A Case for Byron James Mullens
In the face of reports that the Bulls want to draft B.J. Mullens with the 16th pick and realizing I don't know much about the kid (other than the fact that he's big, athletic, and a statistical disappointment), I thought I'd do some research. I've become even more irrationally excited about drafting Mullens than I am about bringing over Omer Asik. After reading some things and watching some things, I think I might have convinced myself that getting Mullens at 16 would be a major coup.
My thoughts:
1. Knowing that Mullens was one of the top big-man prospects coming out of high school, I wondered how he stacked up against other recent big-man high schoolers. Since most high school highlight reels for guys Mullens' size consist of dunks on 6'3" guys, I sought out stats. Here's what I found (stats are per game and culled from All-USA team announcements):
- B.J. Mullens: 27 ppg, 15 rpg, 3 bpg.
- Amare Stoudemire: 29 ppg, 15 rpg, 6 bpg.
- Kevin Love: 34 ppg, 17 rbg, 4 bpg.
- Greg Oden: 20 ppg, 10 rbg, 3.7 bpg.
- Spencer Hawes: 20 ppg, 12 rbg, 4 bpg.
- Dwight Howard: 25.5 ppg, 18 rpg, 8 bpg.
- Al Jefferson: 42 ppg, 18 rpg, 7 bpg.
I think looking at these high school stats can be informative despite all the things you can say against using them (wildly divergent high school programs and competition levels, for one; the huge advantage being 7'1" in high school as compared to higher levels of ball; no information on minutes played; etc.). The first thing these stats demonstrate, to me, is that Al Jefferson was a raging beast in high school. The second thing is that you can't infer much from them regarding offensive skill. Dwight Howard is nobody's prototypical post scorer, and he scored more than Spencer Hawes, whose bread-and-butter is offense. Mullens is closer to Amare than Oden, but take that with a grain of salt. More telling are the rebounding and block numbers in my mind. Mullens' relatively low block numbers compared to guys like Love and Hawes (both inferior athletes to him) suggests he may not have innate defensive instincts to fall back on. Similarly, being in the same rebound ballpark as Amare (rather than Howard or Jefferson) suggests he might be an adequate but not dominant rebounder. All told, I think his high school stats suggest Mullens will not be an immediate defensive force.
In my mind, that's perfectly OK. We have defensive big men already. We've been looking for a credible offensive big man forever. As long as he isn't getting beaten to a pulp inside, I don't care. We shouldn't be expecting an Olajuwon-esque complete center at pick 16 of a weak draft anyway. And I think there are indications Mullens could be a good offensive center.
2. Video of Mullens Working Out for Washington. Workouts, of course, can be deceiving. Yi Jianlian's infamous pwnage of a folding chair is a cautionary tale. This video of Mullens' workout for the Wizards, however, seems encouraging, specifically the part where he drains a bunch of elbow-distance jumpers with pretty nice-looking form on his shot. He keeps the ball elevated and out in front of him and seems to get good rotation on the ball. He's going nowhere near game speed, but as an approximation of a spot-up jumper, this could look a whole lot worse. One of the knocks on Mullens that I'd heard before investigating was that he can't shoot. This does not look like a man who can't shoot. This looks like a guy who could develop Brad-Miller range.
3. Video Highlights from Fox Sports. As mentioned before, I couldn't find many highlights of Mullens doing anything but dunking, but this video shows a nifty jump hook and Mullens finishing with a layup on a fast break. Of course, this needs to be taken with a brick of rock salt as highlight films by their very nature pick and choose positive things to show (for instance, I bet you could put together a lengthy clip of Tyrus making jump hooks and layups and think he had the best hands in the world). But combined with Draft Express holding as one of his great positives his finishing ability and his great hands, I think this might be a fair representation of his capability. Not shabby.
4. Putting all this together. It's kind of an easy comparison since he's on the team and beloved by certain purveyors of this blog, but I wouldn't be surprised if Mullens could approximate Brad Miller on the court. I say approximate because there's no indication Mullens has his passing skill, his on-court IQ, or his "I'll-stand-up-to-Shaq" toughness, but from a skill standpoint he could be the type of center that holds his own defensively, has range on his jump shot, and has good hands around the basket. He seems like a good kid. I doubt he's ever been seriously coached. But even if he never reaches full potential, I don't see how he doesn't become in fairly short time a useful (think 10 min/g) role player, and in time perhaps a 25 min/g role player. That, to me, is the floor. Considering that he has the highest ceiling of any guy potentially available at 16, I don't see how we shouldn't pick him if he's there.
(Commence the refutation of all my points.)
FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.
0 recs |
17 comments
Comments
Interesting.
I’ve never noticed the auto-hyperlinking of common words before. Kind of nifty.
by arjoseph on Jun 16, 2009 6:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yi Jianlian really did PWN that chair, though.
Asked what kind of player he expects to be in the next five years, he said: "Not a star, but like, a superstar. Something around, like, Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, something like that."
by BigBenign on Jun 16, 2009 7:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure that is "game speed" for Mullens.
hahahahaha
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 16, 2009 8:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
high school stats DO mean nothing
there’s a hundred guys with no NBA talent whatsoever who get those kind of stats, too.
Brad Miller’s toughness doesn’t just grow on trees.
Also, Thad Matta ain’t a bad coach. He really did try with this kid, and by the end of the season, he was still only playing something like 17 minutes a game. That’s a real bad sign.
by benster on Jun 16, 2009 8:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Brad Miller
his toughness grows on a lot more trees than his size and skill.
by JSlakov on Jun 16, 2009 9:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I thought you were making a different "trees" joke for a second.
But you’re actually making a valid point. I agree with you. The question is: which is more important? There are obviously minimums of each you have to have to be effective, but I wonder if a guy with enough skill but an excess of “toughness” (or whatever other intangible you want to bring up) is better than a guy with an excess of skill but barely enough of the intangibles. And I mean that: I wonder.
by arjoseph on Jun 16, 2009 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The case for Mullens in terms of measurements
first, here’s the list of all the centers that have been drafted in the first round in DX’s measurements database. I had it sorted by no step max reach, which is a pretty good indication of how tall a player, especially a center playing down low, will play most of the time (most guys aren’t going to have time down there to get that step to boost their vertical, especially when rebounding). Mullens posted an 11’ 7.5". If you cut off all the guys that have posted 11’ 6" or less, you get a list that looks like this:
- Greg Oden (12’0")
- Dwight Howard (11’ 10")
- Emeka Okafor (11’ 10")
- Javale McGee (11’ 9.5")
- Saer Sene (11’ 9.5")
- Tyson Chandler (11’ 9")
- Amar’e Stoudemire (11’ 8.5")
- Brook Lopez (11’ 8.5")
- Brendan Haywood (11’ 8.5")
- Chris Bosh (11’ 7.5")
- Patrick O’Bryant (11’ 7.5")
- Nene (11’ 7")
- Joakim Noah (11’ 7")
- Eddy Curry (11’ 7")
- Steven Hunter (11’ 6.5")
- Chris Wilcox (11’ 6.5")
- Al Jefferson (11’ 6.5")
That’s a pretty good group to be in with. Looking through that list, there’s maybe 3 guys who I would be bummed to get at the number 16 pick (POB, Sene, and Hunter) and one more that may or may not end up being a good player (McGee). So what caused those three to fail? Well, Hunter didn’t really fail – he played in the league for about 6 seasons around league average PER or slightly below and was a prolific shot blocker. So he was bringing some value as a defensive specialist. Not exactly what you want out of your #16 pick, but it could be worse.
Moving on to the other two guys, POB “failed” (he’s only 22, so he could still find a place in the league) because he was a poor fit in Golden State and since then has passed from Boston to Toronto. He’s a bit mechanical and he has a questionable motor (sharing one of Mullens’s red flags). Coming into the league POB also had issues with conditioning. There’s no indication that Mullens share these issues, but since Thad Matta never kept him out on the court long enough for this to come to the surface, we’ll just have to assume Mullens is fine with respect to conditioning. I haven’t heard anything out of his workouts to suggest that he lacks in the conditioning department.
Saer Sene sucked because he basically had never played basketball in his life and was super weak. Mullens does not have the same issues. He was a dominant high school player, has great hands, and finishes extremely well. He also has a nice elbow jumper that he rarely got to display at OSU.
Another interesting trait amongst the group of big men I bullet pointed above is what separates the cream of the crop in that group from the rest. Guys I consider to be in the cream of the crop, based on positive numbers in two year APM’s from basketballvalue – Oden (2.07), Howard (4.48), Amare (.43), Bosh (6.54), Nene (4.9), Joakim Noah (6.38), Tyson Chandler (.60), Brendan Haywood (4.46), Chris Wilcox (1.17). Most of these guys had agility scores in the under 12 second range, with two exceptions. Chandler and Haywood were the only two that had agility scores in the 12 second range amongst guys with no step max reach above 11’ 6" that were drafted in the first round that made positive contributions this year. The rest of them were all sub 12 seconds, and B.J. Mullens would be well within that group with his crazy fast time of 11.10 seconds. In fact, the only time in the whole group better than Mullens is that of Nene (he of the prodigious moving feet which allowed him to play such great team defense that the Nuggets didn’t miss a beat by losing Marcus Camby).
Now this is probably a case of me overparsing the measurement data, and I’m fine with those accusations, but you’re not going to find a better physical prospect than Mullens anywhere in the draft. I’m skittish on him because of his lack of productivity in college, but if the Bulls – and this is a very big if – can get someone in to coach and develop BJ, the sky is the limit for him, especially with Rose getting him plenty of finishing opportunities.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 17, 2009 10:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Your "overparsing" (I'd just go with "parsing") fits my thinking.
If Mullens is never more productive than Chris Wilcox or Brendan Haywood, I’d be fine with that at 16; that’s a useful role player. If he is as productive as Nene, I’d be thrilled; that’s a starter on a pretty good, maybe championship team (depending on what’s around him).
by arjoseph on Jun 17, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the other hand,
I can’t find a single instance of a center being as unproductive as Mullens was his freshman year and then coming in and being a productive NBA player.
The closest analogy is DeAndre Jordan from last year, and even he was a better rebounder. Things that they had in common:
- 7 footers oozing with potential
- Extremely low usage in college (around 7-8 possessions per game) with average (Mullens) to below average (Jordan) productivity with the low usage
Things that make them different:
- Mullens is a far worse rebounder than Jordan (9.7 per pace adjust 40 mins to 12.3, respectively)
- Mullens is bigger (2 inches taller and 8 pounds heavier), but Jordan has a much longer (by 3.5 inches) wingspan and reach (by 2.5 inches)
- Mullens is stronger (10 bench presses to Jordan’s 8) and more agile (11.10 seconds in the agility testing versus 12.3 for Jordan).
- But Jordan is slightly faster in the 3/4 court sprint (3.27 to 3.45) but such a small difference hardly matters.
Jordan came into the league this year and posted a 14.1 PER on a crappy LA Clips team in around 15 minutes per game. Mullens figures to be a better scorer than Jordan, but probably a worse rebounder (unless someone teaches him to box out or give a crap about rebounding). A 14 PER as a rookie center wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world, and Mullens could probably be brought along at the same pace (10- 15 minutes a game). The list of centers in the 3 point era that have posted PERs above 13 as rookies at age 21 or below is relatively short, here it is:
- Shaq (Age: 20, 22.1 PER)
- Jelani McCoy (Age: 21, 21.1 PER . . . small sample size alert, 331 minutes in this entire season for McCoy)
- Greg Oden (Age: 21, 18.1 PER)
- Brook Lopez (Age 20, 17.9 PER)
- Vlade Divac (Age 21, 17.5 PER)
- Dwight Howard (Age 19, 17.5 PER)
- JaVale McGee (Age 21, 17.0 PER)
- Stanley Roberts (Age 21, 16.3 PER)
- Benoit Benjamin (Age 21, 16.1 PER)
- Brad Daugherty (Age 21, 15.6 PER)
- Andrew Bogut (Age 21, 15.2 PER)
- Kosta Koufos (Age 19, 15.2 PER)
- Andris Biedrins (Age 18, 14.8 PER)
- Al Horford (Age 21, 14.7 PER)
- Lasalle Thompson (Age 21, 14.7 PER)
- Mike Gminski (Age 21, 14.5 PER)
- Eddy Curry (Age 19, 14.4 PER)
- DeAndre Jordan (Age 20, 14.1 PER)
- Keith Closs (Age 21, 14.0 PER)
- Michael Doleac (Age 21, 13.7 PER)
- Nenad Krstic (Age 21, 13.4 PER)
- Tony Battie (Age 21, 13.3 PER)
- Tyson Chandler (Age 19, 13.0 PER)
There are some players on that list that I would be thrilled to have at # 16, but others, obviously, that I wouldn’t be so thrilled with. I think it’s important to note that Mullens will be 20 next season until February 14th, and the cutoff date for ages that B-R uses (and therefore, I used when doing this search) is February 1st. So call Mullens an old 20 or a young 21, but let that be a guide to you when comparing your expectations of what he might be to his age relative to the guys on this list. If Mullens comes in and posts a 13-15 PER in year 1, I’ll be happy. Anything above that and I’d be thrilled. Below that, I’m probably going to be grumbling about wasted opportunities to draft other, safer players. It all depends on whether or not he can get a hold of those great tools that he has.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 17, 2009 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aside from Closs and McCoy, those guys all had fairly long careers, didn't they?
by Sports2 on Jun 17, 2009 8:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
More or less. There's no guarantee that he does that well, though. If he's like DeAndre Jordan, we can bet he will probably will
have a pretty long, solid career, if not, well then he’s probably a bust, right?
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 17, 2009 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was so against picking Mullens before I read this..
But this was a thorough and thought out argument that is damn convincing. The thing with picks outside of the lottery is that you can’t really predict who’s going to be available — especially in a draft like this where teams are more likely to draft based on need (the opinion on the talent is so varied picks 8-20 could be different for each team). If Dejuan Blair is there at 16 and so is Mullens I think Garpaxdorf takes Blair because we don’t change our approach very often. But if it’s between Hansbrough and Mullens…
I’d have to go Mullens. The plan of playing him about 10 minutes a game until mid-season when we try to use Brad Miller’s expiring contract as a trade chip for a big piece makes sense to me. Hopefully BJ’s ready by then. If we can’t trade these picks for something extremely useful we might as well swing for the fences with one of them. In a way (and I’m surprised no one else has mentioned this), Mullens kind of reminds me of Jermaine O’Neal when he was coming out of high school. Great size and athleticism, offensive tools that could easily be developed with the right coach… A questionable motor/heart/desire and basketball IQ… Jermaine took a few years to develop but he was a top 5 big for a good 4-5 years. Am I the only one who sees the resemblance?
I don’t necessarily think he’s the NEXT Jermaine O’Neal; I’m just going along with the game of looking at recent bigs his age coming into the league and finding some similarites. If Mullens is 2/3 the player O’Neal was in his prime then we got a steal at #16.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 17, 2009 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My take
I won’t be disappointed if Mullens is the pick at 16, but I’d prefer Hansbrough. What the Bulls need is someone who can score in the post. Hansbrough can, Mullens can’t.
by ImLittleJon on Jun 17, 2009 12:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d like Mullins… hiring a big man coach should be something the Bulls should do
by wiltfongjr on Jun 17, 2009 1:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
P.S.
Just in case you hadn’t heard, Omer Asik blew out his knee last summer.
http://www.euroleague.net/news/i/34912/180
He might make a full recovery, or he might never be the same. Knee ligaments are scary things.
Not to rain on your irrational excitement or anything. :-)
by ImLittleJon on Jun 17, 2009 5:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 












