Wiggins gets MVP award

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Why does every thread get hijacked by Cam saying AB sucks, Thad is great, and we're all stupid?

I didn't mention Thad anywhere in this thread, and clearly not ALL of you are stupid, but Bennett does suck. So there's that.

[TAFKASP]

The Housewives of *insert city of choice* drama have nothing on this board of late.

[Coolbreeze44]

The Zach LaVine discussion is one of the oddest ones we have on this board, because I just don't see much discernible difference in the arguments. Discussions about Thad Young or Kevin Martin tend to be much more interesting and nuanced, because there is certainly room for different opinions about these two guys. But can anyone really disagree with either of these two statements?

1) Zach LaVine is an intriguing athlete with potential to be a very good NBA player.

2) Zach LaVine's stats by almost any measure rank him near the bottom of the NBA this season.

It seems to me that nobody can dispute either of these statements, and that they tell most of the story about Zach. The argument seems to be which of the two points a particular poster favors, which doesn't seem like a very interesting argument to me. Maybe I'm missing something...

LST, this may seem like an oversimplified question, but regarding item #2 - So What? Does it really mean anything? Does it mean he's not going to be good? Does it mean we should shop him? Does it mean anything at all?

Usually in journalism you have to have a point. I don't see one with item #2. At least not to the point where it should be discussed ad nauseum.

[Coolbreeze44]

All the great coaches, no matter the sport, will tell you it's about the process. They aren't concerned very much about individual games, or even stretches of games. Their focus is on building from one game to the next. I've never heard any coach say in his post game remarks: "Player X's on/off rating was really evident tonight".

As a coach myself, I tend to identify with this way of thinking. So I could give a flying you know what about whether Zach has been a "net negative" so far this year. What I care about is the process of him building his individual game, as well as building chemistry with his teammates. And though I realize my opinion doesn't mean much to some of you, I see the process taking place, and it's headed in the right direction. Most of the NBA people I respect seem to have the same opinion.

So you can see how I might get tired of reading the same knee jerk rhetoric after damnear every game.

That's fine, but please realize that some of us use actual results to evaluate players.

Who cares what your evaluation is? Especially after we've read it 25 times. It certainly doesn't coincide with anyone that matters, namely head coach Flip Saunders.

[Coolbreeze44]

The Zach LaVine discussion is one of the oddest ones we have on this board, because I just don't see much discernible difference in the arguments. Discussions about Thad Young or Kevin Martin tend to be much more interesting and nuanced, because there is certainly room for different opinions about these two guys. But can anyone really disagree with either of these two statements?

1) Zach LaVine is an intriguing athlete with potential to be a very good NBA player.

2) Zach LaVine's stats by almost any measure rank him near the bottom of the NBA this season.

It seems to me that nobody can dispute either of these statements, and that they tell most of the story about Zach. The argument seems to be which of the two points a particular poster favors, which doesn't seem like a very interesting argument to me. Maybe I'm missing something...

+100

You guys are arguing the same thing

I don't disagree with LST's two points or Hockey's post above. The "argument" - if you can call it that - is around Cool's sensitivity to anything negative said about Zach and requesting that I put a moratorium on it, as if he should somehow be immune to criticism. I didn't know 13th picks in the draft earning millions per year should never be criticized for their play or be objectively evaluated.

That's the problem, you're not qualified nor do you know how to evaluate his play. I respect your opinion on just about anything discussed here. But that's all it is. You seem to think that your evaluations are somehow better than somebody else's. You should have learned after your dreadful Wiggins posts early in the year that they are not.

So let me get this down just to make sure - Q thinks Zach has sucked so far this year. Got it. Don't need to be reminded about it anymore.

[Coolbreeze44]

The Housewives of *insert city of choice* drama have nothing on this board of late.

Hahahahahaha

[Coolbreeze44]

Let me try to illustrate the problem I have with Q in another way. Take a look at this picture:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6142/5989399738_f5f2dc2131_z.jpg

Now, you can all see the trees right? Let's assume that the trees are Zach's metrics that Q harps on. Now what lies beyond the trees is what's called the forest. Let's assume that the forest is what Zach's destiny is as an NBA player. The problem is that Q can't see one through the other. Do you know which one?

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

The Zach LaVine discussion is one of the oddest ones we have on this board, because I just don't see much discernible difference in the arguments. Discussions about Thad Young or Kevin Martin tend to be much more interesting and nuanced, because there is certainly room for different opinions about these two guys. But can anyone really disagree with either of these two statements?

1) Zach LaVine is an intriguing athlete with potential to be a very good NBA player.

2) Zach LaVine's stats by almost any measure rank him near the bottom of the NBA this season.

It seems to me that nobody can dispute either of these statements, and that they tell most of the story about Zach. The argument seems to be which of the two points a particular poster favors, which doesn't seem like a very interesting argument to me. Maybe I'm missing something...

+100

You guys are arguing the same thing

I don't disagree with LST's two points or Hockey's post above. The "argument" - if you can call it that - is around Cool's sensitivity to anything negative said about Zach and requesting that I put a moratorium on it, as if he should somehow be immune to criticism. I didn't know 13th picks in the draft earning millions per year should never be criticized for their play or be objectively evaluated.

That's the problem, you're not qualified nor do you know how to evaluate his play. I respect your opinion on just about anything discussed here. But that's all it is. You seem to think that your evaluations are somehow better than somebody else's. You should have learned after your dreadful Wiggins posts early in the year that they are not.

So let me get this down just to make sure - Q thinks Zach has sucked so far this year. Got it. Don't need to be reminded about it anymore.

Heh, so I guess we won't hear from you about how much you want to get rid of Kevin Martin or how agonizing it is for you when Wiggins doesn't get enough touches or how poor Thad Young has played. After all, you've mentioned these points multiple times. why do we need to hear it any more? Or does this only apply to me as it relates to anytime I might mention Zach's poor play?

Like I said before, you can always just skip my posts on Zach LaVine and save yourself the annoyance.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Let me try to illustrate the problem I have with Q in another way. Take a look at this picture:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6142/5989399738_f5f2dc2131_z.jpg

Now, you can all see the trees right? Let's assume that the trees are Zach's metrics that Q harps on. Now what lies beyond the trees is what's called the forest. Let's assume that the forest is what Zach's destiny is as an NBA player. The problem is that Q can't see one through the other. Do you know which one?

LOL Cool, this is deep. real deep. Thanks for the lesson.

I have previously acknowledged LaVine's potential (is that the forest? Did I get that analogy right?). What I harp on is Flip's insistence on playing him at PG, which has been a train wreck. I get the fact you disagree on that front, but don't try to weave a narrative that suggests I think he's a bust and will never amount to anything.

[60WinTim]

My take: Q is right, Zach overall has been negative on the court. But Cool is right, too, it's a process, and Zach has been steadily improving.

An argument can be made he's taking a step back in February. But I attribute that to him focusing on the dunk contest. And DAMN! Can he dunk!

They are just entering the 2nd round, but he's been perfect so far.