How bad is Okafor's defense...

[LarBrd33]

Physically, he has the capacity to be an average defender.  Lack of experience was an issue.  Lack of surrounding talent was an issue.  I assume motivation was also a major issue.  Mentally, it had to be a challenge for a rookie to give it 110% out there knowing that there was a massive cloud hovering over on whether or not he'd factor into the team's long-term plans.  That, and it was widely out in the open the franchise was trying to tank and the team was made up of d-leaguers.  The whole situation was a sham.  Why bother?

I agree, people act like he is a ten year veteran.   The guy was a rookie.  I think honestly, the jury is still out on him.   He has room to improve.    If we had a guy who shot over 50% and went for 17 PPG and 7 RPG here we would be happy.   But since it happened elsewhere, the guy is a bum to some people in this thread.   That is double standard.  The guy has room to serve.   I think he would be an upgrade over what we had at Center last year.

When you're playing on a lottery team someone has to score. It's just the way things go. So putting such great emphasis on scoring is really shortsighted. However, put him on a playoff team and not only will the scoring decrease considerably due to less opportunity (last year Okafor had a higher usage rate than Chris Paul!), but he would still give you the same crappy defense and below average rebounding. His rebound percentage was lower than Tyler Zeller's.

Where he ranked in other analytics-

Defensive +/-  #354

Offensive +/- #361
 
Defensive win shares #256

Offensive win shares #302

Value over replacement player #466


Those numbers are pathetic. If you look at only his rankings, ignoring the name, you would think it was some journeymen/end of the bench guy. With the way teams value analytics it's no wonder they aren't exactly knocking down the Sixers doors with trade offers. Then factor in his off the court issues, recent knee surgery, documented laziness, and poor fit for today's modern game and it's easy to see why his value has plummeted.

His scoring efficiency though would have been significantly better such that his overall offensive rank would have improved significantly and his overall numbers might not have dropped that much.  I mean take a guy like Kyrie Irving, usage drops down about 2%, but his efficiency goes up significantly and ends up scoring about a point more on 1 less shot per game playing next to James that first year than playing without James the prior year. 

You can't just focus on the bad things when you talk about playing on a better team.  Almost across the board throughout the entire history of the league a player's efficiency increases when he has less of an offensive burden and is less a focus of the defense.  Given that Okafor was already an excellent mid-range shooting big man and a fairly respectable shooter overall as a rookie on a terrible team and as the #1 option, you would expect his efficiency to go into an elite range with him getting the ball in better positions to score (which would happen on a better team).  He would become an elite offensive player, something you can't just ignore in this situation.  Also a good bet that he would try a bit more defensively playing on a better team with better teammates.

He is?

10 to 16 feet
35%

16 to 23 feet
27%

FT shooting
68%

I don't consider 16 to 23 feet mid-range, that is long two.  But yeah 35% from 10 to 16 feet is quite good.  Better than Bradley, Crowder, Sullinger, Olynyk, Jerekbo, and many other Celtics.  That is from a 20 year old rookie on a terrible team.  And from 3 to 10 feet only Amir Johnson was better than Okafor last year (I'm not counting James Young since he had like 1 shot).  68.6% from the line from a rookie big man isn't bad at all.  Certainly not great, but not too bad either.  Puts him just below average of the centers last year.

Okafor doesn't have three point range, but he is a pretty solid overall shooter and that was as a rookie where he was the main focal point of defenses on one of the worst teams in NBA history.  You put him on a better team and the efficiency increases unless he is the one the incredibly rare players in NBA history whose efficiency gets worse as he ages and gets on better teams.

Statistically, is Marcus Smart's offense worse than Jahlil Okafor's defense?   On the flip side, is Jahlil Okafor's offense statistically better than Marcus Smart's defense?

[The Oracle]

Physically, he has the capacity to be an average defender.  Lack of experience was an issue.  Lack of surrounding talent was an issue.  I assume motivation was also a major issue.  Mentally, it had to be a challenge for a rookie to give it 110% out there knowing that there was a massive cloud hovering over on whether or not he'd factor into the team's long-term plans.  That, and it was widely out in the open the franchise was trying to tank and the team was made up of d-leaguers.  The whole situation was a sham.  Why bother?

I agree, people act like he is a ten year veteran.   The guy was a rookie.  I think honestly, the jury is still out on him.   He has room to improve.    If we had a guy who shot over 50% and went for 17 PPG and 7 RPG here we would be happy.   But since it happened elsewhere, the guy is a bum to some people in this thread.   That is double standard.  The guy has room to serve.   I think he would be an upgrade over what we had at Center last year.

When you're playing on a lottery team someone has to score. It's just the way things go. So putting such great emphasis on scoring is really shortsighted. However, put him on a playoff team and not only will the scoring decrease considerably due to less opportunity (last year Okafor had a higher usage rate than Chris Paul!), but he would still give you the same crappy defense and below average rebounding. His rebound percentage was lower than Tyler Zeller's.

Where he ranked in other analytics-

Defensive +/-  #354

Offensive +/- #361
 
Defensive win shares #256

Offensive win shares #302

Value over replacement player #466


Those numbers are pathetic. If you look at only his rankings, ignoring the name, you would think it was some journeymen/end of the bench guy. With the way teams value analytics it's no wonder they aren't exactly knocking down the Sixers doors with trade offers. Then factor in his off the court issues, recent knee surgery, documented laziness, and poor fit for today's modern game and it's easy to see why his value has plummeted.

His scoring efficiency though would have been significantly better such that his overall offensive rank would have improved significantly and his overall numbers might not have dropped that much.  I mean take a guy like Kyrie Irving, usage drops down about 2%, but his efficiency goes up significantly and ends up scoring about a point more on 1 less shot per game playing next to James that first year than playing without James the prior year. 

You can't just focus on the bad things when you talk about playing on a better team.  Almost across the board throughout the entire history of the league a player's efficiency increases when he has less of an offensive burden and is less a focus of the defense.  Given that Okafor was already an excellent mid-range shooting big man and a fairly respectable shooter overall as a rookie on a terrible team and as the #1 option, you would expect his efficiency to go into an elite range with him getting the ball in better positions to score (which would happen on a better team).  He would become an elite offensive player, something you can't just ignore in this situation.  Also a good bet that he would try a bit more defensively playing on a better team with better teammates.

He is?

10 to 16 feet
35%

16 to 23 feet
27%

FT shooting
68%

I don't consider 16 to 23 feet mid-range, that is long two.  But yeah 35% from 10 to 16 feet is quite good.  Better than Bradley, Crowder, Sullinger, Olynyk, Jerekbo, and many other Celtics.  That is from a 20 year old rookie on a terrible team.  And from 3 to 10 feet only Amir Johnson was better than Okafor last year (I'm not counting James Young since he had like 1 shot).  68.6% from the line from a rookie big man isn't bad at all.  Certainly not great, but not too bad either.  Puts him just below average of the centers last year.

Okafor doesn't have three point range, but he is a pretty solid overall shooter and that was as a rookie where he was the main focal point of defenses on one of the worst teams in NBA history.  You put him on a better team and the efficiency increases unless he is the one the incredibly rare players in NBA history whose efficiency gets worse as he ages and gets on better teams.

Statistically, is Marcus Smart's offense worse than Jahlil Okafor's defense?   On the flip side, is Jahlil Okafor's offense statistically better than Marcus Smart's defense?

At least in their rookie years both Phi. offense and defense were better with Okafor off the floor, whereas Bos. offense and defense were better with Smart on the floor.

[Eddie20]

Physically, he has the capacity to be an average defender.  Lack of experience was an issue.  Lack of surrounding talent was an issue.  I assume motivation was also a major issue.  Mentally, it had to be a challenge for a rookie to give it 110% out there knowing that there was a massive cloud hovering over on whether or not he'd factor into the team's long-term plans.  That, and it was widely out in the open the franchise was trying to tank and the team was made up of d-leaguers.  The whole situation was a sham.  Why bother?

I agree, people act like he is a ten year veteran.   The guy was a rookie.  I think honestly, the jury is still out on him.   He has room to improve.    If we had a guy who shot over 50% and went for 17 PPG and 7 RPG here we would be happy.   But since it happened elsewhere, the guy is a bum to some people in this thread.   That is double standard.  The guy has room to serve.   I think he would be an upgrade over what we had at Center last year.

When you're playing on a lottery team someone has to score. It's just the way things go. So putting such great emphasis on scoring is really shortsighted. However, put him on a playoff team and not only will the scoring decrease considerably due to less opportunity (last year Okafor had a higher usage rate than Chris Paul!), but he would still give you the same crappy defense and below average rebounding. His rebound percentage was lower than Tyler Zeller's.

Where he ranked in other analytics-

Defensive +/-  #354

Offensive +/- #361
 
Defensive win shares #256

Offensive win shares #302

Value over replacement player #466


Those numbers are pathetic. If you look at only his rankings, ignoring the name, you would think it was some journeymen/end of the bench guy. With the way teams value analytics it's no wonder they aren't exactly knocking down the Sixers doors with trade offers. Then factor in his off the court issues, recent knee surgery, documented laziness, and poor fit for today's modern game and it's easy to see why his value has plummeted.

His scoring efficiency though would have been significantly better such that his overall offensive rank would have improved significantly and his overall numbers might not have dropped that much.  I mean take a guy like Kyrie Irving, usage drops down about 2%, but his efficiency goes up significantly and ends up scoring about a point more on 1 less shot per game playing next to James that first year than playing without James the prior year. 

You can't just focus on the bad things when you talk about playing on a better team.  Almost across the board throughout the entire history of the league a player's efficiency increases when he has less of an offensive burden and is less a focus of the defense.  Given that Okafor was already an excellent mid-range shooting big man and a fairly respectable shooter overall as a rookie on a terrible team and as the #1 option, you would expect his efficiency to go into an elite range with him getting the ball in better positions to score (which would happen on a better team).  He would become an elite offensive player, something you can't just ignore in this situation.  Also a good bet that he would try a bit more defensively playing on a better team with better teammates.

He is?

10 to 16 feet
35%

16 to 23 feet
27%

FT shooting
68%

I don't consider 16 to 23 feet mid-range, that is long two.  But yeah 35% from 10 to 16 feet is quite good.  Better than Bradley, Crowder, Sullinger, Olynyk, Jerekbo, and many other Celtics.  That is from a 20 year old rookie on a terrible team.  And from 3 to 10 feet only Amir Johnson was better than Okafor last year (I'm not counting James Young since he had like 1 shot).  68.6% from the line from a rookie big man isn't bad at all.  Certainly not great, but not too bad either.  Puts him just below average of the centers last year.

Okafor doesn't have three point range, but he is a pretty solid overall shooter and that was as a rookie where he was the main focal point of defenses on one of the worst teams in NBA history.  You put him on a better team and the efficiency increases unless he is the one the incredibly rare players in NBA history whose efficiency gets worse as he ages and gets on better teams.

Statistically, is Marcus Smart's offense worse than Jahlil Okafor's defense?   

On the flip side, is Jahlil Okafor's offense statistically better than Marcus Smart's defense?

No

and

No

[Celtics18]

Physically, he has the capacity to be an average defender.  Lack of experience was an issue.  Lack of surrounding talent was an issue.  I assume motivation was also a major issue.  Mentally, it had to be a challenge for a rookie to give it 110% out there knowing that there was a massive cloud hovering over on whether or not he'd factor into the team's long-term plans.  That, and it was widely out in the open the franchise was trying to tank and the team was made up of d-leaguers.  The whole situation was a sham.  Why bother?

I agree, people act like he is a ten year veteran.   The guy was a rookie.  I think honestly, the jury is still out on him.   He has room to improve.    If we had a guy who shot over 50% and went for 17 PPG and 7 RPG here we would be happy.   But since it happened elsewhere, the guy is a bum to some people in this thread.   That is double standard.  The guy has room to serve.   I think he would be an upgrade over what we had at Center last year.

When you're playing on a lottery team someone has to score. It's just the way things go. So putting such great emphasis on scoring is really shortsighted. However, put him on a playoff team and not only will the scoring decrease considerably due to less opportunity (last year Okafor had a higher usage rate than Chris Paul!), but he would still give you the same crappy defense and below average rebounding. His rebound percentage was lower than Tyler Zeller's.

Where he ranked in other analytics-

Defensive +/-  #354

Offensive +/- #361
 
Defensive win shares #256

Offensive win shares #302

Value over replacement player #466


Those numbers are pathetic. If you look at only his rankings, ignoring the name, you would think it was some journeymen/end of the bench guy. With the way teams value analytics it's no wonder they aren't exactly knocking down the Sixers doors with trade offers. Then factor in his off the court issues, recent knee surgery, documented laziness, and poor fit for today's modern game and it's easy to see why his value has plummeted.

His scoring efficiency though would have been significantly better such that his overall offensive rank would have improved significantly and his overall numbers might not have dropped that much.  I mean take a guy like Kyrie Irving, usage drops down about 2%, but his efficiency goes up significantly and ends up scoring about a point more on 1 less shot per game playing next to James that first year than playing without James the prior year. 

You can't just focus on the bad things when you talk about playing on a better team.  Almost across the board throughout the entire history of the league a player's efficiency increases when he has less of an offensive burden and is less a focus of the defense.  Given that Okafor was already an excellent mid-range shooting big man and a fairly respectable shooter overall as a rookie on a terrible team and as the #1 option, you would expect his efficiency to go into an elite range with him getting the ball in better positions to score (which would happen on a better team).  He would become an elite offensive player, something you can't just ignore in this situation.  Also a good bet that he would try a bit more defensively playing on a better team with better teammates.

Calling Okafor an "excellent mid range shooter" and "a fairly respectable overall shooter" is a hard statement to justify.

He is tied for 20th out the top 25 big men scorers in the league at .353 from 10-16 feet, or "mid range."  On long twos, he shoots it at .274, which is 24th out of the top 25 big men scorers in the league.  His Free Throw percentage of .686 is ahead of only Andre Drummond, Hassan Whiteside, and Thaddeus Young among the top twenty-five big men scorers in the league.

As you point out, he doesn't shoot threes.  As a shooter, he is definitely not "excellent."  He's not even "fairly respectable."  He is in fact "pretty terrible." 

However, the fact that he's a terrible shooter from any kind of range outside 10 feet doesn't make him a terrible scorer.  He's a very good scorer, doing most of his damage on the mid to low block.  Don't confuse being a good low post scorer with being a good shooter, though.

[celticsclay]

Physically, he has the capacity to be an average defender.  Lack of experience was an issue.  Lack of surrounding talent was an issue.  I assume motivation was also a major issue.  Mentally, it had to be a challenge for a rookie to give it 110% out there knowing that there was a massive cloud hovering over on whether or not he'd factor into the team's long-term plans.  That, and it was widely out in the open the franchise was trying to tank and the team was made up of d-leaguers.  The whole situation was a sham.  Why bother?

I agree, people act like he is a ten year veteran.   The guy was a rookie.  I think honestly, the jury is still out on him.   He has room to improve.    If we had a guy who shot over 50% and went for 17 PPG and 7 RPG here we would be happy.   But since it happened elsewhere, the guy is a bum to some people in this thread.   That is double standard.  The guy has room to serve.   I think he would be an upgrade over what we had at Center last year.

When you're playing on a lottery team someone has to score. It's just the way things go. So putting such great emphasis on scoring is really shortsighted. However, put him on a playoff team and not only will the scoring decrease considerably due to less opportunity (last year Okafor had a higher usage rate than Chris Paul!), but he would still give you the same crappy defense and below average rebounding. His rebound percentage was lower than Tyler Zeller's.

Where he ranked in other analytics-

Defensive +/-  #354

Offensive +/- #361
 
Defensive win shares #256

Offensive win shares #302

Value over replacement player #466


Those numbers are pathetic. If you look at only his rankings, ignoring the name, you would think it was some journeymen/end of the bench guy. With the way teams value analytics it's no wonder they aren't exactly knocking down the Sixers doors with trade offers. Then factor in his off the court issues, recent knee surgery, documented laziness, and poor fit for today's modern game and it's easy to see why his value has plummeted.

His scoring efficiency though would have been significantly better such that his overall offensive rank would have improved significantly and his overall numbers might not have dropped that much.  I mean take a guy like Kyrie Irving, usage drops down about 2%, but his efficiency goes up significantly and ends up scoring about a point more on 1 less shot per game playing next to James that first year than playing without James the prior year. 

You can't just focus on the bad things when you talk about playing on a better team.  Almost across the board throughout the entire history of the league a player's efficiency increases when he has less of an offensive burden and is less a focus of the defense.  Given that Okafor was already an excellent mid-range shooting big man and a fairly respectable shooter overall as a rookie on a terrible team and as the #1 option, you would expect his efficiency to go into an elite range with him getting the ball in better positions to score (which would happen on a better team).  He would become an elite offensive player, something you can't just ignore in this situation.  Also a good bet that he would try a bit more defensively playing on a better team with better teammates.

He is?

10 to 16 feet
35%

16 to 23 feet
27%

FT shooting
68%

I don't consider 16 to 23 feet mid-range, that is long two.  But yeah 35% from 10 to 16 feet is quite good.  Better than Bradley, Crowder, Sullinger, Olynyk, Jerekbo, and many other Celtics.  That is from a 20 year old rookie on a terrible team.  And from 3 to 10 feet only Amir Johnson was better than Okafor last year (I'm not counting James Young since he had like 1 shot).  68.6% from the line from a rookie big man isn't bad at all.  Certainly not great, but not too bad either.  Puts him just below average of the centers last year.

Okafor doesn't have three point range, but he is a pretty solid overall shooter and that was as a rookie where he was the main focal point of defenses on one of the worst teams in NBA history.  You put him on a better team and the efficiency increases unless he is the one the incredibly rare players in NBA history whose efficiency gets worse as he ages and gets on better teams.

Statistically, is Marcus Smart's offense worse than Jahlil Okafor's defense?   On the flip side, is Jahlil Okafor's offense statistically better than Marcus Smart's defense?

At least in their rookie years both Phi. offense and defense were better with Okafor off the floor, whereas Bos. offense and defense were better with Smart on the floor.

Agreed. Larbrd stop digging in on this ridiculous angle already.

[Csfan1984]

I thought this thread was about Okafor fans defending him and that is what happened anyways lol

[crimson_stallion]

Im not sure why everyone focuses solely on a player's weaknesses and not their strengths. A good coach can maximize their output and we have one of the best. Two years ago most persons wanted Kevin Love... I put Okafor in the same category defensively,  but even more versatile as he adds another dimension to our offense... a legitimate low post presence. In the playoffs when the game slows down this is important. Most of the centers that we feel okafor can't guard can be handled by our other big on the floor or play a zone that limits the area he has to cover.

if the price is right I would love him here. We already have a team of defensive studs... now i want someone who can flat out score

Okafor's offense is more versatile than Kevin Love's?  I beg to differ.

Versatile in comparison to what we already have. I think we're trying to maximize JJ's and KO's role into a Kevin Love type player - PFs with 3-point range. We simply don't have a low post presence. Someone that when the play is broken or well-defended we can dump the ball into with 5 seconds on the shot clock and get a high percentage shot... what we got last year was Smart, Turner or Crowder taking a jumper if IT was properly cut off.

I beg to differ.

Here are Okafor's offensive numbers from last year:

0-3 feet: 67.5%
3-10 feet: 46.3%
10-16 feet: 35.3%
16 < 3PT: 27.4%
3PT: 16.7%
FT:  68.6%
FTR: 24.8%
Off Reb Rate: 8.1%
Ast Rate: 8.2%
TO Rate: 12.5%
Off Efficiency: 1.19 Points Per FGA
USG Rate: 27.3%


By comparison here are the career stats for our current bigs:

Al Horford
0-3 feet: 72.7%
3-10 feet: 44.0%
10-16 feet: 44.2%
16 < 3PT: 46.8%
3PT: 34.0%
FT:  74.3%
FTR: 22.2%
Off Reb Rate: 8.3%
Ast Rate: 14.0%
TO Rate: 11.2%
Off Efficiency: 1.24 Points Per FGA
USG Rate: 19.5%

Kelly Olynyk
0-3 feet: 66.3%
3-10 feet: 29.8%
10-16 feet: 38.8%
16 < 3PT: 31.4%
3PT: 37.3%
FT:  74.6%
FTR: 24.3%
Off Reb Rate: 7.8%
Ast Rate: 12.4%
TO Rate: 13.7%
Off Efficiency: 1.23 Points Per FGA
USG Rate: 21.0%

Amir Johnson
0-3 feet: 70.6%
3-10 feet: 46.6%
10-16 feet: 37.9%
16 < 3PT: 40%
3PT: 31.5%
FT:  67.4%
FTR: 29.2%
Off Reb Rate: 11.1%
Ast Rate: 8.0%
TO Rate: 15.6%
Off Efficiency: 1.36 Points Per FGA
USG Rate: 15.0%

Tyler Zeller
0-3 feet: 63.3%
3-10 feet: 40.4%%
10-16 feet: 41.7%
16 < 3PT: 40%
3PT: 0%
FT:  78.3%
FTR: 32.5%
Off Reb Rate: 9.3%
Ast Rate: 8.0%
TO Rate: 12.1%
Off Efficiency: 1.25 Points Per FGA
USG Rate: 18.2%

Jonas Jerebko
0-3 feet: 61.1%
3-10 feet: 31.5%
10-16 feet: 33.3%%
16 < 3PT: 40.7%
3PT: 35.3%
FT:  76.6%
FTR: 26.3%
Off Reb Rate: 8.3%
Ast Rate: 6.4%
TO Rate: 11.6%
Off Efficiency: 1.22 Points Per FGA
USG Rate: 16.5%

Al Horford, Amir Johnson and Kelly Olynyk all beat Okafor in just about every offensive category.  Tyler Zeller and Jonas Jerebko probably split them about 50/50.

I struggle to see how Okafor makes us more versatile offensively - he's very clearly a guy who's only elite talent is scoring inside 10 feet, which means that he is basically Greg Monroe minus the rebounding, the passing, the ability to get to the line, the mobility and the defense (at which Monroe is at least tolerable). 

That makes him a not very good player at all. 

Does he have potential to get better?  Sure.  I think he has the potential to improve in these areas:

1) I think he has potential to improve his mid-range game.  It isn't good by any stretch of the imagination, but for a post-oriented rookie big man it's certainly promising

2) I think he has potential to improve his passing numbers.  I'm not sure he would ever be a Horford/Love/Gasol calber passer, but he may reach the level of Amir Johnson/Greg Monroe

3) I don't think he's doomed to be a Enes Kanter caliber defender his whole career.  I doubt he'll ever be an above average (or even average) one, but if he improves conditioning and works hard at it he might one day become as good defensively as Greg Monroe, or perhaps a prime Al Jefferson.  He's got a LONG way to go to reach that point, but it's not out of the question.

Where I don't think he will improve is these areas:

1) Offensive efficiency - the man gets to the line at the same rate as Kelly Olynyk, he's show no indication of three point range, and his FG% is nowhere near impressive enough to make up for those two areas.  He's likely to be a pretty inefficient scorer throughout his career, and things could get even worse if he follows Sully's footsteps and starts trying to force too many threes and long twos.

2) Rebounding - as a rebounder Okafor struggled to distance himself from guys like Jonas Jerebko, Tyler Zeller, Amir Johnson and Kelly Olynyk, despite the fact that he has got MAJOR physical advantages over all four of those guys.  His positioning is terrible and his effort levels aren't much better.  He often finds himself boxed out, out of position, trying to grab rebounds over the back of defenders. He just seems to have very little clue of how to rebound, and I don't think that's going to improve...since guys who are poor rebounders early in their career rarely ever become good rebounders later on.

3) Athleticism - I think Okafor can improve on this a little by trimming down on his fat%, but to be honest he just doesn't look like a guy who will ever be agile.  He's big, he's slow, he's heavy footed - I don't see him ever becoming anything more then a below average athlete at the NBA level.

4) Attitude - Okafor has a questionable rep off the court, he's got poor body language on the court. He's conditioning is poor.  He doesn't show an ounce of motor or hustle on the court.  He walks / jogs up the court, rarely ever sprints back on either end of the court.  Doesn't fight aggressively for rebounds.  I don't see much of that improving - his attitude to me looks to have Sullinger 2.0 written all over it.  He seems to think that as a #3 talent with superior size, he can coast his way through games and doesn't have to work as hard as everybody else in order to be productive.  'Lazy' seems to be a common theme.   

5) Work ethic - Kind combines with point #4 (attitude) but I don't think that work ethic / motor is perhaps the most underrated aspect of player scouting.  Everybody looks at skills and physical talents, people often overlook personality.  I don't know if there is anything that holds back potential more then a poor attitude / work ethic - just ask guys like Jared Sullinger, Perry Jones and Josh Smith.  On the other hand there are often guys who excel despite limited talent, simply because of their incredibly high motor  and work ethic - guys like Jimmy Butler, Jae Crowder, Draymond Green and Isaiah Thomas.  Everybody talks about Okafor's "potential" and "upside" as a player.  He has a lot of physical talent sure, but unless he development takes work, and if he doesn't improve his work ethic he's never going to become much more then the one dimensional liability he is right now.

[LarBrd33]

Physically, he has the capacity to be an average defender.  Lack of experience was an issue.  Lack of surrounding talent was an issue.  I assume motivation was also a major issue.  Mentally, it had to be a challenge for a rookie to give it 110% out there knowing that there was a massive cloud hovering over on whether or not he'd factor into the team's long-term plans.  That, and it was widely out in the open the franchise was trying to tank and the team was made up of d-leaguers.  The whole situation was a sham.  Why bother?

I agree, people act like he is a ten year veteran.   The guy was a rookie.  I think honestly, the jury is still out on him.   He has room to improve.    If we had a guy who shot over 50% and went for 17 PPG and 7 RPG here we would be happy.   But since it happened elsewhere, the guy is a bum to some people in this thread.   That is double standard.  The guy has room to serve.   I think he would be an upgrade over what we had at Center last year.

When you're playing on a lottery team someone has to score. It's just the way things go. So putting such great emphasis on scoring is really shortsighted. However, put him on a playoff team and not only will the scoring decrease considerably due to less opportunity (last year Okafor had a higher usage rate than Chris Paul!), but he would still give you the same crappy defense and below average rebounding. His rebound percentage was lower than Tyler Zeller's.

Where he ranked in other analytics-

Defensive +/-  #354

Offensive +/- #361
 
Defensive win shares #256

Offensive win shares #302

Value over replacement player #466


Those numbers are pathetic. If you look at only his rankings, ignoring the name, you would think it was some journeymen/end of the bench guy. With the way teams value analytics it's no wonder they aren't exactly knocking down the Sixers doors with trade offers. Then factor in his off the court issues, recent knee surgery, documented laziness, and poor fit for today's modern game and it's easy to see why his value has plummeted.

His scoring efficiency though would have been significantly better such that his overall offensive rank would have improved significantly and his overall numbers might not have dropped that much.  I mean take a guy like Kyrie Irving, usage drops down about 2%, but his efficiency goes up significantly and ends up scoring about a point more on 1 less shot per game playing next to James that first year than playing without James the prior year. 

You can't just focus on the bad things when you talk about playing on a better team.  Almost across the board throughout the entire history of the league a player's efficiency increases when he has less of an offensive burden and is less a focus of the defense.  Given that Okafor was already an excellent mid-range shooting big man and a fairly respectable shooter overall as a rookie on a terrible team and as the #1 option, you would expect his efficiency to go into an elite range with him getting the ball in better positions to score (which would happen on a better team).  He would become an elite offensive player, something you can't just ignore in this situation.  Also a good bet that he would try a bit more defensively playing on a better team with better teammates.

He is?

10 to 16 feet
35%

16 to 23 feet
27%

FT shooting
68%

I don't consider 16 to 23 feet mid-range, that is long two.  But yeah 35% from 10 to 16 feet is quite good.  Better than Bradley, Crowder, Sullinger, Olynyk, Jerekbo, and many other Celtics.  That is from a 20 year old rookie on a terrible team.  And from 3 to 10 feet only Amir Johnson was better than Okafor last year (I'm not counting James Young since he had like 1 shot).  68.6% from the line from a rookie big man isn't bad at all.  Certainly not great, but not too bad either.  Puts him just below average of the centers last year.

Okafor doesn't have three point range, but he is a pretty solid overall shooter and that was as a rookie where he was the main focal point of defenses on one of the worst teams in NBA history.  You put him on a better team and the efficiency increases unless he is the one the incredibly rare players in NBA history whose efficiency gets worse as he ages and gets on better teams.

Statistically, is Marcus Smart's offense worse than Jahlil Okafor's defense?   On the flip side, is Jahlil Okafor's offense statistically better than Marcus Smart's defense?

At least in their rookie years both Phi. offense and defense were better with Okafor off the floor, whereas Bos. offense and defense were better with Smart on the floor.

Agreed. Larbrd stop digging in on this ridiculous angle already.

What's ridiculous about it?  Dude has a chance to be a superstar.  Philly is lucky to have him.  I wish they'd trade him, but I don't see it happening unless someone trades them a player they think has star potential as well.

It's less of a reach to praise Okafor's potential than you think.  If he had put up those numbers on the Celtics last year, people here would already be calling him a hall of famer.

It's almost like people here go overboard with the anti-Okafor stuff is because deep down they think they are helping damage his trade value and it might help the Celtics land him for cheap.  Nobody gives a crap what we are saying on this forum.  You guys can tone it down with the hyperbole.  Either someone pays Philly a price they think is equal value or they keep their star prospect. 

[Celtics4ever]

Al Horford, Amir Johnson and Kelly Olynyk all beat Okafor in just about every offensive category.  Tyler Zeller and Jonas Jerebko probably split them about 50/50.

 

Look at your data again, please.

Here are Okafor's offensive numbers from last year:

0-3 feet: 67.5%
3-10 feet: 46.3%
10-16 feet: 35.3%
16 < 3PT: 27.4%
3PT: 16.7%
FT:  68.6%
FTR: 24.8%
Off Reb Rate: 8.1%
Ast Rate: 8.2%
TO Rate: 12.5%
Off Efficiency: 1.19 Points Per FGA
USG Rate: 27.3%

Kelly Olynyk
0-3 feet: 66.3%
3-10 feet: 29.8%
10-16 feet: 38.8%
16 < 3PT: 31.4%
3PT: 37.3%
FT:  74.6%
FTR: 24.3%
Off Reb Rate: 7.8%
Ast Rate: 12.4%
TO Rate: 13.7%
Off Efficiency: 1.23 Points Per FGA
USG Rate: 21.0%

I don't see how you can look at this and conclude that KO is better in most stats.   I see a few but it is less than Okafor in most areas.   Long range shooting is the big edge and FT.    As usual here, you post stats too, that confirm your bias ignoring that Okafor scores more and rebounds more.  Okafor has a better PER too, but you did not conclude that.

Okafor is a traditional five, KO is a stretch four.  They are applies and oranges, I would expect him to shooter better and pass better.   The stats you choose  and by not including PPG to include make Zeller look better than Okafor.   It may fool some but that is absurd.

He is so terrible he made the all rookie team

2015-16 NBA ALL-ROOKIE FIRST TEAM

Player   Team   First   Second   Total
Karl-Anthony Towns   Minnesota Timberwolves   130   —   260
Kristaps Porzingis   New York Knicks   130   —   260
Devin Booker   Phoenix Suns   103   25   231
Nikola Jokic   Denver Nuggets   73   40   186
Jahlil Okafor   Philadelphia 76ers   71   44   186

http://pr.nba.com/2015-16-nba-all-rookie-team/


I concur with you that is he not very versatile, that is a fact.   He is a old school back to basket center.

[crimson_stallion]

Look at your data again, please.

I don't see how you can look at this and conclude that KO is better in most stats.   I see a few but it is less than Okafor in most areas.   Long range shooting is the big edge and FT.   

Okafor has a tangible advantage over Olynyk in two areas:
1: FG% from 3-10 feet (46.3% vs 29.8%)
2: Turnover rate (12.5% vs 13.7%)

Two two are effectively dead equal in three areas:
1: FG% from 0-3 feet (67.5 vs 66.3%)
2: Offensive Reb Rate (8.1% vs 7.8%)
3: Free Throw Rate (24.8% vs 24.3%)

Olynyk has a tangible advantage over Okafor in 6 areas:
1:  FG% from 10-16 feet (38.8% vs 35.3%)
2: FG% from 16 < 3PT (31.4% vs 27.4%)
3: 3PT% (37.3% vs 16.7%)
4: FT% (74.6% vs 68.6%)
5: Offensive Efficiency (1.23 vs 1.19 Pts Per FGA)
6: Assist Rate (12.4% vs 8.2%)
7: Usage Rate (21% vs 27.3%)

That's 7/12 categories that benefit Olynyk, versus 2/12 categories that benefit Okafor, with the remaining 3/12 being effectively dead even.

As usual here, you post stats too, that confirm your bias ignoring that Okafor scores more and rebounds more.  Okafor has a better PER too, but you did not conclude that.

I wrote my post as a rebuttal to another, who claimed that Okafor offers more offensive versatility then any of our current bigs. 

I'm not sure if you missed that, but I did reference it in my post pretty directly:

I struggle to see how Okafor makes us more versatile offensively - he's very clearly a guy who's only elite talent is scoring inside 10 feet, which means that he is basically Greg Monroe minus the rebounding, the passing, the ability to get to the line, the mobility and the defense (at which Monroe is at least tolerable).

Regarding your comments about Okafor scoring more the Olynyk did and being a better rebounder:

a) The 'scoring more' part is no surprise considering Okafor averaged about about +10 MPG and +6% USG compared to Olynyk, which was a direct product of him playing on the worst team in the NBA - versus Olynyk playing on a team that was tied for the 3rd best record in the East.

b) Okafor's rebound rate was 12.8% versus Olynyk's career rebound rate of 12.4% - hardly a tangible/significant advantage there

Okafor is a traditional five, KO is a stretch four.  They are applies and oranges, I would expect him to shooter better and pass better.   

Yet Olynyk effectively:
1) Shot the same percentage inside three feet
2) Got the the foul line at the same rate
3) Rebounded at the same rate
4) Had a higher TS%

Ouch.

The stats you choose  and by not including PPG to include make Zeller look better than Okafor.   It may fool some but that is absurd.

Is it? Really?

Zeller is a better shooter from midrange, a better long range shooter, a better rebounder, a better defender, a more efficient scorer, and gets to the line at much higher rate (where he alsos shoots significantly better). 

Okafor is a better post scorer.

How much would Tyler Zeller average if he was the starting center in Philadephia?

Before you answer, consider that Ish Smith (a career 5.8 PPG scorer) averaged 14.7 PPG as the 76ers starting PG - after averaging 8.9 PPG for the significantly-less-crap-but-still-lottery-bound Pelicans in the same season.

He is so terrible he made the all rookie team

So did Nikola Jokic, who put up some very 'Tyler Zeller' like numbers for the Denver Nuggets.  Lets see where Jokic ranks in the league 4 seasons from now.

I concur with you that is he not very versatile, that is a fact.   He is a old school back to basket center.

This is essentially exactly what I was trying to say with my post - that his only special talent is his ability to score with his back to the basket. 

I'm not sure why you questioned all of my points above, only to agree with what was essentially the entire point of my post? 

All good, not having a go at you - just being cheeky

I've never questioned Okafor's ability to score in the post - what I've consistently questioned is his ability to do anything much beyond that.

[LarBrd33]

I agree, it will be very interesting to see how dominant Okafor will be a half decade from now when he's Olynyk's age. 

When Kelly was Jahlil's age he was averaging 5.8 points and 3.8 rebounds as a Sophomore for Gonzaga.

Look how adorable he was back then:

[crimson_stallion]

What's ridiculous about it?  Dude has a chance to be a superstar. 

Well yes, technically every player has a chance to be a superstar.   

Technically Phil Pressey had a chance to be a superstar.  A very slim chance.  An almost nonexistent chance.  But still a chance.

Okafor has a very, very, very, very, very slim chance of ever being a superstar.  Like, extremely slim.  Like really, really slim. 

But technically, he does have a chance.  Just like Marcus Smart does (albeit similarly slim). 

Okafor has a high probability of becoming a good starter.  He has a decent probability of becoming a fringe All Star.  He has a slim probability of becoming a legitimate All Star.  He has a very, very, very, very tiny probability of becoming a superstar.

 

It's less of a reach to praise Okafor's potential than you think.  If he had put up those numbers on the Celtics last year, people here would already be calling him a hall of famer.

No, if he put up those numbers in a Celtics uniform we'd all be bagging the hell out of him for his laziness, his poor conditioning, his lack of versatility,his terrible rebounding, and his god-aweful defense.

Have you not been on these forums before? 

Have you not seen how much people criticize Avery Bradley for his inability to pass and dribble, despite averaging 15 PPG and being an All-Defensive teamer?

Have you not seen how much people were infuriated by Jared Sullinger for his poor conditioning, offensive inefficiency and inconsistent defense - despite the fact that he was mostly a double-double machine when he was on the court?

Did you not witness how much people were criticizing Marcus Smart for taking (and missing) too many threes, and for making too many ridiculous flops?

Have no you not see all the people here who bagged on Kelly Olynyk for being too soft and girlie?

Or the people who criticized Turner for being Turnover prone?

Or Isaiah Thomas for taking too many shots?

Or the boos that were given when the Celtics announced they had drafted Jaylen Brown at #3 on draft day?

My god.  The people on this forum are brutal.  Nobody is more harsh towads Celtics players then the people on this very forum.  If Okafor was playing in Green I shudder to think of the things people would be saying about him.  The comments that would fly around about his poor rebounding, his lack of laziness, his being out of condition, his lack of a jump shot, his inability to defend outside of the paint - he would be absolutely brutalized.

[LarBrd33]

What's ridiculous about it?  Dude has a chance to be a superstar. 

Well yes, technically every player has a chance to be a superstar.   

Not really.

If Olynyk averaged 5 points and 3 rebounds for Gonzaga when he was Okafor's age... and after 2 more years of College and 3 years of NBA basketball prompted someone to write a convoluted post comparing him to Okafor... does this mean that 5 years from now Okafor, on the Olynyk developmental trajectory, will be averaging 50 points and 30 rebounds per game?

[Eddie20]

Physically, he has the capacity to be an average defender.  Lack of experience was an issue.  Lack of surrounding talent was an issue.  I assume motivation was also a major issue.  Mentally, it had to be a challenge for a rookie to give it 110% out there knowing that there was a massive cloud hovering over on whether or not he'd factor into the team's long-term plans.  That, and it was widely out in the open the franchise was trying to tank and the team was made up of d-leaguers.  The whole situation was a sham.  Why bother?

I agree, people act like he is a ten year veteran.   The guy was a rookie.  I think honestly, the jury is still out on him.   He has room to improve.    If we had a guy who shot over 50% and went for 17 PPG and 7 RPG here we would be happy.   But since it happened elsewhere, the guy is a bum to some people in this thread.   That is double standard.  The guy has room to serve.   I think he would be an upgrade over what we had at Center last year.

When you're playing on a lottery team someone has to score. It's just the way things go. So putting such great emphasis on scoring is really shortsighted. However, put him on a playoff team and not only will the scoring decrease considerably due to less opportunity (last year Okafor had a higher usage rate than Chris Paul!), but he would still give you the same crappy defense and below average rebounding. His rebound percentage was lower than Tyler Zeller's.

Where he ranked in other analytics-

Defensive +/-  #354

Offensive +/- #361
 
Defensive win shares #256

Offensive win shares #302

Value over replacement player #466


Those numbers are pathetic. If you look at only his rankings, ignoring the name, you would think it was some journeymen/end of the bench guy. With the way teams value analytics it's no wonder they aren't exactly knocking down the Sixers doors with trade offers. Then factor in his off the court issues, recent knee surgery, documented laziness, and poor fit for today's modern game and it's easy to see why his value has plummeted.

His scoring efficiency though would have been significantly better such that his overall offensive rank would have improved significantly and his overall numbers might not have dropped that much.  I mean take a guy like Kyrie Irving, usage drops down about 2%, but his efficiency goes up significantly and ends up scoring about a point more on 1 less shot per game playing next to James that first year than playing without James the prior year. 

You can't just focus on the bad things when you talk about playing on a better team.  Almost across the board throughout the entire history of the league a player's efficiency increases when he has less of an offensive burden and is less a focus of the defense.  Given that Okafor was already an excellent mid-range shooting big man and a fairly respectable shooter overall as a rookie on a terrible team and as the #1 option, you would expect his efficiency to go into an elite range with him getting the ball in better positions to score (which would happen on a better team).  He would become an elite offensive player, something you can't just ignore in this situation.  Also a good bet that he would try a bit more defensively playing on a better team with better teammates.

He is?

10 to 16 feet
35%

16 to 23 feet
27%

FT shooting
68%

I don't consider 16 to 23 feet mid-range, that is long two.  But yeah 35% from 10 to 16 feet is quite good.  Better than Bradley, Crowder, Sullinger, Olynyk, Jerekbo, and many other Celtics.  That is from a 20 year old rookie on a terrible team.  And from 3 to 10 feet only Amir Johnson was better than Okafor last year (I'm not counting James Young since he had like 1 shot).  68.6% from the line from a rookie big man isn't bad at all.  Certainly not great, but not too bad either.  Puts him just below average of the centers last year.

Okafor doesn't have three point range, but he is a pretty solid overall shooter and that was as a rookie where he was the main focal point of defenses on one of the worst teams in NBA history.  You put him on a better team and the efficiency increases unless he is the one the incredibly rare players in NBA history whose efficiency gets worse as he ages and gets on better teams.

Statistically, is Marcus Smart's offense worse than Jahlil Okafor's defense?   On the flip side, is Jahlil Okafor's offense statistically better than Marcus Smart's defense?

At least in their rookie years both Phi. offense and defense were better with Okafor off the floor, whereas Bos. offense and defense were better with Smart on the floor.

Agreed. Larbrd stop digging in on this ridiculous angle already.

What's ridiculous about it?  Dude has a chance to be a superstar.  Philly is lucky to have him. 

If that were remotely true, why not keep him and build around him? Historically speaking a ball dominant perimeter player can play alongside a post dominant big and be successful (Magic/Kareem, Shaq/with Penny, Wade, and Kobe, McGrady/Yao, etc.), so simply surround Simmons and Okafor with complimentary pieces.

So, yes, your comment is ridiculous. This is much closer to the truth-

Dude has a chance to be Enes Kanter or Carlos Boozer. Philly realizes it and is trying to trade him.

[hwangjini_1]

Physically, he has the capacity to be an average defender.  Lack of experience was an issue.  Lack of surrounding talent was an issue.  I assume motivation was also a major issue.  Mentally, it had to be a challenge for a rookie to give it 110% out there knowing that there was a massive cloud hovering over on whether or not he'd factor into the team's long-term plans.  That, and it was widely out in the open the franchise was trying to tank and the team was made up of d-leaguers.  The whole situation was a sham.  Why bother?

I agree, people act like he is a ten year veteran.   The guy was a rookie.  I think honestly, the jury is still out on him.   He has room to improve.    If we had a guy who shot over 50% and went for 17 PPG and 7 RPG here we would be happy.   But since it happened elsewhere, the guy is a bum to some people in this thread.   That is double standard.  The guy has room to serve.   I think he would be an upgrade over what we had at Center last year.

When you're playing on a lottery team someone has to score. It's just the way things go. So putting such great emphasis on scoring is really shortsighted. However, put him on a playoff team and not only will the scoring decrease considerably due to less opportunity (last year Okafor had a higher usage rate than Chris Paul!), but he would still give you the same crappy defense and below average rebounding. His rebound percentage was lower than Tyler Zeller's.

Where he ranked in other analytics-

Defensive +/-  #354

Offensive +/- #361
 
Defensive win shares #256

Offensive win shares #302

Value over replacement player #466


Those numbers are pathetic. If you look at only his rankings, ignoring the name, you would think it was some journeymen/end of the bench guy. With the way teams value analytics it's no wonder they aren't exactly knocking down the Sixers doors with trade offers. Then factor in his off the court issues, recent knee surgery, documented laziness, and poor fit for today's modern game and it's easy to see why his value has plummeted.

His scoring efficiency though would have been significantly better such that his overall offensive rank would have improved significantly and his overall numbers might not have dropped that much.  I mean take a guy like Kyrie Irving, usage drops down about 2%, but his efficiency goes up significantly and ends up scoring about a point more on 1 less shot per game playing next to James that first year than playing without James the prior year. 

You can't just focus on the bad things when you talk about playing on a better team.  Almost across the board throughout the entire history of the league a player's efficiency increases when he has less of an offensive burden and is less a focus of the defense.  Given that Okafor was already an excellent mid-range shooting big man and a fairly respectable shooter overall as a rookie on a terrible team and as the #1 option, you would expect his efficiency to go into an elite range with him getting the ball in better positions to score (which would happen on a better team).  He would become an elite offensive player, something you can't just ignore in this situation.  Also a good bet that he would try a bit more defensively playing on a better team with better teammates.

He is?

10 to 16 feet
35%

16 to 23 feet
27%

FT shooting
68%

I don't consider 16 to 23 feet mid-range, that is long two.  But yeah 35% from 10 to 16 feet is quite good.  Better than Bradley, Crowder, Sullinger, Olynyk, Jerekbo, and many other Celtics.  That is from a 20 year old rookie on a terrible team.  And from 3 to 10 feet only Amir Johnson was better than Okafor last year (I'm not counting James Young since he had like 1 shot).  68.6% from the line from a rookie big man isn't bad at all.  Certainly not great, but not too bad either.  Puts him just below average of the centers last year.

Okafor doesn't have three point range, but he is a pretty solid overall shooter and that was as a rookie where he was the main focal point of defenses on one of the worst teams in NBA history.  You put him on a better team and the efficiency increases unless he is the one the incredibly rare players in NBA history whose efficiency gets worse as he ages and gets on better teams.

Statistically, is Marcus Smart's offense worse than Jahlil Okafor's defense?   On the flip side, is Jahlil Okafor's offense statistically better than Marcus Smart's defense?

At least in their rookie years both Phi. offense and defense were better with Okafor off the floor, whereas Bos. offense and defense were better with Smart on the floor.

Agreed. Larbrd stop digging in on this ridiculous angle already.

What's ridiculous about it?  Dude has a chance to be a superstar.  Philly is lucky to have him. 

If that were remotely true, why not keep him and build around him? Historically speaking a ball dominant perimeter player can play alongside a post dominant big and be successful (Magic/Kareem, Shaq/with Penny, Wade, and Kobe, McGrady/Yao, etc.), so simply surround Simmons and Okafor with complimentary pieces.

So, yes, your comment is ridiculous. This is much closer to the truth-

Dude has a chance to be Enes Kanter or Carlos Boozer. Philly realizes it and is trying to trade him.

And unsuccessfully so far. His value is not that high, as proven by Ainge other other GMs not trading a high pick for him.

I do wonder what he will fetch in a trade.