Minnesota Sports Forum

kekgeek1 wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:I can't believe how much love Darius Garland gets. Sure, his 3 point percentage was excellent at 47.8%, but it was 5 games against weak competition. He also had 3 turnovers per game vs. 2.6 assists. His scoring average was decent at 16.2 pts per game but none of his other stats are all that impressive, despite playing a soft schedule. Add in fact, he ended the season injured and has a short wingspan (6"5) and I really don't understand the hype. Keep in mind Derrick Williams shot 3s at even a higher clip (56.8%) and so I would not trade up for a guy based on a small sample size that may or not translate, especially when he hasn't shown much of an all around game.

He has almost identical numbers as Kyrie had in college. Also 16.2 pts per game would be higher if he didn't get hurt in the first 2 minutes of the game. Of course the mystery of Garlund helps his case but he has a good case on being the 4th best prospect.

Not really close in my opinion unless you are only looking at points and three points. Kyrie's other stats are much better and he faced much better competition. Also, Kyrie's net rating was elite and Garland has one of worst net ratings of lottery slotted guys. I will give you a more thorough breakdown if you like.

Garland average 16.2/3.8/2.6 with 3 TO a game on 53/47/75 with a strength of schedule of 7.76 also points skewed because he played 2 minutes in one game.

Irving average 17.5/3.4/4.3 with 2.5 TO a game on 52/46/90 with a strength of schedule of 8.31

Pretty darn close. Once again Irving was a better prospect but in a weak draft at the top I can see why Garland is considered the 4th best prospect. I get it.

Nothing is skewed when compared to Irving as Kyrie's MPG (27.5) is actually slightly less than Garland (27.8 ) and Kyrie's assist numbers are significantly better than Garland.

Here are some stats you left out

Free Throw percentage: Kyrie .901 Garland .750
Steals: Kyrie 1.5 Garland 0.8
Blocks: Kyrie 0.5 Garland 0.4
Offensive Rating: Kyrie 135.1 Garland 112.0
Defensive Rating (lower is better): Kyrie 92.7 Garland 106.3
Box Score plus Minus: Kyrie 14.3 Garland 5.0
Kyrie sample size 11 vs. Garland's sample size 5
Darius was ranked 21st by Rivals coming out of high school and I just don't think he showed that much in college to warrant a huge jump (the good-his 3 point shooting and scoring, the bad-turnovers, assists (fewer than turnovers and poor for point guard slated to go in top 5), and lack of defensive stats, and injury status).


I'm not saying Garland's stats aren't bad, but only his three point shooting is really impressive and given that is done in 5 games, we really can't feel good about the small sample size. I just have no confidence that Garland will be better than about 14 other guys not named Zion or Ja in this year's draft and I would hate to give up anything of value to move up for him. Plus if you look at Mock Drafts for next year, you see that the draft is loaded with point guards and so if we want to draft a young point guard, I'd rather wait til next year.

Nic Claxton has an invite to the green room. The Lip and draft expert Sam V. Hype train has been pretty effective. Lol There is gonna he at least one WTF moment Thursday night where some guy gets picked higher way out of basically nowhere.

Nothing too interesting from Rosas media availability except it seems like there isn't anything to the idea of a promise to anyone. If there was he basically lied not just about the idea they would promise a guy but their whole philosophy of being flexible at any moment. Rosas is pretty serious and measured but e does crack a smile and laugh. He does engage a bit even though he is pretty measured in what he says.

Here's a list of my top 10 favorite draft prospects for the Wolves not named Zion Williamson, Ja Morant or JR Barrett in this year's draft. I'd like to see the Wolves end up with at least one of these prospects in the first round - presented in my order of preference. My first choice would be to trade up and get Garland if we can do it without giving up Okogie or a future 1st round pick. If we can't trade up, I'd want to trade down with Boston for two of their three picks and end up with two of those listed 2-10:

1. Darius Garland - Very high upside. Handles the ball like it's on a string. Great change of speed and direction. Terrific shooting range and accuracy, but also excellent passer. A Steph Curry type or maybe Damion Lillard.

2. Nic Claxton - Long, athletic, light on his feet with a terrific handle for his size/position. Very good block and rebounding stats.

3. Romeo Langford - Excellent length with 6'11 wingspan and 8'7 reach. Also very good smooth athlete. 3-point stats misleadingly bad because of broken thumb. Shot respectable 45% from the field. Excellent rebounder for his position with 5.4 per game and knack for drawing fouls with 6.1 free throws per game. He may have the highest upside outside the top three and Garland. Watching him play, he looks like an NBA player. He is way too predictable going right, but that can be fixed because he seems to be an excellent left-handed dribbler.

4. Sekou Doumbouya - Great upside. Should be excellent defender right away. Could be great, but seems like more of a a long-term project than the others on my list.

5. Nickeil Alexander-Walker - Less upside than previous 3, but excellent length with 8'6 reach and 6'9.5 wingspan. Good shooter, hitting 47.4% of his FG attempts and 37.4% of his 4.6 3-pt attempts per game. He's also a good defender who averaged 2 steals per game as a Sophomore. He looks like he can develop into a PG based on his 4 assists per game and then way he handles the ball and sees the floor.

6. Cameron Johnson - Best 3-point shooter in draft with quick, high release. Also very good/smooth athlete who can do more than just shoot from the perimeter. Watching him reminds me of Klay Thompson. I'm not predicting he'll be another Klay, but his footwork, form and release look a lot like Klay. I think he's underrated on most mock draft boards.

7. Mfiondu Kabengele - Strong. Could be good defensive partner for KAT. Can also shoot the three. He's not super long, but he's long enough and he's very wide, strong and pretty athletic.

8. Bruno Fernando - Best rebounder in draft. Excellent offensively in the paint. Very good athlete for his size.

9. KZ Okpala - Another high-upside prospect with great overhead reach for a SF at 8'10.

10. Brandon Clarke - His short arms trouble me, but he's a great athlete with a high basketball IQ. I think he has a pretty high floor as an NBA rotation player, but his lack of length seems to limit his upside. On the other hand, if he can extent his shooting range and tighten his handle, I could see him playing SF at the next level. In that position, I could see him become a really good NBA player.

I wouldn't mind ending up with Hachimura or Nassir Little. Hachimura is solid and looks like a high floor can't miss rotation player. He might have more upside than he appears to have on the surface as a late bloomer. Little's physical attributes and pre-college achievements suggest he has a very high upside. And by all accounts he has a great motor. So while I see him as too mechanical and question both his ballhandling and basketball IQ, I still see huge upside in him.

I definitely don't want to end up with Bol Bol, Coby White, PJ Washington or Cam Reddish. Bol Bol and Reddish seem to be afflicted with the same motor issues as Wiggins. Bol Bol is physically frail. I like Coby and PJ as people and players, but I don't see them translating well to the NBA for reasons I've stated in other posts. I'm still not sure about Kevin Porter Jr. He has the talent to be great, but here seem to be some serious character concerns.

Some others I'd like to see the Wolves get in the 2nd round include Daniel Gafford and Jaylen Nowell.

I have a question for everyone - when the words "potential" and "upside" gets tossed out there, I am at a loss for what that actually means. Is this an interpretation of someones physical attributes (size, speed, length, etc) and how that projects to the college/amateur basketball stats they have demonstrated already?

Arnt most of these kids >18 and part of a program for the last 5 years that ensures they are doing all the x,y,z stuff for development? The vast majority are not going to get much heavier, few gain height, and I am pretty sure not a single one starts jumping higher. Like Wiggins and Towns - neither has changed much physically.

So in my personal experiences with this, a VERY long time ago I coached little kid football (and regret it) - usually the first time they had ever played. I measured all the kids at the start of the year (speed, agility, strength, etc) - but boy did I find out fast that most of that (at that level) was hot garbage unless the kid "got it" - and there were some kids that "got it" but lacked a physical attribute. I found out the idea I had in my head for what position X should look like was almost always wrong. I only worked with the kids for 1 year and never saw them again but in that year I could see growth across the board in the intangible aspects (mindset, football IQ, desire - this one went both ways) that resulted in progress but it had nothing to do with maturing physically.

So...extrapulating that, is this untapped potential all in their head? If so I can certainly see coaches always thinking they can get more out of a player because their system or form of communication or whatever is better then the last coach.

So again, when we say potential - we are talking what is inside their head more than anything?



Towns talks about his physical changes - but he really just lost some fat (yes, that is important but he didn't grow another 6 inches or his wingspan has not increased). https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23855051/minnesota-timberwolves-star-karl-anthony-towns-keeping-body-nba-ready-body-issue-2018ESPN article about Towns body

I think potential is like you said. They have physical attributes but those don't translate into being a good/great player yet.

It's usually 80-90% mental but of course some can get bigger and stronger as well. I just see it as they simply don't know how to play winning/smart basketball yet. Similarly they may have skill set issues but have elite physical ability. Poor shot form, poor defensive technique, etc.

So I will go along with that then - and ask the follow-up questions.

Is Wiggins just that dumb that he will never break out and be useful? He has no handle at all but everything else he does have physically. So why is the light not turning on for him? Why can't it turn on for him and a shit ton of other physically capable players? Why do we see a specific growth of players and if they don't hit that by 25 they never do?

Having a conversation about what potential is could he fascinating. To me for a player to have potential they have to have something that makes them special something to build on. They can't be a complete blank canvas. Typically a guy with potential has some physical attribute along with a skills and or some reasonable observed ability that the player "gets". Kevin Porter jr has good physical ability AND has a lot of ability to get his own shot. Giannis was a physical freak who seemed to have an above average ability to handle the ball for someone that size. Some guys with lower potential don't seem like guys that have that added athletic ability combined with an elite offensive skill. That can be proved wrong though. Nobody saw Jimmy Butler turning into one of the best 2 way players in the league when healthy. Klay Thompson one of the greatest shooters of all time and an all-nba type defensive player? FVV a key scoring threat for a championship team?

Guys do have to get it otherwise that physical stuff won't matter. Anthony Randolph is a great example of that. Meanwhile Kyle Korver keeps plugging away as a guy teams want because he is smart (does have good size which helps) and can shoot. Wes Johnson wouldn't still be in the league if he didn't have his physical gifts. It's a combination. There is also no real way of knowing if player picked #4 will improve their skill while player #23 or #54 will. It's an educated guess but it's not an exact science. That's why the redrafting articles are fun to write and to read etc.

I thinks it's mostly mental wether they will reach their potential or not. Some guys are ultra competitive. Michael Jordan for instance. Guys that will just pretty much 24/7 only work on getting better at basketball. Kawhi Leonard, another good example.

Other guys, I don't think they have that desire so they won't work as hard off the court making themselves better. Nor on the court, they won't play with high effort. So obviously, if player A works 6 hours a day practicing, working out, studying film while player B puts in 1 hour. It's not hard to figure out why player A is an All Star while Player B is whoever.

WolvesFan21 wrote:I thinks it's mostly mental wether they will reach their potential or not. Some guys are ultra competitive. Michael Jordan for instance. Guys that will just pretty much 24/7 only work on getting better at basketball. Kawhi Leonard, another good example.

Other guys, I don't think they have that desire so they won't work as hard off the court making themselves better. Nor on the court, they won't play with high effort. So obviously, if player A works 6 hours a day practicing, working out, studying film while player B puts in 1 hour. It's not hard to figure out why player A is an All Star while Player B is whoever.

Let's not forget some of these guys are very young.

And incredibly rich. If I was rewarded with tens, or even hundreds of millions of dollars, doing things my own way... and was financially set for life beyond my wildest dreams... would working extra hard be automatic?

Depends on the person. I totally understand why some young players can get complacent. Imagine your own job... and getting paid almost immediately like they are. Would you really work the same way?

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:I thinks it's mostly mental wether they will reach their potential or not. Some guys are ultra competitive. Michael Jordan for instance. Guys that will just pretty much 24/7 only work on getting better at basketball. Kawhi Leonard, another good example.

Other guys, I don't think they have that desire so they won't work as hard off the court making themselves better. Nor on the court, they won't play with high effort. So obviously, if player A works 6 hours a day practicing, working out, studying film while player B puts in 1 hour. It's not hard to figure out why player A is an All Star while Player B is whoever.

Let's not forget some of these guys are very young.

And incredibly rich. If I was rewarded with tens, or even hundreds of millions of dollars, doing things my own way... and was financially set for life beyond my wildest dreams... would working extra hard be automatic?

Depends on the person. I totally understand why some young players can get complacent. Imagine your own job... and getting paid almost immediately like they are. Would you really work the same way?

Good points. I'll also say I think there are guys that work hard that don't get it/make it. It's not that simple either. To be honest if I asked myself how hard I work at it for whatever it is that I do...

Also it's worth mentioning here that mental health is a factor in a bunch of different angles of a player/prospect's journey. Something may come up they had no idea about before. What about a life event like a family member dying in a tragic way?

These athletes are human. I'd also guess a few guys simply end up not being able to handle the pressure they end up facing as high level professional athletes. To some extent I don't think there is any shame in that.