AbeVigodaLive wrote:I guess I should apologize for noting that Wiggins was 297th out of 322 qualifying players (or something like that) for TS%.
Thanks for showing me that no player with potential should ever be discussed negatively in any way, using any context.
The context was a "Wiggins is a Huge Disappointment" thread. It was hard for many people to wrap their heads around how anyone could view Wiggins as a Huge Disappointment after his first 20+ games. You made several comments which certainly appeared aimed at agreeing with the title. That's your right. But certainly you can understand why others might now use that as an example of over analyzing smaller samples - right?
I wonder if something as simple as a less sensationalized headline would have curbed (a bit) of the clownshow that ensued in that thread. Just because people responded to it, doesn't mean they agreed with it. I think most of the posts at least tried to distance themselves from that assessment... or temper the "disappointment."
I never called or even insinuated that Wiggins was a "huge disappointment." I think my posts were very clear about that. I went out of my way to assure people I didn't think he was heading down the Anthony Bennett, Kwame Brown, et al path.
I merely expressed doubts whether he'd reach the level of Durant, Griffin, Wall, Rose, Davis, Irving, et al. based on early results. If he reaches the status of those guys (sans Irving?), I'd be pretty damn optimistic about the future of the Wolves.
"I merely expressed doubts whether he'd reach the level of Durant, Griffin, Wall, Rose, Davis, Irving, et al. based on early results."
And that line about him reaching other star players levels of play based on a 20 something game sample size is exactly what we have been talking about as ridiculous. Thank you for saying it again because you just went against everything you've been arguing about how you were only objectively evaluating his performance without making judgments about his future. That line right there and that line of thinking in general is why that thread was ridiculous. You were questioning his future potential based on a 20 something game sample size at 19 years old. That is what we have been trying to say since that thread that just hasn't seemed to get through.
TheGrey08 wrote:
To be fair you pulled stats based off of an incorrect assumption that you made about SJM's comment. You assumed his statement was based on him getting X amount of additional points off FTs which it wasn't. It was an overall figure based on him getting another trip or 2 to the FT line b/c it would lead defenders to back up a bit and not be as aggressive like they had been.
There was nothing ridiculous about his statement. If you are defending a guy who doesn't get as many calls you are able to play them more aggressively & physically. When a guy is getting more calls you have to play more conservatively and it becomes easier for the offensive player. It's as simple as that.
So, he was pulling out the "refs out to get Wiggins" card?
Sorry, I still find any commentary claiming bad officiating was costing Wiggins (and only Wiggins?) 4 or 5 or 6 ppg ridiculous.
Every NBA player deals with good and bad officiating. Wiggins getting to the line 4.5 times per game despite relying on a lot of mid-range shots at the time indicates he was getting his fair share of calls. Good and bad.
I don't think he was saying that the refs "have it out" for him at all. Young players especially rookies get less calls than vets.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:I guess I should apologize for noting that Wiggins was 297th out of 322 qualifying players (or something like that) for TS%.
Thanks for showing me that no player with potential should ever be discussed negatively in any way, using any context.
The context was a "Wiggins is a Huge Disappointment" thread. It was hard for many people to wrap their heads around how anyone could view Wiggins as a Huge Disappointment after his first 20+ games. You made several comments which certainly appeared aimed at agreeing with the title. That's your right. But certainly you can understand why others might now use that as an example of over analyzing smaller samples - right?
I wonder if something as simple as a less sensationalized headline would have curbed (a bit) of the clownshow that ensued in that thread. Just because people responded to it, doesn't mean they agreed with it. I think most of the posts at least tried to distance themselves from that assessment... or temper the "disappointment."
I never called or even insinuated that Wiggins was a "huge disappointment." I think my posts were very clear about that. I went out of my way to assure people I didn't think he was heading down the Anthony Bennett, Kwame Brown, et al path.
I merely expressed doubts whether he'd reach the level of Durant, Griffin, Wall, Rose, Davis, Irving, et al. based on early results. If he reaches the status of those guys (sans Irving?), I'd be pretty damn optimistic about the future of the Wolves.
"I merely expressed doubts whether he'd reach the level of Durant, Griffin, Wall, Rose, Davis, Irving, et al. based on early results."
And that line about him reaching other star players levels of play based on a 20 something game sample size is exactly what we have been talking about as ridiculous. Thank you for saying it again because you just went against everything you've been arguing about how you were only objectively evaluating his performance without making judgments about his future. That line right there and that line of thinking in general is why that thread was ridiculous. You were questioning his future potential based on a 20 something game sample size at 19 years old. That is what we have been trying to say since that thread that just hasn't seemed to get through.
Wait. Expressing doubt (wondering whether he could) is not objective? Only "he'll be fine, how dare you wonder aloud about him becoming a true superstar based on 1/3 of a season behind the curve" is objective. Really?
I never said he wouldn't be a superstar. NEVER. I merely noted he was behind the curve based on recent NBA history. And I repeatedly wrote that time will ultimately tell.
Whether it's after 1 game or 4 seasons, are we not able to wonder whether our players are going to become top 10 players in the league? When after 26 games of struggling with efficiency as much as he did... to even voice concern (or point out the statistic) is out of the question?
What the fuck? Seriously.
[Note: I went back to the beginning of that thread. It's puzzling to me how it went from those early comments to here. I'm legitimately disappointed in this board right now... even more so... my willing participation in this nonsense. ]
I wonder if those who had expressed some concerns about Wiggins going forwaRd were using a guy like LeBron as their basis for comparison. Then I guess maybe being a Lil disappointed is warranted. But James is a once in a lifetime player . Some say transformative. I think the bar should be set a Lil bit lower and allow him to be the first Wiggins . He can , in his own right, be great. Let's enjoy it unfold and have some patience.
I remember watching Kgs first year and thinking he just has that it factor. His numbers weren't there but u just knew. I get the same feeling with this fella. I think year 2 ur gonna see an 18-20 pts a game player. In year three he makes the leap to an annual top 5 scorer.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:I guess I should apologize for noting that Wiggins was 297th out of 322 qualifying players (or something like that) for TS%.
Thanks for showing me that no player with potential should ever be discussed negatively in any way, using any context.
The context was a "Wiggins is a Huge Disappointment" thread. It was hard for many people to wrap their heads around how anyone could view Wiggins as a Huge Disappointment after his first 20+ games. You made several comments which certainly appeared aimed at agreeing with the title. That's your right. But certainly you can understand why others might now use that as an example of over analyzing smaller samples - right?
I wonder if something as simple as a less sensationalized headline would have curbed (a bit) of the clownshow that ensued in that thread. Just because people responded to it, doesn't mean they agreed with it. I think most of the posts at least tried to distance themselves from that assessment... or temper the "disappointment."
I never called or even insinuated that Wiggins was a "huge disappointment." I think my posts were very clear about that. I went out of my way to assure people I didn't think he was heading down the Anthony Bennett, Kwame Brown, et al path.
I merely expressed doubts whether he'd reach the level of Durant, Griffin, Wall, Rose, Davis, Irving, et al. based on early results. If he reaches the status of those guys (sans Irving?), I'd be pretty damn optimistic about the future of the Wolves.
"I merely expressed doubts whether he'd reach the level of Durant, Griffin, Wall, Rose, Davis, Irving, et al. based on early results."
And that line about him reaching other star players levels of play based on a 20 something game sample size is exactly what we have been talking about as ridiculous. Thank you for saying it again because you just went against everything you've been arguing about how you were only objectively evaluating his performance without making judgments about his future. That line right there and that line of thinking in general is why that thread was ridiculous. You were questioning his future potential based on a 20 something game sample size at 19 years old. That is what we have been trying to say since that thread that just hasn't seemed to get through.
Wait. Expressing doubt (wondering whether he could) is not objective? Only "he'll be fine, how dare you wonder aloud about him becoming a true superstar based on 1/3 of a season behind the curve" is objective. Really?
I never said he wouldn't be a superstar. NEVER. I merely noted he was behind the curve based on recent NBA history. And I repeatedly wrote that time will ultimately tell.
Whether it's after 1 game or 4 seasons, are we not able to wonder whether our players are going to become top 10 players in the league? When after 26 games of struggling with efficiency as much as he did... to even voice concern (or point out the statistic) is out of the question?
What the fuck? Seriously.
[Note: I went back to the beginning of that thread. It's puzzling to me how it went from those early comments to here. I'm legitimately disappointed in this board right now... even more so... my willing participation in this nonsense. ]
Let the kid fucking play basketball. Is that so much to ask before he gets picked apart and every flaw another reason he should be doubted? It was 26 games. To doubt a player after 26 games shows an insane lack of patience as well as a poor level of expectation for a 19 year old in the NBA. You try to make out like everything you say is done with such innocence just to be objective and voice concern. You weren't just wondering aloud. You were in-depth, statistically questioning him based on a 26 game sample size. There's nothing objective about wondering if someone is going to become a star or not. That is completely subjective and based on opinion. You can't be objectively doubtful. Do you know what the definition of objective even means? "Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." Since doubt is a personal feeling, that makes it a little difficult to be objective when expressing that feeling. Again I say, can the kid just play basketball a reasonable amount of time before he is picked apart and openly doubted across this forum? I look forward to your "objective" analysis 52 games into the season.
