Congratulations Utah!!!
You are now responsible for 1/2 of the Wolves' victories. Well done. A zombie dance for you.
Game wrap in a bit.
UPDATE: Game wrap below the fold.
The Jazz are an interesting team. On one hand, they have some thoroughly non-enjoyable/unlikable talent. Carlos Boozer is a Dookie in preparation for leaving a 2nd team in his wake, Kyle Korver is a silly Iowegan, and Jerry Sloan will continue to coach as if the league were still in the midst of a coked-out pre-80s haze. On the other hand, they have the player I consider to be the best and most entertaining point guard in the game: Deron Williams. As much as I cannot stand to watch a backstabbing Dookie, Coach Cleaver, and the most annoying fellow Creighton Jayhawk in the world, there is no player I enjoy watching more when he is "on" than the former Illini point.
A couple of games ago the Wolves' TV crew ran a poll about who they thought was the best point guard in the game. I can't remember who they ended up picking, but for my money's worth, if I'm putting together a squad to win it all, here are my top 3 picks at the point: Williams, Rajon Rondo, and Tony Parker. Williams, to me, is the greatest surgeon in the game. He's not as flashy as Chris Paul or Steve Nash but he's physically dominant for his position with a balanced game that picks apart his opponent with precision and consistency. From the line, from mid-range, from beyond the arc, in transition, in 1/2 court...the guy does it all. He was playing out of the post of several key possessions in the 4th quarter and it baffles me that Sloan didn't ride that horse hard. Plus, when the game is on the line and time is running off the clock in a must-win playoff game, he can get his shot off in traffic, which is an amazingly important trait that some possess while others do not. Sorry CP3, I want D-Will for that possession.
Anywho, the first thing that should be pointed out about last night's tilt was that Williams was the best player on the court and it wasn't even close. He shot the lights out from the floor, got to the line a ton, dished out 13 assists, and...well, (robot voice on) Jerry Sloan is a fantastic coach and he knows exactly how to use Mr. Williams (robot voice off).
OK, now that we've talked about Utah's point guard, let's take a few minutes to gab about Jonny Flynn. Flynn undoubtedly shows flashes of brilliance. His quickness is world class and while he still needs to learn a thing or two about running a pro offense, his court vision is top shelf. His outside shot is surprisingly serviceable and should he ever develop an ability to dish off of the drive, he'll be damn near unguardable. That being said, the flashes of brilliance are accompanied by stretches of outright boobery. The CP3 inbounds boner in the NOLA game stands out over anything else but he is also guilty of overdribbling, going too much to his right, and inexcusably holding the ball when it is rotated his way on a nightly basis. Adding to our T-Wolves dictionary (first addition: Brewsist) is the Jonny Stop: The way in which a freely moving ball is stopped by an ultra-quick lead guard who uses the opportunity to survey the court and negate his greatest strength, his speed.
Watching Flynn play the point you can practically see his High School/AAU/Syracuse coaching play out in a motion picture thought bubble above his head. This kid has been the dominant lead guard for so long, and he has played for so long against such relatively inferior competition, that his first instinct in close games and/or highly leveraged situations is to do what he has always done: Be the be-all/end-all of ball movement and end the damn possession for his team. At Niagra Falls High, NY AAU, and Syracuse, his speed alone was enough to get the job done. No need for setting up teammates. No need for creating angles. No need for worrying about the shot clock. When the heat was on, it was Jonny, the ball, and his defender. This kind of nonsense will not fly in the NBA for a player like Flynn. He's not that quick. Maybe it will have its time and place in a few years when he gets the benefit of the whistle and learns how to better incorporate his teammates, but not now. While Flynn ended the contest with a career high in points while shooting the lights out from beyond the arc, he stunted several key possessions with the Jonny Stop. Also, while I'm very, very happy that he made the game winning shot, I think I suffered a Randy Foye flashback with the kamikaze drive down the right side of the lane. At least he didn't try and bank it off the shot clock.
Let's wrap this up with some bullet points.
- Should the Wolves have lost, Kevin Love and Damien Wilkins would have been my choices for goats of the game. There is no dumber shot in all of basketballdom than the foot-on-the-line 3. There is no excuse for it. It has all the risk of a 3 pointer with none of the reward. Dumb, dumb, dumb, and more dumb. Love and Wilkins both made toe-on-the-line 2 pointers.
- While Flynn took some heat earlier this season for an ill-conceived behind-the-back pass attempt, he and Love ran the behind-the-back pick-and-roll twice in the last two minutes of the game and it netted them two wide open three point attempts. It's really not a flashy play and it has the potential to be a nice addition to the offense. I want to see a lot more of the middle pick and roll with Love and Flynn.
- The star of the game has to go to Corey Brewer. There were a few points in the game where Brewer reverted to the holy-crap-he's-everywhere kind of player that we got kind of excited about a few weeks ago. He was dunking, sticking shots, rebounding, and holding people up on defense all night long. It really is amazing how different this team looks with competent wing play. Imagine if they had some outside shooting to go along with the competent wing play. Paging Rudy Gay.
- If the flash went to Flynn and the star went to Brewer, the workhorse award goes to Big Al Jefferson. The guy is really starting to return to form and he played the role of the bruising running back, grinding out short yardage situation after short yardage situation in order to keep drives alive and his team in the game. This site has been home to a long standing debate over the relative worth of Jefferson and Kevin Love for about 2 years now and my current thoughts on the duo are this: The problem with the Wolves is not Al Jefferson and Kevin Love. Neither has the advantage of playing with a consistently competent wing player or an outside shooter worth his salt. Neither has the advantage of playing with a group of properly-sized perimeter players. There is nothing wrong with having 1 or 2 undersized players in your rotation provided that you surround them with athleticism and length. Al and Love have complimentary skills and they are obscenely skilled on the offensive end of the court. My take on the pairing is that they are still in need of a Joakim Noah/Jason Thompson 3rd wheel and a pair of athletic slashers on the wing. I have been saying this since before Love came aboard. In the front court I want the aforementioned Noah/Thompson type and on the wing I have opined for, in order, Josh Smith, Trevor Ariza, and Rudy Gay. This team can put it together with some competent wing play and for either Flynn or Ricky Rubio to work out at the point...or for John Wall to land at the doorstep of 600 First Avenue. Wings, an athletic backup big, and hashing out the point guard situation, these are the things that need to be worried about before talking about whether or not Love and Jefferson can play together. Rudy Gay, Rudy Gay, Rudy Gay. Please, get 'r done. It has been obvious for over 2 years.
OK, that does it for tonight's wrap. We'll have a very cool announcement on the site tomorrow and then I'll follow that up with a post on the Lynx's choice in the supplemental draft, Rebekkah Brunson.
PS: If you really want to know why the Wolves won, it was because they collected a very large number of their misses:
| Pace | Eff | eFG | FT/FG | OREB% | TOr | |
| Minnesota | 98.0 | 112.2 | 52.4% | 27.7 | 32.6 | 15.3 |
| Utah | 110.2 | 53.7% | 25.9 | 17.1 | 12.2 |
When you have an eFG of over 50% and you are collecting a 1/3 of your misses, life is good. This is another reason why you don't want to monkey with the Love/Jefferson duo. If you surround them with competent perimeter players, they will destroy the boards. BTW: We need to come up with a Wolves Dictionary term for when Love grabs an offensive rebound in between 3-4 defenders.
0 recs |
220 comments
|
Comments
How did we ever win that game?
… could it have been rebounding half our misses?
by midlife crisis on Dec 14, 2009 10:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
It definitely wasn't thanks to the referees
Or Corey Brewer’s defense on three-point shots.
But it was so good to see them not fold in the final minutes when Utah took the lead back. Great show by Jefferson, Flynn, et al.
by Cody2k2 on Dec 14, 2009 10:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's how we 'roll' (often roll over, but still)
Now that we’ve got Love back and Jefferson’s coming around, we can get down to those whacky box score totals that’ll be this team’s defining characteristic for much of the year.
When you outboard your opponent by 12 and double them up on the offensive glass, you can keep it close.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Dec 15, 2009 4:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
SnP
Can we have a write-up on Jefferson sometime? I’d do it myself, but you are obviously a much better writer. Even include it as a one paragraph summary in the game wrap? We seem to be split fairly evenly on him. Most stat-crunchers think he needs to go while most point-counters think he needs to stay. Where’s the middle road?
by Mplax on Dec 14, 2009 11:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think the bottom line on that is...
…for all the things Love can do, he still can’t score as well as Jefferson. And I understand the desire to dump Al and “build” around Love, but we just can’t give up 20ppg in the paint and think we’re going to be better off for it. Love will get killed if we make him the #1 option on offense.
Love hasn’t really shown the ability to carry a team’s post scoring load in the NBA. He has moments, little 2 minute stretches, but I don’t see him….and I don’t think the team sees him….as a guy we can throw the ball into every possession and have him create a scoring opportunity. Until he he can do that, we need Jefferson.
by Oceanary on Dec 14, 2009 11:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Al started to look like his old self, tonight. He had his touch on the hook shot, and was rebounding really aggressively. If he can get his old consistency back in those areas, we’ll start winning at a respectable rate.
Agreed re: Love. Great complementary player, but not a first option big man. He fits in well with guys like Flynn and Jefferson on offense.
by Andy G on Dec 14, 2009 11:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Al's getting back into form
He’s averaged 20 points and 12 rebounds the last 5 games.
I was shocked by his game against the Lakers, even though we lost. Usually he’ll get 20 points on like, 30 shots against LA.
He doesn’t ideally fit the system, that’s very obvious. But I wouldn’t say he completely breaks it either. He’s been getting better with it as the year has gone one, and it’s helping his game too.
I really like Love. Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s one of the most unique players to ever play in the NBA. I just think that trading Jefferson and making Love “the man” of our frontcourt is asking fro a lot of trouble.
by Oceanary on Dec 14, 2009 11:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think some of Al’s recent improvement can be attributed to Love’s return — the offense is running smoother and Love is a clear upgrade over Jawai, Hollins, and the others at passing, cutting and just being in the right position. Jefferson has gotten some better opportunities as a result.
But, last night he was starting to hit the shots that he used to — the shots the make his post game the best in the league. When those are going down, he is worthy of the high praise that myself and others have given him in the past. When they aren’t, he’s not a special player. Last year before the injury, he was pretty consistent at scoring on the block and rebounding.
by Andy G on Dec 15, 2009 7:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to be clear
Al’s been playing a lot better Post K.Love return. I’ve never said that Al and Kevin can’t work together. They rebound and play off each other on Offense well enough to possibly off-set any rebounding liabilities they might have. Although certain teams like the Lakers will probably always cause problems.
As far as Al vs Kevin- this discussion has been made before. What I would really like to see is how effective either would be surronded by top-notch shooters. Love owned Last January playing off Al surronded by a Red-Hot Randy Foye.
Lastly the issue isn’t getting rid of Al then having Kevin Love take 25 shots a game. The issue is would the Team improve with a 5 who is a much better defender inside. My ideal would be Favors since he’d be an awesome 5 man in an up-tempo offense. He’s also got the length and explosiveness to be a game-changer on both ends of the court.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 14, 2009 11:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Derrick Favors and Kevin Love
That’s definitely something I could see working
by Oceanary on Dec 14, 2009 11:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Favors is a beast, but...
He is only 6’9"…who is playing center in your Love/Favors combo?
by TWolvesFanInLA on Dec 15, 2009 12:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think someone bought me the Love/Favors combo
at the Relax-a-Lounge on 38th and Cedar (this was before your time).
by PoorDick on Dec 15, 2009 12:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Favors is 6'10"
Long arms too. We’ll have to see the final combine numbers, but if he’s the size he’s listed, he’s basically got Amare Stoudemire’s body. Big enough to be a center.
The rel problem with playin Al or Love at center though in terms of their bodies isn’t their height though, it’s their lack of wingspan and lack of ups. If you’re not 7’1", you either have to have really long arms (like Horford) or be able to jump through the roof (like Amare)
Granted Amare doesn’t rebound or defend, but that’s a whole different story.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 12:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
2 things:
1. Amare is a terrible example of someone having a C body. The guy is prototypical power forward whose defensive abilities are horrid at the C spot.
2. Jefferson has a much longer wing span than Horford. Off the top of my head, I believe Al has a 7’2-7’3 wingspan while Horford is a hair under 7’. Horford is only a little longer and taller than Love, and literally falls short of Al in all relevant height/length measurements. Al’s issue is effort and BBIQ, not length.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Dec 15, 2009 8:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, we need Jefferson.
Without him, the Wolves might be like, 4 and 21. Oh, wait . . .
I keed, but getting rid of Jefferson wouldn’t make him disappear while getting nothing in return. If they could trade him for a young 2-3 who can score and defend the perimeter, and at some point get a capable defensive rebounder at center, yes, the points in the paint might go down. But the wins might go up—especially if the attack and defense are more balanced than having our only two real players playing right next to each other and below the rim.
Sure, these incoming players are theoretical, and the team may be just as bad as they were with Jefferson. But it’s not sensical to say “If Jefferson leaves, we’re DOOMED!”
by PoorDick on Dec 14, 2009 11:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How much does Love really play in the post though?
I think that’s something Wolves fans distort, because very rarely does Love actually post up and back down his man like Jefferson does. He’s playing mostly in the high post and getting his points from offensive rebounds.
The truth is they don’t operate in the same “airspace” as much as people say they do, and quite frankly, the times Love does try to do a traditional post up usually end in disaster.
by Oceanary on Dec 14, 2009 11:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Problem
is spacing. If Kevin Love can get one on one match-ups he’ll be alright in this regard. The problem is we’re generally a horrific shooting team. Although going up against AK47 will cause anyone to struggle.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 14, 2009 11:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think you can say that if Love gets 1 on 1s he’ll be OK. I think he’ll get better, and he can succeed in certain situations, but his 1 on 1 post up game isn’t very advanced. Maybe we’ll see more from him if these opportunities arise, but I don’t think he’ll ever be anywhere near as effective a threat down low as Al.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Dec 15, 2009 9:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Great point re: "airspace"
On offense, they seem to work together. The problem is on defense as neither can protect the rim.
I wonder if Love isn’t ultimately destined to be the best 6th man in the league. Jefferson starting at PF next to a Tyson Chandler type (was hoping it could be Hollins…not so much anymore). A Chandler, Jefferson, Love 3 man rotation upfront like Bynum, Gasol and Odom.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Dec 15, 2009 12:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He is a hard one to compliment
It’ll take a very specific type of center for him to start on a championship team.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 12:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you referring to Love or Jefferson as hard to compliment
by TWolvesFanInLA on Dec 15, 2009 12:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Love
I don’t think Jefferson is hard to compliment at all, because with his scoring ability, you can pair him with a purely defensive center and be fine.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 12:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the Problem
Spacing matters at any level of Basketball. Say you add a Defensive Center like Joel Pryzbilla then your constantly going to have Al double-teamed. Why would there not be incentive to double Al literally every single time down the floor.
Even a more Offensive Minded big- he’s not going to have much room to operate. This is why you want a guy like Love who can draw opposing 4’s and 5’s away from the basket.
Another problem with adding a Low-Post 5 is that it would hurt the Wolves in that a lot of their guards make their living attacking the rim (Sessions, Flynn, Brewer). This is why I didn’t care for the Shaq pick-up for Cleveland.
On the Defensive End-the last thing you’d probably want is Al playing farther from the basket. Although he’s probably going to be pretty ineffective whatever he’ll do.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 15, 2009 7:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As many holes as a Love Al lineup has
They are good complimentary offensive players. But as a result of their flaws, the wolves need an athletic perimeter that can take advantage of the offensive spacing and can hold their own defensively against anyone. They need to severly limit lane penetration and not require either Love or Al to really play help defense against perimeter players too often.
With this basic setup, the wolves will score more points than their opponents fairly consistently and at will (when they get good enough to actually start getting calls).
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 15, 2009 7:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the Deal
Get better players at the 2 and 3. If it’s Defensively Minded wings like Ronnie Brewer- Fine- If it’s Offensively Minded players like Kevin Martin fine. There’s no set formula. I’m not really all that worried about K-Love playing with Al surronded by good wing play. Their opponents will have a pretty good FG% but then this duo will control the boards. The issue with this team isn’t that K.Love and Al can’t play together. It’s what they give up in the backcourt on night in-night out basis. THEY’RE STARTING DAMIEN WILKINS!!!
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 15, 2009 7:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Everyone has an idealistic view of how a team should be built. Just build a team that can win night in night out and see what happens. Injuries can deplet the “perfectly built” teams in a hearbeat. Don’t scrap everything to try to be perfect. Try to be really good and hope for the best. Someday you might get rewarded an actually win a championship.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 15, 2009 8:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh. Amen.
I cannot wait until I no longer have to see Pavs and WIlkins, well, ever.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Dec 15, 2009 9:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So many people you can hate...
Pavs, if he was hanging from a bridge I can honestly say I do not know if I would pull him up but Wilkins? Sure he is not the most talented but for being one of the oldest on the team there have been plenty of games where he was the hardest worker on the court for the Wolves. I am just saying there are a few more players worse than him, sure I do not want him playing in the long term future but I wouldn’t mind him being our new Mark Madsen(cheerleader).
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 15, 2009 9:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying I hate him or that he’s a terrible player, but I’d much rather see his minutes go to someone with a future on this team and some potential.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Dec 15, 2009 9:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Say what you want about Wilkins....
but he has the best winning percentage of all starters. How does that work?
by Zev on Dec 15, 2009 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If a player like Pryzbilla doesn't need to be guarded...
….how come LaMarcus Aldridge scores so many points? Yoou say spacing matters, and it does, but the reality is half the teams in the league start a big man that doesn’t need to be guarded on offense, and they all do better than us.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 3:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
LMA
is a shooter. He gets a lot of his points outside of the paint, on the break, or cutting to the hoop.
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 3:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But if Joel can be left alone...
…he’s still going to get double teamed. And he does. Same with David West when Chandler played in NOLA.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Easier
To double Al in post than LMA on perimeter. much easier.
by littleboxes on Dec 15, 2009 5:32 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Also,
the main reason LMA scores a lot of points is because he takes a lot of shots.
by John Doe on Dec 15, 2009 5:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair
LMA has been moderately efficient this year.
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 5:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
moderately efficient
and according to several impartial observers who have been kind enough to stop by this site, he also invented oxygen.
by PoorDick on Dec 15, 2009 6:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
His sweat...
…cures rabies.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 15, 2009 6:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
His tears cure cancer
too bad he’s never cried.
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 7:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, he has been on a hellacious tear since Oden went down
21 points, 9 rebounds on 54% shooting
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 7:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Which, by the way...
….doesn’t support the theory that Pryzbilla makes it easier for defenses to stop him.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 7:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the correct comparison
would be if Greg Oden and Joel Pryzbilla played together, would they get in each other’s way? Oden is not Jefferson but is someone teams have to pay attention to on offense. Pryz not so much. Teams would double Oden in this scenario.
It’s vastly different with LMA, he’s a perimeter player. He’s like KG and Kendrick Perkins. They do not get in each other’s pay. But Big Al and Kendrick would get in each other’s way.
by littleboxes on Dec 15, 2009 7:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno about that
Two post players used to be standard in the league. It’s definitely possible, you just have to set it up right.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 7:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They would have to be on opposite
sides of the post and be really good at passing to each other out of the double.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 8:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
At any rate
The fact he’s scoring more on a higher FG% with Pryzbilla versus Oden would seem to indicate it’s not as simple as “defensive centers make it harder for the other big man to score”
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 7:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yes, not that simple.
the point is that Al’s offense is in the post. he needs a front court mate whose offense is outside the post.
that doesn’t mean the guy can’t be 7 feet tall and block shots.
by littleboxes on Dec 15, 2009 11:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If your PF is a post scorer
who can’t hit a 15 ft jump shot consistently, then having a offensive dud out there at C will impact your PF’s performance because he will always be doubled in the post. But if they are a decent shooter from distance then your C just takes up space in the post and your PF will not be doubled. At least that’s how I view it.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 8:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bottom line is...
….defense wins championships. Doesn’t matter how well your big men compliment each other on offense, if there’s no defensive anchor, there’s no point. Ask the Raptors. Or Jazz. How many years have the Jazz been tossed out of the playoffs by teams that play superior defense?
Talking about making all the pieces fit on offense only is the McHale way of thinking, and we’ve seen where that leads us.
Just remember that the only year this team has even been more than a first round exit was the year we started Ervin Johnson at center, and you better believe it wasn’t because he complimented KG on offense.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 3:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't think he once let slip
that he was impressed with an alley oop that KG just threw down? ;-)
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you know that "Defense Wins Championships"
was voted as one of the top 5 most overrated concepts as it pertains to the NFL? The fact of the matter is that all your defense needs to do is manufacture a stop when you need it. You still have to score more points than your opponent.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 15, 2009 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL is a totally different game
A) their defensive players ONLY play defense
B) they play at a much slower per-possession pace
C) They only play one game series in the playoffs
Defense wins championships in the NBA. It’s proven, just look at the last 10 NBA champions and the teams they outed to get there.
If defense wasn’t important, the Suns would have 3 rings in the last 4 years.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Suns would've had rings...
If they didn’t lose Joe Johnson for the WCF in ’05 and Stoudemire for the whole ’06 season. They ran into injury issues as much as they had their weakness exposed.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 15, 2009 5:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
^Indeed.
I shouldn’t even address it, since the idea of using four years of Suns’ playoff failure as proof of an entire rule of basketball is ludicrous, but pagingstanleyroberts is right. They had key injuries in ‘05 and ’06, then lost in ’07 primarily because of the suspensions resulting from the Robert Horry hip check incident. And really, the Suns defense wasn’t even that bad, on a per possession basis. They lost because of bad luck more than anything else.
by John Doe on Dec 15, 2009 5:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that hip check...
…made me so mad, and i’m not even a suns fan.
by davechisholm on Dec 15, 2009 11:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll have to agree with Oceanary here
defense is extremely important. You don’t need to find a 45% 3pt shooter when you can hold your opponents to 25%. Same with inside shots and whatnot.
I’m in full support of the concept that, “Offense wins games, defense wins championships.”
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Point differential wins championships
Not defense, not offense, but a combination of both. It’s a lot easier to have a hugely positive point differential when you have a very good defense, but one side of the ball isn’t any more important than the other.
The stats back this up, even if the superstition doesn’t.
by John Doe on Dec 15, 2009 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Or as I call it
Get stops. You don’t need to be the pistons style of team. All champions play defense when they need to. But after a certain point of building to an ideal defensive prototype, you still have to score points. The sign of a good team is when they are up, they put you down and keep you out.
You don’t need a shot blocker to win the championship. But if your interior isn’t top notch on the D end, your perimeter has to be good enough to prevent penetration. There are many formulas to winning and anyone who tries to throw down a “need” as if it were gospel is wrong.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 15, 2009 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So which possession in our game against the Kings was "must stop"?
How about against the Blazers? The Warriors? This silly notion that a team only needs to get stops on the possessions that matter assumes that the score is close in the first place. You going to pick out one possession from that Golden State game and tell me we could have won if we had gotten a stop on it?
Bottom line is a team has to play defense every single possession. A 2 pointer in the second quarter could end up sparking a 10-0 run, and then the game’s out of hand by halftime.
The Suns aren’t the only example of offensive-minded teams not making it. The Warriors. The Jazz. The Hornets. Championship teams are good defensive teams. The Bulls, the Spurs, the Celtics, the Lakers, they all played defense. And yes, they have good point differentials because they hold down their opponent’s scoring. Not because they throw in 120 a night.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 6:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Granted I was young
but what I remember from all those Bulls championships was Jordan putting up 45 a game and willing the ball in to the basket from everywhere. it was his offense that fueled those championships
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Dec 15, 2009 9:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Granted MJ was a scoring monster
But the telling stat from the Bulls’ championships is on the defensive end, because honestly, they didn’t average a ton of points in any of their finals series.
But they did hold their opponents to an average of 92ppg in 35 games. The Bulls were definitely an example of winning by defense.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 9:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jordan was a basketball legend
and he didn’t get that from being a terrific scorer. He had perhaps the best all-around game of all time. He and Pippen both received numerous defensive honors.
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 11:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
“You don’t need a shot blocker to win the championship. But if your interior isn’t top notch on the D end, your perimeter has to be good enough to prevent penetration. There are many formulas to winning and anyone who tries to throw down a "need" as if it were gospel is wrong.”
Totally wrong.
There has been 1 NBA championship team since 1984 that hasn’t had a premier interior defender.
This notion that it’s on guys like Brewer to make up for Al’s defensive deficiencies it idiotic. Especially in today’s league when a perimeter defender can’t even touch his assignment.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 6:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry you feel that way
But we are going to agree to disagree here.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 8:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
I wouldn’t exactly call Horace Grant or late-career Dennis Rodman premier interior defenders. Or, for that matter, 80s Kareem or the Rambis/A.C. Green combo. Or Shaq, ever (he didn’t deserve to be all-defensive 2nd team twice), especially not the 2006 version. Or the Laimbeer/James Edwards/John Salley trio (Rodman was a perimeter player at the time).
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 16, 2009 10:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This might be the most obvious statement ever made on Canis
and I make quite a few of those.
But when all is said and done, find me a team that is bad at defense (you said it yourself, even the Suns weren’t that bad… thanks to Bell and Marion…) and has competed and gotten deep into the playoffs. Now start a list of all of the teams who don’t average 100ppg that have mad it deep… tell me when you’re done. I’ll be expecting an answer sometime next week.
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 5:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
PPG is irrelevant
You’re using misleading metrics to try to prove your opinion. Lots of recently successful teams have had very efficient offenses that appear less so because they play at a slow pace.
Again, if you look at a team’s points per 100 possessions and points allowed per 100 possessions, neither one is more highly correlated to playoff success than the other. Defense and offense win championships.
by John Doe on Dec 15, 2009 6:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
So where’s our defense? Because we won’t have any with Al and Love as the starters.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 6:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
bit extreme
to write “not any defense” with Al and Love. Both of these guys can play defense. Sure they’ll have problems with certain players but there’s no physical reason that Big Al can’t defend 95% of the centers in the NBA. And when he plays Bynum he needs to give it back to him at the other end.
But yes, neither are elite defenders.
by littleboxes on Dec 15, 2009 7:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We give up 104 ppg
That’s 7th worse in the league (and probably closer to 3rd or 4th when you factor in the pace of play of the Knicks, Suns and Warriors.
We give up more points than the Nets, and by a wide margin at that.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 9:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yes
but let’s not only blame the bigs, specially the one whose played only 5 games.
by littleboxes on Dec 15, 2009 11:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If one of our bigs had any sort of real defensive potential
Don’t you think one of them would have shown it by now? Love had all last year. Al’s had two years. I mean, I don’t think it’s hard to see that both aren’t going to be much better than average on defense.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 11:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Man if you keep on with this constant
downside of everything perspective I might start calling you Debbie Downer. Nothing personal, but almost everytime I read one of your posts, it’s like the sky is falling and there is only one way to fix it.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 8:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I chose to ignore pace
because when all is said and done, it only affects the average so much.
But I call B.S. on your assertion that neither is more correlated to playoff success. Obviously there are teams like the Bobcats and the Warriors (the one year they beat the Mavs…. even that was an upset for a reason though) that are the exceptions, but I’m guessing your statement was nothing more than complete conjecture that you threw out there because it supported your opinion. Back it up and you’ll change my mind… at least a little. But as Oceanary pointed out, the Bulls, Spurs, Celtics, and Lakers are all very good defensive teams… to that I would add the Pistons.
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 7:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting fact
In the Spurs’ 4 titles since 1999, they have only allowed one 100+ point game in 22 finals games.
That’s defense.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 7:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My take:
Perhaps in practice and history, the good defensive teams have won more frequently (though I didn’t do the research that Mplax is asking for, of course).
That said, there’s no reason why a team with a better offense than defense CAN’T win. 105-100 is a win the same as 90-85. Obvious statement, yes. And while “defense wins championships” may or may not be backed up historically, it’s wrong to say that there can not be exceptions to that, and that teams that don’t follow the “defensive anchor in the paint” road will never win. I think the best overall team will win the championship more often than not. Whether their greatest advantages lie on the offensive or defensive ends sems irrelevant.
by LoveTo on Dec 15, 2009 7:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But the ball
can only go to each of the 5 guys so much on offense, whereas 5 good defenders will get opportunities on every single play. 105-100 is a win, yes… but we are talking about teams (with average pace factors) that don’t allow a team to score 100, even when they average 109 against the rest of the league (and yes, the rest of the league includes the Wolves which raises that average).
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 7:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Technically speaking, every good team is better on offense than defense
In the sense that they average more points than they give up.
But there’s a major difference between averaging 100 points and giving up 90, versus averaging 100 points and giving up 99.
I mean, there’s just no way around it. No matter how good your offense is, you have to be able to play defense.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 7:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I know this isn't Championship example
but in two recent wolves games that were decided by one defensive (or lack there of) stop. We lost the Nola Game because we failed to get a stop on Nola’s last inbound play of the game, while we won this most recent game against the Utes’ by getting a stop on their last play. in neither game was our defense top notch, we gave up rather huge shooting percentages, but our offense was good enough to keep us right in their, and in the Utah game we got the stop in a key moment and won. if we can start doing that more often, even if we are still letting opposing shooters torch us, we could be a .500 team. we don’t need to be a lock down defender, just above average defensively with a better overall offense and we would be a playoff team.
on the Vikings SBN blog there was a post highlighting what type of D was needed to win the SB. the general conseses was that all that was needed was an above avg Defence (although being supurlative run stopper improved the odds, while passing D’s seemed to be all over the map).
I know that that is football and not Basket ball, still, if one took the time to map out the D metrics of all 20 teams to play in the last 10 championships, they would probably all be above avg, but many would probably be ranked lower then one might think.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Dec 15, 2009 9:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, we don't need to be lock down defenders
I mean, if we can reach the Celtics’ level, then great, but it’s not necessary.
My argument is the Love/Jefferson combo won’t even get us to an above average defensive level.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 9:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you're going to call B.S.
You really should be prepared to admit you’re wrong if the other person can back up their statements. Statements like
Back it up and you’ll change my mind… at least a little.make me wonder if I’m wasting my time on this and frankly come off as kind of douchy. But since you asked…
http://www.powerbasketball.com/theywin.html
Since the 1986 season, the most efficient defensive team has won the title three times. The most efficient offensive team has won the title four times.
Since 1986, the better defensive team has won 71% of their playoff series. The better offensive team has won 75% of their playoff series.
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=965988&sid=2c875221a2f04afe13d8ace0fd895ecc
Average difference in ORtg and DRtg for the championship team since the 1974 Boston Celtics:
ORtg: +3.35
DRtg: -3.37
Well, overall the differences in ORtg and DRtg are nearly identical. 18 of the 37 teams had a better offense than defense by that method. There is no statistical evidence that “Defense wins championships”.
And from my own research (using data from Basketball-Reference.com), I made a spreadsheet of where the offensive and defensive ratings of every NBA Title-winning team ranked in the league that year (example, the 2009 Lakers had the league’s 3rd best offense and 6th best defense) since 1974 when they began tracking them.
Average ORtg rank of a champion: 5.6
Average DRtg rank of a champion: 4.9
Worst ORtg of a champion: 18th
Worst DRtg of a champion: 21st
A difference of less than 1 is hardly enough to support any sort of useful conclusion, even more so considering the small sample size of only 36 seasons of data. The more objective conclusion, as is the case with all the other iterations of the data analysis, is that good offense and defense are both highly correlated with playoff success, with neither holding a distinct advantage over the other.
I’d ask that you could respect how much work it was to put all this together. If your only response is “Yeah, but still,” I’d prefer it if you didn’t respond at all.
by John Doe on Dec 15, 2009 11:12 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Boom! Drop the mike...
Walk off the stage.
by LoveTo on Dec 15, 2009 11:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Impressive
So we actually have a lot of work to do on both sides of the ball.
sigh
Well, as S-n-P says, getting a scoring wing should be first on the agenda.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 11:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Epic
I’ve been gone all day. Love your posts.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 15, 2009 11:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
does this indicate
that we’ve returned to a fact based reality?
by littleboxes on Dec 15, 2009 11:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like we're getting a little personal here John Doe
I guess it seems a little “douchy” to me that you would assume that I wouldn’t back up my own statement after challenging yours. And I didn’t mean what I said with any sort of malice at all, I meant that any sort of statistical evidence wouldn’t be proof enough to convince me entirely. Especially with you ignoring the fact that there might be something else out there that challenges this thought. You did a good job though, better than I thought was out there, but that powerbasketball site will probably be the basis of my point of view.
That said, I do appreciate the time that goes in to these posts and again, before you make assumptions about me writing a thoughtless response, maybe you should respect the posts that I make and realize that we are both putting time into this. Canis is a very good community in that regard. I come here assuming I will get my views challenged and changed quite often by good evidence and more than just opinion. Thank you very much for the time that you took, and hopefully I will be able to find the time to provide my support. It’s finals week though so time is short as it is. Basic premise: Matchups (who did they play and how many games did it go) and overall success rather than who won it all. I realize the saying is that defense wins championships, but I realize this is not entirely true and there is a lot of luck involved. I am looking to back up the point that the more successful teams are often the best at defense. Like I said, hopefully I can actually find the time, but as we both know, it does take a lot of it.
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 11:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A better question might be...
….how many teams have won championships with a good offense but a bad defense. Versus how many win with a bad offense and a good defense.
Because the good offense/bad defense thing seems to be what most Wolves fans are pushing here.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 11:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My Philosophy
Is the teams with the Best Players win Championships. If this is an Offensively Minded team great. If it’s Defensively Minded that’s good too. The question is does each individual position outproduce your opponents. Any philosophy other than this is a waste of team.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 15, 2009 11:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
04 Pistons?
Outmanned at every position…
by Oceanary on Dec 16, 2009 12:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wrong
They had 5 plus starters. Billups was better than Payton, Prince was better than whoever, and Sheed was better than Karl Malone. Ben Wallace was an elite Defensive Center, and they had a better bench.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 16, 2009 8:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Same with the Bulls, actually...
They were almost always outmanned at point guard and center, and power forward was usually a wash…
by Oceanary on Dec 16, 2009 12:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Except
They had 2 of the 20 Twenty Players of All-Time. Which off-set other disadvantages. They were also a fairly well-constructed roster with Complimentary players.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 16, 2009 8:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
They had a match for every scenario and everyone on the floor was a threat to score due to the triangle offense. Their weakest players always outplayed the other team’s weakest.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 16, 2009 10:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right about one thing:
My attempt to preempt a thoughtless response was at least as douchy as anything you did. Sorry about that. If we are getting personal, it’s in part because of the inherent “personalness” of asking someone to prove they aren’t making stuff up, which is what tripped my trigger I think. But from now on, I promise I’ll stick to basketball only.
Your research sounds even more in depth than mine was, and it would make for a very interesting Fanpost if/when you put in the work to compile it. Expanding the data to include playoff teams beyond just those that won the Finals could be useful, though it’s worth noting that Dean Oliver found playoff series wins since 1986 correlated slightly higher with superior offensive efficiency than superior defensive efficiency.
In the interest of academic collaboration, a few potential starting points I uncovered while looking up my numbers:
-Champions’ defensive rankings had a lower standard deviation, indicating that good defense was slightly more consistent in past champions.
-Related to that, it seems easier to win with average offensive and historically good defense than historically good offense and average defense. (Though the sample size of NBA champions fitting either of these descriptions is even smaller.)
Ultimately, it seems the odds are stacked against you. It’s one thing to go further in depth to prove a slight bias toward good defense over defense. It’s quite another to find enough evidence to definitively say that the Wolves need to drastically alter their current plans of building an elite offense with (presumably) a good but not great defense, which seems to have been the implication by some of the posts that preceded this one.
by John Doe on Dec 16, 2009 12:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I wouldn't say we have an elite offense exactly...
We rank 27th in ppg this year…we actually rank higher on defense than offense right now, which is….really sad….
I guess I just get the feeling this blog is pushing for a Suns or Knicks kind of team where everything fits together on offense, but defense isn’t even considered. So maybe that’s a misinterpretation on my part. But that kind of team definitely won’t get it done. We’ve got to at least get to an average level defensively, and I just don’t see that happening as long as Love and Jefferson man the paint for us.
by Oceanary on Dec 16, 2009 1:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we could get there.
Really, as of now, our perimeter defense is not any better than our post defense, right? We’re awful all over.
Upgrading our perimeter defense by getting longer, more athletic players won’t make us a great defensive team because, as you’ve pointed out, the great ones have that anchor in the paint. But having above average perimeter D and below average post D should get us somewhere around average defensively.
And Love and Jefferson, in my opinion, could be such an awesome offensive tandem that you should not break it up before you’re ABSOLUTELY sure that, even if they have good perimeter defenders and a tall, paint-patrolling back-up to complement them, they still can’t defend good enough to make them viable.
by LoveTo on Dec 16, 2009 1:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Very true
Which is kind of why I wish we had taken Lopez, but you k’now…
I think the one good thing about the triangle is, when executed properly, it can cover a lot of sins on both ends of the floor. We’ve already seen that this year. So with a reliable wing scorer, we should at least be competitive in all our games, even if our defense isn’t very good.
by Oceanary on Dec 16, 2009 1:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Textbox... Shrinking...
@Oceanary:
I meant we were attempting to build an elite offense eventually. We’re bad everywhere this year.
Love and Jefferson are mediocre defenders, but far from bad enough to doom an entire team to being below average defensively no matter what. Team defense is more about effort, system, discipline, and teamwork than merely collecting standout defenders. The Honorary 2002 NBA Champion Sacramento Kings featured a frontcourt of Peja, Webber, and Vlade, but still had the league’s 6th best defense. The current Boston Celtics defense is historically good, despite featuring two guys not previously known for their defense in Pierce and Allen. The ‘06 Mavs all but won the title with Dirk and 6’2" Jason Terry as their two biggest minute getters. They lost to a team starting fat Antoine Walker, old Shaq and Jason “White Chocolate” Williams (Though I’d be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that bringing two former DPOY winners off the bench probably didn’t hurt).
Anyway, I could go on, but the point should be clear. Giving big minutes to a few defensive duds isn’t a kiss of death to your entire team’s Title hopes. Particularly not if we can find that Joakim Noah type to add to the big man rotation by the time we’re ready to contend.
by John Doe on Dec 16, 2009 2:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose
I just find it really hard to see us going somewhere with the Love/Jefferson combo when it’s so painfully obvious they’re overwhelmed against championship frontcourts.
Maybe I read into the Jazz situation too much, with Boozer and Okur and Millsap off the bench and the effort in futility they go through year after year after year getting beaten out of the playoffs by teams with height and length in the post…
I’ve always felt that the way to buld a team is the prototypical 1-2-3-4-5. Not this weird 1-3-3-4-4 thing we have going. I mean, even if we add a Noah to the rotation, is he going to play enough to make a difference? Love and Jefferson will still command a good 80-85% of the minutes in the end.
Although I didn’t know the 02 Kings were 6th in the league in defense that year. That’s definitely surprising.
by Oceanary on Dec 16, 2009 2:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What I'm saying is...
….I don’t see Love and Jefferson getting us to even an average defensive level, even with great wing play around them. I mean, defense starts in the paint and goes out from there (not outside in), and they’re the two best players we have. it seems to me that, if they were going to make us a respectable defensive team, they’d have done so already.
I mean, they’re not going to be better than Randolph and Marc Gasol. And the Grizz have very good wing play. And suck at defense worse than we do.
by Oceanary on Dec 16, 2009 2:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
kevin love
just woke up sobbing b/c you compared his defense to Zach Randolph. i think Love is actually a decent defender. he works to get position, rotates well, uses his body, and rarely commits stupid fouls. he certainly has limitations, but he’s a much better defender than ZBo.
by littleboxes on Dec 16, 2009 4:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To use the Bulls example though
Their defense was at least solid all over, but their best defenders were on the perimeter.
by Esohny on Dec 16, 2009 9:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would be horrified
by an all offense no defense team. I guess if you look at scoring averages by players most of the wolves bench are right around the same. With more talented players throughout those levels should rise and we won’t be 27th in the future. But the ball movement offense gets every offensive player touches and opportunities and makes opposing Defenses be honest, which most haven’t had to be with as much iso as is played in todays game.
As a D you have to keep people from getting easy slams and layups, which can be done in two main ways. Blocking shots and taking charges. Let’s face it, the wolves haven’t gotten the benefit of the doubt on almost any charges this year. Against Toronto love had his feet planted and outside the circlue and got called for a blocking foul. Go figure.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 8:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kevin Love/Al Defense
Shouldn’t be that terrible a match. Considering they’d be generally a plus on the boards. Thereby assuring more possessions for them than their opponents. So unless the EFG% is so vastly higher than anyone else they can be a plus in this regard. This is how Utah has been able to produce better decent Defensive ratings despite a Limited Interior.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 16, 2009 8:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
People forget that the prototype
is only one path. There are numerous goals each team needs to be able to solve to win a championship. And it doesn’t always require a 7’ shot blocking center.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 8:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Let Me Throw This One
Imagine this Line-Up for a Second
C-Al Jefferson
F-Kevin Love
F-Danilo Gallinari
G-Kevin Martin
G-Jose Calderon
How many games would we win? We’d own the boards since Kevin and Al wouldn’t have as many defenders inside to contend with. We’d be awesome on Offense with post-play, passing, three-point shooting, and limit turnovers.
We’d be poor on Defense but probably manange due to controlling the boards. I bet this team could compete for a Ring. Utah’s biggest problem hasn’t be D -it’s been a lack of outside shooting.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 16, 2009 8:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno
That seems awfully similar to the Raptors’ lineup, and they’re horrible.
Toronto’s the poster boy of a great offense being completely undermined by a God-awful defense.
by Oceanary on Dec 16, 2009 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Difference being
Rebounding.
Say we have the same 4th ranked offense and the same 30th ranked defense, resulting in an overall SRS (competition-adjusted point differential) of -3.63. But now we’ve upgraded one of the worst rebounding frontcourts to the league’s best. Say Love and Al are 20% better rebounders than the Bosh/Bargnani combo. I’ll spare you the math, suffice to say I did it, and the results are:
Giving up 20% fewer ORebs of Raptors’ opponents’ 44.2 missed FGA/game results in 2.5 opponents’ possessions prevented.
Gathering 20% more ORebs of Raptors’ 37.1 missed FGA/game results in 2.0 possessions gained.
Plugging in the Raptors’ offensive/defensive efficiency numbers, those extra 4.5 possessions result in a 5.06 point swing to every game, improving the team’s SRS to +1.13, good for a slightly above .500 record.
Not as dramatic of results as I hoped for. I wouldn’t advocate building the team according the Raptors model regardless. However, the point stands that while Al and Love’s defense isn’t great, the 5 point swing to every game brought on by their superior rebounding is statistically just as good as if they were average rebounders and defended 5 points better per game than they do.
by John Doe on Dec 16, 2009 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Complicated stats
Because yes, we grab 2 more rebounds than Toronto per game, but we also give up 2 more rebounds than they do.
They also register 3 more blocks per game, while we get three more steals a game.
At best, our rebounding advantage would seem to bring our defensive level from dead last to slightly-below-average. Which might be good enough to be .500, but is nowhere near good enough to contend for a championship.
by Oceanary on Dec 16, 2009 5:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i can do that
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 15, 2009 9:35 AM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Great game
Flynn, Brewer and Jefferson really got it done, tonight. Probably wouldn’t have won if Utah shot anywhere near a decent FT%, but take the win when you can get it — almost nobody gets them in that building.
by Andy G on Dec 14, 2009 11:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Didn't play the defense we needed to
But a win is a win. And since this is the second time we’ve beaten Utah, we can confidently say it wasn’t a fluke either.
We played well. I’m impressed we gutted it out. Last year’s team would have folded and gotten blown out when the Jazz took the lead in the second half.
I think it’s safe to say we’re better this year. That’s something at least.
by Oceanary on Dec 14, 2009 11:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Well played. You obviously have our number. See you in the playoffs.
The more you try to erase me, the more that I appear.
by clarkpojo on Dec 14, 2009 11:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
When Utah makes a 1st round exit....
…don’t be shy. We can help you work through the pain.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 15, 2009 12:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why, are you buying us tickets to spectate?
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Dec 15, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It'd be like the thing the Bucks(?) just did
where the season ticket holders gave up their tickets to veterans. The Utah season ticket holders will give up their tickets to Timberwolves fans, who won’t know what it’s like for the next 20 years.
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just as with the veterans,
maybe they should concentrate on paying PTSD benefits.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Dec 16, 2009 8:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Draft Pick
These two wins could actually cause our draft pick to not come this year. Good or bad?? Only time will tell.
by Far East on Dec 14, 2009 11:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
It's a pick that I am not overly excited about
and Utah doesn’t have huge upside in its players right now. Okur, Kirilenko, Boozer, Millsap, and Williams all seem to have reached their ceilings. Brewer might not return (same with a few of their guys actually). So really this pick could keep going up slowly and surely. Though as long as they have Williams and decent cap space, it will probably never quite be a great lottery pick (if it even makes it there).
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 3:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Although they will get a very talented player with the knicks unprotected pick
I don’t buy the knicks’ recent success. That’ll be a top 10 pick, and some great young talent.
by Esohny on Dec 15, 2009 3:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The pick never drops below top 15 protection
And eventually turns into a 2nd rounder, so there’s no benefit for the Wolves to see the Jazz fall below playoff status.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 15, 2009 5:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Some thank yous are in order
Thanks to Jerry Sloan for putting Millsap on Love instead of Jefferson even though he’s a better shotblocker than Okur and it was so obvious that they were going high screen and roll with Love. Thanks for not putting Kirilenko on Love even though he could’ve guarded the high screen and snuck behind Flynn to block his shot. Thanks for putting Wesley Matthews instead of Ronnie Brewer on the strong side so that he was effectively taken out of the play due to having to guard Corey Brewer.
It’s great to get a win in a hostile environment like Utah (where the crowd apparently says some of the most vile and hostile things in the NBA, which is weird to think about). I didn’t see the whole game, though. How did Brewer’s game stack up with his numbers?
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 14, 2009 11:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Brewer was awesome
Seriously. He was all over the place, on offense, on defense. Really keyed us in the third quarter, which is usually when we fall apart, and his constant drives to the hoop got the Jazz in all sorts of foul trouble.
This was definitely a game where the performance 100% matches the numbers.
by Oceanary on Dec 14, 2009 11:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
we got the backups
I think a scoring 2 and a jumping jack shotblocking defensive 3 complement AJ and KL.
Upgrades to Ellington and Brewer.
by WinTheLottery on Dec 15, 2009 8:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The one question I had
for Rambis, was why wasn’t he guarding Williams if Wes Matthews was in? Was it to give Flynn experience when this is no longer the case? I mean he will have to get better at guarding bigger guys, but if we were really trying to win, wouldn’t Brewer on Williams and Flynn on Matthews have been better?
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rambis comes from the Phil Jackson mindset
Match size with size.
That’s also partly why he doesn’t like playing Flynn and Sessions together. He wants someone with shooting guard size at shooting guard.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 7:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Quote of the year
_It has been obvious for over 2 years. _
Like I said in the game thread, we’re slipping into Bulls territory.
How many years has it been obvious they need a post scorer?
How many years has it been obvious we need a post defender?
Ya…
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 1:15 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I hope to go you mean Damien Wilkins
instead of Gerald Wilkins
by TonyO on Dec 15, 2009 1:25 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
d'oh
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 15, 2009 7:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
changed
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 15, 2009 7:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I want to comment on the game, but...
I’m too distracted by something from Stop-n-Pop’s game wrap. Tell me you didn’t just say you’d take Rajon Rondo over Chris Paul dude. There must be some sort of caveat to the statement that you neglected to mention. There just has to be.
I normally think so highly of your opinion. This doesn’t compute.
by John Doe on Dec 15, 2009 2:11 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
i would...
…if i want to win in the post season and we’re drafting from scratch.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 15, 2009 7:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
plus..
…i’m more of the opinion that if your point guard is your best player, chances are you aren’t going to win it all unless he can play off the ball and be effective when it matters in late game situations where the big wing players take over.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 15, 2009 7:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean like the game against the Wolves where the Hornets came back in the fourth with Paul at the 2?
And you really want the guy who spent most of the last post season getting lit up by Derrick Rose?
Paul’s the best PG right now. He’s simply stuck in an awful, awful Hornets team. Remember seven years ago, when Garnett was the best PF on the planet (or second-best, if you believe the Spurs that Duncan was actually playing that position) and never got respect because of the horrid teams put around him? It’s the exact same situation.
by McCleak on Dec 15, 2009 8:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you weren't likening...
…the Wolves to a playoff team…
by Boss10 on Dec 15, 2009 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean...
….the series where Rondo averaged nearly a triple double with 41 mpg of handling almost all of the ball handling duties for the team that won the series? I don’t disagree that Paul is the best player out of this group but I think he has a fatal flaw. I don’t know exactly what it is but it’s a gut feeling that…well, I really don’t know how to put it. I’ll think about it some more.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 15, 2009 6:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Paul gets overrated because of his numbers
And this is an example of where being a stat geek most definitely gives you only half the picture.
Because in reality, Paul has had only one season where he made a real accomplishment. All his other years he’s put up great numbers, but the Hornets have been average at best, God-awful at worst.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 6:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Leadership?
I think a huge thing that seperated Flynn from the rest was his personality. Paul’s supporting cast isn’t great but they are not that horrible, not KG’s wolves bad. Obviously as a PG he has good teamwork skills but is his ability to motivate his teammates top notch?
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 16, 2009 10:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Look at his teammates
Paul has never had the quality of teammates as those other guys. David West would be the fourth-best player on the Celtics or Jazz, and Emeka Okafor is the only other guy who’d contend to start on either team.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 16, 2009 10:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lebron
Has he ever had much better than that or was the Wolves ever better than that when KG was here?
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 16, 2009 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Trade Paul for Rondo and Boston has two rings right now
and is cruising on the way to #3.
by TimAllen on Dec 15, 2009 9:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No way..
….go back and check out what Rondo did to keep the Celts in it against the Bulls and Magic:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01.html
He was obscene.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 15, 2009 6:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair
“obscene” would be a good descriptor for CP3’s career so far. Even surrounded by as little talent as he has been (Peja is too old, Tyson doesn’t look so good without him anymore, West played a career year with CP3).
I especially like the “battle” that is going on between CP3 and Rondo. And CP3 also brought up that Rondo wouldn’t have a ring without that cast. And Paul would probably have a couple by now.
Chris Paul
Ray Allen
Paul Pierce
Kevin Garnett
Kendrick Perkins
That lineup is downright deadly. And Kobe couldn’t have roamed as much as he did in that series and I don’t think the Bulls series’ would have been even close. That last sentence is completely opinion though.
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 7:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we can agree...
…that CP3 is the KG of the backcourt. My stance towards Paul is less a slight and more of thinking just as highly about the other points.
CP3 is definitely obscene but Rondo but on a show in the playoffs that I’m not sure could have been significantly upgraded upon, especially with KG out and the Celts having the most problem with the larger sized Magic players. Rondo went nuts last year and he did it across the board. Check out his playoff rebound rate. The guy grabbed over 20% of his team’s defensive rebounds from the point.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 15, 2009 7:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have yet to decide if Paul is KG or TMac
Meaning is he a great player on a bad team, or a stat stuffer who fools people into believing he’s better than he is.
Right now I’m leaning towards McGrady, considering how the Hornets got embarrassed in the playoffs last year, and now the awful year they’re having this season.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 7:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They would be better with Williams over Paul
Hands down my favorite PG in the league right now.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 8:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My world is crashing down around me!
I think this is a monumentally short-sighted take.
I do think I see where you’re coming from initially: Paul’s style of dominating the ball, creating all the offense himself, only handing the ball off for his teammates to shoot it immediately probably doesn’t work at the championship level. But what could he possibly do to make that New Orleans team a championship team? His ball-dominating style of play makes that team as good as it could possibly be. He’s the only point guard in history talented enough to competently run an offense this way, incidentally.
Now here’s where the leap comes. Do you think it’s inconceivable that he could change his style of play on a more talented roster? Because yeah, if he’s over in Boston weaving in and out of the lane while KG, Pierce, and Allen stand around the perimeter watching, then maybe Rondo would be a better fit as a championship-caliber point guard. But we know his BBIQ is off the charts. We know about his will to win. I tend to think he would adjust his style of play to whatever would give his team the best chance to win. Just like he has now.
So it comes down to accepting the assumption that Chris Paul could run an offense efficiently. If he can do that, Paul on the Celtics gives you everything Rondo does, while changing your only offensive liability into your greatest weapon. I implore you to reconsider your way of thinking.
by John Doe on Dec 15, 2009 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The interesting thing about Rondo in this conversation is that he also pounds the rock for 15-20 seconds on many possessions, which leads to his high assist numbers and (in my opinion) inflated value.
I also like Deron Williams the most out of NBA pg’s. Seems like he has the best mix of playmaking, scoring and having the court sense to just pass the ball and let his teammates touch it for more than a few seconds. I think that he would be more fun to play with than Chris Paul.
I would put CP3 right at the top, though. Parker and Nash just behind those two. Billups, Rondo, Rose and a few others in some sort of third tier. I think Rose will make the leap into the Paul/Williams tier in a year or two. Maybe John Wall or Ricky Rubio will join them. Or Flynn, for that matter. That would be nice.
by Andy G on Dec 15, 2009 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The best part about Williams is...
…he’s just as comfortable off the ball as on it. That’s a huge advantage he has over Paul, because if you take the ball out of CP3’s hands, he loses 95% of his effectiveness.
Which, BTW, is maybe why Rambis is so insistent that Flynn learns to play off the ball and not dominate it like Paul does.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 7:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure..
…he’d be Chris Paul if he changed his style of play. I think part of what makes him so amazing is the overall package: He’s this really short guy who can do it all from the point. I’d have to think about it more because this is more of a gut opinion than anything else but I don’t think it’s that easy to win when the best player on the team is a point guard, especially a ball dominant one. My point is that if he has to change his style in a significant way, then it’s more likely than not that he’d end up performing at a level at the point already inhabited by Rondo. Rondo doesn’t have the extra individual gear to take over a game like Paul does but he’s got everything that is needed to be a championship caliber point guard. I’m not sure Paul can improve on that on a championship level. During the regular season, yes. Post season, no.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 16, 2009 7:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So...
I wrote out a big post to respond to this, but then realized that in your original post saying you’d take Rondo over Paul, you said “If I’m putting together a squad to build it all, here are my top 3 picks at the point.” Now I interpreted this as saying “If I’m an NBA GM with the choice of any point guard to add to my team, here’s who I’d take.” when in reality, you were (I think) saying “If I could handpick my entire team (thereby ensuring that a lack of superstar power at the PG position could be offset by the fact that the rest of my lineup is Kobe/LeBron/Dirk/Dwight), here’s who I’d take.”
That’s the caveat I was looking for, and I guess I don’t have a problem with it as long as you wouldn’t be so daft as to suggest that a team that isn’t loaded with superstars like Boston or your fantasy squad built to win it all should take Rondo over Paul. If both Rondo and Paul were offered to the Wolves for free, you’d take Paul, right?
by John Doe on Dec 16, 2009 3:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also,
I’m going to post the back half of the response I had written out, because it still might be worth reading for some people.
Here’s what I think the real truth is: there is no cap to a superstar wing or big man, but superstar point guards have diminishing returns. Paul can make a bad team very good by operating at max capacity, controlling every aspect of the offense, singlehandedly making it run efficiently. But given elite teammates, Paul’s ceiling drops from a 29 PER do-everything PG to a 21 PER Deron Williams type of player who picks his spots to shoot or drive, but also allows his talented teammates an appropriate amount of ball-handling time. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Paul couldn’t do this, since he’s never had teammates good enough to warrant it.
by John Doe on Dec 16, 2009 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he could adopt a different style
But to me, Deron Williams already plays the style I think works best with other top notch talents. The man can pretty much do everything without the downside of needing the ball.
Did you see the behind the back pass D.Will had to himself while driving in the lane against the wolves in Utah? Absolutely sick.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 3:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Love Handles...
My response to your request:
“BTW: We need to come up with a Wolves Dictionary term for when Love grabs an offensive rebound in between 3-4 defenders.”
Yep, Love Handles is my contribution, respectfully submitted.
by timmuggs on Dec 15, 2009 5:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
thirded
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 15, 2009 7:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fourthted?
Check out Humdinger TV on YouTube.
http://twitter.com/HumdingerTV
by HumdingerTV on Dec 15, 2009 10:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Curb
Did you see the Curb your Enthusiasm where Larry is saved while falling off a building by grabbing that girl’s love handles. That’s what Love looks like when grabbing rebounds.
by Blakeley on Dec 15, 2009 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Still like... Darth Hoover
Or with the bowling glove….
Kingpinned
by DR_JPK on Dec 15, 2009 4:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's also his nickname,
dating to last year when he actually had some on his body. It’s partly his passing skills, however.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Dec 15, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't give up either Love or Jefferson
As has been noted, Love is not a post up player. He goes into a crowd under the basket the most likely result is a blocked shot. Possibly a foul, but for sure a blocked shot. Al goes into a crowd under the basket and the most likely result is a basket. Possibly a foul, but definitely a basket. Why do so many want to get rid of that? He doesn’t fit our ‘system’. That’s our 4-21 system. Maybe our system should fit our personnel, like it does for virtually every other team in the NBA.
by ogishkemuncie on Dec 15, 2009 7:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
agreed
How many years did Wolves fans opine for a guy who could actually score in the post, and not off of putbacks or run outs, but actual honest to goodness post moves. The Wolves still need a dynamic wing and a true defensive post presence that can play solid minutes in the rotation. I just don’t think that either should come at the expense of trading Al.
by WhatIf on Dec 15, 2009 7:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When the Jazz come to their senses
they’ll officially change their name to the Utah Saints.
by PoorDick on Dec 15, 2009 7:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Jefferson doesn't get traded
until after the 2010 draft if at all.
by PoohRubio on Dec 15, 2009 7:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
We all agree?
Love had a bad game, you could see how disappointed he was all over his face but the reason he is great is because regardless he still gets those rebounds. Same as Brewer, no matter how bad of night they are having they still come with the energy. I think a large majority can agree that we all would be happy to have Love, Jefferson, Flynn & most likely Brewer and Gomes as good bench players. Neither of the Bigs are leaving unless we receive some insane deal especially with all the assests we already have in Rubio’s contract, expiring deals and Sessions(though I would not mind keeping him). So at this point why not just talk about who we can realistically have a chance of picking up at the deadline to fill our wing and 3rd big role.
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 15, 2009 10:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Are we to the point...
That we can comfortably write-off Ryan Hollins as having any potential of fulfilling that 3rd big spot? I think he went to the “Troy Williamson School of Pass Catching”. I would love to dump his contract for an expiring at the trade deadline if possible, although I’m not sure it would be possible.
by Blakeley on Dec 15, 2009 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually,
I would love to include him very badly but from the posts I think a lot of people have written him off already but I am a fan of his potential and are we not the development team? Personnally and I know this is bad but if I was one of his coaches I would have him work on rebounding half the time and the other half I would just pitch balls at his forehead as fast as I could. Sure he may break a finger or something but if not and he actually learns how to catch those fast passes on the break he could be a beast. If he caught %90 of those passes this year I think his PPG would be double and the one thing we all agree on is that his 10 ft jumper is quite nice.
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 15, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you can write him off yet
He needs alot more practice time. Next year he will play in the summer league (assuming that they have a team). He needs alot more playing experience before he gets written off. I think it is fairly certain that under no realm of possibility is he ever going to be a starter, but at some point he may become a matchup guy as he reaches year 2 of his deal. But it will take at least that long.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 15, 2009 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Then I started to think just because Gomes is hurt and we are what we are but wouldn’t it be interesting to have Hollins start and slide K.Love to the 3? He is not the most fast but would easily get him the match up for him to score some points and boost his confidence after being shut down in the post the last couple games. Love could really get a lot of alley-oops going to Hollins if Ryan could actually catch his passes.
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 15, 2009 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hands
Unless we draft a new big with a high pick he won’t be going anywhere. He still has potential to be a good match up player. As of now he is cheap and everything Al and Lover aren’t, long. He can’t get any worse…
by Far East on Dec 15, 2009 8:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I am curious who goes.
When we get a big being either the 1st but most likely are 2nd pick then I think we keep two out of Hollins, Pech & Jawai. So out of the three which two have the highest upside in the future?
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 16, 2009 10:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on who we get right?
Each of those three have a distinct strength, so I would say if their strength is replaced by our “new” guy, then they go. E.g Hollins (athleticism), Pech (3pt), Jawai (bruiser). My ideal replacement would have both athleticism and a bruiser (ala Dwight Howard), then we keep Pech for his ability to change the spacing and how he fit into the triangle. After that we keep whomever is cheaper and showing more promise by the end of the year. If I had to pick, I’d probably say Hollins, because I’d rather have athleticism and the ability to run with our offense. Then we just borrow some sticky tack stuff from the Vikings WR’s and we’re set.
by Cedarpenguin on Dec 16, 2009 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
True
I just wish Jawai had Hollins height, he is a banger and I have not really seen foot speed like his on a man so big. The last game he played he got down the court faster then our wings. Now that I think of it he kind of reminds me of Rhino without the handles.
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 16, 2009 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Jawai
I think he’s got the best potential to be our poster player for our player development goals. The dude has got size, strength, long arms, great feet, good instincts, and moves surprisingly well for how big he is. He’s still young, and is lacking most in: experience and high level coaching. I hope the Wolves keep him around for at least another couple years because I think two years of NBA nutritionists, trainers, coaching, and PT could transform him into a very solid backup C (and maybe even a spot starter or role playing starter).
Right now I like Jawai’s long term potential more than Hollins because Jawai just looks to me like he’s aware of all the other guys out there and what they’re doing and what the other team is doing and gets in the right spots. Hollins is all jump and gangle and chicken without a head. I don’t know. Hollins just has that look of a great athlete who struggles to understand the game (of which the NBA unemployment line if full of other examples). Jawai looks like he could get it, he just needs some more experience and training/coaching. I also get the sense that Jawai, with a bit more confidence, is an enforcer waiting to happen on the defensive end.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 16, 2009 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would agree with that
Jawai is better than the others. But then who do we keep out of Hollins and Pech?
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, at this point?
I’d give the nod to Pech. Dude can shoot, and he seems to be motivated to rebound more and be more physical. He’s always going to be a liability on defense, but he’s also good with ball movement. It comes down to fit within the system, and it comes down to me which I think is more likely to come true: Pech reaching his lower ceiling or Hollins ‘getting’ it enough to utilize all his talent and athleticism. You can tell which bet I think is safer. In some ways it’s easier to protect and manage a given role player’s skill limitations, except when that skill limitation is coherently playing basketball consistently.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 16, 2009 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
you can tell
that hollins needs to study Love’s positioning on each and every play to figure out where he should be. I think Pech will be the better player and doubt that Hollins will ever achieve that.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Where we are at though
is not looking for players that are better now with a lower cieling, sure he can shoot decent but we have Love as a 3 point shooter now so that eliminates the strength of Pech. It basically breaks down to who can play the best D and get the rebounds because the way Pech plays now exhibits not a very good team mentality. I think Hollins can play as a teammate instead of the great white hole who shoots everytime he gets any kind of look.
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 16, 2009 5:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Then we go with Hollins and Jawai and let Pech go at the end of the year. The more I see of Jawai the more I like his prospects to at least be a solid contributor off the bench and matchup guy in the long term.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 6:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I won't ever get over how slow Pech's reflexes are
That alone will always lead me to favor Hollins over him.
by Oceanary on Dec 16, 2009 6:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
heh
Yeah. I would be all for signing Jawai to a minimum deal. Would be a good opportunity for the coaching staff to see how they can really develop a prospect into something resembling a useful player.
He has a nice touch and would solve some size concerns up front, but would need to be in lineups with good perimeter shooting to space the floor for him. He is deceptively quick though.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 6:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I really like Jawai
Good hands, solid fundamental, solid post up ability, and impressive court vision and passing.
by Oceanary on Dec 16, 2009 6:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Got off point there
Yeah, Pech is gone after this year. I think they keep Jawai and Hollins for next year as projects.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 16, 2009 6:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Choice words
Had to double check who wrote this post after reading about a ‘dookie’ playing for a ‘coked-out pre-80’s haze’ coach against ‘boobery’ and a ‘boner.’
Awesome stuff.
And for what it’s worth, I agree with trying to keep Al and Love and acquire a dynamic scoring perimeter threat to see what happens. Just might be magic.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 15, 2009 11:02 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Dictionary contribution: KLoven
…as: 1) To split or divide by or as if by a cutting blow… 2) To be separated from a rebound by Kevin Love of the Minnesota Timberwolves.
by Boss10 on Dec 15, 2009 1:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Piggy backing on this
McLovin’: 1) (noun) a sweet character from Superbad, 2) (verb) the attitude and act of claiming rebounds from opposing players by Kevin Love of the Minnesota Timberwolves (ex. (in the voice of Bill Walton) Kevin Love is McLovin’ the ball, keeping his eyes on the prize and elevating his game when it matters most. So dominant. A once in a lifetime player rising to the occassion on the biggest stage of his career. He McLoved the ball with authority."
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 15, 2009 1:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So
That is so Bill Walton. I can hear him now…
by littleboxes on Dec 15, 2009 2:28 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot the Laker reference.
Walton doesn’t make consecutive statements without one.
by Boss10 on Dec 15, 2009 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like 'Kloven'
It’s not as cutesie as ‘Love Handles’ or ‘McLovin’, but it’s cleverer.
by John Doe on Dec 15, 2009 2:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I still vote for Love Handles
unless of course Love all of a sudden starts crossing people over, then I would prefer if we could tell people that they just got Love Handled. But I would also like to submit the Lovfensive Rebound.
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 3:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Also
I refuse to believe that there is no pun out there that has to do with Boarding the Love Boat. Someone help me out…
by Mplax on Dec 15, 2009 3:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Or with the improved operation of Rambis' preferred offensive set since his return...
The Love Triangle?
by LoveTo on Dec 15, 2009 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Love Glove?
…because it sounds kind of dirty?
by davechisholm on Dec 15, 2009 5:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
My Belated Game Notes
-Against LA, we came up short on dueling Sashas, but the Battle of the Brewers was won by us. What a game for Corey! Here’s hoping he continues to attack the basket, even when he seemingly shouldn’t.
-Wayne Ellington needs to start over Damien Wilkins. Wayne’s been playing well of late, and he’s a better shooter. Wilkins is not only not a shooter, but he won’t even attempt them (4 FGA last night). The starting unit’s offense will run a lot more smoothly with Ellington out there. Wilkins provides better rebounding, but we don’t need that with Love and Al beasting the way they have been.
-Playing Utah is great for our ability to draw free throws. Their big men will foul anything that moves.
-I’ll give Flynn less credit but also less blame. Less credit: one game of outperforming Sessions doesn’t negate the many before it where he didn’t. And I’d rather his game-saving play be of the ‘finding a man under the basket for a dunk’ variety than a familiar right-handed barrel at the rim against three defenders. I still say Sessions is better for our offense most nights. Less blame: Deron Williams had a monster game, but it didn’t seem like Flynn’s defense was to blame.
-I’m all for Pecherov bashing when it’s warranted, but he had a nice game last night. If he can consistently rebound and score efficiently, he’ll have a spot in this league.
-Flynn had two turnovers on errant behind the back passes. I do not like.
-This game is a good example of why the Four Factors ought to be Three Factors: ORebs and Turnovers, with eFG% and FT/FGA condensed into True Shooting Percentage. Both eFG% and FT/FGA are measures of the same thing: scoring efficiency. However, the Four Factors system assumes that free throws are always more efficient than regular offense, but in this case, Utah was equally efficient on field goals than at the free throw line. True Shooting percentage tells exactly how efficiently a team scored and is more concise.
by John Doe on Dec 15, 2009 5:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I feel the offense runs much more smoothly...
….with Wilkins on the floor.
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 7:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
the Duke needs more playing time.
by ThunderDome on Dec 15, 2009 7:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Wilkins starts...
he brings a level of maturity that we lack without him.
by Far East on Dec 15, 2009 8:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Should also be noted that Wilkins has started in all 4 games we've won this year
Just sayin’
by Oceanary on Dec 15, 2009 9:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He makes smart plays and he never takes bad shots. He doesn’t really take any shots, actually, but that’s better than bad shots. I hope we can find a guy who gives us rebounding and smart play on both ends of the court like Wilkins does, but also brings something offensively.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Dec 16, 2009 8:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ellington....
should start at some point but right now I like Wilkins being more of a facilitator for our starters. He doesn’t take the dumb shots and would much rather have our proven players shoot. With Wayne playing against bench players he has a better chance to improve his overall game and build his confidence better but I would say around the 3/4 mark of the season that the switch would work but only after they replace Pav with someone who doesnt shoot a horrible shot or turn it over every time they touch the ball.
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 16, 2009 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Pavlovic
Like other Wolves fans, I cringe when Sasha Pavlovic enters the game and begins jacking three pointers, which, from the time they leave his hands, clearly have little chance of going through the basket. He strikes me as the worst player on the team, or the guy with the least to offer since he does so little—or maybe he’s just my least favorite because I hate his shot selection.
After a few Pavlovic bricks during the Utah game, I found myself longing for the days of Rashad McCants. This was revelatory. I hated Shaddy as much as anyone. Last season, I correctly predicted that he’d be out of the league this season, and for good reason; we all know Shaddy had a historically bad season in 08-09.
My question to the stats gurus here: Is it possible that Pavlovic is having a worse season than McCants did last year? Or does it just seem that way? Let’s not even address the question of Shaddy’s “intangibles”—his scowling, poetry, YBG apparel, etc. Let’s just focus on performance. What do people think? Would Shaddy be an upgrade on this team over Pavlovic? Don’t get me wrong: the last thing I want is to see Rashad McCants back in a Twolves uni. I’m just wondering if we can agree that even at his worst, Shaddy had more to offer than Pavlovic. If so, it demonstrates how little depth this team has, and how many more pieces we’re going to need to build a competitive club.
by Shogun on Dec 16, 2009 1:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think Pavlovic got overrated because of that one year with the Cavs
I mean, they did go to the finals with him as their starting shooting guard, and he was shooting 40% from three that year I believe. He really looked like a James Posey type of player…smart, solid shooter, sticky defense…
But if you look at his career numbers….this is kind of typical of him actually. He had a worse year in 07-08 with the Cavs than he’s having now. He’s already had two years of shooting below 40%, and a couple years of barely shooting above it.
by Oceanary on Dec 16, 2009 1:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not the stat guru you seek...
But yeah, I’d take McCants.
by LoveTo on Dec 16, 2009 1:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You rang?
Basketball-Reference.com has a nifty feature that allows you to compare any two players on the same page as each other. Here are the seasons in question:
Yes, Pavlovic was worse. McCants took a ~30% more shots during his time of the floor, but at least he created offense with a borderline respectable .500 TS%, whereas Pavlovic is having a historically bad shooting season, particularly if he keeps this up for a full 82 games. Sasha turns it over roughly 50% more frequently than did McCants, which is our other main issue with his play.
Really though, I still consider Rashad the far greater disappointment. Though no one thought he’d be this bad, we all knew Sasha was a stinky one year rental. McCants was supposed to be a building block for the future.
by John Doe on Dec 16, 2009 2:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to recap my favorite line from all these comments
The more objective conclusion, as is the case with all the other iterations of the data analysis, is that good offense and defense are both highly correlated with playoff success, with neither holding a distinct advantage over the other.
God bless honoring rhetorical and logical rules. I love the emotion and passion being hashed out on here, but I also love reason, evidence, and a willingness to admit that none of it’s ever going to be ‘the truth.’
Now let’s go get some more talent!
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 16, 2009 10:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Parker over Paul
Choosing Parker over Paul doesn’t make any sense. He doesn’t hit threes (which makes his eFG% way lower than Paul’s and many other point guards), his assist to turnover ratio is under 2 this season, and he averages about TWO fewer steals per game. What brain-decimating drug were you on when you chose your top 3?
by Bryn on Dec 16, 2009 3:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Though I can't blame you for not wanting to read 200+ posts...
There is a section about 3/4 of the way down decrying his priorities in point guards. I think what he was getting at is that, even those guys aren’t as good as Paul, he’d be choosing an entire team to win the title and would want a role-playing PG. For him the risk that Paul would be unwilling/unable to subvert his talents and defer to his championship-caliber teammates outweighs the extra skills Paul brings to the table on top of being just as good at doing everything Parker and Rondo do. I vehemently disagree, but at least there’s reasoning to it.
by John Doe on Dec 16, 2009 4:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 















