Wembanyama. I'm concerned

[lebootz21]

What are you talking about what "fashion" he plays? If he's shooting 43% and 26%, I don't care what fashion he's playing, maybe he should change it?

But that's the point: in your rush to crap on him, you don't realize that he already has begun doing so...

Being skeptical is actually a legitimate position to take.

We don't know if he's going to be a KD or Knick's Pozingis.

You Wemby stans have as much as an argument as I do.

The difference is I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if the facts prove otherwise.

Are you?

[bananazn]

Neither tbh as hes much better passer and playmaker than both at the same age lol
Id project him to average 5+ assist in his prime

[tsherkin]

Being skeptical is actually a legitimate position to take.

Absolutely. But if you're going to make a specific criticism, then attention to the details surrounding that criticism is paramount. It is in that aspect which you've failed. It doesn't take away from the idea that we don't have a clear feel for what Wemby's overall offense might look like down the road, for sure.

You Wemby stans have as much as an argument as I do.

The minute you do that, the minute you become pejorative, you lose credibility.

You're so interested in picking a fight, and so much less in the back-and-forth of real discourse, which makes it quite frustrating.

Circling back to the subject, Wemby has had a positional change and a notable increase in FG%. It begins to undercut the specific criticism you made orbiting his specific FG%. It's a short sample, and he's also shooting 36% from 3 during that time, so there are things to watch for in terms of possible regression, but he's shooting zone profile has also changed and he's showing a lot of interesting signs. He has no real talent to speak of around him, which isn't making things easier for him in the way SGA does for someone like Chet, but he is also specifically undercutting himself with his 3pt shooting volume, so there's that to consider. When he does attack the basket and mix it up in close, though, he's been looking great.

[BetterCallSaul]

he's 7'5. he'll get his numbers

he's not turning the spurs around any time soon though

roster construction is important man.....i guess i was kind of naive to think he would make a massive impact on the team, in a certain way you can say he has....however as a team i think they're just as bad as they've been pre-wemby

in a different era his height would mean something and he wouldn't develop chucking 3s, and he'd be a force as a rookie. but it's a new era and they all grow up practicing 3s. he one of the worst on his team in 3% but he's #3 in attempts. there's NO rationale for it

The rationale is that some time soon, within a year or two, he will be automatic on open/semi open threes and completely unguardable and opponents will have to completely change the way they play in order to defend that.
Putting him in the post will only wear down his body and for very little gain as he's not actually a good post player either.

He is Giannis with a jump shot - the thing Giannis is famous for missing in order to be able to average like 40ppg. He's a taller AD. He will create his own path. That's what superstars and generational players do. You can't predict exactly what it will look like when he's dominating in 3-5 years but you know he will definitely be dominant.

[bledredwine]

Stating that Wemby is only shooting 44% as a center is surface level analysis. His volume and efficiency combo are on the list of all time greatest rookie seasons, from a purely scoring/efficiency perspective. How did other 19 year olds stack up?

Kevin Durant PER 15.8, .430 from the field

Lebron PER 18.3, .418 from the field

Wemby PER 20.4, .450 from the field

.... all at age 19 rookie season

Rookie efficiency is all in context, especially considering most rookies are inefficient in the first place.


Take Deandre Jordan for example; he was one of the league's most efficient players.
Was he an elite scorer? Obviously not. He got his shots assisted and off of dunks.

Now let's state Wemby's efficiency with context.

Victor is shooting 44% on high volume..... while making impressive moves, plays and creating his own shot in ways that almost all centers cannot. Plenty of these shots are challenging.

He's doing this with a terrible supporting squad who doesn't feed him near the rim as often as they should.
He's also doing it at the age of 19. His PER 20.... how many 19 year olds can you name in NBA history with a 20 PER or higher?

Jordan hit 28 PPG rookie season with .515 FG% at age 21, for perspective.

This is indication that Wemby is on the trajectory not only to becoming an elite scorer, but an elite volume scorer who can create at will. Aside from all this, he's also showing that he can be the best player in the league someday on the defensive end.

So if you've read and thought about this, please tell me if you genuinely should be concerned about his talent and effectiveness, given what he's doing at age 19.

[Bornstellar]

Stating that Wemby is only shooting 44% as a center is surface level analysis. His volume and efficiency combo are on the list of all time greatest rookie seasons, from a purely scoring/efficiency perspective. How did other 19 year olds stack up?

Kevin Durant PER 15.8, .430 from the field

Lebron PER 18.3, .418 from the field

Wemby PER 20.4, .450 from the field

.... all at age 19 rookie season

Rookie efficiency is all in context, especially considering most rookies are inefficient in the first place.


Take Deandre Jordan for example; he was one of the league's most efficient players.
Was he an elite scorer? Obviously not. He got his shots assisted and off of dunks.

Now let's state Wemby's efficiency with context.

Victor is shooting 44% on high volume..... while making impressive moves, plays and creating his own shot in ways that almost all centers cannot. Plenty of these shots are challenging.

He's doing this with a terrible supporting squad who doesn't feed him near the rim as often as they should.
He's also doing it at the age of 19. His PER 20.... how many 19 year olds can you name in NBA history with a 20 PER or higher?

Jordan hit 28 PPG rookie season with .515 FG% at age 21, for perspective.

This is indication that Wemby is on the trajectory not only to becoming an elite scorer, but an elite volume scorer who can create at will. Aside from all this, he's also showing that he can be the best player in the league someday on the defensive end.

So if you've read and thought about this, please tell me if you genuinely should be concerned about his talent and effectiveness, given what he's doing at age 19.

No, you're wrong because he doesn't hit threes consistently therefore all of your factual analysis and great points are invalid

[Bornstellar]

What are you talking about what "fashion" he plays? If he's shooting 43% and 26%, I don't care what fashion he's playing, maybe he should change it?

But that's the point: in your rush to crap on him, you don't realize that he already has begun doing so...

Being skeptical is actually a legitimate position to take.

We don't know if he's going to be a KD or Knick's Pozingis.

You Wemby stans have as much as an argument as I do.

The difference is I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if the facts prove otherwise.

Are you?

Lol, he's already better than Knicks Porzingis. Hilarious how much you want him to fail.

[lebootz21]

Wemby does not have the shooting touch of Nowitski or Durant. His 43% FG and 26% 3pt is concerning.

[/b]

Durant rookie year: 43%FG 28%3FG

Nowitzki rookie year: 40%FG and 20%3FG

Get out of here.

Nowitski only played 24 games his rookie year so that is a deceptive post.

His stats are comparable to KD but shouldn't he be better than Jordan, Lebron, and Curry? I'm just saying ... hype is a bit overblown don't you think?

He does not have the mobility of a KD or shooting touch of Nowitski is my point. Nowitski has always been a high 30s low 40s 3pt% guy.

[manlisten]

Wemby does not have the shooting touch of Nowitski or Durant. His 43% FG and 26% 3pt is concerning.

[/b]

Durant rookie year: 43%FG 28%3FG

Nowitzki rookie year: 40%FG and 20%3FG

Get out of here.

Nowitski only played 24 games his rookie year so that is a deceptive post.

So what you're saying is that less than half a season is too small of a sample to determine that a player won't develop into a good shooter........

[lebootz21]

Durant rookie year: 43%FG 28%3FG

Nowitzki rookie year: 40%FG and 20%3FG

Get out of here.

Nowitski only played 24 games his rookie year so that is a deceptive post.

So what you're saying is that less than half a season is too small of a sample to determine that a player won't develop into a good shooter........

No.

If we are going to say he is the greatest of all time, why are we comparing him to an injured rookie Dirk who played only 24 games?

The fact we are doing that proves my point.

[DwayneSchintzus]

Only being capable of processing what you're seeing through the lens of things that have happened before is a tell-tale sign of significantly limited cognitive mapping.

This whole thread reminds me of the Confucius quote, "when a wise man points at the moon, the imbecile examines his finger."

[lebootz21]

You win the argument if he's a wannabee KD level player, but GOAT?

I expected more.

[lebootz21]

Only being capable of processing what you're seeing through the lens of things that have happened before is a tell-tale sign of significantly limited cognitive mapping.

This whole thread reminds me of the Confucius quote, "when a wise man points at the moon, the imbecile examines his finger."

The difference between you and I is I value net rating as a determinant reason as to why a player is great.

I understand your metric is the 1 game sample and highlights.

To each their own.

I hope you can at least reasonable conclude all those fancy stats and highlights don't matter if his team is not winning correct?

At what point are those empty stats?

[DwayneSchintzus]

Only being capable of processing what you're seeing through the lens of things that have happened before is a tell-tale sign of significantly limited cognitive mapping.

This whole thread reminds me of the Confucius quote, "when a wise man points at the moon, the imbecile examines his finger."

The difference between you and I is I value net rating as a determinant reason as to why a player is great.

I understand your metric is the 1 game sample and highlights.

To each their own.

"1 game sample and highlights"? lol I've watched every Spurs game, have you?

I watched nearly every Spurs game LAST year lol, much to my wife's chagrin.

One of us watches the games and the other runs to cleaning the glass or basketball reference to contextualize what is happening.

the advanced stats you are citing will look much different in a year, a lot of us understand that, but you seem to think that player growth isn't possible. which one of us is being obtuse?

[manlisten]

Nowitski only played 24 games his rookie year so that is a deceptive post.

So what you're saying is that less than half a season is too small of a sample to determine that a player won't develop into a good shooter........

No.

If we are going to say he is the greatest of all time, why are we comparing him to an injured rookie Dirk who played only 24 games?

The fact we are doing that proves my point.

I'm not sure what your point is honestly. That a 19 year old will never improve his efficiency?

[Lalouie]

roster construction is important man.....i guess i was kind of naive to think he would make a massive impact on the team, in a certain way you can say he has....however as a team i think they're just as bad as they've been pre-wemby

in a different era his height would mean something and he wouldn't develop chucking 3s, and he'd be a force as a rookie. but it's a new era and they all grow up practicing 3s. he one of the worst on his team in 3% but he's #3 in attempts. there's NO rationale for it

The rationale is that some time soon, within a year or two, he will be automatic on open/semi open threes and completely unguardable and opponents will have to completely change the way they play in order to defend that.
Putting him in the post will only wear down his body and for very little gain as he's not actually a good post player either.

He is Giannis with a jump shot - the thing Giannis is famous for missing in order to be able to average like 40ppg. He's a taller AD. He will create his own path. That's what superstars and generational players do. You can't predict exactly what it will look like when he's dominating in 3-5 years but you know he will definitely be dominant.

he's 7'5. he's already unguardable. he's a 7'5 player who makes things difficult on himself by playing like he's 6'4. he doesn't need moves, he can just stand straight and tall and shoot from anywhere whenever he feels like it. no moves no nuttin' necessary. he's puts on a move, puts the ball on the floor,,,THEN he becomes guardable

he has height.....he doesn't use it

[JustBuzzin]

This thread is WILD!

[hardenASG13]

Look I only deal with facts. I see 43% shooting and 26% 3pt.

If I was his coach, I would stop a couple of things ... namely the 3pt shot.

I would get rid of it.

I'm not going to argue with you what kind of style he's playing because that is subjective. All I know is 43% FG for a center is pretty bad.

I mean historically bad.

I thought he's supposed to be better than Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq?

Their FG never dipped below 50. He's in the low 40s.

That's bad.

P.S. I am just a concerned citizen, not hater.

Watch the clips on this page by Marvin Martian. They sum up what I'm saying to you perfectly, in that you need to watch the Spurs and not look at his percentages or shot selection. He is missed repeatedly for surefire dunks, and has been all season in mind boggling fashion.

What about team net rating? He's losing, so how do I know these aren't just empty stats?

Do you have another metric more important than net rating? I'm interested.

With all due respect, I don't care about what he did in the Bucks game or some insane block he had on Giannis.

All of that is irrelevant.

The only metrics that matter to me are his FG%, 3pt.%, Defensive Rating, and Net Rating.

I personally believe TS% is flawed since it does not differentiate the difference between a 2 point attempt and 3pt, thus someone like Gobert can be seen as a good of a shooter as Curry, which is not true.

What metrics (facts) are you using?

A one game sample and "OMG he blocked Giannis" is not a legit argument.

I'm not using a one game sample. I didn't even see the game last night. But they have been a go to team on league pass for me, and he does stuff like he did last night all the time. You're hear to seemingly question his shot selection, and im telling you he's available and willing to take better shots, they just miss him all the time, such as in the referenced videos. It's why you can throw his percentages out the window. Anyone regular watching this dude can see that.

[lebootz21]

So what you're saying is that less than half a season is too small of a sample to determine that a player won't develop into a good shooter........

No.

If we are going to say he is the greatest of all time, why are we comparing him to an injured rookie Dirk who played only 24 games?

The fact we are doing that proves my point.

I'm not sure what your point is honestly. That a 19 year old will never improve his efficiency?

My point is if he wants to be a KD type player, I just don't see it. I can see him being better on defense, but KD is better than him in every advance metrics on the offensive end even in his rookie year if you take net rating as a factor.

I don't see how you can say he is better when his team net rating is absymal.

I can easily argue he's stat padding.

[manlisten]

No.

If we are going to say he is the greatest of all time, why are we comparing him to an injured rookie Dirk who played only 24 games?

The fact we are doing that proves my point.

I'm not sure what your point is honestly. That a 19 year old will never improve his efficiency?

My point is if he wants to be a KD type player, I just don't see it. I can see him being better on defense, but KD is better than him in every advance metrics on the offensive end even in his rookie year if you take net rating as a factor.

I don't see how you can say he is better when his team net rating is absymal.

I can easily argue he's stat padding.

So again...you "don't see" him improving his efficiency because KD had better advanced metrics. Doesn't correlate. Who even said he's better at being KD than KD?