Olden Polynice on Marvin Bagley

[Joshoua]

To be fair, Wiggins doesn’t even put up stats. He just sorta exists.

crap that’s more than Bagley right now

 

[The Effort Police]

Never mentioned anyone being great.

I haven't watched enough Minnesota basketball to get a bead on all things Wiggins. But if the implication is that he puts up numbers, but his teams don't win, well then everyone on the Kings is an empty stats non winning caliber player.

Wiggins best season was probably last year at 21/5/4. He also put up 24/4/2 at age 21. He was a darling young player and half of the spooky young core destined to be the next big thing. Until he wasn't. They promptly maxed him out to one of the biggest albatrosses in league history. He's also a textbook bust. He doesnt defend, shoot, pass, or score efficiently. Sound familiar?

Or how about Jabari Parker, 21/6/3 at look at that, age 21.

Jahlil Okafor, age 20 rookie, 18/7.

All of them produce, and unlike Bagleys magic 20/10 Per 36, these were all their actual statlines. All of them are also well-known league-wide jokes.

 

[Livinthedream]

Wiggins best season was probably last year at 21/5/4. He also put up 24/4/2 at age 21. He was a darling young player and half of the spooky young core destined to be the next big thing. Until he wasn't. They promptly maxed him out to one of the biggest albatrosses in league history. He's also a textbook bust. He doesnt defend, shoot, pass, or score efficiently. Sound familiar?

Or how about Jabari Parker, 21/6/3 at look at that, age 21.

Jahlil Okafor, age 20 rookie, 18/7.

All of them produce, and unlike Bagleys magic 20/10 Per 36, these were all their actual statlines. All of them are also well-known league-wide jokes.

There are only a handful of NBA players that makes things go. The rest of the players are getting moved around like pawns on a chess board to unlock the right chemistry. But in the end, it really comes down to if one teams two best players are better than the next teams two best players. The rest are just filling the gaps. Wiggins is an extremely talented player who lacks leadership qualities, so he's filling in gaps.

I made a post either before are right when the playoff bubble started that Embiid and Simmons are players that Kings fans would despise and that they looked better in the past because of Jimmy Butler. Some brushed that off as me not knowing what I was talking about. Yet, Jimmy Butler put the Heat on his back and made a run for a championship. Philly still can't get out of their own way. Philly needs the right guy, which is why they're in the James Harden discussion.

Point being, their stats aren't empty. Embiid and Simmons just don't have all that it takes to get a team over the top. The vast majority of players fall into this category to some level or another. The "counting numbers" stat line is just a slight you throw against a guy who's style you don't like while his team is losing. It's scapegoating. Listening to Rich Ivanowski on a podcast the other day talk about how he doesn't like Bagley and hates seeing him shoot left handed hooks in the lane while all the while praising Kyle Guy. This speaks to a style preference, not an actual analysis. Bogi over Buddy, Len over Whiteside is style preference and maybe even a relatability thing. The stats aren't any more important coming from your favorite player.

There are things I want Bagley to do more of and get better at. It doesn't invalidate the things that he already does well. One of the things he does well is get his own shot and draw fouls. When this team finally makes the playoffs, we'll learn just how important that one thing really is.

 

[ESP47]

Empty stats really are a thing. There are players that put up big numbers, while the analytics show that they don't have much of an impact on winning. It's not just buzzwords, it's what the statistics show.

We don't know if Bagley is technically an empty stat player but there are strong indications that he is. He's a terrible defender at a position that requires good defense. He would basically have to be Embiid offensively to get himself into Richaun Holmes overall impact territory. If you're asking him to become a true 1 or 2 on a playoff team, now he has to become as good as Jokic offensively.

It's why many of us don't have Bagley in the Kings future core. We don't deny that he's a talented player when it comes to scoring the ball. It's just he can't defend and he doesn't make his teammates better. In fact, unless he develops an outside shot, he makes his teammates worse if he's playing at the 4. It's going to be a huge uphill battle for him and if you're penciling him in as a top player on a playoff team because he scores points, you're going to be in for a rude awakening when the team never reaches the playoffs despite big box score numbers. There's just more layers to it than that.

 

[Livinthedream]

Empty stats really are a thing. There are players that put up big numbers, while the analytics show that they don't have much of an impact on winning. It's not just buzzwords, it's what the statistics show.

We don't know if Bagley is technically an empty stat player but there are strong indications that he is. He's a terrible defender at a position that requires good defense. He would basically have to be Embiid offensively to get himself into Richaun Holmes overall impact territory. If you're asking him to become a true 1 or 2 on a playoff team, now he has to become as good as Jokic offensively.

It's why many of us don't have Bagley in the Kings future core. We don't deny that he's a talented player when it comes to scoring the ball. It's just he can't defend and he doesn't make his teammates better. In fact, unless he develops an outside shot, he makes his teammates worse if he's playing at the 4. It's going to be a huge uphill battle for him and if you're penciling him in as a top player on a playoff team because he scores points, you're going to be in for a rude awakening when the team never reaches the playoffs despite big box score numbers. There's just more layers to it than that.

As far as analytics go, you have to put up the stats in order for them to register in the analytics. Some of what you're saying comes down to how the team is built. If the player is good, but the pieces don't fit, the losses will still come and affect the analytics. If the Kings intend for Bagley to be a core piece, then they have to use the parts that fit. That's not a negative, because every team has to build around their core. The players that need to fit in are the ones who are not part of the core. The other part of it is the team has to let him grow into his game. People pulling their hair out when Marvin doesn't block shots like Gobert or perform like Jokic at the high post immediately are not here to watch a guy grow. That's fine. But it says more about the fans state of mind than it does about Marvin.

Most players only do a few things well. The really good ones are exceptional at one thing. Usually an offensive skill. The best of the best do it all. When you have a player with an exceptional ability, exploit that and fill in the pieces to make up for the deficiencies. Maybe then you can unlock the offense that covers for the deficiencies.

I don't know what Marvin will be. It's true it doesn't look good right now because he missed a full year to injuries and has missed development time. But the talent is still there and it's not over for him yet.

 

[ESP47]

As far as analytics go, you have to put up the stats in order for them to register in the analytics. Some of what you're saying comes down to how the team is built. If the player is good, but the pieces don't fit, the losses will still come and affect the analytics. If the Kings intend for Bagley to be a core piece, then they have to use the parts that fit. That's not a negative, because every team has to build around their core. The players that need to fit in are the ones who are not part of the core. The other part of it is the team has to let him grow into his game. People pulling their hair out when Marvin doesn't block shots like Gobert or perform like Jokic at the high post immediately are not here to watch a guy grow. That's fine. But it says more about the fans state of mind than it does about Marvin.

Most players only do a few things well. The really good ones are exceptional at one thing. Usually an offensive skill. The best of the best do it all. When you have a player with an exceptional ability, exploit that and fill in the pieces to make up for the deficiencies. Maybe then you can unlock the offense that covers for the deficiencies.

I don't know what Marvin will be. It's true it doesn't look good right now because he missed a full year to injuries and has missed development time. But the talent is still there and it's not over for him yet.

I get what you're saying but the main problem with Bagley is that even if many of us squint and try to see the path to success, it's still as blurry as it gets. He just simply doesn't have a position. He's awful defensively at the 5. More passable defensively at the 4 but with the offensive game of a 5.

So you're stuck with low outcome gambles with him. Bigs that are as bad as Bagley defensively don't normally become average to above average defenders. Odds are low. So if you play him at the 5, your defensive anchor position is more than likely never going to be there. That's really bad.

So you play him at the 4. Now he needs to develop a consistent 3 point shot. This is more doable than defense at the 5 but there is more to the position than just standing beyond the arc. It requires a lot more perimeter play these days. That would require an almost completely retooling of his game. That's not something I'd put my money on either.

Now you're stuck with finding a unicorn to play next to him. A Brook Lopez type that can defend the rim and then hang out beyond the arc and let Bagley work inside on offense. There aren't many players like that in the league either.

This is something I've personally been saying since his rookie year. The path to success is very limited with him and the odds are low. His game is just very ill fitting for the modern game. Something would have to completely change with his game and I don't mean more rebounds or higher quality hook shots or post moves. Like he basically has to transform into something else in order for his play to fit the game these days. I just don't see it happening personally. Even if you do everything you can to build around him, it's highly unlikely.

 

[kb02]

Empty stats is real. Game in and game out, Haliburton's impact will be deviations greater than his numbers when you factor in hockey assists/steals/boards. Buddy's impact will be deviations less when you factor in turnovers, defensive gimmes, and black hole tendencies. Ditto for Bagley and especially Wiggins. Don't mistake production as a result of volume as true production.

 

[kb02]

Empty stats:

 

[The Effort Police]

There are only a handful of NBA players that makes things go. The rest of the players are getting moved around like pawns on a chess board to unlock the right chemistry. But in the end, it really comes down to if one teams two best players are better than the next teams two best players. The rest are just filling the gaps. Wiggins is an extremely talented player who lacks leadership qualities, so he's filling in gaps.

I made a post either before are right when the playoff bubble started that Embiid and Simmons are players that Kings fans would despise and that they looked better in the past because of Jimmy Butler. Some brushed that off as me not knowing what I was talking about. Yet, Jimmy Butler put the Heat on his back and made a run for a championship. Philly still can't get out of their own way. Philly needs the right guy, which is why they're in the James Harden discussion.

Point being, their stats aren't empty. Embiid and Simmons just don't have all that it takes to get a team over the top. The vast majority of players fall into this category to some level or another. The "counting numbers" stat line is just a slight you throw against a guy who's style you don't like while his team is losing. It's scapegoating. Listening to Rich Ivanowski on a podcast the other day talk about how he doesn't like Bagley and hates seeing him shoot left handed hooks in the lane while all the while praising Kyle Guy. This speaks to a style preference, not an actual analysis. Bogi over Buddy, Len over Whiteside is style preference and maybe even a relatability thing. The stats aren't any more important coming from your favorite player.

There are things I want Bagley to do more of and get better at. It doesn't invalidate the things that he already does well. One of the things he does well is get his own shot and draw fouls. When this team finally makes the playoffs, we'll learn just how important that one thing really is.

Maybe if you look at "this player puts up numbers but his team doesn't win" you could find examples for practically everyone in the league, but that's not what this is. Embiid and Simmons, every good player on a losing team, they're not better if you camp their ass on the bench and give their usage to some other player. Bagley and the rest of these players do; they make you demonstrably worse on a minute-by-minute basis consistently, where you're better off stripping their usage because they're inefficient, or their defense is so bad that it offsets their offensive contributions and turn into a net negative player.

If all styles are created equal and come down to preference which is what you appear to be saying, why is the league phasing out the face-up, post-up big in Bagley's mold? By all means, John Collins puts up great numbers and he's efficient. He's what people here think Bagley is. Atlanta should be tripping all over themselves going to the bank to max him out. But they passed on extending him. It's not enough to have numbers, if you're an offensive big man in today's game, you have to be more than elite, you have to be a freak.

This team isn't making the playoffs with this core.

 

[Livinthedream]

Maybe if you look at "this player puts up numbers but his team doesn't win" you could find examples for practically everyone in the league, but that's not what this is. Embiid and Simmons, every good player on a losing team, they're not better if you camp their ass on the bench and give their usage to some other player. Bagley and the rest of these players do; they make you demonstrably worse on a minute-by-minute basis consistently, where you're better off stripping their usage because they're inefficient, or their defense is so bad that it offsets their offensive contributions and turn into a net negative player.

If all styles are created equal and come down to preference which is what you appear to be saying, why is the league phasing out the face-up, post-up big in Bagley's mold? By all means, John Collins puts up great numbers and he's efficient. He's what people here think Bagley is. Atlanta should be tripping all over themselves going to the bank to max him out. But they passed on extending him. It's not enough to have numbers, if you're an offensive big man in today's game, you have to be more than elite, you have to be a freak.

This team isn't making the playoffs with this core.

John Collins, Trae Young and those Hawks players some on this forum drool over won 20 games last season. But they're efficient.

The Lakers stacked their team with big men last season and won the title. The model small ball franchise Warriors drafted a big man with the number 2 pick. If you live long enough, you realize there are trends and nobody is getting phased out. 6'8 wing players are everywhere and if you can devise a system to utilize them, then you don't have to worry about finding a good big man. It's a short cut.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to like or support Bagley's game. If someone's preference is for a bunch of mediocre talent players to run around the 3pt line launching 3s, I'm ok with that. I'm just not convinced it's the only way or best way to win a title. Nor am I convinced that a player is all that he's ever going to be at 21 years old.

 

[Joshoua]

John Collins, Trae Young and those Hawks players some on this forum drool over won 20 games last season. But they're efficient.

The Lakers stacked their team with big men last season and won the title. The model small ball franchise Warriors drafted a big man with the number 2 pick. If you live long enough, you realize there are trends and nobody is getting phased out. 6'8 wing players are everywhere and if you can devise a system to utilize them, then you don't have to worry about finding a good big man. It's a short cut.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to like or support Bagley's game. If someone's preference is for a bunch of mediocre talent players to run around the 3pt line launching 3s, I'm ok with that. I'm just not convinced it's the only way or best way to win a title. Nor am I convinced that a player is all that he's ever going to be at 21 years old.

Lakers bigs were elite defenders and they had lebron Bagley can’t defend and we have Fox who won’t even be top 5 at his position

 

[The Effort Police]

John Collins, Trae Young and those Hawks players some on this forum drool over won 20 games last season. But they're efficient.

The Lakers stacked their team with big men last season and won the title. The model small ball franchise Warriors drafted a big man with the number 2 pick. If you live long enough, you realize there are trends and nobody is getting phased out. 6'8 wing players are everywhere and if you can devise a system to utilize them, then you don't have to worry about finding a good big man. It's a short cut.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to like or support Bagley's game. If someone's preference is for a bunch of mediocre talent players to run around the 3pt line launching 3s, I'm ok with that. I'm just not convinced it's the only way or best way to win a title. Nor am I convinced that a player is all that he's ever going to be at 21 years old.

Come off it, the Lakers won the title last year because they have Lebron James. End of story. Anthony Davis is a unicorn big and a DPOY candidate, basically the further thing from what Bagley is and he was still questionable as the sure #1 option. Wiseman hasn't done anything yet and that could easily be a mistake.

The name of the game is to have players that can do some variation of shoot, handle, playmake, and switch on defense. And that's from your franchise player down to most of your role-players. Sounds a bit better to me than having your mediocre talents face up from the left elbow and taking it himself for his production.

 

[Gguod]

John Collins, Trae Young and those Hawks players some on this forum drool over won 20 games last season. But they're efficient.

For me John Collins is a similar but slightly better player than Bagley but I still wouldnt want to be the team that pays him his next contract because he will most likely end up overpaid compared to his actuall contribution to winning. I dont value John Collins much. He is a defensively limited big man that doesnt create offense for others. Theres only so much how he can contribute to winning in the highest level of basketball, at least compared to how cheap you can get play finishing big men in the free agency.

The Lakers stacked their team with big men last season and won the title.

Their big man Anthony Davis is the best and most impactfull defender in the whole league and historically big men are crucial on how good the team is defensively. Also in the playoffs when it mattered Lakers played guys like Markieff Morris big minutes while their one dimentional big men didnt play basically at all. Big men have value but one dimentional big men are starting to become replacement level players just because of how the market is filled with them.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to like or support Bagley's game. If someone's preference is for a bunch of mediocre talent players to run around the 3pt line launching 3s, I'm ok with that. I'm just not convinced it's the only way or best way to win a title. Nor am I convinced that a player is all that he's ever going to be at 21 years old.

The question isnt wether big men have value or not. Its how much value different type of players actually provide for their teams. Big men that can stretch the floor and switch some and defend pick n rolls well are very valuable even if thet cant create much for others. Big men that cant create for others and can only do one or two of those other thigns are not nearly that valuable and are often getting played off the court in playoffs.

 

[Livinthedream]

Come off it, the Lakers won the title last year because they have Lebron James. End of story. Anthony Davis is a unicorn big and a DPOY candidate, basically the further thing from what Bagley is and he was still questionable as the sure #1 option. Wiseman hasn't done anything yet and that could easily be a mistake.

The name of the game is to have players that can do some variation of shoot, handle, playmake, and switch on defense. And that's from your franchise player down to most of your role-players. Sounds a bit better to me than having your mediocre talents face up from the left elbow and taking it himself for his production.

I explained in an earlier post what it took to win a title. Lebron and AD fit into that.

The whole unicorn big man thing is a silly concept. A player with exceptional talent is rare no matter position or height. Talented big men are harder to find simply because there are fewer human beings that grow to 7ft tall. Teams still want those big men, that's why they keep getting drafted.

 

[Livinthedream]

Lakers bigs were elite defenders and they had lebron Bagley can’t defend and we have Fox who won’t even be top 5 at his position

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, so I apologize in advance for repeating myself.

I'm very well aware of the talent level of Lebron and AD as well as where Bagley and Fox are right now.

The recent Boston and Houston teams are showing you can be really good, but it will only take you so far to play small ball. The teams that win championships are much more versatile in how they can matchup or create matchup issues for other teams. Even the pre-Durant Warriors team had a big man that was an integral part of their championship.

Drafting Marvin to sit in the middle of the paint to do Whiteside type things is a waste of a pick. When a team sees a player that they think has the tools to develop into something more closely resembling an AD, then that is when they draft a Bagley. This is by no means saying that Bagley will be AD. I'm saying that he has the physical tools to be more than a big body taking up space. It takes development though, and if teams are only going to draft finished products and expect it all right now, then they need to get rid of one and done. Otherwise this is what you get with athletic big men.

Marvin may never reach his potential, but it would be foolish to give up on the attempt 70 games into his career. This is the perfect year to let Marvin see what he can be. There will be a lot of moaning and groaning on this forum while he goes through growing pains, but it's the process.

With that, I'll bow out of the convo as we've all made our stances clear.

 

[kb02]

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, so I apologize in advance for repeating myself.

I'm very well aware of the talent level of Lebron and AD as well as where Bagley and Fox are right now.

The recent Boston and Houston teams are showing you can be really good, but it will only take you so far to play small ball. The teams that win championships are much more versatile in how they can matchup or create matchup issues for other teams. Even the pre-Durant Warriors team had a big man that was an integral part of their championship.

Drafting Marvin to sit in the middle of the paint to do Whiteside type things is a waste of a pick. When a team sees a player that they think has the tools to develop into something more closely resembling an AD, then that is when they draft a Bagley. This is by no means saying that Bagley will be AD. I'm saying that he has the physical tools to be more than a big body taking up space. It takes development though, and if teams are only going to draft finished products and expect it all right now, then they need to get rid of one and done. Otherwise this is what you get with athletic big men.

Marvin may never reach his potential, but it would be foolish to give up on the attempt 70 games into his career. This is the perfect year to let Marvin see what he can be. There will be a lot of moaning and groaning on this forum while he goes through growing pains, but it's the process.

With that, I'll bow out of the convo as we've all made our stances clear.

I'll settle for Bags playing 75 games this year (giving him 7 rest days).

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I'll settle for Bags playing 75 games this year (giving him 7 rest days).

(It's a 72-game season.)

 

[kb02]

(It's a 72-game season.)

Thx. 65 then.

 

[Joshoua]

(It's a 72-game season.)

Are we not making the playoffs

 

[iowamcnabb]

I didn’t watch Wiseman at Memphis but does he not look a lot like Bagley? The clips in the first game against the Nets was reminiscent of Marv’s game.

 

[kb02]

I didn’t watch Wiseman at Memphis but does he not look a lot like Bagley? The clips in the first game against the Nets was reminiscent of Marv’s game.

Based on one viewing tonight:

1. Bigger and taller than Bagley at the same age. Looks like he'll end up being much bigger by year 3 than Bags. More Ayton than Bags. A legit 7 footer.

2. More skilled than Bags. Left handed, but can drive right and has a right handed hook shot.

3. Didn't see much defensively tonight.

4. Bags > Wiseman athletically. Bags is more bouncy, more quick twitch. Not by much though.

5. Had one instance where he grabbed a board and took it coast to coast. Looked a bit clumsy, but he tried it in his first game.

6. Has a shot. About where Bags was at 19.

7. Didn't see much passing, so have no idea where he is in that department.

If they were coming out at the same time, I'd rate Wiseman slightly ahead of Bags based on size (noticeably bigger and taller) and skill (not by much, but he's using both hands).

 

[tyguy]

If some team is dumb enough to still believe in the “potential” of bagley I’d dump him in a nano second to anybody that wants to give up a first round pick. You can find more productive big men every year in picks 10-25.

 

[King Baller]

wh

If some team is dumb enough to still believe in the “potential” of bagley I’d dump him in a nano second to anybody that wants to give up a first round pick. You can find more productive big men every year in picks 10-25.

o

If some team is dumb enough to still believe in the “potential” of bagley I’d dump him in a nano second to anybody that wants to give up a first round pick. You can find more productive big men every year in picks 10-25.

Who would that be in the last 3 drafts?

 

[tyguy]

wh

o


Who would that be in the last 3 drafts?

Brandon Clarke was picked 21 and is better than bagley. Gobert and capela were all picked after 20 and are obviously better and something Bagley will never be because he didn’t defend in college and doesn’t now.

 

[upinsmoke]

Brandon Clarke was picked 21 and is better than bagley. Gobert and capela were all picked after 20 and are obviously better and something Bagley will never be because he didn’t defend in college and doesn’t now.

Just for the record Gobert and Capela weren't in the last 3 drafts and Brandon Clarke is 24 years old.

 

[King Baller]

Clarke is a SF and is not better than Bagley IMO. The other guys you mention are from other drafts than the last 3. You said “any year “

I get it you don’t like Bagley. I think he is going to be pretty good.

 

[tyguy]

Clarke is a SF and is not better than Bagley IMO. The other guys you mention are from other drafts than the last 3. You said “any year “

I get it you don’t like Bagley. I think he is going to be pretty good.

Clarke is not a small forward and is absolutely better than Bagley. John Collins, Jarrett Allen, Bam Adebayo from recent drafts.

Getting a big that is more impactful than Bagley can be done virtually every year with even late round picks.

Mitchell Robinson was taken in the second round of the same draft and is much better than Bagley.

 

[King Baller]

Clarke is not a small forward and is absolutely better than Bagley. John Collins, Jarrett Allen, Bam Adebayo from recent drafts.

Getting a big that is more impactful than Bagley can be done virtually every year with even late round picks.

We disagree on Clarke the other 3 were not in the last 3 drafts. Sorry, you said “every year”

 

[tyguy]

We disagree on Clarke the other 3 were not in the last 3 drafts. Sorry, you said “every year”

Clarke is objectively better, it’s not a matter of “disagreeing” he had big advanced impact stats as a rookie while Bagley has been a negative his entire career. We haven’t played enough yet this year for current rookies and I already mentioned Mitchell Robinson in the second round of the same draft.

how many more countless examples of nba history do you need? It’s littered with big men that you can plug in and get positive minutes from their defensive impact.

 

[tyguy]

By the way, the bar shouldn’t be better than Bagley. The bar should be “a big man that can step in and give positive minutes with his defense.”

You should be avoiding “offensive bigs” at all costs unless you happen to stumble upon the next Charles Barkley or Nikola Jokic which is obviously extremely rare.