camden0916 wrote:"I haven't seen anyone question his long-term potential, but at this point it is more than just a slump like it was for Wiggins only with a lot less flashes."
At the time of the Wiggins criticism, it wasn't just a slump. It was the entire season except for several games, though the sample size wasn't fantastic. Those who critiqued Wiggins were saying the same thing as you are now about LaVine. His long-term potential wasn't being negated. It was about his production on the court, or lack thereof. Seems a bit funny that you could be on both sides for different players, though I don't disagree with your views on LaVine. He hasn't been good.
Lavine has played what, 2 really good games out of 46 total. Wiggins had shown more than that in the 26 game sample size that was used for his example. Wiggins at no point in his slump was shown to statistically be the worst rotation player in the league either. There is a difference in my mind because Lavine has had more total games, fewer really good games than Wiggins had and Wiggins did it in almost half the sample size and for a while Lavine was statistically the worst rotation player in the league. That's what separates the two for me. Several games out of 26 is a much better percentage of good play than 2 out of 46.
Take your head out of the stat book and watch the games. Of course Zach hasn't been what Wiggins is. If he was we would probably have a problem with Wiggins. Saying he's had two good games out of 46 is ignorant.
camden0916 wrote:"I haven't seen anyone question his long-term potential, but at this point it is more than just a slump like it was for Wiggins only with a lot less flashes."
At the time of the Wiggins criticism, it wasn't just a slump. It was the entire season except for several games, though the sample size wasn't fantastic. Those who critiqued Wiggins were saying the same thing as you are now about LaVine. His long-term potential wasn't being negated. It was about his production on the court, or lack thereof. Seems a bit funny that you could be on both sides for different players, though I don't disagree with your views on LaVine. He hasn't been good.
Lavine has played what, 2 really good games out of 46 total. Wiggins had shown more than that in the 26 game sample size that was used for his example. Wiggins at no point in his slump was shown to statistically be the worst rotation player in the league either. There is a difference in my mind because Lavine has had more total games, fewer really good games than Wiggins had and Wiggins did it in almost half the sample size and for a while Lavine was statistically the worst rotation player in the league. That's what separates the two for me. Several games out of 26 is a much better percentage of good play than 2 out of 46.
Take your head out of the stat book and watch the games. Of course Zach hasn't been what Wiggins is. If he was we would probably have a problem with Wiggins. Saying he's had two good games out of 46 is ignorant.
Not messing up doesn't qualify as a good game for me. The game against the Lakers is a flash/good game. He just hasn't had those like Wiggins. The eye test doesn't help his case any better than the stats do. He is rarely aggressive, he rarely uses his athletic gifts to take advantage of his competition and he rarely makes more than the safe play anybody could make (i.e. put no pressure on the defense in the PnR and pass the ball to Thad 26 ft from the basket). If you have seen actual stretches of good play please point them out to me. And I mean stretches that contained more than just not screwing up. What I have seen is a bunch of contested long 2 point jumpers and someone not willing to use their gifts to get to the bucket at will against the smaller PG's he has been up against most of the year.
camden0916 wrote:"I haven't seen anyone question his long-term potential, but at this point it is more than just a slump like it was for Wiggins only with a lot less flashes."
At the time of the Wiggins criticism, it wasn't just a slump. It was the entire season except for several games, though the sample size wasn't fantastic. Those who critiqued Wiggins were saying the same thing as you are now about LaVine. His long-term potential wasn't being negated. It was about his production on the court, or lack thereof. Seems a bit funny that you could be on both sides for different players, though I don't disagree with your views on LaVine. He hasn't been good.
Lavine has played what, 2 really good games out of 46 total. Wiggins had shown more than that in the 26 game sample size that was used for his example. Wiggins at no point in his slump was shown to statistically be the worst rotation player in the league either. There is a difference in my mind because Lavine has had more total games, fewer really good games than Wiggins had and Wiggins did it in almost half the sample size and for a while Lavine was statistically the worst rotation player in the league. That's what separates the two for me. Several games out of 26 is a much better percentage of good play than 2 out of 46.
Take your head out of the stat book and watch the games. Of course Zach hasn't been what Wiggins is. If he was we would probably have a problem with Wiggins. Saying he's had two good games out of 46 is ignorant.
Not messing up doesn't qualify as a good game for me. The game against the Lakers is a flash/good game. He just hasn't had those like Wiggins. The eye test doesn't help his case any better than the stats do. He is rarely aggressive, he rarely uses his athletic gifts to take advantage of his competition and he rarely makes more than the safe play anybody could make (i.e. put no pressure on the defense in the PnR and pass the ball to Thad 26 ft from the basket). If you have seen actual stretches of good play please point them out to me. And I mean stretches that contained more than just not screwing up. What I have seen is a bunch of contested long 2 point jumpers and someone not willing to use their gifts to get to the bucket at will against the smaller PG's he has been up against most of the year.
Perhaps because he was an inexperienced 19 year old coming into the league. And he wasn't a top 3 pick. Just because he's not going to win rookie of the year shouldn't make you be so critical of the guy. Listen to the other announcing teams and what they have to say about him. He's not nearly the bust you think he is.
khans2k5 wrote:Not messing up doesn't qualify as a good game for me.
Khans, we knew he was a project on draft night, nobody expected him to play much this season but he's been forced into big minutes, largely out of position. I would suggest that no messing up is a part of the progression for a project like Zach. Early in the season he was all over the place, giving the ball away as often as not. Learning to play within the team concept, learning the hows and whens of what to do, and not screwing it up is progression. Being as raw as Zach is as a basketball player I believe he has to find that equilibrium, that understanding of his role in the offense before he'll ever have a chance to know when and how to exert his immense physical abilities.
He may or may not turn into a serviceable player, but to think the answer is clear at such an early stage is ridiculous. Honestly, the debate of Wiggins earlier in the season made no sense, but the debate around Zach makes even less.
I'm not calling him a bust. This whole thing started because people want to dump our leading scorer to open up even more time for an already struggling rookie. More playing time is not the answer for him at this point. He's not ready. I don't understand why people believe we should tank the rest of the season when we just got 100% healthy and the extra ping pong balls have never helped us before. People keep mentioning he's 19 and it makes sense that he has struggled. Why should we keep playing him at this point and have him keep struggling out there when we are finally healthy? The only reason he was playing was because we didn't have any other options. Now that we do he shouldn't be playing or he should be playing a minimal role until he gets better. I don't understand the rush to try to max his playing time and continue to feed him to the wolves when we don't have to any more. He's 19 and not ready. The fix to that is not more playing time. The fix is to have him learn in practice and earn the time over Martin. Lavine isn't good enough like Bazz was to clear the way for him to play. I'm not arguing that Lavine is a bust. I'm arguing that in no way does he deserve even more time than he is already getting that would come as a result of dumping Martin. I'd rather wait until he is actually ready to play rather than keep throwing him to the wolves. Saying I'm calling him a bust is putting words in my mouth that I never said.
I don't disagree with all that ^^^^^, I would only add that whatever minutes he gets now will finally be at his more natural position, or at least they should be which is going to be more beneficial to his development than trying to make him into something he is not.
khans2k5 wrote:I'm not calling him a bust. This whole thing started because people want to dump our leading scorer to open up even more time for an already struggling rookie. More playing time is not the answer for him at this point. He's not ready. I don't understand why people believe we should tank the rest of the season when we just got 100% healthy and the extra ping pong balls have never helped us before. People keep mentioning he's 19 and it makes sense that he has struggled. Why should we keep playing him at this point and have him keep struggling out there when we are finally healthy? The only reason he was playing was because we didn't have any other options. Now that we do he shouldn't be playing or he should be playing a minimal role until he gets better. I don't understand the rush to try to max his playing time and continue to feed him to the wolves when we don't have to any more. He's 19 and not ready. The fix to that is not more playing time. The fix is to have him learn in practice and earn the time over Martin. Lavine isn't good enough like Bazz was to clear the way for him to play. I'm not arguing that Lavine is a bust. I'm arguing that in no way does he deserve even more time than he is already getting that would come as a result of dumping Martin. I'd rather wait until he is actually ready to play rather than keep throwing him to the wolves. Saying I'm calling him a bust is putting words in my mouth that I never said.
You can't post without twisting things. The part about trading Martin originally had nothing to do with opening up more minutes for Lavine. That would probably be a bi-product of it and Im in favor of it, but that really wasn't the point. If anything it had more to do with opening up more opportunities for Wiggins to play the 2. Now somehow you've made this whole argument about Martin vs Zach.
Martin is going to get traded before the 19th. I suggest you start dealing with that.
Cool - I am confident Mo will be traded by the deadline, or will be bought out shortly thereafter. Just look at comments today about Mo counting the minutes to the trade deadline!
But I will be surprised if Martin is traded. We are not so deep at the wing that we can let simply let shooters slip away...
