Rumors: Boston Celtics might trade 3rd overall pick in 2016 NBA draft for Okafor

[footey]

Again...

People on this board blow my mind sometimes.  The same people who are crying Bender instead of Okafor are the same people who thought we struck gold with James Young, they're the same people who thought Cousins donning green is a negative, they are the same people who thought R.J Hunter is the best thing since sliced bread.  I mean, the "logic" of these people...smh.

To go for Bender when you have a chance at Okafor is asinine.  It's just plain crazy.  There is very little to this guy, Bender.  I just don't see it, just like I didn't see with James Young or R.J Hunter.

Bender instead of Okafor?  What is wrong with people?  Jeez.

Okafor averaged 17.5 pts and 7rbd as a f'ing rookie for godssakes....AS A ROOKIE!

Man, I'm glad some folks here aren't running the Celtics Organization.  Opportunity would be smackin' folks in the face and kicking them in the nuts and they still wouldn't see it.  Unbelievable.

Ah yes, the 'ole "people who disagree with me must just be dumb!" argument

People here value different things in a player.  Those people also have different views of how a player will turn out.

Any proof on the people that want Bender also like James Young, hate Cousins, and love Hunter?  Because somehow I doubt it.

Look at Okafor.  He averages fewer rebounds/36 minutes than Tyler Zeller.  He's a slow, hulking 5 that can't play D and can't rebound.  He's an amazing post scorer, but he's a one-dimensional player.  Is it that crazy for people to want to take a flyer on somebody that has the potential to be a good two-way player in this league, with positional versatility and an outside game to boot?

Anyone saying that Bender is a surefire star is wrong, but so are people saying that he's a surefire bust or that Okafor is guaranteed to be a star.  We don't know how any player is gonna end up, and just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them "crazy" or stupid

Reason is not subjective.

And the future is not set in stone

Please dear GOD imagine what our organization and CBS would do with a player with his gifts.
Just watch this video and tell me he does not have a nice stroke and potential. Please keep in mind how big he is 280lbs and 7'6.25'' wingspan, 9'3'' standing reach, huge hands....and he is a very young rookie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZihwmQ3PaC8

Also TP for anyone who can tell me how to post the actual vid on here instead of a link to it like the good ole' days.

The hate for Okafor is funny.  If he put up those kind of stats as a rookie on the Celtics, people would be comparing him to hall of famers already.

It wouldn't make a difference if he was on the Celtics - that argument is not even vaguely rational. 

1) This entire thread is about whether or not we should trade for Okafor to MAKE him a Celtci
2) If we did trade for him he would BE a Celtic
3) Based on your logic, if he was a Celtic we would love him
4) Therefore if we liked him as a player, we would want him to be a Celtic

You think I would have ANY issue at all with us trading for Karl Anthony Towns or Andew Wiggins?

Do you think I would say "no they are crap because they aren't Celtics, so I don't want them here"?

Of course not - tell me we're trading for Wiggins or Towns and I will jump for joy.

I don't want Okafor here because I don't like Okafor.  I don't care if he plays for the 76ers, or the Rockets, or the Nets, or the Bulls, or the Lakers, or (shock) the Celtics.  It makes zero difference. I do not like him.

- I do not like his attitude
- I do not like the limitations of his game
- I do not like the fact that he's statistically the worst center in the entire NBA

If he was a Celtic I still wouldn't like his attitude, I still wouldn't like the limitations of his game, I still wouldn't like that he's statistically the worst center in the NBA.

I don't really understand what about that is so difficult to understand. It seems pretty simple to me?

Again...

People on this board blow my mind sometimes.  The same people who are crying Bender instead of Okafor are the same people who thought we struck gold with James Young, they're the same people who thought Cousins donning green is a negative, they are the same people who thought R.J Hunter is the best thing since sliced bread.  I mean, the "logic" of these people...smh.

To go for Bender when you have a chance at Okafor is asinine.  It's just plain crazy.  There is very little to this guy, Bender.  I just don't see it, just like I didn't see with James Young or R.J Hunter.

Bender instead of Okafor?  What is wrong with people?  Jeez.

Okafor averaged 17.5 pts and 7rbd as a f'ing rookie for godssakes....AS A ROOKIE!

Man, I'm glad some folks here aren't running the Celtics Organization.  Opportunity would be smackin' folks in the face and kicking them in the nuts and they still wouldn't see it.  Unbelievable.

Ah yes, the 'ole "people who disagree with me must just be dumb!" argument

People here value different things in a player.  Those people also have different views of how a player will turn out.

Any proof on the people that want Bender also like James Young, hate Cousins, and love Hunter?  Because somehow I doubt it.

Look at Okafor.  He averages fewer rebounds/36 minutes than Tyler Zeller.  He's a slow, hulking 5 that can't play D and can't rebound.  He's an amazing post scorer, but he's a one-dimensional player.  Is it that crazy for people to want to take a flyer on somebody that has the potential to be a good two-way player in this league, with positional versatility and an outside game to boot?

Anyone saying that Bender is a surefire star is wrong, but so are people saying that he's a surefire bust or that Okafor is guaranteed to be a star.  We don't know how any player is gonna end up, and just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them "crazy" or stupid

Reason is not subjective.

And the future is not set in stone

Please dear GOD imagine what our organization and CBS would do with a player with his gifts.
Just watch this video and tell me he does not have a nice stroke and potential. Please keep in mind how big he is 280lbs and 7'6.25'' wingspan, 9'3'' standing reach, huge hands....and he is a very young rookie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZihwmQ3PaC8

Also TP for anyone who can tell me how to post the actual vid on here instead of a link to it like the good ole' days.

The hate for Okafor is funny.  If he put up those kind of stats as a rookie on the Celtics, people would be comparing him to hall of famers already.

It really doesn't make sense. It's like their saying Okafor won't improve.

I don't think anybody is saying Okafor won't improve.  At least I never have thought that.  My question is - how much exactly CAN he improve?

I look at Okafor and I see a guy who is almost identical to Al Jefferson both as an offensive player (with the traditional post game) and in terms of physical attributes (similar height, length, build, athleticism). 

However Okafor has two MAJOR red flags right now that hold him back from being on Jefferson's level.

1) The lack of rebounding - Jefferson was a above average rebounder, Okafor is a significantly below average one

2) The defense - Jefferson was an average rebounder, maybe a tad below average.  Okafor is a horrendous defender, as in Enes Kanter bad.

So I look at Okafor and I ask myself..

- Could he one day improve him jumper to be as good as Jefferson's?   Probably.
- Could he one day improve to being an above average rebounder?  Questionable, but maybe.
- Could he one day improve his defense to be at least average? Also questionable, but maybe.

So lets say he works really hard, and he actually makes all of the above improvements to his game - now you have yourself a guy who is pretty much as good as Al Jefferson was in his prime. 

Now this isn't a TERRIBLE thing, since Al Jefferson was pretty good.  He never made an All-Star team, nor did he ever get particularly far in the playoffs.  It's debatable whether he was ever even the best player on his team (Millsap). But he was still a good player, sure.

But then we come to the next part.  Era.

Al Jefferson came into the NBA before small ball was ever really a thing.  When he came into the league, he rarely ever had to run around chasing three point shooting big men.  He rarely ever had to defend more mobile power forwards, which was a good thing because he was never really mobile enough to do so.  He mostly had to defend traditional big men who moved pretty slowly, and who (at the most) might take the occasional 15 footer.

Today's era is a very different one, and if you watch Jefferson play these days you can see he struggles against today's small ball lineups. They kill him.  He's actually not THAT old - he's only in his early 30's.  But he LOOKS older because in today's NBA you have small fowards playing PF, and Power Forwards playing Center, and Jefferson can't defend those guys.

So question is - if Jefferson (in his prime) had to play in the league as it has been for the past 2-3 seasons, would he have fared so well?  If he came into the league as a rookie today, instead of 10+ years ago, would he have been as impressive a rookie? 

This is the concern with Okafor, because as far as I see it the best case scenario for Okafor is that he improves his defense, improves his jumper, improves his rebounding, and eventually becomes as good as a prime Al Jefferson...a guy who struggles in today's NBA.

I look at a guy liek Andre Drummond - he's doing quite well as an old-school big man.  But Drummond is very mobile for a man his size, he's one of the best rebounders in the entire NBA, and he's actually a pretty impressive interior defender. 

Likewise I look at Dwight Howard and think he's doing fine without a modern game - but again he's a mobile big man who can run the floor, who still moves well laterally, who is a very good paint protector, and who still rebounds the ball at an elite level.

i look at Pau Gasol and Marc Gasol - both guys are doing well. Both both of those guys excel because of their all round polish.  Both have been very good defensive players their whole careers, both are outstanding passers, both have great range on their jumpers - Pau is even relatively mobile and can step out to the three point line.

Then there is Demarcus Cousins - but he's a very good ball handler, an outstanding passer, moves well for a man his size, dominates the rebounds, and he's an extremely capable defensive player only let down by questionable motor.

Okafor doesn't have that defense, that passing ability, that ball handling ability, that long jumper, the rebounding.  Despite his (interior dominant) style of play, he doesn't get to the line at a high rate at all. 

Is Okafor doomed to mediocrity?  Of course not.  He could surprise me and make a crazy jump.  He could develop three point range, lose weight and improve his mobility, learn some tips about positioning to improve his rebounding, improve his court feel and become a great passer out of the paint.  None of these things are impossible - but expecting ANYBODY to make those kind of leaps is a big ask.  That's a lot to gamble on.

Guys in the draft are a high risk / high reward because you haven't seen what they can do at the NBA level yet.  They could end up junk...but they could also end up a huge star from day one (e.g. Lillard).  But with Okafor that surprise is gone - you've seen his limitations on an NBA court.  You know he's not a star - at least not now. 

If I'm not going to get a star, then as far as I'm concerned I may as well just gamble on a draft prospect and hope I hit one there.  The whole idea of trading a pick for a player is that you hope to trade upside, for somebody who is real and proven.  Okafor isn't real and proven - his biggest "allure" is still his upside.  So he really gvies you not a whole lot over a draftee.

TP for terrific analysis, CS.

[footey]

Again...

People on this board blow my mind sometimes.  The same people who are crying Bender instead of Okafor are the same people who thought we struck gold with James Young, they're the same people who thought Cousins donning green is a negative, they are the same people who thought R.J Hunter is the best thing since sliced bread.  I mean, the "logic" of these people...smh.

To go for Bender when you have a chance at Okafor is asinine.  It's just plain crazy.  There is very little to this guy, Bender.  I just don't see it, just like I didn't see with James Young or R.J Hunter.

Bender instead of Okafor?  What is wrong with people?  Jeez.

Okafor averaged 17.5 pts and 7rbd as a f'ing rookie for godssakes....AS A ROOKIE!

Man, I'm glad some folks here aren't running the Celtics Organization.  Opportunity would be smackin' folks in the face and kicking them in the nuts and they still wouldn't see it.  Unbelievable.

Ah yes, the 'ole "people who disagree with me must just be dumb!" argument

People here value different things in a player.  Those people also have different views of how a player will turn out.

Any proof on the people that want Bender also like James Young, hate Cousins, and love Hunter?  Because somehow I doubt it.

Look at Okafor.  He averages fewer rebounds/36 minutes than Tyler Zeller.  He's a slow, hulking 5 that can't play D and can't rebound.  He's an amazing post scorer, but he's a one-dimensional player.  Is it that crazy for people to want to take a flyer on somebody that has the potential to be a good two-way player in this league, with positional versatility and an outside game to boot?

Anyone saying that Bender is a surefire star is wrong, but so are people saying that he's a surefire bust or that Okafor is guaranteed to be a star.  We don't know how any player is gonna end up, and just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them "crazy" or stupid

Reason is not subjective.

And the future is not set in stone

Please dear GOD imagine what our organization and CBS would do with a player with his gifts.
Just watch this video and tell me he does not have a nice stroke and potential. Please keep in mind how big he is 280lbs and 7'6.25'' wingspan, 9'3'' standing reach, huge hands....and he is a very young rookie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZihwmQ3PaC8

Also TP for anyone who can tell me how to post the actual vid on here instead of a link to it like the good ole' days.

The hate for Okafor is funny.  If he put up those kind of stats as a rookie on the Celtics, people would be comparing him to hall of famers already.

It wouldn't make a difference if he was on the Celtics - that argument is not even vaguely rational. 

1) This entire thread is about whether or not we should trade for Okafor to MAKE him a Celtci
2) If we did trade for him he would BE a Celtic
3) Based on your logic, if he was a Celtic we would love him

Sorry dude, that's about as far as I got.  But yes... if Okafor becomes a Celtic, I guaran-flippin-tee he'll be an instant favorite.   People liked Rasheed Wallace when he was here.  Dat Green jersey is a powerful inebriant.   It's going to take like 2 preseason games for half this forum to be creating threads wondering if Okafor is the best post player since McHale.

FYI, in terms of EFF, Okafor was a top 20 Center last year.  Top 8 in scoring.  The 3rd best center in the league under the age of 23 in both EFF and PER.   He's 20.  We'd be lucky to get him.

Read the rest of what CS says, LB, because he makes a compelling case as to why we should not trade for Okafor, despite your exaggerated claim that Danny will do it for the 3 pick. 

[chilidawg]

Fans think Okafor is a garbage, but have no problem defending Marcus Smart.  Smart is two years into a career averaging 8.4 points, 3.1 assists, 3.7 rebounds, 1.5 steals with 35%/29%/72% shooting.  Is that the golden standard for young players?

I'm hoping that someone who posts as much as you do realizes that Smart's stat line comes nowhere close to capturing his value.

[PickNRoll]

This whole small ball thing is largely a myth.  Small ball wasn't invented yesterday.  If you have Mullin, Hardaway and Richmond, you just play them together because they're all d@mn good.  If you have Nash and Barbosa and Raja Bell and you want to push the pace with QRich at the 4 and Amare at 5, go ahead Dantoni.  This doesn't mean big guys are a liability.  There is no rule that says you need to match your opponent when they go small.  Why would you?  You don't have Steph, Klay and Draymond.  It's a personnel decision.  Sometimes you should zig when the league zags.  I'd rather sick the dogs (AB, Smart, Crowder) on them defensively and then punish them in the paint with a guy like Okafor.  I think OKC laid a decent blueprint with Adams, Kanter and Ibaka, but strayed for some reason.

[kraidstar]

I dug into the numbers a bit and it looks like Okafor's on-court harm on offense comes from two sources: a lower steal rate, and a higher turnover rate.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/okafoja01/on-off/2016/

Looking at the lineup data, he was most often subbed out by Philly going small (with essentially two SFs and another big).

That could be contributing to both of those differences. Almost any small forward will have fewer turnovers and more steals than a typical C/PF.

 Of course, it's also likely that Okafor himself is at fault, being both both turnover-prone and hardly a ball-hawk.

If there's a silver lining, it's that turnover problems are one of the more fixable issues for young big men.

He only averaged 2.3 turnovers per game.  It was likely just the talent around him (athletic d-leaguers who can't shoot worth crap) having no clue how to play with a player like that.   As I said above, when your team is entirely composed of athletic d-league talent, you're going to have slightly more success in quick lineups that force turnovers for fast breaks.  Clearly, a half-court offense built around ball movement and spreading the floor for a dangerous post-player was out of the question.   As I said above, it also didn't help that Philly was intentionally trying to lose games and had little interest in putting a coherent lineup out there... Okafor often was playing next to Nerlens Noel, who is a wonderful prospect as well, but CLEARLY not a power forward.  Noel's numbers playing PF compared to playing C were dramatically different.   When they shared the court together, it was a disaster for pretty logical reasons.   Also, Okafor was getting double-teamed nightly so it's surprising he only had 2.3 turnovers per game.  There's several reasons for why the advance might stats look at Okafor poorly and most of them do not suggest Okafor is a bad player with a low ceiling.

A lot of what you're saying is true, but i think you're missing the larger point.

Okafor reminds me a LOT of brook lopez, al jefferson, greg monroe, enes kanter, elton brand, etc. He's primarily a slow-ish post scorer with questionable range and sub-par defense, and is not a "bruiser." You raise the point that Okafor is only 20 and has upside. This is true, maybe he ends up better than all the guys I just mentioned.

But when was the last time we saw a player of his type as a core member of a championship team? I can't think of any offhand, maybe kareem late in his career, after his athleticism had dwindled.

When push comes to shove, I think opposing teams will find a way to solve him in the playoffs. His defense and rebounding will be exploited.  His passing will be exposed via double-teams. Does he have the toughness to battle through a crowd to get a necessary bucket late in a big possession, especially if the refs are swallowing their whistles? Is his FT% high enough so that an opponent can't just foul even if he does get a good shot? This all concerns me.

I just don't think Okafor's skillset translates to victory in the NBA playoffs, especially in this era. The holes in his game will hurt his team if he doesn't have the ball in his hands. He'll need either to improve significantly passing, on the glass and on D or he'll have to have great 2-way players around him. And finding those 2-way players players, especially after surrendering a high draft pick, will be very difficult.

Almost every good team has big slow guys with limited range: Duncan, Tristan Thompson, Valunciunas, Bynum.  Heck, it's probably been true since Naismith.  It's why we have positions.

You should read more carefully before posting.

I specifically said the guys i mentioned had "sub-par defense," and are not "bruisers." Duncan was one of the best defensive big men of all time. Take that away and he'd be just another good player. Elite defensive bigs are like gold. Mediocre ones not so much. Thompson is good and tough on D, bynum was very good before he quit.

None of those guys except for maybe valenciunas is like okafor. And guess what? Valenciunas is the third-best player on a team that routinely gets embarrassed in the playoffs in weak conference.

[LarBrd33]

Again...

People on this board blow my mind sometimes.  The same people who are crying Bender instead of Okafor are the same people who thought we struck gold with James Young, they're the same people who thought Cousins donning green is a negative, they are the same people who thought R.J Hunter is the best thing since sliced bread.  I mean, the "logic" of these people...smh.

To go for Bender when you have a chance at Okafor is asinine.  It's just plain crazy.  There is very little to this guy, Bender.  I just don't see it, just like I didn't see with James Young or R.J Hunter.

Bender instead of Okafor?  What is wrong with people?  Jeez.

Okafor averaged 17.5 pts and 7rbd as a f'ing rookie for godssakes....AS A ROOKIE!

Man, I'm glad some folks here aren't running the Celtics Organization.  Opportunity would be smackin' folks in the face and kicking them in the nuts and they still wouldn't see it.  Unbelievable.

Ah yes, the 'ole "people who disagree with me must just be dumb!" argument

People here value different things in a player.  Those people also have different views of how a player will turn out.

Any proof on the people that want Bender also like James Young, hate Cousins, and love Hunter?  Because somehow I doubt it.

Look at Okafor.  He averages fewer rebounds/36 minutes than Tyler Zeller.  He's a slow, hulking 5 that can't play D and can't rebound.  He's an amazing post scorer, but he's a one-dimensional player.  Is it that crazy for people to want to take a flyer on somebody that has the potential to be a good two-way player in this league, with positional versatility and an outside game to boot?

Anyone saying that Bender is a surefire star is wrong, but so are people saying that he's a surefire bust or that Okafor is guaranteed to be a star.  We don't know how any player is gonna end up, and just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them "crazy" or stupid

Reason is not subjective.

And the future is not set in stone

Please dear GOD imagine what our organization and CBS would do with a player with his gifts.
Just watch this video and tell me he does not have a nice stroke and potential. Please keep in mind how big he is 280lbs and 7'6.25'' wingspan, 9'3'' standing reach, huge hands....and he is a very young rookie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZihwmQ3PaC8

Also TP for anyone who can tell me how to post the actual vid on here instead of a link to it like the good ole' days.

The hate for Okafor is funny.  If he put up those kind of stats as a rookie on the Celtics, people would be comparing him to hall of famers already.

It wouldn't make a difference if he was on the Celtics - that argument is not even vaguely rational. 

1) This entire thread is about whether or not we should trade for Okafor to MAKE him a Celtci
2) If we did trade for him he would BE a Celtic
3) Based on your logic, if he was a Celtic we would love him

Sorry dude, that's about as far as I got.  But yes... if Okafor becomes a Celtic, I guaran-flippin-tee he'll be an instant favorite.   People liked Rasheed Wallace when he was here.  Dat Green jersey is a powerful inebriant.   It's going to take like 2 preseason games for half this forum to be creating threads wondering if Okafor is the best post player since McHale.

FYI, in terms of EFF, Okafor was a top 20 Center last year.  Top 8 in scoring.  The 3rd best center in the league under the age of 23 in both EFF and PER.   He's 20.  We'd be lucky to get him.

Read the rest of what CS says, LB, because he makes a compelling case as to why we should not trade for Okafor, despite your exaggerated claim that Danny will do it for the 3 pick.

prob more than the 3rd pick.  Hopefully nobody outbids him.

[footey]

Again...

People on this board blow my mind sometimes.  The same people who are crying Bender instead of Okafor are the same people who thought we struck gold with James Young, they're the same people who thought Cousins donning green is a negative, they are the same people who thought R.J Hunter is the best thing since sliced bread.  I mean, the "logic" of these people...smh.

To go for Bender when you have a chance at Okafor is asinine.  It's just plain crazy.  There is very little to this guy, Bender.  I just don't see it, just like I didn't see with James Young or R.J Hunter.

Bender instead of Okafor?  What is wrong with people?  Jeez.

Okafor averaged 17.5 pts and 7rbd as a f'ing rookie for godssakes....AS A ROOKIE!

Man, I'm glad some folks here aren't running the Celtics Organization.  Opportunity would be smackin' folks in the face and kicking them in the nuts and they still wouldn't see it.  Unbelievable.

Ah yes, the 'ole "people who disagree with me must just be dumb!" argument

People here value different things in a player.  Those people also have different views of how a player will turn out.

Any proof on the people that want Bender also like James Young, hate Cousins, and love Hunter?  Because somehow I doubt it.

Look at Okafor.  He averages fewer rebounds/36 minutes than Tyler Zeller.  He's a slow, hulking 5 that can't play D and can't rebound.  He's an amazing post scorer, but he's a one-dimensional player.  Is it that crazy for people to want to take a flyer on somebody that has the potential to be a good two-way player in this league, with positional versatility and an outside game to boot?

Anyone saying that Bender is a surefire star is wrong, but so are people saying that he's a surefire bust or that Okafor is guaranteed to be a star.  We don't know how any player is gonna end up, and just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them "crazy" or stupid

Reason is not subjective.

And the future is not set in stone

Please dear GOD imagine what our organization and CBS would do with a player with his gifts.
Just watch this video and tell me he does not have a nice stroke and potential. Please keep in mind how big he is 280lbs and 7'6.25'' wingspan, 9'3'' standing reach, huge hands....and he is a very young rookie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZihwmQ3PaC8

Also TP for anyone who can tell me how to post the actual vid on here instead of a link to it like the good ole' days.

The hate for Okafor is funny.  If he put up those kind of stats as a rookie on the Celtics, people would be comparing him to hall of famers already.

It wouldn't make a difference if he was on the Celtics - that argument is not even vaguely rational. 

1) This entire thread is about whether or not we should trade for Okafor to MAKE him a Celtci
2) If we did trade for him he would BE a Celtic
3) Based on your logic, if he was a Celtic we would love him

Sorry dude, that's about as far as I got.  But yes... if Okafor becomes a Celtic, I guaran-flippin-tee he'll be an instant favorite.   People liked Rasheed Wallace when he was here.  Dat Green jersey is a powerful inebriant.   It's going to take like 2 preseason games for half this forum to be creating threads wondering if Okafor is the best post player since McHale.

FYI, in terms of EFF, Okafor was a top 20 Center last year.  Top 8 in scoring.  The 3rd best center in the league under the age of 23 in both EFF and PER.   He's 20.  We'd be lucky to get him.

Read the rest of what CS says, LB, because he makes a compelling case as to why we should not trade for Okafor, despite your exaggerated claim that Danny will do it for the 3 pick.

prob more than the 3rd pick.  Hopefully nobody outbids him.

Am hoping they do.

[PickNRoll]

I dug into the numbers a bit and it looks like Okafor's on-court harm on offense comes from two sources: a lower steal rate, and a higher turnover rate.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/okafoja01/on-off/2016/

Looking at the lineup data, he was most often subbed out by Philly going small (with essentially two SFs and another big).

That could be contributing to both of those differences. Almost any small forward will have fewer turnovers and more steals than a typical C/PF.

 Of course, it's also likely that Okafor himself is at fault, being both both turnover-prone and hardly a ball-hawk.

If there's a silver lining, it's that turnover problems are one of the more fixable issues for young big men.

He only averaged 2.3 turnovers per game.  It was likely just the talent around him (athletic d-leaguers who can't shoot worth crap) having no clue how to play with a player like that.   As I said above, when your team is entirely composed of athletic d-league talent, you're going to have slightly more success in quick lineups that force turnovers for fast breaks.  Clearly, a half-court offense built around ball movement and spreading the floor for a dangerous post-player was out of the question.   As I said above, it also didn't help that Philly was intentionally trying to lose games and had little interest in putting a coherent lineup out there... Okafor often was playing next to Nerlens Noel, who is a wonderful prospect as well, but CLEARLY not a power forward.  Noel's numbers playing PF compared to playing C were dramatically different.   When they shared the court together, it was a disaster for pretty logical reasons.   Also, Okafor was getting double-teamed nightly so it's surprising he only had 2.3 turnovers per game.  There's several reasons for why the advance might stats look at Okafor poorly and most of them do not suggest Okafor is a bad player with a low ceiling.

A lot of what you're saying is true, but i think you're missing the larger point.

Okafor reminds me a LOT of brook lopez, al jefferson, greg monroe, enes kanter, elton brand, etc. He's primarily a slow-ish post scorer with questionable range and sub-par defense, and is not a "bruiser." You raise the point that Okafor is only 20 and has upside. This is true, maybe he ends up better than all the guys I just mentioned.

But when was the last time we saw a player of his type as a core member of a championship team? I can't think of any offhand, maybe kareem late in his career, after his athleticism had dwindled.

When push comes to shove, I think opposing teams will find a way to solve him in the playoffs. His defense and rebounding will be exploited.  His passing will be exposed via double-teams. Does he have the toughness to battle through a crowd to get a necessary bucket late in a big possession, especially if the refs are swallowing their whistles? Is his FT% high enough so that an opponent can't just foul even if he does get a good shot? This all concerns me.

I just don't think Okafor's skillset translates to victory in the NBA playoffs, especially in this era. The holes in his game will hurt his team if he doesn't have the ball in his hands. He'll need either to improve significantly passing, on the glass and on D or he'll have to have great 2-way players around him. And finding those 2-way players players, especially after surrendering a high draft pick, will be very difficult.

Almost every good team has big slow guys with limited range: Duncan, Tristan Thompson, Valunciunas, Bynum.  Heck, it's probably been true since Naismith.  It's why we have positions.

You should read more carefully before posting.

I specifically said the guys i mentioned had "sub-par defense," and are not "bruisers." Duncan was one of the best defensive big men of all time. Take that away and he'd be just another good player. Elite defensive bigs are like gold. Mediocre ones not so much. Thompson is good and tough on D, bynum was very good before he quit.

None of those guys except for maybe valenciunas is like okafor. And guess what? Valenciunas is the third-best player on a team that routinely gets embarrassed in the playoffs in weak conference.

If you add enough criteria, you won't find a match. "slow-ish post scorers with questionable range and sub-par defense who are not bruisers". lol.   When's the last time you saw a

fast perimeter scorer with questionable range and below average defense who is a bruiser
fast post scorer with 3 point range and above average defense who is a bruiser
slow set shooter with limited range and above average defense who is not a bruiser
slow defensive specialist, primary ballhandler, bruiser
fast athletic rebounding specialist who is a poor defender, good playmaker

[hodgy03038]

In 2002, Ricky Davis averaged 20.6 points per game.

He was a BAD player. I'm sure there many other examples.

I think by BAD you mean "guys with a score-first mentality" or guys who don't play the "Celtic way".  I don't think Davis was "bad".

Basketball is a "Team" sport. In that regard I consider Ricky Davis "Bad". I agree he had a lot of talent and was a high flyer but that's about it in my eyes.

[kraidstar]

I dug into the numbers a bit and it looks like Okafor's on-court harm on offense comes from two sources: a lower steal rate, and a higher turnover rate.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/okafoja01/on-off/2016/

Looking at the lineup data, he was most often subbed out by Philly going small (with essentially two SFs and another big).

That could be contributing to both of those differences. Almost any small forward will have fewer turnovers and more steals than a typical C/PF.

 Of course, it's also likely that Okafor himself is at fault, being both both turnover-prone and hardly a ball-hawk.

If there's a silver lining, it's that turnover problems are one of the more fixable issues for young big men.

He only averaged 2.3 turnovers per game.  It was likely just the talent around him (athletic d-leaguers who can't shoot worth crap) having no clue how to play with a player like that.   As I said above, when your team is entirely composed of athletic d-league talent, you're going to have slightly more success in quick lineups that force turnovers for fast breaks.  Clearly, a half-court offense built around ball movement and spreading the floor for a dangerous post-player was out of the question.   As I said above, it also didn't help that Philly was intentionally trying to lose games and had little interest in putting a coherent lineup out there... Okafor often was playing next to Nerlens Noel, who is a wonderful prospect as well, but CLEARLY not a power forward.  Noel's numbers playing PF compared to playing C were dramatically different.   When they shared the court together, it was a disaster for pretty logical reasons.   Also, Okafor was getting double-teamed nightly so it's surprising he only had 2.3 turnovers per game.  There's several reasons for why the advance might stats look at Okafor poorly and most of them do not suggest Okafor is a bad player with a low ceiling.

A lot of what you're saying is true, but i think you're missing the larger point.

Okafor reminds me a LOT of brook lopez, al jefferson, greg monroe, enes kanter, elton brand, etc. He's primarily a slow-ish post scorer with questionable range and sub-par defense, and is not a "bruiser." You raise the point that Okafor is only 20 and has upside. This is true, maybe he ends up better than all the guys I just mentioned.

But when was the last time we saw a player of his type as a core member of a championship team? I can't think of any offhand, maybe kareem late in his career, after his athleticism had dwindled.

When push comes to shove, I think opposing teams will find a way to solve him in the playoffs. His defense and rebounding will be exploited.  His passing will be exposed via double-teams. Does he have the toughness to battle through a crowd to get a necessary bucket late in a big possession, especially if the refs are swallowing their whistles? Is his FT% high enough so that an opponent can't just foul even if he does get a good shot? This all concerns me.

I just don't think Okafor's skillset translates to victory in the NBA playoffs, especially in this era. The holes in his game will hurt his team if he doesn't have the ball in his hands. He'll need either to improve significantly passing, on the glass and on D or he'll have to have great 2-way players around him. And finding those 2-way players players, especially after surrendering a high draft pick, will be very difficult.

Almost every good team has big slow guys with limited range: Duncan, Tristan Thompson, Valunciunas, Bynum.  Heck, it's probably been true since Naismith.  It's why we have positions.

You should read more carefully before posting.

I specifically said the guys i mentioned had "sub-par defense," and are not "bruisers." Duncan was one of the best defensive big men of all time. Take that away and he'd be just another good player. Elite defensive bigs are like gold. Mediocre ones not so much. Thompson is good and tough on D, bynum was very good before he quit.

None of those guys except for maybe valenciunas is like okafor. And guess what? Valenciunas is the third-best player on a team that routinely gets embarrassed in the playoffs in weak conference.

If you add enough criteria, you won't find a match. "slow-ish post scorers with questionable range and sub-par defense who are not bruisers". lol.   When's the last time you saw a

fast perimeter scorer with questionable range and below average defense who is a bruiser
fast post scorer with 3 point range and above average defense who is a bruiser
slow set shooter with limited range and above average defense who is not a bruiser
slow defensive specialist, primary ballhandler, bruiser
fast athletic rebounding specialist who is a poor defender, good playmaker

What are you talking about? Stop trying to obfuscate the point i was making. The guys i mentioned have similar skillsets to okafor. The guys you mentioned don't.

[Granath]

That's about as far as I got.

You aren't understanding my point.  If you don't have players who can shoot or score, one method of scoring might be through creating turnovers and having fast breaks.  Philly's team was garbage, but one thing it had was athletic and explosive d-league talent.   

By suggesting my argument is that "Okafor was so bad on defense he dragged down the offense", I have to assume you aren't understanding what I'm talking about.  Nerlens Noel is an exceptional defensive player.  His defense is actually one of the lone bright spots of that roster.  In-fact, during the 2014-15 season, Philly's defense was #1 in the entire league in minutes Noel played.  Fast-forward a year and Philly is trying to integrate Okafor into a rotation that has no supporting pieces for Okafor's game.  When Okafor is on the floor, Noel was playing out of position and not doing what he does best - creating offense through defense.

If you're unfamiliar with the concept of creating offense through defense, you might want to read up on the 1960s Celtics.   Bill Russell wasn't a great offensive player.  Do you think Boston's offense was better or worse with Russell off the court? 

Anyways... this is getting boring.  People don't get it with Okafor.  It's fine.  Ainge does.  That's all that matters.  Hopefully Ainge can get him.

Still waiting for someone to look up the on court/off court rookie stats for guys like Anthony Davis as a rookie.  If it was 5+ points better without him, does that mean the #1 factor in the stat was that they were bad with Davis on the court?  heh.

You're right. I'm not understanding your point because you fail to make one besides "he's awesome" and "throw out every statistic besides 17ppg because of various illogical reasons but don't throw out that one". That seems to be your entire point and typical of your style you'll repeat it ad nauseam despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. 

It's remarkable how delusional you can be at (ahem, most) times. "Ainge does"? Are you Danny Ainge? Are you the priest in his confessional? Do you have some sort of psychic connection with him? Is he whispering trade ideas along with sweet nothings on your pillow? No? Too bad. Then just like virtually everyone else here you have no idea whatsoever what Ainge thinks. Except the one or two folks on this board who are in the Celtics front office. Which ain't you, despite however much you think you may deserve it. Ainge may love Okafor. Ainge may loathe Okafor. Until there's a bonafide trade offer on the table, we don't have any real clue what Ainge thinks about Okafor.

If you're still waiting for someone to compare Anthony Davis to Okafor? Go to http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/davisan02.html and http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/okafoja01.html. Do your own research (for once). Here's a hint: it's not going to help your argument trying to compare Davis to Okafor.   

It's like shooting fish in a barrel....

[PickNRoll]

In 2002, Ricky Davis averaged 20.6 points per game.

He was a BAD player. I'm sure there many other examples.

I think by BAD you mean "guys with a score-first mentality" or guys who don't play the "Celtic way".  I don't think Davis was "bad".

Basketball is a "Team" sport. In that regard I consider Ricky Davis "Bad". I agree he had a lot of talent and was a high flyer but that's about it in my eyes.

Yeah, I get it.  Davis isn't exactly on my all-time Celtic team.  DJ is probably my all-time fav and never scored 20.

[PickNRoll]

I dug into the numbers a bit and it looks like Okafor's on-court harm on offense comes from two sources: a lower steal rate, and a higher turnover rate.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/okafoja01/on-off/2016/

Looking at the lineup data, he was most often subbed out by Philly going small (with essentially two SFs and another big).

That could be contributing to both of those differences. Almost any small forward will have fewer turnovers and more steals than a typical C/PF.

 Of course, it's also likely that Okafor himself is at fault, being both both turnover-prone and hardly a ball-hawk.

If there's a silver lining, it's that turnover problems are one of the more fixable issues for young big men.

He only averaged 2.3 turnovers per game.  It was likely just the talent around him (athletic d-leaguers who can't shoot worth crap) having no clue how to play with a player like that.   As I said above, when your team is entirely composed of athletic d-league talent, you're going to have slightly more success in quick lineups that force turnovers for fast breaks.  Clearly, a half-court offense built around ball movement and spreading the floor for a dangerous post-player was out of the question.   As I said above, it also didn't help that Philly was intentionally trying to lose games and had little interest in putting a coherent lineup out there... Okafor often was playing next to Nerlens Noel, who is a wonderful prospect as well, but CLEARLY not a power forward.  Noel's numbers playing PF compared to playing C were dramatically different.   When they shared the court together, it was a disaster for pretty logical reasons.   Also, Okafor was getting double-teamed nightly so it's surprising he only had 2.3 turnovers per game.  There's several reasons for why the advance might stats look at Okafor poorly and most of them do not suggest Okafor is a bad player with a low ceiling.

A lot of what you're saying is true, but i think you're missing the larger point.

Okafor reminds me a LOT of brook lopez, al jefferson, greg monroe, enes kanter, elton brand, etc. He's primarily a slow-ish post scorer with questionable range and sub-par defense, and is not a "bruiser." You raise the point that Okafor is only 20 and has upside. This is true, maybe he ends up better than all the guys I just mentioned.

But when was the last time we saw a player of his type as a core member of a championship team? I can't think of any offhand, maybe kareem late in his career, after his athleticism had dwindled.

When push comes to shove, I think opposing teams will find a way to solve him in the playoffs. His defense and rebounding will be exploited.  His passing will be exposed via double-teams. Does he have the toughness to battle through a crowd to get a necessary bucket late in a big possession, especially if the refs are swallowing their whistles? Is his FT% high enough so that an opponent can't just foul even if he does get a good shot? This all concerns me.

I just don't think Okafor's skillset translates to victory in the NBA playoffs, especially in this era. The holes in his game will hurt his team if he doesn't have the ball in his hands. He'll need either to improve significantly passing, on the glass and on D or he'll have to have great 2-way players around him. And finding those 2-way players players, especially after surrendering a high draft pick, will be very difficult.

Almost every good team has big slow guys with limited range: Duncan, Tristan Thompson, Valunciunas, Bynum.  Heck, it's probably been true since Naismith.  It's why we have positions.

You should read more carefully before posting.

I specifically said the guys i mentioned had "sub-par defense," and are not "bruisers." Duncan was one of the best defensive big men of all time. Take that away and he'd be just another good player. Elite defensive bigs are like gold. Mediocre ones not so much. Thompson is good and tough on D, bynum was very good before he quit.

None of those guys except for maybe valenciunas is like okafor. And guess what? Valenciunas is the third-best player on a team that routinely gets embarrassed in the playoffs in weak conference.

If you add enough criteria, you won't find a match. "slow-ish post scorers with questionable range and sub-par defense who are not bruisers". lol.   When's the last time you saw a

fast perimeter scorer with questionable range and below average defense who is a bruiser
fast post scorer with 3 point range and above average defense who is a bruiser
slow set shooter with limited range and above average defense who is not a bruiser
slow defensive specialist, primary ballhandler, bruiser
fast athletic rebounding specialist who is a poor defender, good playmaker

What are you talking about? Stop trying to obfuscate the point i was making. The guys i mentioned have similar skillsets to okafor. The guys you mentioned don't.

Your point was that players like Okafor don't have good track records.  Because look, there aren't many successful guys who are "slow-ish post scorers with questionable range and sub-par defense who are not bruisers". 

My point is that your selection criteria is so specific that it's self-fulfilling, just like my examples.

[Granath]

In 2002, Ricky Davis averaged 20.6 points per game.

He was a BAD player. I'm sure there many other examples.

I think by BAD you mean "guys with a score-first mentality" or guys who don't play the "Celtic way".  I don't think Davis was "bad".

Basketball is a "Team" sport. In that regard I consider Ricky Davis "Bad". I agree he had a lot of talent and was a high flyer but that's about it in my eyes.

Ricky Davis had the same disease as Starbury and (especially late career) Josh Smith. They were too worried about "getting theirs" and were oblivious about the concept of bettering the overall team.

Of course there were many posts begging Danny to go get Josh Smith a few years ago. From some of the same people who are begging for Okafor. The same folks have not learned the concept of empty stats.

[LooseCannon]

Ricky Davis was probably as valuable as Andrea Bargnani.