THE 2012 ROOKIES THROUGH 10 GAMES

Ok, it's been ten games. Even so, thanks to some head-scratching coaching decisions, many of our rookies have very small sample sizes. But we can't wait forever on sample sizes or we wouldn't write anything about this year's rookies until after the all-star break, and we've got blogs to run, dammit.

MKG is making the Bobcats fun. That's an impressive feat.

Using my handy comparison engine, I found the top 10 rookies sorted by WP48 (I manually filtered out guys with fewer than 100 minutes).

  POS Min WP48 PoP48 Wins PTS DRB ORB REB AST TO BLK STL PF
Drummond C 169 .361 8.2 1.3 20.4 8.8 6.0 14.8 1.4 2.6 3.1 2.6 5.7
Harkless SF 113 .319 6.9 0.8 11.5 8.9 4.7 13.6 1.7 0.8 3.4 1.7 4.2
Kidd-Gilchrist SF 246 .258 4.9 1.3 20.5 7.8 4.9 12.7 2.9 3.3 2.7 2.0 4.7
Davis PF 170 .257 4.9 0.9 27.1 8.5 5.6 14.1 1.4 2.5 3.7 1.7 3.1
James FC 121 .170 2.2 0.4 16.3 9.9 5.6 15.5 0.6 2.8 3.2 0.4 5.2
Ezeli C 184 .141 1.3 0.5 11.0 6.0 6.8 12.8 0.3 2.6 2.1 1.3 5.5
Sullinger PF 196 .128 0.9 0.5 13.5 7.6 3.7 11.3 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.7 6.6
Lillard PG 375 .120 0.6 0.9 24.3 3.2 0.9 4.1 7.8 4.2 0.1 1.9 2.4
Singler SF 258 .119 0.6 0.6 19.9 3.7 1.9 5.6 1.1 1.5 1.7 0.4 5.6
Barnes SF 309 .117 0.6 0.8 19.7 6.1 2.0 8.1 2.2 2.6 0.2 1.1 4.3
Prigioni G 104 .116 0.5 0.3 10.2 1.8 0.5 2.3 10.2 3.7 0.0 3.7 4.6

And here are the top rookies in minutes played:

  POS Min WP48 PoP48 Wins PTS DRB ORB REB AST TO BLK STL PF
Lillard PG 375 .120 0.6 0.9 24.3 3.2 0.9 4.1 7.8 4.2 0.1 1.9 2.4
Barnes SF 309 .117 0.6 0.8 19.7 6.1 2.0 8.1 2.2 2.6 0.2 1.1 4.3
Waiters SG 292 -.027 -3.9 -0.2 22.5 3.5 0.2 3.6 3.3 3.0 0.3 1.8 2.3
Singler SF 258 .119 0.6 0.6 19.9 3.7 1.9 5.6 1.1 1.5 1.7 0.4 5.6
Kidd-Gilchrist SF 246 .258 4.9 1.3 20.5 7.8 4.9 12.7 2.9 3.3 2.7 2.0 4.7
Beal SG 244 .015 -2.6 0.1 20.7 3.9 1.0 4.9 2.8 3.0 0.8 1.6 2.8
Shved PG 209 .100 0.0 0.4 21.6 4.6 1.8 6.4 8.7 3.7 1.6 0.7 2.8
Crowder SF 201 .073 -0.8 0.3 17.4 5.7 0.0 5.7 2.9 1.9 0.5 1.4 5.5
Valanciunas C 201 .021 -2.4 0.1 18.1 6.4 5.7 12.2 2.1 3.1 1.4 1.0 7.9
Rivers PG 200 -.115 -6.7 -0.5 11.3 2.6 0.5 3.1 4.6 3.4 0.2 1.9 3.1
Sullinger PF 196 .128 0.9 0.5 13.5 7.6 3.7 11.3 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.7 6.6
Ezeli C 184 .141 1.3 0.5 11.0 6.0 6.8 12.8 0.3 2.6 2.1 1.3 5.5
Leonard C 175 .097 -0.1 0.4 10.4 6.6 4.1 10.7 0.8 1.4 1.9 0.8 6.3
Davis PF 170 .257 4.9 0.9 27.1 8.5 5.6 14.1 1.4 2.5 3.7 1.7 3.1
Drummond C 169 .361 8.2 1.3 20.4 8.8 6.0 14.8 1.4 2.6 3.1 2.6 5.7
Taylor
164 -.067 -5.2 -0.2 12.3 2.6 2.0 4.7 2.3 2.0 1.2 0.9 2.6
Robinson PF 134 .053 -1.4 0.1 15.0 6.1 3.9 10.0 1.8 3.6 0.4 3.2 8.2
Zeller FC 128 -.001 -3.1 -0.0 14.6 6.0 4.1 10.1 1.9 2.6 1.1 1.9 6.0
Miller GF 124 .109 0.3 0.3 8.1 4.3 0.0 4.3 3.9 1.5 0.4 2.7 4.3
Nicholson PF 123 .007 -2.9 0.0 23.0 7.4 2.3 9.8 1.2 2.7 2.0 0.8 6.2

Just like last year, there is weird stuff going on. Anthony Davis has only played 6 games, and got hurt in one of those, so it's clear why his minutes are a little low. But otherwise, we see that the two top-ten lists don't correlate as well as you'd hope. Kidd-Gilchrist, Damien Lillard, Kyle Singler and Harrison Barnes are in both top ten lists. Alexey Shved's playing time also has an easy explanation: the Timberwolves have so many injuries that we now call them the Walking Shved.

But why hasn't Andre Drummond been getting a ton of playing time? It sure as hell isn't because the Pistons are trying to "win now". What is it about those nights where Drummond plays 14 minutes, grabs 3 rebounds, 2 blocks, a steal, and scores 10 points with 80% true shooting that makes Frank hesitate to see what he can do in 20 minutes? Or 25?

And why isn't Harkless playing more? Is it because Orlando wants to see just how awful Arron Afflalo can get first?

But it's the second list that is so confusing. Why, please, for the love of Naismith somebody explain to me why anybody thinks that Austin Rivers should be in the NBA. In college, he was a terrible shooter (which is a bad sign for, you know, a shooting guard). In the pros so far, he's been a terrible shooter. Occam's Razor tells me that Austin Rivers probably just isn't very good at shooting. So....come on, folks, please let me in on the secret. Just.....why?

Why's everyone so impressed with Waiters? I don't get it. He's had two fantastic games (against LAC and against Pheoenix), and a whole bunch of bad games, and it all averages out to poor shooting, rebounding, passing, and ball-handling numbers. Again, let me in on the secret. The same is true of Beal, bad shooting, passing, rebounding, ball-handling, 2 good games and a bunch of really bad games, only Beal's good games weren't even as good as Waiters.

The rookie of the year so far has been Kidd-Gilchrist; I suspect Anthony Davis will overtake this as he gets minutes, but he's been amazing so far. He's been a LeBron-like rebounder (13 per 48 as a small forward, behind only Durant and that guy Harkless who cannot take minutes from Afflalo), has been very good at getting to the line and getting steals, and is a fantastic shot-blocker (3rd among SFs behind Kirilenko and...yes, Harkless. What the hell, Mr. Vaughn?). He's the primary reason for Charlotte's improvement this year.

What about you folks? Who has impressed you so far?

Picture?type=square

Sol Orwell

I've been riding the "Rivers is horrible" train for a while. The usual comeback from my friends? "He has killer instinct"

Dear lord ... I imagine they thought Antoine had killer instinct too.

183 days ago

Default_profile_3_normal

Stephen

Damian is impressive so far. Maybe his ability to spread the floor, as you indicated in some posts but not include in the model, is good?

183 days ago

Default_profile_6_normal

Charles See

Barnes. Expected him to be awful, given how down WoW was on him. He just put up a 20-12 night on 50% shooting. Perhaps he'll be one of those rare cases where his NBA numbers prove to be much better than college ones.

183 days ago

Nba-geek-avatar

Patrick Minton

I agree Damian is impressive so far, for the same reasons Irving was as a rookie. I expect his turnovers to go down and his passing to get better with experience. I'm not sure why you think the model needs any help in evaluating his performance, though. The high turnovers and low assists counteract his shooting somewhat.

183 days ago

Nba-geek-avatar

Patrick Minton

Barnes and Drummond, so far, are the "good" surprises. But with Barnes so far, it's mostly shooting, and as I said in the comments to my last post, this makes me skeptical.

183 days ago

Default_profile_2_normal

Robert Killian

Hey, first time poster, though I've perused the site for a while. As far as the minutes vs. wins produced numbers not matching for some of the rookies, it might simply be the case that coaches take proven production or lack thereof over the limited minutes they have seen so far. Drummond is playing behind a historically productive center (I do not know enough about Monroe or the Pistons to know how feasible a Monroe at PF Drummond at C lineup would be) while Beal and Waiters are playing ahead of historically below average or awful shooting guards, even if those guards are currently producing at a higher rate (again, not knowing much about the other players on the team I am only going by those who are listed at the same position).

Also, average numbers don't show it, but Draymond Green's past couple games have looked rather promising.

183 days ago

Photo_on_2011-11-04_at_01.48_normal

David Plunk

Rivers reminds me of the conversation the scouts are having in Moneyball before Beane goes off. He's the basketball equivalent of a good looking guy with 5 tools, a good looking girlfriend, athletic flare and the name of a former player. He's got all the physical things scouts are used to seeing and valuing, aside from crappy shooting form. Apparently there isn't a Billy Beane in NO to let everyone know raw points and physical biases shouldn't be valued the way they are.

183 days ago

Default_profile_3_normal

Rafael Montalvo

Austin Rivers would not have gone drafted if he were named Austin Smith, for what it's worth. Nepotism is a very real thing in the NBA.

MKG having a Kawhi Leonard-esque season doesn't surprise me. Now only if he developed a reliable corner 3 pointer...

183 days ago

Default_profile_2_normal

Al S

Crowder has to be up there as among the most surprising - in a bad way. Below average? Boo.

183 days ago

Img_3451_normal

Jon C

Is Crowder surprising? He is a rookie and he is playing just a little below average. Isn't this just a tad below what he was projected to do? If he finishes the season at this number, I think he will look very promising assuming normal progression with age and experience. Also a lot of rookies are going to fall back to earth as the season goes on. It happens all the time. A rookie that finishes his first year at 100 can basically be expected to be in the low 200s in three or four years, right? I don't think anyone expected Crowder to be more than a 200 level player. But maybe I'm wrong.

Is it possible that Drummond just didn't care in college? I mean he was getting paid basically nothing and being exploited by the NCAA system. And he was punching a clock to get through the hoops he was required to go through to get to the NBA. And this is when he "knows" he is physically ready for the NBA. Maybe he phoned it in in college and even high school. Or . . . maybe this is small sample size.

182 days ago

Nba-geek-avatar

Patrick Minton

Al,

Crowder is surprising to me (mostly for his low rebounding numbers) but is hardly doing poorly overall. An average rookie performs at .050, historically. He hasn't been nearly as good as I thought he'd be so far but I am not yet ready to call it.

182 days ago

Default_profile_3_normal

Stephen

Patrick, correct me if I am wrong; you discussed about the ability to spread the floor as a good thing in some posts, and I do not think that ability (maybe not easily quantifiable) is accounted in the model...

182 days ago

Wp_000390_normal

Luke Gregory Caruana

MKG is the surprise for me. I thought he would be good but didn't think it would be this fast and also didn't think that he would be actually leading the bobcats to wins. I'm not sure he is getting the credit he should be though (from the average basketball fan)

182 days ago

Picture?type=square

Andouille Rustler

We kind of liked Barnes- pretty good outside shooting, pretty good rebounding, very protective of the basketball while at UNC. Thus far, he's brought those skills with him to GS.
http://thedraftabilityindex.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-125-report-out-of-gates-and-mostly.html

180 days ago

Rubio_normal

Mitchell Hirst

Rookies are hard to call. A lot hit a rookie wall midway through the year. At this point last year, people were talking about how Brooks would be one of the top 3 players out of the draft (not smart people, but ESPN people).

180 days ago

Picture?type=square

Brandon Owen

Drummond has been the biggest pleasant surprise thus far. Yes, it's a small sample size, but this was a guy who was supposed to be a GIGANTIC project, maybe not ready for rotation minutes for another few seasons. But already he's been quite valuable. Yes, he's missed a fair number of defensive rotations, gotten his butt handed to him in the post a few times, and yeah, he still looks fairly raw offensively...but those are all typical things for rookies, especially rookie big men. "Garbage points" or not, the dude is scoring at a decent rate and killing it on the boards. The Pistons really have nothing to lose by letting him get some games in, and I'm quite perplexed that he's not getting more minutes.

Barnes has surprised me thus far as well. Rivers hasn't been a shock at all, although I must say I didn't expect him to be quite THIS awful.

180 days ago


You must be signed in to leave a comment.