Boston Celtics: Predicting Avery Bradley's Stat Line for the 2012-13 NBA Season
Over the next few weeks, I will predict the season stat-line for every rotation player on the Celtics, then back my prediction up with an article. First, I did Rajon Rondo. Now, I will do Avery Bradley.
(Note: I will not be doing it for players that won't make the rotation like Kris Joseph. If you really want to see my predictions for any omitted player, just let me know.)
Stat predictions for 2012-13 season:
8.7 PPG, 2.0 APG, 3.1 RPG, 1.9 SPG, 52 FGP, 86 FTP
Bradley's stats for next year will not wow anyone, nor will they tell the full story of his impact. Really, Bradley will be the fourth or fifth offensive option when he is on the floor and, as a result, will not be given a lot of shots or isolation opportunities.
That said, he is much more talented than most non-primary offensive options so he will make use of his limited shots and touches and turn them into efficient scoring. The majority of his offense will come from corner-threes and cuts to the basket. And, if given the opportunity, occasional baskets on isolation plays.
Some games, he will get a lot of shots and in turn will score a lot of points. While other games, he won't get a lot of opportunities and, as a result, not score as many points. For the most part though, we can probably expect him to get an average of eight shots a game of which he will connect on about half.
But, as it has been well documented, Bradley's true impact on each and every game will come on the defensive side of the ball. And his impact on that end of the ball is a bit harder to quantitatively measure.
One thing's for sure though, Bradley will absolutely change games with his defensive pressure. Opposing guards will fear him and entire team offenses will be thrown off by his pressure on point guards.
Overall, he will be one of the most impactful Celtics, even if his stat line won't show it.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?