Poll: would the offense be top 5 with Okafor

[KG Living Legend]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

 He was the best player on a championship team in college and went to the worst team in NBA history. I don't know how you can't Understanding how that could affect a player.

 Question how many games did you catch when he played for Duke.

[Eddie20]

Philly beat writer sums it up nicely...

 

‏@DerekBodnerNBA
At Duke, Okafor missed rotations because they needed him to stay out of foul trouble. Last year, excuse (from fans) is teammates were bad.

[Celtics18]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

 He was the best player on a championship team in college and went to the worst team in NBA history. I don't know how you can't Understanding how that could affect a player.

 Question how many games did you catch when he played for Duke.

He was really, really good at Duke.  Lots of players who are very good college players end up struggling on the NBA level. 

I prefer to use the evidence of how he has actually performed in the NBA to try to determine his NBA future rather than focusing on his college career.

[Moranis]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

He doesn't lack range on his jumper, he just doesn't extend it out to the three point range, but as I posted a few posts above yours, he absolutely has a very credible mid-range jump shot, which also means he can do a lot more than just play with his back to the basket.  There is plenty to hate on Okafor about from his rookie year, but when you says things that lack evidence it detracts from the actual things he does poorly.

BTW, using totals Noel has a better AST/TO ratio, but not using the percentages.  Okafor has a significantly better AST%/TO% than Noel does, which makes some sense given Okafor had a significantly higher USG% than Noel (i.e. Okafor had the ball a lot more so he obviously would commit more total turnovers, but his percent of turnovers is much lower than Noel's).  This is where using totals gets you into the trouble. 

[Celtics18]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

He doesn't lack range on his jumper, he just doesn't extend it out to the three point range, but as I posted a few posts above yours, he absolutely has a very credible mid-range jump shot, which also means he can do a lot more than just play with his back to the basket.  There is plenty to hate on Okafor about from his rookie year, but when you says things that lack evidence it detracts from the actual things he does poorly.

BTW, using totals Noel has a better AST/TO ratio, but not using the percentages.  Okafor has a significantly better AST%/TO% than Noel does, which makes some sense given Okafor had a significantly higher USG% than Noel (i.e. Okafor had the ball a lot more so he obviously would commit more total turnovers, but his percent of turnovers is much lower than Noel's).  This is where using totals gets you into the trouble.

Actually, his "jump shot" only extends to 16 feet.  Many, myself included, would argue that's not really considered a jump shot.  Yes, he's got a nice touch in the paint, which includes all the way out to the perimeter of the paint, but he's not a "jump shooter."  He doesn't draw defenders out of the paint with his range.  This is a key point that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Maybe his assist to turnover numbers don't look as bad when you look at them from a percentage vantage point, but his assist percentage compared to his usage percentage is absolutely woeful.

To re-re-iterate:  he doesn't score off assists and he doesn't give assists to others.  He's a one man show out there.

[ThePaintedArea]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

He doesn't lack range on his jumper, he just doesn't extend it out to the three point range, but as I posted a few posts above yours, he absolutely has a very credible mid-range jump shot, which also means he can do a lot more than just play with his back to the basket.  There is plenty to hate on Okafor about from his rookie year, but when you says things that lack evidence it detracts from the actual things he does poorly.

BTW, using totals Noel has a better AST/TO ratio, but not using the percentages.  Okafor has a significantly better AST%/TO% than Noel does, which makes some sense given Okafor had a significantly higher USG% than Noel (i.e. Okafor had the ball a lot more so he obviously would commit more total turnovers, but his percent of turnovers is much lower than Noel's).  This is where using totals gets you into the trouble.

Maybe his assist to turnover numbers don't look as bad when you look at them from a percentage vantage point, but his assist percentage compared to his usage percentage is absolutely woeful.

They're percentages; the previous argument is not reasonable. A turnover % of 12.5 is not good whatever the usage rate is.

He was a rookie, though.  You could expect better going forward, if he continues to play as he has.

However: he was mostly a non-passer, which actually limited the number of bad passes he could throw.  If I were a GM considering signing him, I'd be concerned that running the offense through him (as opposed to dumping the ball into the post and letting him do his thing) would be a horror show of runouts for the other team.  Most of his turnovers were of the lost ball, traveling, and offensive foul type.

And as long as we're comparing Horford to Okafor, Horford's TOV% was a ridiculously low 8.8, while his Assist% was an outstanding (for a big) 16.7.

To re-re-iterate:  he doesn't score off assists and he doesn't give assists to others.  He's a one man show out there.

This, in a nutshell, is the real issue: he doesn't fit the Celtics - or, they'd have to completely revamp the offense if they added him (say goodbye to "pace and space") - or, he'd have to completely revamp his game so that he was suddenly a pick and roll big in a modern offense.

It's pretty obvious that they're going in the other direction by adding Al Horford, who can play both pick and roll and pick and pop (he's the rare player who is a productive jump shooter from 16 out to the line); Danny Ainge has always preferred bigs you can run offense through.

Jahlil Okafor has done a phenomenal amount of work turning himself into a superb low-post scorer.  He has an identifiable skill, in other words, which should qualify him to be at least a bench player somewhere in the NBA, despite his glaring flaws in other areas of the game. 

Someone will take a chance on him going forward; but it won't be Danny Ainge.

[chilidawg]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

He doesn't lack range on his jumper, he just doesn't extend it out to the three point range, but as I posted a few posts above yours, he absolutely has a very credible mid-range jump shot, which also means he can do a lot more than just play with his back to the basket.  There is plenty to hate on Okafor about from his rookie year, but when you says things that lack evidence it detracts from the actual things he does poorly.

BTW, using totals Noel has a better AST/TO ratio, but not using the percentages.  Okafor has a significantly better AST%/TO% than Noel does, which makes some sense given Okafor had a significantly higher USG% than Noel (i.e. Okafor had the ball a lot more so he obviously would commit more total turnovers, but his percent of turnovers is much lower than Noel's).  This is where using totals gets you into the trouble.

Actually, his "jump shot" only extends to 16 feet.  Many, myself included, would argue that's not really considered a jump shot. Yes, he's got a nice touch in the paint, which includes all the way out to the perimeter of the paint, but he's not a "jump shooter."  He doesn't draw defenders out of the paint with his range.  This is a key point that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Maybe his assist to turnover numbers don't look as bad when you look at them from a percentage vantage point, but his assist percentage compared to his usage percentage is absolutely woeful.

To re-re-iterate:  he doesn't score off assists and he doesn't give assists to others.  He's a one man show out there.

I would hope that "many" don't agree with you that 16' isn't a jump shot.   What is it, a layup?  That's just ridiculous.

If a 19 year old rookie has 16' range, it's not hard to project that that range will increase.

[Celtics18]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

He doesn't lack range on his jumper, he just doesn't extend it out to the three point range, but as I posted a few posts above yours, he absolutely has a very credible mid-range jump shot, which also means he can do a lot more than just play with his back to the basket.  There is plenty to hate on Okafor about from his rookie year, but when you says things that lack evidence it detracts from the actual things he does poorly.

BTW, using totals Noel has a better AST/TO ratio, but not using the percentages.  Okafor has a significantly better AST%/TO% than Noel does, which makes some sense given Okafor had a significantly higher USG% than Noel (i.e. Okafor had the ball a lot more so he obviously would commit more total turnovers, but his percent of turnovers is much lower than Noel's).  This is where using totals gets you into the trouble.

Actually, his "jump shot" only extends to 16 feet.  Many, myself included, would argue that's not really considered a jump shot. Yes, he's got a nice touch in the paint, which includes all the way out to the perimeter of the paint, but he's not a "jump shooter."  He doesn't draw defenders out of the paint with his range.  This is a key point that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Maybe his assist to turnover numbers don't look as bad when you look at them from a percentage vantage point, but his assist percentage compared to his usage percentage is absolutely woeful.

To re-re-iterate:  he doesn't score off assists and he doesn't give assists to others.  He's a one man show out there.

I would hope that "many" don't agree with you that 16' isn't a jump shot.   What is it, a layup?  That's just ridiculous.

If a 19 year old rookie has 16' range, it's not hard to project that that range will increase.

It's midrange.  The numbers at BasketballReference break shooting down in ranges; from 0-3 ft., 3-10 ft., 10-16 ft., 16-23 ft., and three point range.  Okafor is ok in the 10-16 ft. range.  I'm guessing most of those shots are a bit closer to 10 ft. than 16 ft.  Beyond that, he's woeful.

I've seen him play and I've seen the numbers.  At this time, Jah Okafor is not much of a traditional jump shooter.  He can hit turn around, fall always, up and unders, he can put the ball on the floor and go around slower guys, he can overpower smaller guys.  He's an advanced low post, midrange, one on one scorer.  He's not a jump shooter who will help drivers by spacing the floor, or be a pop guy off picks. 

[Eddie20]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

He doesn't lack range on his jumper, he just doesn't extend it out to the three point range, but as I posted a few posts above yours, he absolutely has a very credible mid-range jump shot, which also means he can do a lot more than just play with his back to the basket.  There is plenty to hate on Okafor about from his rookie year, but when you says things that lack evidence it detracts from the actual things he does poorly.

BTW, using totals Noel has a better AST/TO ratio, but not using the percentages.  Okafor has a significantly better AST%/TO% than Noel does, which makes some sense given Okafor had a significantly higher USG% than Noel (i.e. Okafor had the ball a lot more so he obviously would commit more total turnovers, but his percent of turnovers is much lower than Noel's).  This is where using totals gets you into the trouble.

Actually, his "jump shot" only extends to 16 feet.  Many, myself included, would argue that's not really considered a jump shot. Yes, he's got a nice touch in the paint, which includes all the way out to the perimeter of the paint, but he's not a "jump shooter."  He doesn't draw defenders out of the paint with his range.  This is a key point that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Maybe his assist to turnover numbers don't look as bad when you look at them from a percentage vantage point, but his assist percentage compared to his usage percentage is absolutely woeful.

To re-re-iterate:  he doesn't score off assists and he doesn't give assists to others.  He's a one man show out there.

I would hope that "many" don't agree with you that 16' isn't a jump shot.   What is it, a layup?  That's just ridiculous.

If a 19 year old rookie has 16' range, it's not hard to project that that range will increase.

It's midrange.  The numbers at BasketballReference break shooting down in ranges; from 0-3 ft., 3-10 ft., 10-16 ft., 16-23 ft., and three point range.  Okafor is ok in the 10-16 ft. range.  I'm guessing most of those shots are a bit closer to 10 ft. than 16 ft.  Beyond that, he's woeful.

I've seen him play and I've seen the numbers.  At this time, Jah Okafor is not much of a traditional jump shooter.  He can hit turn around, fall always, up and unders, he can put the ball on the floor and go around slower guys, he can overpower smaller guys.  He's an advanced low post, midrange, one on one scorer.  He's not a jump shooter who will help drivers by spacing the floor, or be a pop guy off picks.

This is pretty spot on. He also has the bad habit of holding the ball way too much.

[Moranis]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

He doesn't lack range on his jumper, he just doesn't extend it out to the three point range, but as I posted a few posts above yours, he absolutely has a very credible mid-range jump shot, which also means he can do a lot more than just play with his back to the basket.  There is plenty to hate on Okafor about from his rookie year, but when you says things that lack evidence it detracts from the actual things he does poorly.

BTW, using totals Noel has a better AST/TO ratio, but not using the percentages.  Okafor has a significantly better AST%/TO% than Noel does, which makes some sense given Okafor had a significantly higher USG% than Noel (i.e. Okafor had the ball a lot more so he obviously would commit more total turnovers, but his percent of turnovers is much lower than Noel's).  This is where using totals gets you into the trouble.

Maybe his assist to turnover numbers don't look as bad when you look at them from a percentage vantage point, but his assist percentage compared to his usage percentage is absolutely woeful.

They're percentages; the previous argument is not reasonable. A turnover % of 12.5 is not good whatever the usage rate is.

He was a rookie, though.  You could expect better going forward, if he continues to play as he has.

However: he was mostly a non-passer, which actually limited the number of bad passes he could throw.  If I were a GM considering signing him, I'd be concerned that running the offense through him (as opposed to dumping the ball into the post and letting him do his thing) would be a horror show of runouts for the other team.  Most of his turnovers were of the lost ball, traveling, and offensive foul type.

And as long as we're comparing Horford to Okafor, Horford's TOV% was a ridiculously low 8.8, while his Assist% was an outstanding (for a big) 16.7.

To re-re-iterate:  he doesn't score off assists and he doesn't give assists to others.  He's a one man show out there.

This, in a nutshell, is the real issue: he doesn't fit the Celtics - or, they'd have to completely revamp the offense if they added him (say goodbye to "pace and space") - or, he'd have to completely revamp his game so that he was suddenly a pick and roll big in a modern offense.

It's pretty obvious that they're going in the other direction by adding Al Horford, who can play both pick and roll and pick and pop (he's the rare player who is a productive jump shooter from 16 out to the line); Danny Ainge has always preferred bigs you can run offense through.

Jahlil Okafor has done a phenomenal amount of work turning himself into a superb low-post scorer.  He has an identifiable skill, in other words, which should qualify him to be at least a bench player somewhere in the NBA, despite his glaring flaws in other areas of the game. 

Someone will take a chance on him going forward; but it won't be Danny Ainge.

12.5% for a rookie bigman is not a bad turnover % at all.  Shaq, for example, was 15.9% with a lower USG than Okafor and a very similar AST% (Shaq was 8.5).  Shaq made a drastic improvement in both his TO% and AST% in his second year.  This is pretty normal really.  Duncan 15.7 TOV% as a rookie (was a better passer at 13.7).  Dwight Howard had a terrible TOV%/AST% ratio as a rookie (16.1 vs. 4.4) and has his entire career.  Anthony Davis, much much worse as a rookie and has never been good at those stats (10.3 vs. 6.1 rookie year).  Drummond 12.2 vs 4.1 as a rookie.  BTW, even Towns had a TOV% of 12.6, he just had a much better AST% at a whopping 11.3 (and I'm not exaggerating 11.3 is pretty good for a big guy historically). 

Okafor's USG% is also higher than pretty much every other rookie big man in recent times.  He had the ball a lot, now you can claim he doesn't pass, but interior big men rarely pass, especially as rookies.  And why should they.  They have the highest shooting percentage on the team, which is especially true when they are on terrible teams like Okafor was.  Now if you are talking about a PG, yeah the Assist/Turnover ratio should be pretty good, a big man, that is just silly and isn't born in reality. 

Also, BTW just for some more historical clarity.  Robert Parish had a career TOV% of 13.9 and AST% of 6.9 (his rookie year didn't even track TOV%).  Patrick Ewing 13.6/9.8.  David Robinson 11.9/12.4 (pretty good passer that guy), though 13.3/8.7 as a rookie.  Alonzo Mourning 15.2/6.7.

Okafor's TOV% is excellent for a rookie big man.  His AST% is pretty solid for a big man as well.  This notion that it isn't is just fallacy. 

[The Oracle]

The misuse of statistics in this thread has now officially reached a truly epic level!

[BDeCosta26]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

He doesn't lack range on his jumper, he just doesn't extend it out to the three point range, but as I posted a few posts above yours, he absolutely has a very credible mid-range jump shot, which also means he can do a lot more than just play with his back to the basket.  There is plenty to hate on Okafor about from his rookie year, but when you says things that lack evidence it detracts from the actual things he does poorly.

BTW, using totals Noel has a better AST/TO ratio, but not using the percentages.  Okafor has a significantly better AST%/TO% than Noel does, which makes some sense given Okafor had a significantly higher USG% than Noel (i.e. Okafor had the ball a lot more so he obviously would commit more total turnovers, but his percent of turnovers is much lower than Noel's).  This is where using totals gets you into the trouble.

Actually, his "jump shot" only extends to 16 feet.  Many, myself included, would argue that's not really considered a jump shot.  Yes, he's got a nice touch in the paint, which includes all the way out to the perimeter of the paint, but he's not a "jump shooter."  He doesn't draw defenders out of the paint with his range.  This is a key point that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Maybe his assist to turnover numbers don't look as bad when you look at them from a percentage vantage point, but his assist percentage compared to his usage percentage is absolutely woeful.

To re-re-iterate:  he doesn't score off assists and he doesn't give assists to others.  He's a one man show out there.

TP. We can argue about his individual skill set all day and night but that ignores the biggest reason why we won't give up much of substance for Okafor, and why he wouldn't fit into our starting line-up.

If you put Okafor in the starting line-up, you basically have to design your offense around him, or else your just wasting his skills. If Okafor is on the court, you have to spend most of your time dumping it into him on the post, which in turn takes the ball out of our two best players hands. We would be brainlessly ignoring the play that should be our offensive staple, the IT/Horford P&R. We would be getting much less open shots to the Bradley's, Crowder's and Olynyk's of the world. We'd be sacrificing that in the name of getting Okafor ISO post-ups WAY to often. He's just not good enough to demand changing your whole game plan around, and I don't think he ever will be.

When you add all that to his huge defensive and rebounding problems, it shows a guy who really isn't much value to us, regardless of his pretty post game and raw counting stats.

[KG Living Legend]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

He doesn't lack range on his jumper, he just doesn't extend it out to the three point range, but as I posted a few posts above yours, he absolutely has a very credible mid-range jump shot, which also means he can do a lot more than just play with his back to the basket.  There is plenty to hate on Okafor about from his rookie year, but when you says things that lack evidence it detracts from the actual things he does poorly.

BTW, using totals Noel has a better AST/TO ratio, but not using the percentages.  Okafor has a significantly better AST%/TO% than Noel does, which makes some sense given Okafor had a significantly higher USG% than Noel (i.e. Okafor had the ball a lot more so he obviously would commit more total turnovers, but his percent of turnovers is much lower than Noel's).  This is where using totals gets you into the trouble.

Actually, his "jump shot" only extends to 16 feet.  Many, myself included, would argue that's not really considered a jump shot. Yes, he's got a nice touch in the paint, which includes all the way out to the perimeter of the paint, but he's not a "jump shooter."  He doesn't draw defenders out of the paint with his range.  This is a key point that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Maybe his assist to turnover numbers don't look as bad when you look at them from a percentage vantage point, but his assist percentage compared to his usage percentage is absolutely woeful.

To re-re-iterate:  he doesn't score off assists and he doesn't give assists to others.  He's a one man show out there.

I would hope that "many" don't agree with you that 16' isn't a jump shot.   What is it, a layup?  That's just ridiculous.

If a 19 year old rookie has 16' range, it's not hard to project that that range will increase.

It's midrange.  The numbers at BasketballReference break shooting down in ranges; from 0-3 ft., 3-10 ft., 10-16 ft., 16-23 ft., and three point range.  Okafor is ok in the 10-16 ft. range.  I'm guessing most of those shots are a bit closer to 10 ft. than 16 ft.  Beyond that, he's woeful.

I've seen him play and I've seen the numbers.  At this time, Jah Okafor is not much of a traditional jump shooter.  He can hit turn around, fall always, up and unders, he can put the ball on the floor and go around slower guys, he can overpower smaller guys.  He's an advanced low post, midrange, one on one scorer.  He's not a jump shooter who will help drivers by spacing the floor, or be a pop guy off picks.

 You literally said that you don't consider it a jumpshot. Not a strong argument. Is he dunking it from 16 feet? No. He's taking a jumpshot.

 Heck it's only 6 feet from The corner three, I'm sure if he focused on it he could hit at a better percentage than Smart can.

 Please don't say that he can't shoot a jumpshot. That's just not true.

[Moranis]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

He doesn't lack range on his jumper, he just doesn't extend it out to the three point range, but as I posted a few posts above yours, he absolutely has a very credible mid-range jump shot, which also means he can do a lot more than just play with his back to the basket.  There is plenty to hate on Okafor about from his rookie year, but when you says things that lack evidence it detracts from the actual things he does poorly.

BTW, using totals Noel has a better AST/TO ratio, but not using the percentages.  Okafor has a significantly better AST%/TO% than Noel does, which makes some sense given Okafor had a significantly higher USG% than Noel (i.e. Okafor had the ball a lot more so he obviously would commit more total turnovers, but his percent of turnovers is much lower than Noel's).  This is where using totals gets you into the trouble.

Actually, his "jump shot" only extends to 16 feet.  Many, myself included, would argue that's not really considered a jump shot.  Yes, he's got a nice touch in the paint, which includes all the way out to the perimeter of the paint, but he's not a "jump shooter."  He doesn't draw defenders out of the paint with his range.  This is a key point that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Maybe his assist to turnover numbers don't look as bad when you look at them from a percentage vantage point, but his assist percentage compared to his usage percentage is absolutely woeful.

To re-re-iterate:  he doesn't score off assists and he doesn't give assists to others.  He's a one man show out there.

TP. We can argue about his individual skill set all day and night but that ignores the biggest reason why we won't give up much of substance for Okafor, and why he wouldn't fit into our starting line-up.

If you put Okafor in the starting line-up, you basically have to design your offense around him, or else your just wasting his skills. If Okafor is on the court, you have to spend most of your time dumping it into him on the post, which in turn takes the ball out of our two best players hands. We would be brainlessly ignoring the play that should be our offensive staple, the IT/Horford P&R. We would be getting much less open shots to the Bradley's, Crowder's and Olynyk's of the world. We'd be sacrificing that in the name of getting Okafor ISO post-ups WAY to often. He's just not good enough to demand changing your whole game plan around, and I don't think he ever will be.

When you add all that to his huge defensive and rebounding problems, it shows a guy who really isn't much value to us, regardless of his pretty post game and raw counting stats.

To be fair, Okafor as a rookie scored more points per shot than Al Horford as a veteran in his prime.  Thomas was significantly better than either of them, but I'm not so sure dumping to Okafor in the post is really a bad thing especially as you would expect him to improve both because he has a year of experience but also because he would be playing on a much better team with much better players around him.

[KG Living Legend]

 Tp, Big. Not sure why so many hate on Okafor. He's 20 showed great promise as a rookie, is a much better post player already than Horford and that's saying something.

 I think his upside is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, and if that happens you can build an offense around that no matter what era.

He played on the worst team in the NBA, and that team was worse (not just a little bit worse, a LOT worse) on both ends of the court when he was playing.

* He's slow and poorly conditioned
* He has a horrible attitude
* He's got poor court feel (Noel, of all people, had a better Ast:TO ratio)
* He is completely lacking in flexibility (back to the basket center is the only role he can play, and he can only defend one position)
* He lacks range on his jumper
* He is, statistically, the worst defensive center in the entire NBA

He's a poor man's Al Jefferson / Greg Monroe, but with a significantly lower motor and a terrible attitude and worse conditioning.

I don't see how you could possible have so much difficulty understanding why people don't want him in Boston.

He doesn't lack range on his jumper, he just doesn't extend it out to the three point range, but as I posted a few posts above yours, he absolutely has a very credible mid-range jump shot, which also means he can do a lot more than just play with his back to the basket.  There is plenty to hate on Okafor about from his rookie year, but when you says things that lack evidence it detracts from the actual things he does poorly.

BTW, using totals Noel has a better AST/TO ratio, but not using the percentages.  Okafor has a significantly better AST%/TO% than Noel does, which makes some sense given Okafor had a significantly higher USG% than Noel (i.e. Okafor had the ball a lot more so he obviously would commit more total turnovers, but his percent of turnovers is much lower than Noel's).  This is where using totals gets you into the trouble.

Actually, his "jump shot" only extends to 16 feet.  Many, myself included, would argue that's not really considered a jump shot.  Yes, he's got a nice touch in the paint, which includes all the way out to the perimeter of the paint, but he's not a "jump shooter."  He doesn't draw defenders out of the paint with his range.  This is a key point that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Maybe his assist to turnover numbers don't look as bad when you look at them from a percentage vantage point, but his assist percentage compared to his usage percentage is absolutely woeful.

To re-re-iterate:  he doesn't score off assists and he doesn't give assists to others.  He's a one man show out there.

TP. We can argue about his individual skill set all day and night but that ignores the biggest reason why we won't give up much of substance for Okafor, and why he wouldn't fit into our starting line-up.

If you put Okafor in the starting line-up, you basically have to design your offense around him, or else your just wasting his skills. If Okafor is on the court, you have to spend most of your time dumping it into him on the post, which in turn takes the ball out of our two best players hands. We would be brainlessly ignoring the play that should be our offensive staple, the IT/Horford P&R. We would be getting much less open shots to the Bradley's, Crowder's and Olynyk's of the world. We'd be sacrificing that in the name of getting Okafor ISO post-ups WAY to often. He's just not good enough to demand changing your whole game plan around, and I don't think he ever will be.

When you add all that to his huge defensive and rebounding problems, it shows a guy who really isn't much value to us, regardless of his pretty post game and raw counting stats.

To be fair, Okafor as a rookie scored more points per shot than Al Horford as a veteran in his prime.  Thomas was significantly better than either of them, but I'm not so sure dumping to Okafor in the post is really a bad thing especially as you would expect him to improve both because he has a year of experience but also because he would be playing on a much better team with much better players around him.

 Another TP, Moranis.

 I just love the Okafor debate becuase it's so strong on both sides.

 This kid was the undisputed #1 prospect for years before he even came to Duke. Town's passed him and the Lakers reached for Russell time will tell if that was smart.

 For a team that needs another offensive stud, I'm surprised to see how many people are scared of this 20 year old phenom.