Looks like Wiggins is turning into the superstar he was hyped as... [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Kblaze8855

11-09-2019, 02:01 PM

This completely depends on how you are defining "bad"...if you are talking about his potential or his skillset or what flashes he's shown...then no, he hasn't been "bad"

However, if you are talking about his actual contributions and production...he certainly has been bad for a large portion of his career.

Nah. Not him. Not Lonzo. Not Kuzma. Not Tim Hardaway Jr. Not Jabari Parker. Not any of the people ISH cant wait to call bad while ignoring that 100 players in the NBA are a bad month from changing places with some guy in Italy.

We dont talk about bad players. All of the people ISH cant wait to call bad are holding down NBA jobs getting heavy minutes as decided by people who know a hell of a lot more than you do. Or me. They get the same numbers we do. Then they give the guy you call bad millions and puts them on the floor for 35 minutes.

Advanced stats have given a lot of fans the idea that they are some kinda all knowing insider and they disregard the obvious....

Bad basketball players CANT get big minutes in the NBA for years at a time and bad players CANT have games like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inruSZcYlhA

It has never happened. It will never happen.

All we have is a huge lack of nuance and an emotional need to rip people who are often overrated...and shoved down our throats....or over exposed. But a rational look at the situation?

Youre have ability enough to drop 40-50 points in the NBA over and over and over...and over and over....you cant be bad at basketball.

You can be overrated. You can be of less impact than your production suggests. But bad players dont have it in them to produce like that even in losing.

There is a baseline level of ability you need to go score 20 a game in the nba for a career average. Nobody who had that level was ever bad.

But "______ isnt as good as he was predicted and I think he should have a lesser role" doesnt convey all the emotion we try to get across here so we jump to bad and trash and terrible when it virtually never applies to anyone worth talking about to begin with.

ArbitraryWater

11-09-2019, 02:15 PM

He's improving.

It happens for players.

Some sooner, some later

DMAVS41

11-09-2019, 03:20 PM

Nah. Not him. Not Lonzo. Not Kuzma. Not Tim Hardaway Jr. Not Jabari Parker. Not any of the people ISH cant wait to call bad while ignoring that 100 players in the NBA are a bad month from changing places with some guy in Italy.

We dont talk about bad players. All of the people ISH cant wait to call bad are holding down NBA jobs getting heavy minutes as decided by people who know a hell of a lot more than you do. Or me. They get the same numbers we do. Then they give the guy you call bad millions and puts them on the floor for 35 minutes.

Advanced stats have given a lot of fans the idea that they are some kinda all knowing insider and they disregard the obvious....

Bad basketball players CANT get big minutes in the NBA for years at a time and bad players CANT have games like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inruSZcYlhA

It has never happened. It will never happen.

All we have is a huge lack of nuance and an emotional need to rip people who are often overrated...and shoved down our throats....or over exposed. But a rational look at the situation?

Youre have ability enough to drop 40-50 points in the NBA over and over and over...and over and over....you cant be bad at basketball.

You can be overrated. You can be of less impact than your production suggests. But bad players dont have it in them to produce like that even in losing.

There is a baseline level of ability you need to go score 20 a game in the nba for a career average. Nobody who had that level was ever bad.

But "______ isnt as good as he was predicted and I think he should have a lesser role" doesnt convey all the emotion we try to get across here so we jump to bad and trash and terrible when it virtually never applies to anyone worth talking about to begin with.

It isn't advanced stats. It is just watching this guy take terrible shot after terrible shot...while missing most of them...and not giving any effort at all or defending...most of his career.

To the point about GM's knowing more...if you think the Wolves, at the end of last year, don't wish they could go back in time and not give Wiggins the contract...you aren't living in reality. The money he got was based of sunk cost and potential...and everyone knows they wish they didn't do it as of the close of last year...Come on man.

You really interested in what Wiggins has done so far in his career? You want that on your team?

I'm not talking the potential...I'm talking about what he actually has been night in night out.

He's been a really bad defender, an offensive player that doesn't score efficiently, dominates the ball without creating much for his teammates. Played key roles on teams that have largely underachieved given the talent.

I think the Wolves have broken 40 wins once in his time there...

I think you mean to say he hasn't been a scrub...and I agree with that.

But, ugh, I don't think it is talking crazy to call a player that hasn't been good on either side of the floor...while giving limited effort...and playing tons of minutes...anything other than bad, below average, not good...etc.

You seem to just focus on the flashes and potential...which is fine, but I don't think that is how we should evaluate the actual impact of a player...especially in this case to date.

But again, if he plays consistently like he has been lately...different story. Problem is, he hasn't played consistently like that over his previous 5 years.

And, again...my guess is that the stats will more closely lineup with reality than the observations of people that watch what likely amounts to less than 5 Wolves games a year.

Lastly, nobody is saying he's "bad at basketball"...not sure where you would get that or why anyone would even need to address it, but literally everyone here talking knows that any player making the NBA is not "bad at basketball"...LOL

You know, I know, we all know...that isn't the standard...if that was the standard...you better not call anyone ever playing more than a minute in the NBA bad...because even just getting there puts you on a level almost nobody that has ever existed has touched.

DMAVS41

11-09-2019, 03:40 PM

The Jimmy Butler drama masks another festering stench: What if Wiggins is just, like, not good? I was a cautious Wiggins optimist when analytics folks buried him as a teenaged rookie, but he has shown zero meaningful improvement over four seasons. If anything, he has gotten worse.

Some of that regression -- the drop-off in free throws, for instance -- stemmed from predictable fit issues with Butler, Jamal Crawford and even Derrick Rose. All three superseded Wiggins in the ball-handling hierarchy, shoving him into spot-up duty he approached with the enthusiasm of a teenager asked to rake the leaves:

Motion-tracking cameras recorded Wiggins "running fast" during only 4.8 percent of his time on the floor, one of the 10 lowest such figures in the league, per Second Spectrum. (Almost everyone in his slowpoke vicinity is a plodding 7-footer.) He has shown no aptitude on pull-up 3s, or on any sort of 3-pointer outside the corners -- and he doesn't shoot enough from the corners. Nobody guards him away from the ball.

His pick-and-roll work is rote. He still doesn't know how to run his defender into screens. He'll peek around a pick, only to moonwalk uselessly into a long jumper. Even when he has an advantage, he'll stop short:

That is a fine shot for Chris Paul. Wiggins hit 32 percent of his long 2-pointers last season. He has never drained better than 38 percent in any season. There may be no more treasonous combination among midrange aficionados of frequency and inaccuracy.

He prefers to drive right or spin back that way, and everyone in the league knows it. (Ditto for his baseline spin on the left block -- a move Houston sat on to an almost absurd degree in their first-round series last season.) He understands all the basic passing reads -- roll man, weak-side corner -- but his passing is paint by numbers. He makes the pass the defense expects, when they expect it.

Minnesota's choreographed, old-school offense doesn't help. Even as a secondary ball-handler, Wiggins doesn't get the head starts Rubio enjoys in Utah. Minnesota's offense is jagged, with no flow or timing. Defenses just ignore the first action and lay in wait for Wiggins.

You see glimpses of something more. Wiggins is a ridiculous athlete. He will occasionally fake toward a pick, tip his defender that direction, and zoom in for a dunk. He peppered Crawford with questions about threading pocket passes and lasers to the opposite corner, Crawford says.

He can bully smaller players in the post after switches (making him a useful screener for Jeff Teague), and hit the open man when help comes. But even down there, he too often settles:

You have to be prime Kobe Bryant for the math on those shots to work.

He has never had the impact he should on defense. He doesn't rebound, force turnovers, or contest shots. He is a bystander.

He could be more on a team that played faster, with more shooting and fewer ball-handlers. But unless Wiggins improves, that team would be bad.

At some point, the tools and the highlights have to translate into something better than "smaller Rudy Gay." If Minnesota moves Butler or Tyus Jones -- and Phoenix has asked about Jones, sources say -- that would at least place Wiggins into some lineups with only one other primary ball-handler.

Regardless: Wiggins is almost 24. It's time.

Zach Lowe on Wiggins a year ago before another season of the same or slightly worse.

Lowe just doesn't know what he's talking about?

Kblaze8855

11-09-2019, 04:50 PM

Is that name supposed to mean something to me? Hes a writer. I dont think hes stupid....but I dont care what he thinks any more than I care what you think. Just two people I dont believe to be stupid.

I would say anyone arguing that 20ppg players are actually bad have lost perspective though.

Its just feast or famine sports talk that ignores the many many many maaaaaaaaaany people in the NBA who coaches and gms wont even play enough to have us discuss them.

"____ sucks" is simply the way people talk to have fun and hate. "____" virtually never sucks though.

This guy if healthy should play like 15 years and probably score 15-20 thousand points. The number of bad players to do that is precisely zero.

Its like calling Jeff Malone bad. Or LaPhonso Ellis. Maybe um...Cuttino Mobley? Dennis Scott maybe. Or Harvey Grant.

Andrew Wiggins is just another run of the mill 18-22ish a game scorer plus supreme athletic ability who is having a noteworthy but not great career. People clown him for being a bust but hes not even like....a bottom 15-20 #1 overall pick if you really read the list.

He doesnt stand out much for any reason. He just has people looking harder because of what he was supposed to be.

If Andrew Wiggins were the 38th pick hes a good young player they stole who Gms would be kicking themselves for not taking. Hes "bad" relative to people he was never gonna be. Hes not "bad" period.

I dont even know who to reasonably call bad. IT sure isnt the guys like him and Shareef Abdur Rahim who just....never won and didnt stand out beyond some good but not great scoring totals.

Speaking of SAR...

Played like 4 playoff games in his life, peaked as a 23/8 or so player on a team that probably won 18 games, and also didnt play much defense.

Shareef Abdur Rahim....thats the kinda guy you call bad?

What are the role players on teams led by guys like this? All scrubs?

What about um...Maurice Taylor? Long armed dunking big who didnt even rebound but scored a little? Maybe like 16-18ppg on the Clippers.

Are all these people bad players?

Does average or ok even exist or is there nothing between being great and bad?

And when guys like Wiggins and a lot of the people im mentioning are bad....what about the hundreds of guys who couldnt do what they do?

How many "bad" players are there at any one time when we are including guys like Wiggins?

DMAVS41

11-09-2019, 05:04 PM

I think we have different definitions of bad and I'm still confused about the statements like "bad at basketball" when nobody thinks anyone making the NBA is "bad at basketball"...

Forget the term "bad"

Wiggins has been a downright awful defender for his career to date, he has not made teammates better, he's routinely taken bad shots, he does not make a good amount of his shots, he doesn't attack to earn free throws that well (he's also gotten worse as a ft shooter)...

I ask again. Not factoring in what he could be, but actually what he has been for his first 5 years. That is something I can interest you in for your team? You want that?

You can call the above whatever you want. I call that not good, bad, below average...etc.

Words are just...words...I've explained what I mean.

Or take a scout's opinion, the ones that inform the GM's you think so highly of;

"[Wiggins] always leaves me wanting more," one Eastern Conference scout said. "He doesn't rebound. He doesn't defend. He doesn't get assists. He doesn't shoot well. He'll score ... sometimes, but that's all he does."[/B]

He's just...hating? He doesn't know what he's talking about?

I mean, I could probably find a near-infinite amount of takes by reputable basketball people that fall somewhere in line with the above.

Doesn't give you much pause that you'd be hard-pressed to find opinions to the contrary?

Kind of a side note, but you've been on a recent campaign about how stats are kind of hard to account for in this era because of how easy it is to score. Why not do that with Wiggins? Takes a bit of the shine off his raw points per game (19 ppg his first 5 years) and poor efficiency if it is as easy as you say it is now to score and produce numbers.

DMAVS41

11-09-2019, 05:11 PM

[QUOTE]The Sad Demise of Wiggins Island

The

Kblaze8855

11-09-2019, 05:59 PM

On my phone watching a grill at my neighbors house right now so I’ll have to get back to it later but I will say It isn’t a troll thing. It’s a sports talk thing that leaves no room for anything but bad and great. It’s a hot take world and that requires extremes and not nuanced opinions that are always closer to the truth.

DMAVS41

11-09-2019, 06:08 PM

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]On my phone watching a grill army neighbors house right now so I

Meticode

11-09-2019, 06:15 PM

Looks like he has the last 4 years. He'll have a good stretch. Then go back to being invisible.

Kblaze8855

11-10-2019, 06:36 AM

Like usual, I agree with your point broadly here for sure.

However, I don't think Wiggins falls into that category. Well, he would if the narrative was that he's just a terrible player and doesn't belong in the league...which isn't the case.

With Wiggins I think the narrative is mostly accurate. Tons of potential, but the actual production just isn't good.

The quote from the scout I found sums it up nicely;

That isn't a "hot take"...at least in my opinion. I think that is a fair assessment of him as a player in terms of what he actually does on the court consistently.

None of that, however, changes the fact that his talent and potential are so high that he's always capable of turning his career around. I hope he does...because the Wolves would be tons of fun if he did.

That exact scouting report would to one degree or another fit Earl Monroe, Jeff Malone, Isiah Rider, Jamal Crawford, Ben Gordon, Rex Chapman, Darrell Griffith and probably 200 others who were not bad basketball players.

The one and only reason to call Wiggins or any of them bad....is having expectations that they do more. As I said...if hes a guy you never heard of and he comes out of nowhere to have a 20ppg career hes a success story. Hes a "How did we miss this kid?". Switch Andrew Wiggins and Kendrick Nunn and everyone is elated to have found him. It isnt about what he does. Its about who he is and what he was supposed to do.

He isnt graded on the same standard as lesser players because he isnt one. Hes supposed to be great...he isnt...so people say hes bad. He in fact...is better than the majority of the NBA. Most people in the NBA....cannot...ever....do the things hes done plenty of times or the things hes done career wise.

He is essentially Jeff Malone with bionic legs. Score about 18-20 every year...lose all the time...none of his numbers "matter" and he wont play much d....or rebound...or create. But if hes bad...what are the 8-9 guys on his team who cant even do what he does? How many absolute scrubs are there? 250 or so?

Nah. They are the normal average rank and file nba players. The Guys who exist to do nothing but practice hard and hopefully keep getting checks....those are the "scrubs". Wiggins is something else.

The normal rank and file arent for the most part capable of being what he is. The scrubs mostly arent capable of being the average guys. Wiggins is capable of being an outright superstar but he isnt. So hes a few rungs down....but hes gonna get handed big contracts and have a prominent role on all his teams till he falls off due to age.

Hes not bad. Hes not bad for an nba player either. Khalid El-Amin was bad for an NBA player. Hes not average. Greg Anthony was average. Tim Legler was average.

Andrew Wiggins hangs out in that area with Laphonso Ellis, Michael Dickerson, Cuttino Mobley, Corliss Williamson, Jim Jackson, Al Harrington, Desmond Mason, Ricky Davis, Clarence Weatherspoon and so on who in their primes were where the Greg Anthonys and Keith Bogans who are not scrubs and can play for 10+ years will never be.

The only reason to call guys like Wiggins and Jeff Malone bad....is ignoring how many people have what it takes to carve out a long good NBA career...but DONT have what it takes to be Andrew Wiggins or Jeff Malone.

Its nothing but an issue of perspective. When youre looking for Voshon Leonard and you find Andrew Wiggins its a pleasant surprise. "We found a nice player here....". When youre looking for what Andrew Wiggins is supposed to be and you find Andrew Wiggins you think you had a bad day.

Andrew Wiggins is a tiny silver coin worth 20 bucks when you thought you found a rare one worth 200.

20 bucks isnt bad.

Just isnt what you wanted.

Most of the NBA? Is not 20 bucks.

Most of the NBA is Eddie House. Eddie House might get you a medium combo. Might even upgrade to a shake really. He did play like 10 years in the league. Eddie House may have had a better than average NBA career....and he sure as shit couldnt take Andrew Wiggins spot on a roster.

AirFederer

11-10-2019, 07:44 AM

20ppg is bad when it

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 08:20 AM

I understand your point, but I disagree.

The skill and ability it takes to drop 20 ppg for a career in the NBA is certainly impressive and obviously not bad. Often guys that can score like that have the potential to be great players. With Wiggins the potential is even higher because not only can he score, but he has rare raw athleticism that gives him the tools to potentially be an all-star or perhaps even all-nba player.

I think we agree for the most part about what I just wrote.

However, here is where we disagree. Dropping 20 ppg on terrible efficiency while playing crap defense, not giving effort, not rebounding, not attacking the rim, shooting a low ft percentage, not creating for others...etc. That is not good...that is bad. Full stop.

You don't want a one-dimensional scorer that can't score efficiently that doesn't do anything else at all. It doesn't help teams...it hurts them...and it has pretty much always hurt teams...and it certainly has hurt the Wolves for the last 5 years.

Again, maybe that changes if Wiggins puts his ability together, but so far, he's been "not good"

When you write, you keep referring to the ability to score 20 ppg or show the flashes that he's shown as "not bad"...we all agree with that though. We all agree that he has insane potential and ability.

But that isn't the question. The question is about what impact Wiggins has made so far in his career. His actual impact and production.

And we all know what that has been. His teams have underachieved and he has hurt his team.

Just not sure why you or anyone would be interested in a player that doesn't give effort on defense or the glass, doesn't create anything for others, and takes a lot of shots and misses most of them.

I ask again...you really interested in that if you are building a team? You want that?

Of course you don't. The reason a team would "want" Wiggins is for the hope that he gets better. Not based on what he's done.

You ask how many scrubs are there? I don't know, but you are acting like 18 a night on terrible efficiency and being bad at pretty much everything else is good. It is a flawed setup because it isn't actually good dude.

When you say, "how bad are the guys that can't do that"...do you really not see that you are smuggling in the notion that anyone that can score 20 is automatically better than someone that can't? Not to mention you are back to giving him credit for potential and not what he actually has done.

I can tell you that a guy like Covington has been way better than Wiggins. The Mavericks would laugh at the Wolves if they called and offered Wiggins for a guy like Maxi Kleber. They wouldn't even give up DFS for Wiggins if they knew Wiggins wouldn't get better.

Again, if there was no potential to get better, teams are just hanging up. Rockets just laugh them off the phone about PJ Tucker.

I'm interested...do you actually think that Wiggins from last year was a better player than Maxi Kleber?

I'd ask it the other way...if Wiggins is "good"...then how many players are better than "good" in the league...nearly all of them? Is Brandon Ingram "great"? Is Jaylen Brown great? How many great players are there? Is Marcus Smart? Is Malcom Brogdon a god? I mean...look at it from the other side... you are going to have to call a lot of players way better than good to great if you start calling Wiggins a good player.

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 08:29 AM

[QUOTE=AirFederer]20ppg is bad when it

ImKobe

11-10-2019, 08:54 AM

Need to see more of this before I fall for that trap again. I was rooting for him his first 3 years in the league but he stopped trying after he got the max.

I'm seeing an improved mid-range game and better decision making with the ball as far as getting his teammates good shots and he's been making plays defensively but it's only 8 games.

iamgine

11-10-2019, 08:58 AM

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 09:00 AM

It's all relative. Haven't watched him this season but in previous seasons, I'd definitely call Wiggins a bad player for his role and salary because his overall impact was bad. Now if his role and salary was like, say Dion Waiters, then he might be a pretty good player.

I think this is flawed.

In what scenario is high volume / poor efficiency scoring with bad defense, rebounding, creation, and effort...good?

Even in a more limited role, how does that help a team consistently?

In flashes it would/could, but overall...I don't see how that helps a team....I think it would just hurt less with a limited role.

iamgine

11-10-2019, 09:10 AM

I think this is flawed.

In what scenario is high volume / poor efficiency scoring with bad defense, rebounding, creation, and effort...good?

Even in a more limited role, how does that help a team consistently?

In flashes it would/could, but overall...I don't see how that helps a team....I think it would just hurt less with a limited role.
Well I think we can safely assume Wiggins would do better if he played against bench players as a scoring spark off the bench, which was Dion Waiter's role his first few seasons.

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 09:24 AM

Well I think we can safely assume Wiggins would do better if he played against bench players as a scoring spark off the bench, which was Dion Waiter's role his first few seasons.

I definitely agree that to date he'd be better suited to play that role...similar to what THJ is playing on the Mavs.

But he'd still have to remove certain aspects of his game in order to make a positive impact.

For example, he couldn't take a bunch of long 2's and not make them and couldn't shoot below 70% from the ft line.

And that is just scoring, going to be hard to be good if he was still bad on defense, creation, and overall effort.

Not related to you, but I just looked up his stats this year. What is so funny to me about all the hate of "stats" and "advanced stats" stuff...is that everyone seemingly is in agreement that he's playing very nicely so far this year.

And, what do you know...his stats reflect that. His efficiency is way up...his offensive rating is the highest it has ever been, his defensive rating is the lowest it has ever been. His turnovers are down, blocks are up...etc. PER is the highest it has ever been.

Like, I get the issue with stats at times, but I mean...broadly they just reflect what is going on...and what do you know...seem to be right inline with reality here.

iamgine

11-10-2019, 09:33 AM

I definitely agree that to date he'd be better suited to play that role...similar to what THJ is playing on the Mavs.

But he'd still have to remove certain aspects of his game in order to make a positive impact.

For example, he couldn't take a bunch of long 2's and not make them and couldn't shoot below 70% from the ft line.

And that is just scoring, going to be hard to be good if he was still bad on defense, creation, and overall effort.

Not related to you, but I just looked up his stats this year. What is so funny to me about all the hate of "stats" and "advanced stats" stuff...is that everyone seemingly is in agreement that he's playing very nicely so far this year.

And, what do you know...his stats reflect that. His efficiency is way up...his offensive rating is the highest it has ever been, his defensive rating is the lowest it has ever been. His turnovers are down, blocks are up...etc.

Like, I get the issue with stats at times, but I mean...broadly they just reflect what is going on...and what do you know...seem to be right inline with reality here.
I don't know. The standard to be a pretty good bench player is not that high. I think he can be impactful there even without much defense/creation/effort. Mainly because it's much easier to hide him vs bench players defensively.

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 09:54 AM

I don't know. The standard to be a pretty good bench player is not that high. I think he can be impactful there even without much defense/creation/effort. Mainly because it's much easier to hide him vs bench players defensively.

How many minutes are you talking about playing him though?

I mean, pretty good bench players play a lot of minutes...and play with and against starters often.

I guess I agree if you are playing him 9 minutes a half or something and pretty much exclusively against the 2nd team.

Ass Dan

11-10-2019, 10:30 AM

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 10:34 AM

its time for me to parachute in here as the resident Wiggins apologist (I gave up on him because of his loafy ways only last year).

1.K Blaze is on point, 100% correct.

2. Advanced stats are limited.
Example: long twos and midrange shots are the WORST shots in basketball.
BUT to win in the playoffs you have to score in the midrange.

Now Wiggins.

His handles are WAY better this year and he is creating more off the dribble.

Long twos were a symptom of a shaky handle.

Handle is better, he is getting to the rim.

YES, he does have games like this, and YES he is inefficient as a 2nd option.

BUT

He is trying harder, the front office hasn't quit on him, his teammates really like him, he finally has a normal haircut (superstars always keep it conservative up top) and he seems content.

He has been in the deepest valley, I think he is breathing fresher air.

You seem confused about the debate.

The debate isn't about what Wiggins is doing this year. We all agree so far this year he's doing the things you reference.

The debate also isn't about whether there is a good basketball player hidden within Wiggins in terms of his skill, ability, and potential...we all agree there is.

The debate is about what Wiggins was in his first 5 years. What he actually did.

So, just to be clear, you think it is fair to call what Wiggins did in his first 5 years...good? He was the type of player you want on your team. Again, not for his potential, but his actual play.

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 10:38 AM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1E8er4VYAA4LCM?format=jpg&name=small

Andrew Wiggins can't shoot:
1) Out of 133 players with at least 500 FGA this season, he ranks 132nd in TS%
2) Out of 46 players with at least 500 FGA beyond 8 feet, he ranks 45th in FG%

Gonna go out on a limb and say that when you aren't really good at the only thing even your fans say you can do...it's not a good sign.

https://ibb.co/bRTx44w

Ass Dan

11-10-2019, 10:40 AM

You seem confused about the debate.

The debate isn't about what Wiggins is doing this year. We all agree so far this year he's doing the things you reference.

The debate also isn't about whether there is a good basketball player hidden within Wiggins in terms of his skill, ability, and potential...we all agree there is.

The debate is about what Wiggins was in his first 5 years. What he actually did.

So, just to be clear, you think it is fair to call what Wiggins did in his first 5 years...good? He was the type of player you want on your team. Again, not for his potential, but his actual play.

It was a let down.

He didn't appear to try, he didn't earn his money and he didn't alter his game.

BUT

'Bad'? no, players would kill to average 20ppg for an NBA career.

This year:
the team is exceeding expectations
highest ppg ever
highest rpg ever
highest per ever (up 33%)
effort is there
handles look tight
haircut looks tight

there is hope

YES, we have been here before, but never originating from such a low, gut checking place, and never with this level of GUARDED optimism

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 10:46 AM

It was a let down.

He didn't appear to try, he didn't earn his money and he didn't alter his game.

BUT

'Bad'? no, players would kill to average 20ppg for an NBA career.

This year:
the team is exceeding expectations
highest ppg ever
highest rpg ever
highest per ever (up 33%)
effort is there
handles look tight
haircut looks tight

there is hope

YES, we have been here before, but never originating from such a low, gut checking place, and never with this level of GUARDED optimism

The stuff about this year is not relevant to our discussion...and I agree with it as I have said repeatedly. However, if you are going to use stats to make your argument for this year, you'd have to use them for the previous 5...and, statistically, he's been bad...that isn't up for debate.

The notion that you are automatically a good player if you can get 20 is nuts in my opinion, but if that is the standard you and others insist on...nothing else to say...I just could not disagree more. I think you guys continue to confuse what that means. I doesn't make someone good, it essentially means that they have the potential and ability to be good. You still actually have to do shit on the court....and taking a ton of shots, often bad ones, to get points...that doesn't lead to winning games...and then everyone agrees he's been bad at pretty much everything else...just don't see how you get to actually good out of that, but that is just me.

Especially when Wiggins has been so bad as a scorer;

https://i.postimg.cc/4yWdR3Qg/D1-E8er4-VYAA4-LCM.jpg

iamgine

11-10-2019, 10:54 AM

How many minutes are you talking about playing him though?

I mean, pretty good bench players play a lot of minutes...and play with and against starters often.

I guess I agree if you are playing him 9 minutes a half or something and pretty much exclusively against the 2nd team.
Minutes would vary depending on things like whether they could hide him or not. There are many starters they could hide him defensively. Or when they need more scoring spark, which always happens in games. 27 mpg is reasonable.

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 10:58 AM

Minutes would vary depending on things like whether they could hide him or not. There are many starters they could hide him defensively. Or when they need more scoring spark, which always happens in games. 27 mpg is reasonable.

But Wiggins is actually a somewhat capable on-ball defender. The premise of hiding him on defense doesn't make much sense when the problem with him on defense is how lost he gets in rotations and his lack of effort.

It isn't like he just can't guard his man, although even that isn't great at times.

His issue on defense is that he gets lazy and doesn't make proper rotations...really hard to hide that.

That is why I said that I completely agree that he'd be better suited for the type of role you are talking about, but he'd still have to fix things in his game that were still there the last 5 years. He's not helping much if his defense didn't get better or his shot selection didn't get better or his ft shooting didn't get better...etc.

Yes, it would be a better role, but unless it magically fixed his issues...it still would be hard to make a positive impact consistently.

Kblaze8855

11-10-2019, 11:00 AM

20ppg is bad when it’s done with low efficiency. It still takes skill to score those 20, but it’s not good basketball. Now, if you made those 20ppg but you created for others and played D, you’d still be okay. But he doesn’t.
I dont get your point. His lack of effort should be an easy fix, yet it’s still there :confusedshrug:

Forget Wiggins....

If you can score 20, make plays for others, and play defense....you are ok?

A 20ppg, good defender, and playmaker is ok?

So what about all the guys who last 10-15 years and can’t even....

Know what?

Never mind.

We have hit the “Lead a horse to water....” point I think. Apparently there are all stars and bad players and that’s about all. Somewhere there are screams followed by eerie silences as thousands of guys who played long nba careers and were neither bad or stars just poof out of existence.

Sad day.

I kinda liked Troy Murphy and John Salmons.

But modern hot take sports talk can’t accept that guys like that even happened so into the void they go. On the bright side Hasheem Thabeet should be able to find a roster spot now that scrubs and all stars are all that’s left. Someone call Ndudi Ebi. Let him know his time has come.

I’m just gonna sit back and observe as the current bad players are elevated to being the low impact 15-19ppg third tier types and the guys currently in Cameroon come over to be the nbas bad players and hope you all can wrap your heads around what just happened in time for that new wave of merely good players to get to stick around. You zap them out of existence again and everyone goes up another level?

We’d be in danger of Anthony Bennett being good. And none of us want that.

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 11:12 AM

The notion that calling Wiggins in his first 5 years "not good" is indicative of the modern-day hot sports take is not accurate.

Honestly, Wiggins gets more of the benefit of the doubt because of his potential compared to other players.

Literally the only thing the pro-Wiggins side says he did his first 5 years is scoring and seemingly has conceded the defense, creation, and effort has all been poor.

When the only feather in your cap is scoring;

https://i.postimg.cc/4yWdR3Qg/D1-E8er4-VYAA4-LCM.jpg

:confusedshrug:

iamgine

11-10-2019, 11:14 AM

But Wiggins is actually a somewhat capable on-ball defender. The premise of hiding him on defense doesn't make much sense when the problem with him on defense is how lost he gets in rotations and his lack of effort.

It isn't like he just can't guard his man, although even that isn't great at times.

His issue on defense is that he gets lazy and doesn't make proper rotations...really hard to hide that.

That is why I said that I completely agree that he'd be better suited for the type of role you are talking about, but he'd still have to fix things in his game that were still there the last 5 years. He's not helping much if his defense didn't get better or his shot selection didn't get better or his ft shooting didn't get better...etc.

Yes, it would be a better role, but unless it magically fixed his issues...it still would be hard to make a positive impact consistently.
I disagree just because role and salary means a lot. Being the scorer he was on a $10M salary playing against mostly bench players as a scoring spark, I think he'd do very well overall. Yeah he's gonna mess up sometimes like any other player but his overall impact should be positive. Goes without saying we are assuming he accept the role of course.

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 11:19 AM

I disagree just because role and salary means a lot. Being the scorer he was on a $10M salary playing against mostly bench players as a scoring spark, I think he'd do very well overall. Yeah he's gonna mess up sometimes like any other player but his overall impact should be positive. Goes without saying we are assuming he accept the role of course.

I agree with you he would do better.

But it isn't like he's playing a different game. He still can't lose his man on cuts or rotations and give up dunks / corner 3's like he has for a long time now. He still can't settle for long 2's that he doesn't make. He'd still need to improve his ft shooting, creation, and effort...etc.

Maybe the better way to do it is that Wiggins would be not as bad in a reduced role...and I certainly agree with that.

But if his issues from the last 5 years aren't addressed...hard to get a player that would do very well overall unless you severely limited his role to an extent I don't think anyone would be interested in.

I mean, we all agree Towns is great, right? So the expectation of Towns plus a good player in Wiggins and some of the other help they've had...is 36 wins a year or whatever they've averaged?

I don't know...that seems really low given how good Towns is if Wiggins is also a positive player.

FireDavidKahn

11-10-2019, 11:28 AM

Holy shit...just watching Wiggins this year he has been really cluth but when you go look at the stats...he's been arguably the most clutch in the league.:biggums:

Averaging 5.3 clutch FGA per game and hitting on 62.5% of them:biggums: :biggums:

https://stats.nba.com/players/clutch-traditional/?sort=FGM&dir=-1

Celtics 1825

11-10-2019, 04:49 PM

It really seems like it's all in the hair, as soon as he ditched the cornrows he starts playing like he did back in college/rookie year again

yeaaaman

11-10-2019, 06:13 PM

yeaaaman

11-10-2019, 06:18 PM

On a side note, who is the timberwolves third best player? They do not have a good roster at all

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 06:44 PM

On a side note, who is the timberwolves third best player? They do not have a good roster at all

ROCO is this year. He hasn't been shooting it well so far, but he's a really solid player...great defender.

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 06:46 PM

I used to watch a ton of Wolves games. He looks different this year. Attacks more, is stronger, makes good swings even if the person he swings to doesn't take the shot it sets up the next one, he looks much more in control of his body and decision making. If he continues this way I'm sure the stats will even out with the "eye test" that he is not a bad player like some people here are asserting. He looks good.

He's got 3 assists in the third and they said he has 16 over the past 4. He gives you 4-5 assists a game and 23ppg that's good enough for me once he's playing smart and assertive and especially on D.

Nobody is saying he looks bad so far this year. In fact, he looks good...he's playing much better.

The debate has been about the past, not this year.

The stats this year are good, I'm not sure why people think his stats are bad this year...they are way better across the board. Just like his play so far.

PeroAntic

11-10-2019, 06:49 PM

I used to watch a ton of Wolves games. He looks different this year. Attacks more, is stronger, makes good swings even if the person he swings to doesn't take the shot it sets up the next one, he looks much more in control of his body and decision making. If he continues this way I'm sure the stats will even out with the "eye test" that he is not a bad player like some people here are asserting. He looks good.
This. Wiggins of the last few years was absolutely terrible. but from the stuff I have seen recently his handle is dramatically improved and he just doesn't look that awkward anymore. Also he learned to finish a little bit with the left hand.

The thing with Wiggins is that hes a chucker but his game is also terribly ugly. You are allowed to be a chucker if you look good aesthetically (DRose, Derozan, Iverson, Kobe), and if you don't look good aesthetically, you need to be advanced stats kind of useful. So far Wiggins has been neither, but hes improving in both aspects so at some point he might become acceptable.

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 06:51 PM

yeaaaman

11-10-2019, 06:59 PM

This. Wiggins of the last few years was absolutely terrible. but from the stuff I have seen recently his handle is dramatically improved and he just doesn't look that awkward anymore. Also he learned to finish a little bit with the left hand.

The thing with Wiggins is that hes a chucker but his game is also terribly ugly. You are allowed to be a chucker if you look good aesthetically (DRose, Derozan, Iverson, Kobe), and if you don't look good aesthetically, you need to be advanced stats kind of useful. So far Wiggins has been neither, but hes improving in both aspects so at some point he might become acceptable.

Well, Wiggins is leading the NBA in clutch time baskets and today they just came back from a big defecit and Wiggins with a minute and a half left set Towns up for 3 straight 3's to tie the game, the last one was a great pass and Towns finally connected. He can be a really good player if he's making good reads I wouldn't call him a chucker regardless of what his game looks like. He's hard to stop when he has a head of steam

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 07:02 PM

Ugh, hate that last shot by Wiggins. Gets the switch and then settles for a 25 foot 3 in a tie game.

yeaaaman

11-10-2019, 07:05 PM

Ugh, hate that last shot by Wiggins. Gets the switch and then settles for a 25 foot 3 in a tie game.

Yep, first posession of OT he gets the switch and goes all the way for the basket. No need for him to settle

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 07:07 PM

Yep, first posession of OT he gets the switch and goes all the way for the basket. No need for him to settle

Yea, they can't stay in front at all...he's been great late in this game.

This isn't a game thread, but LOL at this Nuggets choke...they haven't scored in nearly 8 minutes of game time.

:roll:

And, of course, Wiggins settles for another 26 footer on the switch. Sigh...

yeaaaman

11-10-2019, 07:12 PM

Yea, they can't stay in front at all...he's been great late in this game.

This isn't a game thread, but LOL at this Nuggets choke...they haven't scored in nearly 8 minutes of game time.

:roll:

And, of course, Wiggins settles for another 26 footer on the switch. Sigh...

yea nuggets have looked terrible down the stretch, and I got Jokic in fantasy ilke wtf :oldlol:

But that's him in a nutshell - still improving but he decided to attack the next two posessions and you see how unstoppable he can be. Let's see how this one plays out

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 07:23 PM

yea nuggets have looked terrible down the stretch, and I got Jokic in fantasy ilke wtf :oldlol:

But that's him in a nutshell - still improving but he decided to attack the next two posessions and you see how unstoppable he can be. Let's see how this one plays out

Nobody has ever questioned his talent, ability, or potential.

And overall, down the stretch, I think he played well. However, those two 3's he took represent what has plagued him in the past. All that potential doesn't mean much if you are taking bad long 2's and settling for contested 3's.

yeaaaman

11-10-2019, 08:02 PM

Nobody has ever questioned his talent, ability, or potential.

And overall, down the stretch, I think he played well. However, those two 3's he took represent what has plagued him in the past. All that potential doesn't mean much if you are taking bad long 2's and settling for contested 3's.

Yep. Especially since they don't have much outside of him and Towns they need to be better decision making, Towns took 14 3rs or something. That's not good

BigShotBob

11-10-2019, 09:33 PM

Defensive intensity is a better measure of him living up to his talent. Not offensive numbers in an inflated and soft era.

DMAVS41

11-10-2019, 09:36 PM

Defensive intensity is a better measure of him living up to his talent. Not offensive numbers in an inflated and soft era.

Completely agree...and it seems that actually everyone, even his supporters, agree he's been a really poor defender to this point in his career.

This debate isn't about this year, but it is worth mentioning that his effort level on defense has been much better from what I've seen of him this season.

But, yea...I've been trying to make that point. I'm just not understanding the "but he scores 20 ppg so he's automatically not bad" crowd. I'd get it if the 20 came efficiently and on a good team winning games...then I'd buy into it.

But bad efficiency while losing games and racking up a lot of meaningless numbers doesn't seem like a good way to quantify the level of a player.

BigShotBob

11-10-2019, 09:44 PM

CodeBreaker

11-10-2019, 09:47 PM

Fluke game

eliteballer

11-11-2019, 10:23 PM

Big again tonight..

LoneyROY7

11-11-2019, 10:32 PM

ANDREW.

WIGGINS.

:applause:

eliteballer

11-11-2019, 10:38 PM

Is this due to the coaching change?

FireDavidKahn

11-11-2019, 10:56 PM

Is this due to the coaching change?
A lot of it, yes. System is helping him a ton as well.

Ca$H

11-11-2019, 11:01 PM

A lot of it, yes. System is helping him a ton as well.

What do you think the T Wolves will offer the Warriors for dlo?

yeaaaman

11-11-2019, 11:08 PM

Completely agree...and it seems that actually everyone, even his supporters, agree he's been a really poor defender to this point in his career.

This debate isn't about this year, but it is worth mentioning that his effort level on defense has been much better from what I've seen of him this season.

But, yea...I've been trying to make that point. I'm just not understanding the "but he scores 20 ppg so he's automatically not bad" crowd. I'd get it if the 20 came efficiently and on a good team winning games...then I'd buy into it.

But bad efficiency while losing games and racking up a lot of meaningless numbers doesn't seem like a good way to quantify the level of a player.

I think the idea is that it's not just about him scoring 20ppg, it's about how he's scoring it. Started off with a bad shooting night but has been much more effecient, better at making reads and rebounding the ball, so it's not just chucking his way to 20 points, plus they're winning.

For me, him playing with more focus and energy, deciveness and overall smarter and more mature on offense should translate into him taking the steps to becomming a more complete player. The twolves guys in this thread can speak to it more than me because I haven't watched them as much as I did in the past but I hear the announcers talking a lot more about his defense than they had.

So it's not just a switch and you turn into Kawhi Leonard or Paul George, but progress in my book is good and a positive sign of what could be to come if he continues to work at it.

Ass Dan

11-11-2019, 11:31 PM

Its his handles

They are WAY better.

Doesn

LoneyROY7

11-11-2019, 11:41 PM

[QUOTE=Ass Dan]Its his handles

They are WAY better.

Doesn

DMAVS41

11-11-2019, 11:46 PM

I think the idea is that it's not just about him scoring 20ppg, it's about how he's scoring it. Started off with a bad shooting night but has been much more effecient, better at making reads and rebounding the ball, so it's not just chucking his way to 20 points, plus they're winning.

For me, him playing with more focus and energy, deciveness and overall smarter and more mature on offense should translate into him taking the steps to becomming a more complete player. The twolves guys in this thread can speak to it more than me because I haven't watched them as much as I did in the past but I hear the announcers talking a lot more about his defense than they had.

So it's not just a switch and you turn into Kawhi Leonard or Paul George, but progress in my book is good and a positive sign of what could be to come if he continues to work at it.

I'm having trouble following your point. So forgive me if I repeat myself again.

This is not about this year. The debate was about the past.

So you tell me what you disagree with;

So far this year: All-star level

I've watched the better part of 5 games now of Wiggins this year. He started off the year with what has been a standard Wiggins game of inefficient scoring and no creation for his teammates. But since then, at least in the games I've watched, he's playing with much better effort on both ends, taking less worse shots, and setting up his teammates more often.

17-19: "Not Good" level

Poor effort / defense...inefficient scoring, poor decision making, lack of creation for teammates.

Yet, the entire time even his detractors would admit he had the talent, ability, and potential to put it all together and be an all-star level player...that has never been in doubt.

But just like his past doesn't impact what he's doing now...meaning we can evaluate his play currently free from what he's done in the past.

Just the same...playing well now doesn't change what he was at least the last couple years.

yeaaaman

11-11-2019, 11:52 PM

I'm having trouble following your point. So forgive me if I repeat myself again.

This is not about this year. The debate was about the past.

So you tell me what you disagree with;

So far this year: All-star level

I've watched the better part of 5 games now of Wiggins this year. He started off the year with what has been a standard Wiggins game of inefficient scoring and no creation for his teammates. But since then, at least in the games I've watched, he's playing with much better effort on both ends, taking less worse shots, and setting up his teammates more often.

17-19: "Not Good" level

Poor effort / defense...inefficient scoring, poor decision making, lack of creation for teammates.

Yet, the entire time even his detractors would admit he had the talent, ability, and potential to put it all together and be an all-star level player...that has never been in doubt.

But just like his past doesn't impact what he's doing now...meaning we can evaluate his play currently free from what he's done in the past.

Just the same...playing well now doesn't change what he was at least the last couple years.

Sorry, I was following the thread title in terms of what he's turning into so I didn't know this thread was to omit his current play. In any case, I don't think it's much of a debate - he didn't play well for the majority of his past and if that's all this thread is about there isn't really anything to say because that's more than apparent to everyone. :confusedshrug:

Marchesk

11-11-2019, 11:54 PM

Sorry, I was following the thread title in terms of what he's turning into so I didn't know this thread was to omit his current play.

Wiggins isn't a superstar so the title of the thread is wrong. Playing at an all-star level for a few games doesn't put you in the Harden, Lebron, Giannis, etc category.

DMAVS41

11-11-2019, 11:56 PM

Sorry, I was following the thread title in terms of what he's turning into so I didn't know this thread was to omit his current play. In any case, I don't think it's much of a debate - he didn't play well for the majority of his past and if that's all this thread is about there isn't really anything to say because that's more than apparent to everyone. :confusedshrug:

I think one overlooked thing honestly so far this year is just his effort.

Talk to Wolves fans or even Wiggins supporters and they'll tell you his effort level was just not even remotely good enough the last few years.

To me, honestly, that is what has changed the most in what I've seen...his effort and engagement on both ends.

FireDavidKahn

11-12-2019, 01:45 AM

I think one overlooked thing honestly so far this year is just his effort.

Talk to Wolves fans or even Wiggins supporters and they'll tell you his effort level was just not even remotely good enough the last few years.

To me, honestly, that is what has changed the most in what I've seen...his effort and engagement on both ends.

Everything that has ever been said of Wiggins to date is 100% true. He gave no effort, loafed around on defense, never really seemed to improve on *anything* and was literally one of the least impactful players in the entire league. 6 ****ing years of watching that sprinkled in with a few superstar level performances per year.

But this year is clearly different, with a BIG emphasis on so far. We usually run a 5 out motion offense most of the time which opens up the lane for Wiggins which allows him to drive a hell of a lot more now...which is actually one of the very few things he has always been good at in his career. His handles are 100% improved and he is actually passing the ball a lot during his drives.:biggums:

More energy on defense as well.

Now, obviously, he isn't a star and he'll still have stretches of being terrible this year but he's never *played* like this before. In years past whenever he'd have a "superstar" performance it was more of those lucky "every shot I throw up goes in no matter" type of games vs. him using skill...if that makes sense. His rotations, ball handling, hustle are all so much better this year. I gave this kid about a 1% chance of ever doing anything but so far I am tepidly excited about him.

As for what happened? Ryan Saunders is like 90% the reason why. Call it whatever you want but Wiggins obviously didn't respond to Thibs yelling in his ear 24/7 and never improved because of that. Saunders is a players coach and that can be a terrible thing in a lot of situations but not this one. Wiggins has always been tight with Saunders and even moreso now that he is coach. He actually wants to play for him and not let him down. Saunders even benched his ass earlier in the season and instead of moping and shutting down like he would have with Thibs, when he went back onto the court he balled out. I really hate using it as an excuse but maybe Wiggins really did just need a very specific type of coach in order to "unlock" his skill.

Idk...Probably only a few people here really have been paying attention to the Wolves or what has been happening this off season but Gersson Rosas and Ryan Saunders have completely changed this teams culture both on and off the court. Everyone is holding everyone accountable...the entire team basically spent the entire off season bonding and becoming a "family". Sounds corny as shit and it is but the more camaraderie a team has the better they will play and everyone on this team has 100% bought into the new culture.

One aspect that only Portland fans know about is that we somehow stole Vanterpool from them. He's THE reason why our defense is so improved. He's a god send and has figured out how to use both Wiggins and KAT in a way that is actually useful...For example let's talk KAT. In the Thibs era, Thibs literally told KAT to chase everything and try to block the shot. Good idea in theory but when the other team is constantly running pick and rolls and you go to try and block the shot of the ball handler...that leaves the roller wide open at hoop and I couldn't tell you how many times KAT (as was told to) went to try and block the ball handler only for the ball handler to have an easy assist to whoever was under the hoop...now Vanterpool has him dropping down towards the basket when defending the PnR and teaching how to defend using verticality. Just those 2 changes with our scheme and KAT have improved the defense drastically...and NO KAT still isn't a bonified good defender and I'm sure will have stretches where he looks like a clown but so far this year he's been good. Currently have the 13th best DRTG @ 105.2 while last year it was 7th worst @ 112.2.

Plus Layman is looking like a great signing to be a strong role player.

Funny to think that thanks to nepotism (literally the only reason Saunders is where he is at) we may have ended up with the best situation vs. the alternatives.

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 05:22 AM

But, yea...I've been trying to make that point. I'm just not understanding the "but he scores 20 ppg so he's automatically not bad" crowd. I'd get it if the 20 came efficiently and on a good team winning games...then I'd buy into it.

So tell me the other ones. I must’ve given you 15 or 20 similar examples none of which have ever been considered bad. When the issue is the level of play relative to the other NBA players there should be many examples considering we are talking about thousands of people. Give me your list of bad players who score 20.....

I’m not 100% sure a bad player even gets 30 minutes a game But I would have to give that some more thought.

It feels like you’re hesitating to acknowledge that the issue of good and bad is a matter of where you stand among the rest of the players and that is why I bring up all these others. It feels like you should figure out the problem with your line of thinking eventually....

I’m thinking the best you can do on this is some kind of a long list that tries to make up for the fact that most of these people don’t even get put in games for long because they aren’t that good and mask it with some kind of good plus minus in short bursts which obviously don’t impress the team that much when they end up getting 18 minutes.

I’ll even let you use the guys with bullshit 20 a game seasons that were like 40 games who could never prove it again. I’m not asking for guys with 3 seasons of it like Wiggins is now having. That might make it hard. I'll take guys like Mike James with total fluke years. Just...somebody. Im not asking for guys with a career average that Wiggins has which would make it really really hard when you consider these are the people with a higher career average:

1. Michael Jordan* 30.12
2. Wilt Chamberlain* 30.07
3. Elgin Baylor* 27.36
4. LeBron James 27.14
5. Jerry West* 27.03
6. Kevin Durant 27.02
7. Allen Iverson* 26.66
8. Bob Pettit* 26.36
9. George Gervin* 26.18
10. Oscar Robertson* 25.68
11. Karl Malone* 25.02
12. Kobe Bryant 24.99
13. Dominique Wilkins* 24.83
14. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 24.61
15. James Harden 24.52
16. Larry Bird* 24.29
17. Adrian Dantley* 24.27
18. Pete Maravich* 24.24
19. Carmelo Anthony 24.01
20. Anthony Davis 23.79
21. Shaquille O'Neal* 23.69
22. Damian Lillard 23.68
23. Stephen Curry 23.49
24. Rick Barry* 23.17
25. George Mikan* 23.13
26. Russell Westbrook 22.96
27. Paul Arizin* 22.81
28. Bernard King* 22.49
29. Kyrie Irving 22.37
30. Charles Barkley* 22.14
31. David Thompson* 22.13
32. Bob McAdoo* 22.05
33. Dwyane Wade 21.98
34. Julius Erving* 21.97
35. Blake Griffin 21.85
Rank Player PPG
36. Geoff Petrie 21.82
37. Hakeem Olajuwon* 21.77
38. Alex English* 21.47
39. DeMarcus Cousins 21.25
40. David Robinson* 21.06
41. Mitch Richmond* 21.00
42. Patrick Ewing* 20.98
43. Elvin Hayes* 20.96
44. Billy Cunningham* 20.83
45. John Havlicek* 20.78
46. Dirk Nowitzki 20.74
47. John Drew 20.69
48. Glenn Robinson 20.69
49. Chris Webber 20.68
50. Gilbert Arenas 20.66
51. Moses Malone* 20.62
52. Clyde Drexler* 20.44
53. Dan Issel* 20.42
54. Dave Bing* 20.34
55. World B. Free 20.27
56. Lou Hudson 20.16
57. Marques Johnson 20.10
58. Walt Bellamy* 20.08
59. Bob Lanier* 20.07
60. Mark Aguirre 20.00
61. Bradley Beal 19.95
62. Kemba Walker 19.93
63. DeMar DeRozan 19.85
64. Paul George 19.84
65. Mike Mitchell 19.78
66. Kiki Vandeweghe 19.73
67. Paul Pierce 19.66
68. Tracy McGrady* 19.60

Not that his is a lock to stay that high as he ages and has the downside of his career. But really...even if he does? These are the people who put up between 15 and 16 a game for their career:

200. Joe Johnson 15.99
201. Zelmo Beaty* 15.98
202. Corey Maggette 15.96
203. Andrew Toney 15.94
204. Danilo Gallinari 15.93
205. Elton Brand 15.90
206. Don Ohl 15.89
207. Campy Russell 15.82
208. Dick Barnett 15.82
209. Willie Naulls 15.79
210. Sam Cassell 15.75
Rank Player PPG
211. Billy Knight 15.74
212. Tyreke Evans 15.74
213. Khris Middleton 15.73
214. Dale Ellis 15.72
215. Nikola Vučević 15.72
216. Norm Nixon 15.71
217. Michael Finley 15.69
218. Al Jefferson 15.68
219. Xavier McDaniel 15.64
220. Rudy LaRusso 15.63
221. Jack Sikma* 15.62
222. Paul Westphal* 15.56
223. Sidney Moncrief* 15.56
224. Jrue Holiday 15.55
225. Tony Parker 15.53
226. Truck Robinson 15.53
227. Ray Williams 15.51
228. Tobias Harris 15.50
229. Ralph Sampson* 15.44
230. Austin Carr 15.36
231. Kevin Loughery 15.33
232. Wayman Tisdale 15.33
233. Tom Van Arsdale 15.32
234. Joe Caldwell 15.23
235. Mark Price 15.22
236. Shawn Marion 15.22
237. Anfernee Hardaway 15.18
238. Fred Carter 15.17
239. Dan Roundfield 15.17
240. Gordon Hayward 15.17
241. Jay Vincent 15.15
242. Chauncey Billups 15.15
243. Cazzie Russell 15.15
244. Stephen Jackson 15.12
245. Bill Russell* 15.08
246. Phil Smith 15.06
247. Eddie Johnson 15.06
248. Nate Thurmond* 14.98
249. Vin Baker 14.97
250. Mike Newlin 14.94

Im not certain theres anyone who put up 15 a game for his career who was bad. But you no doubt know of many....

Anyway....

Run me down the bad players to put up 20 in the nba while being bad players. I can think of one you might mention but I’ll wait to see.

You act like it’s a simple matter....run me down a list. I gave some good names to start with I think. Plenty of scorers on average or poor shooting who didn’t defend or pass well.....should have no trouble giving me a few.

But I genuinely dont think you can. I think you will go back to "If you look at what hes done hes been not good" to avoid using the word "bad" and continue disregarding the thousands(and thousands) of actual other players who must be considered to give him a ranking. By the way “Been not good” which you have said several times is such an odd way to call someone bad. Say it out loud. Doesn’t it hit your ear wrong? Feels like someone working hard to change the wording because “bad” doesn’t really apply.

Im asking you a really simple question I think.

If 20ppg players can be "absolutely terrible" which you agreed with....and its obvious enough for you to be downright incredulous that some people cant see it...

Give me the other players. Is wiggins the first "absolutely terrible" guy who has multiple 20ppg seasons? If he is....after 75 years and thousands of players...dont you think thats odd? And if he isnt...for the love of god give me the other names you must have in your head if this is so obvious. Why am I have to ask so many times?

If it happens..and you know of it..let me have the other times. Please. Enlighten me.

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 12:21 PM

We are talking about Wiggins, not other players.

Other players have no relevance to this discussion.

See the above post from a diehard Wolves fan...I'll quote a bit for you;

Everything that has ever been said of Wiggins to date is 100% true. He gave no effort, loafed around on defense, never really seemed to improve on *anything* and was literally one of the least impactful players in the entire league. 6 ****ing years of watching that sprinkled in with a few superstar level performances per year.

But this year is clearly different, with a BIG emphasis on so far. We usually run a 5 out motion offense most of the time which opens up the lane for Wiggins which allows him to drive a hell of a lot more now...which is actually one of the very few things he has always been good at in his career. His handles are 100% improved and he is actually passing the ball a lot during his drives.:biggums:

More energy on defense as well.

My line of thinking is simple. I consider a player "not good" if I don't think they help a team based on their impact.

You are incapable, it seems, of actually evaluating Wiggins for the player he was...rather than holding to some historical standard of ppg...when, at the same time, contradicting yourself as you go on a campaign about how accounting for stats in this era is extremely difficult because of how easy the game is now.

I'd rather talk about the player that Wiggins was...you seem like you don't want to...which is fine, but telling me that Wiggins is good because only good players in the past could get 20...is utterly meaningless.

Like I asked you before, can I interest you in a guy that gets you roughly 20 a game on poor efficiency, that settles for bad shots, doesn't create for his teammates, doesn't defend / rebound, doesn't hustle...etc.

You seem to be interested. I'm not. I call that play "not good"...simple as that.

Also, I already explained to you my view...rather than just using "bad"...as we might have different definitions of bad or not good. In fact, I addressed that in my first post.

I'm not changing or deflecting anything. In fact, you are. As you haven't addressed his actual game in terms of what he did on the court. You've talked about his potential and made comments about he's "not bad at basketball"...which are just non-statements because we all agree with them in that sense. You've just hid behind what other players were that could score. Likely because you don't watch many Wolves games and likely because you are naturally drawn to guys scoring points.

Go talk to Wolves fans. Go read articles by guys that actually watch all the games and covered the team.

What do you disagree with? You are always saying "talk basketball"...what do you disagree with? You think he's made more shots than he actually has? You think he played good defense? You think he gave good effort? You think he was engaged with his team? What is it that we are saying that you disagree with from an actual basketball perspective about Wiggins specifically.

Find me a bunch of articles the last two years about Wiggins being "good" or "not bad"...if it is obvious. Your claim was that "he's never been bad"...should be trivially easy to find reputable basketball minds sharing your opinion about him in the 18 and 19 seasons...right?

ralph_i_el

11-12-2019, 12:33 PM

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]So tell me the other ones. I must

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 12:45 PM

Monta Ellis?
Devin Booker a few years ago?
Isaiah Rider?
Zach Lavine
Ricky Davis?
Andrea Bargnani?

All these guys scored 20ppg for at least one season, but had negative impact imo

I don't want to get into listing other players as it isn't relevant in my opinion.

But, first guy that came to mind for me was Jim Jackson back on the Mavs the year before we got Kidd. I guess I'd have to include Mashburn as well if I'm going to list Jimmy J. Hate to do it because I loved Mash.

Went to nearly all the games. Had a good skillset and maybe it would be unfair to call him bad given the team, but I mean...he took bad shots, didn't hustle a lot...I think the Mavs might have had the worst offense and worst defense iirc. Played a ton of minutes and had the ball a lot. I don't think merely producing scoring stats makes a player "not bad"...or "good"...even if historically most guys dropping 20 were good.

Melo on OKC was definitely bad. Can't remember what he averaged, but I think it was 17 or something. Clearly negative impact on that team.

Point being, you can definitely score around 20 a game for a season and be a "bad" or "not good" player. Can you average around 20 a game for a long career and be a "bad" or "not good" player? I don't think so. For a lot of reasons, but that isn't the debate.

I do think, however, it is indicative of having the talent, ability, and potential to be really good. But if a guy sucks outside of scoring...and his scoring isn't efficient nor does he generate offense for his team...I struggle to call that "not bad"...

Just me though.

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 01:08 PM

We are talking about Wiggins, not other players.

Yea...I didnt think so.

And when you say:

I'm just not understanding the "but he scores 20 ppg so he's automatically not bad" crowd.

It seems you dont grasp the concept...which is not a one player issue.

But seeing as you are unwilling to even discuss others which is obviously required when ranking players("bad" being relative to others) its clear there is no need to continue with you.

Good, bad, and great dont exist in a vacuum. Minus the other players....there is no such thing as good or bad. If youre the only one considered you are both the best and the worst...

But you arent gonna really consider that because it would force some admissions I suspect so ill talk to the other guy I saw comment.

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 01:18 PM

Yea...I didnt think so.

And when you say:

It seems you dont grasp the concept...which is not a one player issue.

But seeing as you are unwilling to even discuss others which is obviously required when ranking players("bad" being relative to others) its clear there is no need to continue with you.

Good, bad, and great dont exist in a vacuum. Minus the other players....there is no such thing as good or bad. If youre the only one considered you are both the best and the worst...

But you arent gonna really consider that because it would force some admissions I suspect so ill talk to the other guy I saw comment.

You are either not understanding my point or choosing not to.

However, only one dodging here is you...you haven't been able to say anything about Wiggins as a basketball player other than "points per game"

Of course it is relative to other players...what it is not...is relative to only how many points a guy scores...especially in this era. Again you contradict yourself.

I already addressed this when I compared Wiggins last year to guys like Maxi and Covington.

Do you think it was fair to call Melo on the Thunder..."not good"?

Are you really so dense that you think any guy scoring 20 is automatically "not bad"...so if a player took 30 shots to score 20 ppg and was the worst defensive player in NBA history...you are calling that "not bad"?????

That was my point. It wasn't a point about the history of scoring in the NBA.

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 01:19 PM

Monta Ellis?
Devin Booker a few years ago?
Isaiah Rider?
Zach Lavine
Ricky Davis?
Andrea Bargnani?

All these guys scored 20ppg for at least one season, but had negative impact imo

I think two of them could rightfully be called cancers due to attitude or abuse problems and so on....

Not a one of them was ever called bad at basketball by anyone serious.

Bargnani may be the closest but people decided he was ass some time after he had his couple good years. And he was more considered brutally soft than just....bad.

I intended to read some ISH takes but most of the topics on him were deleted. A few remain from when he was winding down as a Knick....but the earlier ones are all over the place. There was a topic on him being better than Lamarcus Aldridge but I cant see who said what.

Devin, Lavine, Monta, and so on?

Naaaaaaaaah. I mean theres always some hater ready to call everyone terrible. You can find topics claiming people going to the HOF suck. But as a general consensus? Nah.

I imagine Booker on the trade market gets you a solid package at any point after his rookie year.

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 01:28 PM

Nobody thinks Wiggins nor any NBA player is "bad at basketball" in the sense you are writing it.

Also, you still can't separate the potential from the actual impact in the present.

Josh Jackson would have gotten a solid trade package his rookie year even though he was a below-average player.

Again, these statements are utterly meaningless and not addressing anything at all.

ralph_i_el

11-12-2019, 01:28 PM

I think two of them could rightfully be called cancers due to attitude or abuse problems and so on....

Not a one of them was ever called bad at basketball by anyone serious.

Bargnani may be the closest but people decided he was ass some time after he had his couple good years. And he was more considered brutally soft than just....bad.

I intended to read some ISH takes but most of the topics on him were deleted. A few remain from when he was winding down as a Knick....but the earlier ones are all over the place. There was a topic on him being better than Lamarcus Aldridge but I cant see who said what.

Devin, Lavine, Monta, and so on?

Naaaaaaaaah. I mean theres always some hater ready to call everyone terrible. You can find topics claiming people going to the HOF suck. But as a general consensus? Nah.

I imagine Booker on the trade market gets you a solid package at any point after his rookie year.

Sure he gets you a big deal, off potential. Potential that he starts playing defense and making advanced reads that create good shots for others (which of course we have seen him do now).

I loved Monta, thought he was a very entertaining player, but he did nothing but score, and he didn't do that efficiently. He was a net-negative as a player. Lavine is still a net-negative in my book.

I actually liked Bargs, but he was soft as hell. If we are going to give credit to players for all the good aspects of being tough, then we have to judge players for all the downsides of being soft.

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 01:31 PM

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 01:42 PM

Sure he gets you a big deal, off potential. Potential that he starts playing defense and making advanced reads that create good shots for others (which of course we have seen him do now).

I loved Monta, thought he was a very entertaining player, but he did nothing but score, and he didn't do tat efficiently. He was a net-negative as a player. Lavine is still a net-negative in my book.

Everyone not currently playing well has the potential to get better. You dont get 150 million off potential. You get 150 million off performance.

If that isnt the case...I ask again...give me the examples.

Who got paid like that BEFORE a breakout season? Im not even saying there isnt an answer because there have been some stupid deals lately....but im asking who you think of. Embiid maybe? Would you not say he performed well when allowed to play?

Booker didnt get paid because he might play well. He got paid because he just put up 25/5/5 and then did 27/7/4.

Nobody...and I do mean nobody...doing those numbers....wouldnt get paid.

Thats not a "potential" deal. Signing someone up and coming might sign due to potential....to become what Booker already has been. He was 20 putting up 22ish a game. Healthy?

The player hes been the last few years will end up scoring 20+ thousand points. You cannot....produce like that...while being bad. Literally cant happen. Nobody bad would ever play the minutes to do it.

Which brings me to Monta....

Lets say he was overrated. Lets say thats the case.

Do you know how many players are in the NBA? About 450...more in a season with injuries but...lets leave it there.

When players like Monta putting up 25ppg are BAD. How many players are even average? How many people per team have to be better at basketball before hes average?

And why is it a HOF coach with 50 years in the game plays him 40 minutes a game? And what are the hundreds of players incapable of taking his spot?
What kinda superlatives we using for them? Super duper mega bad?

When Monta Ellis is bad....

Whats Marquis Teague?

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 01:51 PM

Blaze...

Could you evaluate the actual impact you think Wiggins had last season?

Like I said from the beginning...I'd prefer not to get caught up in an issue with semantics.

What kind of player was Wiggins last year?

How was offense overall? His defense? His creation? His effort?

Do it however you want...give us your scouting report on Wiggins play last year.

ralph_i_el

11-12-2019, 02:39 PM

Everyone not currently playing well has the potential to get better. You dont get 150 million off potential. You get 150 million off performance.

If that isnt the case...I ask again...give me the examples.

Who got paid like that BEFORE a breakout season? Im not even saying there isnt an answer because there have been some stupid deals lately....but im asking who you think of. Embiid maybe? Would you not say he performed well when allowed to play?

Booker didnt get paid because he might play well. He got paid because he just put up 25/5/5 and then did 27/7/4.

Nobody...and I do mean nobody...doing those numbers....wouldnt get paid.

Thats not a "potential" deal. Signing someone up and coming might sign due to potential....to become what Booker already has been. He was 20 putting up 22ish a game. Healthy?

The player hes been the last few years will end up scoring 20+ thousand points. You cannot....produce like that...while being bad. Literally cant happen. Nobody bad would ever play the minutes to do it.

Which brings me to Monta....

Lets say he was overrated. Lets say thats the case.

Do you know how many players are in the NBA? About 450...more in a season with injuries but...lets leave it there.

When players like Monta putting up 25ppg are BAD. How many players are even average? How many people per team have to be better at basketball before hes average?

And why is it a HOF coach with 50 years in the game plays him 40 minutes a game? And what are the hundreds of players incapable of taking his spot?
What kinda superlatives we using for them? Super duper mega bad?

When Monta Ellis is bad....

Whats Marquis Teague?

To me, "Bad" means that compared to other NBA players, this player lowers your chances of winning games.

Rookie Booker lowers your chances of winning NBA games. He has the potential to be a player that helps you win more games than you lose.

If I ran an offense around Nick Young for 10 years in a row, he would score 20k points, and your team would be bad. The more he is featured in your offense, the worse your team would be, even if he was scoring a ton of points.

In Monta Ellis's best scoring season (2009-10) he led the league in minutes, and his team was almost 12 points per-100 possessions better with him on the bench. He handled the ball a ton, had an above average turnover rate, a way below average ast% for a lead guard, and shot with below average efficiency. He also got in the way of a young Steph Curry getting more usage. Usually it's ok for a guard to shoot at below average efficiency, because the threat of his shot opens up the game for teammates. In Monta's case, teams were content to let him shoot long 2's.

Don Nelson may be a legend, but my family is from the Bay. We watched those games. I still remember my grandfather ranting and raving about how Don Nelson was an affront to basketball fundamentals.

I'm a Wizards fan, so I've watched a ton of bad basketball. I believe that you can be a bad NBA player and average 20ppg. If you don't create for others on offense, or play defense and rebound, you can easily have a negative impact

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 02:45 PM

Current search:
For single seasons; played in the NBA/BAA; in the regular season; from 1946-47 to 2019-20; requiring Value Over Replacement Player <= -.3 and Points Per Game >= 17.7 and Defensive Rating >= 112 and Assists Per Game <= 2.6; sorted by descending Value Over Replacement Player

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&season_start=1&season_end=-1&lg_id=NBA&age_min=0&age_max=99&is_playoffs=N&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=vorp&c1comp=lt&c1val=-.3&c2stat=pts_per_g&c2comp=gt&c2val=17.7&c3stat=def_rtg&c3comp=gt&c3val=112&c4stat=ast_per_g&c4comp=lt&c4val=2.6&order_by=vorp

6 player seasons ever with the above criteria, Wiggins has 3 of them...

-Andrea Bargnani
-Andrew Wiggins
-Andrew Wiggins
-Andrew Wiggins
-Terry Catledge
-Jeff Malone

ralph_i_el

11-12-2019, 02:47 PM

Dennis Schroder put up 19.4 ppg for the Hawks a few years back, and they were desperately trying to get rid of him.

Smook A.

11-12-2019, 02:50 PM

I hope he continues this throughout the rest of the season. I was hyped to see him play before he got drafted and he looked promising in his first 3 years in the league. Looked like he was going to be one of the top shooting guards for years to come. Once he got that big ass contract, his production fell harddd.

It's nice to see that he's putting up good numbers on a respectable shooting %

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 02:57 PM

Current search:
For single seasons; played in the NBA/BAA; in the regular season; from 1946-47 to 2019-20; requiring Points Per Game >= 17.7 and Defensive Rating >= 112 and Offensive Rating <= 102 and Field Goal Pct <= 0.440; sorted by descending Value Over Replacement Player

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&season_start=1&season_end=-1&lg_id=NBA&age_min=0&age_max=99&is_playoffs=N&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=pts_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=17.7&c2stat=def_rtg&c2comp=gt&c2val=112&c3stat=off_rtg&c3comp=lt&c3val=102&c4stat=fg_pct&c4comp=lt&c4val=44&order_by=vorp

Only 7 player seasons ever with the above criteria, Wiggins has 2 of them...

And in reality, there have only been 5 because both Hield/CJ are on the list for this year and will almost for sure break out of their slumps.

I don't want to even get into rating these seasons of other players, the point here is that the notion being put forth that these were just normal seasons by players scoring around 20 is not true. When you combine the points, efficiency and defense alone...you get a pretty small sample. Add in the lack of assists and you get extremely rare season samples.

Even then, hard to quantify the lack of effort and hustle as well.

The actual label of such seasons is irrelelvant...call them "never bad"...okay...just a phrase...doesn't change reality....doesn't change what actually happened.

So, no, you wouldn't have to call a bunch of other guys in NBA history "not good" or "bad" in order to say that about Wiggins the last couple years at least. Completely false...very few players scoring as much as Wiggins did have played like that.

Again, this is why you can't solely look at ppg...not sure why that needs to be argued on a basketball forum, but I guess it does...

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 03:53 PM

To me, "Bad" means that compared to other NBA players, this player lowers your chances of winning games.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Compared to other NBA players....

But we dont compare people to all players. We compare them to the level they are on...or are supposed t obe.

Obviously...if the standard for good is Jakaar Sampson....Wiggins is good.

But we know hes too good for that standard. We dont actually judge these players by the standards of BAD players....because internally you know they arent. If Alize Johnson wakes up as Andrew Wiggins and plays the EXACT same basketball....his team would be ecstatic. They found a gem. The only reason Wiggins is a let down...is because you dont judge him like an actual bad player.

Because he isnt one.

Rookie Booker lowers your chances of winning NBA games. He has the potential to be a player that helps you win more games than you lose.

If I ran an offense around Nick Young for 10 years in a row, he would score 20k points, and your team would be bad. The more he is featured in your offense, the worse your team would be, even if he was scoring a ton of points.

There are people in the HOF who played on the same team for their entire primes only made 3 playoffs and never won a series. Not only were they not bad the people who saw them voted them into the top 50 all time. Its never as simple as "If you are good your team cant lose"

In Monta Ellis's best scoring season (2009-10) he led the league in minutes, and his team was almost 12 points per-100 possessions better with him on the bench. He handled the ball a ton, had an above average turnover rate, a way below average ast% for a lead guard, and shot with below average efficiency. He also got in the way of a young Steph Curry getting more usage. Usually it's ok for a guard to shoot at below average efficiency, because the threat of his shot opens up the game for teammates. In Monta's case, teams were content to let him shoot long 2's.

I had my fill of plus/minus when that plus/minus fanatic was here trying to convince everyone it was the one true way to judge a players value. As I recall it ended up in an argument on Amir Johnson being better than Kobe, AK47 being better than Tim Duncan, and Kevin Durant not being top 300.

Its another of those numbers you can find the examples to make look legit or to make it look like a joke. Wiggins for one....terrible plus minus last year. Negative in fact. Guess who else was negative? Klay Thompson. Derozans was terrible. Eric Gordon. Bojan Bogdanovic. Brandon Ingram. Lots of people really. Reading those results for the last 10 years or so have taught me not to put much in them.

Don Nelson may be a legend, but my family is from the Bay. We watched those games. I still remember my grandfather ranting and raving about how Don Nelson was an affront to basketball fundamentals.

Im not a Don Nelson guy generally speaking. But im not gonna say I have a deeper understanding than he does about basketball.

I'm a Wizards fan, so I've watched a ton of bad basketball. I believe that you can be a bad NBA player and average 20ppg. If you don't create for others on offense, or play defense and rebound, you can easily have a negative impact

Problem here is you not accepting how many people dont create....play d...or rebound...and ALSO cant score.

All those people....are the reason all the people we bring up....are too high on the ladder to actually be bad.

The league is like 90 John Lucas the 3rd and 60 Treveon Grahams(been in the league 4 years...when he got his biggest shot...he shot 34% while starting 21 games...hes starting next to Wiggins now by the way). Theres like 10 people on Minnesota alone who are worse than Andrew Wiggins. At some point theres a numbers game to factor in.

How many people can be bad at one time? When Wiggins is bad.....who is average?

Serious question. Wiggins is bad...Ellis was bad...

Who is average? And shouldnt there be a LOT of them in a league of 450 people?

Isnt it more likely these not quite stars who get put in position to lead teams and do a lot....are closer to average than bad? At least if we arent calling most of the league some bullshit like ultra terrible.

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 04:21 PM

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&season_start=1&season_end=-1&lg_id=NBA&age_min=0&age_max=99&is_playoffs=N&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=pts_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=17.7&c2stat=off_rtg&c2comp=lt&c2val=102&c3stat=def_rtg&c3comp=gt&c3val=112&c4stat=ast_per_g&c4comp=lt&c4val=2.6&order_by=vorp

Worth really digesting this.

In the history of the NBA...there have been 4 completed player seasons in which the player scored more than 17.7 points per game, averaged less than 2.6 assists per game, and had the offensive / defensive ratings Wiggins had in 18 and 19.

Again, 4 completed seasons in NBA history with those metrics.

Andrew Wiggins has had 2 of the 4.

Only other season in the modern NBA was Michael Beasley.

Call that "not bad" or "never bad"...fine, but that is just semantics.

It still was what it actually was...and we all know nobody running a team would want that. And that is just the stats alone...doesn't quantify the lack of give a shit on full display pretty much nightly. If we don't want to label that as "bad" or "not good"...I'm totally fine with it.

But, I'd still like to hear an actual breakdown of his basketball play at some point...won't happen though. Talk about admissions...might have to admit just not knowing what the last two seasons were actually like and their place historically as well.

One more, just for fun...

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&season_start=1&season_end=-1&lg_id=NBA&age_min=0&age_max=99&is_playoffs=N&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=ts_pct&c1comp=lt&c1val=50&c2stat=pts_per_g&c2comp=gt&c2val=17.7&c3stat=ast_per_g&c3comp=lt&c3val=2.6&c4stat=def_rtg&c4comp=gt&c4val=112&order_by=vorp

Andrew Wiggins is the only player in NBA history, according to the database at least, to shoot less than 50% TS, have a defensive rating over 112, average less than 2.6 assists per game, and score over 17.7 points per game.

But, yep, nothing to see here...only "hot takes" and "haters" saying his play wasn't good.

Okay, okay...promise...last one;

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&season_start=1&season_end=-1&lg_id=NBA&age_min=0&age_max=99&is_playoffs=N&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=ts_pct&c1comp=lt&c1val=51&c2stat=pts_per_g&c2comp=gt&c2val=17.7&c3stat=ast_per_g&c3comp=lt&c3val=2.6&c4stat=def_rtg&c4comp=gt&c4val=112&order_by=vorp

If you tweak the efficiency to 51% and worse...you get 3 players in NBA history...

Michael Beasley and Andrew Wiggins and Andrew Wiggins...you can't make this shit up.

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 04:57 PM

Really with the specific stat minimums? Me from a week ago with someone doing the same with Kevin Love and Kareem:

Have you any idea how many people you can take really specific stats like that and make a list with only them? Or them and one legend?

How many people you think did the points, assists, rebounds and TS% Lebron has the last couple years?

For 2018....its only Lebron. For 19...its Lebron and Oscar in 2 seasons.

27/12/5 on 62+ TS%? Giannis this year...and last year.

I cant imagine many people did the 19/9/8 with 2.5 steals Fat Lever did.

We had people on here doing that shit years ago with Marbury and Oscar the only career 20/8/whatever else players in history. Which at the time...they were.

It doesnt mean anything. Its just shaping the stat to fit the player. People dont do the exact same numbers. Doesnt make statistically unique seasons be uniquely great basketball.

Look up his 2017 points a game, shooting percentage, rebounds, and FT% for another jumble of chosen numbers to generate a list to serve a purpose then get back to me about how many of those players arent in the HOF. I say arent because the count is a lot easier. Almost all of them are.

Shit just his 2017 scoring, field goal percentage, 3 point percentage, and ft%? In the last 40 years.....

Only two people to have such a season has not at least gone on to be a HOF finalist. Only 5 people did it in the entire decade of the 90s. Jordan, Nique, Mullin, Rice, Richmond, Reggie, and Karl Malone.

Means exactly nothing.

You can "season finder" your way to any conclusion you wanna draw if you just look for the worst or best they did and pick the numbers to make your point. I figured that out 45 seconds after the season finder came out.

Any combo of the major numbers is gonna put him on a list with good players. You out here doing a victory lap for his worst year being on a list with Buddy Heild, Darrell Griffin, and Beasley...a top pick having his career season. I saw some combo you drew up with Jeff Malone on it too(who I mentioned myself as a comparison). Jeff Malone is a 2-3 time all star or something like that. When you reach for the floor....and come up with players the worst of which was the third or so best player on a roster of 15...what happening here should be pretty obvious. Its just a refusal to factor in how many players are in the NBA. Beasley...at his peak...was better than most of the NBAs players.

But you never hear someone set out to diminish a guy and call him average. It doesnt show enough displeasure. They always suck. Are just plain bad.

And really its just how people talk...and its fine. People say "Cowboys suck!" because its fun. "Cowboys are average!" doesnt really get the same point across...but its accurate.

Im sure you can find me saying someone sucks. But if I had to think it out I suspect id tell the truth and not try to bend it far enough that Larry Hughes was actually below average even if I didnt **** with him.

There were waaaaaaaaaaaay too many actual bad players for Larry Hughes to suck. He just sucked...relative to expectations, his numbers, and the level of responsibility he was given. Which is exactly what Wiggins does most of the time. Bottom line....nobody who has come up in the topic sucked...not even for an NBA player.

But we just neeeeeeeeeeeeed to hate. Or love.

I mostly like. Its not exciting. But it generally keeps you closer to fair.

SpaceJam2

11-12-2019, 05:02 PM

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&season_start=1&season_end=-1&lg_id=NBA&age_min=0&age_max=99&is_playoffs=N&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=vorp&c1comp=lt&c1val=-.3&c2stat=pts_per_g&c2comp=gt&c2val=17.7&c3stat=def_rtg&c3comp=gt&c3val=112&c4stat=ast_per_g&c4comp=lt&c4val=2.6&order_by=vorp

6 player seasons ever with the above criteria, Wiggins has 3 of them...

-Andrea Bargnani
-Andrew Wiggins
-Andrew Wiggins
-Andrew Wiggins
-Terry Catledge
-Jeff Malone

yikes

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 05:09 PM

Makes way more sense than only factoring in points per game and nothing else.

You aren't understanding just how historically bad his combinations were...again...ask a Wolves fan or read articles written by people watching the games night in night out. Shit, forget the label of bad I just used. Lets use "rare" instead. You aren't getting just how rare it was. I'm literally just plugging in his points, assists, and efficiency levels to see what other players produced that...and I've displayed what comes out. That is why you have to be specific when talking about a specific player and not jump to "what about this other guy"...not relevant...when the seasons in question are super rare...the comparisons just don't work.

Also, by all means...please breakdown his play last year. Talk basketball and explain what I've said about him the last couple years was wrong.

Also, as I said in my first response...I'd like to avoid the semantics. Bad can mean different things to different people.

I've laid out my take on Wiggins the player...you haven't really addressed it. You've just....kept on saying things about other players....but almost all of those other players didn't actually play like Wiggins.

And I'm just curious as to why you'd want the Wiggins of 18 and 19 on your team given his actual level of play. I've asked repeatedly...with no answer...so I can only assume you don't have one.

Like I said before, I agree with your overall point, but you've just picked the wrong hill to die on here. It is not a hot take to call Wiggins a "not good" player the last few seasons. It just isn't...players that play like that don't help you win. If you want to call players that hurt your chances of winning games in how they play..."never bad" "not bad" or "good"...again, I'm actually totally fine with that.

I just then need to know what about his basketball game the last 2 years that you've seen me say that you disagree with.

Because, he wasn't even "average" based on the PER number which is heavily favored to a guy like that to begin with. The average for PER is 15...and Wiggins came in at 13 and 12.4 respectively the last 2 years. And that doesn't even remotely account for his poor defense and lack of effort either.

Oh, and those crazy "advanced stats" that you write off once again line up with reality. Everyone agrees he's playing much better so far this year.

His PER? 21.1
His ORTG? 114
His DRTG? 110

All career bests.

His BPM/VORP highest it has ever been. WS/48 highest ever.

If we had access to his RPM...it would be the highest ever.

Crazy how that works..isn't it?

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 05:44 PM

[QUOTE]Wiggins can sky with the best of them, and his vetical and body control is out of this world. But for all the genetic advantages Wiggins possesses as an NBA player, he more often than not doesn

ralph_i_el

11-12-2019, 06:01 PM

Now we are getting somewhere.

Compared to other NBA players....

But we dont compare people to all players. We compare them to the level they are on...or are supposed t obe.

Obviously...if the standard for good is Jakaar Sampson....Wiggins is good.

But we know hes too good for that standard. We dont actually judge these players by the standards of BAD players....because internally you know they arent. If Alize Johnson wakes up as Andrew Wiggins and plays the EXACT same basketball....his team would be ecstatic. They found a gem. The only reason Wiggins is a let down...is because you dont judge him like an actual bad player.

Because he isnt one.

There are people in the HOF who played on the same team for their entire primes only made 3 playoffs and never won a series. Not only were they not bad the people who saw them voted them into the top 50 all time. Its never as simple as "If you are good your team cant lose"

I had my fill of plus/minus when that plus/minus fanatic was here trying to convince everyone it was the one true way to judge a players value. As I recall it ended up in an argument on Amir Johnson being better than Kobe, AK47 being better than Tim Duncan, and Kevin Durant not being top 300.

Its another of those numbers you can find the examples to make look legit or to make it look like a joke. Wiggins for one....terrible plus minus last year. Negative in fact. Guess who else was negative? Klay Thompson. Derozans was terrible. Eric Gordon. Bojan Bogdanovic. Brandon Ingram. Lots of people really. Reading those results for the last 10 years or so have taught me not to put much in them.

Im not a Don Nelson guy generally speaking. But im not gonna say I have a deeper understanding than he does about basketball.

Problem here is you not accepting how many people dont create....play d...or rebound...and ALSO cant score.

All those people....are the reason all the people we bring up....are too high on the ladder to actually be bad.

The league is like 90 John Lucas the 3rd and 60 Treveon Grahams(been in the league 4 years...when he got his biggest shot...he shot 34% while starting 21 games...hes starting next to Wiggins now by the way). Theres like 10 people on Minnesota alone who are worse than Andrew Wiggins. At some point theres a numbers game to factor in.

How many people can be bad at one time? When Wiggins is bad.....who is average?

Serious question. Wiggins is bad...Ellis was bad...

Who is average? And shouldnt there be a LOT of them in a league of 450 people?

Isnt it more likely these not quite stars who get put in position to lead teams and do a lot....are closer to average than bad? At least if we arent calling most of the league some bullshit like ultra terrible.

A lot of really good, fair points in here. I guess the heart of what I'm saying lays in the value of wasted possessions. Frankly, I think there are a lot of players who score ~10 points a game, but have a bigger impact than Wiggins on the offensive end because of their passing , cutting, and floor-spacing abilities. There's a large list of under-20ppg wings I would rather have on my team, who would lead to higher team offensive output. Give me Khris Middleton or Joe Ingles.

You are absolutely right that we judge Wiggins differently. We judge him against other players who are getting the opportunity to shoot the ball 15-20 times a night. Wiggins has had a greenlight to shoot since day-1, because of the massive hype leading up to the draft. Another player of equal ability probably wouldn't get the same opportunity as Wiggins did.

Taking lots of bad shots hurts your team's ability to win. Wiggins has had years of no- consequence chucking to put up these ppg averages.

I took a look through this list (https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&season_start=1&season_end=-1&lg_id=NBA&age_min=0&age_max=99&is_playoffs=N&height_min=0&height_max=99&year_min=2019&year_max=2019&birth_country_is=Y&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&c1stat=gs&c1comp=gt&c1val=40&order_by=ws) of forwards that started at least 40 games last year, and there were 16 wings on the list that I would take over Wiggins, no question. Another handful I would need to think about. There's also probably 10 guys on various benches that would blossom if given Wiggins' role (and might never get the chance). Then there's a handful of bench players that may not have his ability, but play their role effectively, so instead of missing a bunch of shots they are contributing to their team getting good shots.

So I guess Wiggins isn't "bad", there's just ~30 other wings I would have taken over him last year for my team, and most of them don't score 20ppg and never will.

Maybe this year is his breakout and he'll be a hall of famer:confusedshrug: the potential for that to happen has earned him a bigger role than his actual play merits.

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 06:31 PM

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 06:36 PM

I’ll reply to what you said more fully when I get home but you only got 16 people you take over Wiggins out of that list? I got 19.

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 06:37 PM

No...22.

22 counting guys I

ralph_i_el

11-12-2019, 06:39 PM

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]I

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 06:44 PM

Shit I still got 19 that way. You might actually think he

AirFederer

11-12-2019, 06:45 PM

:facepalm

ralph_i_el

11-12-2019, 06:52 PM

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Shit I still got 19 that way. You might actually think he

Sportal

11-12-2019, 07:05 PM

:roll: damn you're probably right. There's a few borderline guys that I haven't seen enough of to make the call.

Would you rather have Wiggins or Otto Porter?

Hmm... How about both players on a contract year, hah.

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 07:07 PM

You aren't bringing up his advanced stats this year because this year has absolutely nothing to do with our debate. Not saying you would be even if it did, but Wiggins could turn into Michael Jordan and it doesn't change the past. Not sure what your confusion is here.

I'll trust my own eyes, the writers covering the games, fans of the team on a message board, and the stats....over your opinion (which I respect) that in this case isn't even related to Wiggins at all, but a broad view of what guys that score are worth. And I agree with you broadly, but not in this specific case.

Again, to call it merely a "hot take" to disagree with the notion that Wiggins was an average player the last 2 years is, to me at least, ignorant of what the last 2 years were actually like.

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 07:08 PM

Smoke117

11-12-2019, 07:11 PM

He probably should become a decent player first, then all star player? Looking at his numbers he has a career high 0.9bpm. Superstars have an 8+. His on/off is -2.3. Superstars have a 10+. if he's a superstar than we need to change the definition of what makes a superstar. Again, KAT has a 9.6bpm and a +4.9, so if Wiggins is a superstar than KAT has to be the best player in the world...which begs the question...why aren't the best team in the league then?

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 07:16 PM

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 07:19 PM

And you like them are simply disregarding that you could be worse than 200+ players and still be above average which you simply aren’t willing to acknowledge at this point so I’ll leave you alone. I really don’t see why you need to keep talking to me about it when it’s that cut and dry.

Doesn’t seem to be much wiggle room. You really wanna keep repeating ourselves or do you wanna do your usual victory proclamation based on me not caring as much as you would like?

What victory proclamation are you talking about? I have no idea, I'm just responding to a topic I find interesting and claims you've made. Usually these end with you talking about food of some sort and making an off-topic comment.

I am acknowledging that.

I'm trying to understand how he was average. It certainly isn't statistically on any level. He grades below average on that front. I haven't brought that up much because I've tried to talk at the level you prefer.

I've engaged your points as best as I can and have, from the jump, tried to avoid semantics.

If you don't want to respond, I'm completely cool with it...I'm just having a fun and vigorous debate with someone I respect, but disagree with.

:cheers:

Kblaze8855

11-12-2019, 07:32 PM

it amazes me that you keep talking about numbers but disregard that At any given moment something like 40% of the NBA won

Smoke117

11-12-2019, 07:37 PM

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]it amazes me that you keep talking about numbers but disregard that At any given moment something like 40% of the NBA won

DMAVS41

11-12-2019, 07:41 PM

it amazes me that you keep talking about numbers but disregard that At any given moment something like 40% of the NBA won’t even get to play 10 minutes a game....

The Bulls have 4-5 of them.

You show me how to statistically rank somebody consistently racking up healthy DNPs And I will tell you where Wiggins ranks relative to the rest of the NBA. The guys pleasantly surprised to work up a sweat are the majority of the NBA. I’m sure you have realized that and don’t care what terms like “average” actually mean at this point so I’m going to go see what’s on Disney+.

Someday you'll have the realization that a DNP can be worth more than a guy playing like Wiggins did last year.

Not sure why'd you bring up numbers, again, the average PER in the league is 15. Wiggins, who is almost always going to be over-rated by that statistic...was well under that each of the last 2 years.

Again, you seem quite ignorant to what his play was actually like.

He ranked 264th in RPM last year. Below average.

Sorry, not a "hot-take"...just in line with observation and objective measures.

Also, you still seem to not understand advanced measures. You say..."of course his advanced stats are good...he's averaging 26 ppg"

But the problem with is...his advanced stats actually weren't that good when he averaged 24 ppg iirc. I think his PER was slightly above average, but he still had a negative VORP and BPM...and his offensive / defensive ratings were poor as well.

They are overused, I agree with you there, but they aren't meaningless...they capture reality a bit more than you are willing to concede...and no matter how many times you say it, they also never pretended to say Amir Johnson was better than Kobe. That, mate, is called user error and ignorance.

Is it true that they have all the Star Wars films in 4k Dolby Vision on Disney+?

yeaaaman

11-12-2019, 11:48 PM

The only reason Wiggins played so much the last two seasons is you can't pay a guy like that and just give up. You'd look foolish. On a reasonable contract for his worth he'd have been riding the bench.

Riding the bench for who? Josh Okogie? Chase Buddinger? Shabbaz Mohammed? Brandon Rush?

That's not true, it's because even at his inconsistent, not always effort giving worst he's better than all those players. That should tell you something. I tend to lean towards Kblaze in terms of our view of "average" and bad etc. The guy has underperformed given the hype around him but he's also 24 and hasn't been as bad as people make him out to be, they just want a lot more. I'm curious to see if his game will actually continue to grow

Lebron23

11-12-2019, 11:58 PM

His numbers looks good this year. Let's see if he can average those numbers by the end of the season.

Kblaze8855

11-13-2019, 09:15 AM

Klay was in the 170s last year, Ingram in the 300s, and Trae Young in the 400s. Derozan and Bojan also deep in the 100s. And of course Danny Green and Iggy as the best and 3rd best 2 guards in the nba last year. I

DMAVS41

11-13-2019, 09:26 AM

Just one piece of information...and those numbers aren't there to rank players to begin with.

Can't look at only one piece of information...like, for example, just what a player scores.

Have to look at everything in my opinion from a statistical place. However, in this case...if I just looked at stats alone...I think you could make arguments for him being bad, average, above average...to perhaps even good...depending on what you focus on...etc.

The stats I find compelling in this case point more to the below-average side though, but that really isn't what this is about..is it though.

I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread;

My line of thinking is simple. I consider a player "not good" if I don't think they help a team based on their impact.

Trying to avoid semantics. I'd just like to know how Wiggins taking a ton of bad shots night in night out that go in at a very low rate, while also giving some of the worst effort in the league in the other areas...helps a team.

Like I've said, probably 5 times now, we can call the above whatever we want...and I'm fine with calling that "never bad"...if that is what you insist.

I would then like you to breakdown what Wiggins actually did on the floor that makes him the player you describe.

Because...it was actually watching a lot of his games the last couple years that informs me the most. If I didn't have the reference of the games I've seen...I'd probably have your opinion.

But, what I see missing from your opinion, is talking about a guy that literally just sat around on offense without the ball, then got the ball and jacked up long 2's he'd normally miss...all while giving an effort level on the lower end of what I've ever seen in the NBA.

Like I said...call it whatever you want. Talk about his actual game night in night out. Talk basketball.

And my point about the splits numbers were that you can't treat Wiggins like the standard 18 ppg scorer in league history. It is rare to have his scoring and produce in the other areas he has. Again, ignore the terms "bad" or "not good"...it objectively is rare. That was the point.

You can say that doesn't matter. Maybe it doesn't, but it really isn't even that specific. For example, if just take PER under 13.5 and ppg over 17.7...there have only been 10 player seasons in NBA history like that. Wiggins has 2...and a guy I mentioned off the top of my head earlier, Jamal Mashburn had one of them in the very year I referenced....weird.

I don't care to argue "bad" about the above...it just amounts to semantics. At the very least though, I think it should cause us to look a bit closer at Wiggins if we really are trying to determine his value based on his play the last couple years or so...it doesn't happen often....so I think it is a bit flawed to use historical comparisons like you are...especially because you know how much easier it is to score in the league now. Which makes it really even more rare than at first glance...there really haven't been other modern NBA completed seasons similar. Perhaps a view depending on what the focus is, but super rare regardless.

FireDavidKahn

11-13-2019, 02:44 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJRfj8SXYAIpP01?format=jpg

yeaaaman

11-13-2019, 09:06 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJRfj8SXYAIpP01?format=jpg

Wait, where's James Harden? I thought shooting as many step back 3's as possibly was higher effeciency by all the advanced stats as per Daryl Moron?

But this highlights pretty much what most have been saying, the improvement is evident. That's not the type of list you thought you'd ever see Wiggins near the top of in the past.

eliteballer

11-13-2019, 09:56 PM

Going off again..

eliteballer

11-13-2019, 09:59 PM

You can see Wiggins is actually playing with heart and passion, screaming after And 1's etc.

Said he's never not wanted to play when stepping on the court.

stalkerforlife

11-14-2019, 01:08 AM

Another banger.

Clearly improved.

Wow.

FireDavidKahn

11-14-2019, 01:22 AM

https://s5.gifyu.com/images/IoDE81k8r1OsajwR.ts.gif

KAT happy as **** he doesn't have to carry the entire team. I'm loving this shit that Wiggins is doing.

eliteballer

11-15-2019, 06:28 PM

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/weve-been-waiting-for-this-andrew-wiggins/

Pointguard

11-16-2019, 02:39 AM

This completely depends on how you are defining "bad"...if you are talking about his potential or his skillset or what flashes he's shown...then no, he hasn't been "bad"

However, if you are talking about his actual contributions and production...he certainly has been bad for a large portion of his career.

I'm not sure what else you call a player that doesn't defend, doesn't create well for others, routinely takes bad shots, and has played large roles on underperforming teams.

It isn't advanced stats...it is just watching him.

What is funny...is that he's playing well so far this year for the most part and everyone seems to agree on that. My guess, although I haven't taken the time to look...is that his advanced stats are better than normal.

Usually the "eye-test" and "stats" lineup quite well when people are being honest about what they are seeing and how often they are watching.

This is what I used to tell you. Wiggins can be a stellar player but he had Thibes as a coach who is horrible for offensive minded players. Both him and Towns were underdeveloped under Thibes. Thibes does little for spacing and developing a player. If both of these players were in SA they are sure in's for the Hall of Fame. Every year under Thibes, Wiggins FG% went down. A player shouldn't start to decline at 21 years of age after he averaged 24ppg. He's 24 now.

Ryan Saunders does a much better job with unleashing the potential in both players. This team has far less talent than most of the Thibes team but now you see the leadership in Towns and the confidence in Wiggins.