Rui Hachimura

[J-Ves]

Rui will have a long career as a journeyman in the nba. Markieff Morris comes to mind, although Rui is infinitely more likable.

[pcbothwel]

Rui will have a long career as a journeyman in the nba. Markieff Morris comes to mind, although Rui is infinitely more likable.

Ehhh. I see more Marcus than Markieff. Even then, Marcus didnt have as good of a year as Rui (22 in his 2nd year) until he was 24 and in his 3rd year.

Rui's big make or break to me is next year. I want him to get a taste of playoff/play-in basketball, and then a full offseason with Russ & Beal. If he looks to be the same guy next year, I'd look to move him at the deadline while the shine is still there... but I honestly think he'll rise to the challenge.

[payitforward]

Last 5 games he has an 11.1 net rating and 67% TS.

Actually, his TS% is a lot better than that over the 5 game stretch! It's 72.2% --

OTOH, the previous 5 games, his TS% wasn't quite as good, was it? 35.7% --

But, if we look at the last 10 games overall, it's 53.2% -- which is only 1% below his overall season TS% of 54.2%. :|

But, if you make it 11 instead of 10 -- why, it goes up a little!

Then again, if you make it 12 instead of 11 -- it does down a little again.

So... maybe we don't learn much about Rui if we concentrate on some small stretch of games? Rui or anyone for that matter...? What do you think?

Why didn’t you include his net rating? Which is 2.6 over the last 20 games vs -5.8 in the 27 games before the all star break.

Seems like an improvement.

TS% actually measures something. I don't even know what "net rating" is. Do you understand how it's constructed? If you don't, then let me turn the question around: why do you mention it?

[payitforward]

Rui will have a long career as a journeyman in the nba. Markieff Morris comes to mind, although Rui is infinitely more likable.

Rui has been better as a rookie & in his second year than Kieff was his first 2 years. In itself, that doesn't mean much, however, as Kieff was awful.

Ehhh. I see more Marcus than Markieff. Even then, Marcus didnt have as good of a year as Rui (22 in his 2nd year) until he was 24 and in his 3rd year.

?? Marcus Morris was awful in his 3d year. Man... poor Rui! given these comparisons!

Rui's big make or break to me is next year. I want him to get a taste of playoff/play-in basketball, and then a full offseason with Russ & Beal. If he looks to be the same guy next year, I'd look to move him at the deadline while the shine is still there... but I honestly think he'll rise to the challenge.

It could happen, & I hope it does.

[J-Ves]

Rui will have a long career as a journeyman in the nba. Markieff Morris comes to mind, although Rui is infinitely more likable.

Rui has been better as a rookie & in his second year than Kieff was his first 2 years. In itself, that doesn't mean much, however, as Kieff was awful.

Ehhh. I see more Marcus than Markieff. Even then, Marcus didnt have as good of a year as Rui (22 in his 2nd year) until he was 24 and in his 3rd year.

?? Marcus Morris was awful in his 3d year. Man... poor Rui! given these comparisons!

Rui's big make or break to me is next year. I want him to get a taste of playoff/play-in basketball, and then a full offseason with Russ & Beal. If he looks to be the same guy next year, I'd look to move him at the deadline while the shine is still there... but I honestly think he'll rise to the challenge.

It could happen, & I hope it does.

ha! I took a more pessimistic view of Rui than pif. Mission accomplished

[payitforward]

-- Kieff has never been a good player, & on his career he isn't even close to being one. But... his third year was his best year....

[NatP4]

Actually, his TS% is a lot better than that over the 5 game stretch! It's 72.2% --

OTOH, the previous 5 games, his TS% wasn't quite as good, was it? 35.7% --

But, if we look at the last 10 games overall, it's 53.2% -- which is only 1% below his overall season TS% of 54.2%. :|

But, if you make it 11 instead of 10 -- why, it goes up a little!

Then again, if you make it 12 instead of 11 -- it does down a little again.

So... maybe we don't learn much about Rui if we concentrate on some small stretch of games? Rui or anyone for that matter...? What do you think?

Why didn’t you include his net rating? Which is 2.6 over the last 20 games vs -5.8 in the 27 games before the all star break.

Seems like an improvement.

TS% actually measures something. I don't even know what "net rating" is. Do you understand how it's constructed? If you don't, then let me turn the question around: why do you mention it?

It is quite literally offensive rating minus defensive rating. Not overly complicated.

[payitforward]

Well, that part is pretty simple! But, how are "offensive rating" & "defensive rating" calculated -- that's the question.

Still... even if that metric isn't particularly precise, going from -5.8 to +2.6 represents a positive change no doubt.

[nate33]

Well, that part is pretty simple! But, how are "offensive rating" & "defensive rating" calculated -- that's the question.

Still... even if that metric isn't particularly precise, going from -5.8 to +2.6 represents a positive change no doubt.

DRtg is a pretty worthless stat. ORtg is fine.

[payitforward]

Rui will have a long career as a journeyman in the nba. Markieff Morris comes to mind, although Rui is infinitely more likable.

Rui has been better as a rookie & in his second year than Kieff was his first 2 years....

ha! I took a more pessimistic view of Rui than pif. Mission accomplished

I'm not "pessimistic" about Rui. I'm just realistic.

Same about Deni. So far not so good.

[pancakes3]

I was thinking more Paul Milsap than a Morris brother.

[nate33]

I think Markieff Morris is a fair comparison. Both are strong, versatile defenders but rather inefficient on offense and lackluster on the boards.

Where I differ is that I think Rui will be a Markieff Morris who gives a crap. About 20% of the time, when Morris was engaged, he was actually a very good role player. Some of the Wizards best stretches of play where when Morris was a do-everything versatile defender who could hit open 3's and occasionally get a bucket when the shot clock was winding down. Unfortunately, about 80% of the time he was a lazy disinterested defender who played good man defense on natural instinct alone, but never cared to help on the weak side.

I think Rui could be "good Markieff Morris" most of the time because Rui seems to give a crap.

[payitforward]

I think Markieff Morris is a fair comparison. Both are strong, versatile defenders but rather inefficient on offense and lackluster on the boards.

Where I differ is that I think Rui will be a Markieff Morris who gives a crap. About 20% of the time, when Morris was engaged, he was actually a very good role player. Some of the Wizards best stretches of play where when Morris was a do-everything versatile defender who could hit open 3's and occasionally get a bucket when the shot clock was winding down. Unfortunately, about 80% of the time he was a lazy disinterested defender who played good man defense on natural instinct alone, but never cared to help on the weak side.

I think Rui could be "good Markieff Morris" most of the time because Rui seems to give a crap.

Fair enough, & Kieff did have stretches of pretty good play. Still... that's a pretty limited vision to have for a guy you took #9 in the draft, so let's hope he's a bunch better than that.

[nate33]

I think Markieff Morris is a fair comparison. Both are strong, versatile defenders but rather inefficient on offense and lackluster on the boards.

Where I differ is that I think Rui will be a Markieff Morris who gives a crap. About 20% of the time, when Morris was engaged, he was actually a very good role player. Some of the Wizards best stretches of play where when Morris was a do-everything versatile defender who could hit open 3's and occasionally get a bucket when the shot clock was winding down. Unfortunately, about 80% of the time he was a lazy disinterested defender who played good man defense but never helped on the weakside.

I think Rui could be "good Markieff Morris" most of the time because Rui seems to give a crap.

Fair enough, & Kieff did have stretches of pretty good play. Still... that's a pretty limited vision to have for a guy you took #9 in the draft, so let's hope he's a bunch better than that.

I don't think that's limited at all. The really good version of Markieff Morris is the perfect starting power forward in today's game - a guy who is switchable 1 through 5, can take on the responsibility of guarding the opposition's best forward, and can backstop the defense with weakside help. Rui isn't there yet as a weakside help defender, but I think he'll get there. It usually takes a good 3 or 4 years for players to really figure out help defense. Rui has played just 100 career games. But if he does, he's an above-average starting forward who cannot be mismatched. That's probably the hardest position to fill in the league. Yeah, that's not an All-Star or anything, but expecting an All-Star at #9 is a tall order. Getting a reliable above-average starter is a totally acceptable outcome at #9.

[payitforward]

I think Markieff Morris is a fair comparison. Both are strong, versatile defenders but rather inefficient on offense and lackluster on the boards.

Where I differ is that I think Rui will be a Markieff Morris who gives a crap. About 20% of the time, when Morris was engaged, he was actually a very good role player. Some of the Wizards best stretches of play where when Morris was a do-everything versatile defender who could hit open 3's and occasionally get a bucket when the shot clock was winding down. Unfortunately, about 80% of the time he was a lazy disinterested defender who played good man defense but never helped on the weakside.

I think Rui could be "good Markieff Morris" most of the time because Rui seems to give a crap.

Fair enough, & Kieff did have stretches of pretty good play. Still... that's a pretty limited vision to have for a guy you took #9 in the draft, so let's hope he's a bunch better than that.

I don't think that's limited at all. The really good version of Markieff Morris is the perfect starting power forward in today's game - a guy who is switchable 1 through 5, can take on the responsibility of guarding the opposition's best forward, and can backstop the defense with weakside help. Rui isn't there yet as a weakside help defender, but I think he'll get there. It usually takes a good 3 or 4 years for players to really figure out help defense. Rui has played just 100 career games. But if he does, he's an above-average starting forward who cannot be mismatched. That's probably the hardest position to fill in the league. Yeah, that's not an All-Star or anything, but expecting an All-Star at #9 is a tall order. Getting a reliable above-average starter is a totally acceptable outcome at #9.

Descriptions of this kind are meaningless, nate. More specifically, they are special pleading.

An average starting 4 puts up average numbers for a starting 4. That's what it means to be average. Period. & an above average starting 4 puts up better numbers than the average guy. That's what the phrase "above average" means.

Guys who put up numbers significantly worse than the numbers an average starting 4 puts up do not start. The farther below those numbers theirs are, the further down the bench they go. That's how the world works.

Below average numbers means you are a below average player. It can't be described out of existence, because that is what the phrase means. In exactly the same way that "below average team" means that you win fewer games than average.

There aren't any above average teams with losing records, & there aren't any players who put up below average numbers for their position but are good players all the same. Period. No exceptions.

Not only does Rui not put up numbers as good as an average starting 4, he doesn't put up numbers as good as the average of all NBA 4s -- from starters all the way down to the guy at the end of the bench. A guy who does that is not a good player -- period. That's what "not good" means; it means below average.

Rui may be a good player some day. Right now he's not a good player. Not good for a starter, not average for a starter, not good for a guy off the bench, not average -- or anywhere near average -- among all the many guys playing the 4 in the league. You can explain away anything you want to explain away; it really doesn't make a difference.

Rui scores just slightly fewer points than an average 4, but to do so he needs to take more shots than an average 4 & more FTAs than an average 4. As a result his TS% is 55% -- the average for a 4 is 57.6%. Not the average for a starter, mind you -- just the average of all the guys logging minutes at the position.

Rui gets almost as many defensive boards as an average 4; he's only 4% below average. But, he gets only 65% as many offensive boards as an average 4.

Rui gets 55% as many assists as an average 4. He blocks 1/5 as many shots as an average 4. He also gets fewer steals than an average 4. The only things he does better than average is to turn the ball over less than an average 4 & foul a bit less than average. That's good, but it doesn't begin to make up the very substantial delta between what Rui Hachimura does on an NBA court & what is average for a guy at his position.

As I say, some day Rui Hachimura may become a good NBA player. When he does, we'll see it in his numbers. Instead of being bad, they will be good. Right now, they're bad. Rui is bad -- he's a bad NBA player.

[Dark Faze]

I can't disagree. He's got to improve significantly next year.

[prime1time]

Fair enough, & Kieff did have stretches of pretty good play. Still... that's a pretty limited vision to have for a guy you took #9 in the draft, so let's hope he's a bunch better than that.

I don't think that's limited at all. The really good version of Markieff Morris is the perfect starting power forward in today's game - a guy who is switchable 1 through 5, can take on the responsibility of guarding the opposition's best forward, and can backstop the defense with weakside help. Rui isn't there yet as a weakside help defender, but I think he'll get there. It usually takes a good 3 or 4 years for players to really figure out help defense. Rui has played just 100 career games. But if he does, he's an above-average starting forward who cannot be mismatched. That's probably the hardest position to fill in the league. Yeah, that's not an All-Star or anything, but expecting an All-Star at #9 is a tall order. Getting a reliable above-average starter is a totally acceptable outcome at #9.

Descriptions of this kind are meaningless, nate. More specifically, they are special pleading.

An average starting 4 puts up average numbers for a starting 4. That's what it means to be average. Period. & an above average starting 4 puts up better numbers than the average guy. That's what the phrase "above average" means.

Guys who put up numbers significantly worse than the numbers an average starting 4 puts up do not start. The farther below those numbers theirs are, the further down the bench they go. That's how the world works.

Below average numbers means you are a below average player. It can't be described out of existence, because that is what the phrase means. In exactly the same way that "below average team" means that you win fewer games than average.

There aren't any above average teams with losing records, & there aren't any players who put up below average numbers for their position but are good players all the same. Period. No exceptions.

Not only does Rui not put up numbers as good as an average starting 4, he doesn't put up numbers as good as the average of all NBA 4s -- from starters all the way down to the guy at the end of the bench. A guy who does that is not a good player -- period. That's what "not good" means; it means below average.

Rui may be a good player some day. Right now he's not a good player. Not good for a starter, not average for a starter, not good for a guy off the bench, not average -- or anywhere near average -- among all the many guys playing the 4 in the league. You can explain away anything you want to explain away; it really doesn't make a difference.

Rui scores just slightly fewer points than an average 4, but to do so he needs to take more shots than an average 4 & more FTAs than an average 4. As a result his TS% is 55% -- the average for a 4 is 57.6%. Not the average for a starter, mind you -- just the average of all the guys logging minutes at the position.

Rui gets almost as many defensive boards as an average 4; he's only 4% below average. But, he gets only 65% as many offensive boards as an average 4.

Rui gets 55% as many assists as an average 4. He blocks 1/5 as many shots as an average 4. He also gets fewer steals than an average 4. The only things he does better than average is to turn the ball over less than an average 4 & foul a bit less than average. That's good, but it doesn't begin to make up the very substantial delta between what Rui Hachimura does on an NBA court & what is average for a guy at his position.

As I say, some day Rui Hachimura may become a good NBA player. When he does, we'll see it in his numbers. Instead of being bad, they will be good. Right now, they're bad. Rui is bad -- he's a bad NBA player.

This is a lot of words to write what everyone already knows. That Rui needs to improve. Here's a question, which "average" pf would you replace Rui with to make our team better? Personally, I think your analysis is always off because it views players in isolation devoid of context. For example, your criticize Rui's rebounding. But what about the fact that he plays with Westbrook? You focus on how many shots he blocks, but how important of a stat is that really? It's only important to the degree that it correlates with overall rim protection. But I have seen numerous times where Rui provides adequate rim protection but does not block the shot. For players where rim protection does not correlate with number of blocks, the stat is irrelevant. You criticize his lack of steals but what does that stat really represent?

At the end of the day, Rui is a young player who is improving. He improved this season and he needs to continue to improve next season. But on a deeper and more fundamental level, your analysis is flawed. At best, box score numbers need to be put in a larger narrative so that we can understand how to view them. Citing box score numbers by themselves devoid of context and asserting that a player is good or average or bad is simply bad analysis which would ultimately lead to bad conclusions and bad decisions.

For example, because your analysis can only produce a binary-esque result, Good/Bad, how should we deal with the fact that some bad players can improve into good players while some bad players stay bad? How do we account for the fact that a player can be a "bad" player on one team, then see his role change and suddenly become a "good" player? How do we account for the fact that a player might be doing precisely what the coaching staff wants him to so he finishes below average in some box score stats? Ultimately, I guess the question is what the best way to ascertain a player's success? Is it arbitrarily comparing him to the average standardized production of a player at his position or should it be based on objectively understanding a players strengths/weaknesses, understanding how they could improve, the ideal role for them to play, analyzing their current role, how successful they are at accomplishing it and how all of that could factor into a teams ability to win games.

One thing your analysis is good for though is to score points on message boards where a definitive good player/bad player conclusion helps to win arguments.

[WallToWall]

After seeing a stretch of about 10 or 15 games where he played above average, his play has since diminished. It is within him to play well, as those 10 or 15 games exemplify. We need to see that level of play more consistently over the season.

[prime1time]

After seeing a stretch of about 10 or 15 games where he played above average, his play has since diminished. It is within him to play well, as those 10 or 15 games exemplify. We need to see that level of play more consistently over the season.

Tbh, I think he’s openly marginally improved. I think Westbrook feeds him a bunch of East baskets and many of the points he gets. At the same time, I’m still optimistic for Rui. We should acknowledge the fact that his role on this team is completely different than his role was on last years team. In the bubble last year Rui was the #1 option. Now he’s the 3rd/4th option. This season he has shot more 3’s and at a higher percentage. I think next year will be a very big year for him. If he can take another step forward he can be a very good player. I also think we should acknowledge that not having Thomas Bryant on the floor has hurt him offensively. With Bryant’s ability to space the floor at the 5 it opens space for Rui to attack.

It’ll be interesting to see how Rui grows in the offseason. He has shown flashes but now he needs to put it together consistently. The good thing is that with Westbrook and Beal on the squad, Rui will have a very defined role. This year, he came in with an undefined role. I also think that Rui is more of a sf than a pf. If we can a pf, maybe we bring Deni off the bench and move Rui to the 3.

[payitforward]

I don't think that's limited at all. The really good version of Markieff Morris is the perfect starting power forward in today's game - a guy who is switchable 1 through 5, can take on the responsibility of guarding the opposition's best forward, and can backstop the defense with weakside help. Rui isn't there yet as a weakside help defender, but I think he'll get there. It usually takes a good 3 or 4 years for players to really figure out help defense. Rui has played just 100 career games. But if he does, he's an above-average starting forward who cannot be mismatched. That's probably the hardest position to fill in the league. Yeah, that's not an All-Star or anything, but expecting an All-Star at #9 is a tall order. Getting a reliable above-average starter is a totally acceptable outcome at #9.

Descriptions of this kind are meaningless, nate. More specifically, they are special pleading.

An average starting 4 puts up average numbers for a starting 4. That's what it means to be average. Period. & an above average starting 4 puts up better numbers than the average guy. That's what the phrase "above average" means.

Guys who put up numbers significantly worse than the numbers an average starting 4 puts up do not start. The farther below those numbers theirs are, the further down the bench they go. That's how the world works.

Below average numbers means you are a below average player. It can't be described out of existence, because that is what the phrase means. In exactly the same way that "below average team" means that you win fewer games than average.

There aren't any above average teams with losing records, & there aren't any players who put up below average numbers for their position but are good players all the same. Period. No exceptions.

Not only does Rui not put up numbers as good as an average starting 4, he doesn't put up numbers as good as the average of all NBA 4s -- from starters all the way down to the guy at the end of the bench. A guy who does that is not a good player -- period. That's what "not good" means; it means below average.

Rui may be a good player some day. Right now he's not a good player. Not good for a starter, not average for a starter, not good for a guy off the bench, not average -- or anywhere near average -- among all the many guys playing the 4 in the league. You can explain away anything you want to explain away; it really doesn't make a difference.

Rui scores just slightly fewer points than an average 4, but to do so he needs to take more shots than an average 4 & more FTAs than an average 4. As a result his TS% is 55% -- the average for a 4 is 57.6%. Not the average for a starter, mind you -- just the average of all the guys logging minutes at the position.

Rui gets almost as many defensive boards as an average 4; he's only 4% below average. But, he gets only 65% as many offensive boards as an average 4.

Rui gets 55% as many assists as an average 4. He blocks 1/5 as many shots as an average 4. He also gets fewer steals than an average 4. The only things he does better than average is to turn the ball over less than an average 4 & foul a bit less than average. That's good, but it doesn't begin to make up the very substantial delta between what Rui Hachimura does on an NBA court & what is average for a guy at his position.

As I say, some day Rui Hachimura may become a good NBA player. When he does, we'll see it in his numbers. Instead of being bad, they will be good. Right now, they're bad. Rui is bad -- he's a bad NBA player.

This is a lot of words to write what everyone already knows. That Rui needs to improve. Here's a question, which "average" pf would you replace Rui with to make our team better? Personally, I think your analysis is always off because it views players in isolation devoid of context. For example, your criticize Rui's rebounding. But what about the fact that he plays with Westbrook? You focus on how many shots he blocks, but how important of a stat is that really? It's only important to the degree that it correlates with overall rim protection. But I have seen numerous times where Rui provides adequate rim protection but does not block the shot. For players where rim protection does not correlate with number of blocks, the stat is irrelevant. You criticize his lack of steals but what does that stat really represent?

At the end of the day, Rui is a young player who is improving. He improved this season and he needs to continue to improve next season. But on a deeper and more fundamental level, your analysis is flawed. At best, box score numbers need to be put in a larger narrative so that we can understand how to view them. Citing box score numbers by themselves devoid of context and asserting that a player is good or average or bad is simply bad analysis which would ultimately lead to bad conclusions and bad decisions.

For example, because your analysis can only produce a binary-esque result, Good/Bad, how should we deal with the fact that some bad players can improve into good players while some bad players stay bad? How do we account for the fact that a player can be a "bad" player on one team, then see his role change and suddenly become a "good" player? How do we account for the fact that a player might be doing precisely what the coaching staff wants him to so he finishes below average in some box score stats? Ultimately, I guess the question is what the best way to ascertain a player's success? Is it arbitrarily comparing him to the average standardized production of a player at his position or should it be based on objectively understanding a players strengths/weaknesses, understanding how they could improve, the ideal role for them to play, analyzing their current role, how successful they are at accomplishing it and how all of that could factor into a teams ability to win games.

One thing your analysis is good for though is to score points on message boards where a definitive good player/bad player conclusion helps to win arguments.

Alas, there isn't one true statement in the above. Other than that "Rui needs to improve." As for the personal part, you're just being snarky. I'm not inclined to pay it any mind -- other than to note that it's part of the interesting phenomenon that Rui has gotten special treatment here: unlike any Wizards rookie I can remember.

For example, if I made the same statements I just made about Rui, but I made them about Deni -- if for example I said "Deni Avdija may be a good player some day. Right now he's not a good player." -- nobody would think twice about it. It's obviously true.

Rui Hachimura, as of today, on his NBA career so far, is not a good player. He's a bad player. I don't want him to be a bad player. I want him to be a good player. But, he isn't one. Not so far. Ditto Deni.

Oh, & so much for being "right" on a message board! I thought Deni was a terrific pick! Like Rui, he may some day be a good player. But, to this point it looks like I was wrong about picking Deni.

So there you are... as soon as Rui becomes a good player, I'll say he's a good player. & I'll be happy too -- happy for him, happy for the Wizards, & happy that I get to praise him.

By the way, overall, Rui hasn't improved this year. You make a fair point about Russ's effect on rebounding, so leave that out -- on the rest of his play, overall, Rui hasn't gotten better his second year; if anything he's gotten a little worse. Sorry about that.