Loooool

Really solid Hinkie profile: http://www.si.com/nba/2016/11/30/sam...low_twitter_si

But the thing is that Smart has 15% equity for an unlikely leap and Wiggins has 2% equity. Or something like that.

It's not exceptionally uncommon for players to see sudden leaps in their shooting/skill/efficiency as their career proceeds. But when players don't get assists/rebs/steals/blocks or try hard on D, they normally stay that way forever.

So if Wiggins takes a DeRozan level leap on offense AND starts to apply himself on D, of course that would be great. But is it really all that likely considering the following

--Wiggins hasn't improved a lick since he entered the league
--He never improved his body in HS. From '12 Hoop Summit to '13 he grew an inch and only gained 2 pounds
--Pretty much every indicator of defense/rebounding ability shows that he either has damaged instincts, a complete lack of WIM, or both. Really no excuse for a player with his physical tools to be as lackluster as he is.

So not only are you expecting this player who has shown no signs of physical/skill/game improvement or D/rebounding WIM to take a DDR level leap on offense (which was an outlier improvement on its own), but you are ALSO asking him to suddenly start being good at defense (which didn't even happen in DDR's outlier scenario). Does that really seem like a parlay of events that is not exceptionally long?

Meanwhile if one day Smart shoots 45%+ from 2 and 34%+ from 3 he's a super useful role player. Is that really so far out of reach compared to the improvements that Wiggins requires to hit his upside?

This is the problem with equating athleticism to upside. Sometimes other things are broken that make their theoretical upside much further out of reach than it would seem on paper. I think this is clearly the case with Wiggins, and it is causing everybody to give him more credit than deserved.

As the man who has said they'd rather have Gary Harris + assets and Otto Porter + assets, I approve of the Smart assessment.

The other thing Smart has is that he's somewhat of a unicorn in that he can be both your starting 2 and backup PG in one fell swoop, and that has immense value in a salary-capped world.

Smart is also at least for now the type of player who makes lineups better when he's in.

With that said, on a crappy team I'd rather have Wiggins. IMO the Wolves are not crappy so I'd take Smart... Plus as I've said numerous times I just don't see a path to them contending with two minus defenders on the wings.

Wall-Lavine-Porter-Towns-Dieng

Ideally I'd like Towns at the 5 with a Wilson Chandler type (hands off!) at the 4, but that lineup is going to shoot the lights out and you've just upgraded two positions massively on defense.

You have Towns and Zach, who I'm high on at least offensively... do you still need a player like Andrew Wiggins? Seems like they could trade Rubio/Wiggins for a haul and get a good PG in case Dunn doesn't work out and a SF who can spot up and defend.

I mean realistically you could poach Wall+Porter for Rubio+Wiggins and start thinking about contending as early as next season.

Tony Allen without any trace of offense in his game was still a damn positive player for his team during his prime. Rudy Gay in his prime was barely positive, and it was high variance production

Smart without offense will always be > Wiggins without WIM, rebounds, assists, defense

Dante Exum is one of the worst player in the league, because he doesn't understand **** about the game, he should be sent in europe a year or 2

How is this even quantifiable? It's not, it's nonsense.

And Rudy Gay wasn't even a black hole on D

guivre what do you think of Gobert on offense?

I've seen maybe 20 games of him the last 3 years, but I always came away thinking "oh he made the right pass there" or "wow he really does dive in well".

Obviously he's a monster on the offensive glass.

Inventing percentages to back your argument is a Dean staple though! I like this one:

Bonus quote for fun:

Agreed, it's very rich.

Obviously I picked arbitrary numbers that I am guessing on, but I supported it with strong logic that one outcome is clearly much more likely than the other.

Yup, this is a good point. Does anybody here really take prime DDR over prime Tony Allen?

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap...In-Three-Years

Bruno projected 42% to have a bigger impact than Wiggins.

Really cool. Always thought Seth was a black guy with a Hawaiin shirt.

Very cool. Didn't realize that Seth went to Carleton (or that he had a law degree).

Seeing Dean back is awesome. He's pretty clearly an intelligent guy.

Can't be right about everything.

The haters taking shots couldn't hold up Dean's jock strap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. His assessment on Wiggins was spot on and it was a very controversial opinion at the time.

Overall I like the way Quinn is developing him, he's not doing the mistake of developing skills he doesn't have. Feeding Drummond/Howard/Hibbert to the post is a terrible idea and coach have done that. Those players haven't reached their ceiling defensively, they aren't great screeners, and coaches try to turn them into low-post threat

Lol Drummond :



I think he has better passing skills and court vision than those guys, because he learnt euroball, not "you're the star of our high school eat every ball" then repeat process in the lol NCAA

He can't hit a jumper ? Fine he shoot 85% of his shot at rim and 14% between 3-10 ft. Drummond is taking 45% of his shot at the rim and 43% of his shot between 3-10 ft and the rest even further

Guess Drummond FG% from 3-10ft ? 30%
Howard is bricking 25% of his shot away from the rim

Whiteside is on his way to being wasted the same way, try to turn offense around him, but he's only efficient at the rim, and he's far from Gobert skills in defense

Quinn is good at developing Rudy, he may have less offensive skills than most of the center in the league, but he's using them wisely. No place for trashketball with 3. Quinn

Rudy screens are neat, he does an insane job considering his frame

and the next rudy is already being built in Guadeloupe, 18yo, 7"2, infinite wingspan

Awesome, and I must say your entire post is why I think there is a massive gap between good and bad coaches, and why some good coaches have obvious leaks. There is a finite amount of time (unless you're Jimmy Butler) learning how to get better, and so many players talents are wasted trying to erase their deficiencies rather than find a way to mask them while getting better at everything else. This seems especially true for bigs, who tend to have more deficiencies coming into the league.

great stuff, goes with what my eye test has seen.

Also... GALLO

where are those postup #s from

That chart is from the first half of last year according to the date on it

I think it's more likely that Wiggins develops a better overall basketball game with his tools than it is that Smart develops a positive offensive game. Marcus Smart is far from being a good offensive player. He shows no indications of improving his game after 2+ years in the league. He doesn't have good form and generally seems like a spazz. All Andrew Wiggins needs to do is put forth more effort. Yes he has been tentative in the past, but he's literally a kid. He can improve these traits. I'd rather have Wiggins than 3 Marcus Smarts.

So, Smart is gonna get paid a lot less than Wiggins, right?

So Dean is boasting to everyone who had Wiggins > Embiid about how right he was (despite knowing full well that literally noone had Wiggins > Embiid assuming full health) because Embiid has now played 274 minutes of NBA, and Seadood thinks Wiggins is no good because you could improve by effectively trading him for John Wall. Amazing.

I mean, who's to say Embiid hasn't hit a top 5% health outcome already? Even if you say everyone would take Embiid #1 in a redraft now you're just being results based, and RESULTS BASED, Cleveland took Wiggins #1, traded him for Love and won a Championship, so Wiggins was STILL the correct pick.