Dion Waiters

[Jon]

One thing he does that might help is taking the 3 behind The screen instead of wide open. That means 2 defenders are out of the paint.

I'd love to see some numbers on how often the Lakers pull down an offensive rebound off of a Kobe jumper when running a P&R .vs. a jumper in ISO.

[Tornicade]

seeing every players misses turned to ORB would allow one to see if theres any pattern or rhyme and reason. especially with players on the same team. statistics aside some people hav always maintained there is such a thing as "good misses" but no real evidence to support or deny it

[JiggleIt]

And that's the thing...there's no such thing as a "good miss."

There's just good rebounds. And all rebounds are good rebounds...unless Ricky Davis is getting them. In which case, they might not even be rebounds at all.

[narbar32]

This "kobe assist" thing might be the dumbest thing in this entire topic... A topic that has veered and meandered between real basketball talk, in-depth photograph analysis to determine how nice or not nice of a body Dion has, the significance of an inch (in height), countless Dwyane Wade comparisons, and an ever-present battle between "haters" and "homers" with the tides turning at Dion's every miss or make, respectively.

[HMC]

Anyone got Thorpe's Dion related stuff from the latest rookie watch?

[Pioneer10]

One thing he does that might help is taking the 3 behind The screen instead of wide open. That means 2 defenders are out of the paint.

Now that would be useful information: if you get more offensive rebounds depending on when you shoot on pick and roll, that could definitely impact how coaches teach players to attack it. Obviously hard to get clean data and you're analysis would have to also factor in when the shooter running a pick and roll is more likely to actually to make the shot. In end probably something you need a real statistician (or probably a group of statisticians)and not just message board or ESPN prognosticators to figure something like that specific out.

[supergoat52]

Anyone got Thorpe's Dion related stuff from the latest rookie watch?

Some readers have questioned why Harrison Barnes and Dion Waiters aren't higher in my rankings. So let me take this time to explain how I evaluate the rookie class and talent overall.

In the past, we would look at raw numbers and proclaim with some confidence that a particular player was playing effectively. If the player was putting up double-digit points and his team was not successful, then the blame was cast on his lower-scoring teammates, bad defense, poor rebounding, turnovers, etc.

But thanks to John Hollinger, Dean Oliver, Roland Beech and the huge assortment of advanced metrics they and others have made available online, we now have little excuse when it comes to evaluating a player's contributions on the court. For instance, we shouldn't rush to call Waiters and Barnes successes simply because they are high-scoring dynamic players.

ROOKIE 50 RANKINGS

We're keeping track of every NBA rook. Here are the latest Top 50 rankings.
Rank Player Stock
1 Damian Lillard
2 Andre Drummond
3 Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
4 Jonas Valanciunas
5 Alexey Shved
6 Brian Roberts
7 Andrew Nicholson
8 Jared Sullinger
9 John Henson
10 Anthony Davis

• Click here for the complete rankings »

Are these two rookies talented? Do they have a lot of upside? Are they capable of playing great for a game here and there? Yes, absolutely. But, while it's understandable to get excited about those things, it's not accurate to think that a few good games surrounded by a lot of poor ones is superior to playing more efficiently and consistently in fewer minutes. Just because a player scores more points does not mean he is playing well.

I've used Adam Morrison as an example before, but his story bears repeating. He exploded out of the blocks as a rookie, averaging over 15 points per game in November on 37.5 percent shooting from 3. This sounds promising, considering how well he had played in college -- he was no project. He then earned a spot in the Rookie Challenge at the All-Star break and started almost a third of his 77 games played, finishing the season with an impressive 11 points per game average while shooting better than 33 percent from 3.

But look closer and you'll find his advanced stats were scary bad, as was his overall field goal percentage (37.6 percent). So while fans were excited and the general consensus was that he was doing exactly what was expected of him, deeper analysis showed red flags everywhere. The truth was he was awful as a rookie, despite his solid raw stats. Then he got hurt, before basically losing his confidence that he could help an NBA team win games. And now he is out of the league and considered one of the biggest draft busts in NBA history.

Make no mistake, Barnes and Waiters are playing far better than how Morrison did in his rookie season, but their seasons thus far are similar. They have elite physical skills, so their margin for error is much greater than Morrison's was, but if they don't learn how to play with their minds, they won't be important pieces of solid winning teams.

Waiters' problems start with -- you guessed it -- shot selection. A true shooting percentage south of 47, which ranks very low on any scale you measure it with, drives down his player efficiency rating to 12.59. Too many step-back jumpers, too many contested long 2s with 10 seconds on the shot clock, and too many over-penetrations into the teeth of the defense, which forces difficult shots -- a big reason why he's making just over 40 percent of his shots at the rim. I worry about the latter problem the least, because players like Waiters often figure out how to finish once they become better at reading defenses. But the shot selection stuff can linger for years; that's a problem Waiters must address now.

Barnes has an issue with assertiveness, though in his defense, playing alongside quick triggers like Steph Curry and Klay Thompson does not give him ample opportunities to shine. His team is not strong at moving the ball. The Warriors like to isolate players (Barnes included sometimes) more than a lot of teams, which does not give Barnes the green light to attack his defender unless he's the one in isolation. Still, the bottom line for Barnes is that he looks special at times during games, yet ranks nowhere near the top 10 rookies in PER (11.33) and other metrics.

In many respects, analyzing a player requires the understanding of a basic principle -- if one player shoots, then no other player can shoot on that possession. So every time a player takes a poor shot, his team is less likely to score than when any player takes a good shot (no player makes a respectable percentage of bad shots). A good shot is defined as one that a player has a good chance of making within the constraints of time, score and rebounding/defensive balance.

It sounds simple, but if the goal is to help your team win -- and yes, that is the ultimate goal evaluators have to keep in mind -- then players who take bad shots often can be considered less valuable than other players who may be producing less in terms of raw numbers. Because the numbers those other players are producing are more conducive to winning plays.

When analyzing a player, we also have to use care when using plus-minus, especially this early in the season (the same could be said about adjusted plus-minus, too). One player might have a far more impressive plus-minus than another, but only because one replacement player is much worse than the other.

FOLLOW THE NBA ON ESPN

Stay up to date with the latest NBA news, stories and analysis. Follow the NBA on ESPN on Twitter, Facebook and Google+:

Twitter » Facebook » Google+ »

So a trick evaluators use is to imagine how players would do if they were to simply switch teams. How would Hornets rookie Brian Roberts do in Cleveland? Would he help the Cavs win more? And would Waiters do more in New Orleans than Roberts? This is not based on projections, but strictly a subjective look at how each one is playing at this time.

No one would argue that Roberts will be better than Waiters once the latter matures -- which is likely but not assured. But right now, it's hard to argue that the already mature and crafty Roberts would not help Cleveland more today, while the Hornets would suffer with Waiters.(Thinking about Waiters and Austin Rivers playing together is a painful exercise.)

Highlights and exciting players are also obstacles for fans. Remember when everyone just knew that Kobe Bryant was the king of clutch? A deeper study of the data proved otherwise, for both him and the Lakers.

Similarly, a player who can grab 10 rebounds, all below the rim, in 30 minutes a game is still more valuable than the guy who flies all over the place for his seven rebounds in 36 minutes. It may not look as pretty, but the first player is obviously having a greater impact.

Waiters does indeed have some Dwyane Wade in him and a little Eric Gordon, too. And that screams DYNAMIC! Meanwhile, Barnes looks like the elite prep player he was -- he's longer, taller, smoother and more skilled and athletic than most small forwards we'll ever see. Those aspects of their games will sell tickets, sure, but they only matter to talent evaluators when they are used to administer efficient and productive punishments on their opponents.

Jarvis Hayes, a former lottery pick in 2003, was a big and strong wing player from an athletic college conference who stormed out of the gates for the Wizards as a rookie. He averaged better than 11 ppg his first two months and earned a spot next to the likes of LeBron, Melo, Bosh and Wade in the rookie-soph game. But Hayes was never even an average NBA player during his career because of poor shooting percentages and a lack of understanding of how to best utilize his strengths.

There is a stark difference between perception and reality, which objective stats show us more clearly. I believe that guys like Waiters and Barnes are fully capable of becoming long-term starters, and possibly stars -- something I have always projected for Barnes -- but it is not yet written in stone.

Until then, they will be highly marketed rookies, for sure, but only average in terms of production. Meanwhile, there will be other rookies (and veterans) helping their teams play better, only with less attention.

Here you go!

[mhi]

Its interesting to notice that Hollinger's Draft Rater is similar to what the Cavs must be using as TT was ranked #3 in his class and Waiters #4. According to that recent article, Hollinger's stats must not like Waiters so far in the NBA.

[Jon]

And that's the thing...there's no such thing as a "good miss."

How about a nice soft mid-range jumper that kind of floats around the rim just begging to be thrown down .vs. a massive brick that bounces 18ft back?

A fundamentally solid defensive rebounding team is going to grab those soft shots pretty easily, while the bricks are going to fly over their head. Of course the problem with the "flying bricks" is that when they land in the opponent's hand they usually lead to an easy fast break - and even when you get them back, it's going to tend to lead to a reset on the possession and not an easy put back.

So many factors!

[Futuredome]

The Cavs miss Dion as much as Kyrie.

[myriadwhims]

I think it's interesting that as much as people are knocking Dion, we have been abysmal without him.

[Pioneer10]

I think it's interesting that as much as people are knocking Dion, we have been abysmal without him.

Yep now 3 straight straight double digit losses without him. The last time we had a double digit loss prior to that was 10 games prior to him getting hurt

[Dave K]

well yea, no one else can score on the team. Antwan Jamison effect.

[Tornicade]

all the games have started with the cavs behind by double digits in the first quaarter. this wasnt happening with Dion on the Floor. I think its safe to call him an "impact" player.

[Jack Brickman]

well yea, no one else can score on the team. Antwan Jamison effect.

It's not just his scoring we miss. Really, it's more his playmaking. He can attack and distribute just like Kyrie can, and without both of them we're really hurting.