Welcome Okafor: Thread 2

[eagereyez]

Offensively, Prokafors are generally weighing individual performance more heavily than the team with him. For instance - in line-ups with Okafor, Noel, and Ish - the team scored 0.965 ppp. In line-ups with Ish and Noel, without Okafor - the team scored 1.057 ppp. So, we'd blame Okafor for that. However, delve deeper and look at their individual numbers in those line-ups.

With trio, 0.965 ppp
Okafor - 67.4 TS%, 11.6 TO% - 1.28 ppp.
Ish - 44.9 TS%, 11.6 TO% - 0.86 ppp.
Noel - 52.7 TS%, 20.5 TO%, 0.88 ppp.

Duo w/o Okafor, 1.057 ppp
Ish - 46.9 TS%, 9.6 TO% - 0.93 ppp
Noel - 59.9 TS%, 13.5 TO% - 1.10 ppp

The issue seems to be Noel, and Ish - to a lesser extent - suffering from the lack of spacing and not so much Okafor himself. So, I wouldn't necessarily blame him for not fitting, he seemed to do well enough, but he was just a bad fit with that roster. Prokafors are hoping that there are better fits that could actually be productive with him, that perhaps aren't as affected as much by him. Perhaps Okafor could even expand his range and open things up for others, as well (more confident in Okafor being able to than Noel).

Why are you only looking at Ish/Noel? Here is how the entire team plays with Okafor vs Noel:


http://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/08/27/jahlil-okafor-lineups/


As you can see, pretty much everyone was significantly better with Noel. So either everyone on the entire roster is a poor fit with Okafor, or Okafor's style of game is just not conducive to winning (team) basketball. He's going to have to make some incredibly dramatic improvements to his game before he becomes a net positive on the court.

[76ciology]

Okafor could also stop being a blackhole that eats up the shot clock, start passing the ball, set screens, and move without the ball. You know, play team basketball. But evidence suggests he won't.

Duke won the championship with him on the bench. None of this is new.

Playing team basketball is much easier than trying to score unassisted volume of points with efficiency, it's the easier way of doing things so I don't see how Jah can't play team basketball when he's always been a winner. And you can see how he takes losing personally with all those off court stuffs.

Problem really is that we played moneyball offense that on top of turning the ball at a ridiculous rate, we had a high volume of kamikaze drives from spot up shooters with below average passing,dribbling&finishing ability, jacking up ill advised threes while these guys also BLATANTLY allows drives/miss or over rotates that a pure scorer like jah who is also asked to carry their load on D and play at an ill advised pace (jah played faster pace than LeBron) based on personnel (played twin tower) and talent (see team's TO%), won't be inclined to rotate the ball.

Then why doesn't he play team basketball?
because he's a bad fit with the team and it's scheme.

Why is the team better with him on the bench on both sides of the court?
because he's a bad fit with the team and it's scheme.

Why was he on the bench in the national championship game?
foul trouble if I'm not mistaken.

Why does the data AND the eye test suggest the team is better with him off the court?
because he's a bad fit with the team and it's scheme.

He's a flashy post player, but there's NOTHING to suggest that he's a "winner" or plays winning basketball at the NBA level.
he's not just a post player. he is a good iso player who can score off the dribble with a developing jumper. defensively, he has shown promise to be a good individual defender. team rebounds much better with him on the court.

Hopefully it changes.
He's not perfect and has several flaws like most rookies. I also share the same sentiment.

*i explained in my post that you quoted how he is a bad fit.
*individual stats vs team stats discrepancy would also explain why it's a bad fit.
*entire defensive scheme is a mess with the cross match issue with him at PF, while team needs Bill Russell at C. Even Noel played horrendous on D when jah sat out the last 25 games or so.

[CoreyGallagher]

I'm driving to Philly right now so can't do research (until I get home, at least), but I used that trio (which I believe played the most together) as an example.

I prefer using line-ups with a big as well as Ish as opposed to just with a big given how the season began. Nothing may change, but I'd like to research it.

[Sixerscan]

Obviously Okafor's on/off court numbers are weird. Anyone who watches him for 5 minutes can tell he's a promising, if not always effective, offensive talent that doesn't understand the first thing about playing defense including rebounding on that end. Yet he has a god awful offensive +/- (-7.1 per 100), but the team somehow gave up less points and rebounded better with him on the court.

The first thing about +/- is that it need about 3 years of data before there is a proper sample size, at least that's what I've heard. Because one year has a lot of noise.

And that was probably the case here. Okafor's weird +/- year can probably be partially explained by a couple key factors beyond just randomness.

1. He missed out on a lot of Ish Smith minutes (Who actually WAS easily the best offensive player on the team, but also probably the worst defensively and on the boards)
2. He played a large chunk of his minutes in two center sets with Noel (who is a good defender and the best defensive rebounder on the team, but also that caused the well chronicled issues offensively, even with Ish in the game)

I'm not sure if more sophisticated modeling bears that out, but it seems the start of a better theory than Okafor actually being an abomination offensively and/or solid defensively and on the boards.

[SouthJersey]

The first thing about +/- is that it need about 3 years of data before there is a proper sample size, at least that's what I've heard. Because one year has a lot of noise.

Yeah, that's a pretty important thing. When you look at his +/- and then look at those players, 50% of them probably won't even be on this team, or in the league, in 2 years. So it makes it even harder to judge.

[rzzzzz]

The first thing about +/- is that it need about 3 years of data before there is a proper sample size, at least that's what I've heard. Because one year has a lot of noise.

Yeah, that's a pretty important thing. When you look at his +/- and then look at those players, 50% of them probably won't even be on this team, or in the league, in 2 years. So it makes it even harder to judge.

one of the first things students of stats/study design are taught is the Rosenthal effect. basically, this says that if anybody starts out with a bias or preconceived notion that the results are going to be bogus. in this example, primitive data is presented w/o even trying to address the most obvious confounding variables. ie. a tiny sample size collected under an extreme condition: a team that was constructed to lose. it's the kind of stuff that gives analytics a bad name, and lends extra creedence to anecdotal observation. in truth, cautious stats and experienced eyes both play an important role to a good coach or general manager.

[Ericb5]

Another crucial point is that +/- measures the effectiveness of the team on the court when a given player is also on the court.

What that means in this context is that on offense it isn't measuring Okafor's skill or efficiency. It is measuring the team's skill and efficiency of running their offense through him. It is impossible to efficiently run a post offense without a freaking point guard! The whole "give the ball to Jah, and get out of the way" thing is not how you run an offense. When you need an individual basket, then sure, but over the course of a full game it isn't going to work.

The +/- will improve for him over the next couple of years, and stat junkies will use that to say that he was the only reason that they improved, which justifies to them that he is the only reason that they are bad today. In reality the team will improve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LeonJordanJr24]

Does anyone see Okafor developing into a traditional scoring PF long term ?

[CoreyGallagher]

As you can see, pretty much everyone was significantly better with Noel. So either everyone on the entire roster is a poor fit with Okafor, or Okafor's style of game is just not conducive to winning (team) basketball. He's going to have to make some incredibly dramatic improvements to his game before he becomes a net positive on the court.

I'm driving to Philly right now so can't do research (until I get home, at least), but I used that trio (which I believe played the most together) as an example.

I prefer using line-ups with a big as well as Ish as opposed to just with a big given how the season began. Nothing may change, but I'd like to research it.

Well, I did. How players performed with each of our bigs - along with Ish. Used the metrics that Derek did for comparison sake (citing only the players that played over 100 possessions with each pair).

Okafor and Ish, without Noel
Okafor (175 mins) - 50.0 eFG% (51.4% 2p), 1.02 pps (Curiously - Okafor performs much better offensively with Noel - 60.2 eFG%, 1.22 pps)
Ish (175 mins) - 41.4 eFG% (37.5% 2p, 41.7% 3p on 12 attempts), 0.84 pps
Covington (113 mins) - 75.0 eFG% (60% 2p, 53.6% 3p on 28 attempts) 1.55 pps
Grant (107 mins) - 45.8 eFG% (50% 2p, 25% 3p on 8 attempts, 0.89 pps
Stauskas (90 mins) - 88.9 eFG% (44.4% 2p, 88.9% 3p on 9 attempts), 1.86 pps
Canaan (76 mins) - 31.3 eFG% (30% 2p, 21.4% 3p on 14 attempts), 0.82 pps
Thompson (76 mins) - 38.2 eFG% (50% 2p, 14.3% 3p on 7 attempts), 0.82 pps

Noel and Ish, without Okafor
Noel (704 mins) - 58.4 eFG% (58.2% 2p), 1.10 pps
Ish (704 mins) - 43.9 eFG% (41.8% 2p, 35.5% 3p on 62 attempts). 0.94 pps
Grant (430 mins) - 51.8 eFG% (51.2% 2p, 35.7% 3p on 28 attempts), 1.14 pps
Thompson (375 mins) - 52.8 eFG% (50% 2p, 36.8 3p on 57 attempts), 1.10 pps
Canaan (370 mins) - 47.2 eFG% (36% 2p, 35.5% 3p on 93 attempts), 1.03 pps
Covington (354 mins) - 53.5 eFG% (26,7% 2p, 41.2% 3p on 97 attempts), 1.14 pps
Stauskas (299 mins) - 44.5 eFG% (40% on 2p, 31.9% 3p on 47 attempts), 0.99 pps

As Sixerscan mentioned - Okafor didn't get to play much with Ish, let alone w/o Noel so that created noise due to such small sample sizes - however, you can at least see that the offense was opening up. Stauskas and Covington shot absurdly high percentages in the 113 and 90 minutes that they played with the respective duo.

Defensively - Okafor and Ish without Noel, allowed 111.8 points per 100 possesions. Noel and Ish, without Okafor, allowed 111.0 points per 100 possessions. Hm.

[76ciology]

How do you guys think is Jah and Noel's relationship off the court?

[cksdayoff]

the team was constructed to be garbage and yet you have people trying to use analytics to poke holes in okafor's game when the rest of his teammates are role players who belong overseas or on the bench.

[ProcessDoctor]

the team was constructed to be garbage and yet you have people trying to use analytics to poke holes in okafor's game when the rest of his teammates are role players who belong overseas or on the bench.

So many people use this argument, yet those aforementioned "role players" all have better advanced stats than Okafor. How come they (i.e. Ish, Noel, Grant, Covington) aren't suffering as well? I'm not saying there isn't a good reason, but no one has been able to explain why Okafor has far and away worse advanced stats than the rest of our players.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[LloydFree]

the team was constructed to be garbage and yet you have people trying to use analytics to poke holes in okafor's game when the rest of his teammates are role players who belong overseas or on the bench.

For the life of me, I cannot understand this line of thinking. It's like people believe guys just pick Okafor's name out of a hat to say untrue, mean things about his game. The things he is being criticized for are REAL (not made-up) problems and the most important problems have nothing to do with teammates. You don't need analytics to see with your eyes, that he can't defend and doesn't rebound.

[rzzzzz]

How come.. Ish, Noel, Grant, Covington aren't suffering as well?

you mean these guys set the league on fire after Jah went down? just kidding. the sample size (minutes played, especially when you start piecing out specific line-ups) is small. which greatly reduces the predictive power of the chosen measures. but the main effect that has not been controlled here, the confounding variable, is that the team was designed to poorly perform. i suppose there is some arguement that if you wish to maintain the worst team in the league that Okafor may perform less well than other top prospects placed in the same situation. but Russell didn't fair even that well. however, Laker fans noticed his moments of flash (repeated observations) and believe that if you control for Scott's coaching and Kobe's farewell tour, that "given the chance" D' will develop. I think that Okafor and Noel and D'Angelo all deserve the chance to play with supportive team players of adequate, if not superior talent, just as Kat and Porzingis did, as well as taking into account of the other uncontrolled variable that young players are capable of significant development.

i could be wrong here. but either way, it looks like we're going to find out. sixer camp will add a rookie class of extraordinary potential along with veteran support that is not constructed specifically to lose. the measures you collect from next year will be more reliable, though for a good power, i'd like to give it a couple of years.

[Ericb5]

the team was constructed to be garbage and yet you have people trying to use analytics to poke holes in okafor's game when the rest of his teammates are role players who belong overseas or on the bench.

So many people use this argument, yet those aforementioned "role players" all have better advanced stats than Okafor. How come they (i.e. Ish, Noel, Grant, Covington) aren't suffering as well? I'm not saying there isn't a good reason, but no one has been able to explain why Okafor has far and away worse advanced stats than the rest of our players.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Ish is the only one of that group that is a playmaker. The other guys are all role players. I mean Ish is a role player too, but his position dictates that he makes plays for others, so he is a play maker.

Okafor was out there trying to make plays, with nothing but his wits and skills to help him. He had a much higher degree of difficulty than any of those other guys that basically just react their way through the games.

Plus, the point that nobody seems to acknowledge is that running a post offense is largely a team based exercise. It isn't just having the post weapon. Okafor is a big weapon in the post, but the other guys were basically like ants running around. You replace McConnell with Simmons and you have just raised the production of the entire offense. A few months of him running the show will have Okafor's offensive analytics, and team based efficiency stats up significantly.

Especially when Embiid starts being the REAL focus of opposing defenses, you will see Okafor's numbers improve. This isn't even factoring in the fact that Okafor is an evolving, and improving talent, and will get better organically. Part of what the Prokafor crowd is factoring in is a continued and steady rate of improvement, like what he showed last year. He isn't a finished product.

There are 4 really compelling stories to watch with the Sixers this year.

Embiid's health and development
Simmons' development
Finding out what we have in Saric
Okafor's development, and ability to function at the 4

Last year, when Okafor wasn't on the court, it was hard to enjoy the games. This year there is much more to be interested in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SparksFly87]

Okafor is a big time offensive talent . Big time!!!!!! If he can slim down and learn to play defense effectively at 4 paired with Embiid this team could be unstoppable in a few years.

Embiid/Okafor
Okafor/Saric
Simmons/ Covington

[Kirk Van Houten]

the team was constructed to be garbage and yet you have people trying to use analytics to poke holes in okafor's game when the rest of his teammates are role players who belong overseas or on the bench.

So many people use this argument, yet those aforementioned "role players" all have better advanced stats than Okafor. How come they (i.e. Ish, Noel, Grant, Covington) aren't suffering as well? I'm not saying there isn't a good reason, but no one has been able to explain why Okafor has far and away worse advanced stats than the rest of our players.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Because those role players come in during garbage time when the other team had there scrubs on and there fancy advanced stats look good. Pretty simple.

Sent from my LG-D855 using RealGM mobile app

[Att]

Once again, I'm pro Okafor but he has a Rudy Gay quality of stopping the ball and thinking and then dribbling and then deciding what to do (usually to score). That's not how you run an Offence.
I hope Brown can address that.

[76ciology]

the team was constructed to be garbage and yet you have people trying to use analytics to poke holes in okafor's game when the rest of his teammates are role players who belong overseas or on the bench.

So many people use this argument, yet those aforementioned "role players" all have better advanced stats than Okafor. How come they (i.e. Ish, Noel, Grant, Covington) aren't suffering as well? I'm not saying there isn't a good reason, but no one has been able to explain why Okafor has far and away worse advanced stats than the rest of our players.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

They're all suffering. All have negative net ratings and even Nerlens and Ish made the team worse with bigger negative netrtg on the court than off the court.

Jah's case is magnified because if you can see he keeps getting compared to Nerlens, specially on the defensive end. While people tend to be aggressive when their belief is on the line (survival instinct?;who stays between the two; see political candidates).

[Sixerscan]

All have negative net ratings and even Nerlens and Ish made the team worse with bigger negative netrtg on the court than off the court.

Fairly certain this isn't true at least for ish.