Even though the 2013 NBA rookie class has failed to make much of an impact thus far, it's still produced its fair share of impressive performers.
And when there are impressive ones, there are also not-so-impressive ones.
In this article, it's absolutely vital that you differentiate between best/worst "performer" and best/worst "rookie." We'll be talking about the former, which means that expectations come into play.
To understand exactly what I mean, take the following two hypothetical players:
- Player A: 10 points, five rebounds, two assists per game with a 15.0 PER
- Player B: 10 points, five rebounds, two assists per game with a 14.0 PER
Efficiency is causing the difference in PER, and that makes it quite clear that Player A is looking like the better rookie, at least if we're looking at statistical output in a vacuum. But that doesn't make him the better performer.
Now let me add in some biographical information:
- Player A was the No. 1 pick and expected to become a superstar.
- Player B went undrafted and wasn't even supposed to play a prominent part in his team's rotations.
All of a sudden, Player B looks a lot better. Not only is he exceeding the expectations; he's shattering them.
That's at the heart of these analyses, as we're breaking down the most impressive and the most disappointing rookies. That's what "best" and "worst" means in this context.
Note: All stats, unless otherwise indicated, come from ESPN.com and are accurate as of Nov. 13.