Minnesota Sports Forum

Carlos Danger wrote:

Mikkeman wrote:It seems that they have listed Bennett as center when he has played with Adrien. But based on lineups statistics from basketball reference, Wolves have played far worse when Bennett has been paired with Pek or Dieng than when he has been paired with Hummel or Adrien.

I think the problem is that we only have 600 minutes of data this year and 600 minutes of data from last year. Combined, he doesn't even have a full season's worth of minutes. At age 21, without even a full season's worth of minutes - some are not ready to throw in the towel. Other's have already decided (similar to how some wrote off Wiggins after his 1st 20 games).

They did? Who?

Can you provide a link?

Mikkeman wrote:Actually best producing line up has been G. Dieng, R. Rubio, A. Wiggins, M. Williams and T. Young that is plus 62.5 per 100 possessions. But it doesn't make much sense to look 5 (or 4) man combinations because most of those have extremely small sample size. For example Bennett, Dieng, Muhammed, Wiggins, Williams that you mentioned has played together only less than 15 minutes and lineup above has played only about 3 minutes.:).

I'm not seeing that combination in Basketball Reference. But regardless, you've made my point for me. Depending on how you want to split up the line up data, you can come out with a number of different results. All of which are based on relatively small sample sizes and dependent on more than one players performance. It is interesting to look at. But I wouldn't put 100% of my evaluation of a player into that metric.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:They did? Who?

Can you provide a link?

Seriously?

Carlos Danger wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:They did? Who?

Can you provide a link?

Seriously?

I don't think anyone wrote him off, but their were doubters who wanted to position themselves on both sides of the fence to CYA. As far as I'm concerned, I thought it was a ridiculous thread at the time, and even more ridiculous now.

Carlos Danger wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:They did? Who?

Can you provide a link?

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously.

Almost all of the guys with any negative thoughts toward Wiggins were in the "he's playing poorly right now but there's no reason not to give him more time" camp. In fact, sans the sensationalist headline to the thread, I don't remember a single person writing him off.

Somehow, the narrative has been skewed since. Repeatedly, even though Q and I repeatedly point it out.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:They did? Who?

Can you provide a link?

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously.

Almost all of the guys with any negative thoughts toward Wiggins were in the "he's playing poorly right now but there's no reason not to give him more time" camp. In fact, sans the sensationalist headline to the thread, I don't remember a single person writing him off.

Somehow, the narrative has been skewed since. Repeatedly, even though Q and I repeatedly point it out.

Nobody wrote him off, but you used a 20 something game sample size to poke holes in a 19 year olds game to play both sides of the fence in case he didn't improve. Now we have to put up with you guys defending your exact wording now that Wiggins is playing well even though your criticizing him was ridiculous to begin with because of the sample size it was based off. You tried to have your cake and eat it too for a reason some of us didn't understand then and still don't understand now that the scale is tipping towards the side of the guys who have had faith in Wiggins since the beginning. What's the point of being critical of him if you aren't trying to hedge your bet this early in his career? It's one thing to criticize vets who have been in this league for years. It's another to criticize first and second year guys who have stretches of bad play to try to signify that it means something moving forward when those stretches are common occurrences for their age group. There's no such thing as the veteran wall, but there is a rookie wall and a sophomore slump. So lets not try to draw any meaning from stretches of bad play early in young players' careers as a means to hedge bets. Get on the train or get off, but don't have one foot in the door just to be able to say you'd be right in the future if things went your way. That's something I can respect Cam for with his opinions. He's sticking to them and not hedging anything.

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:They did? Who?

Can you provide a link?

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously.

Almost all of the guys with any negative thoughts toward Wiggins were in the "he's playing poorly right now but there's no reason not to give him more time" camp. In fact, sans the sensationalist headline to the thread, I don't remember a single person writing him off.

Somehow, the narrative has been skewed since. Repeatedly, even though Q and I repeatedly point it out.

Nobody wrote him off, but you used a 20 something game sample size to poke holes in a 19 year olds game to play both sides of the fence in case he didn't improve. Now we have to put up with you guys defending your exact wording now that Wiggins is playing well even though your criticizing him was ridiculous to begin with because of the sample size it was based off. You tried to have your cake and eat it too for a reason some of us didn't understand then and still don't understand now that the scale is tipping towards the side of the guys who have had faith in Wiggins since the beginning. What's the point of being critical of him if you aren't trying to hedge your bet this early in his career? It's one thing to criticize vets who have been in this league for years. It's another to criticize first and second year guys who have stretches of bad play to try to signify that it means something moving forward when those stretches are common occurrences for their age group. There's no such thing as the veteran wall, but there is a rookie wall and a sophomore slump. So lets not try to draw any meaning from stretches of bad play early in young players' careers as a means to hedge bets. Get on the train or get off, but don't have one foot in the door just to be able to say you'd be right in the future if things went your way. That's something I can respect Cam for with his opinions. He's sticking to them and not hedging anything.

Well said

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:They did? Who?

Can you provide a link?

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously.

Almost all of the guys with any negative thoughts toward Wiggins were in the "he's playing poorly right now but there's no reason not to give him more time" camp. In fact, sans the sensationalist headline to the thread, I don't remember a single person writing him off.

Somehow, the narrative has been skewed since. Repeatedly, even though Q and I repeatedly point it out.

Nobody wrote him off, but you used a 20 something game sample size to poke holes in a 19 year olds game to play both sides of the fence in case he didn't improve. Now we have to put up with you guys defending your exact wording now that Wiggins is playing well even though your criticizing him was ridiculous to begin with because of the sample size it was based off. You tried to have your cake and eat it too for a reason some of us didn't understand then and still don't understand now that the scale is tipping towards the side of the guys who have had faith in Wiggins since the beginning. What's the point of being critical of him if you aren't trying to hedge your bet this early in his career? It's one thing to criticize vets who have been in this league for years. It's another to criticize first and second year guys who have stretches of bad play to try to signify that it means something moving forward when those stretches are common occurrences for their age group. There's no such thing as the veteran wall, but there is a rookie wall and a sophomore slump. So lets not try to draw any meaning from stretches of bad play early in young players' careers as a means to hedge bets. Get on the train or get off, but don't have one foot in the door just to be able to say you'd be right in the future if things went your way. That's something I can respect Cam for with his opinions. He's sticking to them and not hedging anything.

Maybe because in a very very very pro-Wolves forum, some dissonance is needed when a player is playing poorly... to actually say that player is playing poorly.

Wiggins was playing poorly. If we're not allowed to call him out on that, then we're being intellectually dishonest and any actual basketball discourse around here is probably moot.

I call it like I see it. He was playing poorly (inefficiently)... for a #1 draft pick. Even for a rookie of his stature. That doesn't mean we have to make far-reaching prognostications about his entire career. Those are two very different types of threads. We've seen the same thing with Ricky Rubio. People who questioned Rubio (usually with stats) were routinely ganged up on. That's not to say those guys didn't want Rubio to do well. They were simply pointing out his flaws about his current play.

I've seen the same things with guys like Beasley. McCants. And so many others. Criticism does NOT make you less of a fan.

"Get on the train or get off" is a silly statement. I'm not in this for a "I told you so" moment, if we are... I can start listing them. Hedging bets... that's BS and irrelevant.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:They did? Who?

Can you provide a link?

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously.

Almost all of the guys with any negative thoughts toward Wiggins were in the "he's playing poorly right now but there's no reason not to give him more time" camp. In fact, sans the sensationalist headline to the thread, I don't remember a single person writing him off.

Somehow, the narrative has been skewed since. Repeatedly, even though Q and I repeatedly point it out.

Nobody wrote him off, but you used a 20 something game sample size to poke holes in a 19 year olds game to play both sides of the fence in case he didn't improve. Now we have to put up with you guys defending your exact wording now that Wiggins is playing well even though your criticizing him was ridiculous to begin with because of the sample size it was based off. You tried to have your cake and eat it too for a reason some of us didn't understand then and still don't understand now that the scale is tipping towards the side of the guys who have had faith in Wiggins since the beginning. What's the point of being critical of him if you aren't trying to hedge your bet this early in his career? It's one thing to criticize vets who have been in this league for years. It's another to criticize first and second year guys who have stretches of bad play to try to signify that it means something moving forward when those stretches are common occurrences for their age group. There's no such thing as the veteran wall, but there is a rookie wall and a sophomore slump. So lets not try to draw any meaning from stretches of bad play early in young players' careers as a means to hedge bets. Get on the train or get off, but don't have one foot in the door just to be able to say you'd be right in the future if things went your way. That's something I can respect Cam for with his opinions. He's sticking to them and not hedging anything.

Maybe because in a very very very pro-Wolves forum, some dissonance is needed when a player is playing poorly... to actually say that player is playing poorly.

Wiggins was playing poorly. If we're not allowed to call him out on that, then we're being intellectually dishonest and any actual basketball discourse around here is probably moot.

I call it like I see it. He was playing poorly (inefficiently)... for a #1 draft pick. Even for a rookie of his stature. That doesn't mean we have to make far-reaching prognostications about his entire career. Those are two very different types of threads. We've seen the same thing with Ricky Rubio. People who questioned Rubio (usually with stats) were routinely ganged up on. That's not to say those guys didn't want Rubio to do well. They were simply pointing out his flaws about his current play.

I've seen the same things with guys like Beasley. McCants. And so many others. Criticism does NOT make you less of a fan.

"Get on the train or get off" is a silly statement. I'm not in this for a "I told you so" moment, if we are... I can start listing them. Hedging bets... that's BS and irrelevant.

Criticizing just to criticize and bring people down is so petty. Did you notice how everyone arguing against you in the thread wasn't arguing that we thought Wiggins was playing well? We simply didn't care that he was playing bad because of the sample size and age variables. We didn't let that stretch affect our belief that he is going to be a good player. Again I ask, with nobody arguing he was playing well at the time, what is the point of going to such depths to show how bad he was playing? We all have eyes and could see what he was doing on the court. You were arguing against nobody because nobody in that thread said Wiggins was playing well. We were all just overlooking his play because we believed it to be temporary. I'm sorry you are a petty person who feels the need to bring people down to your level because we have faith in some of the guys on our team and have the ability to overlook poor stretches of play. This is a T Wolves forum. If you try to take away our optimism we literally have nothing left because of how garbage this franchise has been for a decade strong.

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:They did? Who?

Can you provide a link?

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously.

Almost all of the guys with any negative thoughts toward Wiggins were in the "he's playing poorly right now but there's no reason not to give him more time" camp. In fact, sans the sensationalist headline to the thread, I don't remember a single person writing him off.

Somehow, the narrative has been skewed since. Repeatedly, even though Q and I repeatedly point it out.

Maybe because in a very very very pro-Wolves forum, some dissonance is needed when a player is playing poorly... to actually say that player is playing poorly.

Wiggins was playing poorly. If we're not allowed to call him out on that, then we're being intellectually dishonest and any actual basketball discourse around here is probably moot.

I call it like I see it. He was playing poorly (inefficiently)... for a #1 draft pick. Even for a rookie of his stature. That doesn't mean we have to make far-reaching prognostications about his entire career. Those are two very different types of threads. We've seen the same thing with Ricky Rubio. People who questioned Rubio (usually with stats) were routinely ganged up on. That's not to say those guys didn't want Rubio to do well. They were simply pointing out his flaws about his current play.

I've seen the same things with guys like Beasley. McCants. And so many others. Criticism does NOT make you less of a fan.

"Get on the train or get off" is a silly statement. I'm not in this for a "I told you so" moment, if we are... I can start listing them. Hedging bets... that's BS and irrelevant.

Criticizing just to criticize and bring people down is so petty. Did you notice how everyone arguing against you in the thread wasn't arguing that we thought Wiggins was playing well? We simply didn't care that he was playing bad because of the sample size and age variables. We didn't let that stretch affect our belief that he is going to be a good player. Again I ask, with nobody arguing he was playing well at the time, what is the point of going to such depths to show how bad he was playing? We all have eyes and could see what he was doing on the court. You were arguing against nobody because nobody in that thread said Wiggins was playing well. We were all just overlooking his play because we believed it to be temporary. I'm sorry you are a petty person who feels the need to bring people down to your level because we have faith in some of the guys on our team and have the ability to overlook poor stretches of play. This is a T Wolves forum. If you try to take away our optimism we literally have nothing left because of how garbage this franchise has been for a decade strong.

What? That's bullshit. That's not what I'm doing. And name-calling and character assumptions/assassinations here? Seriously? Be better than that. I've treated you with respect. If you want to get into that kind of posting... I'm all in.

But I've always considered this forum (sans one poster) to be better than that.

I've said it in the past... I'll say it again. I'm a basketball fan. I won't make believe the Wolves are better than they are. I will watch them when they're bad (I have since 1989) and I'll watch them when they become good (eventually). But I will do my very best to be objective every step of the way. There's nothing wrong with being an optimistic fan.

Likewise, there's nothing wrong with being an objective one either.



[Note: As for ripping guys when they're playing bad... so that's off limits in certain cases. Then, I assume praising them for small sample sizes is also off limits?]