It's theoretically possible to establish a pattern though. If you look at all "skilled" post players over the last several years (as defined by usage, number of post-ups per game, offensive efficiency, etc.) and compare that to the production of bigs like Mozgov and Bogut, then you can possibly make an argument about which type of player produces better in the modern game.

Of course, I suppose you could still say that the superior production of the Mozgovs and Boguts is due to the lack of skilled "true big men" currently in the league, but that explanation doesn't seem likely. Not when Duke's net production at the college level was less with Okafor than with Plumlee. Not when bigs like Al Jefferson aren't doing that much for their team's net efficiency (unless we decide that Okafor is just that much better than Jefferson).

There is no "superior production" of the Mozgovs and the Boguts. They're the Matt Joneses of the pros, on offense. Their value is in being the screen-and-roll man for the best two players on the planet (not to mention that Kyrie and Klay are also each among the top 15 offensive players in basketball in their own right), and in being low-usage. Each of those bigs spends upwards of 80% of his court time on the court with Curry/LeBron, and very likely gets a greater share of their minutes with those guys than does his replacement. I think their value in a game in which Curry/LeBron is sitting out is automatically a lot lower.

Anyway, Okafor's offensive talents don't have to be limited to post-up possessions, although we do have that SportVU-based stat that in the 17 games or whatever with data, Duke averaged 1.29 ppp (pre-tournament) on possessions where Jah touched the ball in the post. The point is that he's a big man who can catch, and pass, and finish pretty well. That is better than what we averaged on all the possessions in which Okafor did not get a post touch, given that our unadjusted team efficiency was 1.172 ppp.

This will probably the most interesting thing to follow for us in the NBA over the next few years. I believe a team can dominate in a very different way with Okafor than all the teams trying to emulate Warrior/Rocket-ball right now, but Okafor is going to need to be good on defense and mostly immune from hack-a for it to really work. Otherwise, there's no point to try to be the contrarian Grizzlies-like team, since a guy like Mozgov would provide just as much overall value as Okafor, if not more, if Okafor is terrible on defense and can be hack-a'd.

These are pretty big assumptions - that Okafor will become a positive defender and at least a low/mid-60s FT shooter. I hope he reaches that baseline, somewhat because he's a Duke guy, but mostly because it would add a lot of interest for NBA geeks. He is the single most interesting test case for all things analytics over the next several years. If he shoots 50% FT and sucks on defense for his entire career, there really won't be much of an argument about his value. If he can be at least Demarcus Cousins from the line and on defense, then we can see how much positive impact a Demarcus Cousins with Olajuwon's post game can have in the Curry/Harden era. However, he also has to prove the more basic assumption correct that he'll be able to collapse defenses with double teams even though NBA centers will be guarding him instead of the likes of Kennedy Meeks and various 6'9" guys.

Right now, no one is right and no one is wrong, obviously. I don't think anyone will really know until the Lakers get decent complementary pieces around Okafor, because at the moment, that is as bad a roster as it gets to put around him. Add shooters/defenders like Khris Middleton and Danny Green, get Julius Randle to develop corner 3 range, get rid of Kobe in a year, add a legit alpha superstar on the perimeter, and then see how it's goink for Okafor. This at least gives him a chance. I suspect he simply won't have a chance to show anything positive next season.

childress22 said:

There is no "superior production" of the Mozgovs and the Boguts. They're the Matt Joneses of the pros, on offense. Their value is in being the screen-and-roll man for the best two players on the planet (not to mention that Kyrie and Klay are also each among the top 15 offensive players in basketball in their own right), and in being low-usage. Each of those bigs spends upwards of 80% of his court time on the court with Curry/LeBron, and very likely gets a greater share of their minutes with those guys than does his replacement. I think their value in a game in which Curry/LeBron is sitting out is automatically a lot lower.

Anyway, Okafor's offensive talents don't have to be limited to post-up possessions, although we do have that SportVU-based stat that in the 17 games or whatever with data, Duke averaged 1.29 ppp (pre-tournament) on possessions where Jah touched the ball in the post. The point is that he's a big man who can catch, and pass, and finish pretty well. That is better than what we averaged on all the possessions in which Okafor did not get a post touch, given that our unadjusted team efficiency was 1.172 ppp.

Click to expand...

When I say superior production, I'm talking about RPM and things of that nature...How the team performs both offensively and defensively with them on the court. Individual production is ultimately irrelevant if it doesn't work with a particular roster.

How do those Okafor numbers compare to when Okafor was not on the court? There's a big difference between talking about our offense while he was on the court but did not receive a touch versus our offense with him off the court altogether. According to Luke Winn, "In ACC and postseason games, the Blue Devils were more efficient (a +0.21 PPP margin) with senior Marshall Plumlee at center than with Okafor at center (+0.13 PPP)." That paints a very different picture than just looking at Okafor touches vs. non-touches.

rome8180 said:

When I say superior production, I'm talking about RPM and things of that nature...How the team performs both offensively and defensively with them on the court. Individual production is ultimately irrelevant if it doesn't work with a particular roster.

Click to expand...

I know that's what you meant, which is why mentioned the obvious -- that those guys (Bogut and Mozgov) are both parts of starting lineups that include the best pair of scorers in each conference. Like I said in a response to the original post with the on- & off-court efficiency differentials, it's not a coincidence that Al Jefferson's differential looks a hell of a lot like Kemba Walker's, Aldridge's like Lillard's, etc. The amount of time that a starting lineup plays together pads those numbers.

Just as you said, all that matters is how personnel fits with a particular roster. That's why, IMO, it's not that valuable to use one season's worth of college team data as the most important indicator of what a given NBA team's stats will look like with Okafor. As someone point out on the original Okafor Theory thread (which I now realize is just earlier pages of this thread), the biggest difference in shooting or turnover rate (offensive and defensive) between Okafor's on-court time and off-court time was that we shot significantly better from three when he was off court. As Zack mentioned in that thread, a lot of that could just be noise. I wouldn't assume a lot of it is noise, but I don't think that three-point shooting difference is emblematic of his game in particular rather than the offensive sets we happened to run when he was out of the game. When we know that he is efficient in the possessions he uses, AND we know that the team is efficient when he touches the ball in a post-up, AND we know the team is highly efficient when he touches it in the paint, I don't think the fact that we sucked at plays-where-Jah-is-on-the-court-but-not-touching-the-ball overrides the other numbers. Krzyzewski had one year to adjust from having Amile at center to having Jah, and he couldn't exactly make roster moves other than waiving Sheed and Semi. The pro team that commits to building around Jah will (hopefully) be able to design a roster that complements him well. This is like the opposite of building around Carmelo, or a low-efficiency guy.

A really basic scouting thing ESPN put together about Okafor that anyone on this board could've done a better job with:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/13004 ... kafor-game

Scout takes on Okafor, from Grantland:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ryen- ... nd-okafor/

Hottest takes:

The talk of the league going small … that doesn’t mean you don’t want this guy. There is a great advantage to be able to throw it down in the post when jump shots aren’t going. He is the prototype center. Every team would want a player like that. I just think the other two guys are better.

Click to expand...

Now I’ve heard, if you were to ask the Duke people, and they were to be honest with you, there’s not a great love for the game. Not like you’d think. Not a great passion. He’ll be there, and do the right things. But it’s like Jared Sullinger: I want to play, but I don’t want to lose weight. I don’t want to really get in shape. I want to do enough, but I’m not going to do extra. And that is concerning.

Click to expand...

When you inside-pivot and all that weakside help starts crowding you, and you can throw it opposite for an open shooter? That’s how you punish a defense. And he’s pretty good at that.

Click to expand...

His biggest issue is his ability to defend pick-and-rolls. They are going to expose him at every opportunity. The guards are just going to find him. No matter who he guards, they are going to put him in pick-and-roll. Our game is all about mismatches and exposing players’ weaknesses.

Click to expand...

I thought he was one of the worst defensive players I’ve scouted. I’ve seen him in practice, Nike Hoop Summit, and watched him all year. You can put on any Duke game, and if the commentator had a brain — like [Jay] Bilas — they would talk about it. Like … holy shit. Look at some of the games they lost. The Miami game at home — they exposed this guy, play after play. I always say this about college players: What was Mike [Krzyzewski] going to do? Of course he is going to play. You aren’t going to take him off the floor. Who are you going to play? [Marshall] Plumlee? So he is going to stay in the game, regardless of his inability to guard. He’s going one, two, or three. Those teams that are drafting him? They aren’t going to win anyway. The consequences are diminished.

Click to expand...

My point about Okafor is that all that shit you can get away with at Duke, playing Georgia Tech who fucking blows, and BC — they stink — you can get away with it. When it’s nut-cracking time he revs it up, and I get all of that. There are very few nights off in our league. Sacramento blows, but if you don’t show up to play them, [DeMarcus] Cousins and Rudy Gay will fucking beat your ass... And he’ll learn all that, because he’s a really good kid. Really talented player. So I don’t think he wants to be embarrassed. But in time I’m not sure he’s a 38-minute player.

Click to expand...

He screws around with a couple of fakes here, then all of a sudden he gets an angle and blows up at the basket and dunks on you. I know everyone wants 3s, but it’s great to have an option to just throw it down there to a guy that demands a double-team. He’s unselfish — he’ll give it up. He plays the right way.

Click to expand...

Think about this: Think about your own life as a college freshman, and to be that good a player, and be in that kind of venue, with that pressure. To be able to function like that … I really admire these kids. A year ago, they were in a high school gym. Now they are playing for a national title, on national television, in football-size venues. I just shake my head. I don’t know how they do it.

Click to expand...

I realize everyone is killing his defense, and it is bad. But I won’t write off someone entirely until I see him suck on D in the league. The talk of the NBA changing is overblown here. Yes, it is changing, but it’s not closing the doors on a low-post talent like this.

Click to expand...

Yeah I was just about to post that. Can't say I disagree with any of the above. I would still take Towns, Russell and Winslow over him, easy.

So glad Jahlil chose Duke. Such a dominant force, even with the defensive and foul shooting shortcomings.

Also - next to Burgess' dad, Chucky Okafor is my favorite Blue Devil parent ever.

Matt Jones ‏@KySportsRadio · 9m9 minutes ago
Jhalil Okafor says on radio that his favorite class at Duke was "Decoding Disney"...a course on Disney Movies. Must be nice

Given that the Harvard Business School once had an entire course on MJ's 'Thriller' video, I don't see the problem

I took a class on illegal narcotics and a class on Harry Potter sooooo

Topher said:

I took a class on illegal narcotics and a class on Harry Potter sooooo

Click to expand...

omfg was it awesome??????????


What were the test questions like? Was it on the entire series or one book in particular? Who was your favorite character? What grade did you receive in this class? I would have gotten an A easily.

Lol at that being the post that gets KS back to TDF

BobMartin has ruined what should be the best thread in TDD history single handed.

There's a six-page Harry Potter liveblog on The Banana Stand if you want to read my impressions about reading the series for the first time this year.

I just finished The Deathly Hallows a few days ago. Book 6 was my favorite. My favorite character was Snape. I'm also a big Dobby fan.

rome8180 said:

There's a six-page Harry Potter liveblog on The Banana Stand if you want to read my impressions about reading the series for the first time this year.

I just finished The Deathly Hallows a few days ago. Book 6 was my favorite. My favorite character was Snape. I'm also a big Dobby fan.

Click to expand...

I just found it! There are some posters here that should fear for their lives for not alerting me to that thread.

KevinStrickland said:

Topher said:

I took a class on illegal narcotics and a class on Harry Potter sooooo

Click to expand...

omfg was it awesome??????????


What were the test questions like? Was it on the entire series or one book in particular? Who was your favorite character? What grade did you receive in this class? I would have gotten an A easily.

Click to expand...

It was more literary but yah it pwned. We looked at the references Rowling made to other myths and stories (ie Remus and Romulus, etc) Pretty sure we all got As.

The Weasley Twins were my favorite characters

That sounds fun as crap. My favorite character was Hermione but Luna made a strong push towards the end.