Has Nik been playing better then Ben lately?
- Thread starter 9x1x6
- Start date
I kinda like the balance of minutes for these two right now.
I'm not a Ben fan honestly but he's slowly winning me round. (Very slowly)
It's frustrating to see him in a system that requires ball handling all over the court. Something he simply cannot do.
Nik isn't a great ball handler but has that vision to go with it, Ben is a still a head down kinda guy at this point. Nik is heads up.
I do fear Nik will be traded this offseason though. Shame because I think he could be a hell of a fun player down the line.
I'm not a Ben fan honestly but he's slowly winning me round. (Very slowly)
It's frustrating to see him in a system that requires ball handling all over the court. Something he simply cannot do.
Nik isn't a great ball handler but has that vision to go with it, Ben is a still a head down kinda guy at this point. Nik is heads up.
I do fear Nik will be traded this offseason though. Shame because I think he could be a hell of a fun player down the line.
Right, so let's trade them for veterans who can help us win now because we know what will happen if we're not competitive very soon, or do we need to go over that again?
>i'm all for vets but taj is not the answer. don't know why you can't get that?
Unfortunately, we are not the Spurs. Doesn't mean we can't develop a structured system where McLemore can "shine," but how shiny would he be really?
>good observation. the name on the front of the jersey is either kings or sacramento. cookie 4 u. we need that type of 3 & D type of player and from what i saw in the beginning of the season ben was blossoming into it. how shiny do those players need to be? i don't care how shiny as long as they're effective. championship teams all have em if you didn't notice.
Right, so let's go sign one this year in FA. So instead of risking it to see if McLemore becomes a consistent 3 and D player next year, let's try and get one we know who can already do that. McLemore is too inconsistent right now to have a significant role on a competitive team. If we were in a position to sit around and develop players, sure, let's hold on to him and see what happens. Unfortunately, we need to start winning now. Coddling young talent is 2nd priority to winning at this point.
>we have a solid role player in thompson. iirc he was playing solid in the beginning of the season. wasn't flashy or 'shiny' but he got the job done. covers 2 positions. add wcs to the mix and we may have a solid rotation.
Please reference where I said Gibson is the savior? No, really I'm interested in where I said those words. I don't know why anyone would think a roleplaying PF would be a savior of a team. That term is reserved for guys like, oh I don't know, Cousins perhaps?
>your treating him as such bc someone doesn't agree that he shouldn't be acquired? there is some dead weight in landry and if we can move him for an expiring or a unused prospect on a team that is looking for a vet to push into the playoffs then great. no need to give up so much to get taj. he's going to want to start and won't be a happy camper as a bench player.
That's hogwash. Players develop all the time behind the scenes. Why do players even bother practicing on their own time when all you need is playing time to be any good. I guess we found the secret ingredient to become a good basketball player! Just give them playing time!! Or perhaps the reason players get minutes is because they show that they have what it takes in practice? Make them play their way into the rotation. Give them incentive to work hard and improve their game.
>lol it's their livelihood, of course they're going to practice. they're certainly going to get valuable crunch time situations practicing on their own. oh i could imagine that. it could be that one mistake that happens in a crunch time situation that elevates their game... why? because of that game time experience.
Besides, he will get some playing time behind Gibson & Thompson. Take a look at our minute distribution among our big men this year:
Cousins - 1,856 mins
Thompson - 1,696 mins
Landry - 1007 mins
Evans - 703 mins
Hollins - 363 mins
Moreland - 2 mins
Considering Cauley-Stein would be our 4th big off the bench, I'm going to give him all minutes that belonged to Evans, Hollins, and Moreland. That's a total of 1,068 minutes on the season through 71 games (1,068 minutes / 71 games = 15 minutes per game). 15 minutes per game to a rookie big is more than enough (and my calculation doesn't even account for all of the minutes Williams & Gay have spent at the 4 this year). Rookie bigs often times take longer to adjust to the NBA and you have to be patient with them. I'm not sure why we would bank on a rookie big to be our third guy off the bench while we're trying to be competitive. It's too risky. Too much is at stake.
>what's at stake? throw em out there and let them get that experience. won't hurt if we have some stability in the organization to help develop them.
Now, he might turn out to be a very good big, be able to adapt right away, and give us excellent production. At that point, you can look to trade Thompson away to create some space on your roster to give him more minutes, but that's a good problem to have.
If Cousins was still on his rookie deal and we had guys like McCallum, McLemore, Stauskas, & Cauley-Stein on the team, then yeah let's hold onto them and try to develop them. We can be more patient with our guys and try to develop them into good players, but again, the clock is ticking on Cousins. We need to start being competitive if we want to have any shot at keeping him. With that in mind, would you rather risk it on unproven, inconsistent, young players, or would you rather have savvy vets who you can rely on game-in and game-out? I know which side I'm on. Do you?
>all the great teams have one thing in common. leadership. have the kings had that since tibco took over? we may have in malone but we'll never know because the power cord was prematurely yanked out. the great teams have a plan on how to build a roster and execute it. so far i see no leadership in the front office. please don't give me the vlade & george karl that was inserted last minute. there are simply too many cooks in the kitchen.
vivek wants to run video game tactics and acquire players similar to the ones from his former team
gerbil wants to acquire more 2nd rounders, trade exceptions, acquire former denver/gsw players, crunch analytics #s and agree to whatever vivek has cooked up
mully wants nellie ball and someone to compete in 3 point contests in training camp
karl/vlade too early to determine what they want.
this has caused inconsistency, instability and distrust from the players. do you agree this may have an effect on the players?
i'm all for vets and how they change the culture of the team. get this straight, i don't agree with the proposed offer for taj. it's too much imo. he's going to want to start, will be expiring soon and want a bigger contract. if we're lucky, we might move him for assets prior to that instead of collecting 2nd rders/trade exception. do i roll the dice when examining that? no, sorry, not when we have ben still on a rookie deal and saw some glimpses of what he could be under some stable coaching.
>i'm all for vets but taj is not the answer. don't know why you can't get that?
Unfortunately, we are not the Spurs. Doesn't mean we can't develop a structured system where McLemore can "shine," but how shiny would he be really?
>good observation. the name on the front of the jersey is either kings or sacramento. cookie 4 u. we need that type of 3 & D type of player and from what i saw in the beginning of the season ben was blossoming into it. how shiny do those players need to be? i don't care how shiny as long as they're effective. championship teams all have em if you didn't notice.
Right, so let's go sign one this year in FA. So instead of risking it to see if McLemore becomes a consistent 3 and D player next year, let's try and get one we know who can already do that. McLemore is too inconsistent right now to have a significant role on a competitive team. If we were in a position to sit around and develop players, sure, let's hold on to him and see what happens. Unfortunately, we need to start winning now. Coddling young talent is 2nd priority to winning at this point.
>we have a solid role player in thompson. iirc he was playing solid in the beginning of the season. wasn't flashy or 'shiny' but he got the job done. covers 2 positions. add wcs to the mix and we may have a solid rotation.
Please reference where I said Gibson is the savior? No, really I'm interested in where I said those words. I don't know why anyone would think a roleplaying PF would be a savior of a team. That term is reserved for guys like, oh I don't know, Cousins perhaps?
>your treating him as such bc someone doesn't agree that he shouldn't be acquired? there is some dead weight in landry and if we can move him for an expiring or a unused prospect on a team that is looking for a vet to push into the playoffs then great. no need to give up so much to get taj. he's going to want to start and won't be a happy camper as a bench player.
That's hogwash. Players develop all the time behind the scenes. Why do players even bother practicing on their own time when all you need is playing time to be any good. I guess we found the secret ingredient to become a good basketball player! Just give them playing time!! Or perhaps the reason players get minutes is because they show that they have what it takes in practice? Make them play their way into the rotation. Give them incentive to work hard and improve their game.
>lol it's their livelihood, of course they're going to practice. they're certainly going to get valuable crunch time situations practicing on their own. oh i could imagine that. it could be that one mistake that happens in a crunch time situation that elevates their game... why? because of that game time experience.
Besides, he will get some playing time behind Gibson & Thompson. Take a look at our minute distribution among our big men this year:
Cousins - 1,856 mins
Thompson - 1,696 mins
Landry - 1007 mins
Evans - 703 mins
Hollins - 363 mins
Moreland - 2 mins
Considering Cauley-Stein would be our 4th big off the bench, I'm going to give him all minutes that belonged to Evans, Hollins, and Moreland. That's a total of 1,068 minutes on the season through 71 games (1,068 minutes / 71 games = 15 minutes per game). 15 minutes per game to a rookie big is more than enough (and my calculation doesn't even account for all of the minutes Williams & Gay have spent at the 4 this year). Rookie bigs often times take longer to adjust to the NBA and you have to be patient with them. I'm not sure why we would bank on a rookie big to be our third guy off the bench while we're trying to be competitive. It's too risky. Too much is at stake.
>what's at stake? throw em out there and let them get that experience. won't hurt if we have some stability in the organization to help develop them.
Now, he might turn out to be a very good big, be able to adapt right away, and give us excellent production. At that point, you can look to trade Thompson away to create some space on your roster to give him more minutes, but that's a good problem to have.
If Cousins was still on his rookie deal and we had guys like McCallum, McLemore, Stauskas, & Cauley-Stein on the team, then yeah let's hold onto them and try to develop them. We can be more patient with our guys and try to develop them into good players, but again, the clock is ticking on Cousins. We need to start being competitive if we want to have any shot at keeping him. With that in mind, would you rather risk it on unproven, inconsistent, young players, or would you rather have savvy vets who you can rely on game-in and game-out? I know which side I'm on. Do you?
>all the great teams have one thing in common. leadership. have the kings had that since tibco took over? we may have in malone but we'll never know because the power cord was prematurely yanked out. the great teams have a plan on how to build a roster and execute it. so far i see no leadership in the front office. please don't give me the vlade & george karl that was inserted last minute. there are simply too many cooks in the kitchen.
vivek wants to run video game tactics and acquire players similar to the ones from his former team
gerbil wants to acquire more 2nd rounders, trade exceptions, acquire former denver/gsw players, crunch analytics #s and agree to whatever vivek has cooked up
mully wants nellie ball and someone to compete in 3 point contests in training camp
karl/vlade too early to determine what they want.
this has caused inconsistency, instability and distrust from the players. do you agree this may have an effect on the players?
i'm all for vets and how they change the culture of the team. get this straight, i don't agree with the proposed offer for taj. it's too much imo. he's going to want to start, will be expiring soon and want a bigger contract. if we're lucky, we might move him for assets prior to that instead of collecting 2nd rders/trade exception. do i roll the dice when examining that? no, sorry, not when we have ben still on a rookie deal and saw some glimpses of what he could be under some stable coaching.
I agree. He is not the answer. He is an answer. We need a starting caliber player next to Cousins. Thompson is best as a third big off the bench. He has certain attributes that you want next to Cousins, but he also lacks certain attributes (shotblocking, help defense, high IQ). Gibson is one of the best compliments we can find for Cousins. He plays good post defense, rotates well on defense, protects the rim, decent rebounder (9.1 per36 for his career), has a roleplayer's mentality, is efficient on offense (50% from the floor, 71% from the FT line), and shoots 41% from 16-24ft (and he prefers the right side of the floor which would make room for Cousins in the post).
The only knock on him is his age and his height. He's 29 right now, but he came into the NBA much later than the typical player (at 24 years old). He has a lot less wear and tear on his body (especially since he's been a backup for his entire career). I mentioned a couple months ago in a Gibson thread that Cousins (at 24 years of age) has logged more NBA minutes than Gibson has in his career. I don't think we'll see Gibson fall off in terms of production any time soon.
In regards to his height, people like to say he is 6'8" even though he measured 6'8.5" without shoes which happens to be an inch less than what Cousins measured out (6'9.5" without shoes). If we think Cousins is tall enough to play C, then I think Gibson with his 7'4" wingspan is tall enough and long enough to play PF.
Again, he's a savvy vet who knows how to play the game. It's a bonus that he compliments Cousins so well. I don't know why you can't get that.
Thanks, it didn't seem like you were understanding the differences between them and us so I thought I would spell it out for you. Let me know if you need anymore help!
Again, I agree. We need a 3 and D player at SG, but we need one now. That's all fine that you think Ben is blossoming into that type of player, but again, we need that player now. This isn't the time for sitting around and seeing what our kids develop into. If you want to do that, you run the risk of Cousins leaving. Then you'll be stuck with just your players who finally become 3 and D players. How many championship teams don't have a player of Cousins caliber? It seems like you're more in favor to risk a Cousins departure for the sake of developing our young players. Our only shot at being a true contender is if we have Cousins on this team, so excuse me if I don't follow along with your "logic."
Again, I agree. Thompson is a good roleplayer, but he is not suited for a starters role. I would prefer my starters to have a higher BBIQ. I think most here would agree that Thompson should be coming off the bench in a third big role. Someone who can come in at PF or C (depending on foul trouble). With that in mind and the fact that we are trying to make this team the best team we can immediately, we need to find an upgrade at PF to slide Thompson into that third big role. If we get the first pick in the draft and get Towns, yeah I'm a little more favorable in terms of plugging him right away. He's the first pick in the draft. He better be good enough to compete right away. However, I don't see the logic in risking if our rookie will be able to give us valuable minutes at starting PF or as the third big off the bench. If our rookie is having to log 25-28 mpg, there's a lot riding on him to deliver (not to mention we would still be playing Thompson as a starter). McLemore had a similar load of minutes his rookie year, and he was hurting our team greatly.
Why don't we go out and sure up our big man rotation with another starting level veteran and solidify our rotation once and for all? That way we're not banking on a rookie coming in and giving us productive minutes in a year we need to be as competitive as possible. Seems like an unnecessary risk if you ask me.
If our rookie shows very well early in the season, we can think about trading Thompson (or even Gibson depending on how good our rookie looks). In this scenario, you eliminated the risk by having your big man rotation made of all vets who would flourish in their roles, but you also have the ability to trade one of them down the line if the rookie shows well (giving you a valuable player at another position or cap space). With the cap jumping up drastically in the following year, I think Gibson's and Thompson's contracts will look extremely attractive to teams so I'm not worried about being unable to move one of them.
I'm not sure why you think we're giving up so much. I really don't. It's basically McLemore and a bad contract for Gibson. The removal of the protection is just for insurance purposes for Chiacgo. We're likely to lose that pick anyways next year (since I expect us to be competitive next year) so it really is not much value going out on our side at all.
Why would Gibson be coming off the bench? For all the reasons I gave earlier, it makes no sense why he would be coming off the bench. He's a better and smarter player than Thompson. He would be a great roleplayer to have next to Cousins.
I think you're misunderstanding me. Playing time is a good way to improve as a player, but to flat out suggest that players only get better if they get playing time is asinine. Again, in my scenario, Cauley-Stein would still be getting around 15 MPG his first year on the team. That's more than enough. Gobert averaged 9 MPG in 45 games last year for Utah and look at where he is now. Cauley-Stein would be getting more minutes per game than him in this scenario. Who's to say a similar thing can't happen to Cauley-Stein?
What's at stake? I thought this was common knowledge, no? What is at stake is the possible departure of Cousins. He's obviously not been happy with how this season has gone. I'm not sure he can take another one like it. We need to do everything in our power to be competitive this year to gain his trust back and persuade him to stay here when his contract expires.
As important as McLemore and Cauley-Stein are to you, Cousins will always be my first priority. Our championship hopes will always lie with him.
I don't see how this has anything to do with my post since I'm basically acting as the GM in this scenario, but yeah I agree with most of this...
McLemore & a bad contract in Landry for Gibson seems pretty fair to me... The pick will most likely go to Chicago next year anyways.
Good, because he will be out starter. He's good enough and has earned it. Being stuck behind prime Boozer and Gasol was just unlucky for him.
He will have two more years on his deal. I wouldn't call that soon. And he'll expire when Rudy's deal is up (if he doesn't take the player option) giving us more money to try and bring Gay back if that's the direction we would like to take.
Why do you assume he would want a bigger contract? He's going to be 32 when his contact expires. I find it hard to believe that he will have much leverage to request a bigger deal. If you want to play semantics though, his next deal might be larger simply because the cap is expected to go up 25 mil, but in terms of % of the cap, his deal won't go up.
I'm not sure why we have to trade Gibson before his deal is up. We can simply use the cap space on another player or resign him. We're not taking him in with the intention of flipping him to another team. We're taking him to make our team a better team.
I find it ironic that you're not willing to "roll the dice" after seeing glimpses of what Ben can do, but that you are willing to "roll the dice" on trying to do everything in our power to keep Cousins happy and in Sacramento. He should be our priority.
The only knock on him is his age and his height. He's 29 right now, but he came into the NBA much later than the typical player (at 24 years old). He has a lot less wear and tear on his body (especially since he's been a backup for his entire career). I mentioned a couple months ago in a Gibson thread that Cousins (at 24 years of age) has logged more NBA minutes than Gibson has in his career. I don't think we'll see Gibson fall off in terms of production any time soon.
In regards to his height, people like to say he is 6'8" even though he measured 6'8.5" without shoes which happens to be an inch less than what Cousins measured out (6'9.5" without shoes). If we think Cousins is tall enough to play C, then I think Gibson with his 7'4" wingspan is tall enough and long enough to play PF.
Again, he's a savvy vet who knows how to play the game. It's a bonus that he compliments Cousins so well. I don't know why you can't get that.
Thanks, it didn't seem like you were understanding the differences between them and us so I thought I would spell it out for you. Let me know if you need anymore help!
Again, I agree. We need a 3 and D player at SG, but we need one now. That's all fine that you think Ben is blossoming into that type of player, but again, we need that player now. This isn't the time for sitting around and seeing what our kids develop into. If you want to do that, you run the risk of Cousins leaving. Then you'll be stuck with just your players who finally become 3 and D players. How many championship teams don't have a player of Cousins caliber? It seems like you're more in favor to risk a Cousins departure for the sake of developing our young players. Our only shot at being a true contender is if we have Cousins on this team, so excuse me if I don't follow along with your "logic."
Again, I agree. Thompson is a good roleplayer, but he is not suited for a starters role. I would prefer my starters to have a higher BBIQ. I think most here would agree that Thompson should be coming off the bench in a third big role. Someone who can come in at PF or C (depending on foul trouble). With that in mind and the fact that we are trying to make this team the best team we can immediately, we need to find an upgrade at PF to slide Thompson into that third big role. If we get the first pick in the draft and get Towns, yeah I'm a little more favorable in terms of plugging him right away. He's the first pick in the draft. He better be good enough to compete right away. However, I don't see the logic in risking if our rookie will be able to give us valuable minutes at starting PF or as the third big off the bench. If our rookie is having to log 25-28 mpg, there's a lot riding on him to deliver (not to mention we would still be playing Thompson as a starter). McLemore had a similar load of minutes his rookie year, and he was hurting our team greatly.
Why don't we go out and sure up our big man rotation with another starting level veteran and solidify our rotation once and for all? That way we're not banking on a rookie coming in and giving us productive minutes in a year we need to be as competitive as possible. Seems like an unnecessary risk if you ask me.
If our rookie shows very well early in the season, we can think about trading Thompson (or even Gibson depending on how good our rookie looks). In this scenario, you eliminated the risk by having your big man rotation made of all vets who would flourish in their roles, but you also have the ability to trade one of them down the line if the rookie shows well (giving you a valuable player at another position or cap space). With the cap jumping up drastically in the following year, I think Gibson's and Thompson's contracts will look extremely attractive to teams so I'm not worried about being unable to move one of them.
I'm not sure why you think we're giving up so much. I really don't. It's basically McLemore and a bad contract for Gibson. The removal of the protection is just for insurance purposes for Chiacgo. We're likely to lose that pick anyways next year (since I expect us to be competitive next year) so it really is not much value going out on our side at all.
Why would Gibson be coming off the bench? For all the reasons I gave earlier, it makes no sense why he would be coming off the bench. He's a better and smarter player than Thompson. He would be a great roleplayer to have next to Cousins.
I think you're misunderstanding me. Playing time is a good way to improve as a player, but to flat out suggest that players only get better if they get playing time is asinine. Again, in my scenario, Cauley-Stein would still be getting around 15 MPG his first year on the team. That's more than enough. Gobert averaged 9 MPG in 45 games last year for Utah and look at where he is now. Cauley-Stein would be getting more minutes per game than him in this scenario. Who's to say a similar thing can't happen to Cauley-Stein?
What's at stake? I thought this was common knowledge, no? What is at stake is the possible departure of Cousins. He's obviously not been happy with how this season has gone. I'm not sure he can take another one like it. We need to do everything in our power to be competitive this year to gain his trust back and persuade him to stay here when his contract expires.
As important as McLemore and Cauley-Stein are to you, Cousins will always be my first priority. Our championship hopes will always lie with him.
I don't see how this has anything to do with my post since I'm basically acting as the GM in this scenario, but yeah I agree with most of this...
McLemore & a bad contract in Landry for Gibson seems pretty fair to me... The pick will most likely go to Chicago next year anyways.
Good, because he will be out starter. He's good enough and has earned it. Being stuck behind prime Boozer and Gasol was just unlucky for him.
He will have two more years on his deal. I wouldn't call that soon. And he'll expire when Rudy's deal is up (if he doesn't take the player option) giving us more money to try and bring Gay back if that's the direction we would like to take.
Why do you assume he would want a bigger contract? He's going to be 32 when his contact expires. I find it hard to believe that he will have much leverage to request a bigger deal. If you want to play semantics though, his next deal might be larger simply because the cap is expected to go up 25 mil, but in terms of % of the cap, his deal won't go up.
I'm not sure why we have to trade Gibson before his deal is up. We can simply use the cap space on another player or resign him. We're not taking him in with the intention of flipping him to another team. We're taking him to make our team a better team.
I find it ironic that you're not willing to "roll the dice" after seeing glimpses of what Ben can do, but that you are willing to "roll the dice" on trying to do everything in our power to keep Cousins happy and in Sacramento. He should be our priority.
Last edited:
Why is Sacramento addicted to rolling the dice and drafting rookies?!?
We need another rookie like we need a hole in the head.
We need to TRADE This draft pick for a seasoned veteran who can step in and help the team win immediately.
Why does this organization (and many of its fans) continue to try to project what draft picks MIGHT turn out to be?
Why not just trade it for the player you know you can use?
There are a lot of veterans in this league, who have demonstrated exactly what they can/can't do, night-in and night-out even in the playoffs. Their resume and work experience is right out there to see - and yet, we continue to use our draft picks, wanting to gamble for the big payout!
Why can't this franchise just build a solid team by trading their draft picks for veterans that fit?
Fill the gaping holes in the roster from what you've seen out there playing on the court (vets), instead of from an unknown crackerjack box (draft).
oh, yeah - that pesky "protected pick" we owe the Bulls.
I refuse to believe THAT is what's caused this franchise's addiction to the draft the past ten years. That would have been surmountable/dodgeable if they really valued vets over the addictive promise of rookies.
We need another rookie like we need a hole in the head.
We need to TRADE This draft pick for a seasoned veteran who can step in and help the team win immediately.
Why does this organization (and many of its fans) continue to try to project what draft picks MIGHT turn out to be?
Why not just trade it for the player you know you can use?
There are a lot of veterans in this league, who have demonstrated exactly what they can/can't do, night-in and night-out even in the playoffs. Their resume and work experience is right out there to see - and yet, we continue to use our draft picks, wanting to gamble for the big payout!
Why can't this franchise just build a solid team by trading their draft picks for veterans that fit?
Fill the gaping holes in the roster from what you've seen out there playing on the court (vets), instead of from an unknown crackerjack box (draft).
oh, yeah - that pesky "protected pick" we owe the Bulls.
I refuse to believe THAT is what's caused this franchise's addiction to the draft the past ten years. That would have been surmountable/dodgeable if they really valued vets over the addictive promise of rookies.
Last edited:
Was just bullcrapting on basketball reference when I decided to compare Nik and Pejas rookie years. I only used Niks stats under George Karl, as playing under Ty Corbin isn't that fair.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stausni01/gamelog/2015/#51-64-sum:pgl_basic
7.5 Pts, 1 R, 1 A, 45% FG, 47% 3Pt and 91% FT.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stojape01.html
8.5 Pts, 3 R, 1.5 A, 38% FG, 32% 3Pt, 85% FT.
Different players, different positions I know. It does show Nik is already doing pretty good for his first year in the NBA, and I'm 100% sure he'll develop into something borderline All Star level at the very least.
Comparing Pejas rookie year might not be fair, due to the lockout shortening the season, He did improve quite a bit his 2nd year stat wise, but you could say Corbin was Niks lock out.
Edit: Manus rookie stats just for craps.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/ginobma01.html
7.5, 2, 2, 44% FG, 35% 3Pt, 74% FT.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stausni01/gamelog/2015/#51-64-sum:pgl_basic
7.5 Pts, 1 R, 1 A, 45% FG, 47% 3Pt and 91% FT.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stojape01.html
8.5 Pts, 3 R, 1.5 A, 38% FG, 32% 3Pt, 85% FT.
Different players, different positions I know. It does show Nik is already doing pretty good for his first year in the NBA, and I'm 100% sure he'll develop into something borderline All Star level at the very least.
Comparing Pejas rookie year might not be fair, due to the lockout shortening the season, He did improve quite a bit his 2nd year stat wise, but you could say Corbin was Niks lock out.
Edit: Manus rookie stats just for craps.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/ginobma01.html
7.5, 2, 2, 44% FG, 35% 3Pt, 74% FT.
