Minnesota Sports Forum

CoolBreeze44 wrote:I wonder how you would have done one of these critiques for Larry Bird after 25 games. Talk about a Debbie Downer. Things aren't nearly this bad or bleak, particularly for a 19 year old player like Zach. He's been a pleasant surprise in a season full of bad luck and disappointment. I'm wondering if you've actually watched the games, or if you are just reading your advanced metrics. Lighten up Q.

Larry Bird averaged 21 / 10 / 5 as a rookie. He was a catalyst for a turnaround that saw a 29-win team win 61 games.
I understand you're using hyperbole here... just pointing out some facts.

I think Q was more than generous in his assessment. I know many here are fans of Britt Robson's work. Good thing he wasn't in charge of the LaVine write-up. The defense deficiency section would have probably been twice as long.

Making definitive evaluations about players 20 games into their careers is very dicey. Giving an honest assessment (whether they're playing well or like crap) after 20 games in entirely different. How long is it ok to wait until we say "you know, that guy is playing poorly right now."...?

They're getting paid to be professional basketball players. They can take it the criticism. I don't understand why fans get more upset by it than the players.

Camden0916 wrote:khans, two things.

1. This is Q's early season evaluation. He's been fair on all accords based on what our players have done to this point (December).. You said it's not fair to judge LaVine (and Wiggins) until they fill out their frames. You more than likely feel the same about Bennett in that we have to wait for him to... I don't know... whatever excuse there is for him now. So, what are to do until that happens? Are we not to discuss their play, both positive and negative? My opinion s that Q's been very fair in each evaluation.

2. " If Wiggins and Zach can have an offseason like Bazz and Bennett to build their frames" -- I'm gonna nitpick/clarify something here. Bazz and Bennett didn't build their frames necessarily. They lost weight/extra bulk that was unnecessary to have for them. That weight loss is a likely component as to why they're more explosive and quicker this year. Wiggins and LaVine need to bulk up somewhat. I don't know if you're a workout guy or not, but it's much easier to shred than it is to bulk with muscle, especially for guys that are naturally lean. LaVine's talked about it before: how he's been in the weight room trying to add weight, and has gotten stronger, but hasn't added bulk. I assume the same is true for Wiggins. I'm not saying that they won't add bulk, but it might be three/four years from now before they get to their man bodies, per say.

I don't have any quarrel with the reports themselves. They are all true for an evaluation of 20+ games. The problem is they are irrelevant for any player who hasn't been in the league for 2 full years while playing their 3rd for a minimum experience level. That's been the year guys have shown who they are going to be as a player. That is the year they have the consistency to show who they are most likely to be as a player. Before that point it is all about flashes of good play because the consistency doesn't really develop until at least that third year. Look at Anthony Davis. He showed flashes his first two years, but lacked consistency. Guess what has happened for him this season? He's playing his most consistent basketball and that is why he has made the jump to top 5 player in the league. He also went from being a twig to actually having some muscle mass. That is another big reason he has been able to be more consistent. His body is now built enough to handle the day in and day out grind of an NBA player. During the summer league it was said that an NBA offseason warrants the time to put on about 15 pounds of muscle for young guys to get in better shape.

As far as Bazz and Bennett go, they were in a Navy Seal training program, not a marathon. They didn't just run the weight off. You actually have to build muscle to be able to cut down that much that quickly. I seriously doubt they would say they just cut weight and aren't any stronger. When Blake Griffin went through a similar training program a few years ago, he got much stronger in addition to stripping some weight. I get that Q wants to take a look at the whole team 20 games in, but half the players on the team aren't going to be the same players in a year or two when they are strong enough and consistent enough to show who they are really going to be. The grades are incomplete just like the players are incomplete. Once they develop the physical tools that a lot of players get from NBA strength and conditioning programs I think they are going to be much more consistent and better than they are now. Hence why I think it is just too early to evaluate half this team.

Career High for Lavine is 28 points and how many double doubles does he have 1 or 2? I say that's pretty good, and alot to work with for a rookie. I mean would you rather have lavine or Dante Exum? Since this is an Evaluation page I like both the good and bad from him since I thought he was only going to play 5-9 games this season, but due to injuries that changed and he outperformed my very low expectations.

OK, now I am going to get a bit speculative....

I believe the outlines of a player are pretty well formed by the time they are in their late teens/early 20s. What I mean by that is while there may not be great consistency yet and certain skills require further refinement, their core identity as a player can be assessed fairly quickly.

The purpose of the write-ups is not to identify that core identity, but I do get at it a little bit when I talk about their tendencies (both good and bad). The idea that somehow these young guys are lumps of clay that can be molded into something completely different two or three years from now doesn't jibe with historical reality of most top prospects.

Let's take Anthony Davis. Of course, he is a much better player now than he was as a rookie. But has his core identity really changed? He's doing the very things he was doing fairly well as a rookie, but now he's just better at them.

As a 19- year old rookie with one year of college (in other words, he was the exact same age and experience as Wiggins and LaVine), he averaged 17 points on 51% shooting, 10 rebounds, 1.2 Asts, 1.5 Stls, and 2.2 blks per game. His WS/48 was .159 and his PER was 21.7. He not only showed a ton of potential, he actually realized that potential by producing some impressive results on the court. Has his game really completely transformed since then or did he only get better at things he was already good at?

Let's take someone closer to home:Shabazz Muhammed. How has his game fundamentally transformed? It hasn't at all in my opinion. He's doubled-down on the things he was already pretty good at: Interior scoring, offensive rebounding, and off-the-ball movement. Yes, he's a slightly better passer and defender, but those are certainly not strengths. I have a hard time seeing him ever be an elite playmaker or lockdown defender.

As for LaVine, Wiggins, Bennett, Shabazz, and Dieng, while we don't know what their ultimate ceiling will be, we can certainly start establishing the outlines of each player based on both his NCAA and NBA experience.

To suggest that what we are seeing today is totally irrelevant to the future doesn't mesh with reality in my opinion.

khans2k5 wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:khans, two things.

1. This is Q's early season evaluation. He's been fair on all accords based on what our players have done to this point (December).. You said it's not fair to judge LaVine (and Wiggins) until they fill out their frames. You more than likely feel the same about Bennett in that we have to wait for him to... I don't know... whatever excuse there is for him now. So, what are to do until that happens? Are we not to discuss their play, both positive and negative? My opinion s that Q's been very fair in each evaluation.

2. " If Wiggins and Zach can have an offseason like Bazz and Bennett to build their frames" -- I'm gonna nitpick/clarify something here. Bazz and Bennett didn't build their frames necessarily. They lost weight/extra bulk that was unnecessary to have for them. That weight loss is a likely component as to why they're more explosive and quicker this year. Wiggins and LaVine need to bulk up somewhat. I don't know if you're a workout guy or not, but it's much easier to shred than it is to bulk with muscle, especially for guys that are naturally lean. LaVine's talked about it before: how he's been in the weight room trying to add weight, and has gotten stronger, but hasn't added bulk. I assume the same is true for Wiggins. I'm not saying that they won't add bulk, but it might be three/four years from now before they get to their man bodies, per say.

I don't have any quarrel with the reports themselves. They are all true for an evaluation of 20+ games. The problem is they are irrelevant for any player who hasn't been in the league for 2 full years while playing their 3rd for a minimum experience level. That's been the year guys have shown who they are going to be as a player. That is the year they have the consistency to show who they are most likely to be as a player. Before that point it is all about flashes of good play because the consistency doesn't really develop until at least that third year. Look at Anthony Davis. He showed flashes his first two years, but lacked consistency. Guess what has happened for him this season? He's playing his most consistent basketball and that is why he has made the jump to top 5 player in the league. He also went from being a twig to actually having some muscle mass. That is another big reason he has been able to be more consistent. His body is now built enough to handle the day in and day out grind of an NBA player. During the summer league it was said that an NBA offseason warrants the time to put on about 15 pounds of muscle for young guys to get in better shape.

As far as Bazz and Bennett go, they were in a Navy Seal training program, not a marathon. They didn't just run the weight off. You actually have to build muscle to be able to cut down that much that quickly. I seriously doubt they would say they just cut weight and aren't any stronger. When Blake Griffin went through a similar training program a few years ago, he got much stronger in addition to stripping some weight. I get that Q wants to take a look at the whole team 20 games in, but half the players on the team aren't going to be the same players in a year or two when they are strong enough and consistent enough to show who they are really going to be. The grades are incomplete just like the players are incomplete. Once they develop the physical tools that a lot of players get from NBA strength and conditioning programs I think they are going to be much more consistent and better than they are now. Hence why I think it is just too early to evaluate half this team.

I don't think there was a single NBA insider who questioned Anthony Davis. And his improvement LAST season was extraordinary. He was one of the better players (top 10 or 15) in the entire league last season.

As a rookie, he battled nagging injuries but still showed CONSISTENT flashes of brilliance... even if his overall play wasn't as consistent as people would like. Healthier last season, he made a leap. And he's made another leap this season to one of the top 5.

You know what? That doesn't mean he couldn't or shouldn't have been assessed after 25 games. There is no golden allotted number of games that should be used to assess where a guy is. After 25 games as a rookie, Davis was an above average NBA player in almost every way.

Bottom line... you want to see young guys get better. You want their 2nd stretch of 25 games to be better than the first 25. And you want them to be better in year 2 than year 1. That's all you can realistically ask for.

Unfortunately, when it comes to on-court production, LaVine has a longer way to go to be a legit player in this league. That's fair. He's young and very raw. There's nothing wrong with pointing out how he's raw and what he needs to do to improve.

Q12543 wrote:OK, now I am going to get a bit speculative....

I believe the outlines of a player are pretty well formed by the time they are in their late teens/early 20s. What I mean by that is while there may not be great consistency yet and certain skills require further refinement, their core identity as a player can be assessed fairly quickly.

The purpose of the write-ups is not to identify that core identity, but I do get at it a little bit when I talk about their tendencies (both good and bad). The idea that somehow these young guys are lumps of clay that can be molded into something completely different two or three years from now doesn't jibe with historical reality of most top prospects.

Let's take Anthony Davis. Of course, he is a much better player now than he was as a rookie. But has his core identity really changed? He's doing the very things he was doing fairly well as a rookie, but now he's just better at them.

As a 19- year old rookie with one year of college (in other words, he was the exact same age and experience as Wiggins and LaVine), he averaged 17 points on 51% shooting, 10 rebounds, 1.2 Asts, 1.5 Stls, and 2.2 blks per game. His WS/48 was .159 and his PER was 21.7. He not only showed a ton of potential, he actually realized that potential by producing some impressive results on the court. Has his game really completely transformed since then or did he only get better at things he was already good at?

Let's take someone closer to home:Shabazz Muhammed. How has his game fundamentally transformed? It hasn't at all in my opinion. He's doubled-down on the things he was already pretty good at: Interior scoring, offensive rebounding, and off-the-ball movement. Yes, he's a slightly better passer and defender, but those are certainly not strengths. I have a hard time seeing him ever be an elite playmaker or lockdown defender.

As for LaVine, Wiggins, Bennett, Shabazz, and Dieng, while we don't know what their ultimate ceiling will be, we can certainly start establishing the outlines of each player based on both his NCAA and NBA experience.

To suggest that what we are seeing today is totally irrelevant to the future doesn't mesh with reality in my opinion.

One of the best posts I have seen in quite a while.

The bold part above is why people waiting for Ricky to gain a jumper....and finish at the rim, etc are going to continue waiting.

I'm out of these discussions. Have at it, pretend you're clairvoyant, I don't care anymore. I'll just leave with this: For every player you can name who's "outline" was established after 20 games, I will give you 5 guys whose wasn't.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:I'm out of these discussions. Have at it, pretend you're clairvoyant, I don't care anymore. I'll just leave with this: For every player you can name who's "outline" was established after 20 games, I will give you 5 guys whose wasn't.

Those speculative numbers seem askew. (as was your silly Larry Bird angle.)

Q's analysis is sound. The better NBA players simply improve as they get older. That doesn't mean they routinely acquire skills they never really had.

What skills do Wiggins and Lavine just not have? Wiggins' ball handling skills exist, they are just not great yet. Other than that, what do they truly not possess because your point is you won't develop it if you don't have it by 20 on some level. From what I have seen, they have the ability to do just about everything to some degree meaning they need refinement more than learning something brand new. That's the whole reason both of their ceilings are compared to some of the best players in the league. Just curious as to what you think they have no chance of developing that will hold them back from reaching their potential.

khans2k5 wrote:What skills do Wiggins and Lavine just not have? Wiggins' ball handling skills exist, they are just not great yet. Other than that, what do they truly not possess because your point is you won't develop it if you don't have it by 20 on some level. From what I have seen, they have the ability to do just about everything to some degree meaning they need refinement more than learning something brand new. That's the whole reason both of their ceilings are compared to some of the best players in the league. Just curious as to what you think they have no chance of developing that will hold them back from reaching their potential.

Do you think Wiggins' ball handling is at the league average? If not, where is it?

It's pretty rare for a guy to come in very poor or mediocre or even subpar at something... and then have it become better than most other guys in the league. You see some guys develop a three point shot. And I'll never forget how Eric Snow went from a 30% foul shooter to an 80% guy several years later in the pros.

But, when you're starting behind the curve, you have a lot of guys to leapfrog (most of which are also working to improve their games). It's why you can't just assume a guy like Rubio will become a better shooter. It's why we simply have to embrace him for the things he is elite at compared to everybody else. And "hope" he improves other stuff.