Known Unknowns, The Players
by Stop-n-Pop on Oct 14, 2010 6:00 AM CDT
Email
PrintOne of the reasons why it's so tough to get a handle on this club is because there are just so many unknowns. Let's start walking things away from the unknown towards the known. The first step in this process is to figure out what we know we don't know about the squad and file our findings away under "Questions To Be Answered At A Later Date".
Do personnel upgrades equal increased production?
It's not exactly a big leap to say that this year's roster has a greater collection of talent compared to last year's squad. That being said, the upgrades themselves exist in
1- Luke Ridnour's 2009/10 campaign is something of an outlier.
| Season | Age | Tm | Lg | G | MP | PER | TS% | eFG% | ORB% | DRB% | TRB% | AST% | STL% | BLK% | TOV% | USG% | ORtg | DRtg | OWS | DWS | WS | WS/48 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003-04 | 22 | SEA | NBA | 69 | 1114 | 13.1 | .496 | .453 | 3.7 | 7.7 | 5.7 | 23.9 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 17.2 | 19.3 | 101 | 109 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 0.051 |
| 2004-05 | 23 | SEA | NBA | 82 | 2571 | 14.6 | .504 | .450 | 2.6 | 7.1 | 4.9 | 30.6 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 15.4 | 17.4 | 112 | 111 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 5.4 | 0.100 |
| 2005-06 | 24 | SEA | NBA | 79 | 2625 | 16.0 | .506 | .445 | 2.1 | 8.8 | 5.4 | 32.3 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 15.3 | 18.1 | 112 | 115 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 4.4 | 0.081 |
| 2006-07 | 25 | SEA | NBA | 71 | 2091 | 13.7 | .509 | .468 | 1.6 | 7.9 | 4.7 | 28.2 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 16.9 | 20.0 | 103 | 112 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 2.3 | 0.052 |
| 2007-08 | 26 | SEA | NBA | 61 | 1223 | 11.3 | .482 | .428 | 1.2 | 7.2 | 4.2 | 29.5 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 16.4 | 17.3 | 101 | 112 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.035 |
| 2008-09 | 27 | MIL | NBA | 72 | 2033 | 12.9 | .500 | .447 | 1.8 | 11.3 | 6.3 | 28.2 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 15.7 | 18.0 | 105 | 108 | 1.2 | 2.2 | 3.4 | 0.081 |
| 2009-10 | 28 | MIL | NBA | 82 | 1759 | 17.7 | .570 | .528 | 1.5 | 8.1 | 4.6 | 31.9 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 12.4 | 22.0 | 116 | 106 | 4.0 | 2.2 | 6.2 | 0.168 |
| Career | 516 | 13416 | 14.5 | .512 | .463 | 2.1 | 8.4 | 5.1 | 29.7 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 15.5 | 18.8 | 108 | 111 | 16.5 | 7.1 | 23.7 | 0.085 |
Career highs in PER, TS, Ortg, and WS/48. If he can reproduce his 09/10 numbers in an offense with boatloads of new players, awesome. However, are the Wolves more likely to get Ridnour's career averages or his high-end performance of last season? If they are looking at his career averages, will his minutes really be that much of an upgrade over what, say, Jonny Flynn produced in 09/10? Can Ridnour produce at last year's level? This is our first known unknown.
2- Can Mike Beasley produce at the 3?
B-Easy didn't exactly get a lot of run at the small forward down on South Beach, but the small sample size returns are not all that encouraging:
Net 48-Minute Production by Position
| -82.3 | -0.750 | +0.0 | +0% | +0.0 | +0.0 | +0.0 | +0.0 | +0.0 | -123.4 | -50.0 | |
| +6.1 | -0.010 | -1.1 | -11% | -1.5 | -0.6 | -0.8 | -0.5 | +0.7 | +5.0 | -0.4 | |
| +13.0 | -0.422 | +5.9 | -49% | +0.0 | +1.2 | +2.4 | -1.2 | -3.5 | +8.2 | +0.6 |
Player Floor Time Stats by Position
0%
-6
0.0
205.7
-205.7
0
1
49%
+21
97.1
96.5
0.5
36
40
1%
-10
88.3
98.9
-10.6
5
9
(via 82Games)
09/10:
Net 48-Minute Production by Position
3.6
-.101
-.9
4%
2.4
.6
-.9
.0
.7
-1.6
-3.9
5.4
-.003
.2
-13%
-.4
-1.0
.0
-.1
-.9
5.6
1.6
.0
.000
.0
0%
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Player Floor Time Stats by Position
8%
-99
80.4
95.0
-14.6
11
25
50%
+108
98.1
95.5
2.6
40
36
0%
0
.0
.0
.0
He was virtually non-existent at the small forward position in his first season. Only 8% of his 09/10 minutes were at the 3 during his final season in a Heat uniform.
Again, the point here isn't that a positive can't happen; rather, that there isn't a whole lot in this particular player's record to suggest that it is possible. Can Mike Beasley produce at a winning level while playing significant minutes at the small forward? Building on this question, can the
3- Can Martell Webster and Wes Johnson play the 2 and create off the dribble?
I know a lot is made of the quasi-Triangle that the
Player Floor Time Stats by Position
| 1% | +1 | 93.6 | 91.6 | 1.9 | 6 | 7 | ||
| 46% | +51 | 94.7 | 93.4 | 1.4 | 42 | 39 | ||
| 2% | +57 | 126.8 | 103.4 | 23.5 | 16 | 8 | ||
Player Floor Time Stats by Position
| 4% | +11 | 98.8 | 95.7 | 3.1 | 10 | 8 | ||
| 48% | -101 | 93.2 | 95.7 | -2.5 | 34 | 38 | ||
| 0% | +3 | 118.3 | 108.9 | 9.5 | 4 | 3 | ||
Hooray small sample size theater! Again, it's not that Martell Webster can't play at the 2; it's simply that we don't know if he has the skills to do so and it should not be assumed that he is an upgrade over, say, Wayne Ellington. He certainly looks the part, but his ability to play the two (along with his wing partner Wes Johnson, who doesn't have a pro record at all) is our third known unknown.
4- How will Nikola Pekovic adjust to the
I don't have any stats to back this one up, but the transition to the
Will the known unknowns work out in favor of Our Beloved Puppies? We'll have to wait and see. In terms of past performance for all of these questions, there simply isn't a whole lot of info to suggest an outcome one way or another.
144 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So, you’ve moved from thinking Kahn’s a complete idiot and has made terrible roster moves to thinking Kahn’s an idiot who has made roster moves of “unknown” quality.
Looking forward to your capitulation as the season wears on and you admit 1) Kahn may have a decent blueprint 2) these young guys are pretty good and 3) this team is really looking up.
by DougW on Oct 14, 2010 7:44 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I doubt SnP is going to "capitulate"
as it seems to me that through his face to face interactions and what information he has heard about the FO goings on has a significant bearing on his opinion of Kahn. I can’t say I blame him; I just don’t have those experiences, so I try to temper my take to remain impartial.
As my grandfather used to say, “even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once and a while.” Sometimes you just need to be happy with the random occurrence (at least for now)
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 14, 2010 8:03 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Kahn needs to be judged on his value over any replacement GM..
… I kind of VORPOBO… Of course the jury is still out, but none of his moves thus far have been world-beaters and there’s nothing that any of us couldn’t have done as well or better.
by Boss10 on Oct 14, 2010 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Agreed.
He’s definitely improved the team. There’s no doubting that. But you would have to actively try to fail in order to not improve last year’s 15 wins. With a three first-round picks and cap space, improvement was inevitable. But I just think more could have been accomplished.
really? Nothing that any of us could have done?
I mean, I’m pretty high on my abilities, but let’s face it, there has to be something, anything, that he has done that we couldn’t or wouldn’t have that panned out. Show me one GM that hasn’t made some misstep? Presti basically traded Ray Allen for Jeff Green. Seems like a very poor deal, so he must suck. I would really like to make all this less about GM scores and more about end results. Let’s stop backseat driving and enjoy the ride or watch the car crash. There are no excuses this year for “losing games for player development” or avoiding added a talented salary dump player if the chance arises because Taylor is cheap.
If a GM is doing his job right and taking calculated risks, then nothing should appear to be world beaters. Kahn gets Beasley for 2 second round picks and Rubio for Foye and Miller. But he doesn’t get any of the credit because it was a “no-brainer.” We pine about how things should have been better or gotten more, etc. I’ll leave it to more informed minds than mine to decide whether it was luck or skill, but let’s get off this damn bandwagon.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 14, 2010 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree that Kahn should get credit if things work out well, but
I actually disagree with your first point. I can’t think of anything Kahn has done that most of us wouldn’t have done that has “panned out” yet. That’s in large part because most of the current team is new to the roster, so we don’t know how well they’ll pan out yet.
But as far as what we do know about: most of us wouldn’t have picked Flynn, and that hasn’t panned out (at least not yet). Some people wouldn’t have signed Sessions, and that didn’t pan out. The Hollins signing didn’t pan out. Rubio, for all of his potential and all of our optimism, is still playing in Spain. Ellington has panned out (in a low-impact sort of way), but I was yelling that pick to the TV before they made it, so Kahn won’t get a lot of credit from me on that one. The jury is still out on most everything else (except for stuff that’s too small to mention, like signing Pavlovic).
All of this is my way of saying that we don’t yet know how well Kahn has done. But he’s had a lot of assets to work with over the last couple of years (some by his doing, and others because McHale made some progress in cleaning up his own mess) and I think it’s legitimate to wonder whether we’ve gotten full value for those assets.
This post also reflects my annoyance when people try to set the terms of discussion around here. Isn’t “backseat driving” what these sites are all about? When you tell everyone to stop doing it, where do you draw the line? Can we only discuss players who are on the team now? Is it OK to have doubts about how all of this will come together?
by Madison Dan on Oct 14, 2010 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
There is most defintely a place for "backseat driving" on a blog like this
but it also shouldn’t take over every thread. This thread “Known Unknon, The Players” has nothing to do with Kahn directly. But KAHN and all the banter back and forth about his qualifications/successes/failures does tend to take over a lot of threads. If that’s what you want to talk about, just add a new FanPost. I guarantee a fair number of people will go there. I won’t, and would rather not talk about it until we get more data. I am all KAHN’d out.
I just don’t want to hash and rehash everything Kahn did or didn’t do in every thread.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 14, 2010 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Fair enough
but we may all have to adjust our sensitivity meters a bit as the year goes on. Some people can’t stand any mention of Cousins at this point, but I’ll always evaluate Wes + Webster against Cousins + George (who I think we could have maneuvered to get). It doesn’t mean I’ll beat the point to death, in fact I probably won’t even bring it up here, but I think the right way to judge moves is against the ones you could have made instead. So if Wes has had a string of bad games and Cousins is on fire, I think it’s fair game for someone to make the comparison.
But I guess I agree with your general point that it would be more fun to direct the conversation toward what’s happening on the floor than what Kahn has said or done.
fair enough indeed
There were rumors that Indiana would have traded the 10th pick for Flynn, so does Cousins, Webster and George work better than the alternative when offset by Flynn’s production instead of Wes, Webster and Flynn? It very well may. That is a completely valid criticism.
To summarize, at the end of the year, which group looks better: Cousins and George, or Flynn and Wes (since Webster is in both). Granted, the trading of Flynn would have meant keeping Sessions and Hollins (ick).
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 14, 2010 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, I think I would have made that Pacers trade
and taken Cousins, George, and someone like Avery Bradley to man the point with Sessions (now Ridnour) until Rubio shows up. But I also like what we’re getting from Webster so far, and that’s definitely not a move I would have made, so if it keeps going that way I’ll definitely give Kahn/Rambis credit.
I see your Cousins + George
and I’ll raise you a Cousins + Henry
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
Reply to Madison Dan's post
…that asserts that most of us would have done what Kahn did.
I wonder about that.
I recall a whole lot of chatter from some sources about how Kahn was embarassing the team by calling GMs constantly, asking dumb questions and being arrogant and acting like a fool.
It reminded me of a boss I once had, Everyone thought he was a total jerk, wondered how I could work for him and so forth. He was a successful sales rep of high end stuff, moved into a management role.
His approach was different. He was a type AAA personality now in a corporate job. He bugged the s**t out of everybody. But you know what? He was effective, people underestimated him and got blind sided. He became buds with some influential people out of the normal mode of communication, and he called & talked to people constantly. Last I heard of him, people were wondering why he was listed in an industry rag as one of the up&coming execs in the industry.
I asked him why he worked like he did, how he became a successful sales guy in a highly competitive industry. His response?
“I like to mess with peoples minds.”
When I heard the complaints about Kahn’s behavior, supposedly coming from FO sources, I thought of that former boss immediately. He just worked in ways the old-boys network did not understand.
So how did Beasley end up on the TWolves anyway? I’ll bet there was some preparation involved. I’ll bet Kahn had figured out the Heat salary situation long before others had, and had made himself a nuisance with constant phone calls, and he knew exactly the probability of when Beas would be offered, all of his options and what the Heat would want.
I’ll bet he positioned the salary cap to be ready, and I’ll bet he had all of his moves down pat in order to get Beas, and also what he would have to do after he got Beas — did it enable the Al trade? What questions would Taylor and Moore ask about Beasley’s mental situation? Other questions would have come up, because Taylor seems to be very sensitive to character these days, probably as a result of the Spree etc period. I’ll bet Kahn was ready to address all those things, maybe with reports and documents that we have no idea even exist.
So I am wondering just how ready I would have been: — to make the move when it opened up; what to say when top mgmt questioned the move; and whether I would have been able to wait on the Beas thing to happen, and been prepared to spring.
A lot of stuff looks like a no-brainer in hindsight that is in fact the result of anticipation and preparation.
Just my take. As you might guess, I’m not a fan of old-boy network negotiations, and I appreciate people who can work outside the system. Sometimes it takes unusual methods, and usually a person will be criticized for trying to do things differently, outside the old-boy network.
McHale, as good as he was in some aspects, was the epitome of a respected old-boy. He never would have done what Kahn was doing, and he probably would not have gotten the same results. JMHO…
by timmuggs on Oct 14, 2010 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
There very well could be a method to the madness...
…which should become evident in the months ahead. Although I’m not terribly hopeful. Prior to the Beasley trade several pundits had targeted the Wolves because we were among the league leaders in cap space even before “unloading” Jefferson. I don’t think that any of us guessed that the asking price for Beasley would be so low, but I guess if the Heat really wanted to make a run at 3 max contracts only 2nd round unguaranteed picks made sense (although if I were them I would have asked for future firsts instead).
I see your point -- mine was much smaller.
I’ll flip around my point to try to be more clear: we don’t know how well Kahn did with most of his moves yet. Of the relatively few moves that we do know something about, it’s either not worked out very well or it was a pretty obvious move (the Ellington pick).
Signing Pek, re-signing Darko, drafting Wes, trading for Webster, trading Jefferson, signing Ridnour, and signing Tolliver are all things that COULD work out for him that other people may or may not have done. But we just don’t know yet. I’m hoping his batting average has improved.
That somewhat discounts Kahn’s acquisition of Milicic in the first place though. That trade came out of nowhere. I can say with almost 100% certainty that none of us would have made that trade unless Donnie Walsh called us up to make the offer – and I get the feeling it was Kahn that made the call, not Walsh. If it turns out that Milicic is a major drag to this team (I find this possibility very remote) then Kahn can be doubly derided for it. But if Milicic can be even a respectable bench player then Kahn deserves all the credit for something nobody else would have done. Would it be enough to outweigh a lot of his not so great decisions? No, but it should definitely be thrown onto the good side of the scale.
Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric? That's ridiculous! I would never have traded Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric.
- Sam Cassell on McHale's decisions while running the Timberwolves.
Trading for Milicic
originated with Rambis, not Kahn. He was a guy Rambis had personally identified as worth taking a flier on.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Oct 15, 2010 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions
I didn't mean to discount it --
I meant to not count anything Darko-related at all yet. I still don’t think we know whether Kahn/Rambis got that one right, but I agree that it’s certainly something they should get credit for as something no one else would have done if it works out.
by Madison Dan on Oct 15, 2010 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Or
He could just be saying that there are a lot of unknowns on this team… you know, because there are. Nothing that SnP wrote here isn’t true… or even negative. These are some of the primary questions around this team. It will be interesting, throughout the year, to see if the players and the coaches can develop this group into a cohesive and balanced unit.
by Krotz the Wall on Oct 14, 2010 8:05 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree...
I’m very much done speculating about these players…they are here the season is upon us. Lets just watch!
by Timberwolf i.e. Albatross on Oct 14, 2010 8:13 AM CDT up reply actions
There is only one stat
and that is wins. Allow the games to happen. Obsessing on an individual player’s stats when most are with a new team and all are playing together with this coach for the first time in a league where the other teams have also changed seems to be a folly. If it were so predictive, tell us now what the final stats (all categories) will be at the end of the season. It also sucks vitality out of the games and leads to unnecessary stereotyping. Someone posted yesterday that Pek could probably get 100 pts playing against big Al. How predictive do you think that kind of hype-extrapolation is? Ridnour has played a few good games for us, but the narrative is already don’t enjoy them, because his past history says it can’t continue. How helpful is that? The too good to be true, too bad to be believed storylines are pointless. Let the game come to you. The beauty of sport is that it is unscripted and happening in real time. This team will be better. How could they not be? This team will frustrate its fans at many points this year. All but the very elite NBA teams do. This team will not win in a significant way until they have a go-to superstar. Love is not that player. Rubio is not that player. The Wolves are not alone in that. Only a few teams truly do have that kind of player. Several of the players we would love to have here on our team are, in reality, not that kind of player/leader. Let’s get after it. Expect some entertainment, nothing more. If you’re looking for absolution, the NBA won’t give it to you.
by ogishkemuncie on Oct 14, 2010 8:17 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Re: Pekovic's 100.
I never used the word probably. I merely suggested (emphasis on the “jest”) it could be a possibility. It was hyperbole. I was using an extreme example to point out how effective Pekovic has looked in the low post so far, while at the same time reminding us how indifferent Jefferson was on the defensive end. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to try to get excited about the players we have and to try to downplay the value of the players that we lost in the off-season.
I’m not looking for absolution. I’m looking for entertainment. And good conversation – hyperbole optional.
Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric? That's ridiculous! I would never have traded Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric.
- Sam Cassell on McHale's decisions while running the Timberwolves.
Your posts are always so much fun to read
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
You read that?
"Pinch-bunters don't have a ton of value, even with the Twins"
by Steven Ellingson on Oct 15, 2010 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Inquiring minds want to know, we really do.
Separate HTML editor, which doesn’t give the one here a chance to insert its ideas about styles into the code?
Every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other. – OWH
STOP WRITING THINGS
THAT I EITHER DON’T AGREE WITH OR AM NOT INTERESTED IN!!!!!!!
AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE THOSE THINGS STOP COMING TO MY HOME/OFFICE/BUS STATION MENS ROOM AND PUTTING A GUN TO MY HEAD AND MAKING ME READ THEM!!!!!!
kthxbye
by PoorDick on Oct 14, 2010 8:53 AM CDT reply actions 2 recs
difference of opinion is great...
It’s the only thing that makes these blogs interesting.
Being a contrarian just for contrarian sake wears a bit thin.
I’ll admit it, I am a little irked by SNP’s latest rants. I am utterly confused how someone that cares enough about this team to maintain a blog dedicated to it, could suddenly turn so negative now that we’ve clearly turned a very big corner.
Just joshin'
and making sure the cap-lock key still works before the warranty expires (I bought an extended warranty on just the cap-lock key, since it always seems to be the first thing that wears out).
I see both sides (because I am Solomonic in my wisdom), but you have to admit: it’s preseason, most of these guys on the team aren’t currently considered quality starters, much less so for a productive team, and none of them has been the go-to guy on a good team. And if we’re going to get juiced up about how good they’ve looked in the first three preseason games, we also have to get morbidly depressed about last night’s game against the Pacers.
All true...
But do we really need to entertain the possibility that the following are not obviously true:
Beasley > Gomes
Webster> Brewer
Johnson> Pav/Wilkins
Ridnour> Sessions
Pek > any back up center this team has ever had
2 future firsts + cap space > overpaying Al Jefferson to kill our offensive flow and allow opposing big men to score 150% of their season avg.
Sure, it’s possible that we could have made even bigger and better moves this offseason, but personally I just want to enjoy what we’ve accomplished for a bit.
by DougW on Oct 14, 2010 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
I'm not sure all of those are obviously true
but I’m fairly sure that Jefferson > No Jefferson is true. Actually, I’m not 100% sure that’s true either, now that I think of it.
The point is, after a couple of pre-season weeks, I’m not willing to assert anything about the quality of this team. It would be hard to be worse than last year’s squad, but that’s hardly the basis for excitement; rather, as SnP has pointed out, it’s an indictment of last year’s team, from ownership down to ball boy.
I’m not trying to rain on anyone’s parade (well, no more than usual). If you are feeling optimistic, go with god. But I’m not there, and I don’t feel bad about saying so.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Oct 14, 2010 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah--
DougW and I co-chaired the “Trade Al Jefferson” committee (he still owes me 8 bucks for his share of the promotional fly swatters we printed up), but my motivation was more about the financial stupidity of paying him 50 million while the team remained in the lottery for the next three years.
I think if there is one reason to think this team might be almost as bad this year as they were last year, it’s that they don’t have him working off the left block mano a mano to get an as-sure-as-possible bucket to keep the game close.
Now, I’ll certainly say that Beasley could take up that slack, and maybe Pek and Darko will improve the defense, and Love will pass better, and Ridnour seems to be a short-term improvement over Flynn, and the wings are longer, and Rambis may actually try to win games this year.
But I’ll believe “we’ve clearly turned a very big corner” when I see it in a game that actually counts.
you guys are the spurned lover, afraid to open their heart for fear of getting hurt again.
Let love in boys :)
I will say
that I think it’s time to let any beef about SnP’s feeling towards the FO go. SnP has repeatedly said that he’s done talking about it, and I think we all need to stop coloring everything else that he says with that hatchet as well.
That’s my personal opinion, anyways, because the questions outlined above are legitimate questions for this team. For the first two years of his NBA career, Beasley’s looked far better at PF than at SF. No need to think SnP is sh$tting on the POBO for that. Same with the points about Ridnour’s career year, Martell Johnson, and Pek. If anything, I think how these answers to these questions develop over the rest of the preseason and the regular season form an interesting framework for evaluating the plan, and more specifically Rambis as a coach.
Here’s where I’m coming from – take Ridnour. Do we need Ridnour’s career year for positive progression at PG on this team? I say not at all. Career Luke (not Last Year Fluke Luke) has proven to be a quality passer (29.7 career assist percentage) and a quality 3 point shooter (career .347 3p%). His career TO% is lower than either Ramon’s or Jonny’s, and for FWIW his career Drtg is also lower than Jonny or Ramon, especially over the past two years. Given his experience in the NBA, I think a good argument can be made that his combination of passing ability, three point shooting, and experience in recognizing NBA defenses/running NBA offenses makes him a noticeable upgrade at the PG position. How noticeable is dependent on whether he’s Career Luke or Fluke Luke.
Similar kinds of developments follow the other guys as well – we know they have the skills/attributes to play at a high level. The question is whether they either can develop their games just a bit more, or whether Rambis can put them in good roles and good schemes to be in position to succeed.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
How many sure buckets
did Al get only to give up one on the other end of the floor? At best he was neutral, at worst he was giving up more than he was putting out for someone that was supposed to be “The Guy”. If he starts to play D in Utah maybe I’ll revise my view of him, but I couldn’t stand how every 30 games he would have one good defensive game and Zgoda would write about how Al thought he had the turned the corner defensively only to go back to normal the next game.
It'll be a wash...or worse
unless the current team, who don’t have a “sure bucket” to get from Al anymore, can find someone else to rely on for offense and can exhibit better defense. Neither of those things has been established yet. I’d hold off on your self congratulations over the loss of Jefferson.
by ogishkemuncie on Oct 14, 2010 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions
As the Founder and CEO...
of the “You guys are idiots for thinking Kevin Love is half the player that Al Jefferson is” organization (also its sole shareholder, and entire customer base), I’m one-part intrigued and another part skeptical, about the new team.
They added wings! One via trade, who was starting-caliber for our arch-nemisis and bully, the Portland Trailblazers. Another via draft lottery, who has the size and ability that Foye and McCants did not.
My worry for this team is the lack of go-to guy. I came away from Tuesday’s game feeling pretty good about Beasley. He looked big, strong, athletic and very talented. His shooting percentage didn’t show how easily he was getting his jumper off, and how so many of them caught “back iron.” His 21 could have been 26 on many other nights.
But yeah, he hasn’t shown that ability, through two seasons. Love cannot be a primary option. He needs to be passed the ball, when left open. That requires a defender to feel the need to leave him to double somebody else. Or a dribble penetrator to start a series of defensive rotations. My question for this team: who gets the defense off balance? One way is for Ridnour to push it end-line to end-line, ala Steve Nash. Maybe he can do that with some consistency. Or, maybe Beasley can be a matchup nightmare for small forwards. I don’t know. His remarks in the Strib suggest that SF isn’t too comfortable to him — at least on defense.
Jefferson drew double teams. Nobody disputes that. It didn’t lead to many wins, but he was the rare post player that could not be guarded by one player. Either Johnson/Beasley need to show a dribble-penetration game or Ridnour needs to become Nash-lite. If neither happens, I think Vegas (as posted by someone yesterday—don’t know if this is accurate or not) will be close to correct, as they usually are, with that 21.5 wins over/under.
If the Wolves win less than 25 games, it’ll be hard for anyone on this blog to feel optimistic. Well, except for that window between Game #82 and the Draft Lottery. That’s always a sunny season, around here…
It may be one of those things
Where Jefferson, despite his many flaws, could’ve been a major asset to this team. Surround him with talented wings and a strong post defender in addition to competent PG play, and we may have had something there. We’ll never know, obviously, but it’s not a given that it would’ve failed – I think we’d have been a middling team with that formula, which obviously isn’t a given with the current roster either.
However, we were in such a position that it would have been difficult to try and do such things with that roster and those contracts. The risk/reward ratio in tooling the roster that way would have been no better than the current one, IMO. I think it’s easier to move the biggest contract and most ill-fitting player for the “plan” than it is to plan the team around said player’s very specific needs.
Though what we got for Al was definitely not worth his market price, I do prefer the flexibility of talented young players on small contracts and a large amount of cap space to a roster with an 8-figure contract attached to a talented but flawed player whom is still recovering from a leg injury.
If the roster and cap situations were more conducive to keeping Al, I would’ve had no problem with keeping him. The FO did paint themselves into a corner in some ways, but I think that this was the best course of action after all of those costs were sunk.
Roster & Cap
This is not my expertise by any stretch, but why would it have been so difficult to keep Al Jefferson, and continue to assemble an improving roster? Why can’t the roster, in a few years, look something like:
Rubio/Ridnour
Webster
Johnson
Jefferson/Love
Milicic/Jefferson
plus, next year’s lottery pick, which would probably be a Top-8 Pick even had we kept Jefferson.
Which player of that list cannot stay here, due to Jefferson’s deal? He turns 30 in 4 years… If we’re not a strong playoff team by then, we will have a new President of Basketball Operations and a new REBUILDING plan, rendering Kahn’s attempt futile. If that happens, we could have simply let Jefferson go when his contract was up.
Right...
and this is probably key, here.
As a fan who pays to follow this team, though, I don’t applaud any “cheap” tactics of ownership, even if I understand them. Taylor’s financial savings just don’t excite me, much.
well
the additional cap space that Jefferson represents prevents the team from making any trades that rely on “max salary” cap space. If the wolves need $12 in cap space to wing a deal with Philly to get Iggy, they can’t do that with Jefferson on the roster. I use Iggy only as an example here.
But cap space is why you trade Jefferson. Cap space allows you the opportunity to make some trades you would not otherwise be able to make. You can also rent it out for draft picks, etc. as Presti has done in OKC.
Is cap space more valuable than Al Jefferson? I say yes if you want to go deep in the playoffs (eventually).
never follow a hippy to a second location
by littleboxes on Oct 14, 2010 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
If you accept no arguments based on cap space at all,
then clearly the Jefferson deal would lose a huge weight on one side of the scale. Kahn explained the trade itself in terms of cap space and getting Love and Beasley time to develop:
The Wolves now are believed to have around $40 million on their salary cap, more than $25 million below this season’s $58 million cap. He says that kind of space will allow the team “manifold opportunities to add a player or players to our team” before the start of the season, at next February’s trading deadline or next summer.
Every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other. – OWH
Agree with littleboxes
Cap space is key.
And cap space is the element that lets us play chess instead of checkers, to think the game out several moves in advance.
Otherwise, it’s like trading baseball cards — this guy for that guy. To gain flexibility and take advantage of other teams predicaments, you need cap space, and you need to be patient.
I think defense
could still overcome the lack of shot creation on our way to the upper range of predicted wins (say, high 20s to low 30s). With some of the size and athleticism we’ve brought in, Rambis has very few excuses when it comes to fielding a competent defensive team. I by no means expect us to be elite, but I feel like we have the size and mobility now to get after people and challenge more shots.
Funny enough, Jonny Flynn may be the best talent on our roster in terms of shot creating and putting pressure on the defense. Unfortunately we don’t play a style of ball conducive to his skill-sets and the decision making he displayed last year was pretty horrible.
by Rascal Flatts on Oct 14, 2010 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions
I was going to bring up Jonny
in terms of creating his own shot in crunch time, I think Jonny is the best guy right now on the team. He’s aggressive, fast, strong, and most importantly has the attitude and mentality for it if Rambis will let him.
To be perfectly honest, though, I don’t know if I have a good enough feel for what his skillsets are after last year to know whether or not we play a style of ball conducive to Jonny or not. For example, I didn’t think Jonny was as good a three point shooter as he turned out to be. And he turned out, despite everything, to be pretty decent at dishing (24.7 assist percentage, which was better than Ramon’s). He looked hella confused or like a fish out of water most of the time last year, yet there always seems to be optimism about him (not from us, but other opposing players and coaches almost always talk about him in positive terms). Maybe it’s lip service, maybe not. Maybe this running style with more quick passing (or perhaps more to the point, passing between guys who are much better at getting themselves spaced correctly) will make all the difference in the world. Jonny may not be preternaturally gifted at passing the ball when looking into a pile of muck out there, but when all the other guys are a lot better at knowing where to be when, it kind of makes passing a lot easier (there’s less to recognize – you just pass it there because that’s where the guy is). Long story short, I don’t know if I know what we have in Jonny, and I’m willing to concede that he might surprise me as a PG yet, and that he still is probably the best go-to scorer on the team right now. Well, him and Pek.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
Assist percentages, a scattershot sampling across the league range last year
And he turned out, despite everything, to be pretty decent at dishing (24.7 assist percentage, which was better than Ramon’s).
Rajon Rondo: 43.7% (Nash, CP3, and Deron W. were all slightly better)
LeBron: 41.8
Darren Collison: 32.9
Brandon Jennings: 29.6
Tyreke Evans: 26.1
Mo Williams: 25.0
Flynn: 24.7
Stephen Curry: 24.6
Ty Lawson: 24.2
Sessions: 23.3(*)
Randy Foye: 22.6
Hinrich: 20.5
Turkoglu: 19.5
Tim Duncan: 17.8
(*) However, Sessions the previous year in Skiles’s system: 34.6%
And the year before that, as a rookie: 43.5%
There is a big question about Rambis’s offense inherent in our PG assist rates. Sessions and his assist rate last year, especially, seem like the system may well have been messing with his production.
Every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other. – OWH
Yes
his system seems friendly to slashing wings, but not slashing, dribble-drive PGs. I think one of the problems is we play in a system where there are always at least two of our bigs between the low and high post, meaning there are four big men clogging up the middle. There isn’t a whole lot of room for a little, quick guy like Flynn to get into the paint and get his shot off. I liken his skill-set to Aaron Brooks, but it seems like Brooks has a ton more room to work with because they will pull four or five guys out of the middle.
by Rascal Flatts on Oct 14, 2010 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions
When Big Al was interviewed shortly after the trade
He made it sound almost as though this was a mutual thing. Kahn wanted to move him, and he wanted to go.
People assume Big Al would have gladly stayed. He may well have demanded a trade to a contender last May for all we know.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Oct 14, 2010 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions
If Al wanted to go
it was probably due to the lack of love he was getting around Minnesota. This blog is an example. His low post skills were discounted by management and fans. People couldn’t wait to rid themselves of Al because he didn’t fit the “system”. Well now we have a whole new set of potential problems with players and the “system”. They have been mentioned here. You got your wish. Al is gone. Love remains. We could have built a successful team around Al, but chose to go a different way. I hope it works out.
by ogishkemuncie on Oct 14, 2010 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Big Al may be on some successful teams
but no successful team will ever be built around Al.
What lack of love, everyone loved Al especially when he first got here?
I think most acknowledge the fact that you can’t build a team around someone so flawed and perceived Love as the better basketball player, which he is, not just who is the better low post player. They both play the same position so they had to make a decision, imo, and they chose Love.
I would agree here...
… with the possible exception of the last entry. (Although I think Ridnour’s decent perimeter shooting makes it pretty likely, just not as ‘obvious’.) I’m not trying to be a homer, either, I just think that there are some clear, intriguing improvements being made before our eyes. The guy who made most of it happen comes across like a big douche much of the time, but he at least has found some ballplayers to fill our uniforms. And he didn’t blow all (or many) of our assets. Kahn has blown a few things (Curry), but he’s not spending like crazy, he’s not after quick fixes, and he’s planted a decent collection of young talent in Minnesota that can be thinned as the strongest shoots grow at little taller. I’ll give him some props. Not mad ones, but props.
by TheH on Oct 14, 2010 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I do question
" How We’ve turned a corner". It should be noted that the 2008-2009 Wolves went 6-2 in the Preseason.
by Jose Cordoba on Oct 14, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
SNP's concerns seem reasonable
…and they are mostly ones I share.
It’s the pre-season what else is he supposed to write?
By the way, I am in the “Kahn has made some very nice moves, Kahn has made some really poor moves” camp. Seems like it is becoming important to identify camps on here. )
I love lamp.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Oct 14, 2010 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Do you really love the lamp?
Or are you just saying that?
Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric? That's ridiculous! I would never have traded Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric.
- Sam Cassell on McHale's decisions while running the Timberwolves.
You don't know what you're talking about.
What you love is light. The light is coming from the bulb, not the lamp itself. The lamp’s just a middleman in terms of what you want.
If you sink all your cap space into lamps, you’ll never be able to afford a good bulb. It’s important to show some discipline.
Every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other. – OWH
This is more like it...
But I think some of this assumes that Rambis should be and is using conventional wisdom. For example, at this point, I think it’s much more realistic to want Webster to be able to score inside off cuts and move well without the ball and Johnson to start knocking down shots with a hand in his face than it is to worry about them becoming iso players. With Beasley, the question is can he guard 3s and can he and Love take advantage of the one being guarded by a shorter or smaller player much moreso than his lack of experience over there.
I’d also disagree about Euro adjustment periods. Time and again, international players have contributed to NBA rotations in their first year on teams better than the Wolves will likely be (Divac, Kukoc, Stojakovic, Marciulonis, Ginobili). It’s at the very least a mixed bag.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Oct 14, 2010 9:14 AM CDT reply actions
Even Big Z contributed pretty well once his feet were all right,
and he’d been struggling to even get onto the court, so he’d have been rusty in theory.
Every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other. – OWH
I'll go a step further
And say that it’s better to get an international player who hasn’t gone to a U.S. college than to get one who has. Thinking of Ilgauskas, he was drafted in the 1st round by the Cavs, who also took a Euro from a U.S. college (Vitaly Potapenko) in the same round (I think earlier than Ilgauskas).
by pagingstanleyroberts on Oct 14, 2010 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not sure of all the player development models we're talking about, here.
We’re probably not making distinctions we should among the various European league models.
Even for US players, does anyone seriously think the NCAA is the best way to develop young basketball talent, though? I can imagine arguments about how few players go on to the pros and their overall life development that would go either way, but in terms of nurturing young talent on the court?
Nikola Pekovic started his pro career on the Budućnost Podgorica club’s junior team in 2002, at the age of something like 16.
Every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other. – OWH
Of all of these questions, I think Beasley is the most important
I was not a huge fan of the trade for Beasley when it happened. I thought that the argument that there was no risk because they gave up so little to get him was wrong. My basic position was that there was significant cost to that acquisition: opportunity cost in terms of what else they might have done at that position, and time cost, in that if you make that deal, you are committing to at least a full season of playing Beasley heavy minutes regardless of how it’s working.
Frankly, I still feel that way, though of course it goes without saying that I could be wrong; I usually am.
But…it seems to me that we are hoping that Beasley helps the Wolves by being a volume scorer, while recognizing that he’s likely to be relatively inefficient. Realistically, if he isn’t scoring, he isn’t helping. He isn’t going to be a great defensive player, he isn’t going to be a terrific rebounder, passer, or glue guy. The question is whether he’s able to establish any level of consistency and efficiency. I don’t have a lot of confidence that he can, and I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence that he will.
I don’t have a lot of confidence because what is happening here is that the Wolves are giving him a bigger role than he ever had before, on the offensive end. They are hoping he becomes that number one option. But in the usual course of things, guys get bigger roles when they outgrow their lesser role. Beasley didn’t do that. He didn’t really thrive as a 2nd or 3rd option, so why would he be better in a more central, pressurized role? I get the counter argument: if you give him more opportunities, he might blossom, and that certainly COULD be true. But I’m not expecting it. I’m expecting him to score, be inefficient, and not do much else. I still don’t see him as the central offensive guy on a winning team.
Proving me wrong is the biggest question of this season, in my mind.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Oct 14, 2010 9:27 AM CDT reply actions
Fair enough
From the optimistic POV, there are numerous examples of players who had to move on into the right situation before they thrived. Sometimes guys end up with an incompatible philosophy or coach, and then do well with a different (not necessarily better) one. Or they need to grow up or whatever.
Of all of the current players, I hope Rambis gives Beasley (as long as he’s playing hard) the longest least to find himself and figure out what kind of scorer he can be. I personally think he’s going to go through some growing pains, but by seasons end will turn the corner.
I think Rambis is definitely giving him a long leash, so far at least
He has been committted to trying Beasley at the 3 from Day One, which a lot of us were hoping he would do, and he’s tolerated his quick trigger and turnovers. To your point, I think as long as Rambis sees effort from Beasley, he will have a very long leash. It will take a lot of bad shooting nights before Rambis swaps out Beasley as our starting 3.
by Rascal Flatts on Oct 14, 2010 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Webster
Couldn’t much of this also apply to Webster?
the Wolves are giving him a bigger role than he ever had before
and
guys get bigger roles when they outgrow their lesser role. Beasley(Webster) didn’t do that.He didn’t really thrive as a 2nd or 3rd option, so why would he be better in a more central, pressurized role?
Now I get that Webster will probably show a better defensive presence that Beasley, but why am I so optimistic that Webster is going to play great this year given bigger minutes and yet not so much with Beasley? While they are nearly the same age, Webster has played twice as many seasons. What do I keep thinking that Webster is finally going to pan out, and think that Beasley is going to be maddeningly inconsistent.
All this to say, I think I am maintaining a double standard for these guys and yet I can’t shake the feeling that somehow Webster will be the keeper and Beasley isn’t a long-term solution.
by Cedarpenguin on Oct 14, 2010 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions
Unfortunately
Both may pan out as maddeningly inconsistent on offense…..That was the rap against Webster while in Portland.
by Rascal Flatts on Oct 14, 2010 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions
When you're solid as a rock on defense, you can stay out there though.
Webster has that going for him.
Every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other. – OWH
Agree
and that’s why I think he should start. But I’m not buying the whole untapped potential thing in terms of Webster’s offense. I think he will score more due to pace and opportunity. But I don’t think he’s going to be a “go-to” type of weapon that can get to the free throw line at will when his shot isn’t falling.
by Rascal Flatts on Oct 14, 2010 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah.
That’s why I’m a little confused by some of the arguments to bring Webster off the bench so he can be the go-to scorer for the second unit.
Huh? Seems to me like he’s waaay better suited to the defense/complementary offense role that would come with starting alongside Beasley and Love.
I agree
I think Flynn and Pekovic can give us a decent offensive spark off the bench. Webster has never struck me as an instant offense kind of guy. And in fact, Kahn didn’t bill him this way when we made the trade. He billed him as a guy needing minutes and early shots to get into the flow of a game. Doesn’t that have “starter” written all over it?
by Rascal Flatts on Oct 14, 2010 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions
I think between Flynn, Wes and Pek
there is more than enough scoring on the second unit. Considering only Pek needs to be in or around the paint and even he can set a pick (even if it ocassionally moves). that should be alot of open space for Flynn to actually drive into.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 14, 2010 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Three strikes and you're out
Brewer just had his three starts. He struck out. Hopefully Webster is next up as the starting SG, and stays there.
You're talking about "opportunity cost" with regards to THIS team?
Did you see who Kahn brought in when free agency started? Which begs another question if Beasley cost them so much “opportunity”, where was it or what was it? It’s one thing to say Michael Beasley cost us Lebron, it’s another thing to say he cost us, hmmm, I don’t know, Amir Johnson? We gave up nothing for the guy. I think this is more personal between you and Beas— what did he do to you steal your girlfriend?
Playing time is the biggest opportunity cost.
Without Beasley, we could give Wes and Webster (and others down the bench) more playing time to develop. It is a little strange to see a terrible team have its top pick crowded out of the starting lineup (which I assume will happen to Wes).
by Madison Dan on Oct 14, 2010 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions
There's plenty of minutes
For Wes. And it may be a blessing in disguise that he doesn’t have to come in and be the savior of the franchise. Much less pressure on him.
The guys he’s taking minutes from are Brewer and Hayward. I can live with that.
Not to mention any potential PT logjam with Love, should Beasley not work out at the three.
Every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other. – OWH
Maybe you can't determine who's deserving of minutes
and who is not, but a number 2 pick who wasn’t even that bad his first two years in the league is someone I’m okay with taking minutes from Wes and Webster, if he’s even doing that. If anything it’s a trickle down thing and Brewer’s getting less minutes, which as much as I like him, is probably better from the team perspective.
Us
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 14, 2010 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Them
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 14, 2010 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Also acceptable
would have been: I… Me… Mine
I'm a glass half full guy
I see the potential in this team.
The preseason shows the potential. This is an exciting young team. I’m gonna root for it to be an exciting young team, fun to watch, until proven wrong — which will take at least half a season.
Why should I be dour until then?
We can choose to be “prove it to me” naysayers, or we can be positive.
It’s all in our attitude. I’m a glass half full guy, you guys can be whatever you want to be.
i’m gonna enjoy the season.
Good luck to us all, regardless of our attitudes: dour, sour or flower.
I concur
It’s going to be fun. As long as the effort is there, I’m going to have no gripes with this team for the whole season (or two).
In this modern age of instant gratification, it really is unique and fun to watch a young team given a chance to grow and mature and excel together.
I remember with KG & Marbury, those couple of seasons were some of the most fun teams I ever watched because there was no pressure, just the fun of talented kids playing together.
I’m hoping these next few years will be just like that.
I think it's only the biggest question...
If one subscribes to the theory that a team can’t be successful without a volume scorer, however inefficient they are. Theoretically, if Beasley becomes a taller and bigger version of Jonny Flynn, there are ways to work around that and still win games. This team is going to be most successful if the system accentuates players’ strengths and minimizes their weakness, like any other team. Whether or not they can create an advantage by playing uptempo is a much bigger concern than any one player.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Oct 14, 2010 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Not at all
My point was that what the team needs is for Beasley to be a primary scorer without being too inefficient (true efficiency is probably beyond him). If he scores but is too inefficient, it isn’t going to help. If he doesn’t score a lot, what is his purpose? He’ll be taking up minutes that aren’t doing any good, since he isn’t going to defend well.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Oct 14, 2010 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions
A lot of primary scorers are inefficient.
There are only a select few that are not. He is the only guy that can get his. Let him learn when to shoot or not to shoot.
Right...
There are some positive externalities to the “inefficient volume scorer.” Depending on how they go about getting their “volume scoring,” they might draw fouls and energy from the other team’s best defender, and sometimes the other team’s best scorer. They might command double teams, leaving others open for shots. They might draw help defense on shots in the paint, leaving the weakside rebound open for a teammate.
It’s awesome if you can have LeBron being efficient while putting up volume. But, a team needs high scoring volume and that usually means 1 or 2 of its players need to take on that role, to a degree. The example that sticks out to me of a team that had no volume scorer was the 2008-09 Wolves, after Jefferson went down. The offense was free-flowing, with tons of passes and player movement. Nobody had the talent or mindset of a primary scorer and it was the worst pro basketball I’ve seen. Last year wasn’t much better, with Jefferson dinged up and worse backcourt talent than the year before.
Sure, but it's a continuum, right?
Or 2 axis’; how much can you score, and how (in)efficient are you? I defended Iverson for years for exactly the reasons you cite—someone has to score, and he drove that club.
If you can score 30 a night, even somewhat inefficiently, that’s valuable. But at some point along the arc, it ceases being a positive. If you are too inefficient, or if you can’t score enough even being somewhat inefficient, you aren’t helping. I don’t see Beasley as capable of getting 30 a night regardless of how much inefficiency Rambis is willing to tolerate; and if he’s only getting 18 a night inefficiently…
My point is, Beasley is going to help if he’s on the positive side of that axis, but I have grave doubts that he’ll be able to do so.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Oct 14, 2010 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes
Good points. I guess I was trying to make the point that every team needs a go-to guy, or a few of them even. If nobody can create offensive opportunities, whether it be their own shot or shots for others, it’s going to be a struggle.
The more volume that Beasley can get at average efficiency, the better. I hope that if he’s given a situation closer to what Durant entered in Seattle he can start to justify the hype surrounding his awesome college production, like KD did and has continued to do.
Do I think that’s going to happen? Not necessarily. I’m still trying to figure out if he’s too big for small forward. He looked noticeably bigger than Melo, which is pushing the limits of the 3-spot.
in order for beasley to have a chance of succeeding via scoring
he would have to be very aggressive in taking it to the hole and creating contact to get sent to the line. You can be less efficient as a shooting team if your style predicates getting contact and sent to the line (where you should be a much better shooting team) which should increase your PPP to an above average level.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 14, 2010 8:01 PM CDT up reply actions
I tend to think that people are talking about getting to the line
when talking about efficiency. So, eFG% instead of just plain FG%.
"Pinch-bunters don't have a ton of value, even with the Twins"
by Steven Ellingson on Oct 15, 2010 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions
getting an and 1
or getting to shoot your two from the line instead of in game action should improve your average points per possession, which is really what your offense comes down to. I could almost care less about efg% except for the fact that it at least partially incorporates that element.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 15, 2010 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions
To be technical about it
if we’re talking about getting to the line, it’s TS% that we are talking about. Not saying you aren’t aware, but I know it was confusing for me starting out so let me take a brief second to explain kind of (I won’t bother with the math):
eFG% (effective field goal%): takes your field goal percentage and weights it in terms of 2s and 3s taken. So if you’ve never made a 3, your eFG% would be the exact same as your FG%.
TS% (True Shooting%): In addition to 3s, it adds free throws to the equation as well. It is possible to have a TS% that is actually lower than your FG% (look at some truly awful FT shooters, and I’m not even talking Shaq or Howard bad, worse than that). Generally though, your TS% will be the highest with eFG and FG coming in second and third, respectively. This is the main argument for Corey Maggette being a great player. He is extremely efficient according to TS%.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
Thank you
Now for the next hour or two I’ll have a better clue what you people are commenting about.
If neuroscientists could map how this information exits my brain, I’m sure they could find a cure for lots of stuff.
Faking sanity in a world run by crazy people.
That's revisionist history to an extent
That team wasn’t necessarily great at passing, nor did they have guys capable of making outside shots (Miller could, but Dr. James Naismith came to him in a dream and told him not to). They relied a lot more on rebounding than ball movement. Plus, that group just seriously lacked talent and height and athleticism. Their two best inside players were 6-8 and 6-5 (the Rhino), and they often started together. This team at least has height and athleticism along with as good if not better shooters (considering Miller’s reluctance, Foye’s injuries, and McCants’ self-combustion).
by pagingstanleyroberts on Oct 14, 2010 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions
They really lacked talent...
which is kind of my point. “Talent” involves skills and athleticism… being able to make plays. Once Jefferson went down, we had none of that. It’s not revisionist to remember how crappy it was to have a never-ending cycle of “penetrate and kick,” with nobody who could finish.
This team has more height and athleticism at every spot except power forward. But, the question remains whether anybody can create offense, and we’ll have to wait and see for that answer.
I'm not sure your heading, or your first sentence, are all that true.
An actual argument on this particular point would be interesting, with emphasis on the career arcs of various lead scorers. Do they start out chucking it up there because of their raw talent, and learn to choose their spots better?
We don’t know unless we actually ask the question and find out, though. It’s not obviously true.
Every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other. – OWH
Here's a link:
True Shooting % of active players w/career scoring averages of 17.5 ppg or higher. It indicates a few things:
- 52% is really the bare minimum that should be accepted from a perimeter player or a perimeter-oriented big (Antawn Jamison as the prime example)
- Iverson was more efficient as time went on, with or without Carmelo Anthony
- When comparing Beasley to other 3/4s or 4/3s, Jamison had some hot and some cold years, Anthony was better at 21-23 than any other time, KG became more efficient through age and has been most efficient since the start of the ‘05 season, Abdur-Rahim had a better TS% compared to other players than he did an eFG% (indicating a reliance on FTs), LeBron’s improved with time, Granger’s been consistent, and Nowitzki’s been near the top due to his outside shot.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Oct 14, 2010 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Heh. We did some of the same searching.
Whatever measure we’re using, I’m pretty skeptical about the original assertion here. Teams don’t tend to run off players who are inefficient volume scorers, or not for long anyway. And winning teams? The last two years of Monta Ellis do not drive playoff contenders. Those sorts of players tend to move around, even when they’re franchise-defining stars like Iverson.
The difference between how people place on the ordered scoring% lists and how they rank in simple [FGA/time] might be a simple, telling number. Kobe and Iverson both take just about 19 shots, adjusted for 36 to be handy. Kobe’s still in the middle of the efficiency rankings. Not so The Answer.
Rankings:
Bryant: TS%17th, FGA/time 2nd (t)
Iverson TS%38th (last on our list), FGA/time 1st <– I, um, see a contrast in these rankings.
’Melo TS%27th FGA/time 2nd (t)
D. RoseTS%35th FGA/time 19th
Howard TS%2nd FGA/time 38th (last by almost 3/36 min. FTA, anyone?)
The “over time” exercise starts to get rocky and hard to make a clear argument about. (KG after 2005 is spending almost no time as a SF (according to 82 games); by then he’d become a 4 and occasional 5. He’s still the type, though.)
Thinking about Beasley, I instinctively look for the first, second, third year arc for players who seem a bit “on the bubble” when we’re talking about efficiency. Whatever position they’re in, do they step up their efficiency over time? Take more shots? Smarter ones?
Monta Ellis, like so many Don Nelson charges before him, sort of lost his mind in year three of the relationship and starting chucking it up indiscriminately. His first three years, though, he was learning.
OJ Mayo’s changing role, refinement of his attempts:
Yr1: 14.8 FGA/36, TS% .539, eFG% .495, USG% 24.5
Yr2: 13.7 FGA/36, TS% .551 , eFG% .516 , USG% 20.7
(I always want to compare Mayo to Hersey Hawkins, who seems like a similar player. Their usage went in opposite directions from year 1 to year 2, but their shooting numbers basically keep decent company. Similarly smart players with similar limitations.)
Non-volume-scoring 3/4 type: Josh Smith has been heading in the opposite direction positionally, from the SF to the PF, over time. He played more 2 than 4 his rookie year. More the KG thing. In terms of his shooting numbers, his eFG and TS are basically flat for his first three years. But then Josh isn’t a chucker. (I would love to watch a Smith grow with my team.)
Every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other. – OWH
The thing about Smith
is that he basically gave up on attempting threes last year. Dude’s a career .266 three point shooter, and prior to last year averaged between 1.2 and 2.1 3PAs for the previous four seasons. What is remarkable is how little that one move affected his other numbers. If you compare his last two seasons against each other, he basically attempts the identical number of shots a game, makes the identical number of shots, plays the identical number of minutes, attempts and makes the identical number of free throws, and scores the identical amount of points (basically). His TS% and efg% are basically the same. The only place where he seems noticeably different is that he dished a lot more last year (perhaps instead of jacking a three he looked to move the ball?), and his Offensive WS was easily the best of his career (4.2 vs. 1.3 the previous year, which had been his career high). Consequently his WS/48 jumped from .097 to .155.
I’m not sure what all to make of this other than the sort of nebulous observation/open question that ‘being more efficient’ (or in Smith’s case, simply not taking bad shots) impacts the game but not always the box score. As we’ve seen, his stats (advanced or otherwise) basically stay exactly the same, with the exception of his assist/game going up. However, at least according to WS, Smith became a much more valuable and productive offensive player last despite his metrics seemingly staying the same. I don’t know enough about how WS is calculated to hazard a guess as to why a guy’s numbers can basically stay the same for two years but be significantly more valuable one of those years, but I do think it bodes well for Beasley to focus more on driving to the rim and racking up FTAs than it does settling for 3PAs.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Oct 15, 2010 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions
5, 7, 10, 4
Those are the number of FTAs for Beasley for each pre-season game. Not bad considering he didn’t play more than 25 minutes. Of course it is pre-season and the refs might just be real tight with the whistles in order to help set the expectations for the regular season. It seems like last year we got to the line a lot in pre-season too…..
by Rascal Flatts on Oct 15, 2010 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Funny enough
your main question also applied to Jefferson.
I’m mostly referring to this gem:
Realistically, if he isn’t scoring, he isn’t helping
I remember hearing that a lot last year. And I agree and disagree to extents. I guess if we can play Beasley at the 3, I think he is adding more. He rebounds pretty well for a 3, whereas he hurts our rebounding as a 4. He’ll probably be a decent shot creator if he can learn to decipher between pass and shot drives. He’s definitely got that Jefferson ability to demand a double team. But I prefer Beasley’s style of demanding doubles. It’s usually done on drives. Drawing the extra man in to help. This way he has to leave his man who is already close to the basket. Jefferson’s issue was mostly that the open man from his double team came from the perimeter… we didn’t really have anyone to take advantage of that. And he was really bad at passing to the other big when doubled by both bigs.
Which leads me to:
I doubt anyone remembers, but I was pretty far on the side of “Trade Al” most of last season, but I quickly changed my tune around the time they actually traded him. If we pass on DMC and pick up a bunch of shooters, why not keep Al around until the deadline next year? I guess I understand why (that PT opportunity cost, yes?), but couldn’t we have gotten a better package for Big Al when we were sporting a .300-.400 win record and when he was racking up some assists to at least answer one of his many question marks? On a side note, I don’t think I’ve ever ended a sentence with question mark, followed by an actual question mark. Anyways, trade him when the Western conference race is tight. People will overpay then (or at least more so, more than one bidder at least), as much to help their team as it is to not help their main competition. So while I’m happy Big Al is gone and I think it will help the team in the long run, I still think it could have helped us more in the long run by keeping him around for 20 more games. Once again, especially if we pass on DMC. I guess the risk is that he gets injured though… so maybe that’s too much of a risk from Glen’s perspective.
Back to Beasley:
I guess I think he adds more to a team than his scoring… or maybe takes less away from a team than Al does if he isn’t scoring. Al was a tremendous rebounder, but what was he doing if not scoring besides that? Just bleeding points. No help defense AND no man defense. Not a good combo. While Beasley is no world beater in this regard, you can tell he is more apt to put forth the effort. He wants to make this his team and he’s doing an ok job at it. It was already Jefferson’s team and he was killing any sort of defensive culture we were trying to make. So I guess what he is adding when not scoring is a) a threat to score from anywhere on the court b) better leadership (and some entertaining side stories and in-game comedy) c) average rebounding and assisting and the biggest difference: d) the lesser of the two evils of point bleeding. One last thing to note: He fits the system better, no matter what position he is playing. Jefferson was slow. As bad as people say Love is at running the break, I get the feeling that Jefferson isn’t even close.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
As far as the timing of the Al trade, a few simple things:
All that “mutually beneficial” stuff Kahn said, whether or not Al actually was asking to move on, does make you wonder how bad the “chemistry” would have gotten over the course of a season. You’ve still got the same “He’s our big money guy, we’ve gotta start him” sort of dynamic that was there all last year, if he’s on the roster now. How long does one need to ride along starting the guy in order to maintain his value, at the expense of where you think you’re going with the team?
And speaking of said team destination, I still think Rambis went into this offseason thinking…. Well, thinking the way the Presspatch described it after their Glen Taylor interview:
Rambis had no problem with the effort. But he needed players who played his style, which is passing and defense. So immediately after the season, he went to president of basketball operations David Kahn and requested (a) different type of players.
And finally, I’m not sure the lockout doesn’t put a damper on any deadline-type trades by contenders for players with another couple of years at big money. Granted, Al’s not lugging around the sort of contract length that teams just willingly took on in free agency. He’s still no expiring, though. It may be that front offices would hesitate to add someone who isn’t basically expiring, at that point. The salary might be a drag on his tradeability.
Every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other. – OWH
by feral on Oct 15, 2010 8:13 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah there are definitely a lot of issues
that we don’t have enough information on to determine if he made the decision at the right time or not. It’s also why I try not to dwell on that one too much because I do like straight cap space for a team struggling to get out of the red.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
What kind of better package could we get?
There are only a handful of teams that had multiple first round draft picks they could offer us without us being guaranteed to wait until the 2013 draft to get the second one:
Chicago (Charlotte’s 2012 pick), Houston (New York’s 2012 pick), LA Clippers (Minnesota 2011 pick), New Jersey (Golden State’s 2012 pick), Oklahoma City (LA Clippers’ 2012 pick), Toronto (Miami’s 2011 pick), Utah (Memphis’ 2011 pick).
Bear in mind the only means of a team sending their own next two draft picks is to have one of the picks be a swap – however, we can’t do this because we owe a pick to the Clippers. So if we want multiple first round draft picks in the short term, we can only deal with those few teams. Factor in the complete unlikelihood of Chicago, LA Clippers, and New Jersey wanting to bring in Jefferson (because of their recent acquisitions of Boozer, Griffin, and Favors, respectively – yes, New Jersey did later trade for Troy Murphy but his contract expires after this year so he won’t really get in the way of Favors’ development like 2 additional years of Jefferson would), and now you’re down to just Houston, Oklahoma City, Toronto, and Utah.
Out of those teams, Houston has probably the most interesting draft picks. However, they just drafted Patrick Patterson. They also were over the cap so we would have been required to take back roughly equal salary, meaning we wouldn’t have as much cap space to try to work another trade.
Oklahoma City will most likely have a lesser pick than Houston. They do have some needs in the front court though. But Jefferson’s glaring weakness as a defender makes him a pretty bad fit for that team which is built around team defense. All told, I doubt Sam Presti would make a better offer for Jefferson than the one we got from Utah.
Toronto is in rebuilding mode. They aren’t going to want to take on Jefferson right now. Not when they can use the Bosh trade exception to acquire the same kind of assets we’re looking to get with Jefferson.
That leaves us with Utah. They offered us picks that could be immediately useful. They offered us more cap space. And possibly more importantly than anything else, they offered us time. They were willing to make the trade immediately instead of making us wait until the deadline. Which allows us to give Jefferson’s playing time to other guys who need it to develop. It also allows us to offer every other team in the league a combination of those picks and cap relief at the deadline for players – instead of having to limit ourselves to teams that would want Jefferson specifically.
Call me crazy, but even if we don’t make a trade before the deadline I still think this is still a great deal.
Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric? That's ridiculous! I would never have traded Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric.
- Sam Cassell on McHale's decisions while running the Timberwolves.
Why limit ourselves
to only draft picks?
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
It also allows us to offer every other team in the league a combination of those picks and cap relief at the deadline for players – instead of having to limit ourselves to teams that would want Jefferson specifically.
Additionally, as far as I can tell there are only two kinds of players that this team would want from a contender looking to add Jefferson: 1) the kind of player the contender is not going to give up because they are one of the reasons the team is contending in the first place; or 2) J.J. Hickson type players that are raw assets who the contending team doesn’t have the patience to develop.
It can be argued that draft picks only ever turn into those type of raw assets anyways, but at least with a draft pick we get to be picky about what kind of raw asset we are going to be getting (although, it might be better for us to have a different team do the picking – depending on how favorable you want to be in assessing Kahn’s two drafts so far).
Now, it might be argued that we could have tried to use Jefferson as part of a package to get a player of similar stature to KG. After all, Jefferson does have a history of being the centerpiece of such a deal. However, I don’t really see another team in a situation similar to what the Wolves were in when we traded KG. Furthermore, going into a potential lock-out next summer, I get the feeling that many teams would rather have the cap space we can now offer them anyway.
Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric? That's ridiculous! I would never have traded Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric.
- Sam Cassell on McHale's decisions while running the Timberwolves.
Yo, good post Mplax
I don’t recall ever seeing anyone end a sentence with a question mark preceded by the words question mark, so ’grats on the logging the first, at least in my memory.
But please, please, please, do not go for the daily double. I think it is totally unnecessary to end a sentence with an exclamation point preceded by the words exclamation point!
Well
we’ve successfull hit two of the main three punctuation points so all we have left is the period. If we really want to continue this discussion, then I think that the ’postrophe, the comma, and the ellipses…
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
Yeah
Except if you keep this up we may wind up talking about the following ways to improve the health of your colon: 1) high-fiber diet; 2) frequent enemas; …
And I sure don’t want to get into that!
Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric? That's ridiculous! I would never have traded Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric.
- Sam Cassell on McHale's decisions while running the Timberwolves.
Good stuff, SnP!
Nope, no answers from me. Just more questions.
1. When the pass goes in to Darko, will he ever shoot the ball? Darko is the exact opposite of Big Al offensively. All he wants to do is pass. Right now, he’s a turnover machine – he holds the ball too long.
2. It looks like the high-energy game we saw against Denver results in a low-energy effort the following night. Can this team win with a Goldilocks level of effort?
by Dave T on Oct 14, 2010 10:02 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
Regarding last year's "horrible embarassing season"
I have to admit I am not as utterly repulsed by last year as some others are. To be fair, I did not buy season tickets so I had less ‘at stake’. However, I did buy League Pass which is > $100. I fully expected them to struggle last year and they did. I didn’t really see it as a bait and switch.
The reason it didn’t bother me as much is that the salary cap and lottery system force teams to have seasons like that. A NBA team has the following general lifecycle:
- Young team: players on rookie deals so cap room available, bad record so get a good draft pick, keep adding talent to the team via draft and FA.
- Young contender: Young players who didn’t pan out are jettisoned, young players who did pan are starting to get paid, salary cap room is shrinking, sign a few FAs before all young guys are paid and no cap room is left. Record is better so your pick is worse. Less ability to add talent. In playoffs.
- Contender team: Key players in their primes, probably paying luxury tax or close, very difficult to add top talent. Can add role players via exceptions or make trades. Trying to win it all. Record is very good so picks are very bad.
- Rebuilding team: Team is losing games despite having a lot of expensive veterans. FO and/or owner decides it is time to rebuild and go young (see #1). Focus is on trading veterans for expirings and accumulating picks. Veterans good enough to win some games so draft pick is mediocre.
It is really hard to skip steps #1 and #4. The Lakers and Utah managed it, but Boston, Portland, Seattle/OKC, and Cleveland all had to bottom out before getting good.
The thing that disgusts me is that we have been stuck in steps #4 and #1 forever due to McHales complete incompetence. Right now I still have some level of confidence that Kahnzonebis can get us to #2 and #3. If they show they cannot, then fire their @$$ a lot faster than McHale.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
I think #3 is a known known
These guys can’t create off the dribble. That’s not the type of skill that suddenly blossoms when a player is 23. You either have a knack for it or you don’t by that age. These guys will still live and die by their jump shot first and foremost, followed by their ability to move without the ball on the fast break and in the set offense. Neither will be good at getting to the hoop consistently off the dribble. I’m excited by their 3-point shooting, defense, and athleticism, but I don’t believe either will ever be good shot creators.
Regarding Beasley
Beasley is a SF/PF tweener due to his size and game. He is at SF partially because of Love, but he is pretty small to play PF in the West anyway.
Regarding Johnson’s minutes: Last year we had abysmal wing talent. This year we have an overflow of mediocre wing talent and a perceived need to play Beasley big minutes. It is unfortunate that Johnson is likely to get the shaft somewhat as a result.
Unless Beasley blows up at SF, Kahn’s plan is to trade for a high quality wing. So the long term core would be Darko or Pek, Love, Johnson, , Rubio.
If that trade does happen, the excess wings will be very helpful in giving back cheap, young replacement talent. For example, would PHI be interested in a package centered around Beasley, Brewer, Bjelly, and one of the first rounders from the Big Al trade?
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
The 'long term core' above was supposed to be
Darko or Pek, Love, Johnson, high_quality_wing, Rubio. For some reason SBNation ate part of it.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Oct 14, 2010 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions
I think we're missing the unknown of if Rambis can actually coach...
Last year was horrendous from a coaching standpoint. How much was him and how much was the players? I believe most of it was the players…but I’d still rate Rambis as an unknown…
Ridnour and Love's leadership Will be Key
I like the assemblance of coaches. If the work ethic is there and maturation of key players develops this team could could find they have an exciting chemistry and future. Beasley has got to grow up alot and fast. Darko has to get meaner become a force. Ridnour and Love need to stay consistent and demand accountability from everyone.
Freedom Ain't Free
Last night is a small sample size of B easy playing the 3
He can’t guard 3s. Love can’t guard tall 4’s or quick fours. I think the team has to pick which one is worse. I say the Loves match ups with 4’s is worse. At least B easy can guard the of the quick 4’s. That is why he needs to play more at the 4.
Good points
Suppose it comes down to match-ups during regular season. So, if Beasley moves to the 4 to defend quick and/or tall 4’s, K-Love takes the pine? Who goes to the 3?
Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.
I think that falls in the category of "unknown"
Can B easy guard 3s? This is why they play the game.
Interesting report
Other unknowns:
1. Will Jonny return in November. If so, will his performance improve over last season? Especially his abysmal assists-to-turnovers?
2. Will Darko v. C-Webb analogy continue to pan out? Will Darko play like he did late last season?
3. How will K-Love perform over 82-games in PF starter role?
4. How many more “Dear Fans” letter can we look forward to during 2010/11 season?
5. How will the Wolves use Lazar Hayward this season?
Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.
The other unknown
Is how long will SNP whine about Kahn not taking DMC. Even though his game is the same as Big AL and Z-bo
by chuckd@79 on Oct 14, 2010 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Of course, your posting this in every thread doesn't make it any more true or less wrong
Is how long will SNP whine about Kahn not taking DMC. Even though his game is the same as Big AL and Z-bo
Is just disinformation…
by Son of Gerald Green on Oct 14, 2010 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions
You must not have seen DMC play last night
his game is nothing like Big Al’s. He was hitting mid range jump shots, assisting on buckets, he even nailed a 26 ft last second shot. Dude was awesome for a rook, and Big Al could learn a thing or 2 by watching him play.
Ridnour's impact goes way beyond his individual production though
That’s my big thing with him. Maybe he won’t be an upgrade from Flynn statistically, but he sure as hell is an upgrade as a point guard. “Making teammates better” is one of those phrases the media loves to harp on….well, that’s the difference between Ridnour and Flynn right now. Luke’s statistics are in service to the team.
Wasn't Tuesday's game fun to watch?
My God it was good to see that level of competence in a Wolves point guard.
re: Offensive rebounding
Small sample size caveat in full effect, but some interesting offensive rebounding numbers (all in per36) emerging from this team:
Koufos – 5 Oreb/36 (career 3.2)
Pekovic – 4.1 Oreb/36 (career 4.4 – Eurotranslated per Hollinger)
Bassy – 3.8 Oreb/36 (career .4)
Love – 3.2 Oreb/36 (career 4.8)
Tolliver – 2.3 Oreb/36 (career 2.1)
Beasley – 2 Oreb/36 (career 1.9)
Darko – 1.7 Oreb/36 (career 2.6)
So it looks like Tolliver, Beasley, and Pek are all rebounding offensively at about their career norms. Koufos and Bassy are exceeding expectations, but Love and Darko will most likely trend upwards. We might end up being a decent offensive rebounding team this year – lots of guys contributing with only Love looking like a standout.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
PLS, can u stop w/ the bloody math. As if anyone understand wtf ur talking about.
by Jeffrey Thompson on Oct 17, 2010 7:53 AM CDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
Related FanShots on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Mike Brown wants Jimmy Goldstein to ask a press conference question (VIDEO)
- Create-a-Caption: ‘Vengeance is mine,’ quoth Alvis
- Roy Hibbert wants to play for Team USA, seeks release from Jamaican national team
- Bucks forward Jon Brockman loves wearing adult onesies
- Andrew Bynum after 9-0 Thunder run beats Lakers: ‘We’re better than Santa Claus’
