I’m supposed to be working on Ye Olde Draft Analyzer (YODA for short) — and I’ll get there soon — but my primary source for stats went and “improved” their data _again_, which means I have to figure out what they changed and reformat my spreadsheets.
Again.
Change usually doesn’t make me this grumpy.
Anyway, to help me procrastinate on the YODA work, I ran a performance EKG for the team’s final “great young hope,” Kyshawn George.
Of Washington’s four youngsters, George’s performance this season was the least encouraging — and yet, there’s reason to hope he can be a contributor over the next several seasons.
Let’s start with the bad, which makes some sense because that’s what George did. He shot just 28% on threes through the end of January — 214 attempts. His PPA at that point was just 34. Keep in mind that in PPA, average is 100, higher is better, and replacement level is 45.
And then...he got better. Shot better, defended better, played better overall. He’s the one youngster who actually lived the narrative of improvement as the season wore on. From that 34 PPA at the end of January, George finished the season with a 53 PPA, which included a 104 PPA over his final 20 games.
There’s plenty in his rookie season for optimists and pessimists alike. The worrywart can obsess over the low overall production, which bodes ill for his career forecast because he’s already 21 years old. Now, 21 is not old by any means — it’s just that the standard “improvement by age” career forecast suggests that someone who plays like George did in his age 21 season is probably going to top out as a useful role player off the bench and not a star.
The pessimist could also point to the extreme swings in his performance, the decline in three-point shooting over the final month-plus of the season, and the lack of high-end games. Here’s a breakdown of his performance this season by PPA level:
* 200+ — 4
* 150+ — 6
* 100+ — 17
* less than 100 — 51
* below replacement level — 31
* negative PPA — 16
For those not wanting to do math, 75% of his games last season rated below average. A quarter rated in negative territory.
Also, the pessimist might note that George’s offensive rating (points produced per 100 possessions) was more than 14 points per 100 possessions below average despite a relatively low 16% usage rate.
The optimist could point to the upward trend in George’s production over the last half of the season, which included an uptick in his offensive efficiency even as his three-point shooting dipped late in the season.
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25998424/2024_25____EKG____George.png)
Which perspective is correct? I usually give more credence to the bigger sample size, and I do that with George too. The late season improvement is reason to hope he can make a leap bigger than the norm, but it’s good to acknowledge that his leap would indeed be bigger than normal.
As with any 21-year-old, his future will ultimately be determined how hard and smart he’s able or willing to work.