James Wiseman

[Monster]

He has torn his minscus

I saw video of the play a little while ago. That was a heck of a block by Keyon Martin Jr. obviously it's too bad that Wiseman got hurt.

[BloopOracle]

Since Wiseman's injury, the Warriors are ranked #1 in net rating. #1 in defensive rating. #4 in offensive rating

Including that Rockets game, the warriors are 7-2 since Wiseman's injury.

They ended up with 116.7 OFFRTG, 104.9 DEFRTG, and 11.8 NETRTG in the 9 games stretch.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Since Wiseman's injury, the Warriors are ranked #1 in net rating. #1 in defensive rating. #4 in offensive rating

Including that Rockets game, the warriors are 7-2 since Wiseman's injury.

They ended up with 116.7 OFFRTG, 104.9 DEFRTG, and 11.8 NETRTG in the 9 games stretch.

Exhibit A in why playing young rookies generally hurts a team. And I was a Wiseman fan at the time of the draft!

[FNG]

Since Wiseman's injury, the Warriors are ranked #1 in net rating. #1 in defensive rating. #4 in offensive rating

Including that Rockets game, the warriors are 7-2 since Wiseman's injury.

They ended up with 116.7 OFFRTG, 104.9 DEFRTG, and 11.8 NETRTG in the 9 games stretch.

Exhibit A in why playing young rookies generally hurts a team. And I was a Wiseman fan at the time of the draft!

Wiseman will be fine...if he's healthy, he'll be a poor man's Evan Mobley I think. But to Q's point about the value of rookies, here are the only rookies with positive on/off numbers per 100 possessions:

Immanuel Quickley 8.1
Isaiah Stewart 4.8
Jaden McDaniels 2.1
Dani Avdija 1.9
Kira Lewis Jr. .9
Anthony Edwards .6
Saddiq Bey .1

That's it...only 7 out of the 60 drafted are positive, and the Wolves have 2 of them! Is that a credit to Rosas' drafting, or coaching...or a little of both?

Some names that were mentioned in the draft thread here:
Tyrese Haliburton (2.8)
Precious Achiuwa (10.2)
Patrick Williams (12.7)
Tyrese Maxey (15.8)
James Wiseman (16)
Onyeka Okongwu (21.2)

So yeah, you generally don't expect rookies to have a positive impact in their first year.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Since Wiseman's injury, the Warriors are ranked #1 in net rating. #1 in defensive rating. #4 in offensive rating

Including that Rockets game, the warriors are 7-2 since Wiseman's injury.

They ended up with 116.7 OFFRTG, 104.9 DEFRTG, and 11.8 NETRTG in the 9 games stretch.

Exhibit A in why playing young rookies generally hurts a team. And I was a Wiseman fan at the time of the draft!

Wiseman will be fine...if he's healthy, he'll be a poor man's Evan Mobley I think. But to Q's point about the value of rookies, here are the only rookies with positive on/off numbers per 100 possessions:

Immanuel Quickley 8.1
Isaiah Stewart 4.8
Jaden McDaniels 2.1
Dani Avdija 1.9
Kira Lewis Jr. .9
Anthony Edwards .6
Saddiq Bey .1

That's it...only 7 out of the 60 drafted are positive, and the Wolves have 2 of them! Is that a credit to Rosas' drafting, or coaching...or a little of both?

Some names that were mentioned in the draft thread here:
Tyrese Haliburton (2.8)
Precious Achiuwa (10.2)
Patrick Williams (12.7)
Tyrese Maxey (15.8)
James Wiseman (16)
Onyeka Okongwu (21.2)

So yeah, you generally don't expect rookies to have a positive impact in their first year.

I discussed this earlier in another thread. You're using ONE stat. There are many, many statistics that show that some of those "positive" guys have actually hurt their teams significantly, including Edwards.

That's the rub with putting too much stock into one statistic... especially one where there's so much noise.

[FNG]

Since Wiseman's injury, the Warriors are ranked #1 in net rating. #1 in defensive rating. #4 in offensive rating

Including that Rockets game, the warriors are 7-2 since Wiseman's injury.

They ended up with 116.7 OFFRTG, 104.9 DEFRTG, and 11.8 NETRTG in the 9 games stretch.

Exhibit A in why playing young rookies generally hurts a team. And I was a Wiseman fan at the time of the draft!

Wiseman will be fine...if he's healthy, he'll be a poor man's Evan Mobley I think. But to Q's point about the value of rookies, here are the only rookies with positive on/off numbers per 100 possessions:

Immanuel Quickley 8.1
Isaiah Stewart 4.8
Jaden McDaniels 2.1
Dani Avdija 1.9
Kira Lewis Jr. .9
Anthony Edwards .6
Saddiq Bey .1

That's it...only 7 out of the 60 drafted are positive, and the Wolves have 2 of them! Is that a credit to Rosas' drafting, or coaching...or a little of both?

Some names that were mentioned in the draft thread here:
Tyrese Haliburton (2.8)
Precious Achiuwa (10.2)
Patrick Williams (12.7)
Tyrese Maxey (15.8)
James Wiseman (16)
Onyeka Okongwu (21.2)

So yeah, you generally don't expect rookies to have a positive impact in their first year.

I discussed this earlier in another thread. You're using ONE stat. There are many, many statistics that show that some of those "positive" guys have actually hurt their teams significantly, including Edwards.

That's the rub with putting too much stock into one statistic... especially one where there's so much noise.

I gotta admit, abe...I don't understand stats like Vorp, win shares, and expected wins (a stat that Cleaning the Glass uses). I'm a simple man, and if I can't calculate a stat for a particular player or even give the formula for how it is calculated, it doesn't mean much to me...I have the same issue with some of the new baseball stats. At the end of the day, the team that ends up with more points on the scoreboard than the other team is awarded the victory. So to me it's meaningful if a team does better when Player A is on the court than when he is off. So yeah, I'm going to view a guy with a positive on/off like McDaniels more favorably than I'm going to view a guy with a big negative like Patrick Williams. But I get that some people prefer VORP and by all means, VORP away! Even though I don't get the stat, I'd be interested in how this year's rookies stack up using it.

(By the way, Nikola Jokic leads the NBA in this mysterious VORP stat, and LeBron leads the league in best on/off. I like Jokic a lot, but if I have to pick one player of the two to lead my team in game 7 of the NBA finals, it ain't gonna be him!)

[AbeVigodaLive]

Since Wiseman's injury, the Warriors are ranked #1 in net rating. #1 in defensive rating. #4 in offensive rating

Including that Rockets game, the warriors are 7-2 since Wiseman's injury.

They ended up with 116.7 OFFRTG, 104.9 DEFRTG, and 11.8 NETRTG in the 9 games stretch.

Exhibit A in why playing young rookies generally hurts a team. And I was a Wiseman fan at the time of the draft!

Wiseman will be fine...if he's healthy, he'll be a poor man's Evan Mobley I think. But to Q's point about the value of rookies, here are the only rookies with positive on/off numbers per 100 possessions:

Immanuel Quickley 8.1
Isaiah Stewart 4.8
Jaden McDaniels 2.1
Dani Avdija 1.9
Kira Lewis Jr. .9
Anthony Edwards .6
Saddiq Bey .1

That's it...only 7 out of the 60 drafted are positive, and the Wolves have 2 of them! Is that a credit to Rosas' drafting, or coaching...or a little of both?

Some names that were mentioned in the draft thread here:
Tyrese Haliburton (2.8)
Precious Achiuwa (10.2)
Patrick Williams (12.7)
Tyrese Maxey (15.8)
James Wiseman (16)
Onyeka Okongwu (21.2)

So yeah, you generally don't expect rookies to have a positive impact in their first year.

I discussed this earlier in another thread. You're using ONE stat. There are many, many statistics that show that some of those "positive" guys have actually hurt their teams significantly, including Edwards.

That's the rub with putting too much stock into one statistic... especially one where there's so much noise.

I gotta admit, abe...I don't understand stats like Vorp, win shares, and expected wins (a stat that Cleaning the Glass uses). I'm a simple man, and if I can't calculate a stat for a particular player or even give the formula for how it is calculated, it doesn't mean much to me...I have the same issue with some of the new baseball stats. At the end of the day, the team that ends up with more points on the scoreboard than the other team is awarded the victory. So to me it's meaningful if a team does better when Player A is on the court than when he is off. So yeah, I'm going to view a guy with a positive on/off like McDaniels more favorably than I'm going to view a guy with a big negative like Patrick Williams. But I get that some people prefer VORP and by all means, VORP away! Even though I don't get the stat, I'd be interested in how this year's rookies stack up using it.

(By the way, Nikola Jokic leads the NBA in this mysterious VORP stat, and LeBron leads the league in best on/off. I like Jokic a lot, but if I have to pick one player of the two to lead my team in game 7 of the NBA finals, it ain't gonna be him!)

So you'd rather use a stat that relies on 11+ other players than go with multiple stats that show an individual's impact/success?

That's the beauty of statistics. I've joked previously that with enough time and commitment I could even find one to prove Rashad McCants wasn't really the devil... maybe. But it's not like I'm using crazy stats. You could also use PER, FG%, TS%, ORTG, DRTG, OBPM, DBPM, BPM, 3fg% or other stats to point to Edwards having an uneven season (overall) that has NOT helped a terrible team win many games.

As for Jokic vs. James... I think ALL of us would take James over Jokic in a Game 7. But that's largely irrelevant. It doesn't mean we should pretend that James is posting better stats this season. It's pretty cut-and-dried on that one.

[kekgeek]

Since Wiseman's injury, the Warriors are ranked #1 in net rating. #1 in defensive rating. #4 in offensive rating

Including that Rockets game, the warriors are 7-2 since Wiseman's injury.

They ended up with 116.7 OFFRTG, 104.9 DEFRTG, and 11.8 NETRTG in the 9 games stretch.

Exhibit A in why playing young rookies generally hurts a team. And I was a Wiseman fan at the time of the draft!

Wiseman will be fine...if he's healthy, he'll be a poor man's Evan Mobley I think. But to Q's point about the value of rookies, here are the only rookies with positive on/off numbers per 100 possessions:

Immanuel Quickley 8.1
Isaiah Stewart 4.8
Jaden McDaniels 2.1
Dani Avdija 1.9
Kira Lewis Jr. .9
Anthony Edwards .6
Saddiq Bey .1

That's it...only 7 out of the 60 drafted are positive, and the Wolves have 2 of them! Is that a credit to Rosas' drafting, or coaching...or a little of both?

Some names that were mentioned in the draft thread here:
Tyrese Haliburton (2.8)
Precious Achiuwa (10.2)
Patrick Williams (12.7)
Tyrese Maxey (15.8)
James Wiseman (16)
Onyeka Okongwu (21.2)

So yeah, you generally don't expect rookies to have a positive impact in their first year.

I discussed this earlier in another thread. You're using ONE stat. There are many, many statistics that show that some of those "positive" guys have actually hurt their teams significantly, including Edwards.

That's the rub with putting too much stock into one statistic... especially one where there's so much noise.

I gotta admit, abe...I don't understand stats like Vorp, win shares, and expected wins (a stat that Cleaning the Glass uses). I'm a simple man, and if I can't calculate a stat for a particular player or even give the formula for how it is calculated, it doesn't mean much to me...I have the same issue with some of the new baseball stats. At the end of the day, the team that ends up with more points on the scoreboard than the other team is awarded the victory. So to me it's meaningful if a team does better when Player A is on the court than when he is off. So yeah, I'm going to view a guy with a positive on/off like McDaniels more favorably than I'm going to view a guy with a big negative like Patrick Williams. But I get that some people prefer VORP and by all means, VORP away! Even though I don't get the stat, I'd be interested in how this year's rookies stack up using it.

(By the way, Nikola Jokic leads the NBA in this mysterious VORP stat, and LeBron leads the league in best on/off. I like Jokic a lot, but if I have to pick one player of the two to lead my team in game 7 of the NBA finals, it ain't gonna be him!)

There is so much noise in On/Off numbers. Like how much is Ant positive on/off numbers due to him playing a ton with Kat. In no way am I saying that Ant sucks and I think Ant has been a lot better as the season has gone on and I think he could be special. But lineups that Ant has played with Kat this year have been outscored by 3 pts per 100 possessions. So not great but ok. The thing is when Kat is not in the floor with Ant. Those lineups are being outscored by 14.3 pts per 100 possessions. So lineups that are involving Ant there is a 11.3 pts per 100 possessions difference when Ant is playing with Kat, compared to not playing with Kat. In all of lineups that involve Kat, 78.5% of those lineups have Ant on the floor with Kat. So that is a significant amount. I can make a big case that the reason Ant has a positive on/off number is because 1st the Wolves bench sucks and 2nd that Ant is playing a lot with Kat so Kat raises that number with Ant.

Now a argument can be made that Ant and Kat play pretty well together and that is a positive sign but when Kat is not on the floor with Ant it has been terrible for Ant and the wolves this season.

*This has nothing to do with the future prospects of Ant and how he could help winning in the future. I will say though Ant has been a net negative this year when it comes to winning basketball. What is fine he is a rookie and he is getting better as the season goes on but he has been a net negative and On/Off numbers are so noisy.

[FNG]

I think we can all agree most stats have a lot of noise in them. I'm a big fan of eFG%, but if a player regularly plays with a PG who spoon feeds him, he's likely to have a better eFG% than a player who has to create his own offense. My biggest problem with the more complicated supposedly comprehensive stats is that they struggle with factoring in defense. Or they try so hard to be creative only a propeller head can understand it. I just took a look at the VORP formula...OMFG! Now I know why I don't put much stock in it! But I have no problem with anyone who loves it...frankly, it just makes my head spin. You guys are right that pure on/off numbers are impacted by who you're playing with, but over time I find things tend to average out. On/off is simple to be sure, but it's also the only stat that is based on the meaning of the game...to outscore your opponent. And over time guys who excel in this stat tend to be winners.

You guys can knock yourself out with your VORPs and your win shares...to each their own. I'm going to keep it simple and focus on the scoreboard. And now...I'm off to Target Center to try to calculate a few VORPs in my head real time!

[AbeVigodaLive]

I think we can all agree most stats have a lot of noise in them. I'm a big fan of eFG%, but if a player regularly plays with a PG who spoon feeds him, he's likely to have a better eFG% than a player who has to create his own offense. My biggest problem with the more complicated supposedly comprehensive stats is that they struggle with factoring in defense. Or they try so hard to be creative only a propeller head can understand it. I just took a look at the VORP formula...OMFG! Now I know why I don't put much stock in it! But I have no problem with anyone who loves it...frankly, it just makes my head spin. You guys are right that pure on/off numbers are impacted by who you're playing with, but over time I find things tend to average out. On/off is simple to be sure, but it's also the only stat that is based on the meaning of the game...to outscore your opponent. And over time guys who excel in this stat tend to be winners.

You guys can knock yourself out with your VORPs and your win shares...to each their own. I'm going to keep it simple and focus on the scoreboard. And now...I'm off to Target Center to try to calculate a few VORPs in my head real time!

Are you messing with us a little bit here?

You keep mentioning VORP. I listed about 10 other stats. And that's sort of my point...

If virtually every other stat (whether you like them or not, whether you understand them or not, whether they're good or not) suggests one thing... but you're clinging to the one and only stat that suggests something else (and it depends on 11+ other players while doing so!)... it seems a bit disingenuous to keep using it to support a narrative about a player.

There is no perfect stat. There is no tell-all stat. That's why you have to look at several stats before jumping to conclusions and viewing each one with the proverbial grain of salt.

In the end, if 10 out of 11 stats are pointing one way... you're probably on the right track the vast majority of the time.

As for those VORP rankings you really don't like:

1. Jokic
2. Giannis
3. Curry
4. Doncic
5. Vucevic !!!
6. Butler
7. Leonard
8. Williamson
9. Embiid
10. James
11. Lillard
12. Randle
13. Harden
14. Abedayo
15. Gobert
16. Paul
17. Irving
18. LaVine
19. Tatum
20. Beal

Perfect? Not at all. As noted, there is no perfect stat. And maybe this one is entirely flawed... dunno. But after looking it more, I was actually surprised how it reflects almost all of the top 20 players being considered top 20 players.