Larry Hughes Postmortem

By now you've heard that breakout fantasy superstar (and former Saint Louis University Billiken) Larry Hughes is on the shelf for four-to-six weeks with a broken thumb.

This is a crushing loss for those squads who were relying on him, mostly because Larry was starting to look completely different from the inefficient fantasy mess that he had always been. His leaps forwards this year were numerous, and were starting to look like they'd be lasting.

Let's have a quick look at his progress by focusing on the three categories where he's made the greatest strides...

FG

We're talking about a guy whose career FG stands at .414, and that's with the added bump that this year gave him. Last year, Hughes managed .397 on 16.5 shots a game. He managed 18.8 points on those 16.5 shots. For those who don't know, that's crushing for your team FG.

Sure, you need scoring, but you don't need scoring that middling for that kind of price.

This was nothing new for Larry, as he had learned long ago, in Golden State (where else?) how lucrative it can be to be an incredibly inefficient "scorer". Perhaps he was pushed to be a star before he was ready, but the results speak for themselves. In 1999, playing for GSW, Larry hoisted up 21.4 shots per game--and made 8.3 of them. That comes out to .389. Ouch. He finished with 22.7 points on those 21.4 shots per game. He also wasn't afraid to stroke the 3-ball that year, doing it 2.3 times a game at a 24.3% clip. Double ouch.

In 2000, his percentage slipped to 38.3. By 2001, the Warriors had had it, reduced Larry's role in the offense, and he managed .424 on only 11.1 shots per game. His days as a budding superstar appeared to be numbered.

Luckily for Larry, he moved to an even more desperate organization when he joined the Wiz. Still in a limited role, he raised his FG in 2002 to a whopping .467 on 11.1 shots per game.

It was at about this point that the Wiz decided to move him back into a primary role and encourage him to shoot the ball more. Same player, same result. Taking more [bad] shots again, Larry stroked it at .397 last year on on 16.5 shots.

All of the poor shooting in Larry's past made this year's 43.5% on 17.3 shots seem like a miracle... or a fluke.

AST

For a shooting guard, Larry had had good seasons dropping the dime before. 4.5 in 2000 was his previous career best, sandwiched by impressive seasons in 1999 and 2001, when he went 4.1 and 4.3, respectively. This season, however, he was averaging a career best 5.3 with Gilbert Arenas and Antawn Jamison as his targets, easily beating his previous best. But what makes it even more ridiculous is that he was doing it at a career-best 2.30 A/T ratio. Larry Hughes?! Dropping it at 2+? This is the kind of ridiculous improvement in efficiency that bumps a player's overall value into the stratosphere, and gives your team a lethal combination of low TO and high AST. His previous best was 1.87, in 2001, which was itself much, much better than his next-best season. During that season, you'll note that Larry averaged a robust 12.3 points and 3.4 rebounds. Not quite as good as this season...

REB

Another career best here. 6.1 beats 5.9, in 1999, when he shot .387.

And of course, there's the...

STL

Larry's always been a thief. If you've owned him before--ever--it should have been the steals you were going for. The other stuff wasn't ever that impressive, given the other places he hurt you. But who could have seen this year coming? 2.8 easily led the Association and bested his previous career best of 1.9, which he'd done twice, back in 1999 & 2000.

But 2.8!? To go with 20 points, 6 boards, and 5 dimes? For a guy who was a good bet to shoot near 80% from the line, FG be damned? Combine all this with the 1 three per game that he was dropping this year, after having added it to his arsenal for the first time last year, and you'll realize that the Larry Hughes of 2005 had top-ten--in the long-term--written all over him.

Consider this a huge, gigantic bump in the road.

I admit that for a while I was trying to get him on the cheap from the guy who owned him in my league... but at some point, you have to respect the game and start offering some top-round talent. For whatever reason--his bad rep, his long history of selfish play, poor attitude, and underachievement--I wasn't willing to offer it.

Now I'm feeling relieved that I didn't.

Still, right now might be a good time to free up your IL spot, pony up a couple of mid-to-late round picks who are enjoying a good stretch, settle in for a month or so, and attempt to pick up a guy who is guaranteed to gain your squad a ton of points all across the board once he comes back.

Keep in mind, folks: he's only 25. He was bound to get better. He looks like a good bet to finally make good on the promise that made him Philadelphia's 8th overall pick after his rookie season in college.

Not nearly as much research has been done in basketball as in baseball on the ages during which one can expect player to produce his "peak" and "career" seasons. In baseball, age 27 is responsible for more career seasons than any other. In basketball, though, the knees wear out a little bit quicker and the game gets tighter a little bit sooner... I'd be willing to gamble that 25, in basketball, is that magic age. It would be a shame to think that we're missing out on a huge chunk of a great talent's best chance at an MVP-type season.

In the meantime, Juan Dixon is a great pick-up as a Larry-Lite type replacement. More on him later. Just don't expect him to duplicate Larry's amazing, career-defining season.