Prospect Thread: James Wiseman

[BigSlam]

I mean, I don't think the Rockets will beat Lebron, but if they do, will it damage Wiseman's stock? Imagine if the Rockets made the NBA Finals without a traditional center. It's like they're trying to kill off the position.

When you have two guards as unique as Westbrook and Harden who combine for 60 points and each push triple doubles on the regular it can change the composition of a team.

Same with the Warriors, which has been explained adnauseam.

These teams are the exceptions, not the norm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MasterIchiro]

I mean, I don't think the Rockets will beat Lebron, but if they do, will it damage Wiseman's stock? Imagine if the Rockets made the NBA Finals without a traditional center. It's like they're trying to kill off the position.

When you have two guards as unique as Westbrook and Harden who combine for 60 points and each push triple doubles on the regular it can change the composition of a team.

Same with the Warriors, which has been explained adnauseam.

These teams are the exceptions, not the norm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the new norm is centers who can do more than traditional centers by spacing the floor and passing whereas traditional tasks like rebounding, rim protection, interior defense are being budgeted cheaply.

Of the 8 teams still fighting to advance, there are maybe two dominant centers, Bam and Jokic. They're nothing like Wiseman. They didn't reach their level of dominance relying on measureables or elite athleticism. They can space and pass. Where is the evidence Wiseman can space and pass? I believe the lone surviving dominant center of this round will be Bam. He will be the one center of the last four who is a huge impact for his team. I look how Bam compares to centers of this current class and wow, I don't see anything even slightly resembling him. We're talking pick 3 here. And Bam may not survive a team who starts Theis if the Celtics advance.

So I consider the Rockets in this context. Deep playoff teams typically don't feature dominant centers. You can build a deep playoff roster without investing to the hilt in the position. The Warriors initiated the trend but their reign spanned many years making winning without a dominant traditional center the new norm, not the exception.

[316Hornets]

AD actively avoids contact and isn't really a center like Wiseman. Sure, they both like to handle the ball and shoot from multiple spots, but I see Wiseman with the ability to bully guys in the post.

[Braggins]

I mean, I don't think the Rockets will beat Lebron, but if they do, will it damage Wiseman's stock? Imagine if the Rockets made the NBA Finals without a traditional center. It's like they're trying to kill off the position.

When you have two guards as unique as Westbrook and Harden who combine for 60 points and each push triple doubles on the regular it can change the composition of a team.

Same with the Warriors, which has been explained adnauseam.

These teams are the exceptions, not the norm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Lakers played their best basketball of game 1 with McGee on the court. They were +5 in his 13 minutes and everyone else that played outside of garbage time had a negative +/-. Based on game one, it looked like McGee needs at least slightly more minutes (at the expense of Howard, who probably shouldn't play at all).

Basically three things killed the Lakers in game 1.

Rondo is completely unplayable and Vogel gave him 23 minutes during the crucial part of the game. Houston completely ignored him when the Lakers were on offense and overloaded 5v4 to stop Lebron/AD. The Lakers weren't able to generate any quality shots when Rondo was in the game and he also wasn't able to defend anyone. The only time you should be playing someone who can be completely ignored on offense, which doesn't actually include centers like McGee who can't be ignored on rolls or when camping in the dunker slot, is when they are valuable defenders, for example Lou Dort. Even Dort might be a bigger offensive threat than Rondo because he can at least attack the basket and finish in advantage situations.

Kuzma got absolutely torched on defense. Kuzma isn't a very good defender and had an especially bad game by his already lackluster standards. The Lakers still need him because he can score, but he needs to do better on defense going forward and they need to stop sabotaging their offense by playing Rondo and keep as much shooting on the floor as possible.

The Lakers were cold from behind the arc. They struggled to get good looks for a lot of the game, but no one other than Lebron and AD was able to really capitalize on the good looks they did get.

The two individual players who really hurt the Lakers were a pass first point guard who isn't a threat to score from anywhere on the court and is a weak defender, and an offensive PF who is a weak defender.

Houston played a good game, but lets also not forget that they were a couple shots/bounces going differently from losing in the first round to an OKC team with zero all-stars being led by old ass Chris Paul and playing Steven Adams 30+ minutes a game.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

I mean, I don't think the Rockets will beat Lebron, but if they do, will it damage Wiseman's stock? Imagine if the Rockets made the NBA Finals without a traditional center. It's like they're trying to kill off the position.

I'm expecting the Rockets to demolish the Lakers ... but I also don't think that it's quite as stark as 'killing off the center position.' The Rockets are able to go centerless because they have the right guys and it only really works well when they have both PJ Tucker and Covington in the game. Another team would have to find combos that work like that to really duplicate it. Until then it's easier to just have a modern center.

[Braggins]

I mean, I don't think the Rockets will beat Lebron, but if they do, will it damage Wiseman's stock? Imagine if the Rockets made the NBA Finals without a traditional center. It's like they're trying to kill off the position.

I'm expecting the Rockets to demolish the Lakers ... but I also don't think that it's quite as stark as 'killing off the center position.' The Rockets are able to go centerless because they have the right guys and it only really works well when they have both PJ Tucker and Covington in the game. Another team would have to find combos that work like that to really duplicate it. Until then it's easier to just have a modern center.

If the Lakers make proper adjustments and hit some shots, they shouldn't have any trouble winning this series. Why do you think the Lakers can't beat a team that barely eeked out a 7 game series victory against OKC? I think Houston does have a legit shot, but to me it hinges more on worrying that Vogel just won't adjust and will die with players like Rondo.

But yeah, what PJ Tucker is able to do on defense is downright incredible and there are very few wings in the league who could replicate it. Its even more amazing considering hes actually only like 6'5" lol.

[wilson115]

treese's take:

Watch on YouTube

[driveandkick]

treese's take:

Watch on YouTube

I stopped when he compared Wiseman to Giannis

[KGdaBom]

treese's take:

Watch on YouTube

I stopped when he compared Wiseman to Giannis

What's wrong with that?

[Little Digger]

I recently watched a younger, much thinner Mobley dominate Wiseman near the rim in crunch time of a high school game

Changed my perspective

2021 draft should be loaded

[DY_nasty]

I recently watched a younger, much thinner Mobley dominate Wiseman near the rim in crunch time of a high school game

Changed my perspective

2021 draft should be loaded

Brandon Ingram was getting locked up by 6'1 players in high school

[JMAC3]

AD actively avoids contact and isn't really a center like Wiseman. Sure, they both like to handle the ball and shoot from multiple spots, but I see Wiseman with the ability to bully guys in the post.

Which big man successfully play bully ball in the league today?

I know I have let my feelings on Wiseman and big men in general be known... a new way to look at things tho is how many centers really have a massive effect on winning?

5? (Embiid, Jokic, Bam, Gobert and maybe 1 more..)

So wiseman has to be a top 5 big to really be worth the pick.

Versus

How many wing players have an effect on winning? 30?

It’s just percentages in my mind, it’s more likely a wing player can be a difference maker.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[DY_nasty]

i don't even know where the goalposts are anymore man

[BigSlam]

Which big man successfully play bully ball in the league today?

I know I have let my feelings on Wiseman and big men in general be known... a new way to look at things tho is how many centers really have a massive effect on winning?

5? (Embiid, Jokic, Bam, Gobert and maybe 1 more..)

So wiseman has to be a top 5 big to really be worth the pick.

Versus

How many wing players have an effect on winning? 30?

It’s just percentages in my mind, it’s more likely a wing player can be a difference maker.

But your forgetting a very important percentage in your assessment though:

The percentage of wing players Vs centres in the league.

At the very least there are 4 times as many wings in the league than there are bigs and wings are so much easier to find - which adds to a truly good big being so hard to find and that much more valuable IMO.

And Wiseman “appears” to be one of the more unique bigs with his size, length, mobility and agility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JMAC3]

Which big man successfully play bully ball in the league today?

I know I have let my feelings on Wiseman and big men in general be known... a new way to look at things tho is how many centers really have a massive effect on winning?

5? (Embiid, Jokic, Bam, Gobert and maybe 1 more..)

So wiseman has to be a top 5 big to really be worth the pick.

Versus

How many wing players have an effect on winning? 30?

It’s just percentages in my mind, it’s more likely a wing player can be a difference maker.

But your forgetting a very important percentage in your assessment though:

The percentage of wing players Vs centres in the league.

At the very least there are 4 times as many wings in the league than there are bigs and wings are so much easier to find - which adds to a truly good big being so hard to find and that much more valuable IMO.

And Wiseman “appears” to be one of the more unique bigs with his size, length, mobility and agility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with you that there are more wings, but that actually helps my argument because you can play so many at the same time. You can never have too many good wings, whereas you can really only play one center in today’s NBA.

Let me say this... if I told you in order for us to pick a wing at 3 to be worth it he had to be as good as Kawhi, LeBron, Durant, Tatum or Luka you wouldn’t like those odds... well that’s what I’m saying about a big.

Unless he ends up being a top 5 center then the pick is very meh.. and chances of that are pretty low.

The 25th best wing in the league is more impactful then the 7th best center.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[cornchip]

I guess I'm just not seeing where these super wings worth passing up Wiseman are.

Edwards will be gone. Haliburton looks to be a nice player but does his ceiling justify the #3 pick? Same with Killian Hayes. There are players like Okoro every year. Ball is a bigger project than Wiseman in terms of being a plus NBA player.

And again, with the exception of Edwards who almost certainly won't be there, it's not apparent that anybody in this draft would have the impact of Embiid, Jokic, KAT, Porzingis anyway which is what we hope to get out of Wiseman as a big.

[Chapelchilla]

I guess I'm just not seeing where these super wings worth passing up Wiseman are.

Edwards will be gone. Haliburton looks to be a nice player but does his ceiling justify the #3 pick? Same with Killian Hayes. There are players like Okoro every year. Ball is a bigger project than Wiseman in terms of being a plus NBA player.

And again, with the exception of Edwards who almost certainly won't be there, it's not apparent that anybody in this draft would have the impact of Embiid, Jokic, KAT, Porzingis anyway which is what we hope to get out of Wiseman as a big.

Good write up and your right, we are likely not choosing between some definite superstar wing or Wiseman. It's Wiseman or someone else with question marks as large as his as far as I can tell.

[JMAC3]

I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince this group. I am a very analytical thinker, probably because I study poker odds everyday.

At the end of the day I care about winning, and more importantly winning in the playoffs. In poker there is a term called implied odds (meaning that if a certain outcome occurs then it will actually be a more profitable outcome then the numbers look at first glance).

If I draft a top 5 center in the league that’s awesome, but as we can see it doesn’t really guarantee much. If I land a top 5 wing in the draft I’m going to be a contender every year.

Circling back to implied odds- let’s say for fun there is a 10 percent chance a wing in this draft becomes a superstar and a 25 percent chance a big man becomes a superstar.

At first glance it looks like I’m better off taking a center, but in reality the 10% of the time I draft a wing and he becomes a superstar I come out winning more then when I get the center so therefore it is the more valuable play.

(Poker lesson) let’s say there is 500 dollars in the pot and my opponent bets 500. I have to pay 500 to win 1000 so I need a 50% to win the pot. If I have a flush draw I have 25% chance to get it (need 1 out of 4 suits). So you would think fold at first glance... but let’s say my opponent has 1000 left in his stack, I know he has a good hand and will have to call my all in if I hit the flush. So therefore I have a 25% chance to win the 1000 in the pot and the 1000 in his stack so it’s really 500 to win 2000 and therefore I have the right odds to call.








Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[DY_nasty]

I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince this group. I am a very analytical thinker, probably because I study poker odds everyday.

At the end of the day I care about winning, and more importantly winning in the playoffs. In poker there is a term called implied odds (meaning that if a certain outcome occurs then it will actually be a more profitable outcome then the numbers look at first glance).

If I draft a top 5 center in the league that’s awesome, but as we can see it doesn’t really guarantee much. If I land a top 5 wing in the draft I’m going to be a contender every year.

Circling back to implied odds- let’s say for fun there is a 10 percent chance a wing in this draft becomes a superstar and a 25 percent chance a big man becomes a superstar.

At first glance it looks like I’m better off taking a center, but in reality the 10% of the time I draft a wing and he becomes a superstar I come out winning more then when I get the center so therefore it is the more valuable play.

(Poker lesson) let’s say there is 500 dollars in the pot and my opponent bets 500. I have to pay 500 to win 1000 so I need a 50% to win the pot. If I have a flush draw I have 25% chance to get it (need 1 out of 4 suits). So you would think fold at first glance... but let’s say my opponent has 1000 left in his stack, I know he has a good hand and will have to call my all in if I hit the flush. So therefore I have a 25% chance to win the 1000 in the pot and the 1000 in his stack so it’s really 500 to win 2000 and therefore I have the right odds to call.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

this probably sounded amazing in your head but i promise it didn't come across that way

[yosemiteben]

It's really not that complicated. Some people think Wiseman is more likely to add value than other prospects available, and they also think the amount of value he will add is greater than the amount other prospects would add.