Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All Wiggins proved in Minnesota was that any team relying on him to be more than a hard-nosed defender and 3rd-4th option on offense is doomed to be horrible.
Wiggins had less WS in GS's championship year than Poole, both absolute and per minute played. Sure, you can argue his defense rounds out the team more. He is probably more important to their roster construction, but let's not overate the guy. He was a marginal All-Star in a year where voters felt more Warriors needed to be there because of their fast start. His numbers went up last year and the team got worse, which is what you expect to see from complimentary pieces, their stats don't have that much influence on the team's overall success.
Yeah, but mitchells size as a sg, you cant win it all with him as a first or 2nd option. Its very rare to have a 3 and D player, and wiggins is one.
You have to factor in wiggins points per game in Minnesota, and the fact that he got better after going to golden state. If mitchell is in golden state, his points per game will drop due to steph and klay, poole. Im just factoring in mitchells size as a sg overall, you have to take off points due to size, its unfortunate. Wiggins is a really good defender, a 3 and D player, he is much better than reaves or rusell. Rusells peak was a all star reserve, and he got there because victor oladipo got hurt and he was a replacement. If not, he would never been an all star his whole Career. Reaves never made an all star team.
All my point was him being an all star was because Warrior fans stuffed the ballot box. He got over 3 million votes. Bridges, who I think is a better player got 100k votes. Wiggins is not 30 times better than him.
This is Reaves 2nd season last year was the first year where he got major playing time. In the playoffs when it counts Reaves averages 17 points a game and 44% from 3. Better numbers than Wiggins in the playoffs who has a horrible 3 point average. And Reaves is also an excellent defender. And Reaves has yet to reach his full potential. I would not trade Reaves for Wiggins. You might say Wiggins has a slight advantage because of a longer career but Reaves is younger and makes 1/3rd of what Wiggins does. With the way Lakers fans stuff the ballot box like the Warriors fans if Reaves starts out hot he could be an all star next season. Does that mean he really deserves to be? No but Wiggins did not deserve it either.
All my point was him being an all star was because Warrior fans stuffed the ballot box. He got over 3 million votes. Bridges, who I think is a better player got 100k votes. Wiggins is not 30 times better than him.
This is Reaves 2nd season last year was the first year where he got major playing time. In the playoffs when it counts Reaves averages 17 points a game and 44% from 3. Better numbers than Wiggins in the playoffs who has a horrible 3 point average. And Reaves is also an excellent defender. And Reaves has yet to reach his full potential. I would not trade Reaves for Wiggins. You might say Wiggins has a slight advantage because of a longer career but Reaves is younger and makes 1/3rd of what Wiggins does. With the way Lakers fans stuff the ballot box like the Warriors fans if Reaves starts out hot he could be an all star next season. Does that mean he really deserves to be? No but Wiggins did not deserve it either.
We both have valid points, i do agree mitchell is a much better scorer and player compared to wiggins, if mitchell is the same height as wiggins, he would be a top 10 player. Im just putting both of them as a package and how effective they are going for a championship. The biggest knock of mitchell is his height. Mitchell can guard 2 positions while wiggins can guard 4 positions.
We both have valid points, i do agree mitchell is a much better scorer and player compared to wiggins, if mitchell is the same height as wiggins, he would be a top 10 player. Im just putting both of them as a package and how effective they are going for a championship. The biggest knock of mitchell is his height. Mitchell can guard 2 positions while wiggins can guard 4 positions.
I would compare Mitchell and Curry. And there are a couple of big differences. Mitchell can have these Curry like performances where he takes over the game and wins it and looks all world does it more often than most players. Problem is does not do it nearly as often as Curry. Other thing he does not step his game up when it counts. 4th quarter or in the playoffs like Curry does. Probably part of why he has been on good teams and they always underachieve in the playoffs.
I would compare Mitchell and Curry. And there are a couple of big differences. Mitchell can have these Curry like performances where he takes over the game and wins it and looks all world does it more often than most players. Problem is does not do it nearly as often as Curry. Other thing he does not step his game up when it counts. 4th quarter or in the playoffs like Curry does. Probably part of why he has been on good teams and they always underachieve in the playoffs.
Problem is curry is slightly undersized at the starting pg position, mitchell is extremely undersized at the starting sg position, his long wingspan helps but is still too small. If i were to start a team now and theres a choice of wiggins or Mitchell, i would take wiggins. Mitchell relies alot on his athleticism and hops, speed. Once he gets to age 32, and that goes away, he is done. Wiggins can probably still be in the league at age 36 and play backup pf, and he has the size for that. Mitchell cant be a backup sf at age 34. So overall i would take wiggins
I wonder what stats both wiggins and Mitchell will get if both are in losing teams and theyre the man.
Problem is curry is slightly undersized at the starting pg position, mitchell is extremely undersized at the starting sg position, his long wingspan helps but is still too small. If i were to start a team now and theres a choice of wiggins or Mitchell, i would take wiggins. Mitchell relies alot on his athleticism and hops, speed. Once he gets to age 32, and that goes away, he is done. Wiggins can probably still be in the league at age 36 and play backup pf, and he has the size for that. Mitchell cant be a backup sf at age 34. So overall i would take wiggins
I wonder what stats both wiggins and Mitchell will get if both are in losing teams and theyre the man.
Mitchell averaged 28 points a game on a good team last year. Wiggins averaged 17 points a game on a good team. About a 11 point spread. Mitchell could probably average 32-34 on a bad team. About 11 more than Wiggins averaged in Minnesota in his best year.
I agree shooting guards when they lose their quickness don't last long in the NBA. But Curry still has it at what 35? And he has played a lot more playoff games than Mitchell ever will. Its conditioning. Not sure where Mitchell is on that.
Mitchell averaged 28 points a game on a good team last year. Wiggins averaged 17 points a game on a good team. About a 11 point spread. Mitchell could probably average 32-34 on a bad team. About 11 more than Wiggins averaged in Minnesota in his best year.
I agree shooting guards when they lose their quickness don't last long in the NBA. But Curry still has it at what 35? And he has played a lot more playoff games than Mitchell ever will. Its conditioning. Not sure where Mitchell is on that.
Mitchell gets more points than wiggins, but once you factor in size and defense, its equaled up. Having the ability to defend multiple positions can help a team a ton in terms of putting other undersized players on the floor.
Steph is a pg, and his quickness, hops, athleticism was never needed in his career, his legendary 3 point shooting is. Thats why he ages well. Mitchell on the other hand, is very undersized as a sg and relies on athleticism, hops, quickness. He will age very badly unless he switches to become a pg and be a much better 3 point shooter.
Mitchell gets more points than wiggins, but once you factor in size and defense, its equaled up. Having the ability to defend multiple positions can help a team a ton in terms of putting other undersized players on the floor.
Steph is a pg, and his quickness, hops, athleticism was never needed in his career, his legendary 3 point shooting is. Thats why he ages well. Mitchell on the other hand, is very undersized as a sg and relies on athleticism, hops, quickness. He will age very badly unless he switches to become a pg and be a much better 3 point shooter.
Green is the point forward on that team. Leads the team in assists. That is why the all-star game just has front court and back court players. Curry is a back court player. Green a front court player.
Some people, however, don't even think that Curry is a point guard. In a recent episode of undercover by GQ Sports, Stephen Curry found a post that said that Curry was not a point guard because he wasn't the primary ball-handler. The post said that Draymond carried the ball for the Warriors and that Curry was more of a shooting guard.
Curry, surprisingly, agreed with the post, although he was befuddled by the anger in the post. He noted that basketball in the modern era isn't about positions, but is more about talent. And that he is more concerned with playing well. He said that he would be completely fine with fans calling Draymond Green the point guard and himself the shooting guard.
Green is the point forward on that team. Leads the team in assists. That is why the all-star game just has front court and back court players. Curry is a back court player. Green a front court player.
Some people, however, don't even think that Curry is a point guard. In a recent episode of undercover by GQ Sports, Stephen Curry found a post that said that Curry was not a point guard because he wasn't the primary ball-handler. The post said that Draymond carried the ball for the Warriors and that Curry was more of a shooting guard.
Curry, surprisingly, agreed with the post, although he was befuddled by the anger in the post. He noted that basketball in the modern era isn't about positions, but is more about talent. And that he is more concerned with playing well. He said that he would be completely fine with fans calling Draymond Green the point guard and himself the shooting guard.
We have alot of these, such as westbrick, jeremy lin, dame, steph. They are guards, with a pg sized height. But they at least improved their games, have enough handles, passing ability, control of the game to at least he a pg.
If cj McCollum inproves those 3 traits (handles, passing, control of game) he could be a pg and get a max contract, many all star selections.
If Bradley beal get those 3 traits, be a pg, he will be a hall of famer and be respected as a player.
If avery bradley got those 3 traits, he would still be in the league now as a backup pg.
If Donovan Mitchell has those 3 traits, he is a top 10 player now and will be a first ballot hall of famer.
If norman powell had those traits, he could have gotten a max contract and maybe be a all star.
If monta ellis got those traits, golden state would have kept him, multiple time all star, max contracts, potential hof.
There are a ton of tweeners at the college level, g league, etc. They all needed an inch to be in the nba, but cant get the skills to play 1 position lower.
Last edited by accord2008; 09-26-2023 at 08:41 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
