What's new
By:

Following potential 2014 draftees

basically my point, Brow was significantly better than Embiid. Brow actually did something on the court all season long. Embiid? all potential, some flashy moves here and there, couple of great games, and that length and size. never was high on embiid. but he is still #3 in my book if his back comes out nothing.
 
Fabtrey said:
basically my point, Brow was significantly better than Embiid. Brow actually did something on the court all season long. Embiid? all potential, some flashy moves here and there, couple of great games, and that length and size. never was high on embiid. but he is still #3 in my book if his back comes out nothing.
Click to expand...

Embiid only played 23 mins a game. I guarantee if he got as many minutes as AD, he would be a lock for the #1 pick.
 
A-Train said:
Embiid only played 23 mins a game. I guarantee if he got as many minutes as AD, he would be a lock for the #1 pick.
Click to expand...

maybe if he played over 30 min, he would've looked more like thabeet. who knows. or maybe he hurt his back after 5 games. he had couple of games with good production when he played 30+ min. but he also has a bad one against florida - which he virtually did nothing.

and to me - 23 min out of 40 min really is a weak sauce. he was taken out so frequently. it was frustrating to watch him. i was like 'put him out there self!!' and this ain't 'embiid is freshman' thing because wiggins played 32.8.
 
Fabtrey said:
maybe if he played over 30 min, he would've looked more like thabeet. who knows. or maybe he hurt his back after 5 games. he had couple of games with good production when he played 30+ min. but he also has a bad one against florida - which he virtually did nothing.

and to me - 23 min really is a weak sauce. it only means he just wasn't ready to be a full time starter.
Click to expand...

I agree, but no way he would have looked like Thabeet. Embiid is clearly more developed offensively where as Thabeet was a defensive stud for the most part. His injury problems are an issue as well.
 
A-Train said:
I agree, but no way he would have looked like Thabeet. Embiid is clearly more developed offensively where as Thabeet was a defensive stud for the most part. His injury problems are an issue as well.
Click to expand...

Agreed. i know embiid is a talented kid. i just wished that i saw him more. just too bad he couldn't even play in the march madness. out of all the players, embiid is the one really should stay in college. i've seen big men flop way too much, so i'm little gun shy on embiid.
 
Using Embiid's per 40 vs Davis' doesn't prove he was as good as AD in college, but it's not like it says nothing, either. How many other guys have similar per minute stats to Anthony ****ing Davis?

FWIW, PKM has gone on record saying Embiid has a higher ceiling than Davis.
 
My problem with fatbreys logic in this discussion is that what it basically amounts to is: Calapari played davis more minutes than Self played embiid, so therefore davis > embiid.

basically it has nothing to do with how each player played.... but more to do with thier coach.

Fatbrey is assuming that if bill self would have allowed embiid to play more minutes that suddenly his production would have gone way down. Maybe it would go down, maybe it would go up, no one knows. All we can go off are his stats he accumulated during the minutes that his coach gave him, which when you extend those stats to a larger minute size compare favorably to davis.
 
Fabtrey said:
wiggins played 2 more min. similar min.


regular stat 32.8 min
wiggins
17.1/5.9/1.5

parker 30.7 min
19.1/8.7/1.2

and this happens when you do per 40

wiggins per 40
20.8/7.1/1.9

parker per 40
25/11.4/1.5

gap becomes wider when you do their per 40. that's the beauty of per 40. but it can be very misleading when player A plays 10 more min than player B.

some of you act like you never dissected player's stat in your life. too many college stat noobs here.
Click to expand...

parker doesn't seem to be in as good of shape as wiggins so im going to assume that if they both played 40 minutes then parkers numbers would drop considerably and wiggins would only rise as wears out his defenders more.
*sarcasm*
 
See in the parker and wiggins example fatbrey is assuming that both parker and wiggins numbers would increase at the same rate if extended to the 40 minute stat.
but with embiid he doesn't think the same is true.
 
Fabtrey said:
yes, it's genius isn't it? parker only avg 2 more points than wiggins. but per 40, 4.2 more points

parker > wiggins

and embiid? hey look he only played 23 min! his per 40 is similar to brow's

embiid = brow
Click to expand...

For now yeah. I think everybody agrees that Parker is a more complete and polished player now. Most also realize that if wiggins gets that polish he will eclipse parker.
 
heyhey said:
For now yeah. I think everybody agrees that Parker is a more complete and polished player now. Most also realize that if wiggins gets that polish he will eclipse parker.
Click to expand...

On the offensive end. And in college.

Wiggins is miles ahead of Parker on the defensive end and always will be.

You also have to keep in mind that the college games and pro games are very different, and I think the NBA game will be better suited for Wiggins' athleticism to come through than it was in college. I've always said that he'll be a better pro player than college player from day 1.

My point is that while Parker may be a more polished scorer at the moment, I don't necessarily think he'll make a bigger impact than Wiggins in the NBA next season.
 
spycam1 said:
On the offensive end. And in college.

Wiggins is miles ahead of Parker on the defensive end and always will be.

You also have to keep in mind that the college games and pro games are very different, and I think the NBA game will be better suited for Wiggins' athleticism to come through than it was in college. I've always said that he'll be a better pro player than college player from day 1.

My point is that while Parker may be a more polished scorer at the moment, I don't think he'll make a bigger impact than Wiggins in the NBA next season.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Fabtrey was comparing their college scoring.
 
you can reasonably assume parker is clearly ahead of wiggins when it comes to scoring. both wiggins and parker was limited by college rules, defense, and the way teams play. this applies to both.

i see many automatically assume wiggins and parker have somewhat 'similar' stats. just a 2pt difference and that's only because parker shot more and he was a featured as #1 option more. but in reality, parker scored 2 more points than wiggins and he avg 2 min less. and when you do per 40, it really shows up on a stat sheet. so the actual difference is 4.2 which is significant. also parker shot .473% compared to .448%. so offensive production between wiggins and parker are significant.

IMO Parker is good 2 years ahead of wiggins in scoring. not just college scoring. scoring. parker has more moves, better fundamentals, and just has better overall touch so far in their career. also parker has that lead dog mentality. wiggins has shown that too, but i still think he is too passive sometimes.

i expect parker to average more than wiggins in the next level for first 3-4 years. if wiggins really is all that then his should have tmac like statistical jump. that's a big if, but it can happen.
 
Fabtrey said:
you can reasonably assume parker is clearly ahead of wiggins when it comes to scoring. both wiggins and parker was limited by college rules, defense, and the way teams play. this applies to both.

i see many automatically assume wiggins and parker have somewhat 'similar' stats. just a 2pt difference and that's only because parker shot more and he was a featured as #1 option more. but in reality, parker scored 2 more points than wiggins and he avg 2 min less. and when you do per 40, it really shows up on a stat sheet. so the actual difference is 4.2 which is significant. also parker shot .473% compared to .448%. so offensive production between wiggins and parker are significant.

IMO Parker is good 2 years ahead of wiggins in scoring. not just college scoring. scoring. parker has more moves, better fundamentals, and just has better overall touch so far in their career. also parker has that lead dog mentality. wiggins has shown that too, but i still think he is too passive sometimes.

i expect parker to average more than wiggins in the next level for first 3-4 years. if wiggins really is all that then his should have tmac like statistical jump. that's a big if, but it can happen.
Click to expand...

Nope. Some people's games are much better suited for the pros, some are better suited for college. Wiggins and Jabari are both players that have, and will excel in both games, but Wiggins is clearly better suited for the pros than college in a way that Jabari isn't due to their difference in athleticism.

Assuming Parker declares, I won't be overly surprised if Wiggins scores more as a rookie. My prediction is that he'll average more than Parker no later than his third year.
 
it's tough to assume because i won't know how many minutes they will play.

per 36 i would say

parker 20.5pts
wiggins 18pts

i would be severely disappointed if parker doesn't avg 24pts by his 3rd year.
 
Fabtrey said:
it's tough to assume because i won't know how many minutes they will play.

per 36 i would say

parker 20.5pts
wiggins 18pts

i would be severely disappointed if parker doesn't avg 24pts by his 3rd year.
Click to expand...


I think Parker will avg 16-18 pts. and Wiggins ~14 or 15 as rookies. I doubt they have the ball enough to score more than that, unlike say Damian Lillard.
 
I don't see a scenario under which Wiggins scores more than Parker in their rookie year....at least. I'd be willing to bet on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top