How good do you see Andrew wiggins being?

[noobcake]

delete

[Prokorov]

So basically the only growth players can make is in shooting ability?

Of course all those areas can (and often are) developped. That's not even debatable. It's hard, and takes work, but to say guys are who they are in those areas is flat out pretty damn often.

you can get better at anything. but when you are a poor ball handler at 19, you arent going to become a really good ball handler. and things like court vision and bbiq... those things are more natural, and tough to hone or develop.

either way, obviously you can get better at anything. the point is, to say he is gonna be a star, you are talking about him going from a poor mans tross to prime tmac.

i dont think he will suck, i just dont see how he becomes more then a role player. i see his ceiling as a great 3 & D guy

I'm talking about skills development man, not efficiency. Derozan came into the league unable to do anything other than finish in transition, shoot open mid-range jumpers and draw fouls. He could barely dribble the ball up the court. Now he can actually dribble the ball at an average 2 guard level, has a nice post games for a guard, can operate out of the P&R, etc. He has a complete game. Is he a legit all-star? No. But his basketball skills and IQ have developped tremendously over the years.

so in 4 or 5 years he became an average ball handler and the result is still a non all-star and and being an inefficient shooter with really poor shot selection.

The fact that you think the only difference is volume is just laughable. Shows all you're doing is looking at b-ball ref.

it really is. his shot selection is still pretty much the same. his shot chart is relatively the same. he still isnt shooting it with more range. he'll post up, but rarely. he isnt taking guys off the dribble to the rim, he is still a pull up player who gets you with pump fakes.

again... 5 years and by your admission just an average ball handler.

[noobcake]

but cause things like ball handling skills, finishing ability, flow with the ball, agility in traffic, passing, bbiq are not thing that are really developed... you usually have it or you dont, or they are developed really early on as a kid. you usually dont see 18 and 20 year olds who dont possess these skills develop them. they may get better, but its extremely unlikely they are every good, let alone great in those areas

So basically the only growth players can make is in shooting ability?

Of course all those areas can (and often are) developped. That's not even debatable. It's hard, and takes work, but to say guys are who they are in those areas is flat out pretty damn often.

look at him now what? he shoots 42% from the field. he takes a ton of bad contested mid range jumpers. he gets to the FT line more now, but he was always at least good at getting to the FT line (5 attempts per game his second season/first year with starter minutes).

derozan is a really poor example of someone "developing skills" the only real difference between now and when he came in as a rookie is volume. basically he is getting the touches gay got. his shooting% has gone down and his usage% has gone way up.

I'm talking about skills development man, not efficiency. Derozan came into the league unable to do anything other than finish in transition, shoot open mid-range jumpers and draw fouls. He could barely dribble the ball up the court. Now he can actually dribble the ball at an average 2 guard level, has a nice post games for a guard, can operate out of the P&R, etc. He has a complete game. Is he a legit all-star? No. But his basketball skills and IQ have developped tremendously over the years.

The fact that you think the only difference is volume is just laughable. Shows all you're doing is looking at b-ball ref.

You simply don't get it. Average to below average skills in those categories usually don't become elite. Superstar, MVP calibur players are elite in terms of basketball skill. Athleticism can only get you so far.

At this point, the only thing Wiggins has going for him is athleticism and good shot form. Literally every other skill, he is below average in development compared to transcendental talent at the same age (No, I'm not saying he is average compared to NBA SF, I'm saying that he is way worse than Bron, Mac, Jordan at the same age)

[Rapcity_11]

you can get better at anything. but when you are a poor ball handler at 19, you arent going to become a really good ball handler. and things like court vision and bbiq... those things are more natural, and tough to hone or develop.

either way, obviously you can get better at anything. the point is, to say he is gonna be a star, you are talking about him going from a poor mans tross to prime tmac.

i dont think he will suck, i just dont see how he becomes more then a role player. i see his ceiling as a great 3 & D guy

Where did I say prime T-Mac? I'm not even that high on Wiggins. I just saying that he for sure won't develop in areas other than shootings is ridiculous.

Also, how did he put on 17 PPG at Kansas? All in transition?

so in 4 or 5 years he became an average ball handler and the result is still a non all-star and and being an inefficient shooter with really poor shot selection.

Well no, the result is a player who got a lot better at everything to do with basketball. That's why he's upped his volume and seen no decrease in efficiency even while dealing with increased defensive pressure.

He's also average efficiency wise if you consider TO's. So there's that. But it doesn't even matter. Like I said I'm talking only about skills development.

it really is. his shot selection is still pretty much the same. his shot chart is relatively the same. he still isnt shooting it with more range. he'll post up, but rarely. he isnt taking guys off the dribble to the rim, he is still a pull up player who gets you with pump fakes.

How those shots are being generated has changed. Notice his % assisted has gone down the last 3 years.

again... 5 years and by your admission just an average ball handler.

Horrible to average = big time development.

[Rapcity_11]

You simply don't get it. Average to below average skills in those categories usually don't become elite. Superstar, MVP calibur players are elite in terms of basketball skill. Athleticism can only get you so far.

At this point, the only thing Wiggins has going for him is athleticism and good shot form. Literally every other skill, he is below average in development compared to transcendental talent at the same age (No, I'm not saying he is average compared to NBA SF, I'm saying that he is way worse than Bron, Mac, Jordan at the same age)

Actually YOU don't get it. I never said Wiggins will be a MVP caliber player or superstar. I'm arguing that skills can be developed.

[Prokorov]

Well no, the result is a player who got a lot better at everything to do with basketball. That's why he's upped his volume and seen no decrease in efficiency even while dealing with increased defensive pressure.

he didnt see much of an increase in efficiency either. and he wasnt efficient to start with. saying he didnt do worse doesnt really mean much.

Horrible to average = big time development.

but after 5 years, still not very good. which is my point. obviously guys can get better in many areas. but when you are starting from such a low level, your not going to get them much better then average, if that.

the guy is a future role player, not a future star

[Rapcity_11]

he didnt see much of an increase in efficiency either. and he wasnt efficient to start with. saying he didnt do worse doesnt really mean much.

Actually, maintaining efficiency while upping volume against more defensive pressure is quite meaningful. Efficiency doesn't usually scale like that.

but after 5 years, still not very good. which is my point. obviously guys can get better in many areas. but when you are starting from such a low level, your not going to get them much better then average, if that.

the guy is a future role player, not a future star

Maybe.

But I'd argue he's starting from a more advanced skill set than Derozan coming into the league. Combined with his easily superior athleticism it's pretty easy to imagine a scenario where he's clearly better than Derozan who is a more than role player.

Capping him at a role player remains hilarious.

[Tave]

Carter was certainly not a noticeably better shooter, scorer, ball handler, passer, or finisher than Wiggins during his first year at UNC, he simply wasn't, even when he got minutes. If anything they were extremely similar on offense, with Wiggins being a better defender.

im sorry, but its not close. wiggins is a really poor ball handler, and when in traffic is really flimsy with the ball and just doesnt have a good feel for the game on offense.

carter was the complete opposite. carter was always a really good ball handler and could always create off the dribble. and as far as a finsiher, again, not close. wiggins really struggles in that regard

Carter improved significantly during his time at UNC. He was not the same player his freshman season.

Amazing that such a poor ball-handler was able to attack the basket at will and get to the FT line at an elite rate. I guess he must've just picked up the ball and ran it to the rim.

Wiggins struggled finishing because he was a skinny kid playing against mature competition, exactly like Carter his freshman season.

[Prokorov]

Actually, maintaining efficiency while upping volume against more defensive pressure is quite meaningful. Efficiency doesn't usually scale like that.

it does when its poor efficiency... its one thing saying like a guy was really efficeint and shot well, took more shots, and still shot well. its another to say a guy wasnt efficient, took more shots and still wasnt efficient.

if i shoot 0% from the field, take 10 more shots a game and still shoot 0% from the field that shouldnt be something i pat my back about. obviously thats hyperbole, but its to illustrate the point. not having a dip in effiency with increased volume when you are already inefficient doesnt mean much.

Maybe.

But I'd argue he's starting from a more advanced skill set than Derozan coming into the league. Combined with his easily superior it's pretty easy to imagine a scenario where he's clearly better than Derozan who is a more than role player.

Capping him at a role player remains hilarious.

i dont know that he is really more advanced from derozan, and eihter way, he is starting way behind in that regard. i dont see what is so funny about capping a guy who needs to come so far just to be a solid offensive player.

i mean, if he had even really good offensive skill, then maybe i could see it. i really dont see how he can really be much better then like terrance ross or a poor mans paul george. he really has lived off high school hype.

[Rapcity_11]

it does when its poor efficiency... its one thing saying like a guy was really efficeint and shot well, took more shots, and still shot well. its another to say a guy wasnt efficient, took more shots and still wasnt efficient.

110 Ortg isn't innefficient FYI.

53 TS% is slightly below average.

if i shoot 0% from the field, take 10 more shots a game and still shoot 0% from the field that shouldnt be something i pat my back about. obviously thats hyperbole, but its to illustrate the point. not having a dip in effiency with increased volume when you are already inefficient doesnt mean much.

It does related to the discussion we're having about skills development.

i dont know that he is really more advanced from derozan, and eihter way, he is starting way behind in that regard. i dont see what is so funny about capping a guy who needs to come so far just to be a solid offensive player.

i mean, if he had even really good offensive skill, then maybe i could see it. i really dont see how he can really be much better then like terrance ross or a poor mans paul george. he really has lived off high school hype.

Another example that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Derozan.

He can be better by developing skills. Like every other player who's improved in the NBA.

Also, if he's in an uptempo system with a good PG he doesn't really need to improve at all to be a solid offensive player.

[Meloholic]

I think Wiggins could be elite. He has all the talent of being a superstar for many years. I think he has also very positive outlook on life. He is going to be taken good care of. To me he could be as good as Blake Griffin or Paul George. Only area where he needs to improve on is his strength

[yitur]

I think Wiggins could be elite. He has all the talent of being a superstar for many years. I think he has also very positive outlook on life. He is going to be taken good care of. To me he could be as good as Blake Griffin or Paul George. Only area where he needs to improve on is his strength

and handles.

[Prokorov]

110 Ortg isn't innefficient FYI.

53 TS% is slightly below average.

offensive rating is more of a team stat then an indivdual stat and is heavily influence by the other 9 players on the floor. its a poor way to determine how efficeint a player is offensively. i mean, hell reggie evans had a 108 offensive rating last year, and as bad as it gets offensively.

PER and TS are much better for individual players. he is below average in both areas

[Rapcity_11]

110 Ortg isn't innefficient FYI.

53 TS% is slightly below average.

offensive rating is more of a team stat then an indivdual stat and is heavily influence by the other 9 players on the floor. its a poor way to determine how efficeint a player is offensively. i mean, hell reggie evans had a 108 offensive rating last year, and as bad as it gets offensively.

PER and TS are much better for individual players. he is below average in both areas

Ortg is better than TS% if you want to include TO's, which is important.

Also,
1. Reggie Evans had a 102 Ortg...
2. DD had a 18.4 PER, league average is 15...

[FutureKnicksGM]

Best: A bigger Derozan with a 3 ball and lock down D.

Mid: Kawhai

Worst: Barnes with D.

[noobcake]

I think Wiggins could be elite. He has all the talent of being a superstar for many years. I think he has also very positive outlook on life. He is going to be taken good care of. To me he could be as good as Blake Griffin or Paul George. Only area where he needs to improve on is his strength

and handles.

And IQ, passing, shooting, actual offensive moves (other than spin move going left).

[Hans Embiid]

Superstar.

He could a Pippen clone if things go well.

[snomeister]

I love how people talk of Wiggins like he's some kind of scrub with hops on offence. You don't get named a 2nd team All-American as a freshman if you don't have skills

[DoubleLintendre]

I see him being a slightly richer man's Rudy Gay. Rudy is a very capable defender, but his distance shooting (especially outside) is so-so. I think Wiggins might end up being a better scorer than Rudy. I don't see him being anything like TMac-- who was pretty much good at everything.

Wiggins doesn't strike me as someone who will be an elite passer or playmaker. Improving your handles is one of the harder things to learn if you don't already have a knack for handling the ball. Wiggins defense potential is off the charts.. then again so was Gerald Green's. I think Wiggins has better BBIQ though. I don't picture Wiggins being a megastar, but he strikes me as someone purely talented enough to become a cornerstone for a team even without reaching his ceiling.

[noobcake]

I love how people talk of Wiggins like he's some kind of scrub with hops on offence. You don't get named a 2nd team All-American as a freshman if you don't have skills

No, he really has no offensive moves. Mickey mouse that work in college won't work in the NBA. Oven his supporters usually realize that his offensive game is at least 2 years+ from coming online given normal development path.

Let me list Wiggins' offensive moves for you
1. Spin right into floater
2. Jab step, step back jumper, mid range
3. ????