Minnesota Sports Forum

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:What kind of impact did Ibaka have on the Raptors this year? I look at that team where they were last year in the playoffs and compare it to the current unit. Is he really worth a huge deal that's going to limit your flexibility moving forward?

More damning to me is the lack of impact he had defensively on Orlando. They actually got worse from the year prior.

Admittedly, I haven't watched Ibaka with Orlando or Toronto. May be the eye test suggests that he's still a top defender, but the stuff on paper doesn't show him to be the top notch defender he perhaps once was with OKC a few years ago.

He's not the rim protector he once was. But he showed a new side of effective defender last year in the playoffs vs. GSW when he was switching onto guys all over the court of various sizes.

The Orlando situation was a mess. They were extremely good early on defense. They lagged on D later in the year. I think it was part of a concerted effort to improve a woeful offense... and something had to give defensively to do it. Plus, it was a badly formed team. They were created to play bully ball in a pace and space league. Dumb.

As for his impact in Toronto... I don't know the stats. But I do know the team went 14 - 7 down the stretch without its best player in the lineup.

Personally, I don't think he's worth $25+M... but he's still a very good complementary player.

The ability to switch onto smaller players and contain them is a big freakin' deal to me. Khans mentioned it about Trisitan Thompson's value last year in the playoffs. It's a real weak spot for Dieng and why he often sat when teams went smaller and spaced things out. It's also why Ryan Anderson (my poster child of the Wolves poor defensive execution) was able to launch nearly 60 3's against the Wolves in only 4 games. We would do the old hedge and contain strategy on Harden, while Anderson would space out and get an open 3. Dumb. You have to switch high ball screens involving Harden and Anderson. The only way you can do that is if you have a big man capable of guarding Harden in isolation. It's why Milsap, Gibson, and perhaps Ibaka would be an upgrade to Dieng.

60WinTim wrote:I just gotta say -- and I haven't ventured into this topic lately -- that anyone spending any time on advanced stats should be scared shitless on Wiggins. That guy has made little to no improvement in so many areas in which he is already a subpar player. Indicators do not support he is on some all-star, let alone hall-of-fame, trajectory.

And we are considering maxing this guy out?!?

Playing the "youth card" is the only reason we would continue holding out hope. But as yet another year goes by, the mounting data does not support our hope. I tend to fall on the optimistic side, but the only hope I can find is that Thibs offseason plans for Wiggins produces some results next year...

He would have been a senior in college this year. Go look at Kawhi's stats the first three years in the league. Go look at Jimmy Butler's. Go look at Derozan's. And don't put too much emphasis on the advanced defensive stats, Kawhi and Butler played on much better teams which in my opinion means almost everything when it comes to a lot of those metrics. Wig still has plenty of time.

Mr. Brightside wrote:No thanks on Ibaka. All advanced statistics show he does not make his teams better. And for $25 million? Nope.

That's where I'm coming from.

Mr. Brightside wrote:No thanks on Ibaka. All advanced statistics show he does not make his teams better. And for $25 million? Nope.

To be fair, Ibaka has never finished a season on a team below .500. And he's started virtually his entire career. We can search for stats to suggest he has nothing to do with that... and probably find some to support that narrative. But we might be pushing a confirmation bias with that search.

"Take that for data!"

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:No thanks on Ibaka. All advanced statistics show he does not make his teams better. And for $25 million? Nope.

To be fair, Ibaka has never finished a season on a team below .500. And he's started virtually his entire career. We can search for stats to suggest he has nothing to do with that... and probably find some to support that narrative. But we might be pushing a confirmation bias with that search.

"Take that for data!"

To be fair, he's played with some great players. Felton Spencer would have been on all .500 or better teams under the same circumstances.

60WinTim wrote:I just gotta say -- and I haven't ventured into this topic lately -- that anyone spending any time on advanced stats should be scared shitless on Wiggins. That guy has made little to no improvement in so many areas in which he is already a subpar player. Indicators do not support he is on some all-star, let alone hall-of-fame, trajectory.

And we are considering maxing this guy out?!?

Playing the "youth card" is the only reason we would continue holding out hope. But as yet another year goes by, the mounting data does not support our hope. I tend to fall on the optimistic side, but the only hope I can find is that Thibs offseason plans for Wiggins produces some results next year...

Agreed, I've been a long time skeptic of Wiggins (not in terms of becoming a good player, but in terms of becoming a transcendent star, which many thought he had the potential to become). However, there is one advanced stat that he has progressed in and that's Net Rating. He was -10 as a rookie, -1 last year, and -.5 this year.

And while +/- is inextricably tied to the other 4 players on the court, the fact that he outshone most of the other starters (all but Dieng) in this metric suggests that he is making more of an impact. He draws a lot of attention on offense, always drawing the opposing team's top defender and often collapsing the defense when he decides to be aggressive. That has value to the overall team offense.

But still.....we are going to need to face the fact that he's still not even close to the elite two-way wings like Leonard, Butler, and Paul George. He's more on a DeMar DeRozan path of being a pure scorer that needs other play makers and defenders around him. That's still a very good player, but certainly not what many of us hoped for.

There is also the late bloomer theory with Wiggins, which is that his skills and physical strength haven't caught up yet to his natural athleticism and he has a ton more runway left. I can understand why someone might take this position, but it's a tough sell to a fan base that isn't very patient, including me!

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

60WinTim wrote:I just gotta say -- and I haven't ventured into this topic lately -- that anyone spending any time on advanced stats should be scared shitless on Wiggins. That guy has made little to no improvement in so many areas in which he is already a subpar player. Indicators do not support he is on some all-star, let alone hall-of-fame, trajectory.

And we are considering maxing this guy out?!?

Playing the "youth card" is the only reason we would continue holding out hope. But as yet another year goes by, the mounting data does not support our hope. I tend to fall on the optimistic side, but the only hope I can find is that Thibs offseason plans for Wiggins produces some results next year...

He would have been a senior in college this year. Go look at Kawhi's stats the first three years in the league. Go look at Jimmy Butler's. Go look at Derozan's. And don't put too much emphasis on the advanced defensive stats, Kawhi and Butler played on much better teams which in my opinion means almost everything when it comes to a lot of those metrics. Wig still has plenty of time.

As I've mentioned countless times now... I know there's a learning curve. And that he's young. The #1 thing I look at with "possible superstars" is that they show tangible improvement in many categories across the board... EVERY year.

Kawhi Leonard has done that for 6 straight seasons now. He made a quantum leap THIS year. Butler has shown incremental growth from one year to the next in multiple areas. And both did it mostly on good teams. Some claim that it's easier to do that on a good team.

I'm not so sure. You have to be good to get time on those teams. And you have to stay good to keep that time. As a lifelong Wolves fan, I've seen so many "good stats on a bad team" players that I lost track of them.

Yes. Wiggins has time on his side. But I don't thing we agree on how much time that is...

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:No thanks on Ibaka. All advanced statistics show he does not make his teams better. And for $25 million? Nope.

To be fair, Ibaka has never finished a season on a team below .500. And he's started virtually his entire career. We can search for stats to suggest he has nothing to do with that... and probably find some to support that narrative. But we might be pushing a confirmation bias with that search.

"Take that for data!"

To be fair, he's played with some great players. Felton Spencer would have been on all .500 or better teams under the same circumstances.

Ummm. No.

I don't know what else to tell you. We seem to be very very far apart on this... and I'm not even advocating bringing in Ibaka to the Wolves.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:No thanks on Ibaka. All advanced statistics show he does not make his teams better. And for $25 million? Nope.

To be fair, Ibaka has never finished a season on a team below .500. And he's started virtually his entire career. We can search for stats to suggest he has nothing to do with that... and probably find some to support that narrative. But we might be pushing a confirmation bias with that search.

"Take that for data!"

To be fair, he's played with some great players. Felton Spencer would have been on all .500 or better teams under the same circumstances.

Ummm. No.

I don't know what else to tell you. We seem to be very very far apart on this... and I'm not even advocating bringing in Ibaka to the Wolves.

Really? Westbrook and Durant wouldn't have gotten OKC above .500 without Ibaka? Toronto with Lowry and Derozan would be under .500 without Ibaka? Please explain.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:No thanks on Ibaka. All advanced statistics show he does not make his teams better. And for $25 million? Nope.

To be fair, Ibaka has never finished a season on a team below .500. And he's started virtually his entire career. We can search for stats to suggest he has nothing to do with that... and probably find some to support that narrative. But we might be pushing a confirmation bias with that search.

"Take that for data!"

To be fair, he's played with some great players. Felton Spencer would have been on all .500 or better teams under the same circumstances.

So you're saying he can be a good role player on a team with other good players? Funny...I seem to recall our team having two elite scorers still on rookie contracts and we can afford to pay that elite role player next to them while they are still on those contracts.