall? Minutes matter.
Over his nine-year career, Wade has never played a full 82, topping out at 79 once, and averaging only 66 per season. Ginobili as well has averaged around 66 games per season. Detracting further from Ginobili’s value is his career minutes per game—a paltry 27.
So while both are more efficient than Bryant, neither have come close to Bryant’s actual, real court time. Bryant has played a full season five times (including the lockout shortened 50 game season) and three others with at least 79 games.
This most certainly matters and should make the Howard vs. Bynum question a moot point. Even last season, when Howard played in six less games, he was only 42 minutes shy of Bynum, who set a career-high minute total.
So, the main concern shared by everyone with any sort of vested interest in Bynum, is can he not only stay healthy, but can he stay healthy as the number one option?
Which then begs the question, is Bynum a number one option?
Part II
Part III
No comments:
Post a Comment