Carlos Danger wrote:Khans, thanks for posting. The portion of the article I could read did state it was biased towards players who have already had positive NBA production under their belts. I'm fine with the rankings. The Wolve have some exciting young guys, but still have a lot to prove. Let's see if Wiggins/LaVine can take that next step in efficiency and hope Towns can live up to his hype as well. Then I think you'll see more respect given towards the Wolves. It's nothing that really ruffles my feathers at this point because I realize we are still living on hope vs. actual production for most of our young guys.
If it's based on production how are the Sixers 6 and Wolves 15? These rankings are really subjective but that just seems a little bizarre. Oh well
It was just their methodology (I think they used projected 3 year WARP or something). It means nothing. It's just one way to create a ranking. The proof is always in the pudding. I don't expect too much love considering we finished with the worst record in the NBA last year.
Alright thanks that makes sense.
Why would the guy write the article if he didn't believe it was that good of a future predictor? What is the point of using all these future predictors if the results don't back up the model?
Carlos Danger wrote:Khans, thanks for posting. The portion of the article I could read did state it was biased towards players who have already had positive NBA production under their belts. I'm fine with the rankings. The Wolve have some exciting young guys, but still have a lot to prove. Let's see if Wiggins/LaVine can take that next step in efficiency and hope Towns can live up to his hype as well. Then I think you'll see more respect given towards the Wolves. It's nothing that really ruffles my feathers at this point because I realize we are still living on hope vs. actual production for most of our young guys.
If it's based on production how are the Sixers 6 and Wolves 15? These rankings are really subjective but that just seems a little bizarre. Oh well
It was just their methodology (I think they used projected 3 year WARP or something). It means nothing. It's just one way to create a ranking. The proof is always in the pudding. I don't expect too much love considering we finished with the worst record in the NBA last year.
Alright thanks that makes sense.
Why would the guy write the article if he didn't believe it was that good of a future predictor? What is the point of using all these future predictors if the results don't back up the model?
Clicks?
It's an insider article locked behind a pay wall. Do they get clicks even if you can't read the article?
Carlos Danger wrote:Khans, thanks for posting. The portion of the article I could read did state it was biased towards players who have already had positive NBA production under their belts. I'm fine with the rankings. The Wolve have some exciting young guys, but still have a lot to prove. Let's see if Wiggins/LaVine can take that next step in efficiency and hope Towns can live up to his hype as well. Then I think you'll see more respect given towards the Wolves. It's nothing that really ruffles my feathers at this point because I realize we are still living on hope vs. actual production for most of our young guys.
If it's based on production how are the Sixers 6 and Wolves 15? These rankings are really subjective but that just seems a little bizarre. Oh well
It was just their methodology (I think they used projected 3 year WARP or something). It means nothing. It's just one way to create a ranking. The proof is always in the pudding. I don't expect too much love considering we finished with the worst record in the NBA last year.
Alright thanks that makes sense.
Why would the guy write the article if he didn't believe it was that good of a future predictor? What is the point of using all these future predictors if the results don't back up the model?
Clicks?
It's an insider article locked behind a pay wall. Do they get clicks even if you can't read the article?
Well it's still there and they still need content to get people to visit. Maybe that's the article that gets some sad sucker to pay up plus page views etc might have something to do with ads etc. I doubt they did the article just for clicks though. :)
Q12543 wrote:Agree with Carlos and it's exactly why I think we are still a far cry from the playoffs in the West. Right now our Potential co-efficient is much larger than our Results co-efficient. Since his formula appears to be built off of some baseline of current performance, we aren't going to do too well in this. Even Wiggins had a below average season, despite winning ROY.
I hope all of our players have below average seasons if that's the case.
It's just an article to create some buzz/talk. The fans of the teams that scored well can pound their chest. The fans of the teams that scored poorly can complain that it's flawed. It just creates buzz. Later this week, someone else will write an article touting the Wolves as "one of the teams most likely to surprise" or something similar. There are a million writers out there and they all just throw stuff out there to get clicks or in this case entice people to pay a fee to read the full article to see how their team did.
Phenom's_Revenge wrote:Even if you agree with the list, would you trade the Wolves core with any of the others?
I don't agree with the list. But I'd trade our roster for the Bucks.
I follow the Bucks very closely because they used to be my team pre-Wolves. I might trade them for the next year or two. But longer term the Wolves are the better option. That being said, I hope you're right about the Bucks. But they just don't have anybody who is going to be top 10 in the league. The Wolves have at least one guy who will, maybe two. It's a star driven league.
Phenom's_Revenge wrote:Even if you agree with the list, would you trade the Wolves core with any of the others?
I don't agree with the list. But I'd trade our roster for the Bucks.
I follow the Bucks very closely because they used to be my team pre-Wolves. I might trade them for the next year or two. But longer term the Wolves are the better option. That being said, I hope you're right about the Bucks. But they just don't have anybody who is going to be top 10 in the league. The Wolves have at least one guy who will, maybe two. It's a star driven league.
The Bucks are the only one I think about, I do like the Magic young core also but I would take the wolves over them.
