Who is the better player (Wiggins vs LaVine)

[Lipoli390]

It's a debate because Zach might be the worst defender in all of basketball and the only way to offset that is to be a Harden level player offensively which he isn't. Until he steps up both his shooting and playmaking to elite levels that defense is a major problem that can't just be overlooked because he scores points on a bad team. There's a reason he's still a huge negative even though he scores a lot of points. Meanwhile Wiggins has worked his way up to only a slight negative. For people who hated Jamal Crawford here you guys sure like his younger twin brother a lot.

Zach doesn't just score. This season he's rebounding his position well and he's getting assists. I happen to believe his current 3-point shooting struggles are anomolous and will pass. That's just based on body of work previously and the quality of his shot by my eye test. It's hard to assess his defense when we don't see him play on a regular basis, especially when he's playing for such a terrible team. So to say he might be the worst defender in all of basketball seems a bit out there. And again, look at Zach's trajectory compared to Wiggins. His trajectory is particularly impressive when you consider his career was derailed by an ACL tear. Finally, you can cover for someone's weaknesses better if you can count on getting the player's positives on a consistent basis. Zach brings scoring (and this year rebounding and assists as well) nearly every game. You just don't know what you're going to get from Wiggins game to game.

To be fair, I'd like to see Wiggins play for a head coach who makes better use of him, playing to his strengths rather than having him handle the ball and take the last shot in quarters. More cuts in a more motion-oriented offense and more post-ups would improve Wiggins net contribution. But Wiggins' inconsistency and downward trajectory are what make the debate particularly one-sided in favor of Zach in my opinion. But I see the other side and acknowledge that Zach is clearly a subpar defender.

[AbeVigodaLive]

So it comes down to...

- One guy who does nothing better than average... and some things worse.
vs.
- One guy who can do one thing better than average... but he really really sucks at other things.

And the best part is that they make about $50M combined.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

It's a debate because Zach might be the worst defender in all of basketball and the only way to offset that is to be a Harden level player offensively which he isn't. Until he steps up both his shooting and playmaking to elite levels that defense is a major problem that can't just be overlooked because he scores points on a bad team. There's a reason he's still a huge negative even though he scores a lot of points. Meanwhile Wiggins has worked his way up to only a slight negative. For people who hated Jamal Crawford here you guys sure like his younger twin brother a lot.

Exactly...the parallels between Crawford and Lavine are strong. In fact, Zach has often talked about Crawford as a guy he admires in the NBA. And it makes sense...they are both terrific, likable guys with the ability to score in bunches, but with an absolute disdain for the defensive side of the court. Look at almost any defensive measure for the two of them, and you will see both ranked in the bottom 10% of the league. And that's the main reason neither of them has ever had a positive on/off number.
And yet despite his sub-40% 3-point shooting this year and high turnover rate, Zach is superior to Wig offensively, and that's why there is a divide here on who the superior player is. I sense that it may be as simple as this: those who favor Wig value defense more, and those who favor Zach favor offense more. I admit that Zach is easier to cheer for...he's flashy and a great kid, and Wig's lethargy on the court can be painful to watch (it's almost like he's playing for a coach who sucks all the life and fun out of the game :)). But somehow despite his lethargy and love of the long 2, Wig's on/off numbers don't reflect a guy who hurts his team...only a guy who is a meh player who doesn't really excel in any facet of the game and shouldn't be getting paid a max contract. But because of his unbelievably bad defensive numbers (you almost have to try to rank 4th from the bottom of all NBA players in DRPM), Zach's on/off numbers consistently rank near the bottom of NBA starters. And that's significant. As bad as they are, the Bulls are better when Zach is on the bench than when he is on the court.

So, the debate will continue as long as one player doesn't emerge as the superior player. Because as long as Zach can't demonstrate that he could stop me in a half court game, he's never going to demonstrate superiority unless maybe he averaged 35 PPG. One thing we Wolves fans have learned since we acquired RoCo...you win with defense.

[AbeVigodaLive]

It's a debate because Zach might be the worst defender in all of basketball and the only way to offset that is to be a Harden level player offensively which he isn't. Until he steps up both his shooting and playmaking to elite levels that defense is a major problem that can't just be overlooked because he scores points on a bad team. There's a reason he's still a huge negative even though he scores a lot of points. Meanwhile Wiggins has worked his way up to only a slight negative. For people who hated Jamal Crawford here you guys sure like his younger twin brother a lot.

Exactly...the parallels between Crawford and Lavine are strong. In fact, Zach has often talked about Crawford as a guy he admires in the NBA. And it makes sense...they are both terrific, likable guys with the ability to score in bunches, but with an absolute disdain for the defensive side of the court. Look at almost any defensive measure for the two of them, and you will see both ranked in the bottom 10% of the league. And that's the main reason neither of them has ever had a positive on/off number.
And yet despite his sub-40% 3-point shooting this year and high turnover rate, Zach is superior to Wig offensively, and that's why there is a divide here on who the superior player is. I sense that it may be as simple as this: those who favor Wig value defense more, and those who favor Zach favor offense more. I admit that Zach is easier to cheer for...he's flashy and a great kid, and Wig's lethargy on the court can be painful to watch (it's almost like he's playing for a coach who sucks all the life and fun out of the game :)). But somehow despite his lethargy and love of the long 2, Wig's on/off numbers don't reflect a guy who hurts his team...only a guy who is a meh player who doesn't really excel in any facet of the game and shouldn't be getting paid a max contract. But because of his unbelievably bad defensive numbers (you almost have to try to rank 4th from the bottom of all NBA players in DRPM), Zach's on/off numbers consistently rank near the bottom of NBA starters. And that's significant. As bad as they are, the Bulls are better when Zach is on the bench than when he is on the court.

So, the debate will continue as long as one player doesn't emerge as the superior player. Because as long as Zach can't demonstrate that he could stop me in a half court game, he's never going to demonstrate superiority unless maybe he averaged 35 PPG. One thing we Wolves fans have learned since we acquired RoCo...you win with defense.

Sure. As long as we acknowledge Andrew Wiggins is still a shitty defensive player.

He's ranked 67th out of 82 small forwards in ESPN's contrived DRPM statistic. And he's at -1.0 compared to LaVine's -1.2 in DBPM rankings on basketballreference.com.



[note: Just how terrible is the made-up ESPN stat? JR Smith is ranked #8 among SGs... Klay Thompson is ranked #90.]

[Monster]

I wonder what an early 20's Jamal Crawford would have done with a 32% usage rate. Early in his career he was in the low 20's and the top was 27% a couple years off the bench with the Clippers. I obviously tend to think Lavine will he a better offensive player than Crawford but...the guy is getting to do basically whatever he wants and maybe that will be good for him or maybe he would be better off playing a more complementary role. Right now with the injuries and lack of talent the Bulls don't have much of a choice. Personally I still think the jury is out on both these guys (Wiggins and Lavine) and it's worth mentioning...are still 23 which is pretty young. Wiggins has regressed as an offensive player but his defense seems to be on the rise and that could matter.

[Lipoli390]

I wonder what an early 20's Jamal Crawford would have done with a 32% usage rate. Early in his career he was in the low 20's and the top was 27% a couple years off the bench with the Clippers. I obviously tend to think Lavine will he a better offensive player than Crawford but...the guy is getting to do basically whatever he wants and maybe that will be good for him or maybe he would be better off playing a more complementary role. Right now with the injuries and lack of talent the Bulls don't have much of a choice. Personally I still think the jury is out on both these guys (Wiggins and Lavine) and it's worth mentioning...are still 23 which is pretty young. Wiggins has regressed as an offensive player but his defense seems to be on the rise and that could matter.

Monster - It's a reach to put much stock in Wiggins' defensive improvement. I'm not sure there's a reliable metric that demonstrates more than marginal improvement from a terrible rating. His decline in rebounds and trips to the line are telling. You should read Robson's Nov. 25 article on Wiggins if you haven't already. His shot selection hasn't improved in his more than 4 seasons in the League while he's gotten far worse getting to the line and worse converting free throws when he gets there. And there is no serious injury that can be pointed to as disrupting his development.

LaVine is isn't a player I'd covet at $20 million per year. But trajectory matters when evaluating what we both agree are young players. So does reliability. LaVine's trajectory is clearly better than Wiggins, although not entirely positive in all areas. And LaVine is more predictable game to game - he'll always give you scoring and, so far this season, rebounding. You never know what to expect from Wiggins game to game. Zero points, 1 rebound, 1 assist, 0 steals, 0 blocks and no trips to the line is a stat line I guarantee you won't see from Zach. Looking back, Wiggins has had a number of games with stat lines similar to, even if not quite as bad as, his stat line on Saturday. And he's had far more minutes than Zach over the course of his career to develop without the need to rehab from a serious injury.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. But again, do you think the Bulls would trade LaVine for Wiggins right now? I'd say not a chance. And if Wiggins is better than Zach, then an additional $5 million is really a small incremental upcharge for the better player.

[Monster]

I wonder what an early 20's Jamal Crawford would have done with a 32% usage rate. Early in his career he was in the low 20's and the top was 27% a couple years off the bench with the Clippers. I obviously tend to think Lavine will he a better offensive player than Crawford but...the guy is getting to do basically whatever he wants and maybe that will be good for him or maybe he would be better off playing a more complementary role. Right now with the injuries and lack of talent the Bulls don't have much of a choice. Personally I still think the jury is out on both these guys (Wiggins and Lavine) and it's worth mentioning...are still 23 which is pretty young. Wiggins has regressed as an offensive player but his defense seems to be on the rise and that could matter.

Monster - It's a reach to put much stock in Wiggins' defensive improvement. I'm not sure there's a reliable metric that demonstrates more than marginal improvement from a terrible rating. His decline in rebounds and trips to the line are telling. You should read Robson's Nov. 25 article on Wiggins if you haven't already. His shot selection hasn't improved in his more than 4 seasons in the League while he's gotten far worse getting to the line and worse converting free throws when he gets there. And there is no serious injury that can be pointed to as disrupting his development.

LaVine is isn't a player I'd covet at $20 million per year. But trajectory matters when evaluating what we both agree are young players. So does reliability. LaVine's trajectory is clearly better than Wiggins, although not entirely positive in all areas. And LaVine is more predictable game to game - he'll always give you scoring and, so far this season, rebounding. You never know what to expect from Wiggins game to game. Zero points, 1 rebound, 1 assist, 0 steals, 0 blocks and no trips to the line is a stat line I guarantee you won't see from Zach. Looking back, Wiggins has had a number of games with stat lines similar to, even if not quite as bad as, his stat line on Saturday. And he's had far more minutes than Zach over the course of his career to develop without the need to rehab from a serious injury.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. But again, do you think the Bulls would trade LaVine for Wiggins right now? I'd say not a chance. And if Wiggins is better than Zach, then an additional $5 million is really a small incremental upcharge for the better player.

Wiggins is gonna be making a lot more than 5 million a year more than Lavine. That's the differentiation to me not the talent. We can agree to disagree on the other stuff. Again let's let this play out a while longer Wiggins isn't going anywhere.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I thought this was timely for the discussion about two of the NBA's future all-time greats...

https://twitter.com/NBCSBulls/status/1067258718201552897

Pretty good stuff... Why wouldn't Hoiberg want a 30% shooter to take a fadeaway 27 footer... down only 1?



The scary thing is though... that if we didn't have to go through all that Butler drama, we'd be stuck with both LaVine and Wiggins.

[60WinTim]

And it's not only the players we eventually received in Covington and Saric, but the experience gained by our players having gone through the Butler trauma. We not only added some outstanding pieces in areas of need, we emerged from the valley of death with a new perspective and determination. It is amazing how the entire sequence of events has led to the team unity and level of play we see right now.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

And it's not only the players we eventually received in Covington and Saric, but the experience gained by our players having gone through the Butler trauma. We not only added some outstanding pieces in areas of need, we emerged from the valley of death with a new perspective and determination. It is amazing how the entire sequence of events has led to the team unity and level of play we see right now.

So are you trying to spin this into a brilliant chess move by Thibs and Co.?