Welcome Okafor: Thread 2

[LloydFree]

Okafor will have some big years by the time he's in his mid twenties. Why can't he be coached to run to pick and roll? He has great size and short quickness to set picks and he has great hands and finishing ability rolling to the basket. He's already shown the ability to hit the elbow jumper. I feel confident that his jump shooting will improve and that he can extend his range. Simmons is going to get all of these guys good looks.

I do agree that Jah is going to have to be taught how to play defense because he hasn't figured it out by himself. It's hard to believe he can look so clueless on that end of the floor...

That hasn't been the biggest point of contention. If guys admitted he is weak and has to be coached-up a lot to become a good player, I would agree and move on. That's not what is being said. They're saying he is already good and he'll be great because all his deficiencies will go away as he ages, "because he's only 19". It doesn't work that way. Improvements can't be assumed. He is what he is right now, and that (and watching similar player's growth patterns for years) is all I have to go on.

[Los5782]

http://www.nba.com/sixers/news/new-episode-broadcast-grant-okafor-colangelo

separate from the ongoing discussions/debate... another Jahlil related listen/read.

[marcush]

You clearly have an agenda against Okafor though, and when anyone has an agenda against someone or something, it's hard to take their opinion about that subject matter seriously. I don't mean that in a contentious way, it's just a fact. It's like trying to debate Marcus Hayes about Sam Hinkie. He hates the guy, and will resort to using excuses about Turkey to defend his stance, so it's no use even debating him.

But Lloydfree is not using any emotional statements to back up his opinions. Doesn't get personal about his off court indescetions. He makes the statement that Jah does not defend to his requirements and uses pretty common stats to back it up.

The key difference is not cutting Okafor any slack about these clear deficiencies due to age and environment whereas most here already have that excuse built in and assumed.

[LongLiveHinkie]

You clearly have an agenda against Okafor though, and when anyone has an agenda against someone or something, it's hard to take their opinion about that subject matter seriously. I don't mean that in a contentious way, it's just a fact. It's like trying to debate Marcus Hayes about Sam Hinkie. He hates the guy, and will resort to using excuses about Turkey to defend his stance, so it's no use even debating him.

But Lloydfree is not using any emotional statements to back up his opinions. Doesn't get personal about his off court indescetions. He makes the statement that Jah does not defend to his requirements and uses pretty common stats to back it up.

The key difference is not cutting Okafor any slack about these clear deficiencies due to age and environment whereas most here already have that excuse built in and assumed.

If you say Okafor has deficiencies that's one thing, but when you state definitively you don't think he's a good player, that's just stupid, and not being objective. Okafor isn't great, he may not even be very good. But so say the guy isn't a good NBA player is laughable and hard to take someone seriously on the subject matter when they say something that dumb.

Average or below average players don't have the skill package that he has. And if one is going to argue that his defensive weaknesses and how he doesn't rebound as well as he should for a guy his size makes him "not good" then their idea of what "good" is, is ass backwards and totally askew. You can't put up 17 and 7 and have the incredible low post moves and touch around the basket and have his scoring instincts, and not be good.

Stauskas isn't good. Hollis Thompson really isn't good. Jakarr Sampson wasn't good. To say Okafor isn't good? Dumb.

And if you want to make an argument about something, make an argument. Just responding with cut and pasted stats is not an argument. And it comes off as pompous, arrogant, and passive aggressive.

[LloydFree]

You clearly have an agenda against Okafor though, and when anyone has an agenda against someone or something, it's hard to take their opinion about that subject matter seriously. I don't mean that in a contentious way, it's just a fact. It's like trying to debate Marcus Hayes about Sam Hinkie. He hates the guy, and will resort to using excuses about Turkey to defend his stance, so it's no use even debating him.

But Lloydfree is not using any emotional statements to back up his opinions. Doesn't get personal about his off court indescetions. He makes the statement that Jah does not defend to his requirements and uses pretty common stats to back it up.

The key difference is not cutting Okafor any slack about these clear deficiencies due to age and environment whereas most here already have that excuse built in and assumed.

If you say Okafor has deficiencies that's one thing, but when you state definitively you don't think he's a good player, that's just stupid, and not being objective. Okafor isn't great, he may not even be very good. But so say the guy isn't a good NBA player is laughable and hard to take someone seriously on the subject matter when they say something that dumb.

Average or below average players don't have the skill package that he has. And if one is going to argue that his defensive weaknesses and how he doesn't rebound as well as he should for a guy his size makes him "not good" then their idea of what "good" is, is ass backwards and totally askew. You can't put up 17 and 7 and have the incredible low post moves and touch around the basket and have his scoring instincts, and not be good.

Stauskas isn't good. Hollis Thompson really isn't good. Jakarr Sampson wasn't good. To say Okafor isn't good? Dumb.

And if you want to make an argument about something, make an argument. Just responding with cut and pasted stats is not an argument. And it comes off as pompous, arrogant, and passive aggressive.

Westbrook, get a dictionary and find a correct definition for passive aggressive, dummy. Go back to your race baiting posts from back in the day, jerk.

[marcush]

You clearly have an agenda against Okafor though, and when anyone has an agenda against someone or something, it's hard to take their opinion about that subject matter seriously. I don't mean that in a contentious way, it's just a fact. It's like trying to debate Marcus Hayes about Sam Hinkie. He hates the guy, and will resort to using excuses about Turkey to defend his stance, so it's no use even debating him.

But Lloydfree is not using any emotional statements to back up his opinions. Doesn't get personal about his off court indescetions. He makes the statement that Jah does not defend to his requirements and uses pretty common stats to back it up.

The key difference is not cutting Okafor any slack about these clear deficiencies due to age and environment whereas most here already have that excuse built in and assumed.

If you say Okafor has deficiencies that's one thing, but when you state definitively you don't think he's a good player, that's just stupid, and not being objective. Okafor isn't great, he may not even be very good. But so say the guy isn't a good NBA player is laughable and hard to take someone seriously on the subject matter when they say something that dumb.

Average or below average players don't have the skill package that he has. And if one is going to argue that his defensive weaknesses and how he doesn't rebound as well as he should for a guy his size makes him "not good" then their idea of what "good" is, is ass backwards and totally askew. You can't put up 17 and 7 and have the incredible low post moves and touch around the basket and have his scoring instincts, and not be good.

Stauskas isn't good. Hollis Thompson really isn't good. Jakarr Sampson wasn't good. To say Okafor isn't good? Dumb.

And if you want to make an argument about something, make an argument. Just responding with cut and pasted stats is not an argument. And it comes off as pompous, arrogant, and passive aggressive.

Emotional and personal........because someone has a difference of opinion ..... I think you are coming off more like Marcus Hayes in this instance.

[LongLiveHinkie]

It's not emotional or personal at all. Saying someone's stance on something is dumb isn't personal. Smart people can have dumb takes on stuff. I happen to agree with a lot of things LloydFree says, however in this instance I think his stance is absolutely asinine, and it's his right to have that opinion, but it's also my right to feel it is dumb. If that hurts feelings, so be it. That's how I feel.

And yes, I think just posting stats as a response is passive aggressive, because it's basically "kinda" insinuating that is your belief, without really declaring for sure that is what you feel. For example, if someone says Ben Simmons is great and I respond with "30% FGs(just picking a random number here) someone could assume I am arguing that Ben Simmons is not great, but I could easily back out of it and say something like "Oh no, I wasn't implying he wasn't great, I'm just pointing out a flaw he has and he needs to get better."

To me, that is very much passive aggressive.

[phifans]

Okafor will have some big years by the time he's in his mid twenties. Why can't he be coached to run to pick and roll? He has great size and short quickness to set picks and he has great hands and finishing ability rolling to the basket. He's already shown the ability to hit the elbow jumper. I feel confident that his jump shooting will improve and that he can extend his range. Simmons is going to get all of these guys good looks.

I do agree that Jah is going to have to be taught how to play defense because he hasn't figured it out by himself. It's hard to believe he can look so clueless on that end of the floor...

That hasn't been the biggest point of contention. If guys admitted he is weak and has to be coached-up a lot to become a good player, I would agree and move on. That's not what is being said. They're saying he is already good and he'll be great because all his deficiencies will go away as he ages, "because he's only 19". It doesn't work that way. Improvements can't be assumed. He is what he is right now, and that (and watching similar player's growth patterns for years) is all I have to go on.

Who has said Okafor is already good enough and all his deficiencies are due to being young ? I bet nobody think of that ! All we asked is giving patience to him and hack every other young prospect we have(including Noel). We are not assuming he will automatically become a better player by aging. But we hope he will and that hope is totally valid to me. Actually you are the one who keep claiming that he won't improve. Well thats not even the point. Its weird that a fan claim one of their better prospect is not good and will never be good. Does that makes you happy ? Or whats the point making this kinda of prediction ? To show people that you are more knowledgable ?

[marcush]

Its amusing that people diminish stats and then go and use 17 & 7 to support their argument.

Reminds me of old Douggie Collins who said he would blow his brains out over 'analytics' yet couldn't stop parroting stats at every post game presser.

[LongLiveHinkie]

I have never used any stats as a main basis for any argument regarding Okafor, but there is a difference between basic common stats and advanced analytics, being that advanced analytics stats are way more contextual.

If you look at a stat line and see that a player had 35 points, 10 assists, 10 boards, 0 turnovers, and shot 50% from the field... sure there is still context to be had without seeing the game itself, but it's pretty safe to say that player had a good game. How good you can't tell without having seen the game, but you can say it was good just based off the basic stat line, going by the basic principles on what defines "good" and "bad."

Can't do that with advanced analytics. Far more subjective, much more contextual, and the scale of interpretation is much greater.

Not all stats are created equal in terms of usage. Points and rebounds go back a billion years, everything has grey areas, but that's as cut and dry as you get given the circumstances.

[XtremeDunkz]

Advanced stats is one of the worst things that have happened to basketball when it comes to fan discussion. It is fine to a point, and with context, but it tells only a small part of the story. This reminds me of all the idiots saying Ben Simmons couldn't play on the perimeter and had to guard 4's and post up. Saying Okafor had a bad rookie season is one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen.

If I wasn't a fan of the Sixers I would say I hope they do trade him to the Celtics and he goes on to beat us in the playoffs the next 10 years because that is what some of these posters deserve.

[marcush]

Is there really a need to call people dumb or idiots? Do people actually use words like that when you convey your viewpoint in real life or is it the anonymity of the Internet that allows this bravado? Geez, it's just an opinion on basketball.....so some people use different stats or think a player is better suited to defend certain positions...so what.

[tsmith]

If okafor was in a different rookies position he would have averaged twenty a night. Put say kristaps on the sixers and i doubt he'd reach double figures.
No rookie had it harder than him.

[76ciology]

When did the best player of historically worst team in the league had good metrics?

I prefer judging Jah on his individual performance on defense and offense, because anything that involves his team is toxic and I'd consider it "noise".

On my free time, I usually go back and watch our games (as a form of torture). Most have similar pattern. We come out with full of energy in the 1st half. Jah is a plus player most times when he'd scored consecutive baskets (see Magic against Dedmon). Then we play like a bunch of zombies after half time. Morale is just bad. We give out easy points and we turn the ball over A LOT.

When the game are close or winnable, everyone is playing with energy. If you check the Clips game (the one when Jah pull off an airball as a potential game winner) he was diving for loose balls and providing very good help defense. This goes the same with the Knicks game where he scored 20pts against KP's 13 and against DMC and the kings. Most LAL revenge game (for not selecting him). Jah also has multiple games with 2+ blocks and 10+ rebs.

I'm not saying Jah is a superstar. I'm more of defending him because I'm confident if you go back and watch the games and look at the numbers while removing "noise", there's a good chance he'll turn it around and prove a lot of people wrong next season.

P.S. Even at a toxic environment, he is nowhere as bad as Kanter on defense.

[76ciology]

Here's a behavioral economics explanation I have for Jah.

We usually value things based on what we compare it to. People would prefer smaller value of money, as long as their peer has far lower value, than a larger value of money with his peer has a slightly lower value.

And think about it, who are the guys you are forced to compare him to? Jokic, Noel, KAT and KP. Mostly because of their emergence last year, while you can't help but keep comparing his defense with Noel because of overanalyzing who to trade between them. It wouldn't be bad if you compare him to other bigs like Kanter (1.2pps), al jeff (+DBPM), LMA(+DBPM), Vuc (+DBPM), Horford, Tristan, Pachulia (defensive analytics legend) and Duncan's BPG (highest DRPM)

And it's evident when you look at the rim protection numbers, individual defensive numbers, on/off DFG%, on/off team reb% and DRPM. That the truth is, it's Jah's offense that is more problematic than his defense. By problematic, i mean needing more "help" or "adjustment". But then, he's scoring 17ppg, 50+%FG% and 54TS%.

Why are we discounting Jah's mobility that we saw on offense that could explain his individual defensive numbers or defensive potential? Why are we discounting the fact that we play horrible defense as a team and I can site multiple instances where Noel would also have his defensive lapses? I think it's because we are too "fixed" or what they call as "nudge" in comparing him to the guys who's strength is his weakness.

[ExplosionsInDaSky]

Agree with 76ciology, however at this point there is no point in arguing with certain posters on the possibility that Okafor might possibly improve. I mean....gee....20-21 years old....lots of untapped potential to be had. To assume he can never improve and champion him off as an already completely finished product is idiotic thinking, and extremely narrow minded. Some have been completely hypnotized by analytics. I respect everyone's opinion to a certain extent, but I vehemently disagree that Okafor can't improve and evolve his game. He had a solid rookie season given the circumstances he faced.

[bedjawII]

Okafor will have some big years by the time he's in his mid twenties. Why can't he be coached to run to pick and roll? He has great size and short quickness to set picks and he has great hands and finishing ability rolling to the basket. He's already shown the ability to hit the elbow jumper. I feel confident that his jump shooting will improve and that he can extend his range. Simmons is going to get all of these guys good looks.

I do agree that Jah is going to have to be taught how to play defense because he hasn't figured it out by himself. It's hard to believe he can look so clueless on that end of the floor...

That hasn't been the biggest point of contention. If guys admitted he is weak and has to be coached-up a lot to become a good player, I would agree and move on. That's not what is being said. They're saying he is already good and he'll be great because all his deficiencies will go away as he ages, "because he's only 19". It doesn't work that way. Improvements can't be assumed. He is what he is right now, and that (and watching similar player's growth patterns for years) is all I have to go on.

I agree partially with you. I believe you have to assume improvement. In fact it is illogical not to. Most players, especially 19 yo rookies get better just by being in the NBA. But the question is how much does Jah have to improve. The answer is depends on what we want him the be. If you want him to be the focal point of your team, both offensively and defensively then he has a long way to go. I wouldn't begrudge anyone who doesn't believe he will get there. However if you want him to be an offensive focal point but will accept his limitations on D, he's already that player. So does that kind of player have value in the NBA? Absolutely! He'd be a great 6th man! Or you can surround him with high quality defensive players. I wouldn't trade him because you will only get an average prospect in return. However Jah has an elite skill and if used properly he can be extremely valuable on a good team. Jah is a piece of the puzzle. An important piece but not like Simmons or Embiid

[sixerswillrule]

When did the best player of historically worst team in the league had good metrics?

Love in 2010 (15 win Wolves), Lopez in 2010 (12 win Nets), Brand in 2001 (15 win Bulls), Brand in 2000 (17 win Bulls), etc.

[76ciology]

When did the best player of historically worst team in the league had good metrics?

Love in 2010 (15 win Wolves), Lopez in 2010 (12 win Nets), Brand in 2001 (15 win Bulls), Brand in 2000 (17 win Bulls), etc.

Thanks for answering the bonus question of my post. It was designed to be totally unrelated with my OP.

But seriously, good catch. probably should have not used the word "metrics" but +/-. Anyway, love has negative BPM but it's really minimal.

[Foshan]

People are starting to get a bit to personal in their arguments. Let's knock off the your dumb or your arguement is stupid type talk. If we can't act like grown ups here I'll start handing out some 'time-outs'

Consider this everyone's warning.