Remind Me: Why does Jahlil Okafor supposedly suck?

Just saying, he really couldn't get minutes this year even we have almost zero post threat besides Zion. I know he's supposed to be soft on defense, but honestly how much worse could he be than what we put out there all year? He actually looks in shape and seems to at least give effort contesting shots and hedging the ball handler on picks. I don't know. Seems like you could play 4 shooters around him and get open looks all day. I guess I'm crazy...

This guy is the most underappreciated basketball player in New Orleans Pelican/Hornet History.

He almost always produces offensively when he's called upon.
He looks to be the ultimate team player

It's funny, he was the 3rd overall pick in his class and has ALWAYS shown the ability to positively contribute on the offensive end and he's relegated to 15th man status (he's not even listed on the three-deep depth chart). But the 2nd overall pick in his draft, who can't hit an slightly contested layup to save his life (don't even mention the words "free throw"), plays 30+ minutes a night come hell or high water. SMH

You never hear him complain and he seems to be a team first guy.

I hope he lands on his feet next year somewhere (selfishly, I would hope it is here).

EDIT: Do you remember the game this year where he schooled Andre Drummond in Detroit?

He's a traditional back to the basket post-up centre in an era where everyone has realised that that's a really inefficient and unproductive way to run a team's offense.

He provides very little value off ball, he can't spot up or space the floor even in the midrange, he's not a cutter or a reliable roller. If you want him to score, you have to give him the ball and let him do it. When you do that, he's good at it, but it requires taking the ball out of, say, Ingram or Zion's hands, and if you're trying to run an effective team offense giving the ball to people like Ingram is more useful than giving the ball to someone like Okafor.

In fact, you say it yourself in the OP:

Quote:

---

Seems like you could play 4 shooters around him and get open looks all day.

---

To make him effective you literally have to just give him the ball and play around him. But that isn't effective either because the open looks he generates aren't productive. Why?

A big part of the reason for this is passing. Okafor is bad at it. His basketball IQ isn't necessarily bad, but it's working on a very slow processor and he always realises that a pass is there just as the window closes, and as a result he tends to clog an offense up whenever he holds the ball for more than about 3 seconds. If you give him the ball he's either going to give up looking for anyone else and start backing his man down (again, not an effective way to run an offense) or he's going to make the right pass at the wrong time, usually off-target. So when you put him with shooters it's not like he's going to be making the skip passes or passes out of doubles to open guys consistently. Those open looks materialise and he doesn't notice it.

So those are some offensive reasons.

Defensively he's just bad. Can't defend in the pick and roll with any sort of consistency, can't switch onto the perimeter without getting fried, he's a big man with relatively slow heavy feet and it shows. He's actually not that terrible when all he has to do is park in the paint, but again, that's not as useful as it used to be; part of what makes someone like Whiteside so ineffective as a defender despite being a crazy shot blocker is how useless he is outside of 10 feet or in complex actions, and Okafor has a version of the same issue.

So to summarise:

- Best with the ball in his hands on offense, but doesn't play a style productive for team offense
- Can't space the floor whatsoever
- Isn't consistent in some of the most common multi-man actions like PnR
- Can't defend the perimeter at all
- Slow decision maker and mediocre vision as a passer

Notice how the games where he's good usually feature him just being asked to score, often on teams who either have no real paint defense or have a paint defender who is completely disengaged and uninterested. There's a reason for this.

He seems like a nice guy, he never complains about being benched, I hope he figures it all out or at least makes a ton of cash overseas, but he's not a regular rotation player in the NBA for a reason.

Sorry, I'm not talking about playing him along side Zion and Ingram (at least as things stand currently). Zion needs to operate in the paint for the foreseeable future. I was asking why Okafor couldn't get 15-20 minutes a night against back ups as he's our only real scoring threat in the post besides Zion (who also sucks at defense I would point out).

I've also got to push back on some of your points and ask how much of your critique of his game is based on his first couple of seasons, because we haven't seen much of him since then and to my eye he looks like a much lighter and more nimble guy than when he came into the league. To your points...

-I agree he hasn't shown ability to be a spacer in the game, but how many big guys have we seen recently in the league that have developed outside jumpers? Brook Lopez barely attempted a three pointer his first five years in the league. Now he hoists up 5 or 6 a night (at slightly below league average %). Maybe I'm prejudiced because I've seen Okafor shooting a lot pre-game. Trust me, he has a nice stroke out to the arc. I'm just not sure he has the green light to take those shots, when he plays, which is practically never.

-Sometimes analytics guys remind me of that old joke about scientists: "Sure it works in fact, but how does it work in theory?" The guy can score. Scoring is a central component of the game. Sometimes you need to focus on what a guy can do, not just what he can't do.

-Additionally, dunks, shots inside five feet and free throws are analytics-approved! See no reason why Okafor can't get you plenty of all three, particularly playing against back ups.

-Agree that passing out of double teams is a skill that takes time to master. But plenty of bigs do master it, given enough playing time. Davis sucked at it too early in his career. Tonight I thought Jah made good decisions, abusing the zombie-like Alex Len when left alone with him, and passing out when they started to double him. He made a beautiful little pocket pass to Frank for a lay up and hit Lonzo for a wide-open corner three out of a double team. I see no reason he can't master the pass out. He's skilled with the ball.

-You're never going to convince me that Okafor is as "heavy footed" as many starting centers around the league (in fact he seems comparatively nimble), but it's true that no traditional pivot is going to be able to reliably defend guards and wings on the perimeter, be it Lopez (either one), Nurkic, Jokic, Gobert, Vucevic, Porzingis, Zubac, Adams, all of whom seem to be playing plenty of minutes for playoff teams.

-Also, as the list above makes clear, I'm not sure the traditional pivot is quite as obsolete as you suggest. Big guys shooting from close in remains a fairly effective way to administer an offense. Yes, all of these guys (besides Zubac) have demonstrated more skills than Jah, but I'm not sure any of them, save Porzingis, are flat out better athletes in terms of lateral movement. Okafor's 7'5" wingspan, massive hands and 9'2" standing reach should be the raw material for a competent interior defender. His FG% with the Pels (admittedly in limited minutes) has hovered around 60%, which is pretty efficient by any measure.

Look, I'm not saying Okafor is some sure fire star buried on our bench. But I am saying he's shown me enough, more than enough, to warrant an extended look for back up minutes in the post. You know he can score. You know he'd demand doubles opening up space for shooters and cutters. Let's just start with that and see what happens. The last thing any of us want is another ex-Pel balling-out for some other team and us standing around saying "now, how did we let that guy get away..."

I can see giving him strategic minutes. Which is why I wondered (in the San Antonio game thread) why he didn't play against San Antonio.

They instead force fed minutes to Jax who they do not need to rush at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luckyman

I can see giving him strategic minutes. Which is why I wondered (in the San Antonio game thread) why he didn't play against San Antonio.

They instead force fed minutes to Jax who they do not need to rush at all.

---

Playing Jah against DeRozan would've been an absolute nightmare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by new city champ

Sorry, I'm not talking about playing him along side Zion and Ingram (at least as things stand currently). Zion needs to operate in the paint for the foreseeable future. I was asking why Okafor couldn't get 15-20 minutes a night against back ups as he's our only real scoring threat in the post besides Zion (who also sucks at defense I would point out).

---

Okay so I'm going to respond to only a few points in this to try and avoid making a wall of text too large, but hopefully I don't miss out anything major.

Firstly, you say that you're not talking about playing him alongside Zion or Ingram at least right now. Then you ask why he can't get 20 minutes a night as a backup.

Simply put, if you have two high impact offensive stars like Ingram and Zion, there should not be 20 minutes a game where both of them are off the floor. There should always be at least one, and if either of them are on the court it's a waste of their skills and their time to have them stand around watching Okafor post up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by new city champ

-I agree he hasn't shown ability to be a spacer in the game, but how many big guys have we seen recently in the league that have developed outside jumpers? Brook Lopez barely attempted a three pointer his first five years in the league. Now he hoists up 5 or 6 a night (at slightly below league average %). Maybe I'm prejudiced because I've seen Okafor shooting a lot pre-game. Trust me, he has a nice stroke out to the arc. I'm just not sure he has the green light to take those shots, when he plays, which is practically never.

-Sometimes analytics guys remind me of that old joke about scientists: "Sure it works in fact, but how does it work in theory?" The guy can score. Scoring is a central component of the game. Sometimes you need to focus on what a guy can do, not just what he can't do.

-Additionally, dunks, shots inside five feet and free throws are analytics-approved! See no reason why Okafor can't get you plenty of all three, particularly playing against back ups.

---

Every NBA player can shoot 3s in an empty gym or in warmups. I have no doubt that, in a vacuum, Okafor can shoot threes. We've all seen him do it. In-game is an entirely different situation; Alvin Gentry is an exceptionally trigger happy coach. If even he doesn't have Jah shooting threes when he had Julius Randle and Terrence Jones doing it, I have to assume that it's because either he doesn't trust Okafor's ability to do it, or Okafor doesn't want to do it. Whatever the reason, his ability to hit threes in the gym has not translated to hitting them in game, and until it does it's a moot point.

Of course scoring is a central component of the game, but you have to realise that good individual offense is not the same as good team offense, and sacrificing the team's offense for an individual is absurd.

Remember earlier in the season when people were so mad that Porzingis wasn't in the post or the paint, and he was out shooting threes? People were very annoyed by it. He's 7'3! Why isn't he at the rim!? His numbers would be so much better if you force-fed him paint shots! What they didn't realise is that the Mavs had the best offense in league history, and a huge part of that was because while it's true that Porzingis individually would have benefitted from being crammed into the paint and being force fed dunks, the team benefitted from having him on the 3 point line providing spacing and stretching the D. It made life easier on his teammates, as well as giving Luka more room to operate as a ballhandler, and limited the ability of the opposing defense to help; if he had been in the paint, his personal points per game might have been up, but the efficiency of the overall machine would have been reduced.

It's a similar process here. Yes, dunks and free throws are analytics approved, but if you base an entire offense around a back to the basket big with no spacing you harm everyone else on the floor and make the offense one-dimensional. That means that it's easier to defend because there's really only one threat. Good offenses stretch defenses out, they don't allow them to compact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by new city champ

-You're never going to convince me that Okafor is as "heavy footed" as many starting centers around the league (in fact he seems comparatively nimble), but it's true that no traditional pivot is going to be able to reliably defend guards and wings on the perimeter, be it Lopez (either one), Nurkic, Jokic, Gobert, Vucevic, Porzingis, Zubac, Adams, all of whom seem to be playing plenty of minutes for playoff teams.

-Also, as the list above makes clear, I'm not sure the traditional pivot is quite as obsolete as you suggest. Big guys shooting from close in remains a fairly effective way to administer an offense. Yes, all of these guys (besides Zubac) have demonstrated more skills than Jah, but I'm not sure any of them, save Porzingis, are flat out better athletes in terms of lateral movement. Okafor's 7'5" wingspan, massive hands and 9'2" standing reach should be the raw material for a competent interior defender. His FG% with the Pels (admittedly in limited minutes) has hovered around 60%, which is pretty efficient by any measure.

---

The problem we have here is that you're comparing Okafor with people who have similar physical measurements as him, without really considering the minutiae. You do briefly mention that all those other guys have shown more skills than Jah, but then you kind of just brush that off to move onto the next issue, as though those other skills are not massively important.

Yes, Okafor and Nurkic are both big bodies who aren't massively quick, but Nurkic is a very astute passer and cutter in a way that Okafor just isn't. Yes, Jokic is also 7'0 and hefty, but he's one of the greatest passers in NBA history, is surprisingly quick off ball, and has ridiculous touch from basically anywhere inside the arc; he isn't just locked into the post. Yes, Gobert has little range to his game, but he's a consistent roll threat in a way that Jah isn't, and he's also an incredible defender even in complex actions, which Okafor isn't. Vucevic is a passer and shooter, Porzingis is a shooter with defensive versatility, so on and so forth. All of that matters, and can't just be handwaved away.

You don't have to be super mobile and agile to be playable but you do have to have other skills to compensate if you aren't. Okafor doesn't really, which is an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by new city champ

Look, I'm not saying Okafor is some sure fire star buried on our bench. But I am saying he's shown me enough, more than enough, to warrant an extended look for back up minutes in the post. You know he can score. You know he'd demand doubles opening up space for shooters and cutters. Let's just start with that and see what happens. The last thing any of us want is another ex-Pel balling-out for some other team and us standing around saying "now, how did we let that guy get away..."

---

I know he can score. I know that he would demand doubles. I just don't see that he deals with them well consistently, and beyond the scoring what does he do? He isn't a great passer, can't space the floor, can't defend complex actions, isn't a switchable defender, isn't a mindblowing rim protector, etc etc. Without anything to add to his post game, he's just a guy who gets occasional minutes here and there when it's tenable. Which is what he gets; whenever we're playing a blowout or against a slow paced team with bad paint defense (read: Detroit) he gets minutes. Those are back up minutes in the post, which is what you're asking for. The alternative is wanting him to play regular, large minutes all the time, which is probably a bad call for the reasons listed above.

I'm not saying he couldn't potentially be more, but right now he isn't, and it would be detrimental to the team's offense to play him heavy minutes when there are better players with better skill sets who could use the ball more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pelafanatic

Playing Jah against DeRozan would've been an absolute nightmare

---

Yep, he would've been eaten alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pelafanatic

Playing Jah against DeRozan would've been an absolute nightmare

---

I missed the planet where Jah would have been responsible for DeRozan. They primarily wouldn't even have been on the floor much together. Did Favors or Jax slow him down? What in the world are we talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luckyman

I missed the planet where Jah would have been responsible for DeRozan. They primarily wouldn't even have been on the floor much together. Did Favors or Jax slow him down? What in the world are we talking about?

---

Haha sheesh nevermind good day

The metrics crowd wrote off BI before the ink was dried on the trade deal.

The metrics crowd also ballyhooed the # 2 acquisition.

When there is a metric designed to measure the heart and soul of an individual, I'll be all in. Until then, I'll give courtesy to the 'charts' but rely on my eyes. Switching sports for a second, if numbers and charts foretold all.....Drew Brees would have spent his life selling insurance in Texas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

The metrics crowd wrote off BI before the ink was dried on the trade deal.

The metrics crowd also ballyhooed the # 2 acquisition.

When there is a metric designed to measure the heart and soul of an individual, I'll be all in. Until then, I'll give courtesy to the 'charts' but rely on my eyes. Switching sports for a second, if numbers and charts foretold all.....Drew Brees would have spent his life selling insurance in Texas.

---

This is conjecture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Every NBA player can shoot 3s in an empty gym or in warmups. I have no doubt that, in a vacuum, Okafor can shoot threes. We've all seen him do it. In-game is an entirely different situation; Alvin Gentry is an exceptionally trigger happy coach. If even he doesn't have Jah shooting threes when he had Julius Randle and Terrence Jones doing it, I have to assume that it's because either he doesn't trust Okafor's ability to do it, or Okafor doesn't want to do it. Whatever the reason, his ability to hit threes in the gym has not translated to hitting them in game, and until it does it's a moot point.

---

Not sure this is entirely true. Okafor is very good at what he does, so Gentry is not going to simply take him away from that and have him shooting 3s. Same with Hayes. However, I would have liked to see both try 1 or 2 last night as the game did not matter.

i been on the okafor wagon.....okafor can give us points inside when our shooting is off...he can take advantages of mismatches in the paint and score....okafor can play bully ball and draw fouls or score.....im old school and love to see big men do damage in the paint....im glad that okafor did his thing last night plus was happy about how the announcers were raving about his talents....okafor has have 20 point games for us and gentry still dont show him any love lol....

i hope okafor can land on a team that use skillful big men to their advantage because as long as gentry is our coach, okafor will be a waste of talent sitting on the bench.....

Best case scenario is Okafor lands in an Enes Kanter role somewhere, but the problem with that is Kanter is a terrific rebounder. Okafor has been average to below average since his rookie year. If you can't rebound or defend, it's really hard to get minutes on a good team.

I didn't read this whole post; but I must confess: Every time I happen to watch Okafor play, the man is straight up ballin'.

I realize that his skill-set isn't ideal for today's game; but when I watch him he does extremely well.

He's kind of the exact opposite of Tony Romo. People say he was good, but every time I watched him .....he sucked big-time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pelafanatic

This is conjecture

---

What part?

That, citing metrics, some wrote off BI before he landed in New Orleans? That happened

That, citing metrics, some unequivocally ordained # 2 as the perfect complement to the "Gentry System" (whatever that might be)? That happened

That people have always cited numbers and charts when writing off Drew Brees? That happened

That there is no metric to measure a human's heart or soul? That's fact

Where's the conjecture, please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

That there is no metric to measure a human's heart or soul? That's fact

Where's the conjecture, please?

---

I mean if you wanna get technical it's pure conjecture that humans even have a soul. There's no way to prove that and it's not philosophically required.


;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

What part?

That, citing metrics, some wrote off BI before he landed in New Orleans? That happened

That, citing metrics, some unequivocally ordained # 2 as the perfect complement to the "Gentry System" (whatever that might be)? That happened

That people have always cited numbers and charts when writing off Drew Brees? That happened

That there is no metric to measure a human's heart or soul? That's fact

Where's the conjecture, please?

---

Stating "some people" in order to prove an argument is the definition of conjecture. Stating things as fact without any actual proof.

I'm all for argument on here, but I'm not gonna sit here and say that one dude has more heart than another guy because he scored 20 points on Harry Giles in a meaningless game. If that's the case, then Dan Dickau had more heart than both of them (he did) because he scored 28 one time.

I'd say I'm more in the metrics crowd than not, but I was always high on BI and low on Lonzo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I mean if you wanna get technical it's pure conjecture that humans even have a soul. There's no way to prove that and it's not philosophically required.


;)

---

You and I have had this conversation before.

Your method devalues the human spirit (humanity). It treats a player as a machine and not as a real, honest-to-goodness, living organism (since you question my spiritual notion of 'soul', I'll set that aside). That's the same mistake the intellects in our colleges and universities make when proffering the tried and true pitfalls of socialism. It always works in textbooks; but it real life, it's fatally flawed as it doesn't consider the 'human' element.

I, on the other hand, value your method as a USEFUL tool...no more, no less. You bring a lot to the table, dae. But don't fool yourself; your data is woefully incomplete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

You and I have had this conversation before.

Your method devalues the human spirit (humanity). It treats a player as a machine and not as a real, honest-to-goodness, living organism (since you question the my spiritual notion of 'soul', I'll set that aside). That's the same mistake the intellects in our colleges and universities make when proffering the tried and true pitfalls of socialism. It always works in textbooks; but it real life, it's fatally flawed.

I, on the other hand, value your method as a USEFUL tool...no more, no less. You bring a lot to the table, dae. But don't fool yourself, your data is woefully incomplete.

---

It was a joke literally on the use of the term soul. Please don't try and turn this into a metaphysical argument :hihi:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

It was a joke literally on the use of the term soul. Please don't try and turn this into a metaphysical argument :hihi:

---

Dae, seems to me that that was your intent, not mine. Otherwise, why your post at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Dae, seems to me that that was your intent, not mine. Otherwise, why your post at all?

---

...as a joke. For fun, bit of light hearted humour. Hence the winking emoji.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

...as a joke. For fun, bit of light hearted humour. Hence the winking emoji.

---

Okay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Okay so I'm going to respond to only a few points in this to try and avoid making a wall of text too large, but hopefully I don't miss out anything major.

Firstly, you say that you're not talking about playing him alongside Zion or Ingram at least right now. Then you ask why he can't get 20 minutes a night as a backup.

Simply put, if you have two high impact offensive stars like Ingram and Zion, there should not be 20 minutes a game where both of them are off the floor. There should always be at least one, and if either of them are on the court it's a waste of their skills and their time to have them stand around watching Okafor post up.



Every NBA player can shoot 3s in an empty gym or in warmups. I have no doubt that, in a vacuum, Okafor can shoot threes. We've all seen him do it. In-game is an entirely different situation; Alvin Gentry is an exceptionally trigger happy coach. If even he doesn't have Jah shooting threes when he had Julius Randle and Terrence Jones doing it, I have to assume that it's because either he doesn't trust Okafor's ability to do it, or Okafor doesn't want to do it. Whatever the reason, his ability to hit threes in the gym has not translated to hitting them in game, and until it does it's a moot point.

Of course scoring is a central component of the game, but you have to realise that good individual offense is not the same as good team offense, and sacrificing the team's offense for an individual is absurd.

Remember earlier in the season when people were so mad that Porzingis wasn't in the post or the paint, and he was out shooting threes? People were very annoyed by it. He's 7'3! Why isn't he at the rim!? His numbers would be so much better if you force-fed him paint shots! What they didn't realise is that the Mavs had the best offense in league history, and a huge part of that was because while it's true that Porzingis individually would have benefitted from being crammed into the paint and being force fed dunks, the team benefitted from having him on the 3 point line providing spacing and stretching the D. It made life easier on his teammates, as well as giving Luka more room to operate as a ballhandler, and limited the ability of the opposing defense to help; if he had been in the paint, his personal points per game might have been up, but the efficiency of the overall machine would have been reduced.

It's a similar process here. Yes, dunks and free throws are analytics approved, but if you base an entire offense around a back to the basket big with no spacing you harm everyone else on the floor and make the offense one-dimensional. That means that it's easier to defend because there's really only one threat. Good offenses stretch defenses out, they don't allow them to compact.



The problem we have here is that you're comparing Okafor with people who have similar physical measurements as him, without really considering the minutiae. You do briefly mention that all those other guys have shown more skills than Jah, but then you kind of just brush that off to move onto the next issue, as though those other skills are not massively important.

Yes, Okafor and Nurkic are both big bodies who aren't massively quick, but Nurkic is a very astute passer and cutter in a way that Okafor just isn't. Yes, Jokic is also 7'0 and hefty, but he's one of the greatest passers in NBA history, is surprisingly quick off ball, and has ridiculous touch from basically anywhere inside the arc; he isn't just locked into the post. Yes, Gobert has little range to his game, but he's a consistent roll threat in a way that Jah isn't, and he's also an incredible defender even in complex actions, which Okafor isn't. Vucevic is a passer and shooter, Porzingis is a shooter with defensive versatility, so on and so forth. All of that matters, and can't just be handwaved away.

You don't have to be super mobile and agile to be playable but you do have to have other skills to compensate if you aren't. Okafor doesn't really, which is an issue.



I know he can score. I know that he would demand doubles. I just don't see that he deals with them well consistently, and beyond the scoring what does he do? He isn't a great passer, can't space the floor, can't defend complex actions, isn't a switchable defender, isn't a mindblowing rim protector, etc etc. Without anything to add to his post game, he's just a guy who gets occasional minutes here and there when it's tenable. Which is what he gets; whenever we're playing a blowout or against a slow paced team with bad paint defense (read: Detroit) he gets minutes. Those are back up minutes in the post, which is what you're asking for. The alternative is wanting him to play regular, large minutes all the time, which is probably a bad call for the reasons listed above.

I'm not saying he couldn't potentially be more, but right now he isn't, and it would be detrimental to the team's offense to play him heavy minutes when there are better players with better skill sets who could use the ball more.

---

I respect your analysis, but I think it's more of a snap shot of the past and has limited predictive value of what a player can be. Guys grow and change in this league all the time. They expand their games. They get in better physical condition. You can miss all that if you just rely on past numbers, especially if they are out of date or come from a limited sample. You've got to allow for some visual assessment of the player's actual play.

Looking at Okafor I see a guy who has changed his body while retaining his impressive array of offensive moves. I think he clearly has the size and athletic ability to be a decent interior defender but that's hard to assess without actually allowing him to play. Likewise, he seems to have plenty of ball skill to be a passer and work within an offense, not just be a black hole who you dump the ball down to and stand around and watch.

It's a limited sample, but when Okafor got more than 20 minutes in 20 real games mostly in January and February of last year he averaged 15.6 points and 8.3 rebounds on 63.3% shooting to with 1.35 blocks. In 8 games where he got more than 30 minutes he averaged 22.5 points, 11.1 boards and 2.1 blocks while shooting 67.5%. For a (then) 23-year-old prospect that shows promise worth exploring. As for shooting, at some point everyone has to translate it from practice to a game. That takes sign off from coaches as the quickest way to the bench is to take shots the coaches haven't pre-approved, especially if you happen to miss a couple. Jah has a nice looking stroke. I'd be all for letting him start trying them in games if that's what the system calls for.

Again, it's just about solving a problem. The Pels have notorious scoring lulls with the second unit. Okafor is a potential answer to that problem and his skill set can create open looks and cuts for others. He has the talent. It may just be as simple as letting him play through the growing pains like you do with any prospect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by new city champ

I respect your analysis, but I think it's more of a snap shot of the past and has limited predictive value of what a player can be. Guys grow and change in this league all the time. They expand their games. They get in better physical condition. You can miss all that if you just rely on past numbers, especially if they are out of date or come from a limited sample. You've got to allow for some visual assessment of the player's actual play.

Looking at Okafor I see a guy who has changed his body while retaining his impressive array of offensive moves. I think he clearly has the size and athletic ability to be a decent interior defender but that's hard to assess without actually allowing him to play. Likewise, he seems to have plenty of ball skill to be a passer and work within an offense, not just be a black hole who you dump the ball down to and stand around and watch.

It's a limited sample, but when Okafor got more than 20 minutes in 20 real games mostly in January and February of last year he averaged 15.6 points and 8.3 rebounds on 63.3% shooting to with 1.35 blocks. In 8 games where he got more than 30 minutes he averaged 22.5 points, 11.1 boards and 2.1 blocks while shooting 67.5%. For a (then) 23-year-old prospect that shows promise worth exploring. As for shooting, at some point everyone has to translate it from practice to a game. That takes sign off from coaches as the quickest way to the bench is to take shots the coaches haven't pre-approved, especially if you happen to miss a couple. Jah has a nice looking stroke. I'd be all for letting him start trying them in games if that's what the system calls for.

Again, it's just about solving a problem. The Pels have notorious scoring lulls with the second unit. Okafor is a potential answer to that problem and his skill set can create open looks and cuts for others. He has the talent. It may just be as simple as letting him play through the growing pains like you do with any prospect.

---

I have watched every game this year. Every single time Okafor has taken the floor, I've seen it and watched it. I am not judging him based on him as a rookie; if he had suddenly developed a nuanced passing game or some range on his shot, I would factor it in. The reason I sound like I'm still talking about rookie Okafor is that while his physique has improved, which means he's a bit quicker here and there and slightly more reactive, his actual game has evolved incredibly little. He was a talented back to the back scorer and mediocre rebounder who couldn't pass, stretch the floor, or really defend as arookie and he still is that today.

I'm not denying that when you give him lots of minutes and feed him shot after shot, he can score. So telling me that he scores a lot when you late him take a bunch of shots (his heavy minutes games seem to coincide almost perfectly with his highest usage games) is fine but it's not really answering my point. It's something I conceded from the start.

You say it may just be as simple as letting him play through the growing pains. Firstly: Jahlil is almost 25 years old and has played well over 4000 minutes of NBA basketball. This is less than most guys who get picked as highly as he did, but it's a lot. For reference, that's about as many NBA minutes played as Josh Hart, OG Anunoby, and Luka Doncic. Now of course those guys got picked later, but my point is just that 4500 ish minutes is enough to start making some evaluations on what someone might be like: you want to have seen some real development here. I don't just mean ''you want them to have lost weight'', I mean you want signs of them adding things to their actual game. You might argue that those minutes have come inconsistently over several years, and you have a point, but I'm not asking for him to start dropping stepback 40 footers, I'm just asking for him to show consistency as a roller for God's sake.

Minutes also have opportunity cost. For every minute you give him on the second unit to let him have growing pains, you cost Hayes a minute, because you can't play them both. So if you're focusing those minutes on Okafor, you're not focusing them on Hayes; which one do you think has higher potential? Which would you prefer investing those minutes in? For me, the answer is clear; maybe for you it's not, or it's clear in the other direction, I don't know, but it's something you need to consider.

I don't care too much if my bench has offense problems today. I'm not thinking about that; I'm thinking about 18 months, 2 years from now when Zion and Jax are 22 and we should be really winning games and making playoff runs. I'm not feeding important developmental minutes to Okafor in the hopes that he finally starts to put together a well rounded game when those minutes could be better used elsewhere and I don't see him showing real growth anyway.

New City Champ: Because of it's length, I will not re-cite your post, but I do, indeed, endorse it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by new city champ

I respect your analysis, but I think it's more of a snap shot of the past and has limited predictive value of what a player can be. Guys grow and change in this league all the time. They expand their games. They get in better physical condition. You can miss all that if you just rely on past numbers, especially if they are out of date or come from a limited sample. You've got to allow for some visual assessment of the player's actual play.

Looking at Okafor I see a guy who has changed his body while retaining his impressive array of offensive moves. I think he clearly has the size and athletic ability to be a decent interior defender but that's hard to assess without actually allowing him to play. Likewise, he seems to have plenty of ball skill to be a passer and work within an offense, not just be a black hole who you dump the ball down to and stand around and watch.

It's a limited sample, but when Okafor got more than 20 minutes in 20 real games mostly in January and February of last year he averaged 15.6 points and 8.3 rebounds on 63.3% shooting to with 1.35 blocks. In 8 games where he got more than 30 minutes he averaged 22.5 points, 11.1 boards and 2.1 blocks while shooting 67.5%. For a (then) 23-year-old prospect that shows promise worth exploring. As for shooting, at some point everyone has to translate it from practice to a game. That takes sign off from coaches as the quickest way to the bench is to take shots the coaches haven't pre-approved, especially if you happen to miss a couple. Jah has a nice looking stroke. I'd be all for letting him start trying them in games if that's what the system calls for.

Again, it's just about solving a problem. The Pels have notorious scoring lulls with the second unit. Okafor is a potential answer to that problem and his skill set can create open looks and cuts for others. He has the talent. It may just be as simple as letting him play through the growing pains like you do with any prospect.

---

also agree....

you can play a line up of jrue,,jj,,ingram,,melli and okafor for 5-7mins and have a inside and outside game going on offense.....let okafor play bully ball inside and when you have to help double him then you have the shooters to knock down shots.....the dude worked hard to get his body and mind right and gentry just kept him on the bench...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6warddude

also agree....

you can play a line up of jrue,,jj,,ingram,,melli and okafor for 5-7mins and have a inside and outside game going on offense.....let okafor play bully ball inside and when you have to help double him then you have the shooters to knock down shots.....the dude worked hard to get his body and mind right and gentry just kept him on the bench...

---

I would absolutely love to see the defense on a Jrue/JJ/Ingram/Melli/Okafor lineup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I would absolutely love to see the defense on a Jrue/JJ/Ingram/Melli/Okafor lineup

---

As opposed to the stellar defense the team usually plays?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

As opposed to the stellar defense the team usually plays?

---

Sure but I'm trying to think of how to make the defense better, not fantasising about the few potential ways we could make it worse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Sure but I'm trying to think of how to make the defense better, not fantasizing about the few potential ways we could make it worse

---

Perhaps, just maybe, a new emphasis might help? Maybe a coaching team that holds players accountable for P-Poor Play (ON BOTH SIDES OF THE COURT). You know...like when lifetime, sub 40% shooters take low percentage shots early in the clock during crunch time.

I could care less if one piece of the on-court mosaic changes next year so long as there's new bench coaching directing them. I want a coaching team that will correct physical errors and not tolerate mental ones. Over the last five years, I've had enough of the coddling bs to last a lifetime. These last 7 games epitomizes the last 5 years of play here in New Orleans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Perhaps, just maybe, a new emphasis might help? Maybe a coaching team that holds players accountable for P-Poor Play (ON BOTH SIDES OF THE COURT). You know...like when lifetime, sub 40% shooters take low percentage shots early in the clock during crunch time.

I could care less if one piece of the on-court mosaic changes next year so long as there's new bench coaching directing them. I want a coaching team that will correct physical errors and not tolerate mental ones. Over the last five years, I've had enough of the coddling bs to last a lifetime. These last 7 games epitomizes the last 5 years of play here in New Orleans.

---

I totally agree, and the fact that I completely agree is no secret. I think close to every single member of this board agrees that we need a new coach and that entails a new coaching staff. Not entirely sure why you're bringing it up as if I did disagree during a conversation about lineups and roster choices.

Does not matter who the coach is, you aren't going to get a lineup with JJ, Ingram, and Okafor in it to be a good defensive unit. If the other two guys are absolute geniuses, you might get it to break even and that would be considered impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I totally agree, and the fact that I completely agree is no secret. I think close to every single member of this board agrees that we need a new coach and that entails a new coaching staff. Not entirely sure why you're bringing it up as if I did disagree during a conversation about lineups and roster choices.

Does not matter who the coach is, you aren't going to get a lineup with JJ, Ingram, and Okafor in it to be a good defensive unit. If the other two guys are absolute geniuses, you might get it to break even and that would be considered impressive.

---

Breakeven with the second unit is a win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Breakeven with the second unit is a win.

---

Your second unit contains JJ, Ingram, and 2 world class defenders?

Who's the first unit, Magic, MJ, Lebron, Bird, and Shaq? Christ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Your second unit contains JJ, Ingram, and 2 world class defenders?

Who's the first unit, Magic, MJ, Lebron, Bird, and Shaq? Christ.

---

Ahhhh, so you the one who believes in true 10 and 11 man rotations as opposed to mix and match....you know an A team and a B team in the truest sense. My mistake; I misunderstood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Ahhhh, so you the one who believes in true 10 and 11 man rotations as opposed to mix and match....you know an A team and a B team in the truest sense. My mistake; I misunderstood.

---

It's not like I think there's a completely strict line, it's just Ingram is obviously a starter, on most teams JJ is a starter, and you have to think that if you have 2 world class defenders, at least one of them is a starter. So it feels weird for me to look at a lineup that's probably 60% starters, maybe more, and say ''yep, that's a second unit''.

Usually when I think of a second unit I think like, there's one, maybe two starters on the court and the majority are backups. Not 3+ starters and Okafor.

I really would like someone to explain to my why you'd play Okafor over Hayes though. I don't think anyone wants to run a 3 big rotation, especially when 2 of them can't shoot, and if you want Okafor to be getting 20 minutes a night as a backup then Hayes isn't playing. Why is Okafor more worthy of that development time than Hayes is?

Unless you want Hayes to start, in which case I mean, okay, but that's a bit odd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I really would like someone to explain to my why you'd play Okafor over Hayes though. I don't think anyone wants to run a 3 big rotation, especially when 2 of them can't shoot, and if you want Okafor to be getting 20 minutes a night as a backup then Hayes isn't playing. Why is Okafor more worthy of that development time than Hayes is?

Unless you want Hayes to start, in which case I mean, okay, but that's a bit odd.

---

You know what I wanted. But that's water under the proverbial bridge. That said, Hayes is still a year or so away. (It might surprise you to know that I think he is one of the very few bright spots in the 'bubble'). As constructed, this team is vying for the the 7th or 8th seed with about five other teams even if Red Auerbach and John Wooden were the coaches. For the little rim protection he gives us, Favors gets in ZW's....BI's.....JH's way offensively.

OKAFOR: I think the one time this year that Okafor was given meaningful minutes against a fair-to-middling center (Andre Drummond), he ate his lunch (25/14/5). I know that might be an outlier, but, my God, he's relegated to 15th man for the next 4 games and doesn't see the floor. It's not like SHAQ is on this team. If there was MUP award on this team (Most Underappreciated Player), he would win it hands down.

EDIT: He also ate Jokic's lunch early in the season (26/5/1). Another win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

You know what I wanted. But that's water under the proverbial bridge. That said, Hayes is still a year or so away. (It might surprise you to know that I think he is one of the very few bright spots in the 'bubble'). As constructed, this team is vying for the the 7th or 8th seed with about five other teams even if Red Auerbach and John Wooden were the coaches. For the little rim protection he gives us, Favors gets in ZW's....BI's.....JH's way offensively.

OKAFOR: I think the one time this year that Okafor was given meaningful minutes against a fair-to-middling center (Andre Drummond), he ate his lunch (25/14/5). I know that might be an outlier, but, my God, he's relegated to 15th man for the next 4 games and doesn't see the floor. It's not like SHAQ is on this team. If there was MUP award on this team (Most Underappreciated Player), he would win it hands down.

EDIT: He also ate Jokic's lunch early in the season (26/5/1). Another win.

---

Sure but I would only really count the Jokic game. I find it hard to count the Drummond game because firstly, Drummond has never been much of a defender, secondly Drummond was basically being traded mid-game and clearly did not care (I think he played like 22 minutes or something?), and thirdly, Okafor also gave up tons on the other end. Chris Wood has something like 18 points in 20 minutes on him. So it was like, an offensive clinic but he was a turnstile on the other end.


Hayes played 1049 minutes this year. Do you want him to play less next year? Relegate him, as if as punishment, so that we can feed minutes into Okafor post-ups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Sure but I would only really count the Jokic game. I find it hard to count the Drummond game because firstly, Drummond has never been much of a defender, secondly Drummond was basically being traded mid-game and clearly did not care (I think he played like 22 minutes or something?), and thirdly, Okafor also gave up tons on the other end. Chris Wood has something like 18 points in 20 minutes on him. So it was like, an offensive clinic but he was a turnstile on the other end.


Hayes played 1049 minutes this year. Do you want him to play less next year? Relegate him, as if as punishment, so that we can feed minutes into Okafor post-ups?

---

So you do acknowledge there is a human component to be considered with regard to your analytics. That's progress.

As to your JAX inquiry, my friend, that's is an impossible question to answer. There are so many variables to consider. How's does he complement the team? What kind of minutes to give him? Match-up's? How's the team playing? The minutes I would give him would never be to the team's detriment (I value quality of minutes over quantity of minutes). Look, I'll say what I've always said about JAX. It would take a lot for me to consider moving him...not because of what he is, but because of what I envision him becoming. But, right now, I still see him as a liability to the team...an evolving work in progress

But don't fear, if there's a 82 game season next year...1049 is doable (12.48 per).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

So you do acknowledge there is a human component to be considered with regard to your analytics. That's progress.

As to your JAX inquiry, my friend, that's is an impossible question to answer. There are so many variables to consider. How's does he complement the team? What kind of minutes to give him? Match-up's? How's the team playing? The minutes I would give him would never be to the team's detriment (I value quality of minutes over quantity of minutes). Look, I'll say what I've always said about JAX. It would take a lot for me to consider moving him...not because of what he is, but because of what I envision him becoming. But, right now, I still see him as a liability to the team...an evolving work in progress

But don't fear, if there's a 82 game season next year...1049 is doable (12.48 per).

---

I've never denied that there's some human element. I've just also accepted the reality that your skillset is your skillset, and while you can change it over time with work and effort, if you cannot shoot then no amount of really wanting to shoot real bad in a game is going to fix it or whatever. There's a human element; if you take Lebron James and tell him he gets a billion dollars cash if he loses next game, he's probably not going to be putting in a huge amount of effort. This idea that caring about analytics means you somehow don't acknowledge that players are human comes either from a complete misunderstanding of analytics, or a wilful misinterpretation.

In any case, I say that most of us agree that our window of real, winning basketbal is probably another few years away. We want to start making the playoffs within a season or two, then start making runs, and really be in contention in about 5 or 6 years. Obviously quicker is better, but we know you can't rush things and you need to take time to do things properly.

The only reason you bench Jax and cut his minutes to play someone who is not likely to be a serious part of your team's future in 5 years is if you care more about winning as many games as possible right now than you do about the future. If you care about the future, you give Jax opportunity, knowing he will fail at times, but always failing forwards, gaining experience and developing his craft. You don't say ''sit down, we desperately need to make the playoffs this year so we don't care about your development.''

Now of course in a perfect world, you do both: you win games and develop. But in the short time, the developing needs to be the higher priority in my view because it's what leads to consistent winning later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Now of course in a perfect world, you do both: you win games and develop. But in the short time, the developing needs to be the higher priority in my view because it's what leads to consistent winning later.

---

Look, dae, I'm a 'you play to win the game' guy. For good or bad, I admit that's my priority. I'm not interested in being a farm team for the Clippers or Lakers or anybody else.

You're a "somewhere over the rainbow' guy. You admit that's your priority. Let's take our lumps for a brighter tomorrow and pray to high heaven that no key component jumps ship.

We are looking at the same animal from two diametrically opposing point of views, I can live with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Look, dae, I'm a 'you play to win the game' guy. For good or bad, I admit that's my priority. I'm not interested in being a farm team for the Clippers or Lakers or anybody else.

You're a "somewhere over the rainbow' guy. You admit that's your priority. Let's take our lumps for a brighter tomorrow and pray to high heaven that no key component jumps ship.

We are looking at the same animal from two diametrically opposing point of views, I can live with that.

---

It's not that your priority is winning games, my priority is hoping, therefore we're at cross-roads.

The priorities are not exclusive. You develop players because you want to win, and you don't just want to win 40 games this year piling minutes onto vets who wont be here in five minutes, scraping into the playoffs, and getting bounced. You want to win again and again, consistently: 45, 50+ games every year for a decade. You do that by developing players who are likely to be here and by investing in them, not by benching them so that the dude on the expiring deal can rack his numbers up ready for his free agency.

It has nothing to do with hoping they don't jump ship. Jax, for example, is under our control for basically 7 years, as is Zion, so it makes sense to focus on creating a winner around them because they are still going to be here in 5 years, so the winning can continue.

Lineups with Jah were in the 28th percentile offensively and the 6th percentile defensively, with a -10.8 point differential (good for 8th percentile). His four most used lineups also included Jrue Holiday and Brandon Ingram.

For comparisons sake, lineups with Hayes were in the 52% offensively and the 48th% defensively, with a -0.3 point differential (good for 52nd percentile). His four most used lineups also included Jrue Holiday and Brandon Ingram.

While Hayes' numbers are nothing to write home about, they're still pretty serviceable for a 19 year old rookie who basically has 3 years of competitive basketball experience.

Just because Favors sucked doesn't mean Okafor doesn't. This is maddening. There's a reason we got him for the minimum after he was the 3rd pick 4 years ago. You're not playing to win the game if you're giving a guy with this serious of defensive limitations serious run.

Edit: And I think we can all agree that Jax's biggest issue is fouling and positioning. Literally the only way to fix that issue is by getting game reps. You can't say Jax is one-two years away but then not give him reps. That's not how development works. 19 year olds don't improve by watching.

He does ONE thing very well and this era of basketball doesn't care. You will lose a game by 20 playing Okafor significant minutes. He's someone you only play because you are already being blown out or you have comfortably blown out the opponent and everyone stopped trying. His ONLY shot at being a contributor to teams of today is he develop a serious 3pt shot. And it doesn't look like he'll be doing that unless NBA games turn into 3pt shooting contests.