Wiggins gets MVP award

[Coolbreeze44]

If you dislike a guy, I'm sure you can find a stat that will provide great support for your stance. Likewise if you like a guy you can do the same.

Not really, especially when common sense is applied. I can't think of any credible stats that consider LeBron a poor player. I also can't think of any stats that consider LaVine a good player this year. There are guys somewhere in the middle, like Thad Young, where some legitimate arguments can be made in either direction using various stats. Not the case with Zach.

I basically take the stance that says so what to the stat grinders when trying to evaluate this team. What matters to me is talent, improvement and potential. If your expectations were beyond that I think you really missed the boat this year.

Us "stat grinders" are evaluating the current performance of individual players and the team as a whole. That is a perfectly legitimate endeavor. We're not using stats to say someone will never, ever, ever be good in the future. As far as expectations for this year, if you recall, I was on the low end of expectations. I predicted 25 wins.

As far as the D league goes, I think it's great for some guys. GR3 needs some time down there. But unless the goal was to commit to making Zach a career point guard, he really doesn't have any place down there.

Why doesn't he have a place in the D-league? He'd get more minutes and freedom against decent competition.Why is it OK for GRIII, who had far more college experience than Zach, but not LaVine?

I'm enjoying the hek out of this season. Somehow I sense that you aren't.

There are parts I've enjoyed, such as anytime Ricky Rubio graces a basketball court or when Wiggins turned things around after a rocky start. But no, I don't find it enjoyable to watch a historically bad defense or 15-game losing streak or trying to force minutes upon LaVine at a position he's not fit to play. That's not really enjoyable to me.

Oh brother. Really? Just do me this favor: I've read approximately 25-30 posts of yours this year telling us all how bad Zach has been. I think we get your point now. How about a one week moratorium on Zach has been terrible posts from you? Can we do that? Let us get through the all star break without it. Next week you can go back to being the smartest guy in the room.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Cool, sorry you continue to be personally offended by criticism of Zach's play. We've seen similar rants from others on players like Thad Young, AB,or your rants about Kevin Martin and how games just aren't worth watching if Wiggins doesn't get enough touches.

I'll tell you what, when you see a post of mine that says "Zach" in it, go ahead and skip over it. That way you can save yourself the irritation. Of course, if he plays well, you never know, I might just actually say something nice!

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Cool - did you ever think there might be a moratorium on Zach if you weren't consistently bashing people for bashing him while simultaneously just denying Zach hasn't been good this year? Literally the 6th post in this thread without anyone mentioning Zach's year was a smartass, sarcastic comment from you about Zach being a bust after a good exhibition showing. You bring it on yourself when you fight every anti-Zach post as a condemnation calling him a bust when they simply aren't. You're delusional to the point where you are calling out people for using stats to call him bad when there are no stats that say the contrary, yet you say we are picking and choosing the stats to make him look bad. The eye test doesn't say anything differently so get out of the stone age and come join us who use both stats and the eye test to know someone hasn't played well this year.

[Coolbreeze44]

I'm just tired of reading it. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. And khans, I've forgotten more about stats than you will ever learn.

[mrhockey89]

I'll admit I didn't read (lacked the time and focus) most of this thread, but I caught a bit of Q and Cool going at it on Zach, so I wanted to give my quick take:

-I think Zach is absolutely a net negative with his play for the Wolves right now. But he's also 19 years old and not at all developed into what he hopefully can become. I really have no idea if he'll become a good player or not. He has Gerald Green athleticism and body type. Gerald Green took quite a while to get to a point where he was a positive for a team, and I'm hoping Zach can get there quicker, and hopefully surpass what Green became. I think Zach needs to go to 80% shooting guard. He's never going to be a great PG, I don't see him being able to become effective with the way he plays the game, at that position. His decision making is not his strongest asset. Even last night int he Rising Stars challenge he made multiple passes to out of bounds because he assumed a player was there, which to me represents that he doesn't have a 'great' feel for knowing where people will be and passing. I think you need a guy that's able to control the game from a cerebral standpoint at PG and I don't see Zach as that.

-I do, however, think that if Zach grows into a role at SG, he'll learn what he can and can't get away with. He can become a deadly shooter. He has the ability to become a good slasher. He wouldn't be in charge of making the decisions. Etc. In fact, I think he could learn quite a bit from Kevin Martin and how he plays the position to advance his game. He has a long way to go and a lot of development, but if he can learn to play within himself rather than playing street ball, he'll have the opportunity to become a good SG who can play a bit of point.

-Q mentioned Zach should be in the D-League. I'm not sure if you heard the interview with Flip or not, but Flip explained why he hasn't sent Zach down. He said because of their new affiliate being affiliated with other clubs as well, if he sent Zach down, he wouldn't likely get the major minutes that Shabazz did. And if he's not going to get major minutes, then he's not going to get the development in that league that you'd hope for. So if Flip's being honest there, then I can't say I disagree.

[Coolbreeze44]

All the great coaches, no matter the sport, will tell you it's about the process. They aren't concerned very much about individual games, or even stretches of games. Their focus is on building from one game to the next. I've never heard any coach say in his post game remarks: "Player X's on/off rating was really evident tonight".

As a coach myself, I tend to identify with this way of thinking. So I could give a flying you know what about whether Zach has been a "net negative" so far this year. What I care about is the process of him building his individual game, as well as building chemistry with his teammates. And though I realize my opinion doesn't mean much to some of you, I see the process taking place, and it's headed in the right direction. Most of the NBA people I respect seem to have the same opinion.

So you can see how I might get tired of reading the same knee jerk rhetoric after damnear every game.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

The Zach LaVine discussion is one of the oddest ones we have on this board, because I just don't see much discernible difference in the arguments. Discussions about Thad Young or Kevin Martin tend to be much more interesting and nuanced, because there is certainly room for different opinions about these two guys. But can anyone really disagree with either of these two statements?

1) Zach LaVine is an intriguing athlete with potential to be a very good NBA player.

2) Zach LaVine's stats by almost any measure rank him near the bottom of the NBA this season.

It seems to me that nobody can dispute either of these statements, and that they tell most of the story about Zach. The argument seems to be which of the two points a particular poster favors, which doesn't seem like a very interesting argument to me. Maybe I'm missing something...

[kekgeek]

The Zach LaVine discussion is one of the oddest ones we have on this board, because I just don't see much discernible difference in the arguments. Discussions about Thad Young or Kevin Martin tend to be much more interesting and nuanced, because there is certainly room for different opinions about these two guys. But can anyone really disagree with either of these two statements?

1) Zach LaVine is an intriguing athlete with potential to be a very good NBA player.

2) Zach LaVine's stats by almost any measure rank him near the bottom of the NBA this season.

It seems to me that nobody can dispute either of these statements, and that they tell most of the story about Zach. The argument seems to be which of the two points a particular poster favors, which doesn't seem like a very interesting argument to me. Maybe I'm missing something...

+100

You guys are arguing the same thing

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

All the great coaches, no matter the sport, will tell you it's about the process. They aren't concerned very much about individual games, or even stretches of games. Their focus is on building from one game to the next. I've never heard any coach say in his post game remarks: "Player X's on/off rating was really evident tonight".

As a coach myself, I tend to identify with this way of thinking. So I could give a flying you know what about whether Zach has been a "net negative" so far this year. What I care about is the process of him building his individual game, as well as building chemistry with his teammates. And though I realize my opinion doesn't mean much to some of you, I see the process taking place, and it's headed in the right direction. Most of the NBA people I respect seem to have the same opinion.

So you can see how I might get tired of reading the same knee jerk rhetoric after damnear every game.

That's fine, but please realize that some of us use actual results to evaluate players.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

The Zach LaVine discussion is one of the oddest ones we have on this board, because I just don't see much discernible difference in the arguments. Discussions about Thad Young or Kevin Martin tend to be much more interesting and nuanced, because there is certainly room for different opinions about these two guys. But can anyone really disagree with either of these two statements?

1) Zach LaVine is an intriguing athlete with potential to be a very good NBA player.

2) Zach LaVine's stats by almost any measure rank him near the bottom of the NBA this season.

It seems to me that nobody can dispute either of these statements, and that they tell most of the story about Zach. The argument seems to be which of the two points a particular poster favors, which doesn't seem like a very interesting argument to me. Maybe I'm missing something...

+100

You guys are arguing the same thing

I don't disagree with LST's two points or Hockey's post above. The "argument" - if you can call it that - is around Cool's sensitivity to anything negative said about Zach and requesting that I put a moratorium on it, as if he should somehow be immune to criticism. I didn't know 13th picks in the draft earning millions per year should never be criticized for their play or be objectively evaluated.