ESPN's Most Disappointing Rookies and Sophomores

[Moranis]

To be disappointing don't you have to fail to live up to expectations.  I mean unless these guys thought someone like Okafor was a good defender, I'm not sure how he can be disappointing because he is actually living up to his offensive promise.

[Rondo9]

To be disappointing don't you have to fail to live up to expectations.  I mean unless these guys thought someone like Okafor was a good defender, I'm not sure how he can be disappointing because he is actually living up to his offensive promise.

I don't think they expect him to be this bad defensively, they're other factors of course but it seems that a lot of the bad defense can be attributed to Okafor.

[KeepRondo]

When I was young and in college, my first major of choice was Math. This was before switching to computer science. Also close to 20 years ago. I feel pretty comfortable that I understand numbers, probability, and analytics better than most posters on here. The one thing I strongly disagree on is the accuracy of NBA analytics. There are just way too many variables in play. I could probably punch holes in most stats being used on these boards.

Also, these ESPN guys are actually expecting Okafor to have mastered how to maximize his game already? And at the same time, do it on a broken down team where he's not always put in the best situation to succeed.

Crazy expectations to say he has had a disappointing season.

Can say the same for Wiggins. Dude is still perfecting his craft. In another year or two, I would expect to see him figuring out how to get the most out of his game to help his team.

Not every Rookie or sophomore is going to have the mental game like Smart. These guys are young. On the other end of the spectrum, look at Young and Rozier. Okafor, Noel, Wiggins etc are just fine with where they are so far.

I feel there are a lot of variables in play as well but the numbers are still useful.  I mean for example you could have a guard playing with back up bigs who are awful defenders for most of his minutes and his defensive numbers look worse than they would with better help defenders that the starters might play with.

When the team is so much better without Okafor on the floor and he has the worst RPM in the league hey that might mean something though. 

These are numbers that should be revisited come end of the year time but they are worth looking at.  If Wiggins defensive numbers aren't there after two seasons you have to wonder if they ever will be.  Something to look at for sure.  If you just took word on the street or common conception you'd probably hear about how big of a defensive player he can be.

And again, the piece isn't saying "Cut these guys!".  It's saying they've been disappointing.  And they have via these stats.

I still really like Wiggins.  I also still really like Noel for example (in a role where he is not being asked to do too much).

I would expect most teams who give that many touches to a rookie, would probably have better stats when he's not in the game. Okafor is being given the opportunity to fast track his growth as an NBA player. Way too early to look at team stats, regarding his impact.

Same with Wiggins. Also, gotta wonder how Wiggins defensive stats might be on a team with Better defenders. Way too early.

[PhoSita]

First of all, I think ESPN puts too much stock in their RPM stat.  I'm not so confident in its efficacy, at least not yet.

Second, sure, rookies are bad.  They typically hurt their team's chances of winning.


When people get excited looking at players on, for example, the Sixers, it's not really about how good they are now, but rather the potential they have to make a big impact in the future.

This is a dimension that's lacking on the Celts' roster.

Also, you could make a strong case for Marcus Smart to be on the list of "slumping sophomores."

[PhoSita]

Wiggins seems like a rich man's version of Jeff Green. A very very wealthy version but Green nonetheless. OK, maybe that's a little harsh.

I think Demar Derozan is a better comparison.

Wiggins has to figure out how to leverage his athleticism to grab more rebounds and force more turnovers, at least.  Ideally he'll also learn how to create plays for others, too.  I think he'll get there eventually.


As is often the case on ESPN, this list seems cherry picked to create the greatest controversy. 

[Ilikesports17]

First of all, I think ESPN puts too much stock in their RPM stat.  I'm not so confident in its efficacy, at least not yet.

Second, sure, rookies are bad.  They typically hurt their team's chances of winning.


When people get excited looking at players on, for example, the Sixers, it's not really about how good they are now, but rather the potential they have to make a big impact in the future.

This is a dimension that's lacking on the Celts' roster.

Also, you could make a strong case for Marcus Smart to be on the list of "slumping sophomores."

the RPM stat is nice but it doesn't really work on philly because it assumes players aren't making large improvements from year to year and relies on. 3 year regression to assign value to guys.

Philly has like 2 bets on the team so all the numbers will be messed up.

[Rondo9]

Also, you could make a strong case for Marcus Smart to be on the list of "slumping sophomores."

And I bet people will say that it is accurate and how Danny failed in the draft again. 

[KeepRondo]

Also, you could make a strong case for Marcus Smart to be on the list of "slumping sophomores."

And I bet people will say that it is accurate and how Danny failed in the draft again. 

At this point, I don't care if Smart shoots 35 percent from the floor. I just want to see about 10-14 games from the remaining schedule, where Smart puts a complete offensive game together. I think that would be progress for him and a pretty reasonable expectation.

[Snakehead]

I would expect most teams who give that many touches to a rookie, would probably have better stats when he's not in the game. Okafor is being given the opportunity to fast track his growth as an NBA player. Way too early to look at team stats, regarding his impact.

The logic you're using doesn't work for defense that well.

On offense I could agree.

Not that he can't get better but right now he's real, real bad.

[Snakehead]

Also, you could make a strong case for Marcus Smart to be on the list of "slumping sophomores."

And I bet people will say that it is accurate and how Danny failed in the draft again. 

In certain areas there's no question he's been disappointing.  I say that as a huge fan of him.  In others he is looking really good.

Just call em as you see them.  You guys are being silly trying to take everything as a slight, political, or saying, again, this means "cut these players".

[colincb]

It's not just Okafor's atrocious defense that's bad.

Plenty of other bad numbers with Okafor that his supporters are ignoring. Out of the top 30 centers in minutes per game, he's 28th in Total Shooting% and 51st out of the top 60 (Shocking to me, but true) and 23rd in rebounding % and 45th among the top 60. IOW, he puts up points inefficiently and is not strong off the boards either.

His defense is atrocious IOW, and his offensive efficiency and rebounding ranks toward the bottom 25% of centers who are either starters or prime backups.

[KeepRondo]

I would expect most teams who give that many touches to a rookie, would probably have better stats when he's not in the game. Okafor is being given the opportunity to fast track his growth as an NBA player. Way too early to look at team stats, regarding his impact.

The logic you're using doesn't work for defense that well.

On offense I could agree.

Not that he can't get better but right now he's real, real bad.

I don't think you can say a guy who has shown great promise on the offensive end is a disappointment because he hasn't figured out how to play good NBA defense as a rookie.

[Moranis]

I would expect most teams who give that many touches to a rookie, would probably have better stats when he's not in the game. Okafor is being given the opportunity to fast track his growth as an NBA player. Way too early to look at team stats, regarding his impact.

The logic you're using doesn't work for defense that well.

On offense I could agree.

Not that he can't get better but right now he's real, real bad.

I don't think you can say a guy who has shown great promise on the offensive end is a disappointment because he hasn't figured out how to play good NBA defense as a rookie.

especially when no one thought he was going to be a good defender.  I mean that is like saying Smart was a disappointment as a rookie because he was terrible on offense.  Of course he was terrible on offense, but everyone knew he would be.

A guy like Stauskas, however, is a disappointment given he has shot terribly and shooting was supposed to be his strength (and his college stats support that belief).  He belongs on the lsit for that reason, Okafor does not (he is pretty much the player everyone thought he would be).

[colincb]

I would expect most teams who give that many touches to a rookie, would probably have better stats when he's not in the game. Okafor is being given the opportunity to fast track his growth as an NBA player. Way too early to look at team stats, regarding his impact.

The logic you're using doesn't work for defense that well.

On offense I could agree.

Not that he can't get better but right now he's real, real bad.

I don't think you can say a guy who has shown great promise on the offensive end is a disappointment because he hasn't figured out how to play good NBA defense as a rookie.

I think that I'm seeing an emerging consensus about Okafor outside this forum (and Sixers' forums) that Okafor's more likely to be very similar to Al Jefferson than be be much better than him. You have to cut him slack as a rookie, but some of you are ignoring that he's not very good at anything yet except putting up inefficient numbers on one of the worst teams of all time. He'll be in the NBA a long time and he may turn out much better, but I see nothing that indicates he's an elite player in the future.

[colincb]

I would expect most teams who give that many touches to a rookie, would probably have better stats when he's not in the game. Okafor is being given the opportunity to fast track his growth as an NBA player. Way too early to look at team stats, regarding his impact.

The logic you're using doesn't work for defense that well.

On offense I could agree.

Not that he can't get better but right now he's real, real bad.

I don't think you can say a guy who has shown great promise on the offensive end is a disappointment because he hasn't figured out how to play good NBA defense as a rookie.

especially when no one thought he was going to be a good defender.  I mean that is like saying Smart was a disappointment as a rookie because he was terrible on offense.  Of course he was terrible on offense, but everyone knew he would be.

A guy like Stauskas, however, is a disappointment given he has shot terribly and shooting was supposed to be his strength (and his college stats support that belief).  He belongs on the lsit for that reason, Okafor does not (he is pretty much the player everyone thought he would be).

I don't think Okafor's the player i thought he would be.

Here's a test for you or anyone else: what does Okafor do well?