6.6 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 4.5apg, 32% FG, 32% 3-pt FG
Those are #1 pick Jackie Young's full rookie year stats.
Let's provide the full context. During Jackie's rookie season (2019):
1) She was playing out of position (Laimbeer was trying to turn her into a PG).
2) She was playing for a coach (Laimbeer) who could not teach modern-day basketball principles (i.e. pace and space).
Had she landed with the Storm, Lynx, Mystics, Sun, or any other championship contender (i.e. organizations that were competent and not in the middle of a rebuild/rebrand), does she produce those inefficient stats or does she produce stats that more closely reflect that of a promising #1 overall pick?
Anyone trying to determine "how good" any rookie is after 2-3 games needs to take a breath. Same should be said for overall teams too.
We are not even 1/10 of the way into the season.
When information is readily available, people are free to interpret it however they wish.
I honestly don't see much difference in these "rash" judgments being made on rookies than the judgments being made about them before they play a single WNBA game--except that it's perfectly acceptable to say that Rookie A will be the next Sheryl Swoopes or Sue Bird from the jump as long as there isn't any information that may temper those expectations.
Also, it's okay to play "doomsday" when it comes to certain prospects. When people said on here that Angel Reese's game would not translate to the WNBA before she recorded a single WNBA minute, nobody batted an eye.