If you can’t tell, I’m obsessed with Tiny Gallon. I had never heard of the guy until yesterday, and I thought he must have been a point guard when I saw the name (like the detective on The Wire who figured out that they never could locate “Little Kevin” because, in fact, they were looking for a little guy when Kevin was rotund — “Ya see, dey turned it arounnnd“)
Anyway, I’m kicking around the idea that between Gallon and Sanders, Tiny might actually have the better long term outlook.
I started thinking about that after the analysis I did in the post below.
It was reinforced reading this guy’s pretty sharp observational analysis of the first round talent. He described Sanders in rather blah terms, and he said he was a rather ordinary rebounder.
I then went to the draftexpress stats page and the evidence there backed him up. If you look at the difference Sanders made in mid-major VCU’s overall defensive and offensive rebounding percentages, its rather negligible, which is somewhat shocking.
Then you look at the same numbers for Tiny. He made a pretty big difference in both offensive and defensive rebounding for Oklahoma, playing against top-flight competition. What does that say?
Both Sanders and Gallon produced similar numbers in college. But Gallon was a freshman playing against top competition, Sanders was a junior playing against, frankly, mid-level competition. Gallon doesn’t have quite the same length, but he has decent length, and the girth that you need to hold your position in the pros.
Gallon needs work though. He needs to be a tougher defender. That can be taught. And he needs a dietician, full-time. That can be bought.
I don’t know. Let me mull this over. I reserve the right to pull a U-turn, but I’m starting to creep onto the Tiny bandwagon (watch, he won’t even make the team). After all, it wouldn’t be the first time the Bucks got their first and second round analysis backwards.