Charlotte Bobcats: Breaking Down Michael Kidd-Gilchrist’s Rookie Season

facebooktwitterreddit

It hasn’t been the greatest of starts for Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. (NBA.com photo)

From  the No. 2 overall pick in last year’s NBA Draft to trying to avoid the dreaded “bust” status, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist hasn’t had the ideal start to what was expected to, and still can, be a promising NBA career.

Before we slap the bust label on Kidd-Gilchrist, though, I can’t stress this enough: It’s far too early in his career to start calling him a bust. Basketball pundits would concur that his rookie season didn’t go as planned. That’s a valid point. He averaged just nine points and 5.8 rebounds in 26 minutes per game, all while finishing eighth in Rookie of the Year voting.

However, Kidd-Gilchrist’s disappointing rookie season wasn’t entirely to his undoing. Much of the blame could be placed on the Charlotte Bobcats because the talent to optimize Kidd-Gilchrist’s offensive game wasn’t on the roster.

If Charlotte wants to get the most of  Kidd-Gilchrist on offense, he’s better used in slashing situations, much like Gerald Wallace of the Brooklyn Nets. Since his ball-handling abilities hover around average and the Bobcats lacked a true facilitator–no, Kemba Walker isn’t on that level yet–his scoring totals weren’t impressive. When Walker acted as a seasoned facilitator, Kidd-Gilchrist usually thrived. That’s not a condcience.

To put Kidd-Gilchrist’s scoring trends in perspective, 60.9 percent of his field goals were assisted in 2012-13, 74 by Walker. You can generally connect that 60.9 percent to a power forward or center that basically feeds off dump off and garbage baskets. The catch: Kidd-Gilchrist isn’t a power forward or center; he’s a wing.

So, when Walker was on the bench, Kidd-Gilchrist’s offensive effectiveness took a major dip. Yes, I did claim that Walker wasn’t an elite facilaitor, which is still true. His inexperience and questionable shot selection are two noticeable knocks against him.

Per NBA.com, though, Kidd-Gilchrist averaged nearly six points more when Walker was on the court, and he also shot 11 percent better from the field. That tells you one thing: Kidd-Gilchrist can’t keep afloat without some form of a ball-handler on the court.

Additionally, Kidd-Gilchrist was simply not acclimated to losing games night in and night out. Coming into the NBA, he had won a national championship with Kentucky, where he and Anthony Davis paired to make a formidable duo. But most importantly, he was free to play his game, which is penetrating via cuts, fast breaks and all that good stuff.

From national champion to a cellar dweller, perhaps Kidd-Gilchrist lost motivation. The Bobcats were out of the race early on and young players can easily loose focus. It’s not a foolproof theory. After all, Davis’ stats gradually became better as the season progressed, and the New Orleans Hornets were also out of contention. But the talent around Davis was superior to those around Kidd-Gilchrist.

Kidd-Gilchrist’s rookie season wasn’t a complete disaster, as his reputation as a stellar perimeter defender remained true. The Bobcats allowed 114.2 points per 100 possession without Kidd-Gilchrist on the floor. When he was on the floor, they surrendered 111.1 points. In addition, Synergy Sports nabbed him as the 45th-best isolation defender in the league and 42nd-best post-up defender.

Kidd-Gilchrist’s defense has never really been the concern, though. His lengthy frame enables him to guard small forwards and a handful of power forwards with ease.

But from a No. 2 overall pick, it’s hard to ignore his meager nine points per game. Even his per 36-minute stats (12.5 points, 8.1 assists) were sub-par. We get that he wasn’t a prolific scoring coming out of college, but he only scored more than 20 points four times.

Michael Kidd-Gilchrist isn’t the type of player that can do it all by himself offensively. Until the Bobcats surround him with pieces that he and Kemba Walker can work with, he very well could become a bust, and it would be Charlotte’s loss.