Okafor, how bad were you wrong?

[Donoghus]

To answer the OP regarding lottery pick misses, I was high on Corey Brewer.  Kidd-Gilchrist was another one but I'll put a bit of an asterisk on that one due to injuries.

[tazzmaniac]

Thought he was a decent player who would've been better served being born about 20 years earlier. 

I do recall thinking the Sixers were absolutely idiots for drafting him so at least I was right in that regard.

What other choice did they have?  Embiid's 1st foot surgery had failed and they had no idea whether he'd ever make it on the court.  The Lakers ended up taking Russell.  Prozingis wouldn't work out for them because he really wanted to go to New York.  And then Porzingis ends up forcing himself out of New York.  He was also considered very much a project and wouldn't have been a good fit with Embiid anyway.  The 5th through 10th picks were pretty p--- poor:  Hezonja, Cauley-Stein, Mudiay, Stanley Johnson, Kaminsky and Winslow.

Okafor in his 1st season actually did put up fairly good stats (17.5 pts on 50.8% shooting) albeit on a really, really bad team and albeit if you actually watched him play all his flaws/limitations stood out.  Unfortunately for them Okafor got hurt at the end of that 1st season because that's when they really needed to trade him.  Once Embiid did get on the court, they wasted way too much time trying to make Okafor/Embiid and Noel/Embiid to work/fit together and trying to get a "good" return for Okafor and Noel before eventually trading them for even less. 

[td450]

Thought he was going to be a discount 'Al Jefferson', which he sort of was. On the topic of the process, though, I think a lot of people underestimated just how miserable the situation was going to be in Hinkie's Philadelphia as they rushed off to play armchair GM while embracing non-competition in sport. And it was pretty damaging to a lot of players.

The NBA is a unique industry in a lot of ways, but one way it is not is in the way that a lot of your personal success as an employee (in this case a player) relies in large part on where you land and the environment you find yourself in when you get there.

Obviously there's a ceiling that separates the very best from the extremely good, and so on, but I'd hazard a guess that you're going to have a much better opportunity to stick around the league if you're drafted by a team that's perpetually competitive compared to, say, the Kings.

I generally find this to be untrue. It seems especially untrue in the NBA, where only the top 400 or so of the world's best get to play, from a field of literally millions of guys. You cannot get there unless you are able to demand opportunities in a wide variety of circumstances. Okafor had 3 roughly 2 year stints with different NBA teams and had some moments but never stuck. A third pick in particular, must actually define a team's identity, not be a victim of it.

The NBA is about mental toughness. It is what separates that last group from the thousands of guys who have the raw talent to make it.

It's possible that you're right - but you are talking about two different things to my conjecture here.

One, you're comparing NBA players to guys who never make the league, which is silly and irrelevant

and two, you're applying the survivor bias of 'mental toughness' to get into the NBA vs guys who never made it in... which is, again, not really relevant to what I'm proposing. Yes the absolute cream rises to the top, but we're talking about a Jahlil Okafor, not a Joel Embiid.

For anyone who has more time than I do:

What I'm wondering - I don't have the answer owing to a lack of time and no one has really measured this - is whether there's a tangible difference in an NBA player's career over the last let's say 20 years if they wind up on the Spurs or on the Wizards.

As in, the average NBA career is X years long. What I'd want to test is whether a player drafted by San Antonio between 1999-2019 your average career winds up being X + Y, whereas if you are drafted by Sacramento your average career winds up being X - Z.

[edit; finishing this sentence, sorry]
Since there's common knowledge that there's a difference in 'winning culture' within organisations, it'd be interesting to see if this has any 'real world' effects.

I thought it was worth pointing out that getting to the NBA requires climbing over multiple levels of talent, and that people who get stuck on team dynamics along the way probably never had a chance anyway. If you found that irrelevant, I'm sorry.

Most role players in the NBA do not play for one team. Of course, some guys succeed in one place and fail in another, but all teams want bargains, and if they had any success anywhere they usually get two or three chances before teams stop trying. Most of the time they are who they are.

Lastly, is it useful to say someone else's arguments as silly or irrelevant? Do you do this face to face?

[RPGenerate]

I've gotten countless draft picks wrong before, but I was pretty spot on with Okafor. Dude's only tangible talent was post scoring, and that isn't even close enough to garner the 3rd pick in a draft in 2015. Terrible defender, no outside game, and super soft all around. Sixers taking Okafor was a massive mistake both with and without hindsight. The Sixers should have either traded out of the spot or just taken Porzingis and go from there.

[Hoopvortex]

Thought he was a decent player who would've been better served being born about 20 years earlier. 

I do recall thinking the Sixers were absolutely idiots for drafting him so at least I was right in that regard.

The Process, ha. "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut (Embiid) every once in a while."

I suppose you could argue that Hinkie didn't get to play out The Process; and a number of the blunders, like drafting Markelle Fultz, were not on his watch. He presided over three drafts, 2013 to 2015. But having said that, the draft record was poor, and the trade record was also poor.

Embiid is the exception, but that was a big risk, in my view - a 7-footer with foot surgery before he even gets to the pros is a bad bet. As it is, he has averaged 55 games a season in his career - if you throw out the first two seasons, when he didn't play at all.

The 2013 draft was very thin on talent, especially at the top of the lottery; like most gm's, Hinkie missed on Giannis and Gobert. Hard to judge him too harshly for that. Instead he picked MCW, who - though it's hard to believe now, was rookie of the year. A much bigger mistake, he traded Jrue Holiday for Nerlens and what turned into Dario Saric.

2014 was the Embiid draft. As I say, it was a terrible risk; but the fact that he'd have to sit out for two seasons was at least consistent with The Process, since it meant that they could continue tanking. He got Jerami Grant in the second round,  good value for a starter-quality player; trading him away was not Hinkie's doing, and in any case they got Tyrese Maxey out of it.

2015 he picked Okafor and Richaun Holmes, tending to confirm Hinkie's bias toward loading up on bigs. The idea that Okafor and Embiid might have trouble playing together was heard from draft night on; but the worse problem was that Okafor was just drafted too high.

Validity of The Process? If Sam Hinkie had made better choices, it might have worked out well. Perhaps that kind of radical tanking is not so good for the NBA. Perhaps Danny Ainge's process is a better model for rebuilding anyway.

[Kernewek]

Thought he was going to be a discount 'Al Jefferson', which he sort of was. On the topic of the process, though, I think a lot of people underestimated just how miserable the situation was going to be in Hinkie's Philadelphia as they rushed off to play armchair GM while embracing non-competition in sport. And it was pretty damaging to a lot of players.

The NBA is a unique industry in a lot of ways, but one way it is not is in the way that a lot of your personal success as an employee (in this case a player) relies in large part on where you land and the environment you find yourself in when you get there.

Obviously there's a ceiling that separates the very best from the extremely good, and so on, but I'd hazard a guess that you're going to have a much better opportunity to stick around the league if you're drafted by a team that's perpetually competitive compared to, say, the Kings.

I generally find this to be untrue. It seems especially untrue in the NBA, where only the top 400 or so of the world's best get to play, from a field of literally millions of guys. You cannot get there unless you are able to demand opportunities in a wide variety of circumstances. Okafor had 3 roughly 2 year stints with different NBA teams and had some moments but never stuck. A third pick in particular, must actually define a team's identity, not be a victim of it.

The NBA is about mental toughness. It is what separates that last group from the thousands of guys who have the raw talent to make it.

It's possible that you're right - but you are talking about two different things to my conjecture here.

One, you're comparing NBA players to guys who never make the league, which is silly and irrelevant

and two, you're applying the survivor bias of 'mental toughness' to get into the NBA vs guys who never made it in... which is, again, not really relevant to what I'm proposing. Yes the absolute cream rises to the top, but we're talking about a Jahlil Okafor, not a Joel Embiid.

For anyone who has more time than I do:

What I'm wondering - I don't have the answer owing to a lack of time and no one has really measured this - is whether there's a tangible difference in an NBA player's career over the last let's say 20 years if they wind up on the Spurs or on the Wizards.

As in, the average NBA career is X years long. What I'd want to test is whether a player drafted by San Antonio between 1999-2019 your average career winds up being X + Y, whereas if you are drafted by Sacramento your average career winds up being X - Z.

[edit; finishing this sentence, sorry]
Since there's common knowledge that there's a difference in 'winning culture' within organisations, it'd be interesting to see if this has any 'real world' effects.

I thought it was worth pointing out that getting to the NBA requires climbing over multiple levels of talent, and that people who get stuck on team dynamics along the way probably never had a chance anyway. If you found that irrelevant, I'm sorry.

Most role players in the NBA do not play for one team. Of course, some guys succeed in one place and fail in another, but all teams want bargains, and if they had any success anywhere they usually get two or three chances before teams stop trying. Most of the time they are who they are.

Lastly, is it useful to say someone else's arguments as silly or irrelevant? Do you do this face to face?

Let's call this the JaVale McGee effect. He spent 4 wasted years with Washington, kicked around the league for another four years, wound up positively contributing to at least 3 championships and was generally a productive NBA player - something which no one who watched him in his first four or five years would have ever suspected, when his highlight reel included "running to get back on defense when his team successfully secured an offensive rebound."

McGee is obviously an outlier, because the average NBA career is nowhere near a decade+, but the perception of a player around the league and that player being 'stuck on team dynamics' don't appear to be the same thing, because they're not the same thing.



In face to face conversation I would have prefaced the reply with something like: 'Sure, but comparing the relative NBA success between NBA players to guys who never made the league feels silly, and it wouldn't seem to be particularly relevant to my point'.  Whether that's of any more or less use is up for your judgement.

[td450]

Thought he was going to be a discount 'Al Jefferson', which he sort of was. On the topic of the process, though, I think a lot of people underestimated just how miserable the situation was going to be in Hinkie's Philadelphia as they rushed off to play armchair GM while embracing non-competition in sport. And it was pretty damaging to a lot of players.

The NBA is a unique industry in a lot of ways, but one way it is not is in the way that a lot of your personal success as an employee (in this case a player) relies in large part on where you land and the environment you find yourself in when you get there.

Obviously there's a ceiling that separates the very best from the extremely good, and so on, but I'd hazard a guess that you're going to have a much better opportunity to stick around the league if you're drafted by a team that's perpetually competitive compared to, say, the Kings.

I generally find this to be untrue. It seems especially untrue in the NBA, where only the top 400 or so of the world's best get to play, from a field of literally millions of guys. You cannot get there unless you are able to demand opportunities in a wide variety of circumstances. Okafor had 3 roughly 2 year stints with different NBA teams and had some moments but never stuck. A third pick in particular, must actually define a team's identity, not be a victim of it.

The NBA is about mental toughness. It is what separates that last group from the thousands of guys who have the raw talent to make it.

It's possible that you're right - but you are talking about two different things to my conjecture here.

One, you're comparing NBA players to guys who never make the league, which is silly and irrelevant

and two, you're applying the survivor bias of 'mental toughness' to get into the NBA vs guys who never made it in... which is, again, not really relevant to what I'm proposing. Yes the absolute cream rises to the top, but we're talking about a Jahlil Okafor, not a Joel Embiid.

For anyone who has more time than I do:

What I'm wondering - I don't have the answer owing to a lack of time and no one has really measured this - is whether there's a tangible difference in an NBA player's career over the last let's say 20 years if they wind up on the Spurs or on the Wizards.

As in, the average NBA career is X years long. What I'd want to test is whether a player drafted by San Antonio between 1999-2019 your average career winds up being X + Y, whereas if you are drafted by Sacramento your average career winds up being X - Z.

[edit; finishing this sentence, sorry]
Since there's common knowledge that there's a difference in 'winning culture' within organisations, it'd be interesting to see if this has any 'real world' effects.

I thought it was worth pointing out that getting to the NBA requires climbing over multiple levels of talent, and that people who get stuck on team dynamics along the way probably never had a chance anyway. If you found that irrelevant, I'm sorry.

Most role players in the NBA do not play for one team. Of course, some guys succeed in one place and fail in another, but all teams want bargains, and if they had any success anywhere they usually get two or three chances before teams stop trying. Most of the time they are who they are.

Lastly, is it useful to say someone else's arguments as silly or irrelevant? Do you do this face to face?

Let's call this the JaVale McGee effect. He spent 4 wasted years with Washington, kicked around the league for another four years, wound up positively contributing to at least 3 championships and was generally a productive NBA player - something which no one who watched him in his first four or five years would have ever suspected, when his highlight reel included "running to get back on defense when his team successfully secured an offensive rebound."

McGee is obviously an outlier, because the average NBA career is nowhere near a decade+, but the perception of a player around the league and that player being 'stuck on team dynamics' don't appear to be the same thing, because they're not the same thing.



In face to face conversation I would have prefaced the reply with something like: 'Sure, but comparing the relative NBA success between NBA players to guys who never made the league feels silly, and it wouldn't seem to be particularly relevant to my point'.  Whether that's of any more or less use is up for your judgement.

Javale McGee was a borderline starter in those wasted years and played 20-30 minutes. He had stats fairly similar to Rob Williams (10-12 pts 8-9 Rebs, over 2 blocks) but because he wasn't a particularly smart player, he wasn't as effective.

As the the role of big men started changing in the league, despite elite size and athleticism, he became even less valuable, and his career slid into reserve mode. He generally played less and his numbers reflected that, but he was the same guy, just that the league was changing.

He ended up on some good teams because he was a reasonably useful reserve big and he was cheap and easy to obtain. Teams would play him 10-15 mpg.

Lots of players in his position prefer signing with contenders. He benefits a little from being on the floor with great passers, but everybody does. He isn't significantly better than before. Just look at his per 36 numbers. They haven't changed all that much.

[gouki88]

Exum and Fultz were two big whiffs for me. I'm a sucker for a big athletic lead guard

[celticsclay]

I’ll add I would never have in a million years thought Noel would be this bad in the nba.

[gouki88]

Thomas Robinson is another favourite of mine. Another victim of that Kings era

[RockinRyA]

Thought he was going to be a discount 'Al Jefferson', which he sort of was. On the topic of the process, though, I think a lot of people underestimated just how miserable the situation was going to be in Hinkie's Philadelphia as they rushed off to play armchair GM while embracing non-competition in sport. And it was pretty damaging to a lot of players.

The NBA is a unique industry in a lot of ways, but one way it is not is in the way that a lot of your personal success as an employee (in this case a player) relies in large part on where you land and the environment you find yourself in when you get there.

Obviously there's a ceiling that separates the very best from the extremely good, and so on, but I'd hazard a guess that you're going to have a much better opportunity to stick around the league if you're drafted by a team that's perpetually competitive compared to, say, the Kings.

I generally find this to be untrue. It seems especially untrue in the NBA, where only the top 400 or so of the world's best get to play, from a field of literally millions of guys. You cannot get there unless you are able to demand opportunities in a wide variety of circumstances. Okafor had 3 roughly 2 year stints with different NBA teams and had some moments but never stuck. A third pick in particular, must actually define a team's identity, not be a victim of it.

The NBA is about mental toughness. It is what separates that last group from the thousands of guys who have the raw talent to make it.

It's possible that you're right - but you are talking about two different things to my conjecture here.

One, you're comparing NBA players to guys who never make the league, which is silly and irrelevant

and two, you're applying the survivor bias of 'mental toughness' to get into the NBA vs guys who never made it in... which is, again, not really relevant to what I'm proposing. Yes the absolute cream rises to the top, but we're talking about a Jahlil Okafor, not a Joel Embiid.

For anyone who has more time than I do:

What I'm wondering - I don't have the answer owing to a lack of time and no one has really measured this - is whether there's a tangible difference in an NBA player's career over the last let's say 20 years if they wind up on the Spurs or on the Wizards.

As in, the average NBA career is X years long. What I'd want to test is whether a player drafted by San Antonio between 1999-2019 your average career winds up being X + Y, whereas if you are drafted by Sacramento your average career winds up being X - Z.

[edit; finishing this sentence, sorry]
Since there's common knowledge that there's a difference in 'winning culture' within organisations, it'd be interesting to see if this has any 'real world' effects.

I thought it was worth pointing out that getting to the NBA requires climbing over multiple levels of talent, and that people who get stuck on team dynamics along the way probably never had a chance anyway. If you found that irrelevant, I'm sorry.

Most role players in the NBA do not play for one team. Of course, some guys succeed in one place and fail in another, but all teams want bargains, and if they had any success anywhere they usually get two or three chances before teams stop trying. Most of the time they are who they are.

Lastly, is it useful to say someone else's arguments as silly or irrelevant? Do you do this face to face?

Let's call this the JaVale McGee effect. He spent 4 wasted years with Washington, kicked around the league for another four years, wound up positively contributing to at least 3 championships and was generally a productive NBA player - something which no one who watched him in his first four or five years would have ever suspected, when his highlight reel included "running to get back on defense when his team successfully secured an offensive rebound."

McGee is obviously an outlier, because the average NBA career is nowhere near a decade+, but the perception of a player around the league and that player being 'stuck on team dynamics' don't appear to be the same thing, because they're not the same thing.



In face to face conversation I would have prefaced the reply with something like: 'Sure, but comparing the relative NBA success between NBA players to guys who never made the league feels silly, and it wouldn't seem to be particularly relevant to my point'.  Whether that's of any more or less use is up for your judgement.

Javale McGee was a borderline starter in those wasted years and played 20-30 minutes. He had stats fairly similar to Rob Williams (10-12 pts 8-9 Rebs, over 2 blocks) but because he wasn't a particularly smart player, he wasn't as effective.

As the the role of big men started changing in the league, despite elite size and athleticism, he became even less valuable, and his career slid into reserve mode. He generally played less and his numbers reflected that, but he was the same guy, just that the league was changing.

He ended up on some good teams because he was a reasonably useful reserve big and he was cheap and easy to obtain. Teams would play him 10-15 mpg.

Lots of players in his position prefer signing with contenders. He benefits a little from being on the floor with great passers, but everybody does. He isn't significantly better than before. Just look at his per 36 numbers. They haven't changed all that much.

McGee was like rob true, with rob having a higher BBIQ and passing while mcGee being more durable.