Are the Warriors contenders?

[righterwriter]

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]

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]

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]

Depends on Klay. If 100 then they are in the mix. If not then they are not.

[righterwriter]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[God Squad]

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.

[Asianiac_24]

While Wiseman did suck as a rookie last year, it would be interesting to compare rookie Wiseman vs rookie KG/JO

[righterwriter]

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]

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