Trae Young made fourteen baskets from the floor yesterday, assisted on another thirteen, and made five free throws. The Hawks, as a team, made 45 baskets from the floor and ten free throws. Trae Young was directly involved with 32 of the 55 shots the Hawks made. One of those was a deep, deep three with fractions of seconds remaining which proved the winning shot in a Game 5 Atlanta needed to win to keep their season going. The Hawks are alive, they’ll get Game 6 at home, the odds are long but they’re better than they were when that shot left Trae Young’s hand.
Young’s abilities and inabilities have been discussed and discussed again. He’s a great offensive player, he’s asked to do a lot in Atlanta’s offense, he’s a defensive liability. The debates have been had, and for the eighty percent of us in the middle, this is where we’ve landed. It would be silly to say that Trae Young isn’t good, and the question of whether or not he’s overrated depends on how good, exactly, he’s rated to be. The better question is this one: How good is he?
This isn’t really about Trae Young. This isn’t even really about basketball, or about the NBA. What’s happened here is that Trae Young had the night he had last night, and I—I who follow the NBA casually, relative to football and baseball and college basketball—had an impulse to look up how good, exactly, he is. I couldn’t do that. Because in basketball, there’s no perfect measure of how good a player is. In basketball, there is no WAR. In a literal sense, there is, but it isn’t taken as seriously as the original, baseball’s WAR. It isn’t taken as seriously because it doesn’t tell us as much. We know it doesn’t tell us as much because the competing versions of it are still so different from one another.
WAR has its share of haters, and some of the hate is fair. Sometimes, it’s less fun to ask the question when the question has a concrete, numbered answer. But in the more distant sense of viewing the metric as a product of mankind’s work, WAR is astounding. It’s a little like the Mona Lisa, or like the iPhone. Look at it long enough, and a bit of awe settles in. Someone created this. Perhaps, like the iPhone, certain things would be better had the creation not happened, but it is a testament to generations of baseball nerds that they managed to produce a single number which, on the scale of wins themselves, measures a player’s performance in totality.
I don’t know how good Trae Young is. I have an opinion, and I have a bevy of numbers to lean on to question that opinion. But I don’t know. That is normal. The wild thing is that baseball has conditioned me to think there could be a concrete answer.
Man of Steele
Justin Steele failed to record a quality start last night, meaning last night was—by one measure—Justin Steele’s worst outing of the year. He pitched into the sixth inning, allowed no runs, and struck out five.
Steele is not as good as his 1.19 ERA, and he’s probably not even as good as his 3.19 xERA or his 3.36 FIP. Over the last seven months of regular season play, though—the month of this season plus the entirety of last—he’s recorded a 2.77 ERA and a 3.24 FIP, respectively the 20th and 31st-best among pitchers with 100 innings or more. He doesn’t go too deep into games, still—he’s only averaged a little more than five innings per start—but when he’s on the mound, he’s pitched like a good frontline starter, the kind of starter who can start Game 2 in the playoffs without making anybody blink.
This is, of course, massive for the Cubs. It’s arguably the biggest positive development of these last two years, if not the last five. Since Javy Báez’s monstrous 2018, the best things the Cubs have seen happen for their future have been Nico Hoerner and Ian Happ reaching their high expectations and Justin Steele becoming a frontline starter. For Hoerner and Happ, the developments have been in one sense a relief: Each was a top prospect at one point, and each was struggling at another point, and each is now playing the way you’d hope a top prospect would eventually play. For Steele, though, the situation is entirely different. Steele was not a top prospect. Steele wasn’t even supposed to be a starting pitcher by the time he exited the farm system. He was projected as a middle reliever, and while good middle relievers are a good part of a good team, the role is among the least difficult positions to fill. Frontline starters, on the other hand, are nearly priceless, so when a team can develop one themselves, it changes the complexion of an entire franchise. I would love to hear what front offices around the league would do for a Spencer Strider.
Steele is not Strider, nor is he necessarily going to continue this magically effective run. He’s still an uncertain variable, largely because of those same things which fueled his prospect valuation two summers back. It’s rare for a prospect of Steele’s pedigree to become a starting pitcher of Steele’s performance. But if it sticks…
If Steele can stick around the front of the rotation, even for just another year or two, the Cubs may really be in business. They’d still probably need an ace—Marcus Stroman is not the caliber of pitcher you can confidently ask to trade zeroes with Aaron Nola or Corbin Burnes in October—but if Steele can bridge the gap from the hypothetical ace (Nola hits free agency this offseason, and he’s not alone) to pitchers like Stroman and whatever Kyle Hendricks turns out to be, the Cubs will have a chance in any playoff series they can reach. And reaching them, of course, will be a whole lot easier.
Zach Wilson’s Situation Might Be Good
There are plenty having a thorough laugh right now at Zach Wilson’s expense, and it’s fine and well and good. The quarterback’s time in New York so far has not been what was hoped for from the former second overall pick. He’s thrown more interceptions than touchdowns. At one point in his sophomore season, he was put on the third string.
Still, if you were holding Zach Wilson stock, it’s hard to think of anything better for that stock’s value than Wilson being naturally demoted to back up one of the best quarterbacks of all time. Whether you believe or don’t in the theory that it helps quarterbacks to sit behind the best, it’s hard to see Wilson not benefiting from a hard reset for two years or so. The experience won’t be there when he emerges from his cocoon, but the potential won’t be fully gone, and at the moment, Wilson is only 23 years old. Depending what Rodgers does next offseason, Wilson could return to a starting role at the same time and at the same age as Jordan Love currently enters his first season as a starter. Or, looking backwards, Wilson could return to a starting role at the same time at the same age as Aaron Rodgers once entered his first season as a starter.
The Zach Wilson question really hinges on what is true of an immediate–starter quarterback’s first two seasons in the league. Are those seasons developmental whether the quarterback starts or not? Or do we get some answers from how they play, regardless of when that opportunity comes? The sample is small enough and the game changes quickly enough that there’s no clear answer. But looking at Wilson’s situation now compared to his situation three months ago, it’s hard to believe it hasn’t improved.
Who Plays for Iowa State?
Alright, the offseason has gone on long enough. Let’s figure out who’s on the Cyclones. And yes, this is as much for me as it is for the other loyal Iowa State folks reading. (For the rest of you: Class dismissed, we’ll see you tomorrow.)
Returning Contributors: Tamin Lipsey, Robert Jones, Tre King
Among consistent key players for Iowa State down the stretch, only Lipsey, Jones, and King remain. Lipsey is the exciting one, the high-potential point guard who more than adequately filled the gap last year left by Tyrese Hunter. He couldn’t shoot—this was a very visible issue—and turnovers were common, but he made plays off the dribble and he was, per EvanMiya, not only Iowa State’s best defender but Iowa State’s best overall player. Iowa State was at its best last year with Tamin Lipsey on the court.
King and Jones are foils of one another. Jones is still all chaos and bounciness, but as a role player, you have to like him. King, meanwhile, showed flashes in his 23 games of a guy who could be Iowa State’s best player. He has some polish. He has some smoothness. With the big names below expected to play more outside, the potential of these two running a 1–2 punch is promising, and from a pure enjoyment standpoint, it’s hard to dislike it.
Freshmen: Omaha Biliew, Milan Momcilovic, Jelani Hamilton, Kayden Fish
This is where the magic is happening. Biliew is a top-ten recruit. Momcilovic is a top-40 recruit. Hamilton and Fish were each in the top 200.
Iowa State’s in the luxurious place where Hamilton and Fish aren’t expected to play a whole lot in their respective freshmen seasons. That might change, but if it does, there’s a good chance it’s a good thing for Iowa State, signifying that they’ve overperformed expectations in practice.
Biliew and Momcilovic are the story, and if all goes well, they will not only be the team’s two best players but Biliew will spend only one year in Ames before earning his name an appearance in the first round of the NBA draft. Each is listed as a forward on 247, but each is expected to be able to shoot at the college level right away, and Biliew’s defensive potential is high thanks to his sheer athleticism. If they’re all they’re cracked up to be, Biliew and Momcilovic will give Iowa State the option to put four guys over 6’7” on the floor together at the same time and also the option to go with a true five-out look if Biliew can guard well enough in the paint. With freshmen comes uncertainty, but the upshot of uncertainty is that the ceiling can be really, really high.
Returning Non-Contributors: Jeremiah Williams, Demarion Watson, Hason Ward
No disrespect is intended here to Watson, who was just one tier down as a role player than King or Jones. Watson figures to be a prominent figure in the rotation, and he has the tools to develop into a great player if he lasts four years in Ames.
Williams missed last year with his torn Achilles, and no disrespect is intended here to Williams, but it might have been a good thing for Iowa State basketball, forcing Tamin Lipsey to shine. The expectation right now is that Williams will back up Lipsey at point guard, and the expectation right now is for that to be a good arrangement.
Ward can do some very exciting things, which always makes him enticing. Maybe he cracks the rotation, maybe he doesn’t, but the thought of him averaging five or ten minutes a game but occasionally scoring ten in four minutes early in the second half is a fun one, and it’s not entirely out of bounds.
Transfers: Curtis Jones, Keshon Gilbert, Jackson Paveletzke
Personally, I’m not as high on Paveletzke as the consensus seems to be. He is a very good shooter, but his defense this year was atrocious and while winning SoCon Freshman of the Year is great, it’s not like Iowa State picked up Fletcher Magee. Gilbert and Jones are better all-around players, but they don’t fill the shooter role as well as Paveletzke does, and I’ll concede that it feels great to have a potential great shooter around.
Especially after that Pitt game.
Walk-Ons: Conrad Hawley, Cade Kelderman
The CEO returns, and he’ll be joined by Cade Kelderman, who opted to walk on in Ames rather than play D-II ball. Don’t expect a Disney story from Kelderman, but if it happens…
**
Looking at the potential rotation, little is immediately clear. The assumption would be that Lipsey, Biliew, Momcilovic, and King will start, and that Williams, Watson, and Jones will be in the rotation, but this isn’t assured. When Otzelberger & Co. hit the portal this month, it was with their most recent understanding of what the program needs. What that means in practice is that Williams’s appeal last year may have worn off by now, and that their opinion of Watson is one year different than what it was coming out of high school. Of the thirteen scholarship players, eleven are potential rotation pieces, and that spells trouble for one or two of them. There’s a long summer ahead, too, so things will be proven and things won’t be proven, and we’ll find a lot out come fall.
Speaking of fall, the nonconference schedule is mostly set, with eight out-and-out buy games accompanying the Cy-Hawk game (in Ames this year), a trip to DePaul in the Big 12/Big East Battle, and three games against some combination of Boise State, Butler, Penn State, Texas A&M, VCU, Virginia Tech, and someone from the MAAC in the ESPN Events Invitational in Orlando. Reading the tea leaves and assuming the Big 12 is strong enough for an 18–15 team to make the tournament, Iowa State will therefore need to win ten games against power conference competition if they take care of business elsewhere, which would mean going something like 7–11 in conference play (we don’t know the format of the 14-team Big 12 Tournament yet—that, or I’ve missed it, but I don’t think we know it). 7–11 in conference play, with this roster, should be doable, which means we’re probably looking at the second round of the NCAA Tournament being the medium goal for this team.
