.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 46 of 46

Thread: Remind Me: Why does Jahlil Okafor supposedly suck?

  1. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by new city champ View Post
    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 You can miss all that if you just rely on past numbers, especially if they are out of date or come from a limited sample.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.
    Basketball.

  2. #27
    New City Champ: Because of it's length, I will not re-cite your post, but I do, indeed, endorse it.

  3. #28
    Basketball Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    jacksonville,fl/new orleans
    Posts
    4,081
    Quote Originally Posted by new city champ View Post
    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...

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by 6warddude View Post
    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

  5. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    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?

  6. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by As I See It View Post
    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

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    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.

  8. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by As I See It View Post
    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.

  9. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    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.

  10. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by As I See It View Post
    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.

  11. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    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.

  12. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by As I See It View Post
    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.

  13. #38
    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.

  14. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    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.
    Last edited by As I See It; 08-13-2020 at 12:19 AM.

  15. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by As I See It View Post
    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?

  16. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    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).

  17. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by As I See It View Post
    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.

  18. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post

    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.

  19. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by As I See It View Post
    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.

  20. #45
    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.

  21. #46
    A Soulful Sports Fan Contributor Eman5805's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29,859
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •