Slightly better? Are you kidding? This season he's averaging 5.1 ppg, 2.4 rebounds, 39% FG and 37% from three. He has started seven games this season. Vs San Antonio - 10 points, 5 rebounds, 2 steals, 4-8 from the field, 2-4 from three in 20 minutes. Vs Utah - 5 points, 7 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 block, 2-4 from the field and 1-3 from deep in 21 minutes. Vs Minny - 3 points, 1 rebound, 1 assist, 1-2 from the field in 7 minutes. Vs Denver - 12 points, 4 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 3-5 from the field and 2-4 from three in 27 minutes. Vs Brooklyn - 4 points, 6 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 block, 1-4 from the field in 25 minutes. Vs New Orleans - 15 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists, 1 block, 4-8 from the field, 4-6 from deep in 28 minutes. Vs Golden State - 13 points, 4 rebounds, 1 steal, 1 block, 5-6 from the field, 3-4 from deep in 17 minutes. So in his seven starts he's averaging 8.8 ppg, 4.4 rebounds, 1.7 assists, 54% from the field and 52% from three in 20.7 minutes per game. Those numbers, especially his shooting percentages, are SIGNIFICANTLY better than what he has been averaging over the rest of the season coming off the bench. I wish he could do it as a reserve, but it doesn't seem like that's possible. He played his best ball as a starter for Golden State a few years ago.
I question the "significantly" claim. <nerd> I'll run a t-test on per min production when I get home. </nerd>
I believe the point is those starting numbers aren't impressive overall (just compared to what he was doing because he was doing so dang bad). Now his GS starting numbers were impressive but that was another lifetime ago it seems (even though it wasn't) and in far more minutes. Even if starting here he isn't going to get those minutes.
You nit-picked a single word in my post, rather than my point. My post could have omitted the word "slightly" and the point would still be "[blah blah blah] does not mean he's GOOD when he starts."
What exactly is your definition of good? He's only averaging 20 minutes per game as a starter, so he's shooting a much better percentage and still putting up decent numbers in 20 minutes per game. In Golden State when he was putting up impressive numbers, he was averaging over 38 minutes per game.
My definition of good is better than average. I think outside of shooting percentages (which is nice to have of course) he is doing average for his minutes per game. Sure it is partially subjective but I would say he has been good only compared to the bad that he was before. If he didn't have the bad before this would seem average imo. I love that he is now shooting better. You can't expect those percentages to keep up though if he gets more minutes. Of course I can't see him getting too many more minutes (even with injuries big minutes just aren't available on our team at his positions).
Someone who plays basketball well. Wright does not play well. He's okay as a spot-up shooter, but that's about it.
Average compared to what exactly? I'm not saying he's an All-Star, but he is actually contributing as a starter. He was not contributing as a bench player, which was the whole point of the thread.
Average compared to other starters around the league. I don't think anyone is disputing that he is doing better. It is coming with more minutes which should improve your numbers.
More minutes might improve numbers, but not shooting percentages. That contradicts what you are saying. As a starter he is shooting 15% better from the field and 15% better from three. That's a staggering improvement. Other starters around the league average more than 20 minutes per game, I can bet you that.
I said I was very happy his shooting percentage numbers went up. They would go back down some if he did 32 minutes a game though. Most starters do play more then 20 minutes which is what I was getting at on the shooting percentages. I happy he is doing better. The point blue and others were making was that this better would be great off the bench. This better in the starting lineup is merely average.
Also, sample size. 144 minutes? That's not much. If Dorell legitimately had a ORtg of 133 and a legit DRtg of 101, he wouldn't be playing for us, he'd be locked up with a max contract. He doesn't, he isn't, and his efforts have been great but are fools gold.
But that point makes no sense because the entire point of the thread is stating that he seems to play better as a starter, and that he isn't a very good reserve player. The point of the thread is to explain that Wright is one of those guys that needs to start to produce, which is an explanation for why he was so terrible as a reserve.
What exactly are you guys trying to argue here? Am I saying he should start for us? Nope. Am I saying the guy is a really good player as a starter? Nope. I'm saying that the reason why he was playing so poorly is because I think he's one of those guys that needs to start, otherwise it takes him too long to find a rhythm. 144 minutes is enough to create an argument that the guy plays better as a starter.
He might be better as a starter, but the team (any team) won't be better with him as a starter. He's in the unfortunate position of not being good enough to be a starter, and being even worse as a bench player.
Yes, your point is he is better as a starter so he should probably start if we want him to continue to do well as he sucks as a reserve. We see that. However our point is he is merely average as a starter so if you want to be better than average (I assume we do) then he isn't the guy to do that. So really he probably should be moved for a guy who can excel of the bench that doesn't have the issue where he has to start to play better.
