Minnesota Sports Forum

TheFuture wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

TheFuture wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

TheFuture wrote:Abe I don't know why you compare lavine and parker.

I see it like this if considering 3 years... rubio, Lavine, Wiggins, shabazz, towns, dieng potential > mcw, Middleton, giannis, parker, Monroe potential. They may be a team that can contend better now (in the east mind you) but I see 4 one way potential players for them and 1 potential star on both sides in giannis. For us I see 3 potential studs on two sides in lavine, Wiggins, and towns, 2 who are already very good at one side of the ball or elite in certain categories in shabazz and rubio, and one who is good on both sides in dieng.

I should have bolded the line I was referring to...

"I also see no one on either team with the star potential of Wiggins, lavine, or towns."

Oh, that's fair enough then.
I'll admit I'm higher on LaVine than most here. He has the makings of a star. His rookie season was essentially his freshman year of college as that coach had a personal issue with LaVine playing over his son. he has just as good a chance to be a star as parker and oladipo. Wiggins and Towns are in a different tier.

Meh. I don't think it's that easy.

I think LaVine is ridiculously talented. But he's also very raw. I imagine he did enough knuckleheaded things to draw the ire from his coach and it was a bit deeper than simply "I'm going to risk my professional career to show blatant nepotism toward my son."


[Note: Sure, LaVine has a chance to be as good (or even better) of a star than Parker and Oladipo. But there's an even more likely scenario where he doesn't reach their levels of success. That has to be factored in there. We can't just go with top ultimate potential for "our" guys while holding every other team's stars to our own perceptions of their ceiling. Ask ANY Orlando and Milwaukee fan and I'd bet none of them think that of all the young players on the various teams... the Wolves don't have the top 3 for potential.]

I do think it's that easy. You can call me a homer, but you, nor fans of those other teams, can say with a straight-face that Wiggins is not the best prospect of the 3 teams, Orlando, Bucks, Wolves. Towns absolutely has to be considered at least the 3rd best prospect as well, with Wiggins, and Oladipo(maybe) ahead of him. Is it even far-fetched to say Wiggins and Towns are the 2 best prospects of the whole bunch?? Tell me your opinion, because I don't think it is. Giannis has great potential, but he is not assertive on offense, aka doesn't really have any go to offensive moves right now, and shows flashes on defense. Oladipo is a great defender, and a good finisher, but not a good facilitator or shooter. Parker showed sparks on offense, but has an injury that may limit him going forward, and he is not a good defender at the 3 or 4, he is a tweener.

LaVine is where you will see my ultimate homer position, I realize that, but he has a great shooting stroke, and unbelievable athleticism which allows him to get to the cup at will (something he must do more often, I know). He is not good on defense now, but the athleticism does make you question if he can't be elite there. Keep in mind that, due to his lack of play in college, that he is realistically 2 years behind Giannis and Oladipo in terms of on-court playtime, and therefore time to develop. Yet, I wouldn't say he is that far off. His stats were nearly identical to Oladipos on the season, if extrapolated, and even better during the last 20 games of the year.

And as for Giannis, all he really is is potential. A flash every couple of games of superstar, but mixed with very lackluster performances. His averages during his second year were 13 pts (on %49 2pt and 16% 3pt), 7 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1 block, 1 steal in 32 mpg. Nothing spectacular there. His athleticism is wonderful, and he is expected to be great. Why can't we look at Zach the same way?? If you look at Zach's numbers over the year at 32 mpg you get this ... 13.5ppg ( 42.5% 2pt, 34% 3pt), 3.5 rpg, 5 apg, 1 spg, blocks non-existent. I'd say that's definitely equal to Giannis, and Zach has 1 year less experience in the NBA.

Vucevic is the best player on all 3 teams, but I don't see Oladipo and Vucevic, or Giannis and Parker being a better pair than our own Wiggins and Towns. LaVine is just icing on the cake for me.

TheFuture wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

TheFuture wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

TheFuture wrote:Abe I don't know why you compare lavine and parker.

I see it like this if considering 3 years... rubio, Lavine, Wiggins, shabazz, towns, dieng potential > mcw, Middleton, giannis, parker, Monroe potential. They may be a team that can contend better now (in the east mind you) but I see 4 one way potential players for them and 1 potential star on both sides in giannis. For us I see 3 potential studs on two sides in lavine, Wiggins, and towns, 2 who are already very good at one side of the ball or elite in certain categories in shabazz and rubio, and one who is good on both sides in dieng.

I should have bolded the line I was referring to...

"I also see no one on either team with the star potential of Wiggins, lavine, or towns."

Oh, that's fair enough then.
I'll admit I'm higher on LaVine than most here. He has the makings of a star. His rookie season was essentially his freshman year of college as that coach had a personal issue with LaVine playing over his son. he has just as good a chance to be a star as parker and oladipo. Wiggins and Towns are in a different tier.

Meh. I don't think it's that easy.

I think LaVine is ridiculously talented. But he's also very raw. I imagine he did enough knuckleheaded things to draw the ire from his coach and it was a bit deeper than simply "I'm going to risk my professional career to show blatant nepotism toward my son."


[Note: Sure, LaVine has a chance to be as good (or even better) of a star than Parker and Oladipo. But there's an even more likely scenario where he doesn't reach their levels of success. That has to be factored in there. We can't just go with top ultimate potential for "our" guys while holding every other team's stars to our own perceptions of their ceiling. Ask ANY Orlando and Milwaukee fan and I'd bet none of them think that of all the young players on the various teams... the Wolves don't have the top 3 for potential.]

I do think it's that easy. You can call me a homer, but you, nor fans of those other teams, can say with a straight-face that Wiggins is not the best prospect of the 3 teams, Orlando, Bucks, Wolves. Towns absolutely has to be considered at least the 3rd best prospect as well, with Wiggins, and Oladipo(maybe) ahead of him. Is it even far-fetched to say Wiggins and Towns are the 2 best prospects of the whole bunch?? Tell me your opinion, because I don't think it is. Giannis has great potential, but he is not assertive on offense, aka doesn't really have any go to offensive moves right now, and shows flashes on defense. Oladipo is a great defender, and a good finisher, but not a good facilitator or shooter. Parker showed sparks on offense, but has an injury that may limit him going forward, and he is not a good defender at the 3 or 4, he is a tweener.

LaVine is where you will see my ultimate homer position, I realize that, but he has a great shooting stroke, and unbelievable athleticism which allows him to get to the cup at will (something he must do more often, I know). He is not good on defense now, but the athleticism does make you question if he can't be elite there. Keep in mind that, due to his lack of play in college, that he is realistically 2 years behind Giannis and Oladipo in terms of on-court playtime, and therefore time to develop. Yet, I wouldn't say he is that far off. His stats were nearly identical to Oladipos on the season, if extrapolated, and even better during the last 20 games of the year.

And as for Giannis, all he really is is potential. A flash every couple of games of superstar, but mixed with very lackluster performances. His averages during his second year were 13 pts (on %49 2pt and 16% 3pt), 7 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1 block, 1 steal in 32 mpg. Nothing spectacular there. His athleticism is wonderful, and he is expected to be great. Why can't we look at Zach the same way?? If you look at Zach's numbers over the year at 32 mpg you get this ... 13.5ppg ( 42.5% 2pt, 34% 3pt), 3.5 rpg, 5 apg, 1 spg, blocks non-existent. I'd say that's definitely equal to Giannis, and Zach has 1 year less experience in the NBA.

Vucevic is the best player on all 3 teams, but I don't see Oladipo and Vucevic, or Giannis and Parker being a better pair than our own Wiggins and Towns. LaVine is just icing on the cake for me.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

bleedspeed177 wrote:Today we're ranking the top young cores across the league using projected three-year WARP.

Yep. This wasn't a subjective ranking. He had a formula/method. We may not agree with the results. But I don't know if anyone really understands the process. As far as I can tell (from a quick Google search), the article is using a formula developed by this Kevin Pelton guy (three year projected WARP). It looks like a component of that formula includes using player comps for forecasting. For instance, I believe they comp Rubio to Jason Kidd. Again, I think these type of things are fun. If you do a "Google" you'll see many local writers/teams are picking up on the story including our own Strib:

http://www.startribune.com/espn-measure-says-wolves-only-have-15th-best-young-core-in-nba/317911451/

Looks like the author is getting plenty of attention like I'm sure he had hoped.

As I said... There are stats that can tell you anything.

But beyond that... Aren't projections subjective by definition?

Yes - we all know there are stats that can tell us anything. But I think most guys on here appreciate stats and use them often to support their own views. And that's what this writer did. He came up with one systematic way of ranking "young cores". He didn't just arbitrarily say "this guy is better than that guy". There was a method/process. We are allowed to disagree with this method. And we are all smart enough to realize there are many, other methods that would produce different results. At the end of the day - it's just a conversation starter which helps fill the empty space of the off season.

I really dig stats. I don't dig meaningless stats.

And if I'm following... those are projections which completely negate incoming rookies, right? Doesn't that completely marginalize the entire metric/list?

This isn't a beef because I'm a Timberwolves rube... I think everybody here would agree that doesn't describe me. This is a beef in how we're manipulating statistics these days to artificially create stories/narratives/attention. Basically, people are being paid to be lazy by throwing out statistics instead of context. I don't dig that kind of "journalism" or "analysis" or whatever you want to call it.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

bleedspeed177 wrote:Today we're ranking the top young cores across the league using projected three-year WARP.

Yep. This wasn't a subjective ranking. He had a formula/method. We may not agree with the results. But I don't know if anyone really understands the process. As far as I can tell (from a quick Google search), the article is using a formula developed by this Kevin Pelton guy (three year projected WARP). It looks like a component of that formula includes using player comps for forecasting. For instance, I believe they comp Rubio to Jason Kidd. Again, I think these type of things are fun. If you do a "Google" you'll see many local writers/teams are picking up on the story including our own Strib:

http://www.startribune.com/espn-measure-says-wolves-only-have-15th-best-young-core-in-nba/317911451/

Looks like the author is getting plenty of attention like I'm sure he had hoped.

As I said... There are stats that can tell you anything.

But beyond that... Aren't projections subjective by definition?

Yes - we all know there are stats that can tell us anything. But I think most guys on here appreciate stats and use them often to support their own views. And that's what this writer did. He came up with one systematic way of ranking "young cores". He didn't just arbitrarily say "this guy is better than that guy". There was a method/process. We are allowed to disagree with this method. And we are all smart enough to realize there are many, other methods that would produce different results. At the end of the day - it's just a conversation starter which helps fill the empty space of the off season.

I really dig stats. I don't dig meaningless stats.

And if I'm following... those are projections which completely negate incoming rookies, right? Doesn't that completely marginalize the entire metric/list?

This isn't a beef because I'm a Timberwolves rube... I think everybody here would agree that doesn't describe me. This is a beef in how we're manipulating statistics these days to artificially create stories/narratives/attention. Basically, people are being paid to be lazy by throwing out statistics instead of context. I don't dig that kind of "journalism" or "analysis" or whatever you want to call it.

Bravo Abe - I don't even know you anymore. You've gone from the Anti-Cool, to one offering a position of support.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:
I really dig stats. I don't dig meaningless stats.

And if I'm following... those are projections which completely negate incoming rookies, right? Doesn't that completely marginalize the entire metric/list?

This isn't a beef because I'm a Timberwolves rube... I think everybody here would agree that doesn't describe me. This is a beef in how we're manipulating statistics these days to artificially create stories/narratives/attention. Basically, people are being paid to be lazy by throwing out statistics instead of context. I don't dig that kind of "journalism" or "analysis" or whatever you want to call it.