Always remember- African cripple ahead of Conley Wiggins greatest MJ2 and Jokic.

So far ahead. Dude if you can't draft a a crippled player from Africa 2 years ahead of when he can play 20 minutes a game for a non playoff team then obviously you are dumb

Ummm.... wat?

Jabari is shooting the three and jumpers, and doing well at it.

In the past he was told never shoot the 3 (he shot less total last season than this year already), and he's hitting them at a good clip.

Jabari is going to be the Bucks leading scorer in the future. Giannis may have him this year, but Jabari is going to be the offensively talented guy, with Giannis being the jack of all trades that is the glue on both ends.

All this talk of ranking young guys and no mention of giannis is lol

There is literally zero evidence to support the idea that he is an above average player. Every advanced statistical metric rates him as clearly below average, except for PER which 1) rates him barely above average 2) badly overrates players precisely in Wiggins mold.

Bennett gets overhyped as a bust because he went #1 in a bad draft where he wasn't supposed to go top 5. If he gets picked #12 in a regular draft like he deserved he'd be a dime a dozen mid-1st round flop. To offer numerical examples to support it:

If Wiggins' perceived EV is 5-7 pts above replacement and he settles to 1-2 pts above, that's 4-5 pts short. Not to mention you could have had Embiid instead!

If Bennett's perceived EV is 1-2 pts above replacement and he settles to a mile below, you get a stop loss by waiving him and you really only miss by 1-2 pts which is a smaller magnitude than Wiggins.

It may seem like I am being irrational but I do have strong underlying logic to support it. Bennett was only a bust because one terrible GM overvalued him in a horrible draft, whereas the majority agreed that Wiggins was a good #1 overall pick in spite of Embiid on the board.

Thanks!

This is definitely true. I was guestimating for most NCAA players too. I'm not an actual scout, I was just doing this for funsies to see if I had edge. I think I could have edge if I treated it like a full time job, but that's obv not worth the effort so I don't try too hard at this anymore.

Honestly I'm only here to gloat about Embiid >>>> Wiggins because that was my top top take that got the most resistance around here.

I get this perspective, but you are legit talking about his top 2% outcome. You can argue that almost any 1st round prospect has small outs to achieve that level of goodness.

Wiggins is not just any first rounder- again, major hyperbole. And I don't think many disagreed that if you could assume health Embiid would be the #1 pick, although I could be wrong about that, but iirc the trouble was discerning how often you needed him to be healthy to take him over Wiggins. And he hasn't come close to proving he can stay healthy over the course of a full season.

This seems like an unusual rambling escapade against a young player who is on the brink of stardom more than anything. I'm sure dean makes many good predictions, but claiming Andrew Wiggins, who at the ripe age of 21 is already a rising star- will not be a "good" NBA player is just plain incorrect.

Again, I don't see how it's "rambling" when he's bringing up the stats, or facts. You can argue that AW is going to be good/great for other reasons not in the stats, but you really can't call what Dean wrote rambling.

And he's not saying AW won't be good, he's saying that the stats elude to him not being good, which is in line with his original prediction.

Nobody has really put forth an argument to Dean other than attacking other hot takes he's had, and I know how that feels.

I hate these hindsight big boards for the fact that you need to take into account the information at the time.

At the time of the draft, there were only three number 1 picks that wouldn't get you instantly fired, Wiggins, Parker and Embiid. I had them ranked Embiid, Wiggins, Parker, but its waaaay too esrly to say Wiggins is a bust.

As mentioned by another poster, he's a 21 yo old hyper athlete whose FLOOR seems like it's going to be DDR who shoots league average from 3 and has decent defensive tools. That is not a bust.

I think Demar is hugely overrated but that player is still very valuable.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

No love for Jokic?

But yeah even when Murray was missing every shot in his first four games I was saying he looks like an NBA player out there.

Here's a little article on some of his playmaking. Hopefully he can be a nice combo guard splitting time between the two guard positions eventually.

KAT needs to be the #___ best player in the league for the Timberwolves (read: core of KAT and Wiggins + Lavine) to win a championship.

How important is it for Wiggins to improve his rebounding? Always seems kind of low, like his rebs/36 rate is at or below the likes of Dion Fatters, Tim Frazier, Ty Lawson and Sergio Rodriguez.

I wonder if Gableup had some intriguing insights. Shame he couldn't shake the whole calling Embiid an "African cripple" three times in 10 minutes thing.

It's alright mate, papa JoJo still loves you.

Embiid
Wiggins
Nurkic
Jokic
Randle
LaVine
Warren
Gordon
Jabari
Capela

Man I could swear the bashing of Hinkie for drafting Embiid at #3 happened in the same thread. Must have read that on another forum i guess.

Also can we stop rating Smart as high as people have been doing for no reasons other than #celticslappy? No offense AJ but having him on the same tier as Lavine, Wiggins, Nurkic or even Randle is criminal considering it's pretty much a lock he will be a cancer on O for all of his career

I'd take Smart over Wiggins.

It's more likely that he has a random leap in efficiency/shooting to be an acceptable offensive player than it is that Wiggins adds any + dimension to his game outside of scoring. And he's in a mold that is more conducive to winning anyhow.

Agree about the last sentence but if both of them were to take unlikely leaps one is going to be a superstar while the other will be a positive role player

Giannis' never is Brow's normal.

I think a lot of people give credit/blame to draft analysts(and teams doing the drafting) in a similar manner as this post(and many others ITT)- you compare the results with the predictions. I feel as if this manner of evaluation demonstrates a drastic misunderstanding of sample size. If I had to guess "how many NBA drafts would we need to see Dean analyze before we could make conclusions about his ability(by using this results oriented evaluation)?" it would probably be over 10,000. In other words, NBA draft analysis is kinda like poker before the internet- you can pinpoint the clear mistakes, but when trying to distinguish between the best in the world, the results are quite literally meaningless.

I like a lot of Dean's content because I feel like his thought process is much closer to optimal than most other draft analysts. The results of a limited sample size don't impact my opinion of him at all.

How many 21 y/o raw athletes of Wiggins' caliber have above-average PERs? Unless you're predicting him to track precisely as Rudy Gay (who underperformed his career expectations dramatically given his 21 y/o season), then it's hard not to see Wiggins posting several 8+ WS years. There is also one significant difference between 21 y/o Wiggins and Gay that makes me far more bullish on Wiggins exceeding the Gay trajectory: he gets to line twice as much as Gay did at the same age.

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/11/28/1...ighlight-chair

love stuff like this