2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[The Master]

If you're saying that more minutes of Karl Towns equates to a higher title than Nikola Jokic, I would disagree. If you had a championship level team and you could pick between rookie Lillard and rookie Davis, you're usually better off with Davis, even if for some reason the coach decided to not play him more minutes.

I don't think that 'what player is better on a championship level team' is a great criteria to evaluate rookies. You'd rather have Kessler or Horford than rookie Kevin Durant (who was 29 3pt% shooter and a weak defender, so his role player upside was kind of meh at that time) or Banchero, and you'd rather have Brogdon than Embiid who needed to be shutdowned in January in his rookie year due to knee problems - but the result would be contradictory to your previous point.

Davis played limited minutes as a rookie, because he was fragile physically: yeah, you can ignore it based on 'I'd play him 21 minutes a game on contender), but it wasn't surreal or narrative-driven not to ignore that Lillard played +1300 minutes more as a rookie. I see your point though, I just don't think there's a criteria that can grasp multidimensional situations that rookies find themselves in. Sometimes rookies fly under the radar (Jokic) due to the lack of hype, that's true, but sometimes you can really overthink it.

[HeartBreakKid]

If you're saying that more minutes of Karl Towns equates to a higher title than Nikola Jokic, I would disagree. If you had a championship level team and you could pick between rookie Lillard and rookie Davis, you're usually better off with Davis, even if for some reason the coach decided to not play him more minutes.

I don't think that 'what player is better on a championship level team' is a great criteria to evaluate rookies. You'd rather have Kessler or Horford than rookie Kevin Durant (who was 29 3pt% shooter and a weak defender, so his role player upside was kind of meh at that time) or Banchero, and you'd rather have Brogdon than Embiid who needed to be shutdowned in January in his rookie year due to knee problems - but the result would be contradictory to your previous point.

Davis played limited minutes as a rookie, because he was fragile physically: yeah, you can ignore it based on 'I'd play him 21 minutes a game on contender), but it wasn't surreal or narrative-driven not to ignore that Lillard played +1300 minutes more as a rookie. I see your point though, I just don't think there's a criteria that can grasp multidimensional situations that rookies find themselves in.

Davis still plays less minutes than Lillard does now and pretty much any year of their career. Being fragile was not a rookie thing for Davis, he was likely more durable back then than the 2020s.

Davis is still (usually) seen as a more valuable player. Why is it different when they are rookies?

[The Master]

Davis is still (usually) seen as a more valuable player. Why is it different when they are rookies?

Regardless of minutes argument, it could be arguable that Lillard was a better player, from what I see he looks much better in on/off and RAPM data on very similar team in a bigger role and minutes. He was 3 years older after all. I remember Davis as a rookie being disappointing (he was hyped as one of the greatest prospects in the XXI century; interestingly, he met this hype in his 2nd-3rd year, and that's it), so I don't think later career should be extrapolated from a decade long perspective.

But I also don't think it was any meaningful as everyone knew who's a better prospect. That being said, to be honest, the more I think about it, the more ROTY for Davis would be actually narrative-driven. He didn't have any narrative though. Lillard is top75 player ever or so, it's not that controversial he was better as a 22-23yo than AD as a 19-20yo.

[Mos_Heat]

LeBron NEEDS to leave the Lakers. Go for ring 5 instead of wasting your last ~3 years on a play-in team

Dont they have the ability to get another star this summer? Someone like Mitchell, Trae, Kyrie? to round out with Ad and theres not better feasible situations for him

Kyrie - yes. No shot at Mitchell or Trae

[Doctor MJ]

I don't view ROY as "who was the most impactful rookie". I did in the past, but I have since moved past that thought-process and instead try to en capture a narrative with awards like ROY.

Yeah, me too, especially after Banchero vs Kessler a year ago. This time, I don't consider this ROTY race as a 'legit' discussion, because we have enough of track record to know that Holmgren is actually a sophomore, benefiting of his redshirted rookie year in the same way as Griffin, Simmons or Embiid benefited from that in the past. He's visibly older and on a different stage of his career as a player, Mitchell and Simmons were at least the same age. Chet is great regardless and already a borderline allstar impact-wise, I don't see it as a debate (at least vs Wemby) tho.

So, I just have to put in my 2 cents here:

It doesn't make sense to me to see people who miss a previous year due to injury as not rookies when they first play. For the most part all of these guys are less experienced than what traditional rookies were - 4 years of college ball.

I do think it's a bit different if you're talking about someone who was a pro already, particularly if they're older than a college age player when they come into the league, but think it's largely just up to the NBA to determine who is eligible.

[tsherkin]

I don't view ROY as "who was the most impactful rookie". I did in the past, but I have since moved past that thought-process and instead try to en capture a narrative with awards like ROY.

Yeah, me too, especially after Banchero vs Kessler a year ago. This time, I don't consider this ROTY race as a 'legit' discussion, because we have enough of track record to know that Holmgren is actually a sophomore, benefiting of his redshirted rookie year in the same way as Griffin, Simmons or Embiid benefited from that in the past. He's visibly older and on a different stage of his career as a player, Mitchell and Simmons were at least the same age. Chet is great regardless and already a borderline allstar impact-wise, I don't see it as a debate (at least vs Wemby) tho.

So, I just have to put in my 2 cents here:

It doesn't make sense to me to see people who miss a previous year due to injury as not rookies when they first play. For the most part all of these guys are less experienced than what traditional rookies were - 4 years of college ball.

I do think it's a bit different if you're talking about someone who was a pro already, particularly if they're older than a college age player when they come into the league, but think it's largely just up to the NBA to determine who is eligible.

Given the extra training camp they enjoy and all the exposure to NBA trainers and video and such in the interim year, I can't agree with that.

Yes, there's learning only possible on the court, but a year of film and nutrition and coach access and so forth ia very different than a player hitting the league with just a few months of off-season.

[Doctor MJ]

I look at ROY in splits and do not factor the start of the season as heavily as the last.

But I do greatly urge people who have criteria's that consistently give them the same results as Skip Bayless and Stephen A Smith to tweak it. Nothing good can come from that.



Coincidently, I would say that the player who was actually the best rookie that year, usually ends up better than the selected, narrative-driven, ROY - making the latter a rather pointless philosophy.

Just off the top of my head some examples

Jokic > Towns
Haliburton > Ball
Embiid > Brogdon
Oladipo > MCW
Davis > Lillard


I think Wiggins > Noel is the only exception, and it took a few years for that to be true - and Wiggins didn't exactly light the world on fire either like he was projected to. Wiggins certainly did not deserve a "narrative" boost that he got for putting up an empty 20 points and the incorrect projections that he would become a superstar.


The other examples left the ROY and best rookie likely won the same year (Simmons, Luka, Morant?)

So all sorts of good thoughts here. To chime in on the specific rival rookie comparisons - not to rebut what you said because I do think there's something to it generally:

Jokic vs Towns: To me this is a situation where the way the team plays a guy makes it very hard to have confidence on how the player will scale to a starring role. I found Jokic the most intriguing rookie that year, but sided with KAT for ROY. That probably makes me a bit more likely to look for future Jokiches and not side against them lightly, but I don't want to overcompensate either.

Haliburton vs Ball: Actually, a somewhat similar example as the last, which shows I'm pretty hesitant to side with the lower primacy rookie - though here I'll say that I did actually think Ball was the most intriguing player

Embiid vs Brogdon. Oh man, this one has always stuck with me because I think those voting for Brogdon - which was obviously most people - don't really understand what the award is for. It's about hyping up a future star. The idea then that you'd choose a guy who literally shouldn't be hyped over a guy who looks like a superstar already simply because of missed time is just not helping the sport. It's different if a guy literally doesn't play enough to have that much confidence in him, but literally everyone was dead sure that Embiid was much better at basketball than Brogdon based on what they saw that season.

Oladipo vs MCW. Yup, MCW is a perfect example here because this wasn't actually about the more hyped guy just getting more rope as a rookie. Oladipo was the more hyped guy...but along comes Philly in super-tank mode and this rookie has the literal game of his life as a rookie. 76ers ride that hype wave caring not that the team wasn't good like that, and thus letting MCW develop a set of habits that would absolutely not be what he needed to stick around in the NBA as an in demand piece.

Davis vs Lillard. So, I think this is a classic case of two legit ROY philosophies. Lillard played more like a star as a rookie, but there was no serious talk that Davis shouldn't have been the #1 pick, and there were arguments that Davis was already more impressive than Lillard. Honestly I'll say that Lillard's actually come close to Davis than I expected after their rookie season, but the expectation that Davis would be the better player is to me something that's proven correct.

Funny, because this was before I added ROY to the All-Season Awards, I don't actually recall whether I sided with Dame or AD for the award at the time. I just remember being torn.

Wiggins vs Noel. So, 2014 is an interesting and complicated year here, because I think you could argue that both Wiggins & Noel were focused on because of minutes and expectation, while Nikola Mirotic was the guy coming along unexpectedly in a smaller minute load and getting in the conversation at 3rd. Something I find fascinating though is that Marcus Smart got so little attention compared to that main 3, because I think in retrospect, he probably was the best player of the bunch at the time, and has had the best career of them.

Back to Wiggins & Noel, these guys are such interesting case studies because I don't think we can really argue that folks ahead of time understood the way the NBA landscape would shift so much for them.

In the case of Wiggins, what you had fundamentally was a guy who was clearly going to be a bust of a volume scoring star who proved able to be a great role player when he has mind around the effort he needs to put in on defense. While people at the time noted the theory of him as a strong defender, I don't think anyone was arguing that Wiggins should be ROY with a thought to that side of the court.

In the case of Noel, you've got a guy who just has everything go wrong for him. He goes from his strengths (defense) being built around as a rookie, to having everything re-arranged around a different big the next year (Jahlil), and then everything changes permanently when Embiid actually arrives. Along the way, the NBA finally goes all-in on 3-point shooting, hurting Noel on both sides of the court. Then he has that whole debacle where he bets on himself to earn a max contract and ends up not looking like a rotation player. Had he taken the offer he'd been given by Dallas, they probably would have been invested in finding a way to really figure out a way to use him, and it's entirely possible the dude earns serious DPOY discussion. Instead, he ends up two lopsided of a piece to really fit into anyone else's puzzle.

ROYs who were best rookie?

Simmons - yes, I'd say that was still the correct call amazingly. 2017 had the best set of 3 rookies (in Simmons, Tatum & Mitchell) that I can even remember. But fundamentally, we saw Simmons as the star of a team tear through the end of the regular season and then right through the first round. From there it wasn't a question of whether Simmons could become a star, because he was one. For him to fall apart like he has, while we can identify causes that were visible in him as a rookie, is really about mental things that I don't think I'd ever feel comfortable predicting.

Luka - yup. I do think Trae Young made himself a case and you could argue he had a bit of "better guy later in the year" going for him, but there was never really a time I felt that torn on who should get my vote.

Ja - well now this one is interesting because of the Zion situation. There was an Embiid-like thing going on with Zion. I ended up siding with Ja along with most, but part of the thing for me honestly was Zion's disappointing Bubble run. The NBA really tried to cue it up for Zion to emerge as a future superstar in Florida after his super-exciting previous stint that season, and he just disappointed. But the thing is, speaking with some distance, I think Zion at full strength at an age even younger than his rookie age was a better player than rookie Ja...and I'm not just if peak Ja has actually topped peak Zion yet. This then to say, part of me feels like I should have voted for Zion even though I didn't.

And then the more recent guys:

Scottie vs Mobley. Scottie got the award, I was among those here siding with Mobley. Scottie people certainly have bragging rights at the moment, but honestly I was hoping for more from both of them by this point.

Paolo vs Kessler. Paolo got the ward, I was among those here siding with Kessler. I can't say I regret it. I actually think Paolo making all-star was a pretty significant mistake on the part of the coaches.

Going back further in time:

The 2003-04 the ROY race was very interesting because it was about LeBron vs Melo, but by season's end Wade would emerge as the best player of the bunch for their first few years in the league...and yet no one really talked in these terms during the ROY discussion. Even when Wade earned more playing time than LeBron on the Olympic team, people were not seeing Wade as a guy who was about to breakout as a superstar. I honestly think that Wade probably should have been the ROY based on what I value, but at the time I was debating LeBron & Melo like most everyone else.

Finally I'll go back to when I really started thinking more clearly about this in 2007-08 with Kevin Durant. There you had a guy who was very much anti-valuable early on, but the Thunder were committed to building around him, and it paid off big time by his 3rd season. That same year you had Luis Scola - a 27 year old international legend - and Al Horford. If you believe ROY should be about the most valuable person called a rookie I think it's Scola, if you eliminate someone that old, I think it's Horford. But is it in the best interest of the NBA to put either of those guys forward in the minds of the public instead of KD? No, it really isn't.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah, me too, especially after Banchero vs Kessler a year ago. This time, I don't consider this ROTY race as a 'legit' discussion, because we have enough of track record to know that Holmgren is actually a sophomore, benefiting of his redshirted rookie year in the same way as Griffin, Simmons or Embiid benefited from that in the past. He's visibly older and on a different stage of his career as a player, Mitchell and Simmons were at least the same age. Chet is great regardless and already a borderline allstar impact-wise, I don't see it as a debate (at least vs Wemby) tho.

So, I just have to put in my 2 cents here:

It doesn't make sense to me to see people who miss a previous year due to injury as not rookies when they first play. For the most part all of these guys are less experienced than what traditional rookies were - 4 years of college ball.

I do think it's a bit different if you're talking about someone who was a pro already, particularly if they're older than a college age player when they come into the league, but think it's largely just up to the NBA to determine who is eligible.

Given the extra training camp they enjoy and all the exposure to NBA trainers and video and such in the interim year, I can't agree with that.

Yes, there's learning only possible on the court, but a year of film and nutrition and coach access and so forth ia very different than a player hitting the league with just a few months of off-season.

Are you telling me that redshirt rookies of today are better prepared for the NBA than rookie Kareem was?

[Doctor MJ]

Davis is still (usually) seen as a more valuable player. Why is it different when they are rookies?

So, I think one of the things going on here is that Davis, if he was going to be a hit, was supposed to be an instant impact defensive player. Instead, the NO defense fell of a cliff in his rookie season.

Nowadays, Davis has his NBA defense bonafides, and it gives an easy explanation for choosing him over Lillard despite Lillard's amazing offense, but in their rookie season, that argument didn't really resonate.

[Colbinii]

I look at ROY in splits and do not factor the start of the season as heavily as the last.

But I do greatly urge people who have criteria's that consistently give them the same results as Skip Bayless and Stephen A Smith to tweak it. Nothing good can come from that.



Coincidently, I would say that the player who was actually the best rookie that year, usually ends up better than the selected, narrative-driven, ROY - making the latter a rather pointless philosophy.

Just off the top of my head some examples

Jokic > Towns
Haliburton > Ball
Embiid > Brogdon
Oladipo > MCW
Davis > Lillard


I think Wiggins > Noel is the only exception, and it took a few years for that to be true - and Wiggins didn't exactly light the world on fire either like he was projected to. Wiggins certainly did not deserve a "narrative" boost that he got for putting up an empty 20 points and the incorrect projections that he would become a superstar.


The other examples left the ROY and best rookie likely won the same year (Simmons, Luka, Morant?)

So all sorts of good thoughts here. To chime in on the specific rival rookie comparisons - not to rebut what you said because I do think there's something to it generally:

Jokic vs Towns: To me this is a situation where the way the team plays a guy makes it very hard to have confidence on how the player will scale to a starring role. I found Jokic the most intriguing rookie that year, but sided with KAT for ROY. That probably makes me a bit more likely to look for future Jokiches and not side against them lightly, but I don't want to overcompensate either.

I know you like a variety of different basketball leagues (Notably the NBA and WNBA), but you should check out Robbie Avila from Indiana State.

Most Jokic-like player we have seen enter the college ranks.

[tsherkin]

So, I just have to put in my 2 cents here:

It doesn't make sense to me to see people who miss a previous year due to injury as not rookies when they first play. For the most part all of these guys are less experienced than what traditional rookies were - 4 years of college ball.

I do think it's a bit different if you're talking about someone who was a pro already, particularly if they're older than a college age player when they come into the league, but think it's largely just up to the NBA to determine who is eligible.

Given the extra training camp they enjoy and all the exposure to NBA trainers and video and such in the interim year, I can't agree with that.

Yes, there's learning only possible on the court, but a year of film and nutrition and coach access and so forth ia very different than a player hitting the league with just a few months of off-season.

Are you telling me that redshirt rookies of today are better prepared for the NBA than rookie Kareem was?

I think time spent with a modern NBA team is more relevant to the contemporary NBA than the NCAA, yes. I dont know that I would say the same relative to Kareem's era, but I dont care to comment much on the subject outside the era for which it was broached. I think the answer is likely quite different in the 60s and 70s vs now.

[Doctor MJ]

Given the extra training camp they enjoy and all the exposure to NBA trainers and video and such in the interim year, I can't agree with that.

Yes, there's learning only possible on the court, but a year of film and nutrition and coach access and so forth ia very different than a player hitting the league with just a few months of off-season.

Are you telling me that redshirt rookies of today are better prepared for the NBA than rookie Kareem was?

I think time spent with a modern NBA team is more relevant to the contemporary NBA than the NCAA, yes. I dont know that I would say the same relative to Kareem's era, but I dont care to comment much on the subject outside the era for which it was broached. I think the answer is likely quite different in the 60s and 70s vs now.

Okay. Well my perspective is this:

Given that the relevance of this question is built around the ROY award, and that was an award created with the intent of evaluating 22 year-olds with 4 years of experience out of high school, I don't see much point in people trying to dismiss a 20 year old for having too much experience.

If you simply want to talk about the details of what we think each player got out of his time on NBA teams on the other hand, I'll certainly acknowledge that a guy who spends a year with an NBA team would hopefully be a better player than he was a year earlier. I think it's not any kind of given - a Wiseman once demonstrated - but yes, the a player ought to be able to learn from this experience.

[eminence]

Damn Boston.

If they finish the job this season they're going down as an ATG team.

[tsherkin]

Given that the relevance of this question is built around the ROY award, and that was an award created with the intent of evaluating 22 year-olds with 4 years of experience out of high school, I don't see much point in people trying to dismiss a 20 year old for having too much experience.

If you simply want to talk about the details of what we think each player got out of his time on NBA teams on the other hand, I'll certainly acknowledge that a guy who spends a year with an NBA team would hopefully be a better player than he was a year earlier. I think it's not any kind of given - a Wiseman once demonstrated - but yes, the a player ought to be able to learn from this experience.

I still disagree. I appreciate what you're trying to say, but I think the value of NBA training camps and coaching and so forth is greater than the sum of a few extra years of NCAA games, I guess is my point. And in the context of the modern NBA where you're not seeing ROY contenders coming out with 4 years of experience, I don't think it's really salient to consider the 4-year NCAA action when you're comparing a bunch of guys who are 1-and-dones anyhow.

So when you're talking about guys who were 1-and-done versus guys who did that and then enjoyed a whole season of access to their NBA team and a second off-season/preseason, I don't think that's a fair evaluation in context of that award at all.

[Colbinii]

Wemby with a 31/12/6/6 game against one of the best offenses in the NBA, +19 on the game

Incredible stuff defensively.

[Doctor MJ]

Given that the relevance of this question is built around the ROY award, and that was an award created with the intent of evaluating 22 year-olds with 4 years of experience out of high school, I don't see much point in people trying to dismiss a 20 year old for having too much experience.

If you simply want to talk about the details of what we think each player got out of his time on NBA teams on the other hand, I'll certainly acknowledge that a guy who spends a year with an NBA team would hopefully be a better player than he was a year earlier. I think it's not any kind of given - a Wiseman once demonstrated - but yes, the a player ought to be able to learn from this experience.

I still disagree. I appreciate what you're trying to say, but I think the value of NBA training camps and coaching and so forth is greater than the sum of a few extra years of NCAA games, I guess is my point. And in the context of the modern NBA where you're not seeing ROY contenders coming out with 4 years of experience, I don't think it's really salient to consider the 4-year NCAA action when you're comparing a bunch of guys who are 1-and-dones anyhow.

So when you're talking about guys who were 1-and-done versus guys who did that and then enjoyed a whole season of access to their NBA team and a second off-season/preseason, I don't think that's a fair evaluation in context of that award at all.

I think what confuses me about your perspective is that it's pretty clear to me that the best rookies of all-time come from the era where they played several years of college ball. Literally, all these modern rookies suck relative to the modern NBA compared to Kareem and other guys did with their respective NBA's. So if Kareem could get a ROY, why would eliminate worse rookies from consideration?

Now am I saying that 4 years of college ball now is better than one year plus one year of training with an NBA team? No, but the fact that the best talents just don't stay in college is a big part of that.

[HeartBreakKid]

Davis is still (usually) seen as a more valuable player. Why is it different when they are rookies?

So, I think one of the things going on here is that Davis, if he was going to be a hit, was supposed to be an instant impact defensive player. Instead, the NO defense fell of a cliff in his rookie season.

Nowadays, Davis has his NBA defense bonafides, and it gives an easy explanation for choosing him over Lillard despite Lillard's amazing offense, but in their rookie season, that argument didn't really resonate.

Yes, that is true. But while Davis was not a day 1 elite defender, he was better on offense than people thought he'd be by a lot. What he was good at was the reverse on what people were expecting from him as a rookie.

In college, Davis job like the 5th leading scorer or field goals - something of that nature. He was just expected to carry the defense, so many people did not expect him to be that good at scoring/finishing.

[The-Power]

Appreciate the good conversation about Victor and the effort to view him rationally. A couple points from my side:

I actively enjoy Wemby's play, but I'm so far below the consensus I'll constantly wind up on the negative side of any discussion about him.

I fully understand not going along with all the superlatives that have been thrown around as of late (understandably but nonetheless characterized by a lot of hyperbole) but how come you anticipate being far below the consensus going forward? Is there anything in his game that you think will prevent you from being as high as the majority of people even if he progresses nicely (as he has during his Rookie season)?

Defensively I think it’s more accurate, I wouldn’t say quite DPOY range, but close to it.

Offensively I think even recent Wemby is still hanging in the average impact range. Which is fine given his age, he’s finding his limits and it’ll benefit him going forward if he learns from it.

Close to DPOY-level and average impact offensively – that's a fringe All-Star level player, no? Do you think the consensus is already much higher on him than that?

I would say a full season grade of top 30 for Wemby this season is too high. More recently it's a smaller stretch, but games count at the beginning of the season too.

I'd agree that Victor hasn't been an All-Star level player throughout the season. That being said, I firmly view him as an All-Star level player over the course of the second half of the season.

Games 1-26 versus Games 27–54*

30.0 MPG to 27.5 MPG

18.3 PPG to 22.9 PPG
10.6 RPG to 9.9 RPG
2.8 APG to 3.9 APG
1.3 SPG to 1.3 SPG
3.0 BPG to 3.6 BPG
3.3 TOV to 3.5 TOV

51.7% TS to 60.7% TS
29.5% USG to 34.4% USG

105.9 ORTG to 114.6 ORTG
115.3 DRTG to 112.8 DRTG
–9.4 NetRTG to +1.8 NetRTG

Just for comparison, for the second half stretch that's a virtually the same net rating as the Lakers have had with LeBron on the court for the season. And the Spurs are a much inferior team but I don't think LeBron's case for still being an All-Star level player is particularly controversial due to the lack of team success or performance lift.

Victor has had a positive +/- in 7 out of 26 games (27%) for the first half of his season. He has had a positive +/- in 12 out of 29 games (41%) since then. It's obvious that he has taken a massive leap individually and I think it's also pretty obvious that his overall impact has increased considerably with it.

*the numbers do not include the most recent game versus the Pacers

On a final note, I do find his passing improvement nothing short of spectacular. He has shown flashes throughout the season but it has now become a weapon to use. I did not expect that – and certainly not that early on. I honestly see a chance for him to become the second best big man passer in the league pretty soon. A bunch of things to clean up still, of course, but the timing, creativity and delivery on some of his passes have already been amazing.

[The Master]

As a follow-up to what The-Power has already written:

Yeah I am not really blaming Wemby, but when the bar is “transformational rookie”, I do not think he has really met the mark, even factoring a bit for his age. The 2003 Cavaliers added 18-turning-19-year-old Lebron and jumped 6.5 SRS, then another 3 SRS jump the following year. The 1992 Magic added 20-turning-21-year-old Shaq and jumped 8 SRS.

A large part of it is frankly just minutes — most of the all-time top rookies were among the league leaders — but if Wemby needs to be played selectively to stay safely healthy, then that makes him less valuable.

I agree on that to some degree, but...

I don't think any of these top rookies played out of position for 25% of their rookie season / on as relatively weak team as this Spurs squad / on a team clearly tanking with experiments such as Sochan as a point guard. So even though your point (minutes limitations) is correct, I don't think any of these all-time great rookies was in as bad position as Wemby: he started this season as a power forward playing heavy minutes with Jeremy Sochan as a point guard on -10 SRS team, basically.

Since Wemby started to play as a C (12-08-2023)

According to the Add More Funds/former nbawowy:

Wemby on: -1.0 net
Wemby off: -11.0 net

Wemby on: 111.9 DRTG (-3.1 rDRTG, 6th)
Wemby off: 122.2 DRTG (+7.2 rDRTG, 30th)
Spurs: 116.9 DRTG (+1.9 rDRTG, 22nd)
Spurs 22/23: 120.0 DRTG (30th)

22.0 PPG
10.5 RPG
3.9 APG
3.8 BPG
28.0 MPG
~7.8 BPM

Simply staggering.

You can criticize Wembanyama for not playing enough minutes, but even if he had played 35 minutes a game in this span, Spurs would've been just around -4 net (assuming they still would've been -1 net with him on a court and -11 without him), not -6, and you still wouldn't get this transformational rookie effect for the full season. It's not that big of a difference.

This 111.9 DRTG with Wemby since he started to start as a center is incredible, Thunder are according to AMF* 112.2 DRTG with Holmgren in the full season.

* I don't know if they scale possessions correctly in per100 possessions estimations (nba.com does not, right?).

Based on this data, we could discuss that VW is overrated offensively (to some degree), but I think people are more astonished by his long-term projection offensively rather than him being an all-star already on this end (he's turnover-prone streaky scorer, although getting better and better), so I don't think he's overrated per se. Defensively, he's already a transformational player.

And he'll get criticized for lack of team success as soon as the next year regardless of circumstances he'll find himself in. I can easily imagine him having MVP-calibre season with Spurs having 35-47 type of a record.

[eminence]

Appreciate the good conversation about Victor and the effort to view him rationally. A couple points from my side:

I actively enjoy Wemby's play, but I'm so far below the consensus I'll constantly wind up on the negative side of any discussion about him.

I fully understand not going along with all the superlatives that have been thrown around as of late (understandably but nonetheless characterized by a lot of hyperbole) but how come you anticipate being far below the consensus going forward? Is there anything in his game that you think will prevent you from being as high as the majority of people even if he progresses nicely (as he has during his Rookie season)?

Defensively I think it’s more accurate, I wouldn’t say quite DPOY range, but close to it.

Offensively I think even recent Wemby is still hanging in the average impact range. Which is fine given his age, he’s finding his limits and it’ll benefit him going forward if he learns from it.

Close to DPOY-level and average impact offensively – that's a fringe All-Star level player, no? Do you think the consensus is already much higher on him than that?

I would say a full season grade of top 30 for Wemby this season is too high. More recently it's a smaller stretch, but games count at the beginning of the season too.

I'd agree that Victor hasn't been an All-Star level player throughout the season. That being said, I firmly view him as an All-Star level player over the course of the second half of the season.

Games 1-26 versus Games 27–54*

30.0 MPG to 27.5 MPG

18.3 PPG to 22.9 PPG
10.6 RPG to 9.9 RPG
2.8 APG to 3.9 APG
1.3 SPG to 1.3 SPG
3.0 BPG to 3.6 BPG
3.3 TOV to 3.5 TOV

51.7% TS to 60.7% TS
29.5% USG to 34.4% USG

105.9 ORTG to 114.6 ORTG
115.3 DRTG to 112.8 DRTG
–9.4 NetRTG to +1.8 NetRTG

Just for comparison, for the second half stretch that's a virtually the same net rating as the Lakers have had with LeBron on the court for the season. And the Spurs are a much inferior team but I don't think LeBron's case for still being an All-Star level player is particularly controversial due to the lack of team success or performance lift.

Victor has had a positive +/- in 7 out of 26 games (27%) for the first half of his season. He has had a positive +/- in 12 out of 29 games (41%) since then. It's obvious that he has taken a massive leap individually and I think it's also pretty obvious that his overall impact has increased considerably with it.

*the numbers do not include the most recent game versus the Pacers

On a final note, I do find his passing improvement nothing short of spectacular. He has shown flashes throughout the season but it has now become a weapon to use. I did not expect that – and certainly not that early on. I honestly see a chance for him to become the second best big man passer in the league pretty soon. A bunch of things to clean up still, of course, but the timing, creativity and delivery on some of his passes have already been amazing.

The only (non-injury) thing I can see slowing his progress is non-optimal offensive deployment. I agree his ceiling is absolutely absurd and he seems on pace to reach it.

He's currently #2 in DPOY odds and is currently generally being seen as well above Chet (in ROY odds and whatnot), yes, I think the general consensus on him right now does seem to be notably higher than fringe all-star.

I generally find rookies get 'taken the leap' applied too quickly to what amounts to hot streaks. He's improved, absolutely. 'The leap', I'll wait a bit longer. If that pull-up shooting was more in line with other shooting indicators he'd be well below average on the offensive end.