How bad is Okafor's defense...

[Moranis]

I think eddies curry or Kaman are decent comparisons. Did people on the board ever pine for curry really hard. He had solid numbers for a few years on the Knicks.

They are only decent comparisons on defense.  Okafor has already shown significantly more overall offensive talent than either of those two did in their entire careers.

[Moranis]

Okafor's defense is bad, but also overblown.  Very few rookies are useful on defense.

His defense is very bad when compared to other big men rookies in the past few decades. 

At 20, in his second year in the league, Kendrick Perkins had a defensive win share of .8 while Okafor as a 20-year-old rookie had a defensive win share of .9.  Granted, Okafor played 30 minutes a game for a horrible Sixer team and Perk averaged 9 minutes a game for a decent Celtics team, but I think the comparison remains somewhat valid.

Perkins, a guy who could never do ANYTHING but play defense at a very good to elite level, was so awful defensively at 20 that he could barely get off the bench for a 45 win team whose veteran bigs were Raef LaFrentz and Mark Blount.  Okafor may always suck at defense but throwing him on the trash heap at his age is a little excessive.

Mike

Do you understand how win shares work?  It's not a rate-based stat.  (WS/48 is.)  So you are saying if Okafor and Perkins both scored 1000 points in a season, but Perkins did so in a third of the playing time, they are comparable scorers.  Perkins had positive defensive stats in his age-20 season.

Here is what Nylon Calculus (a great website whose managing editor was recently hired as an analytics consultant by the Bucks) had to say about his defense late last season:

Although Jahlil Okafor’s offense has shown promise, his defense has lagged behind significantly. His rim protection statistics have been in the negative, as has his defensive Player Tracking Plus Minus.[1. Through February 26, Okafor had “saved” -0.13 points per 36 minutes. Through February 8, he had posted a -1.52 defensive PT-PM.] Entering the week, defensive Real Plus Minus had him at -1.86 — second lowest among centers — which happened to mirror his relative standing in defensive Box Plus/Minus (-1.6).

This latter figure is worth placing in historical context. Compared to other rookie big men with at least 1,000 minutes since the 1973-74 season, Okafor’s DBPM ranks among the bottom 10. Naturally, such a performance leads us to wonder how similar players have fared in subsequent years — that is, whether their defense eventually improved.

They continue on to say that players improve and actually close the gap on the less defensively challenged big men.  Okafor is never going to catch up to the better defenders, but he won't be terrible either, and if he also continues to improve on the offensive end, he will end up with a very long and very good career.

[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?

No, it doesn't mean that.  It's an obviously silly prediction.

Is it, though?  Alls I know is that Okafor was averaging 17 and 7 efficiently as a pro with arguably the worst supporting cast in history at the same age Olynyk was still in diapers putting up 5 and 8 for a lower level College program.

Now look at Oly all grows up putting up decent numbers as a bonafied NBA player.   If Okafor follows that same trajectory, maybe he'll end up averaging 50 points and 30 rebounds per game.

We'll just have to wait 1/20th of a Century until Okafor is Olynyk's age and see what happens.   We'll have to put the year 2021 on our calendars.  That's when Okafor will be at the same point Oly is at.

Man... 2021... that's a long time from now.   That's the same year as "Johnny Mnemonic":



By then, NBA players might play virtually using uniforms that look like this:



In fact, the above image might actually be a picture from the future of Kelly Olynyk's defensive stance in the year 2021 - assuming that old man Olynyk will still be in the league by then.

On a side note, I actually had a roommate that got drunk one night, went on ebay, and bought Ice-T's jacket from "Johnny Mnemonic".  Yes... THE jacket from "Johnny Mnemonic".  Through some weird chain of events, the jacket ended up in my possession.   You heard that right, boys... You're chatting with someone who once owned Ice-T's jacket from "Johnny Mnemonic". 

We even used the jacket in 72 hour film competition we did several years ago.  Our completely terrible improvised mockumentary followed a YouTube celebrity, his talent agent, and his loyal manservant.   Here's a brief excerpt from the trainwreck of a student film... skip to 46 second mark to see Ice-T's Johnny Mnemnonic jacket circa 2021 in it's full glory:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3UZ3va8Syo

So yeah, man... we don't know.  For all we know, this is what Jahlil Okafor's 76ers uniform will look like in 2021 when he's in the midst of his hall of fame career:



We'll just have to wait 1/200th of a Millennium to find out.

Very cute post.  It does support my point, though, that predicting that Okafor will average 50 and 30 some day based on what Kelly Olynyk was doing when he was Jah's age is a bit of silly fantasy/science fiction.

I know that you obviously aren't predicting that and that you are just being silly.

Is it more or less ridiculous than comparing a kid who was a couple years removed from High School to a grown man who has now spent 4 years in College and 3 years playing pro basketball?  There's no telling what scrub-a-dub 20 year old Gonzaga bench warmer Kelly Olynyk would have done defensively had he been playing on that freak-show of a 76ers roster last year. 

And genuinely, I don't think anyone here can accurately predict what kind of stats Jahlil Okafor will be putting up in whatever is left of the NBA when he's Oly's age post Civil War in the midst of Emperor Trump's 2nd "Official" term in the year 2021.  I think it's rather presumptive of you to assume that the seceded States will even have NBA teams or that the residents of those states will be able/allowed to participate in such a frivolous Sport.  Something tells me that the Rebellion will have more pressing matters than to deal with Jahlil Okafor's individual dominance on the 76ers.

[LooseCannon]

I think eddies curry or Kaman are decent comparisons. Did people on the board ever pine for curry really hard. He had solid numbers for a few years on the Knicks.

They are only decent comparisons on defense.  Okafor has already shown significantly more overall offensive talent than either of those two did in their entire careers.

The best comps are probably Al Jefferson with worse rebounding/defense or the same offensive and defensive value as Marresse Speights, but with a different configuration of offensive abilities (and less rebounding).

[LooseCannon]

Okafor's defense is bad, but also overblown.  Very few rookies are useful on defense.

His defense is very bad when compared to other big men rookies in the past few decades. 

At 20, in his second year in the league, Kendrick Perkins had a defensive win share of .8 while Okafor as a 20-year-old rookie had a defensive win share of .9.  Granted, Okafor played 30 minutes a game for a horrible Sixer team and Perk averaged 9 minutes a game for a decent Celtics team, but I think the comparison remains somewhat valid.

Perkins, a guy who could never do ANYTHING but play defense at a very good to elite level, was so awful defensively at 20 that he could barely get off the bench for a 45 win team whose veteran bigs were Raef LaFrentz and Mark Blount.  Okafor may always suck at defense but throwing him on the trash heap at his age is a little excessive.

Mike

Do you understand how win shares work?  It's not a rate-based stat.  (WS/48 is.)  So you are saying if Okafor and Perkins both scored 1000 points in a season, but Perkins did so in a third of the playing time, they are comparable scorers.  Perkins had positive defensive stats in his age-20 season.

Here is what Nylon Calculus (a great website whose managing editor was recently hired as an analytics consultant by the Bucks) had to say about his defense late last season:

Although Jahlil Okafor’s offense has shown promise, his defense has lagged behind significantly. His rim protection statistics have been in the negative, as has his defensive Player Tracking Plus Minus.[1. Through February 26, Okafor had “saved” -0.13 points per 36 minutes. Through February 8, he had posted a -1.52 defensive PT-PM.] Entering the week, defensive Real Plus Minus had him at -1.86 — second lowest among centers — which happened to mirror his relative standing in defensive Box Plus/Minus (-1.6).

This latter figure is worth placing in historical context. Compared to other rookie big men with at least 1,000 minutes since the 1973-74 season, Okafor’s DBPM ranks among the bottom 10. Naturally, such a performance leads us to wonder how similar players have fared in subsequent years — that is, whether their defense eventually improved.

They continue on to say that players improve and actually close the gap on the less defensively challenged big men.  Okafor is never going to catch up to the better defenders, but he won't be terrible either, and if he also continues to improve on the offensive end, he will end up with a very long and very good career.

I don't think you read the same article that I read.

There are, of course, a few instances in which players elevated their defensive games from negatives to positives. Most notably, Charles Smith, JaVale McGee, and Tony Battie were squarely above 0 DBPM by their third years, then moved up to roughly +2 or so by their fifth years. But bear in mind that they started off from higher baselines than Okafor’s current performance, and their career DBPMs of +1 put them at just right around the typical mark for big men. While the best-case scenarios reach average defensive production, those who are farther behind (like James Edwards, Eddy Curry, and Chris Mihm) tend to stay below 0 both in individual seasons and in their overall careers.

It seems much more likely than not that Jahlil Okafor at his peak will have a negative contribution on defense.  Okafor is so bad that his ceiling might be average and most players don't reach their ceiling, which is another term for best-case scenario.

[celticsclay]

Okafor's defense is bad, but also overblown.  Very few rookies are useful on defense.

His defense is very bad when compared to other big men rookies in the past few decades. 

At 20, in his second year in the league, Kendrick Perkins had a defensive win share of .8 while Okafor as a 20-year-old rookie had a defensive win share of .9.  Granted, Okafor played 30 minutes a game for a horrible Sixer team and Perk averaged 9 minutes a game for a decent Celtics team, but I think the comparison remains somewhat valid.

Perkins, a guy who could never do ANYTHING but play defense at a very good to elite level, was so awful defensively at 20 that he could barely get off the bench for a 45 win team whose veteran bigs were Raef LaFrentz and Mark Blount.  Okafor may always suck at defense but throwing him on the trash heap at his age is a little excessive.

Mike

Do you understand how win shares work?  It's not a rate-based stat.  (WS/48 is.)  So you are saying if Okafor and Perkins both scored 1000 points in a season, but Perkins did so in a third of the playing time, they are comparable scorers.  Perkins had positive defensive stats in his age-20 season.

Here is what Nylon Calculus (a great website whose managing editor was recently hired as an analytics consultant by the Bucks) had to say about his defense late last season:

Although Jahlil Okafor’s offense has shown promise, his defense has lagged behind significantly. His rim protection statistics have been in the negative, as has his defensive Player Tracking Plus Minus.[1. Through February 26, Okafor had “saved” -0.13 points per 36 minutes. Through February 8, he had posted a -1.52 defensive PT-PM.] Entering the week, defensive Real Plus Minus had him at -1.86 — second lowest among centers — which happened to mirror his relative standing in defensive Box Plus/Minus (-1.6).

This latter figure is worth placing in historical context. Compared to other rookie big men with at least 1,000 minutes since the 1973-74 season, Okafor’s DBPM ranks among the bottom 10. Naturally, such a performance leads us to wonder how similar players have fared in subsequent years — that is, whether their defense eventually improved.

They continue on to say that players improve and actually close the gap on the less defensively challenged big men.  Okafor is never going to catch up to the better defenders, but he won't be terrible either, and if he also continues to improve on the offensive end, he will end up with a very long and very good career.

I don't think you read the same article that I read.

There are, of course, a few instances in which players elevated their defensive games from negatives to positives. Most notably, Charles Smith, JaVale McGee, and Tony Battie were squarely above 0 DBPM by their third years, then moved up to roughly +2 or so by their fifth years. But bear in mind that they started off from higher baselines than Okafor’s current performance, and their career DBPMs of +1 put them at just right around the typical mark for big men. While the best-case scenarios reach average defensive production, those who are farther behind (like James Edwards, Eddy Curry, and Chris Mihm) tend to stay below 0 both in individual seasons and in their overall careers.

It seems much more likely than not that Jahlil Okafor at his peak will have a negative contribution on defense.  Okafor is so bad that his ceiling might be average and most players don't reach their ceiling, which is another term for best-case scenario.

I mean I agree with all this. But the pro Okafor, he is a future star camp, won't change their opinion no matter what advanced statistics you throw out

[Moranis]

Okafor's defense is bad, but also overblown.  Very few rookies are useful on defense.

His defense is very bad when compared to other big men rookies in the past few decades. 

At 20, in his second year in the league, Kendrick Perkins had a defensive win share of .8 while Okafor as a 20-year-old rookie had a defensive win share of .9.  Granted, Okafor played 30 minutes a game for a horrible Sixer team and Perk averaged 9 minutes a game for a decent Celtics team, but I think the comparison remains somewhat valid.

Perkins, a guy who could never do ANYTHING but play defense at a very good to elite level, was so awful defensively at 20 that he could barely get off the bench for a 45 win team whose veteran bigs were Raef LaFrentz and Mark Blount.  Okafor may always suck at defense but throwing him on the trash heap at his age is a little excessive.

Mike

Do you understand how win shares work?  It's not a rate-based stat.  (WS/48 is.)  So you are saying if Okafor and Perkins both scored 1000 points in a season, but Perkins did so in a third of the playing time, they are comparable scorers.  Perkins had positive defensive stats in his age-20 season.

Here is what Nylon Calculus (a great website whose managing editor was recently hired as an analytics consultant by the Bucks) had to say about his defense late last season:

Although Jahlil Okafor’s offense has shown promise, his defense has lagged behind significantly. His rim protection statistics have been in the negative, as has his defensive Player Tracking Plus Minus.[1. Through February 26, Okafor had “saved” -0.13 points per 36 minutes. Through February 8, he had posted a -1.52 defensive PT-PM.] Entering the week, defensive Real Plus Minus had him at -1.86 — second lowest among centers — which happened to mirror his relative standing in defensive Box Plus/Minus (-1.6).

This latter figure is worth placing in historical context. Compared to other rookie big men with at least 1,000 minutes since the 1973-74 season, Okafor’s DBPM ranks among the bottom 10. Naturally, such a performance leads us to wonder how similar players have fared in subsequent years — that is, whether their defense eventually improved.

They continue on to say that players improve and actually close the gap on the less defensively challenged big men.  Okafor is never going to catch up to the better defenders, but he won't be terrible either, and if he also continues to improve on the offensive end, he will end up with a very long and very good career.

I don't think you read the same article that I read.

There are, of course, a few instances in which players elevated their defensive games from negatives to positives. Most notably, Charles Smith, JaVale McGee, and Tony Battie were squarely above 0 DBPM by their third years, then moved up to roughly +2 or so by their fifth years. But bear in mind that they started off from higher baselines than Okafor’s current performance, and their career DBPMs of +1 put them at just right around the typical mark for big men. While the best-case scenarios reach average defensive production, those who are farther behind (like James Edwards, Eddy Curry, and Chris Mihm) tend to stay below 0 both in individual seasons and in their overall careers.

It seems much more likely than not that Jahlil Okafor at his peak will have a negative contribution on defense.  Okafor is so bad that his ceiling might be average and most players don't reach their ceiling, which is another term for best-case scenario.

I read the article and I never said he would be good, only that he would improve and close the gap, which is exactly what that chart shows i.e. the terrible defenders close the gap on the good defenders (which inherently makes sense since it is easier to go from awful to poor than from good to great).  Okafor is never going to be a good defender, but he will get better and won't be terrible, which is exactly what your historical evidence shows.

[Eddie20]

Okafor's defense is bad, but also overblown.  Very few rookies are useful on defense.

His defense is very bad when compared to other big men rookies in the past few decades. 

At 20, in his second year in the league, Kendrick Perkins had a defensive win share of .8 while Okafor as a 20-year-old rookie had a defensive win share of .9.  Granted, Okafor played 30 minutes a game for a horrible Sixer team and Perk averaged 9 minutes a game for a decent Celtics team, but I think the comparison remains somewhat valid.

Perkins, a guy who could never do ANYTHING but play defense at a very good to elite level, was so awful defensively at 20 that he could barely get off the bench for a 45 win team whose veteran bigs were Raef LaFrentz and Mark Blount.  Okafor may always suck at defense but throwing him on the trash heap at his age is a little excessive.

Mike

Do you understand how win shares work?  It's not a rate-based stat.  (WS/48 is.)  So you are saying if Okafor and Perkins both scored 1000 points in a season, but Perkins did so in a third of the playing time, they are comparable scorers.  Perkins had positive defensive stats in his age-20 season.

Here is what Nylon Calculus (a great website whose managing editor was recently hired as an analytics consultant by the Bucks) had to say about his defense late last season:

Although Jahlil Okafor’s offense has shown promise, his defense has lagged behind significantly. His rim protection statistics have been in the negative, as has his defensive Player Tracking Plus Minus.[1. Through February 26, Okafor had “saved” -0.13 points per 36 minutes. Through February 8, he had posted a -1.52 defensive PT-PM.] Entering the week, defensive Real Plus Minus had him at -1.86 — second lowest among centers — which happened to mirror his relative standing in defensive Box Plus/Minus (-1.6).

This latter figure is worth placing in historical context. Compared to other rookie big men with at least 1,000 minutes since the 1973-74 season, Okafor’s DBPM ranks among the bottom 10. Naturally, such a performance leads us to wonder how similar players have fared in subsequent years — that is, whether their defense eventually improved.

They continue on to say that players improve and actually close the gap on the less defensively challenged big men.  Okafor is never going to catch up to the better defenders, but he won't be terrible either, and if he also continues to improve on the offensive end, he will end up with a very long and very good career.

I don't think you read the same article that I read.

There are, of course, a few instances in which players elevated their defensive games from negatives to positives. Most notably, Charles Smith, JaVale McGee, and Tony Battie were squarely above 0 DBPM by their third years, then moved up to roughly +2 or so by their fifth years. But bear in mind that they started off from higher baselines than Okafor’s current performance, and their career DBPMs of +1 put them at just right around the typical mark for big men. While the best-case scenarios reach average defensive production, those who are farther behind (like James Edwards, Eddy Curry, and Chris Mihm) tend to stay below 0 both in individual seasons and in their overall careers.

It seems much more likely than not that Jahlil Okafor at his peak will have a negative contribution on defense.  Okafor is so bad that his ceiling might be average and most players don't reach their ceiling, which is another term for best-case scenario.

I read the article and I never said he would be good, only that he would improve and close the gap, which is exactly what that chart shows i.e. the terrible defenders close the gap on the good defenders (which inherently makes sense since it is easier to go from awful to poor than from good to great).  Okafor is never going to be a good defender, but he will get better and won't be terrible, which is exactly what your historical evidence shows.

Don't you think that historical examples might not be the best guide since the game, particularly the way a big now had to defend on the perimeter, has changed considerably? Being a slow footed big and defending the interior is a far cry from being asked to defend bigs that can stretch the floor, especially during high PNR where it's imperative for a big to be mobile enough to show, hedge, recover, etc.

[celticsclay]

I think eddies curry or Kaman are decent comparisons. Did people on the board ever pine for curry really hard. He had solid numbers for a few years on the Knicks.

They are only decent comparisons on defense.  Okafor has already shown significantly more overall offensive talent than either of those two did in their entire careers.

At their peaks, which for curry was particularly short lived because of conditioning and attitude, those guys had some pretty solid offensive stats. If memory serves correct Kaman was actually an all star one year or close to it. You put Okafor on a team that is solid with more normal usage he probably is more of a 15ppg guy than a 20? Perhaps he will prove me wrong but I'm pretty into advanced stats on this and also a bit leery of the raw numbers on a historically bad team. Anyone remember Gerald green scoring for us when he didn't even belong In the league? I think the ish smith stats other shared should really serve as a strong dose of smelling salts

[Moranis]

Okafor's defense is bad, but also overblown.  Very few rookies are useful on defense.

His defense is very bad when compared to other big men rookies in the past few decades. 

At 20, in his second year in the league, Kendrick Perkins had a defensive win share of .8 while Okafor as a 20-year-old rookie had a defensive win share of .9.  Granted, Okafor played 30 minutes a game for a horrible Sixer team and Perk averaged 9 minutes a game for a decent Celtics team, but I think the comparison remains somewhat valid.

Perkins, a guy who could never do ANYTHING but play defense at a very good to elite level, was so awful defensively at 20 that he could barely get off the bench for a 45 win team whose veteran bigs were Raef LaFrentz and Mark Blount.  Okafor may always suck at defense but throwing him on the trash heap at his age is a little excessive.

Mike

Do you understand how win shares work?  It's not a rate-based stat.  (WS/48 is.)  So you are saying if Okafor and Perkins both scored 1000 points in a season, but Perkins did so in a third of the playing time, they are comparable scorers.  Perkins had positive defensive stats in his age-20 season.

Here is what Nylon Calculus (a great website whose managing editor was recently hired as an analytics consultant by the Bucks) had to say about his defense late last season:

Although Jahlil Okafor’s offense has shown promise, his defense has lagged behind significantly. His rim protection statistics have been in the negative, as has his defensive Player Tracking Plus Minus.[1. Through February 26, Okafor had “saved” -0.13 points per 36 minutes. Through February 8, he had posted a -1.52 defensive PT-PM.] Entering the week, defensive Real Plus Minus had him at -1.86 — second lowest among centers — which happened to mirror his relative standing in defensive Box Plus/Minus (-1.6).

This latter figure is worth placing in historical context. Compared to other rookie big men with at least 1,000 minutes since the 1973-74 season, Okafor’s DBPM ranks among the bottom 10. Naturally, such a performance leads us to wonder how similar players have fared in subsequent years — that is, whether their defense eventually improved.

They continue on to say that players improve and actually close the gap on the less defensively challenged big men.  Okafor is never going to catch up to the better defenders, but he won't be terrible either, and if he also continues to improve on the offensive end, he will end up with a very long and very good career.

I don't think you read the same article that I read.

There are, of course, a few instances in which players elevated their defensive games from negatives to positives. Most notably, Charles Smith, JaVale McGee, and Tony Battie were squarely above 0 DBPM by their third years, then moved up to roughly +2 or so by their fifth years. But bear in mind that they started off from higher baselines than Okafor’s current performance, and their career DBPMs of +1 put them at just right around the typical mark for big men. While the best-case scenarios reach average defensive production, those who are farther behind (like James Edwards, Eddy Curry, and Chris Mihm) tend to stay below 0 both in individual seasons and in their overall careers.

It seems much more likely than not that Jahlil Okafor at his peak will have a negative contribution on defense.  Okafor is so bad that his ceiling might be average and most players don't reach their ceiling, which is another term for best-case scenario.

I read the article and I never said he would be good, only that he would improve and close the gap, which is exactly what that chart shows i.e. the terrible defenders close the gap on the good defenders (which inherently makes sense since it is easier to go from awful to poor than from good to great).  Okafor is never going to be a good defender, but he will get better and won't be terrible, which is exactly what your historical evidence shows.

Don't you think that historical examples might not be the best guide since the game, particularly the way a big now had to defend on the perimeter, has changed considerably? Being a slow footed big and defending the interior is a far cry from being asked to defend bigs that can stretch the floor, especially during high PNR where it's imperative for a big to be mobile enough to show, hedge, recover, etc.

I don't buy that rhetoric at all.  It just isn't born out in reality.  Using rpg and those guys that classify as centers, the top 5 centers in the NBA were Drummond, Jordan, Whiteside, Howard, and Cousins.  Of those guys, Cousins is the only one that regularly shot 3 pointers.  The next five rpg leaders were Gobert, P Gasol, Towns, Gortat, and Pachulia.  Towns and Gasol shot about 1 a game, the other guys basically none at all.   I think this notion that the traditional big man is a thing of the past just isn't all that accurate, especially since Cousins, Drummond, Jordan, Whiteside, Gobert, and Towns are all before or just entering their prime.  BTW, the next 5 rpg leaders were Valanciunas, TThompson, Vucevic, Monroe, and Noah (again 4 of the 5 before or just entering their prime).  Not a single outside shooter in that group, which only further reiterates the point.

But let's just assume there is this quantum shift to the perimeter that would make Okafor struggle even more defensively as opposed to historical metrics, wouldn't the reverse also be true?  How are the new age bigs going to guard a traditional back to the basket big as skilled as Okafor is?  It works both ways. 

[IDreamCeltics]

No idea why Eddy Curry's twin brother is inspiring so much debate on these boards... must be summer.

[Moranis]

I think eddies curry or Kaman are decent comparisons. Did people on the board ever pine for curry really hard. He had solid numbers for a few years on the Knicks.

They are only decent comparisons on defense.  Okafor has already shown significantly more overall offensive talent than either of those two did in their entire careers.

At their peaks, which for curry was particularly short lived because of conditioning and attitude, those guys had some pretty solid offensive stats. If memory serves correct Kaman was actually an all star one year or close to it. You put Okafor on a team that is solid with more normal usage he probably is more of a 15ppg guy than a 20? Perhaps he will prove me wrong but I'm pretty into advanced stats on this and also a bit leery of the raw numbers on a historically bad team. Anyone remember Gerald green scoring for us when he didn't even belong In the league? I think the ish smith stats other shared should really serve as a strong dose of smelling salts

Kaman did make an all star game.  His only really good season.  He averaged 18.5 points, 9.3 rebounds, 1.6 assists, and 1.2 blocks.  He shot 49.2% from two, had a PER of 16.5 and a TS% of 52.7%.  Kaman was 27 and in his 7th year in the league that season. 

Curry's best year he was 24 and in his 6th year in the league.  He averaged 19.5 points, 7 rebounds, 0.8 assists, and 0.5 blocks.  He did shoot 57.7% from two, had a PER of 17.0, and a TS% of 57.8%. 

Okafor as a 20 year old rookie averaged 17.5 points, 7 rebounds, 1.2 assists, and 1.2 blocks.  He shot 51.1% from two, had a PER of 17.1, and a TS% of 53.6%. 

Mind you Curry and Kaman's best year, years into their careers, was pretty much on par with Okafor as a rookie.  But watching them, Curry and Kaman had no where near the post moves or ability that Okafor has on the offensive end.  Okafor has all of the tools to be a consistent 25 point per game scorer in the post, skills he showed as a rookie.  He also, despite not trying very much defensively, had more blocks per game as a rookie than Curry had in any season.  Kaman had pretty solid shot blocking skills, but those went way down when he had more of an offensive role. 

Kaman and Curry were both pretty awful defensively as rookies and got a lot better as they matured, which is why the Okafor comparison might work (it might not of course), but their offensive skills even at their peak are no where near what Okafor's offensive skills are.  It certainly doesn't mean Okafor will reach his potential, but his starting point is significantly higher than either Curry or Kaman on offense. 

[LarBrd33]

Okafor's defense is bad, but also overblown.  Very few rookies are useful on defense.

His defense is very bad when compared to other big men rookies in the past few decades. 

At 20, in his second year in the league, Kendrick Perkins had a defensive win share of .8 while Okafor as a 20-year-old rookie had a defensive win share of .9.  Granted, Okafor played 30 minutes a game for a horrible Sixer team and Perk averaged 9 minutes a game for a decent Celtics team, but I think the comparison remains somewhat valid.

Perkins, a guy who could never do ANYTHING but play defense at a very good to elite level, was so awful defensively at 20 that he could barely get off the bench for a 45 win team whose veteran bigs were Raef LaFrentz and Mark Blount.  Okafor may always suck at defense but throwing him on the trash heap at his age is a little excessive.

Mike

Do you understand how win shares work?  It's not a rate-based stat.  (WS/48 is.)  So you are saying if Okafor and Perkins both scored 1000 points in a season, but Perkins did so in a third of the playing time, they are comparable scorers.  Perkins had positive defensive stats in his age-20 season.

Here is what Nylon Calculus (a great website whose managing editor was recently hired as an analytics consultant by the Bucks) had to say about his defense late last season:

Although Jahlil Okafor’s offense has shown promise, his defense has lagged behind significantly. His rim protection statistics have been in the negative, as has his defensive Player Tracking Plus Minus.[1. Through February 26, Okafor had “saved” -0.13 points per 36 minutes. Through February 8, he had posted a -1.52 defensive PT-PM.] Entering the week, defensive Real Plus Minus had him at -1.86 — second lowest among centers — which happened to mirror his relative standing in defensive Box Plus/Minus (-1.6).

This latter figure is worth placing in historical context. Compared to other rookie big men with at least 1,000 minutes since the 1973-74 season, Okafor’s DBPM ranks among the bottom 10. Naturally, such a performance leads us to wonder how similar players have fared in subsequent years — that is, whether their defense eventually improved.

They continue on to say that players improve and actually close the gap on the less defensively challenged big men.  Okafor is never going to catch up to the better defenders, but he won't be terrible either, and if he also continues to improve on the offensive end, he will end up with a very long and very good career.

I don't think you read the same article that I read.

There are, of course, a few instances in which players elevated their defensive games from negatives to positives. Most notably, Charles Smith, JaVale McGee, and Tony Battie were squarely above 0 DBPM by their third years, then moved up to roughly +2 or so by their fifth years. But bear in mind that they started off from higher baselines than Okafor’s current performance, and their career DBPMs of +1 put them at just right around the typical mark for big men. While the best-case scenarios reach average defensive production, those who are farther behind (like James Edwards, Eddy Curry, and Chris Mihm) tend to stay below 0 both in individual seasons and in their overall careers.

It seems much more likely than not that Jahlil Okafor at his peak will have a negative contribution on defense.  Okafor is so bad that his ceiling might be average and most players don't reach their ceiling, which is another term for best-case scenario.

I read the article and I never said he would be good, only that he would improve and close the gap, which is exactly what that chart shows i.e. the terrible defenders close the gap on the good defenders (which inherently makes sense since it is easier to go from awful to poor than from good to great).  Okafor is never going to be a good defender, but he will get better and won't be terrible, which is exactly what your historical evidence shows.

Don't you think that historical examples might not be the best guide since the game, particularly the way a big now had to defend on the perimeter, has changed considerably? Being a slow footed big and defending the interior is a far cry from being asked to defend bigs that can stretch the floor, especially during high PNR where it's imperative for a big to be mobile enough to show, hedge, recover, etc.

I don't buy that rhetoric at all.  It just isn't born out in reality.  Using rpg and those guys that classify as centers, the top 5 centers in the NBA were Drummond, Jordan, Whiteside, Howard, and Cousins.  Of those guys, Cousins is the only one that regularly shot 3 pointers.  The next five rpg leaders were Gobert, P Gasol, Towns, Gortat, and Pachulia.  Towns and Gasol shot about 1 a game, the other guys basically none at all.   I think this notion that the traditional big man is a thing of the past just isn't all that accurate, especially since Cousins, Drummond, Jordan, Whiteside, Gobert, and Towns are all before or just entering their prime.  BTW, the next 5 rpg leaders were Valanciunas, TThompson, Vucevic, Monroe, and Noah (again 4 of the 5 before or just entering their prime).  Not a single outside shooter in that group, which only further reiterates the point.

But let's just assume there is this quantum shift to the perimeter that would make Okafor struggle even more defensively as opposed to historical metrics, wouldn't the reverse also be true?  How are the new age bigs going to guard a traditional back to the basket big as skilled as Okafor is?  It works both ways.

I've said it in one of the other few dozen threads started by fans obsessing over Okafor and desperate hoping that their ceaseless negging will somehow help him land in Boston - but at some point a decent offensive big will enter the league and completely eat it alive.   ANyone who thinks that a guy like Shaq or Hakeem would fail in the modern NBA doesn't understand the basic mechanics of this sport.   Just because we haven't seen any quality post players doesn't mean they can't succeed.  For what it's worth, Duncan was about as close as it gets to a old school post player and the Spurs have had unparalleled success over the past 20 years because of it.  Even approaching his 40s he was able to make a consistent offensive impact on a constant contender.   We've even seen lower-level talents like Al Jefferson and Brook Lopez (neither of which anyone would confuse with the greats of the past) use their size and traditional post skills to be the focal-point offensively on playoff teams. 

That doesn't mean Jahlil Okafor will be that guy.  But he shows all the signs of developing into a dominant post player.   We'll see how much of an impact he makes, and how improved his defense looks, several years from now when he starts to enter his prime.  I'm not using his rookie season on a historically bad (intentionally terrible) roster as the definitive statement on his long-term success.    Philly has themselves a gem of a prospect.  On the outside looking in, it's going to be interesting to see what kind of sense they can make of that roster over the next few years and how all those star prospects develop.

[celticsclay]

I think eddies curry or Kaman are decent comparisons. Did people on the board ever pine for curry really hard. He had solid numbers for a few years on the Knicks.

They are only decent comparisons on defense.  Okafor has already shown significantly more overall offensive talent than either of those two did in their entire careers.

At their peaks, which for curry was particularly short lived because of conditioning and attitude, those guys had some pretty solid offensive stats. If memory serves correct Kaman was actually an all star one year or close to it. You put Okafor on a team that is solid with more normal usage he probably is more of a 15ppg guy than a 20? Perhaps he will prove me wrong but I'm pretty into advanced stats on this and also a bit leery of the raw numbers on a historically bad team. Anyone remember Gerald green scoring for us when he didn't even belong In the league? I think the ish smith stats other shared should really serve as a strong dose of smelling salts

Kaman did make an all star game.  His only really good season.  He averaged 18.5 points, 9.3 rebounds, 1.6 assists, and 1.2 blocks.  He shot 49.2% from two, had a PER of 16.5 and a TS% of 52.7%.  Kaman was 27 and in his 7th year in the league that season. 

Curry's best year he was 24 and in his 6th year in the league.  He averaged 19.5 points, 7 rebounds, 0.8 assists, and 0.5 blocks.  He did shoot 57.7% from two, had a PER of 17.0, and a TS% of 57.8%. 

Okafor as a 20 year old rookie averaged 17.5 points, 7 rebounds, 1.2 assists, and 1.2 blocks.  He shot 51.1% from two, had a PER of 17.1, and a TS% of 53.6%. 

Mind you Curry and Kaman's best year, years into their careers, was pretty much on par with Okafor as a rookie.  But watching them, Curry and Kaman had no where near the post moves or ability that Okafor has on the offensive end.  Okafor has all of the tools to be a consistent 25 point per game scorer in the post, skills he showed as a rookie.  He also, despite not trying very much defensively, had more blocks per game as a rookie than Curry had in any season.  Kaman had pretty solid shot blocking skills, but those went way down when he had more of an offensive role. 

Kaman and Curry were both pretty awful defensively as rookies and got a lot better as they matured, which is why the Okafor comparison might work (it might not of course), but their offensive skills even at their peak are no where near what Okafor's offensive skills are.  It certainly doesn't mean Okafor will reach his potential, but his starting point is significantly higher than either Curry or Kaman on offense.

I'll be absolutely shocked of Okafor ever averages 25 a game. I don't think he would be considered in trades by the 76ers if that were the case either.

[Ilikesports17]

Okafor's defense is bad, but also overblown.  Very few rookies are useful on defense.

His defense is very bad when compared to other big men rookies in the past few decades. 

At 20, in his second year in the league, Kendrick Perkins had a defensive win share of .8 while Okafor as a 20-year-old rookie had a defensive win share of .9.  Granted, Okafor played 30 minutes a game for a horrible Sixer team and Perk averaged 9 minutes a game for a decent Celtics team, but I think the comparison remains somewhat valid.

Perkins, a guy who could never do ANYTHING but play defense at a very good to elite level, was so awful defensively at 20 that he could barely get off the bench for a 45 win team whose veteran bigs were Raef LaFrentz and Mark Blount.  Okafor may always suck at defense but throwing him on the trash heap at his age is a little excessive.

Mike

Do you understand how win shares work?  It's not a rate-based stat.  (WS/48 is.)  So you are saying if Okafor and Perkins both scored 1000 points in a season, but Perkins did so in a third of the playing time, they are comparable scorers.  Perkins had positive defensive stats in his age-20 season.

Here is what Nylon Calculus (a great website whose managing editor was recently hired as an analytics consultant by the Bucks) had to say about his defense late last season:

Although Jahlil Okafor’s offense has shown promise, his defense has lagged behind significantly. His rim protection statistics have been in the negative, as has his defensive Player Tracking Plus Minus.[1. Through February 26, Okafor had “saved” -0.13 points per 36 minutes. Through February 8, he had posted a -1.52 defensive PT-PM.] Entering the week, defensive Real Plus Minus had him at -1.86 — second lowest among centers — which happened to mirror his relative standing in defensive Box Plus/Minus (-1.6).

This latter figure is worth placing in historical context. Compared to other rookie big men with at least 1,000 minutes since the 1973-74 season, Okafor’s DBPM ranks among the bottom 10. Naturally, such a performance leads us to wonder how similar players have fared in subsequent years — that is, whether their defense eventually improved.

They continue on to say that players improve and actually close the gap on the less defensively challenged big men.  Okafor is never going to catch up to the better defenders, but he won't be terrible either, and if he also continues to improve on the offensive end, he will end up with a very long and very good career.

I don't think you read the same article that I read.

There are, of course, a few instances in which players elevated their defensive games from negatives to positives. Most notably, Charles Smith, JaVale McGee, and Tony Battie were squarely above 0 DBPM by their third years, then moved up to roughly +2 or so by their fifth years. But bear in mind that they started off from higher baselines than Okafor’s current performance, and their career DBPMs of +1 put them at just right around the typical mark for big men. While the best-case scenarios reach average defensive production, those who are farther behind (like James Edwards, Eddy Curry, and Chris Mihm) tend to stay below 0 both in individual seasons and in their overall careers.

It seems much more likely than not that Jahlil Okafor at his peak will have a negative contribution on defense.  Okafor is so bad that his ceiling might be average and most players don't reach their ceiling, which is another term for best-case scenario.

I read the article and I never said he would be good, only that he would improve and close the gap, which is exactly what that chart shows i.e. the terrible defenders close the gap on the good defenders (which inherently makes sense since it is easier to go from awful to poor than from good to great).  Okafor is never going to be a good defender, but he will get better and won't be terrible, which is exactly what your historical evidence shows.

Don't you think that historical examples might not be the best guide since the game, particularly the way a big now had to defend on the perimeter, has changed considerably? Being a slow footed big and defending the interior is a far cry from being asked to defend bigs that can stretch the floor, especially during high PNR where it's imperative for a big to be mobile enough to show, hedge, recover, etc.

I don't buy that rhetoric at all.  It just isn't born out in reality.  Using rpg and those guys that classify as centers, the top 5 centers in the NBA were Drummond, Jordan, Whiteside, Howard, and Cousins.  Of those guys, Cousins is the only one that regularly shot 3 pointers.  The next five rpg leaders were Gobert, P Gasol, Towns, Gortat, and Pachulia.  Towns and Gasol shot about 1 a game, the other guys basically none at all.   I think this notion that the traditional big man is a thing of the past just isn't all that accurate, especially since Cousins, Drummond, Jordan, Whiteside, Gobert, and Towns are all before or just entering their prime.  BTW, the next 5 rpg leaders were Valanciunas, TThompson, Vucevic, Monroe, and Noah (again 4 of the 5 before or just entering their prime).  Not a single outside shooter in that group, which only further reiterates the point.

But let's just assume there is this quantum shift to the perimeter that would make Okafor struggle even more defensively as opposed to historical metrics, wouldn't the reverse also be true?  How are the new age bigs going to guard a traditional back to the basket big as skilled as Okafor is?  It works both ways.

I've said it in one of the other few dozen threads started by fans obsessing over Okafor and desperate hoping that their ceaseless negging will somehow help him land in Boston - but at some point a decent offensive big will enter the league and completely eat it alive.   ANyone who thinks that a guy like Shaq or Hakeem would fail in the modern NBA doesn't understand the basic mechanics of this sport.   Just because we haven't seen any quality post players doesn't mean they can't succeed.  For what it's worth, Duncan was about as close as it gets to a old school post player and the Spurs have had unparalleled success over the past 20 years because of it.  Even approaching his 40s he was able to make a consistent offensive impact on a constant contender.   We've even seen lower-level talents like Al Jefferson and Brook Lopez (neither of which anyone would confuse with the greats of the past) use their size and traditional post skills to be the focal-point offensively on playoff teams. 

That doesn't mean Jahlil Okafor will be that guy.  But he shows all the signs of developing into a dominant post player.   We'll see how much of an impact he makes, and how improved his defense looks, several years from now when he starts to enter his prime.  I'm not using his rookie season on a historically bad (intentionally terrible) roster as the definitive statement on his long-term success.    Philly has themselves a gem of a prospect.  On the outside looking in, it's going to be interesting to see what kind of sense they can make of that roster over the next few years and how all those star prospects develop.

In that other post I also said that this was absurd. People dont agree with you. you should be used to this by now.

Then you say a decent offensive big will eat this league alive and mention Shaq and Hakeem as if they are some sort of evidence of DECENT offensive bigs being able to dominate.

There is no good comp for Okafor. I think the best one is Lopez. The big Al, monroe, Randolph etc ones are all flawed because none are the type of gifted post scorers and more importantly all were really really good rebounders while Okafor projects to be terrible in this regard.