Embiid Noel & Russell vs Okafor Randle & Clarkson vs Towns Wiggins & Levine

[doordoor123]

We have seen Wiggins play in the NBA and I understand being excited for a young, hyper athletic prospect who showed flashes throughout the season, I get that, however we're also ignoring his metrics entirely at this point. Personally, I hope that we're not doing that for Embiid next season and if we are, well, he was only a rookie...

I don't agree with that list, mind you, Wiggins would be higher up on my own.

Metrics are an incredibly unreliable way to judge 19-20 year old rookies. Rookies rarely have high impact or pretty advanced stats, especially when they play huge minutes and huge roles on terrible teams. Wiggins was thrown to the wolves and he held his own and then some. I don't know how anyone could watch Wolves games and not come away thinking he is a special, special talent. Every single game I've seen from him he looked like far and away the best player in a Wolves jersey, and yet the advanced metrics paint him as a scrub.

Because he is being compared to other special talents, but because he had an opportunity to put up some empty boxscore stats it makes some people overrate him to the point where if he is compared to other prospects that it is a no brainer that Wiggins is the best.

Half of the players in the thread title are comparable prospects to Wiggins. There are two players even on your own team who are comparable prospects to Wiggins. But if you start comparing Wiggins to other young guys who also look like they can be stars there's a good chance someone is going to reply with a laughing emoticon.

So I do feel like people need to be aware that Wiggins isn't actually a good player yet, and like all of the young guys we're talking about we are still going off of promise - Wiggins hasn't "proven" anything yet.

I feel like people are jumping back on the "Wiggins is a once in a generation" bandwagon which was abandoned real quick last year simply because the guy won ROY.

You're both wrong and right. Wrong in that Wiggins hasn't proven anything, because he has. He's proven he can be a defensive nightmare, hes proven he can play in the post, hes proven he can score consistently, hes proven his shot can be unstoppable, hes proven to be ahead of the pack. There's a reason he won ROTY.
He's also supposed to not be polished, to not have some skills, etc. Rarely do you find players with an advanced all-around game with all the physical tools to make it.
There's really no argument here. You can't base expectations on a rookie year with an extremely young team.

[Prez]

We have seen Wiggins play in the NBA and I understand being excited for a young, hyper athletic prospect who showed flashes throughout the season, I get that, however we're also ignoring his metrics entirely at this point. Personally, I hope that we're not doing that for Embiid next season and if we are, well, he was only a rookie...

I don't agree with that list, mind you, Wiggins would be higher up on my own.

Metrics are an incredibly unreliable way to judge 19-20 year old rookies. Rookies rarely have high impact or pretty advanced stats, especially when they play huge minutes and huge roles on terrible teams. Wiggins was thrown to the wolves and he held his own and then some. I don't know how anyone could watch Wolves games and not come away thinking he is a special, special talent. Every single game I've seen from him he looked like far and away the best player in a Wolves jersey, and yet the advanced metrics paint him as a scrub.

Because he is being compared to other special talents, but because he had an opportunity to put up some empty boxscore stats it makes some people overrate him to the point where if he is compared to other prospects that it is a no brainer that Wiggins is the best.

Half of the players in the thread title are comparable prospects to Wiggins. There are two players even on your own team who are comparable prospects to Wiggins. But if you start comparing Wiggins to other young guys who also look like they can be stars there's a good chance someone is going to reply with a laughing emoticon.

So I do feel like people need to be aware that Wiggins isn't actually a good player yet, and like all of the young guys we're talking about we are still going off of promise - Wiggins hasn't "proven" anything yet.

I feel like people are jumping back on the "Wiggins is a once in a generation" bandwagon which was abandoned real quick last year simply because the guy won ROY.

I'm not talking about the people hyping up Wiggins against other current prospects. I'm talking about Wiggins in a vacuum, just judging him as a prospect and him alone. In that sense I do think factoring in his advanced metrics heavily is a really misguided way of judging him, because it doesn't give you an ounce of perspective on what his game is about, his style, what his strengths are, his weaknesses, his athletic gifts, his tendencies, his feel, etc. It's just flat numbers that tell us what we all know - the TWolves were terrible this year, and Wiggins wasn't able to do much about it.

I have no problem with someone saying Wiggins needs to tighten his handle (though that's something he has been working on from what I've seen and read), refine the consistency on his jumper, develop some more go-to moves, mature as a defender, etc. Those are all valid critiques based on stuff you can see. But just throwing out advanced metrics saying "well, he sucked this year. had zero impact. overrated potential" doesn't really do much for anyone in the way of judging who he is or who he could be.

For what it's worth I'm not sold on him being a superstar like others in this thread have said, nor do I think he's far and away better than some of these other prospects like Embiid, Towns, Russell, Noel, our own Jabari and Giannis, etc. I just think that he's waaaaaaay more than his advanced numbers though.

[CoreyGallagher]

Metrics are an incredibly unreliable way to judge 19-20 year old rookies. Rookies rarely have high impact or pretty advanced stats, especially when they play huge minutes and huge roles on terrible teams. Wiggins was thrown to the wolves and he held his own and then some. I don't know how anyone could watch Wolves games and not come away thinking he is a special, special talent. Every single game I've seen from him he looked like far and away the best player in a Wolves jersey, and yet the advanced metrics paint him as a scrub.

There's the rare esteem that he's being held in, being compared to greats and all-time greats, and then there's the actual performance validated by numerical standards, the former is despite of the ladder which is the issue that I have. Also, he's not being painted as a scrub because he's not being compared to the rest of the NBA. No, he's either not being compared to anybody at all, or he's being compared to other highly touted rookies or rookies that eventually became stars as that's what he's supposedly going to be and that's where the snag is.

I agree with your recent post, Wiggins is a special prospect, the issue that I have is with the perception which is why I mentioned them all ultimately being judged upon their potential.

[doordoor123]

Metrics are an incredibly unreliable way to judge 19-20 year old rookies. Rookies rarely have high impact or pretty advanced stats, especially when they play huge minutes and huge roles on terrible teams. Wiggins was thrown to the wolves and he held his own and then some. I don't know how anyone could watch Wolves games and not come away thinking he is a special, special talent. Every single game I've seen from him he looked like far and away the best player in a Wolves jersey, and yet the advanced metrics paint him as a scrub.

There's the rare esteem that he's being held in, being compared to greats and all-time greats, and then there's the actual performance validated by numerical standards, the former is despite of the ladder which is the issue that I have. Also, he's not being painted as a scrub because he's not being compared to the rest of the NBA. No, he's either not being compared to anybody at all, or he's being compared to other highly touted rookies or rookies that eventually became stars as that's what he's supposedly going to be and that's where the snag is.

I agree with your recent post, Wiggins is a special prospect, the issue that I have is with the perception.

Steph Curry had enough perception to win MVP, I don't see the big deal. Over time he'll get perceived differently. He has all the tools to be that good and I think people gush at the possibility, but that happens every year with rookies. In the second year there will be stronger perceptions and if there isn't it's because no one is watching a bottom five team.

[CoreyGallagher]

Steph Curry had enough perception to win MVP, I don't see the big deal. Over time he'll get perceived differently. He has all the tools to be that good and I think people gush at the possibility, but that happens every year with rookies. In the second year there will be stronger perceptions and if there isn't it's because no one is watching a bottom five team.

Curry played for the team with the best record, set performance records, and lead the league or was among the league leaders in numerous metrics. Perception matched performance.

It's not a big deal as it's all conjecture at this point, was simply for the sake of discussion.

[HeartBreakKid]

He's proven he can be a defensive nightmare,

He was pretty bad on defense for a lot of the year.

hes proven he can play in the post,

True.

hes proven he can score consistently,

You have a very lose definition of consistent then. He's not very consistent, and being able to score only matters if it helps a team win. A lot of players in the NBA can score if they are given the ball as much as Wiggins is and are told to play with no expectations. A lot.

hes proven his shot can be unstoppable,

Seems like hyperbole to me.

hes proven to be ahead of the pack. There's a reason he won ROTY.

Most of the people in the thread title are not in Wiggins pack - so Wiggins beating people in his rookie class doesn't hold all of the weight in these comparisons. Personally, Nerlens Noel was the best rookie for me this year, so Wiggins ROTY doesn't mean the world to me. Also, I thought Jabari Parker was clearly better than Wiggins before Parker went down. Wiggins got ROTY sure, but he didn't have much competition, a lot of injuries to the top guys.

There's really no argument here. You can't base expectations on a rookie year with an extremely young team.

I agree, but it is hypocrisy to give people a hard time for guys who have only played in college in a comparison with Wiggins on the fact that Wiggins has played in the NBA and the others have not. That just does not make sense. One can't have their cake and eat it too, people who are saying Wiggins will be great are projecting just like people who are saying Embiid will be great.

[Zeitgeister]

Metrics are an incredibly unreliable way to judge 19-20 year old rookies. Rookies rarely have high impact or pretty advanced stats, especially when they play huge minutes and huge roles on terrible teams. Wiggins was thrown to the wolves and he held his own and then some. I don't know how anyone could watch Wolves games and not come away thinking he is a special, special talent. Every single game I've seen from him he looked like far and away the best player in a Wolves jersey, and yet the advanced metrics paint him as a scrub.

There's the rare esteem that he's being held in, being compared to greats and all-time greats, and then there's the actual performance validated by numerical standards, the former is despite of the ladder which is the issue that I have. Also, he's not being painted as a scrub because he's not being compared to the rest of the NBA. No, he's either not being compared to anybody at all, or he's being compared to other highly touted rookies or rookies that eventually became stars as that's what he's supposedly going to be and that's where the snag is.

I agree with your recent post, Wiggins is a special prospect, the issue that I have is with the perception.

There have been some pretty silly comparisons from both sides. The LeBron comps are off-base, Durant comps as well but so are the James Posey comps, the Corey Brewer comps, even the Rudy Gay and Demar Derozan comps seem a bit off, especially when Wiggins rookie year box score metrics are pretty comparable to Derozan's six year career averages.

[Zeitgeister]

Also, I thought Jabari Parker was clearly better than Wiggins before Parker went down. Wiggins got ROTY sure, but he didn't have much competition, a lot of injuries to the top guys.

Parker played for 25 games. In that specific 25 game time frame, which also happened to be Wiggins worst stretch of games by a wide margin, Parker played better. Parker may have improved a lot from that point on, he may have regressed, we'll never know.

[76ciology]

Sixers.

Noel = one of the best defensive prospects
Russell = one of the best offensive prospects
Embiid = potential franchise player

[Killboard]

I will take two way players over any one way player.

Wiggins= the best 2 way rookie forward since leonard.

Towns= is probably the best two way C/Pf after embiid and davis, i think he is less physical dominant, but has a better shooting stroke. Injury free at this point.

Lavine= athletic freak who is a light out shooter, he needs time to develop efficiency and get stronger to defend p&r

Anyway, i think rubio and bazz can't be ommited when you talk about cores.

Specially rubio, he is a key piece, even shooting 30% from 3... he generates 30 ppg, being a plus defender. He could be all wiggins and towns needs down to stretch tobe a force in the west. And he is 24 years old... he has age to be in middle of a rookie contract of some senior/junior college draftee.

[Wilfried]

I would take Utah over LAL.

Just because they have Gobert, and who knows, maybe Exum can still become something.

Hood, Hayward, Favors are also fun young players.

[tsmith]

Lavine= athletic freak who is a light out shooter, he needs time to develop efficiency and get stronger to defend p&r

This.

[76ers 2020]

Lavine= athletic freak who is a light out shooter, he needs time to develop efficiency and get stronger to defend p&r

This.

His 33% jump shot percentage does put him above Wiggins.

[dham1974]

Bogdan was better than Clarkson? lol wow unbelievable.

How wasn't he? I still haven't heard an argument at all. Bogdan put up better numbers, over the course of an longer time span, showed up in clutch mature moments just like Clarkson did (probably even more so), and helped his team win a lot (not a total tankfest like the Lakers were).

Oh boy so now (Bogdan)9ppg 2.7rpg 0.9apg 45%fg 35%3pt 0.4spg in 23.8mpg is better than
(Clarkson)11.9ppg 3.2rpg 3.5apg .448%fg 31%3pt 0.9spg in 25mpg?

lol@ the longer time span argument he played 78 games Clarkson played 59 big deal lol Lets compare their starting rotation stats
Bogdan 28 games 29.5mins 9.8ppg 3.1rpg 1.1apg 43%fg 29%3pt lol at a 6'8 guy only grabbing 3 rebs in 30 mins
Clarkson 38 games 32.1 mins 15.8ppg 4.2rpg 5apg .46%fg 31%3pt lol@ Bogdan putting up better numbers Clarkson is a better scorer rebounder and passer

[Devilzsidewalk]

I guess I'd go Philly #1 by a hair b/c of defensive potential along w/ a potentially deadly perimeter threat. I think they have the highest ceiling, but also the lowest floor due to Embiid's injury history, Noel as a full-time PF, and Russell with some athleticism questions.

For the Wolves, there's no guarantee they even take Towns, but if they do, I like the all-around potential they have being able to score, defend, and pass. Lavine has to prove himself as a full-time SG still though.

I kinda like the Randle/Okafor potential; I don't think anybody has the size to compete with them. In 3 years (maybe sooner), that team is going to own the paint. Back-breaking offensive rebounding sequences will abound. Clarkson is still an enigma, but at the very least he looks like a potential starter. With the amount of depth at the PG position in the NBA, being an NBA starter is no small feat.

[jpatrick]

Although I think MN and Philly's prospects are comparable, if health isn't being factored in, I think you have to go 76ers because Embiid is the best prospect on the list.

However, Embiid's a big who has dealt with lower back issues in HS, missed a good chunk of his only college season with back issues, and then missed his entire rookie year with a broken foot. He might turn out to be fine, but back and foot issues are not like an ACL where almost everyone comes back at 100%. Therefore, taking everything into account, including injury history, I'd go MN, Philly, then LA.

[Crazy-Canuck]

Philly isnt ahead of Minny because of Embiid. They are ahead beacuse of the gap between the third best prospect for each respective team. Lavine, Bazzy, Dieng, etc.. doesnt matter because whoever Philly takes 3rd trumps them all.

Lakers are an easy third because they would be a peg below every other prospect on the list.

Wiggins/Embiid
Noel
Towns/Okafor
Russell
Randle
Clarkson
Lavine

[Killboard]

Lavine= athletic freak who is a light out shooter, he needs time to develop efficiency and get stronger to defend p&r

This.

His 33% jump shot percentage does put him above Wiggins.

Shooting ability is not the same skill than decision making. You can take bad shots and still being a great shooter. Our team was a messa, he was setting up the offense and forced a lot of pull up jumpers. The next year sharing the floor with Rubio he will have plenty of good looks and you guys will notice.



[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtTxY4RIHjs[/youtube]

Plenty of wings has scored 37 points at 19 years old after being bench players in college, right?

[Crazy-Canuck]

This.

His 33% jump shot percentage does put him above Wiggins.

Shooting ability is not the same skill than decision making. You can take bad shots and still being a great shooter. Our team was a messa, he was setting up the offense and forced a lot of pull up jumpers. The next year sharing the floor with Rubio he will have plenty of good looks and you guys will notice.



[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtTxY4RIHjs[/youtube]

Plenty of wings has scored 37 points at 19 years old after being bench players in college, right?

This is wrong. He wasnt forced to take those, he actually loves taking those.

[E-Balla]

Metrics are an incredibly unreliable way to judge 19-20 year old rookies. Rookies rarely have high impact or pretty advanced stats, especially when they play huge minutes and huge roles on terrible teams. Wiggins was thrown to the wolves and he held his own and then some. I don't know how anyone could watch Wolves games and not come away thinking he is a special, special talent. Every single game I've seen from him he looked like far and away the best player in a Wolves jersey, and yet the advanced metrics paint him as a scrub.

There's the rare esteem that he's being held in, being compared to greats and all-time greats, and then there's the actual performance validated by numerical standards, the former is despite of the ladder which is the issue that I have. Also, he's not being painted as a scrub because he's not being compared to the rest of the NBA. No, he's either not being compared to anybody at all, or he's being compared to other highly touted rookies or rookies that eventually became stars as that's what he's supposedly going to be and that's where the snag is.

I agree with your recent post, Wiggins is a special prospect, the issue that I have is with the perception.

There have been some pretty silly comparisons from both sides. The LeBron comps are off-base, Durant comps as well but so are the James Posey comps, the Corey Brewer comps, even the Rudy Gay and Demar Derozan comps seem a bit off, especially when Wiggins rookie year box score metrics are pretty comparable to Derozan's six year career averages.

Rudy Gay isn't that bad a comp IMO but IMO Rudy Gay is just as good offensively as Paul George if not better. I think Rudy Gay with Luol Deng's defense is his upside and that's a perennial All Star. I'm just not seeing this offensive superstar you guys see. I see a guy with a great post game, good midrange game, the ability to get to the line, and the ability to make good cuts off ball. Other than getting to the line Rudy Gay does all of those things at a high level does he not? The main difference in the two will be if Wiggins finally "gets it" because Rudy's IQ is seriously lacking.