Sunday Discussion: The Ibaka Conundrum
(One thing lacking here at DT is Sunday fodder. Our good friend J.G. is here to fill that void. So turn off that boring Bengals-Chiefs game and have a read.)
Dense droplets of saturated air hang thick around the rusted metal rim, the humidity resisting the flight of the worn leather ball shot after shot. Dust disperses at each bounce of the faded basketball as the chorus of dribbles, feet pounding towards the basket and the familiar clang of an unforgiving rim echoes around the outdoor court.
He catches his breath, inhaling the 89 percent humidity and bouncing the ball a few more times for good measure before returning home, a home lying at 0º00´ North of the Equator. A home of tropical temperatures at the hot and humid equatorial river basin of Brazaville, Congo. A home that he grew up in without electricity and running water; the same home that served as the cradle to his still developing craft, one in which he honed outdoors for the majority of his young life, not playing an indoor basketball game until only a few years ago.
And now a few years later, Serge Ibaka finds himself in a place very unlike the sub-tropical climate of his home, in a culture very different from his Brazavillian heritage and in a city where he must learn, yet again, their native tongue so that he can further the education that has spurred him on his whirlwind journey across the globe.
Yet one constant remains. The worn leather ball, the familiar clang of an unforgiving rim and the passionate talent that has brought him thus far. Because wherever Serge Ibaka has gone to continue playing and growing in the sport of basketball, one thing persists throughout all of the changes in scenery, culture and language: The love of the game.
And it is that game that has become his home, his one true constant despite all of the change, and it is his undeniable skill at that game that generates what so many Thunder fans currently find themselves wrestling with: The Ibaka Conundrum.
3.9 points, 3.8 rebounds, .92 blocks (and 2.4 fouls) in only 14.4 minutes. Those stats don’t jump out at you. Maybe when you take a closer look at the minutes played do you perhaps raise an eyebrow and mutter a, “Hmm… he does seem to do quite a bit in a short period of time,” but you eventually write it off to “being such a small sample size, must be skewed,” and so you decide to tuck that little bit of information into the back of your head for future consideration.
And then you see him play.
You see the athleticism, the swift feet and fantastic timing on jumps, the hunger to empty himself of all energy to make a difference and the intelligence to learn, to adapt to this new level of skill and eventually overcome it.
You see what could be. And that revelation, that fleeting glimpse into the gilded mirror of what might be (11 points, 13 rebounds and 5 blocks against the defending champions, perhaps) is what forces you to ask yourself a question. It is the age old question that every fan, team and front office wrestles with when you combine a promising young player with a glaring position of need in the team’s composition: Do you sacrifice immediate team success to speed up the promising player’s development?
Now if this was two years ago, or even last year, the obvious answer would be, “Yes,” if not, “Of course.” But this Thunder team is different (thankfully!). They have a chance, a legitimate chance, in almost every single game they play to walk away with a win. Let me repeat that: The Thunder can win almost any game they play. And that changes things.
Why?
Because more important than developing one player who might or might not fill your organization’s biggest area of need is the vital imperative to develop a winning culture for your entire franchise. This is why, no matter how much I selfishly want Serge Ibaka to play 25-30 minutes a game, I understand the nights that Nick Collison, Nenad Krstic and even Jeff Green eat up those minutes with their veteran savvy and (at least fewer) mistakes. Ibaka, as all rookies do, especially rookie bigs, will get into foul trouble, he will turn the ball over, he will be out of position and he will make mistakes to the point that I fear I might punt one of my remote controls into my television and then be in a world of hurt.
He’s young, he’s inexperienced and he’s trying to adjust to so many different things that he continues to amaze me in that regard alone. But he also shows flashes, flashes of post dominance and offensive ammunition far exceeding the “raw” moniker he was given when he submitted his name in the 2008 NBA draft. Quick glimpses of shot-blocking rage, rebounding fervor only matched by black-holes and his sweet, effortless jumpshot force me, once again, to wonder if 14.4 minutes a game is enough for him RIGHT NOW, and not because I want him to develop faster, but because when the stars align and the game slows down for him, Serge Ibaka is the most dominating post presence the Thunder have and have had since the franchise’s relocation to Oklahoma City.
He’s the type of player every Thunder fan has been clamoring for since Westbrook showed he could play point guard better than any of us thought on draft night, since Thabo was lifted from the Bulls in a trade deadline steal, since Harden continues to play like a veteran despite his rookie status and since Durant furthers his ascent to superstardom and Jeff Green has games where you say, “Boy, maybe he really can be an all-around game changer at PF.”
But the question lingers, the conundrum endures: Ibaka is not that type of player, that answer… yet. So how do we do what’s best for the team AND for him in the meantime?
Continue to give him 10-20 minutes a night and see how it goes? Use him as the fourth big option behind Green, Krstic and Collison? Tell him to go out and just swat the living snot out of a shot regardless of if it is goaltending or not (okay, that one is just mine, but I’m totally for it at least once a game to send a message!)?
It’s questions like these that make you glad that you’re not a coach and then furious that you’re not one when the decision disagrees with yours. Especially when Ibaka’s cultivated game continues to progress into the player he has always strived to be, even back on the outdoor court’s of his native Congo: A player any fan or teammate can be proud of and a player that we all hope feels one thing each time he steps out onto that court — like he’s right at home.
And I didn’t even talk about if he is a 4 or a 5. Talk about a conundrum.
Hey Kev,
Since we are all speculating here (and with only 12 or 14 games of NBA experience for both Ibaka and D.J.) here is a question for you: Is D.J. White any worse on defense than Jeff Green?
Green is constantly leaving wide open shooters. Garnett, Odom, etc. Can D.J. be any worse?
DJ White is MUCH worse . . . .
Green has his momnets and has improved since last year – he has great games and a few poor ones mixed in . . . he plays the passing lanes this year, and doesn’t get lost weakside near as much as last year . . .
White only decent defensive stretch was against Boston . . .
add: White is the worst defender on the team . . .
What sucks for me is the fact that I like every player on the team. I want to see everyone get burn and do well but the reality is that it wont happen and some of the guys will be traded or not re-signed. This is the first time I have felt like this.
I’ll defer to Kev for the defensive analysis as to White being a terrible defender. As JG said, stats in such a small sample size, especially given the hard to account for talent difference for the opponents, seem somewhat less meaningful. As such, I’ll defer to Kev for the defensive analysis as to White being a terrible defender. As impressive as his mid-range jumpshooting is, I don’t feel like we need more mid-range shots in our offense (given I’ve read on this site that we take as many inefficient mid-range shots as anybody in the league). To me, unless DJ shows an offensive wrinkle that we lack (namely, a legitimate post game), his terrible defense will continue to land him on the bench. I don’t mind him for limited offensive punch, but I can’t envision significant minutes unless his defense improves greatly. Serge, on the other hand, does provide a defensive wrinkle that we lack: someone who can protect the rim and alter shots. It just seems like Serge has something unique to offer in the short term as well as greater contributing potential as he learns the intricacies of the game.
Moving off topic somewhat, I like Kev’s idea of getting Harden more minutes by the musical chairs tactic of moving Thabo to the 3 and KD to the 4 for a few minutes a game. Ironically enough, this would seem to cut into Ibaka’s minutes, as at least some of the minutes he is getting are coming at the backup 4.
@nick
Argh, I meant to delete that first sentence after moving it. Disregard sentence #1, as sentence #3 will give you a distinct feeling of deja vu, haha
My theory one Serge he is not used the right way on offense to show his
his strengths. Most of the time when he get low post position the ball is rarely given to him even in gtime. The last game for instance when he got his turn around jumper.I wanted them to go to him in the post again but they did not, they shot another jumper. Those time are when you work on things like that. Also when we get a rebound we should tell him to run back fast as he can (because he beat back most PF and C in the league)let him seal his man for a easy layup. That would be and easy 4 to 6 point game.Last on rebounding block out or no playtime in fact tell that to all or bigs. Stop just trying to use you talent fundamentals please!!!
Lastly give the young guys time Serge is 20 you cant change you opinion on a guy game to game. Kobe wanted to trade Bynum now how good
a GM was he.
@Big G
It depends on how you rate GMs. Kobe got another ring with Bynum sitting on the bench. I am just messing with you so don’t take that serious. lol
good post . . .
great point about garbage time – that’s a great time to work on post games, but the guards just keep shooting jumpers . . . I agree about Serge’s speed – if we ran, he could get a few more buckets as you said . . .
I think Brooks is hesistant to let this team run. Most of our starting lineup is very turnover prone..
is much easier to turn it over in the halfcourt when there is less room – turn RW loose in the open court and I think he could flourish . . . the one on three drives offense that RW sometimes uses is getting old . . .
@Kev
True but being that we are young… I think the reason he is hesistant to ‘let the team run’ is because that might be ALL they try to do. We are still in teaching mode. A.K.A. Teaching them halfcourt first then at somepoint in the future pull the gag order off of running… so to speak.
Nice points from all, can’t really disagree with anyone.
The fact is both ibaka and white could be solid contributors, whites defense may be bad, but he has only played 194 career minutes, thats not really enough minutes for him to get settled in any game and actually play enough to make a realistic judgment call on him. Its kinda like how the majority of people seem to write mullens off as a bust, even though he hasnt even spent 2 months in the NBA and is averaging a double double in d-league.
Ibaka has a ton of potential both offensively and defensively, and may eventually take the starting spot fron green, he says he models his game after garnett, and i think he could be as good some day.
If you go by 1 on 1 defense Kristic and Green are about equally poor. White at PF is horrendous right now. White at Center is decent to good. He is far better on offense at Center too, if you trust the 82games classification and pay attention to the small sample.
By the early numbers White should get limited run at backup C when you need scoring and Ibaka should get limited run at PF when you defense.
By raw team defensive numbers (unadjusted) Green, Ibaka, Thomas, Collsion, Harden are all in the bottom half of team defense results Livingston was the lowest til Wilks arrived.
White raw data is among the best on team results but he probably had an easier opponent quality level.
But team defensive numbers are great for evaluating individual players.
By raw team defensive numbers (unadjusted) Green, Ibaka, Thomas, Collsion, Harden are all in the bottom half of team defense results Livingston was the lowest til Wilks arrived.
White raw data is among the best on team results but he probably had an easier opponent quality level.
But team defensive numbers aren’t great for evaluating individual players.
accidental double post
meant aren’t not are in the last sentence.
that is the only difference
The real early numbers suggest Ibaka-White might be good partners. White is also looking good in limited run with Collison. The most used Ibaka lineup with Green sucked.
White has only played 2 minutes with Krstic who may or may not be the center of the near future. Ibaka has played 15 minutes with Krstic and they didn’t go well.
You really have to only a clear, disciplined, aggressive strategy for testing combinations for the future- if you believe that NBA court stats are the best guide and if you are willing to make this co-equal with winning right now or higher.
Harden’s played maybe 30 minutes with Krstic, with the one tried and great lineup( +11 in 13 minutes) being one of the 12 I picked last summer, one of the very few of those they’ve tried at all.
Not much more than 10 minutes of Harden with White or Ibaka. Is he going to play with them in the future? If yes, when are you going to test it? You don’t have to use it but that would be limiting to not and I’d think you’d want to look at it at some point.
If you just repeated what they’ve done the first quarter of the season they’ll end up with
1 lineup used over a 1000 minutes,
2 near 200 minutes
3 more over 100 minutes
and the rest of 1600 minutes used on lineups used under 100 minutes and most of them really dinky.
I don’t think you can tell that much from a lienup used under 100 minutes for a season so at this rate they’ll end the season something decent about 6 lineups.
But remove the ones that have Ollie and Thomas and you’re down to 4. Remove Collison if you think they’re going to go that way and you’re down yo knowing more than a little about 3 lineups. For a whole season’s time.
It is hard to know much about many lineups but if you do this
Minutes # Lineups
1000 1
500 1
250 4
100 8
800 All other
you learn more than a little about 14 lineups.
To experiment much more with others you have to pull time from the top lineups. If they are strong lineups you wouldn’t want to do that. The current starting lineup is near neutral right now, far better than it was but how important is it learn about other lineups?
Harden and the other starters is at less than 12 minutes used. Are they going to let the season go and test that less than 50 minutes? That strikes me as crazy. If they are waiting, what are they waiting for? Failure? Throw out a number of tiny lineups and you can make more time for this lineup and at least a few others.
If you don’t you’ve wasted a significant opportunity.
Continue as is and you’ll end up with no Harden lineups over 100 minutes that are likely to return (assuming Ollie and Thomas are gone). No lineup over 100 minutes with Westbrook-Harden.
Just 1 lineup over 100 minutes of Green without Durant. Just 2 lineups over 100 minutes of Durant without Green. Just 2 variations over the threshold with Krstic period.
1 lineup over 100 minutes with Ibaka. None with White.
This isn’t a lot of data variety to build a stronger future off of.
@Crow
Yes, I think it will be interesting to see how Brooks’ rotation develops and solidifies over the course of the season and what kind of impact that will have on the team’s future.
I’d be interested to see how a Westbrook, Harden, Thabo, Collison and Ibaka lineup would do over a long period of time as the second unit.
That lineup that I mentioned that was +11 in 13 minutes wasn’t as creative as some of my other ones. It was
Westbrook-Harden-Durant- Green- Krstic, an alternative statting lineup or could easily be the second lineup used in games. I probably shouldn’t tout its performance in 13 minutes but that is all there is to say about it.
Westbrook, Harden, Thabo, Collison and Ibaka has been used about 35 seconds. And went 1=0. Woohoo! When will they check it? Are they even lookin gfor the opportunity to do so? I don’t know how thoroughly they’ve thought about lineups and testing them.
Westbrook-Durant-Green-Ibaka-White went 10-4 in a bit over 3 minutes. Not enough to say anything but I’d try it again. Then again. Then again. Then decide if to try it again or something else. There were several other “big” winners in small minutes of White-Ibaka so I’d try that some more in general regardless of who else you put around them.
It may not pay off, it may be a product of garbage time. But I’d want to know something more about it before the trade season, the draft, free agency and next season. Knowing what works and when with the bench is fairly important.
I guess they are testing the heck out of this starting lineup. I can understand that but when will they basically know what they’ve got, enough to make a decision? Do they need 500 minutes, 1000, or this season and next season? It is a good question. We’ll see after 500 or 1000 minutes if they should be able to answer the question.
@Joe
Man, part of why Green’s it seems like Green leaves a lot of jump shooters open is because of his responsibility to rebound, or at least box out. With his playing an undersized “four,” his rebounding responsibilities (especially for this team, with a “soft” center) see increasing scrutiny. It’s better that he allows a jump shooter an open look (depending, of course, upon the shooter and the situation) than an offensive board/put-back.
That’s just my $0.02, anyway…
I have read all about Ibaka on numerous websites and watched just about every video of Ibaka there is to watch, from when he was in high school up through some of his games in the NBA. There is no doubt that this guy is oozing with athleticism.
Ibaka’s timing on blocking shots is flawless. He almost never jumps too early to block a shot. He looks like he could be a premier shot blocker once he earns more minutes in the NBA. And I belive he has a 42″ vertical jump, and for a 6’10″ guy that is flat out amazing leaping ability. That is actually an incredible vertical for any player regardless of size, but for someone that is 6’10″, that is almost unheard of. So he can get up and block just about any shot that comes near him.
His offensive game should come around quite nicely too. He has good range w/ his shot for a big man and can step out and knock down a mid-range jumper and he can occasionally step behind the 3 pt and line and knock down a trey. And obviously he can throw down dunks and score points off of offensive rebounds.
I’ve seen Ibaka comparisons to Shawn Kemp, which I think are too lofty of expectations. I just think that’s too much for him to live up to, b/c that is basically saying he will turn out to be a hall of famer, which is just too far of a stretch right now. But if all the stars align, he has the right work ethic, strong desire and the passion to keep getting better and if OKC keeps developing him at a nice pace, he could turn out to be something very special. I do like to compare him to a better version of Tyrus Thomas on down the line though, which I think is a more realistic comparison than Shawn Kemp. I think he has about the same athletic ability as Tyrus did when he first broke into the league, but I just think Ibaka has better work ethic and has more desire to get better than Tyrus, which is why I compare him to a better overall version of Tyrus Thomas in the future.
I would like to see him bulk up just a bit more and put on another 10-15 pounds or so of muscle to help him bang with post players inside and score more in the paint, but I don’t want to see him put on more weight than 10-15 pounds b/c I don’t want too much weight that it would hinder his leaping ability or slow him down too much, b/c he has too good of leaping ability and speed for a big man, I would hate to seem him lose a step if he put on alot more weight.
Nice article, I really enjoyed it.