So, the Plan is to Start JK & Podz...

[Onus]

It's undeniable there is correlation and not just 'some.' the only question is, is the correlation causal or not. In your first response, you clearly say correlation does not equal causation so you imply there is no causal relationship but there is a correlative one. A few posts later, you admit there IS "some correlation" even though the nature of that correlation is what we're discussing. So weird to have to explain the parameters of a conversation to an active participant in that conversation.

I've always agreed there is correlation. You said I meant causation, but I said it's correlated.

You're now saying that even if it is causal, it's a bad sign. Apparently, having a short leash and constantly looking over your shoulder isn't something that should affect anyone, ever. If it does, that person is weak, fragile, and won't ever make it in the real world, much less the nba. You see how someone can take your words and take up the most extreme position those words could reasonably imply?

Please do take it to the most extreme position. Because if that type of person won't make it in the real world then they sure as hell won't make it in the NBA, which is the one of the most competitive environments in the world with new players coming each year to take your job.

Because I don't think you actually meant to express that extremist position, I'll reply to the actual content: I don't think it's unnatural for a 21y.o. to be impacted by the lack of trust his coach has shown. Do I think there are players that would be unfazed by it? Yes. Those players don't necessarily mean all-nba. OJ Mayo and Michael Beasley didn't have low confidence issues but they certainly weren't self-aware enough.. There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance, humility and fragility, and things aren't always so black and white.

In the NBA if you don't have the mental make up to overcome being benched, let alone having someone look over your shoulder constantly (Moody is looking over his shoulder looking for playing time), it's going to be a long long road to becoming an all star let alone making a long career.

McGee had a fine career after the dubs, so has tsunami papi (why can't I remember his actual name?). Chris Boucher also had a decent role outside of GS. But overall, yes, most players that didn't work out here, haven't worked out elsewhere. Not many that left, however, were expected to flourish. Maybe McCaw, Poole, and Wiseman? Of those 3, I didn't have much faith in any of them. I'm sure there were others but I can't think of any/many.

You're right about Kelly and Boucher.

[vvoland]

It's undeniable there is correlation and not just 'some.' the only question is, is the correlation causal or not. In your first response, you clearly say correlation does not equal causation so you imply there is no causal relationship but there is a correlative one. A few posts later, you admit there IS "some correlation" even though the nature of that correlation is what we're discussing. So weird to have to explain the parameters of a conversation to an active participant in that conversation.

I've always agreed there is correlation. You said I meant causation, but I said it's correlated.

You're now saying that even if it is causal, it's a bad sign. Apparently, having a short leash and constantly looking over your shoulder isn't something that should affect anyone, ever. If it does, that person is weak, fragile, and won't ever make it in the real world, much less the nba. You see how someone can take your words and take up the most extreme position those words could reasonably imply?

Please do take it to the most extreme position. Because if that type of person won't make it in the real world then they sure as hell won't make it in the NBA, which is the one of the most competitive environments in the world with new players coming each year to take your job.

Because I don't think you actually meant to express that extremist position, I'll reply to the actual content: I don't think it's unnatural for a 21y.o. to be impacted by the lack of trust his coach has shown. Do I think there are players that would be unfazed by it? Yes. Those players don't necessarily mean all-nba. OJ Mayo and Michael Beasley didn't have low confidence issues but they certainly weren't self-aware enough.. There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance, humility and fragility, and things aren't always so black and white.

In the NBA if you don't have the mental make up to overcome being benched, let alone having someone look over your shoulder constantly (Moody is looking over his shoulder looking for playing time), it's going to be a long long road to becoming an all star let alone making a long career.

McGee had a fine career after the dubs, so has tsunami papi (why can't I remember his actual name?). Chris Boucher also had a decent role outside of GS. But overall, yes, most players that didn't work out here, haven't worked out elsewhere. Not many that left, however, were expected to flourish. Maybe McCaw, Poole, and Wiseman? Of those 3, I didn't have much faith in any of them. I'm sure there were others but I can't think of any/many.

You're right about Kelly and Boucher.

I was trying to show how $#itty it is to have your words twisted into their most extreme version but I guess it didn't work as intended.

Using Moody as the example doesn't quite work because it's precisely the hesitation/indecision/lack of confidence that he's showing on the court that's preventing Kerr from giving him more minutes. That and his super slow shot release.

Kelly Oubre! Thank you.

I think there are a lot of players that didn't get the support from their coaches early in their careers and were stunted for the rest of it. Some players have the natural talent, confidence, and self-awareness to overcome it. Some never do. There's a good article about something similar that happened with Tua/Flores/McD - it's not a 1 for 1 analogy as the NFL scenario had a lot more confidence destroying scenarios but I think there's a throughline we can all see: Tua went from 'is he an NFL qb?' to the most efficient QB in the NFL last year and signed a 200M+ contract when he went from a coach that $#@t on him to one that built him up. Kerr's no Brian Flores, but some things are relatable.

[Onus]

It's undeniable there is correlation and not just 'some.' the only question is, is the correlation causal or not. In your first response, you clearly say correlation does not equal causation so you imply there is no causal relationship but there is a correlative one. A few posts later, you admit there IS "some correlation" even though the nature of that correlation is what we're discussing. So weird to have to explain the parameters of a conversation to an active participant in that conversation.

I've always agreed there is correlation. You said I meant causation, but I said it's correlated.

You're now saying that even if it is causal, it's a bad sign. Apparently, having a short leash and constantly looking over your shoulder isn't something that should affect anyone, ever. If it does, that person is weak, fragile, and won't ever make it in the real world, much less the nba. You see how someone can take your words and take up the most extreme position those words could reasonably imply?

Please do take it to the most extreme position. Because if that type of person won't make it in the real world then they sure as hell won't make it in the NBA, which is the one of the most competitive environments in the world with new players coming each year to take your job.

Because I don't think you actually meant to express that extremist position, I'll reply to the actual content: I don't think it's unnatural for a 21y.o. to be impacted by the lack of trust his coach has shown. Do I think there are players that would be unfazed by it? Yes. Those players don't necessarily mean all-nba. OJ Mayo and Michael Beasley didn't have low confidence issues but they certainly weren't self-aware enough.. There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance, humility and fragility, and things aren't always so black and white.

In the NBA if you don't have the mental make up to overcome being benched, let alone having someone look over your shoulder constantly (Moody is looking over his shoulder looking for playing time), it's going to be a long long road to becoming an all star let alone making a long career.

McGee had a fine career after the dubs, so has tsunami papi (why can't I remember his actual name?). Chris Boucher also had a decent role outside of GS. But overall, yes, most players that didn't work out here, haven't worked out elsewhere. Not many that left, however, were expected to flourish. Maybe McCaw, Poole, and Wiseman? Of those 3, I didn't have much faith in any of them. I'm sure there were others but I can't think of any/many.

You're right about Kelly and Boucher.

I was trying to show how $#itty it is to have your words twisted into their most extreme version but I guess it didn't work as intended.

Using Moody as the example doesn't quite work because it's precisely the hesitation/indecision/lack of confidence that he's showing on the court that's preventing Kerr from giving him more minutes. That and his super slow shot release.

Kelly Oubre! Thank you.

I think there are a lot of players that didn't get the support from their coaches early in their careers and were stunted for the rest of it. Some players have the natural talent, confidence, and self-awareness to overcome it. Some never do. There's a good article about something similar that happened with Tua/Flores/McD - it's not a 1 for 1 analogy as the NFL scenario had a lot more confidence destroying scenarios but I think there's a throughline we can all see: Tua went from 'is he an NFL qb?' to the most efficient QB in the NFL last year and signed a 200M+ contract when he went from a coach that $#@t on him to one that built him up. Kerr's no Brian Flores, but some things are relatable.

I agree about Moody, just saying there's always players looking to get more playing time and if you're going to let your own coach throw you off your game then what is the opposition going to do who is actually trying to throw you off your game?

I agree a coach can kill a player's career, especially in the NFL. Kerr is not and probably will never be the right coach for JK. Kerr's principals are the antithesis of who JK is as a player right now. But to say that Kerr didn't allot 30+ minutes for JK in 30 some thing games which led to JK having a bad game in those 30 games is just a step too far for me. How about JK just play better when he's given those minutes and force the coach to put him on the court like Podz or TJD did? How about we put the responsibility on the player for how they played when they played and focus on what he can do better?

And thank you for moving this into a better discussion

[vvoland]

I've always agreed there is correlation. You said I meant causation, but I said it's correlated.


Please do take it to the most extreme position. Because if that type of person won't make it in the real world then they sure as hell won't make it in the NBA, which is the one of the most competitive environments in the world with new players coming each year to take your job.

In the NBA if you don't have the mental make up to overcome being benched, let alone having someone look over your shoulder constantly (Moody is looking over his shoulder looking for playing time), it's going to be a long long road to becoming an all star let alone making a long career.

You're right about Kelly and Boucher.

I was trying to show how $#itty it is to have your words twisted into their most extreme version but I guess it didn't work as intended.

Using Moody as the example doesn't quite work because it's precisely the hesitation/indecision/lack of confidence that he's showing on the court that's preventing Kerr from giving him more minutes. That and his super slow shot release.

Kelly Oubre! Thank you.

I think there are a lot of players that didn't get the support from their coaches early in their careers and were stunted for the rest of it. Some players have the natural talent, confidence, and self-awareness to overcome it. Some never do. There's a good article about something similar that happened with Tua/Flores/McD - it's not a 1 for 1 analogy as the NFL scenario had a lot more confidence destroying scenarios but I think there's a throughline we can all see: Tua went from 'is he an NFL qb?' to the most efficient QB in the NFL last year and signed a 200M+ contract when he went from a coach that $#@t on him to one that built him up. Kerr's no Brian Flores, but some things are relatable.

I agree about Moody, just saying there's always players looking to get more playing time and if you're going to let your own coach throw you off your game then what is the opposition going to do who is actually trying to throw you off your game?

I agree a coach can kill a player's career, especially in the NFL. Kerr is not and probably will never be the right coach for JK. Kerr's principals are the antithesis of who JK is as a player right now. But to say that Kerr didn't allot 30+ minutes for JK in 30 some thing games which led to JK having a bad game in those 30 games is just a step too far for me. How about JK just play better when he's given those minutes and force the coach to put him on the court like Podz or TJD did? How about we put the responsibility on the player for how they played when they played and focus on what he can do better?

And thank you for moving this into a better discussion

But no one said that. Literally, this entire branch of the conversation is in response to someone (Spree?) posting JK's splits with 27 mins being the data point. He didn't say it led to him having good games. He said JK is a rhythm player that his scoring/shooting efficiency is really good IF he plays 30+ minutes. You then made the inference that WHEN Kerr gives JK more minutes he plays well and went on to disagree with it.

[Onus]

I was trying to show how $#itty it is to have your words twisted into their most extreme version but I guess it didn't work as intended.

Using Moody as the example doesn't quite work because it's precisely the hesitation/indecision/lack of confidence that he's showing on the court that's preventing Kerr from giving him more minutes. That and his super slow shot release.

Kelly Oubre! Thank you.

I think there are a lot of players that didn't get the support from their coaches early in their careers and were stunted for the rest of it. Some players have the natural talent, confidence, and self-awareness to overcome it. Some never do. There's a good article about something similar that happened with Tua/Flores/McD - it's not a 1 for 1 analogy as the NFL scenario had a lot more confidence destroying scenarios but I think there's a throughline we can all see: Tua went from 'is he an NFL qb?' to the most efficient QB in the NFL last year and signed a 200M+ contract when he went from a coach that $#@t on him to one that built him up. Kerr's no Brian Flores, but some things are relatable.

I agree about Moody, just saying there's always players looking to get more playing time and if you're going to let your own coach throw you off your game then what is the opposition going to do who is actually trying to throw you off your game?

I agree a coach can kill a player's career, especially in the NFL. Kerr is not and probably will never be the right coach for JK. Kerr's principals are the antithesis of who JK is as a player right now. But to say that Kerr didn't allot 30+ minutes for JK in 30 some thing games which led to JK having a bad game in those 30 games is just a step too far for me. How about JK just play better when he's given those minutes and force the coach to put him on the court like Podz or TJD did? How about we put the responsibility on the player for how they played when they played and focus on what he can do better?

And thank you for moving this into a better discussion

But no one said that. Literally, this entire branch of the conversation is in response to someone (Spree?) posting JK's splits with 27 mins being the data point. He didn't say it led to him having good games. He said JK is a rhythm player that his scoring/shooting efficiency is really good IF he plays 30+ minutes. You then made the inference that WHEN Kerr gives JK more minutes he plays well and went on to disagree with it.

Right when I thought we were moving on to a better discussion, you bring it right back.

This is why I'm very specific when I'm talking with you. You literally have no clue what you're arguing about.

Spree says JK is a rhythm player, his scoring efficiency is really good when he plays 30+ minutes.

I say or maybe he gets more minutes when he's scoring well rather than the minutes determining how well he scores.

He puts up his TS% by quarters.

I say correlation doesn't equal causation.

You come in and say, "perhaps JK shoots/plays better when he knows he is getting big minutes and isn't gonna get yanked as soon as he takes a bad shot or turns it over."

So you think when JK is allotted 30+ minutes he plays better. (This is what you and Spree are concluding)

So that means you think that when JK isn't allotted 30+ minutes he plays worse. (that's what better means, something has to be worse in order for something to be better)

So yes this applies to you, "But to say that Kerr didn't allot 30+ minutes for JK in 30 some thing games which led to JK having a bad game in those 30 games is just a step too far for me."

[vvoland]

I agree about Moody, just saying there's always players looking to get more playing time and if you're going to let your own coach throw you off your game then what is the opposition going to do who is actually trying to throw you off your game?

I agree a coach can kill a player's career, especially in the NFL. Kerr is not and probably will never be the right coach for JK. Kerr's principals are the antithesis of who JK is as a player right now. But to say that Kerr didn't allot 30+ minutes for JK in 30 some thing games which led to JK having a bad game in those 30 games is just a step too far for me. How about JK just play better when he's given those minutes and force the coach to put him on the court like Podz or TJD did? How about we put the responsibility on the player for how they played when they played and focus on what he can do better?

And thank you for moving this into a better discussion

But no one said that. Literally, this entire branch of the conversation is in response to someone (Spree?) posting JK's splits with 27 mins being the data point. He didn't say it led to him having good games. He said JK is a rhythm player that his scoring/shooting efficiency is really good IF he plays 30+ minutes. You then made the inference that WHEN Kerr gives JK more minutes he plays well and went on to disagree with it.

Right when I thought we were moving on to a better discussion, you bring it right back.

This is why I'm very specific when I'm talking with you. You literally have no clue what you're arguing about.

Spree says JK is a rhythm player, his scoring efficiency is really good when he plays 30+ minutes.

I say or maybe he gets more minutes when he's scoring well rather than the minutes determining how well he scores.

He puts up his TS% by quarters.

I say correlation doesn't equal causation.

You come in and say, "perhaps JK shoots/plays better when he knows he is getting big minutes and isn't gonna get yanked as soon as he takes a bad shot or turns it over."

So you think when JK is allotted 30+ minutes he plays better. (This is what you and Spree are concluding)

So that means you think that when JK isn't allotted 30+ minutes he plays worse. (that's what better means, something has to be worse in order for something to be better)

So yes this applies to you, "But to say that Kerr didn't allot 30+ minutes for JK in 30 some thing games which led to JK having a bad game in those 30 games is just a step too far for me."

I said a lot more than just that one sentence including that it may not be causal, just didn't dismiss it outright. That said, nothing about that sentence is even remotely controversial. I'm not sure how many players in the world wouldn't play better when they know they'll play big minutes and won't get yanked after one mistake.


some players play worse when handed minutes they didn't earn but that's not what anyone is saying. In fact, I'd much rather have spent these last twenty posts discussing whether or not JK's numbers indicate that he's earned a starting spot (like spree said) or not. Let's just move on to that and while I haven't said it in this thread, I've said it multiple times, both JK and the strength of this roster SHOULD have meant JK averaged 30min/gm the last TWO years. Same for moody, to be honest (maybe 25).

[Dubs 707]

But no one said that. Literally, this entire branch of the conversation is in response to someone (Spree?) posting JK's splits with 27 mins being the data point. He didn't say it led to him having good games. He said JK is a rhythm player that his scoring/shooting efficiency is really good IF he plays 30+ minutes. You then made the inference that WHEN Kerr gives JK more minutes he plays well and went on to disagree with it.

Right when I thought we were moving on to a better discussion, you bring it right back.

This is why I'm very specific when I'm talking with you. You literally have no clue what you're arguing about.

Spree says JK is a rhythm player, his scoring efficiency is really good when he plays 30+ minutes.

I say or maybe he gets more minutes when he's scoring well rather than the minutes determining how well he scores.

He puts up his TS% by quarters.

I say correlation doesn't equal causation.

You come in and say, "perhaps JK shoots/plays better when he knows he is getting big minutes and isn't gonna get yanked as soon as he takes a bad shot or turns it over."

So you think when JK is allotted 30+ minutes he plays better. (This is what you and Spree are concluding)

So that means you think that when JK isn't allotted 30+ minutes he plays worse. (that's what better means, something has to be worse in order for something to be better)

So yes this applies to you, "But to say that Kerr didn't allot 30+ minutes for JK in 30 some thing games which led to JK having a bad game in those 30 games is just a step too far for me."

I said a lot more than just that one sentence including that it may not be causal, just didn't dismiss it outright. That said, nothing about that sentence is even remotely controversial. I'm not sure how many players in the world wouldn't play better when they know they'll play big minutes and won't get yanked after one mistake.


some players play worse when handed minutes they didn't earn but that's not what anyone is saying. In fact, I'd much rather have spent these last twenty posts discussing whether or not JK's numbers indicate that he's earned a starting spot (like spree said) or not. Let's just move on to that and while I haven't said it in this thread, I've said it multiple times, both JK and the strength of this roster SHOULD have meant JK averaged 30min/gm the last TWO years. Same for moody, to be honest (maybe 25).

In order to have a conversation you have to have two participants who have a mutual interest in a civil discussion.

I think he's trolling you, which is quite odd as he's a great poster! But he took it to the extreme instantly as you had mentioned previously. After you laid it out in the manner you did I find it hard to believe that sleep joe or that crazed orange lunatic wouldn't be able to follow....

[vvoland]

Right when I thought we were moving on to a better discussion, you bring it right back.

This is why I'm very specific when I'm talking with you. You literally have no clue what you're arguing about.

Spree says JK is a rhythm player, his scoring efficiency is really good when he plays 30+ minutes.

I say or maybe he gets more minutes when he's scoring well rather than the minutes determining how well he scores.

He puts up his TS% by quarters.

I say correlation doesn't equal causation.

You come in and say, "perhaps JK shoots/plays better when he knows he is getting big minutes and isn't gonna get yanked as soon as he takes a bad shot or turns it over."

So you think when JK is allotted 30+ minutes he plays better. (This is what you and Spree are concluding)

So that means you think that when JK isn't allotted 30+ minutes he plays worse. (that's what better means, something has to be worse in order for something to be better)

So yes this applies to you, "But to say that Kerr didn't allot 30+ minutes for JK in 30 some thing games which led to JK having a bad game in those 30 games is just a step too far for me."

I said a lot more than just that one sentence including that it may not be causal, just didn't dismiss it outright. That said, nothing about that sentence is even remotely controversial. I'm not sure how many players in the world wouldn't play better when they know they'll play big minutes and won't get yanked after one mistake.


some players play worse when handed minutes they didn't earn but that's not what anyone is saying. In fact, I'd much rather have spent these last twenty posts discussing whether or not JK's numbers indicate that he's earned a starting spot (like spree said) or not. Let's just move on to that and while I haven't said it in this thread, I've said it multiple times, both JK and the strength of this roster SHOULD have meant JK averaged 30min/gm the last TWO years. Same for moody, to be honest (maybe 25).

In order to have a conversation you have to have two participants who have a mutual interest in a civil discussion.

I think he's trolling you, which is quite odd as he's a great poster! But he took it to the extreme instantly as you had mentioned previously. After you laid it out in the manner you did I find it hard to believe that sleep joe or that crazed orange lunatic wouldn't be able to follow....

I really don't think he's trolling and feel partly responsible for not being clear or concise enough when engaging. I also don't cut my losses nearly early enough. All of this is true for real life and realgm.

That said, thank you for weighing in and taking a side. It'll be easier to move on to better topics, for both of us.

Assuming you agree that JK should start, what's the lineup next to him? I'd have JK, tjd, dray, curry and either moody or Melton as the 5th starter. I need podz to run the second unit and we don't have a ton behind podz (maybe SloMo?). BP still plays big minutes and, likely, closes over anyone that hasn't earned closing minutes.

[CDM_Stats]

Kuminga career split shooting by minutes

FG/3PT/FT/TS

30+ .549/.426/.733/.626
20-29 .553/.367/.722/.626
10-19 .436/.257/.648/.517
0-9 .348/.095/.588/.395

GSW record 2023-2024

Kuminga played > 27min 22W-14L
Kuminga played < 27min 23W-23L

Wagner vs Kuminga stats 30-39min (2024)

Wagner 54G 34.2min 20.4pts 5.6reb 3.8ast 1.11stl 0.4blk 2.1tov +1.9nrtg .481/.282/.843/.569
Kuminga 20G 33.3min 21.1pts 5.6reb 2.7ast 0.95stl 0.6blk 2.3tov +9.1nrtg .557/.350/.784/.619 (1y younger)

I think Kuminga is ready for starting from day one. Looks like he is ritm player. His shooting/scorring efficiency are really good if he is playing +30min.

Or just maybe he gets more minutes when he's scoring well rather than the minutes determining how well he scores ...

I don’t think so

TS by Q in 2024

1Q .521
2Q .601
3Q .610
4Q .654

So.. don’t start JK?

[vvoland]

Or just maybe he gets more minutes when he's scoring well rather than the minutes determining how well he scores ...

I don’t think so

TS by Q in 2024

1Q .521
2Q .601
3Q .610
4Q .654

So.. don’t start JK?

We've all seen that movie, right? I know you're mostly joking but do YOU start JK this season, assuming the roster doesn't change between now and then?

[CDM_Stats]

So you think when JK is allotted 30+ minutes he plays better

For like 20 years this is the argument for young players.. there is nothing to it. Players get more minutes when they play well. This is always highlighted for young players who are either bench players, fringe starters, or transition through the year.. because fans want to see more of them so the stats get massaged into saying what they want them to

It doesnt mean anything, it can be said about pretty much every young player in a similar situation that doesn't completely suck. And since JK doesnt completely suck, he's in the big group with everyone else who gets more minutes when they play well. Really the only conclusion here is that JK doesn't suck, and that's great. Everything else is projection based on preference

[Dubs 707]

It can also be said that young players need real NBA minutes to develop. When you invest a top ten pick on a player, you look damn good giving him some burn,


(unless his names is James Wiseman)..

Kuminga, Moody snd Podz have shown Skills that translate to wins. They've as well as showing they can look invisible and or clueless in certain aspects of the game. Which is expected out of younger players. Hell, sometimes Dray looks clueless on offense.

I look forward to this upcoming season because I'm hoping atl east one of these young fellas breakout if not all three!

[floppymoose]

I'm just glad JK showed enough flashed that he earned games where he got to play in the 4th quarter, and that when he earned those chances, he largely did well in those 4th quarters.

This year will tell so much, one way or another.

[CDM_Stats]

He's definitely earned the opportunity, just wish fans were more realistic about it in general.. that Franz comp is meant to look good, but JK had to earn his way into 30 minute games by playing well in-game, whereas Franz got the 30 in most games because he is already locked into a franchise cornerstone spot for Orlando. Creating excitement with manipulated stats is ugly business to me

Reality is that he's a specialist right now, a scoring specialist, and one who only does it inside the arc. He's below league average in most everything else that matters.. the good news is that its a lot easier to go from below average to average in most categories. The bad news is that there's not been a trend up in these categories. With the team not going all-in this offseason, there's no reason for them not to try and coax it out of him, but there's also no reason to come anywhere close to a max extension offer

Really thing both Warriors and JK should work something out in the 25m range. If JK suffers a big injury, his value is ruined for a while, possibly altogether. Similarly the Warriors shouldnt be paying for unlikely potential.. and JK shouldnt risk injury when his athleticism is the most marketable thing he has

[CDM_Stats]

It can also be said that young players need real NBA minutes to develop. When you invest a top ten pick on a player, you look damn good giving him some burn,


(unless his names is James Wiseman)..

Kuminga, Moody snd Podz have shown Skills that translate to wins. They've as well as showing they can look invisible and or clueless in certain aspects of the game. Which is expected out of younger players. Hell, sometimes Dray looks clueless on offense.

I look forward to this upcoming season because I'm hoping atl east one of these young fellas breakout if not all three!

Just for **** and giggles, Wiseman gets 16-10-2 and 1 block per game when he gets 30+ with a .599 TS and -1.9 +/-

Crazily different than his regular stats. Which is why the "when young player gets X minutes" thing is mute data

I like the W's young core but they are mostly role players and specialists, with Podz looking like the best chance of being an impact starter that contributes to winning at this time. But even if they dont max out, JK's still an explosive finisher/scorer and that's useful. Moody is a solid 2-way backup wing. Podz is a solid 2-way combo guard. Even TJD, despite having a really low ceiling, is a quality backup center. As floors, that's solid. Maybe not a big hit considering the draft assets they costed, but it can be built off of. Question is will the team use them correctly?

[Jester_]

at this point our entire franchise hopes rest on a prayer that Kuminga takes a Jaylen Brown-sized leap

so we may as well throw him into an entire season of high minutes and usage next to Steph and see what he can come up with. brown needed serious reps and minutes to get there

[Crazy-Canuck]

People have moved on from jaylen brown to prime kobe as kuminga's career projection. We winning the chip.

[Dubs 707]

Ive heard Bernard King

[zimpy27]

Curry, Podz, Wiggins, JK, Green
Melton, Hield, Moody, TJD, Looney
GP2, Kyle

Is that the plan?

[CDM_Stats]

Curry, Podz, Wiggins, JK, Green
Melton, Hield, Moody, TJD, Looney
GP2, Kyle

Is that the plan?

Move Moody down about 4 or 5 strings and swap Looney w/Slomo… and I’d say it’s likely