James Wiseman vs Bol Bol

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Who would you take going forward?
Not just this year

[wojoaderge]

I like Wiseman's hair style, but Bol is just too entertaining

[Clyde Frazier]

I think the next question for Bol is can he scale up to say 32 MPG and stay healthy/be as effective? I think wiseman is just in a bad situation at this point. I don't think the jury is out on him yet tho.

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I think the next question for Bol is can he scale up to say 32 MPG and stay healthy/be as effective? I think wiseman is just in a bad situation at this point. I don't think the jury is out on him yet tho.

What do you mean by bad situation? James Wiseman was gifted the best situation in the NBA, with the Golden State Warriors. I think Wiseman's biggest problem is work ethic. You could kind of see it coming in college, when he removed himself from Memphis after 3 games. If he can't make it with Steve Kerr and the Warriors (even Andrew Wiggins made it there), I don't know how he will succeed elsewhere.

Give me Bol Bol any day.

[Dutchball97]

Bol Bol is at least a rotation player, while Wiseman is still among the absolute worst players in the NBA and showing no signs of getting better. Maybe Wiseman proves me wrong one day but I'm not counting on it.

[parsnips33]

I think the next question for Bol is can he scale up to say 32 MPG and stay healthy/be as effective? I think wiseman is just in a bad situation at this point. I don't think the jury is out on him yet tho.

What do you mean by bad situation? James Wiseman was gifted the best situation in the NBA, with the Golden State Warriors. I think Wiseman's biggest problem is work ethic. You could kind of see it coming in college, when he removed himself from Memphis after 3 games. If he can't make it with Steve Kerr and the Warriors (even Andrew Wiggins made it there), I don't know how he will succeed elsewhere.

Give me Bol Bol any day.

What may be a great situation for one player is not necessarily a great situation for every player.

[Samurai]

I think the next question for Bol is can he scale up to say 32 MPG and stay healthy/be as effective? I think wiseman is just in a bad situation at this point. I don't think the jury is out on him yet tho.

What do you mean by bad situation? James Wiseman was gifted the best situation in the NBA, with the Golden State Warriors. I think Wiseman's biggest problem is work ethic. You could kind of see it coming in college, when he removed himself from Memphis after 3 games. If he can't make it with Steve Kerr and the Warriors (even Andrew Wiggins made it there), I don't know how he will succeed elsewhere.

Give me Bol Bol any day.

What may be a great situation for one player is not necessarily a great situation for every player.

Agreed. The Dubs play a style that relies even less on a big than most other teams today. Their starting "center" is Looney who is 6-9 and even he played less than 22 minutes/game in the finals. Their offense is powered by Curry and the others operate best when they can maximize his gravity, thus Kerr favors a smaller lineup and he has had success using a PF like Otto Porter (6-8) or even 6-6 Juan Toscano Anderson played the backup 5 during the regular season last year. Draymond becomes the center in crunch time when they employ their 'death lineup'. On defense, they do tend to get pounded inside without a big but they mitigate the damage because their smaller lineup can constantly switch and Draymond is a master communicator on defense, yelling out switches and coverage changes on the fly to provide help on penetrators in the absence of a traditional rim protector.

Even with all his current issues learning the nuances of basketball (despite playing 3 whole games in college!), I think Wiseman now could average about 15 points/game on a bad team that force fed him the ball. He wouldn't be very efficient, he'd give up a lot on defense and would likely foul out before reaching 30 minutes of playing time, but I think he could give you about 15 points under those circumstances. The Warriors don't play that style; they would prefer a big that can bang bodies, pass the ball, and set Hulk-like picks. Andrew Bogut did very well in that role. That isn't the type of game that Wiseman, who was heavily influenced by his HS coach Penny Hardaway, brings.

[Owly]

What do you mean by bad situation? James Wiseman was gifted the best situation in the NBA, with the Golden State Warriors. I think Wiseman's biggest problem is work ethic. You could kind of see it coming in college, when he removed himself from Memphis after 3 games. If he can't make it with Steve Kerr and the Warriors (even Andrew Wiggins made it there), I don't know how he will succeed elsewhere.

Give me Bol Bol any day.

What may be a great situation for one player is not necessarily a great situation for every player.

Agreed. The Dubs play a style that relies even less on a big than most other teams today. Their starting "center" is Looney who is 6-9 and even he played less than 22 minutes/game in the finals. Their offense is powered by Curry and the others operate best when they can maximize his gravity, thus Kerr favors a smaller lineup and he has had success using a PF like Otto Porter (6-8) or even 6-6 Juan Toscano Anderson played the backup 5 during the regular season last year. Draymond becomes the center in crunch time when they employ their 'death lineup'. On defense, they do tend to get pounded inside without a big but they mitigate the damage because their smaller lineup can constantly switch and Draymond is a master communicator on defense, yelling out switches and coverage changes on the fly to provide help on penetrators in the absence of a traditional rim protector.

Even with all his current issues learning the nuances of basketball (despite playing 3 whole games in college!), I think Wiseman now could average about 15 points/game on a bad team that force fed him the ball. He wouldn't be very efficient, he'd give up a lot on defense and would likely foul out before reaching 30 minutes of playing time, but I think he could give you about 15 points under those circumstances. The Warriors don't play that style; they would prefer a big that can bang bodies, pass the ball, and set Hulk-like picks. Andrew Bogut did very well in that role. That isn't the type of game that Wiseman, who was heavily influenced by his HS coach Penny Hardaway, brings.

The thing is saying he could get you 15ppg on "wouldn't be very efficient" scoring and poor D (and poor passing, and not doing the little things like pick setting) ... that's not very good at all.

And the question with Wiseman isn't can he be passably box productive (TS%, usage, rebounding) it's can he be out on the floor and his team not suck. Small samples but even if you put the on-off numbers (-16.7 career) as bad fit, not being on the Draymond 5 lineups or whatever and ignored reports that he killed "with Curry" minutes (and so Curry sans Wiseman being good) ... just the "on" -12.2 ... that's a real kick in the teeth. Even though these numbers should regress back they're also out there enough [I think pretty historically awful] to have some signal to them that give significant doubt he should ever be a rotation player.

He may very well get more chances ... high pick (still some status, plus chasing losses and not understanding a cost to be sunk), big body, still young and the Warriors notional 2 timelines thing. Still I almost posted when this thread first came up (I think Wiseman's box composites for the season were better at that point) that I'd rather have Bol regardless of whether there's any upside there because there isn't the baggage of that high pick and reluctance to admit a mistake.

They're around 1000 career minutes apiece so there's noise/luck in all their numbers especially impact stuff and there's plenty of time to turn stuff around, but if the jury is not quite yet back in on Wiseman then the evidence thus far bodes ill.

[Samurai]

What may be a great situation for one player is not necessarily a great situation for every player.

Agreed. The Dubs play a style that relies even less on a big than most other teams today. Their starting "center" is Looney who is 6-9 and even he played less than 22 minutes/game in the finals. Their offense is powered by Curry and the others operate best when they can maximize his gravity, thus Kerr favors a smaller lineup and he has had success using a PF like Otto Porter (6-8) or even 6-6 Juan Toscano Anderson played the backup 5 during the regular season last year. Draymond becomes the center in crunch time when they employ their 'death lineup'. On defense, they do tend to get pounded inside without a big but they mitigate the damage because their smaller lineup can constantly switch and Draymond is a master communicator on defense, yelling out switches and coverage changes on the fly to provide help on penetrators in the absence of a traditional rim protector.

Even with all his current issues learning the nuances of basketball (despite playing 3 whole games in college!), I think Wiseman now could average about 15 points/game on a bad team that force fed him the ball. He wouldn't be very efficient, he'd give up a lot on defense and would likely foul out before reaching 30 minutes of playing time, but I think he could give you about 15 points under those circumstances. The Warriors don't play that style; they would prefer a big that can bang bodies, pass the ball, and set Hulk-like picks. Andrew Bogut did very well in that role. That isn't the type of game that Wiseman, who was heavily influenced by his HS coach Penny Hardaway, brings.

The thing is saying he could get you 15ppg on "wouldn't be very efficient" scoring and poor D (and poor passing, and not doing the little things like pick setting) ... that's not very good at all.

And the question with Wiseman isn't can he be passably box productive (TS%, usage, rebounding) it's can he be out on the floor and his team not suck. Small samples but even if you put the on-off numbers (-16.7 career) as bad fit, not being on the Draymond 5 lineups or whatever and ignored reports that he killed "with Curry" minutes (and so Curry sans Wiseman being good) ... just the "on" -12.2 ... that's a real kick in the teeth. Even though these numbers should regress back they're also out there enough [I think pretty historically awful] to have some signal to them that give significant doubt he should ever be a rotation player.

He may very well get more chances ... high pick (still some status, plus chasing losses and not understanding a cost to be sunk), big body, still young and the Warriors notional 2 timelines thing. Still I almost posted when this thread first came up (I think Wiseman's box composites for the season were better at that point) that I'd rather have Bol regardless of whether there's any upside there because there isn't the baggage of that high pick and reluctance to admit a mistake.

They're around 1000 career minutes apiece so there's noise/luck in all their numbers especially impact stuff and there's plenty of time to turn stuff around, but if the jury is not quite yet back in on Wiseman then the evidence thus far bodes ill.

That's my point - he's not very good right now. He is still learning how to play the game; in terms of games played he hasn't even completed a rookie season yet after essentially coming straight out of high school (3 college games and 51 NBA games played). If he weren't on the Warriors, he could give you decent 'empty' stats - inefficient scoring, most of his rebounds stem from being tall and not from superior boxing out or outfighting others, etc. He's not going to make the team better, which is why he's in the G-league right now instead of the Warriors. But on a bad lottery team, it isn't as important to make the team this year which is why he might look better on a bad team than in his current situation. I believe he will improve; most (but not all) high draft picks improve to some degree after a season or two of games. The question that the Warriors have to develop an answer to is how much and how quickly those improvements will come. I could certainly see a scenario in which the team decides he isn't the right fit for this team, trades him, and he becomes a solid starter/borderline All Star caliber player for a different team in 3 to 5 years.

I don't give a huge weight to his awful +/- scores right now because this season his minutes have been with the 2nd unit. The team's 2nd unit has largely been awful. If he played with the first unit it would undoubtedly be better, but the first unit overall would be worse. The first unit would largely hide his poor play if you only look at +/- while the terrible 2nd unit accentates his +/-. But he is showing improvement in his game in Santa Cruz so I would expect those scores to improve somewhat when he returns. Partly because he himself is improving and partly because the rest of the 2nd unit is playing better since Kerr adjusted Draymond's minutes to give him more time to lead the 2nd unit. Everyone's (including Wiseman's) defense looks better when they are playing next to Draymond.

[Owly]

Agreed. The Dubs play a style that relies even less on a big than most other teams today. Their starting "center" is Looney who is 6-9 and even he played less than 22 minutes/game in the finals. Their offense is powered by Curry and the others operate best when they can maximize his gravity, thus Kerr favors a smaller lineup and he has had success using a PF like Otto Porter (6-8) or even 6-6 Juan Toscano Anderson played the backup 5 during the regular season last year. Draymond becomes the center in crunch time when they employ their 'death lineup'. On defense, they do tend to get pounded inside without a big but they mitigate the damage because their smaller lineup can constantly switch and Draymond is a master communicator on defense, yelling out switches and coverage changes on the fly to provide help on penetrators in the absence of a traditional rim protector.

Even with all his current issues learning the nuances of basketball (despite playing 3 whole games in college!), I think Wiseman now could average about 15 points/game on a bad team that force fed him the ball. He wouldn't be very efficient, he'd give up a lot on defense and would likely foul out before reaching 30 minutes of playing time, but I think he could give you about 15 points under those circumstances. The Warriors don't play that style; they would prefer a big that can bang bodies, pass the ball, and set Hulk-like picks. Andrew Bogut did very well in that role. That isn't the type of game that Wiseman, who was heavily influenced by his HS coach Penny Hardaway, brings.

The thing is saying he could get you 15ppg on "wouldn't be very efficient" scoring and poor D (and poor passing, and not doing the little things like pick setting) ... that's not very good at all.

And the question with Wiseman isn't can he be passably box productive (TS%, usage, rebounding) it's can he be out on the floor and his team not suck. Small samples but even if you put the on-off numbers (-16.7 career) as bad fit, not being on the Draymond 5 lineups or whatever and ignored reports that he killed "with Curry" minutes (and so Curry sans Wiseman being good) ... just the "on" -12.2 ... that's a real kick in the teeth. Even though these numbers should regress back they're also out there enough [I think pretty historically awful] to have some signal to them that give significant doubt he should ever be a rotation player.

He may very well get more chances ... high pick (still some status, plus chasing losses and not understanding a cost to be sunk), big body, still young and the Warriors notional 2 timelines thing. Still I almost posted when this thread first came up (I think Wiseman's box composites for the season were better at that point) that I'd rather have Bol regardless of whether there's any upside there because there isn't the baggage of that high pick and reluctance to admit a mistake.

They're around 1000 career minutes apiece so there's noise/luck in all their numbers especially impact stuff and there's plenty of time to turn stuff around, but if the jury is not quite yet back in on Wiseman then the evidence thus far bodes ill.

That's my point - he's not very good right now. He is still learning how to play the game; in terms of games played he hasn't even completed a rookie season yet after essentially coming straight out of high school (3 college games and 51 NBA games played). If he weren't on the Warriors, he could give you decent 'empty' stats - inefficient scoring, most of his rebounds stem from being tall and not from superior boxing out or outfighting others, etc. He's not going to make the team better, which is why he's in the G-league right now instead of the Warriors. But on a bad lottery team, it isn't as important to make the team this year which is why he might look better on a bad team than in his current situation. I believe he will improve; most (but not all) high draft picks improve to some degree after a season or two of games. The question that the Warriors have to develop an answer to is how much and how quickly those improvements will come. I could certainly see a scenario in which the team decides he isn't the right fit for this team, trades him, and he becomes a solid starter/borderline All Star caliber player for a different team in 3 to 5 years.

I don't give a huge weight to his awful +/- scores right now because this season his minutes have been with the 2nd unit. The team's 2nd unit has largely been awful. If he played with the first unit it would undoubtedly be better, but the first unit overall would be worse. The first unit would largely hide his poor play if you only look at +/- while the terrible 2nd unit accentates his +/-. But he is showing improvement in his game in Santa Cruz so I would expect those scores to improve somewhat when he returns. Partly because he himself is improving and partly because the rest of the 2nd unit is playing better since Kerr adjusted Draymond's minutes to give him more time to lead the 2nd unit. Everyone's (including Wiseman's) defense looks better when they are playing next to Draymond.

His plus/minus is mostly off his rookie year though (more on and more time in that sample altogether). He was mostly a starter at that time. He played big minutes with Curry (https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2021/lineups/) they were crushed in those minutes. They were dreadful.

Where he is right now is awful.

Fwiw, at a glance in a considerably worse league, where some bigs can post monster numbers he doesn't seem to be dominating, he isn't showcasing passing or fewer turnovers. He's rebounding a lot over smaller guys and finishing better over smaller guys.

It's hard to see the route where he gets to useful starter never mind fringe all-star: A rim runner (without setting good picks or passable defense)? A pick setting role player? Is he not a physical tools player without the defense. There just doesn't seem to be much there. Young players tend to improve, but why should minutes go to him, why would his improvement from this point not only surpass those around his level but many of those ahead (which it needs to because, as established, right now, not good)?

Is he young enough that things could change, sure. But I thing one would have to believe in the "tools" pre-NBA (and mostly pre-college) to think that likely. I would guess that the probability of him being a useful player is thin at this point. Perhaps you know better having seen more.

[Samurai]

The thing is saying he could get you 15ppg on "wouldn't be very efficient" scoring and poor D (and poor passing, and not doing the little things like pick setting) ... that's not very good at all.

And the question with Wiseman isn't can he be passably box productive (TS%, usage, rebounding) it's can he be out on the floor and his team not suck. Small samples but even if you put the on-off numbers (-16.7 career) as bad fit, not being on the Draymond 5 lineups or whatever and ignored reports that he killed "with Curry" minutes (and so Curry sans Wiseman being good) ... just the "on" -12.2 ... that's a real kick in the teeth. Even though these numbers should regress back they're also out there enough [I think pretty historically awful] to have some signal to them that give significant doubt he should ever be a rotation player.

He may very well get more chances ... high pick (still some status, plus chasing losses and not understanding a cost to be sunk), big body, still young and the Warriors notional 2 timelines thing. Still I almost posted when this thread first came up (I think Wiseman's box composites for the season were better at that point) that I'd rather have Bol regardless of whether there's any upside there because there isn't the baggage of that high pick and reluctance to admit a mistake.

They're around 1000 career minutes apiece so there's noise/luck in all their numbers especially impact stuff and there's plenty of time to turn stuff around, but if the jury is not quite yet back in on Wiseman then the evidence thus far bodes ill.

That's my point - he's not very good right now. He is still learning how to play the game; in terms of games played he hasn't even completed a rookie season yet after essentially coming straight out of high school (3 college games and 51 NBA games played). If he weren't on the Warriors, he could give you decent 'empty' stats - inefficient scoring, most of his rebounds stem from being tall and not from superior boxing out or outfighting others, etc. He's not going to make the team better, which is why he's in the G-league right now instead of the Warriors. But on a bad lottery team, it isn't as important to make the team this year which is why he might look better on a bad team than in his current situation. I believe he will improve; most (but not all) high draft picks improve to some degree after a season or two of games. The question that the Warriors have to develop an answer to is how much and how quickly those improvements will come. I could certainly see a scenario in which the team decides he isn't the right fit for this team, trades him, and he becomes a solid starter/borderline All Star caliber player for a different team in 3 to 5 years.

I don't give a huge weight to his awful +/- scores right now because this season his minutes have been with the 2nd unit. The team's 2nd unit has largely been awful. If he played with the first unit it would undoubtedly be better, but the first unit overall would be worse. The first unit would largely hide his poor play if you only look at +/- while the terrible 2nd unit accentates his +/-. But he is showing improvement in his game in Santa Cruz so I would expect those scores to improve somewhat when he returns. Partly because he himself is improving and partly because the rest of the 2nd unit is playing better since Kerr adjusted Draymond's minutes to give him more time to lead the 2nd unit. Everyone's (including Wiseman's) defense looks better when they are playing next to Draymond.

His plus/minus is mostly off his rookie year though (more on and more time in that sample altogether). He was mostly a starter at that time. He played big minutes with Curry (https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2021/lineups/) they were crushed in those minutes. They were dreadful.

Where he is right now is awful.

Fwiw, at a glance in a considerably worse league, where some bigs can post monster numbers he doesn't seem to be dominating, he isn't showcasing passing or fewer turnovers. He's rebounding a lot over smaller guys and finishing better over smaller guys.

It's hard to see the route where he gets to useful starter never mind fringe all-star: A rim runner (without setting good picks or passable defense)? A pick setting role player? Is he not a physical tools player without the defense. There just doesn't seem to be much there. Young players tend to improve, but why should minutes go to him, why would his improvement from this point not only surpass those around his level but many of those ahead (which it needs to because, as established, right now, not good)?

Is he young enough that things could change, sure. But I thing one would have to believe in the "tools" pre-NBA (and mostly pre-college) to think that likely. I would guess that the probability of him being a useful player is thin at this point. Perhaps you know better having seen more.

Just to be clear, I am looking at his +/- for this season despite the small sample size. Obviously I am not giving weight to a season 2 years ago, when at the age of 19 he entered the year with 3 college games, no Summer League and no training camp. And Kerr thrust him into the starting lineup on opening night, a huge mistake which Kerr has since publicly acknowledged. But looking at how he is doing in Santa Cruz, he is showing improvement in screen setting (still below NBA level but he is improving as that has been an area of focus in the G-League for him). He is by and large taking high percentage shots and fewer off-balance shots. He is fouling less. Still not blocking shots at the rate one would expect of his length and athleticism but he is holding his position more and thus causing more missed shots. Rebounding more but still needs to improve at fighting for contested boards. Obviously he will need to show these improvements in the NBA but that is what I am seeing in his game evolving just in this short stint in Santa Cruz. I understand you may be seeing something different.

[Owly]

That's my point - he's not very good right now. He is still learning how to play the game; in terms of games played he hasn't even completed a rookie season yet after essentially coming straight out of high school (3 college games and 51 NBA games played). If he weren't on the Warriors, he could give you decent 'empty' stats - inefficient scoring, most of his rebounds stem from being tall and not from superior boxing out or outfighting others, etc. He's not going to make the team better, which is why he's in the G-league right now instead of the Warriors. But on a bad lottery team, it isn't as important to make the team this year which is why he might look better on a bad team than in his current situation. I believe he will improve; most (but not all) high draft picks improve to some degree after a season or two of games. The question that the Warriors have to develop an answer to is how much and how quickly those improvements will come. I could certainly see a scenario in which the team decides he isn't the right fit for this team, trades him, and he becomes a solid starter/borderline All Star caliber player for a different team in 3 to 5 years.

I don't give a huge weight to his awful +/- scores right now because this season his minutes have been with the 2nd unit. The team's 2nd unit has largely been awful. If he played with the first unit it would undoubtedly be better, but the first unit overall would be worse. The first unit would largely hide his poor play if you only look at +/- while the terrible 2nd unit accentates his +/-. But he is showing improvement in his game in Santa Cruz so I would expect those scores to improve somewhat when he returns. Partly because he himself is improving and partly because the rest of the 2nd unit is playing better since Kerr adjusted Draymond's minutes to give him more time to lead the 2nd unit. Everyone's (including Wiseman's) defense looks better when they are playing next to Draymond.

His plus/minus is mostly off his rookie year though (more on and more time in that sample altogether). He was mostly a starter at that time. He played big minutes with Curry (https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2021/lineups/) they were crushed in those minutes. They were dreadful.

Where he is right now is awful.

Fwiw, at a glance in a considerably worse league, where some bigs can post monster numbers he doesn't seem to be dominating, he isn't showcasing passing or fewer turnovers. He's rebounding a lot over smaller guys and finishing better over smaller guys.

It's hard to see the route where he gets to useful starter never mind fringe all-star: A rim runner (without setting good picks or passable defense)? A pick setting role player? Is he not a physical tools player without the defense. There just doesn't seem to be much there. Young players tend to improve, but why should minutes go to him, why would his improvement from this point not only surpass those around his level but many of those ahead (which it needs to because, as established, right now, not good)?

Is he young enough that things could change, sure. But I thing one would have to believe in the "tools" pre-NBA (and mostly pre-college) to think that likely. I would guess that the probability of him being a useful player is thin at this point. Perhaps you know better having seen more.

Just to be clear, I am looking at his +/- for this season despite the small sample size. Obviously I am not giving weight to a season 2 years ago, when at the age of 19 he entered the year with 3 college games, no Summer League and no training camp. And Kerr thrust him into the starting lineup on opening night, a huge mistake which Kerr has since publicly acknowledged. But looking at how he is doing in Santa Cruz, he is showing improvement in screen setting (still below NBA level but he is improving as that has been an area of focus in the G-League for him). He is by and large taking high percentage shots and fewer off-balance shots. He is fouling less. Still not blocking shots at the rate one would expect of his length and athleticism but he is holding his position more and thus causing more missed shots. Rebounding more but still needs to improve at fighting for contested boards. Obviously he will need to show these improvements in the NBA but that is what I am seeing in his game evolving just in this short stint in Santa Cruz. I understand you may be seeing something different.

I am willing (and intending) to leave this in terms of, as I said, you have seen more and merely differing.

I will though more strongly, actively disagree with "obviously" junking his rookie performance. It's his largest sample against any level of competition and he dragged down a with Curry unit to the level of a really bad team. That he has spent so much time not playing including college ... I find that hard to frame as a "well he didn't have experience, that's more room to grow, or a positive or an excuse that makes it dismissable" ... well, no he's just behind where others are in terms of high level experience and in what we have he's looked lost in it. Is it a large sample to go on in absolute terms no, but it's so darned awful and it's so much of his high level sample that not giving it any weight seems ... curious. Re: No camp ... my search suggests he took part in camp just missed the start due to Covid but did practice and there is footage of such though other sources have said no camp (obviously a compressed camp but everyone was dealing with that) and he didn't seem to play games. Regarding age that is a mitigation of what one would expect. Most teenage rookies are bad. They just aren't massively override Steph Curry's goodness bad (this may be hyperbolic, there are others on the floor though ... they're the starters quite a bit). If one is willing to play the "not with Draymond", "not with the first unit card" and I think that's reasonable and I noted it in my first post ... he was with Curry and it was ugly, really ugly and that seems relevant. I can't just write that off. It's a worse than no body of work prior for what we should expect for him even if I could see a case for not giving it weight that it would be the "obvious" choice seems particularly odd.