Game Report - Wolves v Kings

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Drew, Some of those pictures are a little deceiving because if someone is standing closer to the camera, they will appear a bit taller.

The summer prior to Wiggins' freshman year at Kansas, he was measured at 6'8" in shoes, which means he's about 6'7" barefoot. His wingspan was 7'0" and he weighed 200 lbs.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if he grew another half inch to an inch since then, but I still think he probably weighs about 210 lbs. or less. If you compare him to other SGs, he's definitely long and tall. If you compare him to other starting SFs, his height and wingspan are about average, but he probably gives up 15-25 lbs.most nights.

To me, his biggest advantage is his athleticism (no shock there), especially when he's going toward the hoop. And it's not just his ability to hang in the air and make tough finishes. It's also his incredible euro-step move, which he makes look easier than anyone I've ever seen before. The thing I like about that move is it's something that will serve him well for the next 15 years.

[SameOldNudityDrew]

Drew, Some of those pictures are a little deceiving because if someone is standing closer to the camera, they will appear a bit taller.

The summer prior to Wiggins' freshman year at Kansas, he was measured at 6'8" in shoes, which means he's about 6'7" barefoot. His wingspan was 7'0" and he weighed 200 lbs.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if he grew another half inch to an inch since then, but I still think he probably weighs about 210 lbs. or less. If you compare him to other SGs, he's definitely long and tall. If you compare him to other starting SFs, his height and wingspan are about average, but he probably gives up 15-25 lbs.most nights.

To me, his biggest advantage is his athleticism (no shock there), especially when he's going toward the hoop. And it's not just his ability to hang in the air and make tough finishes. It's also his incredible euro-step move, which he makes look easier than anyone I've ever seen before. The thing I like about that move is it's something that will serve him well for the next 15 years.

Hey Q!

On the first bold point, I totally agree. I couldn't find any better ones for the first few. But check out that last pic with him and the 6' 6" Muhammad from this week. From the angle Wiggins is standing, you can tell he's closer to the camera, so he should look even taller. But he really only looks about an inch taller to me (maybe 2 if you count the hair).

One possible way to check in the future: Payne was measured at 6'9" with a 7" wingspan. Does Wiggins look as tall as Payne, and is his wingspan equal or even longer (if he grew an inch, his wingspan might be longer too)? Check when they are standing next to each other.

Maybe I'm the crazy one, and if so, I wonder why I can't see that he's now 6'9". But maybe not, and in which case I wonder why we have come to think Wiggins is taller than he looks.


I like how you turn to his play in the second point because what matters is his performance--what he does with all 6'8/9" of himself. And I've been impressed with the same things you mentioned Q, his finishing with contact and with the Eurostep. His outside shooting has been an issue, obviously, and his handles. And it was refreshingly nice to see him get more rebounds the other night, a reminder that he should be getting more. But it's exciting to see this guy develop. And some of these other guys too.

[m4gor [enjin:6667447]]

Wiggins has SF size. He's 6'9 with long arms and springs in his legs and at age 20 he's definitely going to fill out and get a lot stronger.

This is a minor point, but it's weird enough I think it's worth mentioning. Andrew Wiggins seems to have grown an inch in our minds but I don't actually see it in real life (unless you are counting his hair). I was excited when people started talking about Wiggins having grown an inch over the summer, but whenever he's standing next to another guy who is 6'9" or even 6'8" this season he always looks an inch or so shorter to me. I was thinking that last night when he was guarding Gay in particular. I thought the same about Wiggins and Melo the other day, and about Wiggins and Faried. Am I crazy, or is Wiggins still an inch shorter than Gay, and definitely no taller than Melo and Faried? Gay, Melo, and Faried are all 6'8" and Wiggins definitely looks an inch or so shorter than them. I'm not saying this to criticize, I just think it's a rumor that we've somehow started to take as a fact. And I don't think it really matters that much, but I think it's just a little weird.

Lip, you're the kind of the overhead reach. Do you know what Wiggins' wingspan is compared to other guys 6'8" or 6'9"?

A couple of these pics might be from last year, so they may not be proof, but I don't think he's quite as tall as those guys, Gay in particular. And Bazz is listed at 6'6". Check out the pics from just this past week. Again, this is a minor thing, but I just think it's weird that Wiggins somehow grew an inch in our minds because of something somebody said this summer but in real life, he looks the same size.

Edit: freaking hyperlinks didn't work, so I'm posting the whole addresses here. ....

To your question, Wiggins is more like 6'7 actually, if I remember correctly in all his predraft measurements he always refused to be measured barefoot, Rudy Gay is true 6'8 in shoes so you have valid comparisons there

To second part, average nba player has wingspan/height ratio of 1.05 so 80 inches (6'8 ) * 1.05 = 84 inches (7'0) wingspan, btw. Rudy Gay has 7'3+ wingspan

Shortly, Wiggins is average sized SF, in SG position though he can really leverage some big length disparity, the rule of thumb always was that you are what you can defend so Wiggins should play SG

btw. Bazz is one of smallest 6'6 guys out there, he is like 6'4 barefoot, that is why he dropped that much in draft and would drop even more if Flip would not grab him, Tayshun is true 6'9 so compare Wig with him if you think he is 6'9 as well

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Let's just call Andrew tall and long enough to play either wing position and leave it at that. The real issue for him physically isn't length, but bulk. He can be overpowered by bigger wings. As a 2, this is less likely to happen. I'm also not sure how much more weight his frame can hold. He's got more of an old-school wiry strength versus the type of bulked up look we see from so many players these days (see my reference to Gallinari earlier).

[thedoper]

Let's just call Andrew tall and long enough to play either wing position and leave it at that. The real issue for him physically isn't length, but bulk. He can be overpowered by bigger wings. As a 2, this is less likely to happen. I'm also not sure how much more weight his frame can hold. He's got more of an old-school wiry strength versus the type of bulked up look we see from so many players these days (see my reference to Gallinari earlier).

This is why I think he is better as a 2. He can totally dominate both sides of the ball as a 2. As a 3 he is effective but can get out muscled by bulkier 3s.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Let's just call Andrew tall and long enough to play either wing position and leave it at that. The real issue for him physically isn't length, but bulk. He can be overpowered by bigger wings. As a 2, this is less likely to happen. I'm also not sure how much more weight his frame can hold. He's got more of an old-school wiry strength versus the type of bulked up look we see from so many players these days (see my reference to Gallinari earlier).

This is why I think he is better as a 2. He can totally dominate both sides of the ball as a 2. As a 3 he is effective but can get out muscled by bulkier 3s.

This is the argument that I don't get. The difference between Wiggins at the 2 and 3 just isn't that big. There are top level players at both spots the can bully him and win that matchup. He can be effective at both spots. So does it not make sense then to think of who his wing partner is to determine where he should play? Shouldn't the best of Lavine/Bazz/Martin/Prince be determined and then Wiggins plays wherever he needs to based on that? It doesn't make sense to try to get a small edge for Wiggins if it means a bigger drop off for the spot next to him because you're restricting who he plays with. I.e. it doesn't make sense to start Wiggins against McCullom for the Blazers because Zach can win that matchup and Aminu isn't a big enough threat offensively to warrant Prince needing to guard him over Wiggins and Prince is a big drop off offensively from Zach. Where Wiggins plays should be determined by our other wings and their capabilities against opposing lineups more than whether or not Wiggins can play slightly better. Wiggins is interchangeable. We should be focusing on how we can win the other wing matchup and not pigeon hole ourselves for a small benefit.

[thedoper]

Let's just call Andrew tall and long enough to play either wing position and leave it at that. The real issue for him physically isn't length, but bulk. He can be overpowered by bigger wings. As a 2, this is less likely to happen. I'm also not sure how much more weight his frame can hold. He's got more of an old-school wiry strength versus the type of bulked up look we see from so many players these days (see my reference to Gallinari earlier).

This is why I think he is better as a 2. He can totally dominate both sides of the ball as a 2. As a 3 he is effective but can get out muscled by bulkier 3s.

This is the argument that I don't get. The difference between Wiggins at the 2 and 3 just isn't that big. There are top level players at both spots the can bully him and win that matchup. He can be effective at both spots. So does it not make sense then to think of who his wing partner is to determine where he should play? Shouldn't the best of Lavine/Bazz/Martin/Prince be determined and then Wiggins plays wherever he needs to based on that? It doesn't make sense to try to get a small edge for Wiggins if it means a bigger drop off for the spot next to him because you're restricting who he plays with. I.e. it doesn't make sense to start Wiggins against McCullom for the Blazers because Zach can win that matchup and Aminu isn't a big enough threat offensively to warrant Prince needing to guard him over Wiggins and Prince is a big drop off offensively from Zach. Where Wiggins plays should be determined by our other wings and their capabilities against opposing lineups more than whether or not Wiggins can play slightly better. Wiggins is interchangeable. We should be focusing on how we can win the other wing matchup and not pigeon hole ourselves for a small benefit.

I can't think of any 2s that win that matchup from a physically dominant perspective. Can you name one? I also think that overall Bazz at the 3 and Wiggins at the 2 offers more matchup issues. But overall you are right, if a team is starting a small 2 throw Lavine out there for long stretches. But that is usually the exception to the rule. Either way minutes are going to be a problem to really get a good look at these lineups as long as Martin is getting run.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Let's just call Andrew tall and long enough to play either wing position and leave it at that. The real issue for him physically isn't length, but bulk. He can be overpowered by bigger wings. As a 2, this is less likely to happen. I'm also not sure how much more weight his frame can hold. He's got more of an old-school wiry strength versus the type of bulked up look we see from so many players these days (see my reference to Gallinari earlier).

This is why I think he is better as a 2. He can totally dominate both sides of the ball as a 2. As a 3 he is effective but can get out muscled by bulkier 3s.

This is the argument that I don't get. The difference between Wiggins at the 2 and 3 just isn't that big. There are top level players at both spots the can bully him and win that matchup. He can be effective at both spots. So does it not make sense then to think of who his wing partner is to determine where he should play? Shouldn't the best of Lavine/Bazz/Martin/Prince be determined and then Wiggins plays wherever he needs to based on that? It doesn't make sense to try to get a small edge for Wiggins if it means a bigger drop off for the spot next to him because you're restricting who he plays with. I.e. it doesn't make sense to start Wiggins against McCullom for the Blazers because Zach can win that matchup and Aminu isn't a big enough threat offensively to warrant Prince needing to guard him over Wiggins and Prince is a big drop off offensively from Zach. Where Wiggins plays should be determined by our other wings and their capabilities against opposing lineups more than whether or not Wiggins can play slightly better. Wiggins is interchangeable. We should be focusing on how we can win the other wing matchup and not pigeon hole ourselves for a small benefit.

I can't think of any 2s that win that matchup from a physically dominant perspective. Can you name one? I also think that overall Bazz at the 3 and Wiggins at the 2 offers more matchup issues. But overall you are right, if a team is starting a small 2 throw Lavine out there for long stretches. But that is usually the exception to the rule. Either way minutes are going to be a problem to really get a good look at these lineups as long as Martin is getting run.

Harden, Thompson, Derozan, Butler, Matthews, Wade. There's 6 who can and some have bullied Wiggins at times.

[thedoper]

Let's just call Andrew tall and long enough to play either wing position and leave it at that. The real issue for him physically isn't length, but bulk. He can be overpowered by bigger wings. As a 2, this is less likely to happen. I'm also not sure how much more weight his frame can hold. He's got more of an old-school wiry strength versus the type of bulked up look we see from so many players these days (see my reference to Gallinari earlier).

This is why I think he is better as a 2. He can totally dominate both sides of the ball as a 2. As a 3 he is effective but can get out muscled by bulkier 3s.

This is the argument that I don't get. The difference between Wiggins at the 2 and 3 just isn't that big. There are top level players at both spots the can bully him and win that matchup. He can be effective at both spots. So does it not make sense then to think of who his wing partner is to determine where he should play? Shouldn't the best of Lavine/Bazz/Martin/Prince be determined and then Wiggins plays wherever he needs to based on that? It doesn't make sense to try to get a small edge for Wiggins if it means a bigger drop off for the spot next to him because you're restricting who he plays with. I.e. it doesn't make sense to start Wiggins against McCullom for the Blazers because Zach can win that matchup and Aminu isn't a big enough threat offensively to warrant Prince needing to guard him over Wiggins and Prince is a big drop off offensively from Zach. Where Wiggins plays should be determined by our other wings and their capabilities against opposing lineups more than whether or not Wiggins can play slightly better. Wiggins is interchangeable. We should be focusing on how we can win the other wing matchup and not pigeon hole ourselves for a small benefit.

I can't think of any 2s that win that matchup from a physically dominant perspective. Can you name one? I also think that overall Bazz at the 3 and Wiggins at the 2 offers more matchup issues. But overall you are right, if a team is starting a small 2 throw Lavine out there for long stretches. But that is usually the exception to the rule. Either way minutes are going to be a problem to really get a good look at these lineups as long as Martin is getting run.

Harden, Thompson, Derozan, Butler, Matthews, Wade. There's 6 who can and some have bullied Wiggins at times.

See I disagree that those guys "bully" him. They score on him, but they score on anyone. Those 6 would humiliate Lavine which is why Wiggins ends up guarding them anyway.

[thedoper]

Wiggins really bullied Butler and Wade in game 2 against the heat. I take him in a matchup with Matthews any day too.