Are the Warriors contenders?

Moderators: bisme37, Dirk, ken6199, Domejandro, KingDavid, zimpy27, jamaalstar21, Harry Garris, bwgood77, infinite11285

Are the Warriors contenders?

Yes
94
37%
No
160
63%
 
Total votes: 254

righterwriter
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,112
And1: 4,729
Joined: Apr 30, 2013
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#101 » by righterwriter » Tue Oct 12, 2021 5:51 am

dhsilv2 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
Talent has ZERO to do with being good or not. He was factually KILLING his team every time he was on the floor. Horrible offensive and defensive awareness. You can be the most talented player to ever walk the planet, but if you make the wrong decision nearly every time down the court, you still suck. I swear the people who attack advanced stats are the same people who watch highlight reels and not actual games...

But if you'd like let me change my statement slightly.

Wiseman was the least valuable player in the league last year. Meaning of players who were put in a role/place to impact team success, he was the guy who hurt his team's chances of winning the most significantly. The only reason he might not win that award was thankfully for the warrior's playoff hopes he got hurt which drastically HELPED the team.



Nah, he was a talented player who had an impact, but who was a rookie at the same time. It all depends on the framing that people create to get across their point.

The guy who simply stated "he's the worst player in the league" is trying too hard. He was a raw rookie without much preparation due to crazy circumstances. Lots of guys fall in the same boat who ended up having HOF careers.

If RealGM in the 90s existed and looked at the rookie years of guys like Jermaine O'Neal, Kobe, KG, and many others, people with short sighted vision could make a similar point. It would be kind of stupid and shallow though, much like trying to use advanced stats to rip on James Wiseman based on his season as a 20 year old, who clearly has skills and physical attributes to show he can be a real player in the NBA, despite the circumstances of the Warriors going full veteran "win now" after Wiseman got hurt and letting Curry cook rather than giving time to their rookie to develop.

But yeah, go ahead and back up the argument that Wiseman is the worst and least valuable player in the league. We'll see what happens with his career, yeah? I'll bet on the upside along with what he showed as a rookie. You can bet on him being bad.


Who is claiming he won't become a good player or making any connection between how bad he was and how good he could be?

KD was the worst player in the league as a rookie. He's now an MVP level guy. The two aren't related.

Wiseman cost his team multiple games with his play last year. He was multiple losses worse than a random G leaguer who was ready for the league.


KD? Do you mean KG?

So are you willing to also make a post that says James Wiseman had a statistically similar rookie season to guys KG, Kobe, or Jermaine O'Neal and has HOF upside?

If you want to only rely on flawed advanced stats, you could say that his PER puts him in the middle of a lot of talented starters like Seth Curry and Draymond Green. His WS/48 number, while unimpressive, was still far better than Anthony Edwards, Dillon Brooks, and Darius Garland.

Your take was only that he's the worst and least valuable player in the league, which isn't even true based on your metrics and clearly is untrue based on his actual production. But what really got me was the lack of nuance in your point. It's a bit like someone hammering away at Trevor Lawrence or Zach Wilson right now as terrible QBs statistically while overlooking their actual skills displayed while being a rookie which makes them better and more valuable than guys like Taylor Heinecke, Jimmy G, or a number of other guys who might have better proficiency stats.

It's just not very salient on your part and unnecessarily drips in venom, for whatever reason you have.
ahmetmekin
Senior
Posts: 670
And1: 327
Joined: Apr 21, 2018
 

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#102 » by ahmetmekin » Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:46 am

righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:

Nah, he was a talented player who had an impact, but who was a rookie at the same time. It all depends on the framing that people create to get across their point.

The guy who simply stated "he's the worst player in the league" is trying too hard. He was a raw rookie without much preparation due to crazy circumstances. Lots of guys fall in the same boat who ended up having HOF careers.

If RealGM in the 90s existed and looked at the rookie years of guys like Jermaine O'Neal, Kobe, KG, and many others, people with short sighted vision could make a similar point. It would be kind of stupid and shallow though, much like trying to use advanced stats to rip on James Wiseman based on his season as a 20 year old, who clearly has skills and physical attributes to show he can be a real player in the NBA, despite the circumstances of the Warriors going full veteran "win now" after Wiseman got hurt and letting Curry cook rather than giving time to their rookie to develop.

But yeah, go ahead and back up the argument that Wiseman is the worst and least valuable player in the league. We'll see what happens with his career, yeah? I'll bet on the upside along with what he showed as a rookie. You can bet on him being bad.


Who is claiming he won't become a good player or making any connection between how bad he was and how good he could be?

KD was the worst player in the league as a rookie. He's now an MVP level guy. The two aren't related.

Wiseman cost his team multiple games with his play last year. He was multiple losses worse than a random G leaguer who was ready for the league.


KD? Do you mean KG?

So are you willing to also make a post that says James Wiseman had a statistically similar rookie season to guys KG, Kobe, or Jermaine O'Neal and has HOF upside?

If you want to only rely on flawed advanced stats, you could say that his PER puts him in the middle of a lot of talented starters like Seth Curry and Draymond Green. His WS/48 number, while unimpressive, was still far better than Anthony Edwards, Dillon Brooks, and Darius Garland.

Your take was only that he's the worst and least valuable player in the league, which isn't even true based on your metrics and clearly is untrue based on his actual production. But what really got me was the lack of nuance in your point. It's a bit like someone hammering away at Trevor Lawrence or Zach Wilson right now as terrible QBs statistically while overlooking their actual skills displayed while being a rookie which makes them better and more valuable than guys like Taylor Heinecke, Jimmy G, or a number of other guys who might have better proficiency stats.

It's just not very salient on your part and unnecessarily drips in venom, for whatever reason you have.

When someone refers to impact, it is obvious that it is about +/- not per. If you label all kind of plus minus data out there flawed and ignore them, then it is difficult to take your argument seriously.

KD is KD. He is not KG.
WarriorGM
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,631
And1: 2,207
Joined: Aug 19, 2017

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#103 » by WarriorGM » Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:47 am

According to 538's RAPTOR metric, Wiseman was arguably the worst player in the league who played more than 800 minutes last year and even the past few years.
yellowknifer
Analyst
Posts: 3,089
And1: 2,021
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
   

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#104 » by yellowknifer » Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:58 am

Depends on Klay. If 100 then they are in the mix. If not then they are not.
righterwriter
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,112
And1: 4,729
Joined: Apr 30, 2013
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#105 » by righterwriter » Tue Oct 12, 2021 7:15 am

ahmetmekin wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
Who is claiming he won't become a good player or making any connection between how bad he was and how good he could be?

KD was the worst player in the league as a rookie. He's now an MVP level guy. The two aren't related.

Wiseman cost his team multiple games with his play last year. He was multiple losses worse than a random G leaguer who was ready for the league.


KD? Do you mean KG?

So are you willing to also make a post that says James Wiseman had a statistically similar rookie season to guys KG, Kobe, or Jermaine O'Neal and has HOF upside?

If you want to only rely on flawed advanced stats, you could say that his PER puts him in the middle of a lot of talented starters like Seth Curry and Draymond Green. His WS/48 number, while unimpressive, was still far better than Anthony Edwards, Dillon Brooks, and Darius Garland.

Your take was only that he's the worst and least valuable player in the league, which isn't even true based on your metrics and clearly is untrue based on his actual production. But what really got me was the lack of nuance in your point. It's a bit like someone hammering away at Trevor Lawrence or Zach Wilson right now as terrible QBs statistically while overlooking their actual skills displayed while being a rookie which makes them better and more valuable than guys like Taylor Heinecke, Jimmy G, or a number of other guys who might have better proficiency stats.

It's just not very salient on your part and unnecessarily drips in venom, for whatever reason you have.

When someone refers to impact, it is obvious that it is about +/- not per. If you label all kind of plus minus data out there flawed and ignore them, then it is difficult to take your argument seriously.

KD is KD. He is not KG.


KD's rookie season was awesome. Oh wait...his advanced stats like WS/48 were bad, so yeah, he sucked too.

You guys with your reliance on advanced stats rather than watching the players play to evaluate them. It always gives me a laugh.
WarriorGM
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,631
And1: 2,207
Joined: Aug 19, 2017

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#106 » by WarriorGM » Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:31 am

righterwriter wrote:You guys with your reliance on advanced stats rather than watching the players play to evaluate them. It always gives me a laugh.


You guys! Watching a player play and coming to different conclusions than the advanced stats but then when the player is off court the team's win record improves just like the advanced stats predicted. Yeah that's something to laugh about! :)
ahmetmekin
Senior
Posts: 670
And1: 327
Joined: Apr 21, 2018
 

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#107 » by ahmetmekin » Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:15 am

WarriorGM wrote:
righterwriter wrote:You guys with your reliance on advanced stats rather than watching the players play to evaluate them. It always gives me a laugh.


You guys! Watching a player play and coming to different conclusions than the advanced stats but then when the player is off court the team's win record improves just like the advanced stats predicted. Yeah that's something to laugh about! :)

Aside from that, basic (as opposed to metrics like rpm, rapm, bpm) +/- and on/off numbers are obtained by addition and subtraction. Yet they tell the same exact story about Wiseman.
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 28,749
And1: 13,178
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#108 » by dhsilv2 » Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:47 am

righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:

Nah, he was a talented player who had an impact, but who was a rookie at the same time. It all depends on the framing that people create to get across their point.

The guy who simply stated "he's the worst player in the league" is trying too hard. He was a raw rookie without much preparation due to crazy circumstances. Lots of guys fall in the same boat who ended up having HOF careers.

If RealGM in the 90s existed and looked at the rookie years of guys like Jermaine O'Neal, Kobe, KG, and many others, people with short sighted vision could make a similar point. It would be kind of stupid and shallow though, much like trying to use advanced stats to rip on James Wiseman based on his season as a 20 year old, who clearly has skills and physical attributes to show he can be a real player in the NBA, despite the circumstances of the Warriors going full veteran "win now" after Wiseman got hurt and letting Curry cook rather than giving time to their rookie to develop.

But yeah, go ahead and back up the argument that Wiseman is the worst and least valuable player in the league. We'll see what happens with his career, yeah? I'll bet on the upside along with what he showed as a rookie. You can bet on him being bad.


Who is claiming he won't become a good player or making any connection between how bad he was and how good he could be?

KD was the worst player in the league as a rookie. He's now an MVP level guy. The two aren't related.

Wiseman cost his team multiple games with his play last year. He was multiple losses worse than a random G leaguer who was ready for the league.


KD? Do you mean KG?

So are you willing to also make a post that says James Wiseman had a statistically similar rookie season to guys KG, Kobe, or Jermaine O'Neal and has HOF upside?

If you want to only rely on flawed advanced stats, you could say that his PER puts him in the middle of a lot of talented starters like Seth Curry and Draymond Green. His WS/48 number, while unimpressive, was still far better than Anthony Edwards, Dillon Brooks, and Darius Garland.

Your take was only that he's the worst and least valuable player in the league, which isn't even true based on your metrics and clearly is untrue based on his actual production. But what really got me was the lack of nuance in your point. It's a bit like someone hammering away at Trevor Lawrence or Zach Wilson right now as terrible QBs statistically while overlooking their actual skills displayed while being a rookie which makes them better and more valuable than guys like Taylor Heinecke, Jimmy G, or a number of other guys who might have better proficiency stats.

It's just not very salient on your part and unnecessarily drips in venom, for whatever reason you have.


Did you really go with KG? KG was pretty solid as rookie. No, I mean KD of course. And nobody has used PER in this context in a decade.

And just no on this skill stuff. The issue is wiseman's completely lack of knowledge of the game, where to be, how to play, etc. Having skill doesn't offset this things.
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 28,749
And1: 13,178
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#109 » by dhsilv2 » Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:48 am

righterwriter wrote:
ahmetmekin wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
KD? Do you mean KG?

So are you willing to also make a post that says James Wiseman had a statistically similar rookie season to guys KG, Kobe, or Jermaine O'Neal and has HOF upside?

If you want to only rely on flawed advanced stats, you could say that his PER puts him in the middle of a lot of talented starters like Seth Curry and Draymond Green. His WS/48 number, while unimpressive, was still far better than Anthony Edwards, Dillon Brooks, and Darius Garland.

Your take was only that he's the worst and least valuable player in the league, which isn't even true based on your metrics and clearly is untrue based on his actual production. But what really got me was the lack of nuance in your point. It's a bit like someone hammering away at Trevor Lawrence or Zach Wilson right now as terrible QBs statistically while overlooking their actual skills displayed while being a rookie which makes them better and more valuable than guys like Taylor Heinecke, Jimmy G, or a number of other guys who might have better proficiency stats.

It's just not very salient on your part and unnecessarily drips in venom, for whatever reason you have.

When someone refers to impact, it is obvious that it is about +/- not per. If you label all kind of plus minus data out there flawed and ignore them, then it is difficult to take your argument seriously.

KD is KD. He is not KG.


KD's rookie season was awesome. Oh wait...his advanced stats like WS/48 were bad, so yeah, he sucked too.

You guys with your reliance on advanced stats rather than watching the players play to evaluate them. It always gives me a laugh.


You clearly did neither then. Both these guys stunk as rookies in the roles they preformed.
righterwriter
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,112
And1: 4,729
Joined: Apr 30, 2013
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#110 » by righterwriter » Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:34 am

WarriorGM wrote:
righterwriter wrote:You guys with your reliance on advanced stats rather than watching the players play to evaluate them. It always gives me a laugh.


You guys! Watching a player play and coming to different conclusions than the advanced stats but then when the player is off court the team's win record improves just like the advanced stats predicted. Yeah that's something to laugh about! :)


Not saying that Wiseman made the Warriors better last year. Saying that the argument that he was the worst player in the league is ridiculous. Watching him play, even if it exhibited a lot of inexperience, shows that his talent made him a better player than dozens and dozens of guys who are in the league.

Again, read through the entirety of the discussion and you'll see the full context of my points and how they are really about calling out statements that reach too far.
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 28,749
And1: 13,178
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#111 » by dhsilv2 » Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:26 pm

righterwriter wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
righterwriter wrote:You guys with your reliance on advanced stats rather than watching the players play to evaluate them. It always gives me a laugh.


You guys! Watching a player play and coming to different conclusions than the advanced stats but then when the player is off court the team's win record improves just like the advanced stats predicted. Yeah that's something to laugh about! :)


Not saying that Wiseman made the Warriors better last year. Saying that the argument that he was the worst player in the league is ridiculous. Watching him play, even if it exhibited a lot of inexperience, shows that his talent made him a better player than dozens and dozens of guys who are in the league.

Again, read through the entirety of the discussion and you'll see the full context of my points and how they are really about calling out statements that reach too far.


Talent does nothing if you're constantly out of position hurting your team's offense AND defense. You can talk about his talent till the cows come home, but it didn't translate to winning basketball in games.
MGB8
RealGM
Posts: 16,933
And1: 2,423
Joined: Jul 20, 2001
Location: Philly

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#112 » by MGB8 » Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:02 pm

IMO, the Warriors are a 2nd tier, near contender team in the West. And I only really see the Lakers (if healthy) as a true contender in the West - with the Suns and Nuggets, along with the Warriors, a half of a step back.

So that makes the Warriors contenders to me - at least assuming that Klay is 80% or better back.

Depth chart of:

G: Curry, Pool
G: Thompson, Lee, A.Bradley
W: Wiggins, Iguodala, Moody
F: O.Porter, Kuminga, JTA, Bjelica
B: Dr.Green, Looney, Wiseman

I mean, if Curry gets hurt - they are done. They lack real creation / PG play outside of Curry - Draymond at the 5 at this stage in his career isn't enough, and I don't think old man Iggy is, either, and while maybe Pool or Lee step up - highly unlikely to be enough to contend. But that's the same of any team losing its best player.

Anyway, if Thompson is healthy enough (and everyone else, too), I don't see any way this team is *not* a contender.
tamaraw08
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,274
And1: 320
Joined: Feb 13, 2019
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#113 » by tamaraw08 » Tue Oct 12, 2021 3:09 pm

No they are not contenders... YET. Everything needs to be right, Klay comeback healthy, Steph healthy, Porter finds his shot AND trade Wiseman, Poole, fillers and picks to acquire a quality defensive big like Myles Turner or Sabonis.
righterwriter
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,112
And1: 4,729
Joined: Apr 30, 2013
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#114 » by righterwriter » Tue Oct 12, 2021 3:56 pm

dhsilv2 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
You guys! Watching a player play and coming to different conclusions than the advanced stats but then when the player is off court the team's win record improves just like the advanced stats predicted. Yeah that's something to laugh about! :)


Not saying that Wiseman made the Warriors better last year. Saying that the argument that he was the worst player in the league is ridiculous. Watching him play, even if it exhibited a lot of inexperience, shows that his talent made him a better player than dozens and dozens of guys who are in the league.

Again, read through the entirety of the discussion and you'll see the full context of my points and how they are really about calling out statements that reach too far.


Talent does nothing if you're constantly out of position hurting your team's offense AND defense. You can talk about his talent till the cows come home, but it didn't translate to winning basketball in games.


Your statement about him being the worst player/least valuable player in the league was crazy, which is what I was arguing against. There are at least 50 guys who are barely hanging onto their spot in the league who are worse than him. There are guys who, even without being raw, couldn't put up 11/6 in 20 mpg.

If you want to say he hurt the Warriors chance at winning as a super raw 20 year old who played without a summer league, minicamp or preseason in a pandemic year, go for it. Just make sure you don't only do what you did before which is call him anything close to the worst/least valuable player in the league. It doesn't make any sense.
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 28,749
And1: 13,178
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#115 » by dhsilv2 » Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:12 pm

righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
Not saying that Wiseman made the Warriors better last year. Saying that the argument that he was the worst player in the league is ridiculous. Watching him play, even if it exhibited a lot of inexperience, shows that his talent made him a better player than dozens and dozens of guys who are in the league.

Again, read through the entirety of the discussion and you'll see the full context of my points and how they are really about calling out statements that reach too far.


Talent does nothing if you're constantly out of position hurting your team's offense AND defense. You can talk about his talent till the cows come home, but it didn't translate to winning basketball in games.


Your statement about him being the worst player/least valuable player in the league was crazy, which is what I was arguing against. There are at least 50 guys who are barely hanging onto their spot in the league who are worse than him. There are guys who, even without being raw, couldn't put up 11/6 in 20 mpg.

If you want to say he hurt the Warriors chance at winning as a super raw 20 year old who played without a summer league, minicamp or preseason in a pandemic year, go for it. Just make sure you don't only do what you did before which is call him anything close to the worst/least valuable player in the league. It doesn't make any sense.


I already corrected my statement to avoid the confusion of him vs a random G league player who also sucks or another rookie. He did the most to hurt his team's record last year by a great many measures. Thus least valuable. I assumed that was obvious when I said worst but since it didn't register I corrected my obtuse wording to be more clear.
WarriorGM
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,631
And1: 2,207
Joined: Aug 19, 2017

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#116 » by WarriorGM » Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:39 am

I've said before that if you give Steph an average team he'll make them a contender. Looks like the rest of the roster meets that qualification. They are contenders.
User avatar
God Squad
General Manager
Posts: 8,379
And1: 4,780
Joined: Feb 22, 2010
Location: Toronto
 

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#117 » by God Squad » Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:00 am

WarriorGM wrote:
righterwriter wrote:You guys with your reliance on advanced stats rather than watching the players play to evaluate them. It always gives me a laugh.


You guys! Watching a player play and coming to different conclusions than the advanced stats but then when the player is off court the team's win record improves just like the advanced stats predicted. Yeah that's something to laugh about! :)

Facts. People can watch games and look at stats. It's not one or the other lol. Righterwriter is just mad because Wiseman sucks, and the stats and eye test back it up.
Image
Asianiac_24
Head Coach
Posts: 6,976
And1: 2,331
Joined: Jul 28, 2008
Contact:
   

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#118 » by Asianiac_24 » Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:13 am

While Wiseman did suck as a rookie last year, it would be interesting to compare rookie Wiseman vs rookie KG/JO
righterwriter
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,112
And1: 4,729
Joined: Apr 30, 2013
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#119 » by righterwriter » Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:55 am

God Squad wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
righterwriter wrote:You guys with your reliance on advanced stats rather than watching the players play to evaluate them. It always gives me a laugh.


You guys! Watching a player play and coming to different conclusions than the advanced stats but then when the player is off court the team's win record improves just like the advanced stats predicted. Yeah that's something to laugh about! :)

Facts. People can watch games and look at stats. It's not one or the other lol. Righterwriter is just mad because Wiseman sucks, and the stats and eye test back it up.


Call me old school, but I always feel that watching a player play is the best way to evaluate a player. Seeing a guy go coast to coast from a blocked shot to taking the ball up the floor and seeing him change angles, take two steps from the 3pt line and dunk it would be an indicator that he does not in fact "suck."

Advanced stats are for baseball, which is an individual game. For a team sport, they are too fallible. Who you are on the court with, the situation of the game (are you playing crunch time minutes or putting up stats during blowouts?) are too big of factor to merely rely on to say a player is good or bad.

As I mentioned, Wiseman still put up better advanced stats than Dillon Brooks and Darius Garland, among guys who do not suck. He put up similar advanced stats historically to young players that quickly turned into studs like Kobe, Jermaine O'Neal, and Dirk Nowitzki. So once again, I'm battling the narrative of the ignoramuses who come in and make a simple statement of "he sucks, look at his advanced stats."

Anyway, we'll have our answer on him and his career eventually. I'm confident in what it will become based on evaluating the player.
The411
Senior
Posts: 624
And1: 374
Joined: Dec 06, 2014
         

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#120 » by The411 » Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:51 am

Player A
PER TS% OWS DWS WS WS/48 OBPM DBPM BPM VORP OnCourt OffRtg Drtg NetRtg
7.2 .454 -1.6 0.4 -1.2 -0.047 -4.4 -2.2 -6.6 -1.5 -8.5 101.8 110 -8.2

Player B
PER TS% OWS DWS WS WS/48 OBPM DBPM BPM VORP OnCourt OffRtg Drtg NetRtg
13.1 .552 -0.4 1.2 0.7 .042 -4.0 -1.4 -5.4 -0.7 -10.2 101.8 110.6 -8.8

Player C
PER TS% OWS DWS WS WS/48 OBPM DBPM BPM VORP OnCourt OffRtg Drtg NetRtg
15.8 .519 0.4 1.9 2.3 .040 0.5 -0.7 -0.2 1.3 -11.6 100 110 -10

Player D
PER TS% OWS DWS WS WS/48 OBPM DBPM BPM VORP OnCourt OffRtg Drtg NetRtg
10.8 .518 0.1 1.1 1.2 .031 -2.4 -0.1 -2.5 -0.2 -5.2 99 110 -11

Player E
PER TS% OWS DWS WS WS/48 OBPM DBPM BPM VORP OnCourt OffRtg Drtg NetRtg
13.9 .482 -0.3 1.9 1.6 .035 -1.9 -1.3 -3.2 -0.7 -15.3 97 108 -11


5 Players - Rookie Years

Will reveal later

Return to The General Board