Regular Season
GP
8
W-L
3-5
PPG
6.9
APG
2.5
RPG
3.4
SPG
1.125
BPG
0.75
AST/TO
5
FG%
54.8%
3PT%
33.3%
Position
Positions stay separate. Olocc12 has records at PF and SF. Each position is stored and displayed on its own — averages are never merged across positions.
PF Splits — Five Star League Season 2
Playoffs
GP
4
W-L
2-2
PPG
4
APG
2.8
RPG
4.8
SPG
0.5
BPG
0.3
AST/TO
—
FG%
38.9%
3PT%
25%
| Split | GP | W-L | PPG | APG | RPG | SPG | BPG | AST/TO | FG% | 3PT% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regular Season | 8 | 3-5 | 6.9 | 2.5 | 3.4 | 1.125 | 0.75 | 5 | 54.8% | 33.3% |
| Playoffs | 4 | 2-2 | 4 | 2.8 | 4.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | — | 38.9% | 25% |
- Regular Season: Audited regular-season position split; official team records are stored separately.
- Playoffs: Verified completed playoff box scores only; shortened and missing-stat games remain context-only. Published aggregate includes 1.0 turnovers per game.
Season 2 PF ranking analysis
Regular season: 8 PF games, 3-5, 6.9 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 2.5 APG, 1.1 SPG, 0.8 BPG, 0.5 TO, 54.8% FG, 33.3% 3PT
Playoffs: 4 complete PF games, 2-2, 4.0 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 2.8 APG, 0.5 SPG, 0.3 BPG, 1.0 TO, 38.9% FG, 25.0% 3PT
Team context: Bottom five opponent PPG; Elite Eight
Olocc supplied passing, ball security and some rim activity, then improved his rebounding in the playoffs while JLM advanced through The Mob.
The scoring and shooting were weak in both stages, and JLM’s bottom-five opponent-PPG defense does not support a strong anchor claim. Paladins exposed the offense further in the Elite Eight.
Why not higher: Low efficiency and poor team-defense context.
Why not lower: His sample, passing, rebounding and playoff participation provide more substance than the final three.