Wemby and Chet lead the league in blocks

[zimpy27]

I don't super care one way or the other, but it's his 2nd year in the NBA. What if he breaks his foot on the opening tip of opening day and plays 3 seconds and misses all of the rest of his rookie season? Is he a rookie this year because he played 3 seconds?

If he recorded time on the court then it's his rookie season. That's the line that the NBA follows and the rest of us all understand.

No need to condescend when clearly people disagree with what you accept.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lanuage defines a rookie as A first-year player, especially in a professional sport. This is his second year.

It's not condescending. The NBA sets the rules for what inclusion is, it's been around for a long time. There's a long precedent. They see Chet as a rookie as that's how it has been.

You're trying to change the status quo here. You seem to be trying to do that by pointing out he's in 2nd year of rookie deal (we know this and so do the NBA). NBA don't see him as a first year player if he's not playing a minute.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

thread hijacked

[The Master]

While their performances are impressive, considering their height & wingspan and the minutes they're getting, it is not really surprising they're averaging good block numbers. Also as LockoutSeason suggested, it is not like "if they doing that as a rookie, imagine five years from now on" when it comes to shot blocking. It might very well be on downward trajectory, especially for Wemby with an increased offensive responsibilities.

1. On the other hand: Wembanyama played 29.7 MPG (career low, I guess) and 20% of his playing time was out of position as a power forward on defense. As a starting center, he had 3.9 BPG in 29.5 MPG (4.5 BPG post-allstar game) - so I highly doubt his overall number of blocks will decrease vs his rookie year, maybe on per36/per100 basis.

2. There are several DPOTY-winning defenders, who improved more or less as shot-blockers in terms of pure number of blocked shots (Jackson, Gasol, Dwight, Hakeem, Camby, Wallace, Mourning, Mutombo, Robinson), per100 possessions, since their respective rookie years.

[madskillz8]

While their performances are impressive, considering their height & wingspan and the minutes they're getting, it is not really surprising they're averaging good block numbers. Also as LockoutSeason suggested, it is not like "if they doing that as a rookie, imagine five years from now on" when it comes to shot blocking. It might very well be on downward trajectory, especially for Wemby with an increased offensive responsibilities.

1. On the other hand: Wembanyama played 29.7 MPG (career low, I guess) and 20% of his playing time was out of position as a power forward on defense. As a starting center, he had 3.9 BPG in 29.5 MPG (4.5 BPG post-allstar game) - so I highly doubt his overall number of blocks will decrease vs his rookie year, maybe on per36/per100 basis.

2. There are several DPOTY-winning defenders, who improved more or less as shot-blockers in terms of pure number of blocked shots (Jackson, Gasol, Dwight, Hakeem, Camby, Wallace, Mourning, Mutombo, Robinson), per100 possessions, since their respective rookie years.

TBH, I was thinking about 7'1+ players with long arms who played considerable minutes as a rookie, and I definitely missed out Mutombo and Robinson.

Mutombo 7'2-7'6 (avg. 3.0 blocks as a rookie, career average: 2.8)
Robinson 7'1-7'5 (avg. 3.9 blocks as a rookie, career average 3.0)

My main argument was the fact that rookies with extreme height and wingspan always produce high block numbers. Because height & wingspan is there from day 1. Anyone who played a pickup game with his younger cousins can understand what I am saying, even at 5'8 you can feel like a Dikembe Mutombo out there, lol.

In addition to this argument, once I started listing numbers, I observed that it is also common for this kind of rookies to average peak or near peak block numbers as a rookie, so his point stands still. I also partially agree with your takes on Wemby, it is really hard to predict numbers for the next year.

But I will add a couple of counter points:

- opposing teams will be adjusting their game plans accordingly, and players will be more hesitant to shot over him. The latter is good for Spurs but not for his averages. The Gobert effect.
- he's young, all eyes on him, thus he's trying hard to prove the hype. I mean, he often jumps so high to block very hard to block shots IMO. Given his frame, I think he would eventually learn to protect his body - the way Zion stopped dunking and out jumping everyone even though he is still capable.

[deneem4]

They tall n raw, it’s they’re born tools, if u put kd down there he might’ve of did it too

[deneem4]

While their performances are impressive, considering their height & wingspan and the minutes they're getting, it is not really surprising they're averaging good block numbers. Also as LockoutSeason suggested, it is not like "if they doing that as a rookie, imagine five years from now on" when it comes to shot blocking. It might very well be on downward trajectory, especially for Wemby with an increased offensive responsibilities.

1. On the other hand: Wembanyama played 29.7 MPG (career low, I guess) and 20% of his playing time was out of position as a power forward on defense. As a starting center, he had 3.9 BPG in 29.5 MPG (4.5 BPG post-allstar game) - so I highly doubt his overall number of blocks will decrease vs his rookie year, maybe on per36/per100 basis.

2. There are several DPOTY-winning defenders, who improved more or less as shot-blockers in terms of pure number of blocked shots (Jackson, Gasol, Dwight, Hakeem, Camby, Wallace, Mourning, Mutombo, Robinson), per100 possessions, since their respective rookie years.

TBH, I was thinking about 7'1+ players with long arms who played considerable minutes as a rookie, and I definitely missed out Mutombo and Robinson.

Mutombo 7'2-7'6 (avg. 3.0 blocks as a rookie, career average: 2.8)
Robinson 7'1-7'5 (avg. 3.9 blocks as a rookie, career average 3.0)

My main argument was the fact that rookies with extreme height and wingspan always produce high block numbers. Because height & wingspan is there from day 1. Anyone who played a pickup game with his younger cousins can understand what I am saying, even at 5'8 you can feel like a Dikembe Mutombo out there, lol.

In addition to this argument, once I started listing numbers, I observed that it is also common for this kind of rookies to average peak or near peak block numbers as a rookie, so his point stalls. I also partially agree with your takes on Wemby, it is really hard to predict numbers for the next year.

But I will add a couple of counter points:

- opposing teams will be adjusting their game plans accordingly, and players will be more hesitant to shot over him. The latter is good for Spurs but not for his averages. The Gobert effect.
- he's young, all eyes on him, thus he's trying hard to prove the hype. I mean, he often jumps so high to block very hard to block shots IMO. Given his frame, I think he would eventually learn to protect his body - the way Zion stopped dunking and out jumping everyone even though he is still capable.

White from the Celtics is an exception and the twin rookie cause they probably catch guys off guard but yea what you said

[OKC2008]

Several big men peak as shot blockers in their rookie year, like Shaq and Embiid. These guys need to keep their hunger even as their offensive games develop.

That's an interesting point to talk about, not four page of people yelling about "Chet is not a rookie"

I completely agree with you

[Xatticus]

I don't super care one way or the other, but it's his 2nd year in the NBA. What if he breaks his foot on the opening tip of opening day and plays 3 seconds and misses all of the rest of his rookie season? Is he a rookie this year because he played 3 seconds?

If he recorded time on the court then it's his rookie season. That's the line that the NBA follows and the rest of us all understand.

No need to condescend when clearly people disagree with what you accept.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lanuage defines a rookie as A first-year player, especially in a professional sport. This is his second year.

You and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language have precisely the same amount of input into what defines a rookie by NBA standards: None whatsoever.

I don't even know why this is a thing. It's such a stupid and meaningless argument. It completely falls apart under even the most basic of logic or scrutiny.

You'd absolutely lose your **** if this argument was about what defines a rookie in MLB.

[SweaterBae]

If he recorded time on the court then it's his rookie season. That's the line that the NBA follows and the rest of us all understand.

No need to condescend when clearly people disagree with what you accept.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lanuage defines a rookie as A first-year player, especially in a professional sport. This is his second year.

You and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language have precisely the same amount of input into what defines a rookie by NBA standards: None whatsoever.

I don't even know why this is a thing. It's such a stupid and meaningless argument. It completely falls apart under even the most basic of logic or scrutiny.

You'd absolutely lose your **** if this argument was about what defines a rookie in MLB.

More personal attacks. It's interesting to see how stronly people care about something so subjective. Die on that hill I guess. The most basic logic or scrutiny tell us the only fact in the entire argument is that Chet is in his 2nd year in the NBA. Also, lmfao, a dictionary doesn't define what a word means. Good grief, this internet world. You're probably one of those people who say things like "it was literally raining cats and dogs".

[zimpy27]

Wemby on court had the Spurs at 12th in D-Rating, off court had Spurs at 26th in D-Rating.
Wemby on court had the Spurs at 25th in O-Rating, off court had Spurs at 27th in O-Rating.

Chet on court had the OKC at 5th in D-Rating, off court had OKC at 4th in D-Rating.
Chet on court had the OKC at 2nd in O-Rating, off court had OKC at 12th in O-Rating.



As you can see Wemby was the monster on defense that Chet was not. Though Chet was a big offensive boost.

[Xatticus]

Several big men peak as shot blockers in their rookie year, like Shaq and Embiid. These guys need to keep their hunger even as their offensive games develop.

That's an interesting point to talk about, not four page of people yelling about "Chet is not a rookie"

I completely agree with you

I reject the premise of it having anything to do with "hunger" (or a lack thereof). Block totals go down because players improve defensively.

It isn't anyone's job to operate like a heat-seeking missile in the pursuit of blocks. Help defenders have to abandon their assignments to challenge shots at the rim. There is a rotation in your defensive scheme and an overaggressive help defender is going to open up gaps that are easily exploited by a good offense. Mo Bamba has A+ rim protection tools, but he is an ineffectual defender because he hasn't yet figured this out.

Fortunately enough for us, Chet is well ahead of the curve. He really isn't a shot blocker. It does him a disservice to label him as such.

[Xatticus]

No need to condescend when clearly people disagree with what you accept.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lanuage defines a rookie as A first-year player, especially in a professional sport. This is his second year.

You and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language have precisely the same amount of input into what defines a rookie by NBA standards: None whatsoever.

I don't even know why this is a thing. It's such a stupid and meaningless argument. It completely falls apart under even the most basic of logic or scrutiny.

You'd absolutely lose your **** if this argument was about what defines a rookie in MLB.

More personal attacks. It's interesting to see how stronly people care about something so subjective. Die on that hill I guess. The most basic logic or scrutiny tell us the only fact in the entire argument is that Chet is in his 2nd year in the NBA. Also, lmfao, a dictionary doesn't define what a word means. Good grief, this internet world. You're probably one of those people who say things like "it was literally raining cats and dogs".

This post is thick with irony...

When someone says something that you don't agree with, that is not the equivalent of a personal attack.

The NBA is not defining the word "rookie." The NBA is absolutely the arbiter of what constitutes an NBA rookie, not "this internet world" that you inhabit. If you can't reconcile this, that is your problem. Your acceptance of this is of no consequence. Your disagreement doesn't mean that the NBA is wrong. It means that you are wrong.

The "hill" that people are "dying" on here is: "Chet Holmgren is not a rookie." This thread was not about Chet's status as a rookie. This was settled a long time ago and Chet Holmgren was not a consideration when the rule was established.

[SweaterBae]

You and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language have precisely the same amount of input into what defines a rookie by NBA standards: None whatsoever.

I don't even know why this is a thing. It's such a stupid and meaningless argument. It completely falls apart under even the most basic of logic or scrutiny.

You'd absolutely lose your **** if this argument was about what defines a rookie in MLB.

More personal attacks. It's interesting to see how stronly people care about something so subjective. Die on that hill I guess. The most basic logic or scrutiny tell us the only fact in the entire argument is that Chet is in his 2nd year in the NBA. Also, lmfao, a dictionary doesn't define what a word means. Good grief, this internet world. You're probably one of those people who say things like "it was literally raining cats and dogs".

This post is thick with irony...

When someone says something that you don't agree with, that is not the equivalent of a personal attack.

The NBA is not defining the word "rookie." The NBA is absolutely the arbiter of what constitutes an NBA rookie, not "this internet world" that you inhabit. If you can't reconcile this, that is your problem. Your acceptance of this is of no consequence. Your disagreement doesn't mean that the NBA is wrong. It means that you are wrong.

The "hill" that people are "dying" on here is: "Chet Holmgren is not a rookie." This thread was not about Chet's status as a rookie. This was settled a long time ago and Chet Holmgren was not a consideration when the rule was established.

"stupid and meaningless" isn't a personal attack? lol. Your self delusion is strong. People disagree with what the NBA defines, just like they disagree with traveling and carrying and moving screens etc, etc, etc. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Good grief.The NBA has *journalists* voting to determine who is eligible for the supermax and this is your argument? What a joke. Oh, I see, you're an OKC fan. I didn't notice before.

[Xatticus]

More personal attacks. It's interesting to see how stronly people care about something so subjective. Die on that hill I guess. The most basic logic or scrutiny tell us the only fact in the entire argument is that Chet is in his 2nd year in the NBA. Also, lmfao, a dictionary doesn't define what a word means. Good grief, this internet world. You're probably one of those people who say things like "it was literally raining cats and dogs".

This post is thick with irony...

When someone says something that you don't agree with, that is not the equivalent of a personal attack.

The NBA is not defining the word "rookie." The NBA is absolutely the arbiter of what constitutes an NBA rookie, not "this internet world" that you inhabit. If you can't reconcile this, that is your problem. Your acceptance of this is of no consequence. Your disagreement doesn't mean that the NBA is wrong. It means that you are wrong.

The "hill" that people are "dying" on here is: "Chet Holmgren is not a rookie." This thread was not about Chet's status as a rookie. This was settled a long time ago and Chet Holmgren was not a consideration when the rule was established.

"stupid and meaningless" isn't a personal attack? lol. Your self delusion is strong. People disagree with what the NBA defines, just like they disagree with traveling and carrying and moving screens etc, etc, etc. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Good grief.

I didn't call you stupid and meaningless. I called the argument stupid and meaningless (because it is). If you want to feign victimization, have at it. You should start a new thread for that though, instead of trying to derail other threads by relitigating grievances.

[SweaterBae]

This post is thick with irony...

When someone says something that you don't agree with, that is not the equivalent of a personal attack.

The NBA is not defining the word "rookie." The NBA is absolutely the arbiter of what constitutes an NBA rookie, not "this internet world" that you inhabit. If you can't reconcile this, that is your problem. Your acceptance of this is of no consequence. Your disagreement doesn't mean that the NBA is wrong. It means that you are wrong.

The "hill" that people are "dying" on here is: "Chet Holmgren is not a rookie." This thread was not about Chet's status as a rookie. This was settled a long time ago and Chet Holmgren was not a consideration when the rule was established.

"stupid and meaningless" isn't a personal attack? lol. Your self delusion is strong. People disagree with what the NBA defines, just like they disagree with traveling and carrying and moving screens etc, etc, etc. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Good grief.

I didn't call you stupid and meaningless. I called the argument stupid and meaningless (because it is). If you want to feign victimization, have at it. You should start a new thread for that though, instead of trying to derail other threads by relitigating grievances.

This is semantic BS and you know it. "you aren't stupid but your argument is". This is prevarication. Please go ahead and report me for derailing the thread, as you continue to engage in the topic you denounce. You are clearly objective and unbiased.

[Xatticus]

"stupid and meaningless" isn't a personal attack? lol. Your self delusion is strong. People disagree with what the NBA defines, just like they disagree with traveling and carrying and moving screens etc, etc, etc. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Good grief.

I didn't call you stupid and meaningless. I called the argument stupid and meaningless (because it is). If you want to feign victimization, have at it. You should start a new thread for that though, instead of trying to derail other threads by relitigating grievances.

This is semantic BS and you know it. "you aren't stupid but your argument is". This is prevarication. Please go ahead and report me for derailing the thread, as you continue to engage in the topic you denounce. You are clearly objective and unbiased.

No. It's actually a very obvious and clear distinction, but if you want to take ownership of it, I'm not going to stop you.

Were you the author of this argument? I wasn't even aware. It doesn't really matter though now that you've staked your claim and thusly any attack on the argument is necessarily an attack on you.

Or maybe I'm playing this game wrong? Perhaps I should accuse you of personally attacking me now? I'm fairly certain that "semantic BS" and "prevarication" were slathered in negative connotations.

You have got to get over yourself.

[C0bR]

Obviously Wemby is something else, but Chet was pretty special this year.

You'd thin Wembanyama would lead the second stat by a country mile from the way people talk about him

It's almost like playing defense isn't about block hunting

[Nuntius]

Food for thought.

We know this though, he's been injured and this is his a rookie season. Nothing about this questions adds more information or insight, it's just that you have one side that thinks you are a rookie when you sign your first contract and others that think you are a rookie when you first set foot on an NBA floor.

I don't super care one way or the other, but it's his 2nd year in the NBA. What if he breaks his foot on the opening tip of opening day and plays 3 seconds and misses all of the rest of his rookie season? Is he a rookie this year because he played 3 seconds?

There is actually precedent of a player being injured in his first professional game. It happened to Julius Randle back in 14-15. He got injured 12 minutes into his first game. Those 12 minutes were his rookie season per the NBA. When he returned in 15-16, he was on his second season.

So, yes, if a rookie played 3 seconds, got injured and missed the rest of the season, those 3 seconds would be his rookie season. If he got injured before the RS started and didn't play any games then that season would NOT have counted as his rookie season.

I'd also like to say that this isn't really a matter of linguistics as the NBA's definition of what they consider a rookie has no effect on the vernacular. It's not about what the word means in general. It is about terminology, what it means in this very specific context. A word can easily have a certain meaning in common parlance and a completely different meaning in a specific context.

When we use the term travel in basketball, it has absolutely nothing to do with a travel agency.

When we use the term walk in basketball, it has absolutely nothing to do with taking a walk in the park.

When we use the term strike in basketball, we ain't talking about missiles.

That goes way beyond sports, of course. Every field has its own terminology and jargon. Sports are not unique in this.

[The-Power]

I'm fine with calling them both rookies, but pretending Chet didn't have a leg up on Wemby coming into this season is just kinda silly. Almost every rookie talks about the difficult adjustment to 82 games and travel in their first year exit interviews. Chet had a year of experiencing that and Wemby didn't--plain and simple.

But Chet did not experience playing 82 games. He experienced travel without any games played. How is that in any way comparable? What Chet has experienced when it comes to the length and strain of an NBA season is closer to a local beat writer following the team than it is to an actual NBA rotation player. Players referring to the difficult schedule obviously refer to the exhaustion from combining traveling and playing.

It's also an adjustment to play against grown men. Victor had a leg up on Chet in that regard. Does that make him more prepared for the NBA than Chet? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know and neither does anyone on this forum.

By the way, it's also an obvious advantage to have played multiple years in college or overseas, gaining additional experience in a more professional setting than high school, developing physically, honing skills, getting more used to the pressure of high-stakes games, handling the media, and maturing as a person.

Yet we do not have these silly conversations about anyone who comes into the NBA after a couple years in college or overseas. Or about players whose fathers played in the NBA. Or about those whose fathers are coaching basketball. All of them are Rookies, and the extent to which a player is ‘prepared’ for the NBA depends very much on the individual.

This is Chet's first season actually playing in the NBA. That's the definition of a Rookie set by the NBA, and that makes him a Rookie just like Victor, and 30-year old Micić, and 4-year college player Marcus Sasser. End of story.

But no, this board just cannot appreciate the greatness of these two Rookies and instead has to turn every conversation into a frenzy yelling ‘he's not a Rookie’ for the 134th time. Chet is officially a Rookie. Deal with it. (Not addressing you personally but everyone who cannot handle Chet being mentioned in conversations about Rookies or part of official NBA leaderboards).

[Ssj16]

No need to condescend when clearly people disagree with what you accept.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lanuage defines a rookie as A first-year player, especially in a professional sport. This is his second year.

You and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language have precisely the same amount of input into what defines a rookie by NBA standards: None whatsoever.

I don't even know why this is a thing. It's such a stupid and meaningless argument. It completely falls apart under even the most basic of logic or scrutiny.

You'd absolutely lose your **** if this argument was about what defines a rookie in MLB.

More personal attacks. It's interesting to see how stronly people care about something so subjective. Die on that hill I guess. The most basic logic or scrutiny tell us the only fact in the entire argument is that Chet is in his 2nd year in the NBA. Also, lmfao, a dictionary doesn't define what a word means. Good grief, this internet world. You're probably one of those people who say things like "it was literally raining cats and dogs".

I think you should take the L on this. It's fine if you disagree with the NBA, but for the purpose of this thread and the NBA's definition of a rookie, this is a legit discussion. And this isn't a personal attack.