Andrew Wiggins

[gourimoko]

I just noticed something.

Gour likes to use the word "bro".

A lot.

I drink on my lunch breaks. Not to "drunk-Gour" levels, but... I do partake.

 

[gourimoko]

My two cents?

I think Wiggins is going to be really good, but trying to use his rookie year numbers to say so is weird to me. His numbers simply aren't that good when compared to everybody else in the NBA. You can add all the qualifiers you want to make them look better, but the reason we know he's going to be really good is because of the flashes we've seen throughout this season, not because of the overall numbers he's put up.

I don't think we are only using his rookie numbers. You were active in the thread before he ever played a game, we didn't use his rookie numbers there. To be fair, there's more to the argument.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Is there any difference in playing half the season as a 20 year old and or the entire one though? That's some BS right there, just throwing "facts" to prove your 100% certain opinion that Andrew Wiggins will be great.

Tyreke Evans was like 6 months older at this point and averaged 20-5-5 on 46% shooting. And he is not great.

The only difference that age makes in this discussion is when we're comparing players. Me and Gour aren't counting Wiggins as a 19-year-old during his rookie season because it fits our argument, it's because that's how old he's been in 90% of the games he's played so far. At the end of the season he'll still have played a majority of games (54/82, 66%) as a 19-year-old, which makes his rookie year his age-19 season.

I can't believe I actually had to type that out on this site, but here we are.

Everything I've said about his age in this post is indisputable, I've not passed my opinion that Wiggins will be great off as a fact. I've just stated that Wiggins' numbers are anything but horrible for a 19-year-old rookie, they're actually good enough to make him one of the most productive teenagers to ever play the game.

I don't know what to tell you about Tyreke Evans- he was a fucking monster during his rookie season. The only other rookies to average 20-5-5 are Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, LeBron James, and Grant Hill. That's some crazy good company. I don't think anyone predicted that we were seeing Evans' peak as a basketball player that year, but I get your point. Looking at rookie numbers and comparing them to past players isn't a perfect science (just look at that list again), but I wasn't using them to prove that Wiggins is going to be great. I was using them to prove his rookie numbers aren't horrible.

 

[Taiter]

I think the Paul Pierce comparison is, honestly, comical.

Why is that? I know Wiggins and Pierce are different players but if Wiggins hits Pierce's level he'll be a heck of a player and a clutch player (annoying as Pierce is).

 

[Hydroponic3385]

Kyrie was a teenager until March of his rookie year.

My post had nothing to do with Kyrie

 

[All4One1ForAll]

My two cents?

I think Wiggins is going to be really good, but trying to use his rookie year numbers to say so is weird to me. His numbers simply aren't that good when compared to everybody else in the NBA. You can add all the qualifiers you want to make them look better, but the reason we know he's going to be really good is because of the flashes we've seen throughout this season, not because of the overall numbers he's put up.

Completely agree with you. I think he'll be good but putting those weird qualifiers to make his rookie season look to be one of the best of all time and his potential to be that of one of the greatest of all time is just strange.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Completely agree with you. I think he'll be good but putting those weird qualifiers to make his rookie season look to be one of the best of all time and his potential to be that of one of the greatest of all time is just strange.

My two cents?

I think Wiggins is going to be really good, but trying to use his rookie year numbers to say so is weird to me. His numbers simply aren't that good when compared to everybody else in the NBA. You can add all the qualifiers you want to make them look better, but the reason we know he's going to be really good is because of the flashes we've seen throughout this season, not because of the overall numbers he's put up.

All the qualifiers I want? Over 15 points a game and 43% from the field are the two stats I've used, and his age as I've only compared Wiggins to other 19-year-olds. I don't know where All4One got his bullshit idea I'm using over 4 boards and over a steal a night to manipulate the stats, care to explain where the two of you are seeing all these extra qualifiers you've both mentioned?

 

[gourimoko]

Why is that? I know Wiggins and Pierce are different players but if Wiggins hits Pierce's level he'll be a heck of a player and a clutch player (annoying as Pierce is).

No doubt Paul Pierce is a great player; my only point is that he isn't anything like Andrew Wiggins. Wiggins is a phenomenal athlete, and I think people forget that. Their games are not similar in my view, but to be honest, people tend to compare Paul Pierce to literally everyone so that is why I said it's comical.

 

[All4One1ForAll]

All the qualifiers I want? Over 15 points a game and 43% from the field are the two stats I've used, and his age as I've only compared Wiggins to other 19-year-olds. I don't know where All4One got his bullshit idea I'm using over 4 boards and over a steal a night to manipulate the stats, care to explain where the two of you are seeing all these extra qualifiers you've both mentioned?

Sactown fan used them and no need to get angry bro damn calm down. And whether you want to see it or not, this is Wiggins' age 19 turning 20 season. He didn't come right out of high school. He went to college and then came to the NBA. He started the year 19 and then turned 20, like most rookies who spend one year in college. Just because he's a couple months younger than the average rookie, doesn't mean you should exclude the seasons other rookies had. They all had the same years of basketball experience, so those few months essentially mean nothing, and only serve to make it seem like Wiggins is having one of the greatest rookie seasons of all time by overvaluing a couple months difference in age.

 

[melecoaze]

Actually LeBron and some of the guys drafted straight from HS were teenagers in their second seasons (19 years old), then Kyrie and Wiggins weren't the only teenagers to have 15 ppg on 43%. LBJ's sophomore stats are insane.

But I get the point now. By no means I was saying he was having a bad rookie season, just that rookie season numbers don't mean much.

 

[gourimoko]

Ok that's kind of what I figured.

Would you also agree that the Cavaliers only have a finite amount of years of Peak LeBron (as in best player in the world level LeBron) left? And since that's the case, it actually makes more sense to do whatever it takes to maximize our title chances in those years? Even if it means sacrificing longer-term sustainability?

I completely agree with the thought process that the Cavaliers would likely be better 4, 5 and 6 years from now with Wiggins than Love (possibly even 3 years from now), but shouldn't the focus rightfully be on the next 2 years?

If the Cavs had already won a title or two in LeBron's first tenure here, I wouldn't be making this point because it wouldn't really be applicable. The situation would call for a long-term strategy. But they've never won anything. The city for all intents and purposes hasn't won anything since 99% of the posters on this board have been alive.

There's just more pressure to win right now. If cashing in a ring now means sacrificing a few years down the road, I'm ok with it. We win a title this year or next and I will never ever complain about the Kevin Love/Andrew Wiggins deal -- no matter how good Wiggins becomes.

CBBI, didn't want to lose this post in the mix.

I totally think your points and concerns are valid. You make sense, and I honestly am not going to sit here and say you don't.

It's really personal taste. This is pretty arbitrary but would you prefer to have a say 65% chance overall to win a championship over two years and then a strong possibility of a rebuild? Or, would you prefer a 40% chance over 5+ years?

It really boils down to what's most important to you. I personally prefer stability and sustainability over gambling that Kevin Love will adjust, be happy with winning, and not want his own team as a 1A option.

Again, it's personal preference and I don't fault anyone for preferring to maximize our chances now.

 

[CosmoKramer]

And whether you want to see it or not, this is Wiggins' age 19 turning 20 season.

Silly me, you're absolutely right. This whole time I thought it was his age-19 season, but it's his age-19-turning-20 season...

His age-19-turning-20 season. Yup. That's positively, completely, 100%, no doubt correct. I don't know why I bothered. Good talking to you.

Actually LeBron and some of the guys drafted straight from HS were teenagers in their second seasons (19 years old), then Kyrie and Wiggins weren't the only teenagers to have 15 ppg on 43%. LBJ's sophomore stats are insane.

But I get the point now. By no means I was saying he was having a bad rookie season, just that rookie season numbers don't mean much.

LeBron's stats have always been insane, but for the second time today he actually shot less than 42% from the field as a rookie in his age-19 season. Sorry, 18-turning-19-year-old-season. Going to take time to learn that one.

 

[RchfldCavRaised]

Im not impressed by Wiggins, still, and I dont give a shit what the stats say.

When I watch TWolves games, I still see a guy who MIGHT develop to be 2nd option on a good team one day. I think he is in a great situation to develop his game in real time with very little pressure and alot of room for errors in Minny.

I still feel he is more of an athlete than a basketball player, and I think he benefits most from a organization who is all-in on making him the face of the franchise. How he develops will determine whether he is ever a capable 2nd option on a contending team or if he will just be a athlete who can score.

 

[InBoobieWeTrust]

Wiggins has scored very well, but where is the playmaking and rebounding? I know the playmaking was always raw, but he was projected to at least be a decent rebounder. I don't think we have a generational scorer on our hands(A good scorer, yes. Generational? I don't see it...) and I don't see him impacting other facets of the game. This is reflected in his abysmal, at-or-below replacement level PER.

The 15PPG and 43% shooting statistic is true, but if you change the statistic to PER or other advances measures, you suddenly are going to change that list from Kyrie Irving and LeBron to a 40+ player list from JUST this decade.

Then it's a question of which statistic at a young age tends to be a better predictor of rookie success. There are 5 other numbers you can play around with as well.

Wiggins is going to be really good, and no comparison is perfect because most players are somewhat unique. But I still question just how good we're talking. He'll be a multiple time all-star, but one of the best players in the game? That's a big leap, in my opinion.

 

[randymoss1881]

Im not impressed by Wiggins, still, and I dont give a shit what the stats say.

When I watch TWolves games, I still see a guy who MIGHT develop to be 2nd option on a good team one day. I think he is in a great situation to develop his game in real time with very little pressure and alot of room for errors in Minny.

I still feel he is more of an athlete than a basketball player, and I think he benefits most from a organization who is all-in on making him the face of the franchise. How he develops will determine whether he is ever a capable 2nd option on a contending team or if he will just be a athlete who can score.

Might develop into a 2nd option. Come on now. Do you expect him not to improve at all? He's already getting 19-4 as a rookie with no handle.

My two cents?

I think Wiggins is going to be really good, but trying to use his rookie year numbers to say so is weird to me. His numbers simply aren't that good when compared to everybody else in the NBA. You can add all the qualifiers you want to make them look better, but the reason we know he's going to be really good is because of the flashes we've seen throughout this season, not because of the overall numbers he's put up.

His number don't look that good because his first 20 games were terrible. Since the Cleveland game (33games) he is averaging 19-5 while shooting 48% from 2pt FG and 35% from 3. What takes him over the edge is he has athletisicm/body coordination that's matched by very few players.

Here's why I think he will be better than Paul George. he is shooting 34% on 1.7 attempts on 3s George shot 29% on 2.3 attempts. I don't think wiggins will be the shooter PG is but he will be a good shooter. What really separates players is how much they get to the line and remember rookies don't get calls they should get. Wiggins had to pick up a Tech last week with the way refs ignored contact at the rim. Wiggins is getting to the line 4.8 times on 13.5 field goal attempts. George on the other hand didn't reach 4.8 ft attempts untill last year when he got to the line 5.8x on 17 FG attempts.

Some other scoring machines rookie year ft attempts:

Lebron: 5.8x on 18.9 FG
Melo: 6.4x on 17.9 FG
Durant: 5.7x on 17.9 FG
Wade: 5.1x on 13.1 FG

Wiggins is getting to the line at a better rate as a rookie than everyone but Wade. And this is wiggins who has worse handle than everyone in that list. Wiggins will get to the line with the best if them that is key to a player averaging 22ppg +.