Blue Pills And Basketball Strip Mines
by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 13, 2010 8:33 PM CST
Email
Print
Some more thoughts about last night's game below the fold for those who want to swallow the blue pill after a decidedly red pill night.
There are 19 players in the history of the
The last 30/30 game in league history came on 2/11/2982 when Moses Malone went for 38/32 against the Sonics.
In the Department of Good Timing,
Two players are nearly tied for the record in the department of rebounds per game: Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell. Chamberlain holds this record with 22.9 rebounds per game, which is a 3 average. He didn't do it for a season or two, he did it for 14!
Bill Russell 's lifetime average rebounds per game notches just fractions below Chamberlain's at 22.5.Next on the list of highest career average rebounds per game is Bob Petit who averaged 16.2 rebounds per game.
Petit's sixteen rebounds per game average is more than respectable. It is, actually, rather amazing as a career statistic.
Last year's
NBA rebound leader averaged 13.2 rebounds per game. That was Dwight Howard(notes), a great rebounder in his own right. Howard owns the best career average for rebounds per game of all active players in theNBA .However, in Howard's best rebounding season he averaged 8 fewer rebounds per game than Wilt Chamberlain did for his career.
In a professional basketball career that lasted over 1,000 games, Chamberlain grabbed almost 23 rebounds every night.
Justin Kubatko talks about the way rebounds should be viewed from here on out over at the NY Times' Off the Dribble blog:
Total Rebound Percentage is an estimate of the percentage of available rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor. It is an improvement over rebounds per game because it takes into account opportunities, which are influenced by the pace that a
team plays and the number of missed shots that ateam forces. The best single-season mark since 1970-71 (the first season opponent statistics were officially recorded) belongs to Dennis Rodman in 1994-95. We estimate that Rodman grabbed an amazing 29.7 percent of all available rebounds while he was on the floor that season.
Against the Knicks, Kevin Love grabbed an astounding 36.6% of all available rebounds. He currently has a 25.2% rebound rate. And yes, Dennis Rodman was that amazing.
Love does have something of a historic season going (albeit with a very small sample size) on the defensive glass. He currently leads the league with a 34% rate. That is simply out of this world. The career leader for defensive rebound rate is Swen Nater (30.75%) with
The single-season mark for defensive rebounding percentage is Dennis Rodman, with an amazing 36.78 mark in 1992-93. If Love can maintain his current dreb% until the end of the season, it will be the 5th best defensive rebounding season of all time.
Getting around to the blue pill portion of this post, at the 1/2 of last night's game I was all set to write a post about the awesome ineffectiveness of the Timberwolves' offense, David Kahn's absurd comments about the upside of Darko Milicic, and the all-around problems with this team. Unfortunately, even after last night's amazing victory, those problems remain.
| %time | ppp | rank | fg% | number | %score | |
| Iso | 9.6 | 0.77 | 26 | 36.8 | 114 | 36 |
| Post-Up | 16.3 | 0.6 | 29 | 28.3 | 193 | 31.6 |
| Spot-Up | 16.6 | 0.87 | 21 | 36.7 | 197 | 36.5 |
| Off-Screen | 2 | 0.54 | n/a | 26.1 | 24 | 25 |
| Hand-Off | 6.8 | 0.99 | 4 | 45.5 | 81 | 45.7 |
| Cut | 5 | 1.1 | 27 | 52 | 59 | 54.2 |
| Offensive Rebound | 10.5 | 0.97 | 19 | 47.7 | 124 | 49.2 |
| Transition | 12.1 | 1.01 | 26 | 47.6 | 143 | 50.3 |
(All stats from the excellent Synergy Sports.)
One of the most notable things about the Wolves offense is that they seem to be completely unable to produce functioning basketball in the 1/2 court setting. They have wonderful spacing and zero movement. It's not exactly a recipe for success and it is reflected in what we see with our eyes (lots of standing around, mid range jump shots, lots of stationary attempts, etc) and what we see on the stat sheet.
Roughly 42% of the Wolves' offense is generated by plays with very little movement and/or success: post-ups, spot-ups, and iso attempts. As you can see, the Wolves are near the bottom of the league in these three categories in terms of ppp, fg%, and %score. Darko's push shots, 20 foot one-step jump shots, Love's baby hook, etc.
Where the Wolves do seem to do well is when things break down: transition, cuts, and offensive rebounds. This doesn't say a lot about Rambis' Triangle...or whatever it is you want to call the offense that creates very little but Flip Saunders-esque mid range jump shots and lots of standing around. I suppose the argument could be made that the Wolves' triangle is like Communism and that neither has really been tried. On the other hand, you could simply say that both are stupid ideas that will never ever work, but that's a post for another day. Whatever the case, the Wolves seem to do best when their offense tries to do the least. K.I.S.S. is always a good formula for young and experienced teams and the Wolves seem dead set on avoiding this basic concept. In a future post, we'll look at what Cleveland is doing with a similarly talented roster and how the Wolves could learn a thing or two from the Cavs.
Against the Knicks, the Wolves were who we thought they were. They won with a higher shooting percentage than usual (47.5 efg compared to their season average of 43.5%) and insanely good nights from Kevin Love and Michael Beasley. Their increased shooting percentage came primarily in the form of cleaning up at the rim, where they went 18-24, a mark well above and beyond what we have seen from them at this point. How did they get those shots? 17 offensive rebounds, transition opportunities, and cuts/nifty interior passing (9 of their shots at the rim were assisted).
Another interesting tidbit about the game is that the primary reason the Wolves were able to get away with some of the stuff they were getting away with was because the Knicks allowed them to play most of the 2nd half with Kevin Love at the 5 and Michael Beasley at the 4. This simply isn't something they can depend on night in and night out. It is the basketball equivalent of strip mining. Yeah, it's great to get what you want in the here and now, but down the road, you can't just burn through everything and expect it to last. Michael Beasley was able to go into Alpha Dog mode because he was at the 4 and was able to use his superior quickness and handles at the 4 to operate from 10-15 feet against Wilson Chandler and Gallo. Kevin Love was able to go ape-you-know-what on the glass because the Knicks couldn't muster a lineup with guys who had high defensive rebounding rates. This is to take nothing away from what happened; it's simply not something to bet on (or want to bet on) going forward. There aren't enough teams in the league set up like the Knicks to make this sort of approach (even on a scaled down version) viable. Some nights the Wolves will shoot well and some nights they won't. All the while, their offense will be geared to producing little movement and suboptimal attempts. On this night, their garbage-based offense required a historic night on the boards from Love and an almost equally rare back-to-back 30 point game (at least in terms of Wolves history) from Beasley.
The one thing that gives me some hope is that Rambis admitted after the game that the team has settled into a pace that is more conducive for success. The way things are going early on, the Rambangle seems to be nothing more than a poor shot machine...a very fast poor shot making machine. I'm a huge fan of up tempo basketball (remember Zombie Ball?) but this team does not need extra possessions. It needs extra chaos, as its success seems to be tied to non-planned events.
This team needs more transition attempts. It needs more 3 pointers in the 1/2 court. It needs guys like Wes Johnson and Corey Brewer cutting hard to the hoop when the ball is entered into the pinch post. Right now, there's a lot of standing around. Most of the spot up shots are coming from within the 15 foot range out to the 3 point line. That's no man's land. It also may be the key to Michael Beasley's success, which we'll look into in a future post.
Last night's game was the most fun I've had watching the Wolves in a long, long time. In order for that fun to continue, there are some major issues they need to work out with their offense. If they don't, the wins will simply be at the cost of future growth and sustainability.
Until later.
47 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well, yeah
The offense isn’t very good; ultimately, I’m not sure whether that’s because of the reason you cite—not enough movement, or because they really lack players who can get the defense moving using the dribble. It’s a real problem. Still, I think you are excessively pessimistic, and coming from me….
Look, they just managed to get their team fg% to 40%. That isn’t going to continue regardless of the offense. As historically bad as they were last season, they still shot 45%.
My favorite part was this, though:
Michael Beasley was able to go into Alpha Dog mode because he was at the 4 and was able to use his superior quickness and handles at the 4 to operate from 10-15 feet against Wilson Chandler and Gallo. Kevin Love was able to go ape-you-know-what on the glass because the Knicks couldn’t muster a lineup with guys who had high defensive rebounding rates. This is to take nothing away from what happened; it’s simply not something to bet on (or want to bet on) going forward.
In other words, we can’t count on the Wolves to be better than their opponents every night?!? There’s a newsflash. There’s a reason they are 3-7. It’s called limited talent.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Nov 13, 2010 8:56 PM CST reply actions
Is there?
Either way, I stand by it. Limited talent. And limited skill.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Nov 13, 2010 9:20 PM CST up reply actions
I think the distinction you are looking for
is potential.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
ummmm
no it isn’t.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
He's still very raw
Big numbers at a low efficiency
You could ask the same thing about Derrick Favors. Would you say Favors is talented?
I'd say Kevin Love is more talented than Favors in most aspects of the game
but Favors absolutely has more potential.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
I equate talent with potential
The tangible production you get from a player is talent realized: aka skill
Talent is defined as a capacity for achievement or success….not actual achievement or success, but just the capacity (potential) for it. It’s innate…you always have it, whether it gets used or not
Yay for dictionary.com to make it easy to put down definitions, let's use more:
Capacity: actual or potential ability to perform, yield, or withstand
Notice the ‘or’
Now let’s look at the rest of the definitions for talent and see what you think they meant:
1. a special natural ability or aptitude: a talent for drawing (had to include the example on this one, as I doubt they are talking about how good someone could be at drawing…otherwise I’m a pretty talented drawer).
2. a group of persons with special ability
3. a power of mind or body considered as given to a person for use and improvement (note: improvement of self, not of the ‘power’)
Because it’s used a couple times here: ability: competence in an activity or occupation because of one’s skill, training, or other qualification
talented: having talent or special ability; gifted
Potential: possible, as opposed to actual
And I should note, I don’t entirely disagree with you in your use, I just think you are narrowing it down to possibly the least common definition of the word (to call it a definition, as you can see, is even a stretch) and expecting all others to adhere. Which I disagree with.
Under most definitions of the words though, Gerald Green had potential, but he did not have basketball talent (or skill)
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
I wouldn't say Green had potential
He had a basketball body, that was it. But he was badly missing any mental or instinctual basketball ability, which is where I’d say true potential comes from.
At any rate, it’s pretty much a semantics thing between us on this, so no big deal
The "talent-skill-production-potential" symantics argument kinda bugs me.
You’re either good at basketball or you aren’t. If you’re someone like a Favors (not the best example because he’s been doing well, but the point stands) you’re a guy whose physical profile suggests you could be good at basketball soon, but you’re not yet.
John Wall is good at basketball, as his production this year suggests. I don’t know whether he’s talented or skilled or what, but he’s good and his physical profile suggests he’ll get even better.
See, I'd say that it's his talent level that suggests he'll get better
There are plenty of guys with his physical profile. As Fred Hoiberg used to say, great athletes are a dime a dozen. It’s the mental and instinctual part that separates Wall from some random guy at Ruckers.
Something tells me...
…that the correct response to this is, “It’s called basketball – Joe Naismith invented it.”
Discussing homerism since 2008!
by biggity2bit on Nov 14, 2010 12:16 AM CST up reply actions
Question
Beasley wasn’t able to go into Alpha Wolf versus the Kings at SF? idk bout dat
Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.
yes..
….and the kings have had an issue with 3s all year.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Beasley's best chance at SF
Granted the Knicks and Kings are not very good with poor 3s, but I think Beasley’s best chance to be an alpha wolf is at the 3. He looks even more undersized at the 4 than Love does. Plus, his offensive game relies more on jump shooting (too much) and drives to the basket. There was an excellent earlier post on this, but he needs to model his game after Melo.
I think the real question would be can he guard the 3 well enough not to be a defensive liability. If the answer is yes, then him and Love have a great chance to be a really nice building block moving forward.
I find claiming either Chandler or Gallinari as a 4 to be laughable.
I think both of those two are really 3’s. So to me it seems that Beasley had both of his top scoring performances against poor defending 3’s. One game came against a traditional lineup the other game came against a small ball lineup. I think what we can take away from the Knicks game is that any team that tries to go small ball on us (and thereby remove one of their most effective rebounders) is going to be in for trouble.
My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson
I think the point..
….is that their offense generates horrible chances and that’s an issue. Their talent isn’t as bad as they’ve been playing and it’s largely because they’re being used in a way that doesn’t promote good chances.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
You think?
Their talent isn’t as bad as they’ve been playing
I’m not sure of this. I hope you are right, that would be nice.
But it’s also possible that they generate such poor chances because they lack the ability (talent) to more consistently get good ones.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Nov 13, 2010 10:04 PM CST up reply actions
That seems a very cynical view of a team with the youngest roster in the league...
…and a first time head coach. The way the system is set up matters as much as the players in it. As S-n-P has noted, we’re very good when we do certain things….we just don’t do those certain things very often. If the talent level was really just flat out bad, we wouldn’t perform well under any circumstance, which isn’t the case.
Really? I thought I was being relatively optimistic
I also realize that I sort of contradicted myself above. My point is this: I actually think they are a little better than they have been playing overall through 10 games; as I noted, the FG% will go up no matter what they do.
On the other hand, I’m not sure that I buy SnP’s position that they could be getting a lot more out of the roster right now than they are, and that the system is such a problem. I just think that any offense requires talent and skills to execute, and while things shouldn’t be this bad going forward, the truth is there is a lack of ability inherent in the current roster.
They are the youngest roster in the league, and that matters. There is some room to get better, (though I question the ultimate upside of the roster as currently constructed), but we’re talking about what’s going on right now. Things have looked up the last 2-3 games, and I hope that continues.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Nov 14, 2010 8:37 AM CST up reply actions
Eric in Madison
Not trying to flame you, man, but why do you watch the Wolves? You were down on them even before the season began. I don’t watch the Wolves because I hope to see their eFG% improve as the season goes, I watch because they are my squad and no matter how shite they are, I still get something out of following the team, even if they’re horrible. You seem like you get nothing from following them. I don’t really care one way or another, but if you’re only a fan to get off on telling other fans that their team sucks, then maybe you should reconsider how your time’s spent. No offense.
Not justified.
I love following the team and I have hunger to see them get better. Frankly, one of the reasons that I haven’t posted nearly as much this off-season and early season as I used to was because I wanted people to enjoy their optimism, even if I didn’t and don’t really share it. I hope I’m wrong.
Instead, I let SnP take the abuse.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Nov 14, 2010 8:40 AM CST up reply actions
Poor wording on my part..
….I was aiming at something more along the lines of this system isn’t fit to the type of talent they have and as a guy who remembers the Musselman days, I’m a firm believer in the idea that a good coach can get more out of 12 professional ballers than what is going on right now. Nothing about this offense looks good right now and I get that they think they’ll have a Spanish cash cow kicking it out for 3s and throwing up ally-oops in a year or two (two), but it’s a Chilly-esque kick ass offense without a hall of fame QB right now.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
When I watch them in the triangle,
I see them make less than optimal decisions while running it. The Lakers players and coaches have commented on how well we run the triangle offense, but I believe what they mean is that you can definitely tell we’re running the triangle offense and it looks like we’re doing it right. Just because the formations look right doesn’t mean that we’re running it right. Otherwise it would produce something other than the hand-off jumper or the slash off the pinch post. Some of the best plays I’ve seen this team make this year have come when a player actually made a smart pass while in the triangle offense. But those have been few and far between. I think they need more reps in the offense to really make it work. And more movement without the ball, because that hasn’t really been happening as you’ve said. But I don’t really think any offense can be all that effective without movement off the ball.
My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson
I don't know
It doesn’t help that our FG% is worst in the league from < than 10 feet, which is hardly no man’s land. I think eventually Pekovic catches on and hopefully helps shore up our interior scoring, because Love and Darko are really struggling when it’s not an open layup or tip in. Neither can go over the top of the defense.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 13, 2010 10:12 PM CST up reply actions
Great, informative post
However, I am reserving judgment on this offense until the end of the season, as we all know, most of these guys were not on the team last year, and when you have this much youth and turnover, halfcourt offense will always be shaky, that usually comes with maturity and team experience. You also need to factor in the injuries. I don’t doubt anything you have said, but you leave out these very obvious reasons for poor half court offense.
We have to be last in the league
in offense created off screens, right? That number is attrocious.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
Still early for a nearly new roster
We are 10 games into the season with a nearly entirely new roster of players.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusion that the offensive sets (and Triangle) have been underwhelming, keep in mind that with the exception of Love and Brewer and half season of Darko, this is all new stuff to a new roster.
Yesterday Rambis alluded to misfiring tempo now becoming better calibrated. I think there is some merit to that view.
Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.
with bassy at the point
that will be interesting to see how it plays out with a larger sample size.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
The Lineup used through a lot in the second half with
Telfair
Brewer
Johnson
Beasley
Love
Is our best lineup. It is not the best because it gives us any kind of match-up advantage but simply it is by far our 5 most talented healthy players. We are at a serious disadvantage with any of our other bench players on the floor.
The return of Flynn, Webster, and Ridnour will help significantly in the backcourt but we need to get a higher quality big man inside to start at center. Darko is a fair backup center and Tolliver should only be playing 10 to 15 minutes a night. If we can trade our picks, cap space and bench players to get a athletic starting center we should do it now.
It's all about match-ups
Going small worked in the second half last night though.
Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.
This is where adding Rubio to the fray gets interesting
Rubio-Brewer or Webster-Johnson-Beasley-Love isn’t that small when you look at them collectively. That’s some length and ranginess out on the perimeter. And Beasley and Love can at least manage the boards pretty well against nearly any lineup.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 13, 2010 10:15 PM CST up reply actions
But....
If you have your perimeter sealed up tight, it mitigates the lack of length and shotblocking in the middle to a degree. What about OKC last year? They had Jeff Green at PF and what’s-his-face at C….I don’t even know. But because they had Durant, Sefolosha, and Westbrook dogging guys and closing out on the perimeter, they were very good defensively.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 13, 2010 10:35 PM CST up reply actions
As a whole, yes
But they were still extremely vulnerable on a night-to-night basis against teams with real scoring forces in the post, which was ultimately what did them in against the Lakers in the playoffs. Against teams that have players that can really score in the post….which is a lot more than people realize….locking down the perimeter doesn’t do much good. The shots are all coming from the paint.
That, plus the fact that even though he’s not a major force on either end of the floor, Nenad Krstic is very much legit center size. There’s a reason he starts over guys like Nick Collison.
Love is too small, and there’s no way to get around that. We can see that by looking at other teams that have tried it….the Hawks are desperate to get Horford out of the middle. The Heat won’t start Udonis Haslem, and just gave up on starting Joel Anthony. The Sixers don’t want Brand in the middle, the Rockets don’t want Scola in the middle, the Lakers don’t use Odom in the middle…..on and on and on. I think “Love at center” is going to becomes Canis Hoop’s new “Love and Jefferson” because on paper, it really looks like it could work and so many fans are going to want it to work that we’ll find any reason to say so. But like S-n-P said, the actual practice of it just isn’t sustainable.
Situational Small Ball
I don’t think the idea is that Love at the 5 is our long term answer. But, the team needs to use small ball when the matchup suits them. We aren’t that deep and small ball helps to get more burn for Love. There are enough center poor teams where we can implement it for at least part of the game.
It also helps to pair Love and Beasley with Brewer and Wes. This give us our best D at the 2 and 3, while helping to put Brewer in a situation where he’s the 4th offensive option on the floor (where he belongs).
Good coaching it about maximumizing your resources and eking out a few extra Ws. In our case, it would be getting us to around the 30 win mark. Small ball also serves to develop our 2 best, young players, keep them happy and maybe have them actually want to stay here when their rookie contracts expire.
I definitely agree
I’m just saying that the general plan should always be start big and go small when the situation allows for it. Not start small and try to go big when things get overwhelming.
Agreed
Starting small would kill whatever confidence Darko has left. Regardless if he’s mana or not, this year is pretty dependent on him.
I’d just like to see Rambis consistently get Love and Beasley 35+ minutes a game. Part of his job is to find creative ways to make that happen. Hopefully Love’s 31-31-5 will open up his eyes.
Love's defensive problems
are all the result of making him move. Screen and roll, Love has to move. Perimeter break-down that leads to a drive, Love has to move. Stretch 4 that floats out to the perimeter, Love has to move. Love’s one-on-one defense in the post is actually quite solid. While his size disadvantage against NBA Centers would probably result in them putting up better numbers against him one-on-one than Power Forwards, it still might be an advantage when compared to the alternative of playing him against a power forward that will require him to move.
My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson
My thoughts from the game
It was my first game of the year…and what a fun game it was. Picked up a much better feel of the team when I could watch the whole floor. Here’s what I noticed…
-Love: the first half he started really bad; had no confidence in his shot and was trying to do too much; it seems like he struggles trying to be a ‘star’ and tries to makes offensive plays are out of his range; then the game turned into a perfect storm for him, Amare got in foulb trouble and Turiaf was out hurt leaving the Knicks with no rebounders; then he found his game; grabbing boards like a monster and making garbage baskets; its not pretty but that’s who he IS; he’s just not that skilled like a Beasley; but when we finally embraced that role, he found just where his talent and heart lie… it was awesome seeing him get his ovation. I hope he really has found himself.
-Beasley: an awesome talent; so much fun to watch; love the way he dunks; really becoming a leader; in the first half, he’s the only one who did anything; he & Love seem to really enjoy and respect each other…and know they need each other; needs to set a few more people up
-Wes: amazing talent, totally underutilized; we need to set him up and find him WAY more often; his defense is really strong… he’s going to be a great player
-Darko: a completely broken player; no confidence and our offense is really doing him a disservice… he needs to discover he too should be a garbage player too, make some cuts, get tip ins; has no back to the basket game whatsoever, yet that’s how we make him play; I would try and get some jumpers for him at the elbow or somewhere to get some easy baskets; it time to simplfy for Darko; seems to lack energy because he’s so f-ed up; he needs to get fired up to be a bad-ass on D and look for opportunistic pts on O… in short he needs Bagger Vance to show up and tell him how to find his swing again
The rest of the team right now is role players. Think it’s a blessing in disguise that everyone is out because their Love, Beasley & Wes look like they’ve found their roles, and everyone else should try to fit in around them.
by Rodman99 on Nov 13, 2010 10:34 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Our Three
Like Rodman99 said, the best that might have happened to the team was all the injuries. It gave Love, Beas, and Wes a chance to step up and show they are the three. I would like to see Flynn and Webster as the two leaders off of the bench. The sooner everybody can knows their roles and accepts them the sooner the team can move forward.
I say give the offense some time. Ten games is nothing. I hope to start seeing positive signs around the first of the year. After that I think it wil be time to start being critical.
Dr. Doom
You’re like those guys that write the flub on cnbc about the economy.. listen we know we’re effed, we’re the TWolves. We will bounce back.. it’s hard to be as awful as Nikkei or the Clippers for so long!
Beasley, Love and Johnson = great core 21, 22, 23 years old.
Add a legit athletic starting Center
Add a Shooting Guard a la Eric Gordon
We will be in the thick of it within years. Optimism is much better to read/write about than pessimism. No matter how realistic you deem it to be.
"I haven't gotten back from the future yet." - Be-Easy
by sota on Nov 13, 2010 11:59 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
I think you brush off Beasley's late game heroics too easily
Was he at the 4? Yes. But he was being guarded by two other 3s in Gallinari and Chandler, who’s meant to be a good defender too.
Besides, I don’t think Beasley is done developing yet. His jumper is on at the moment but could still use work and if he puts serious work into his handles then he should be able to get to the line a lot easier, and with his work ethic I have complete faith that he’ll be able to do it.
Was just about to post something eerily similar to this.
It was Love who benefited from the Knicks lineup, not Beasley.
As you said in your wrap, SNP, Beasley’s effort was the big news as far as Wolves fans are concerned. Love’s effort was national news.
NBA Draft Fanatic
I take issue with at least one premise of this post. It seems to assume that players will continue to finish shots at the same percentages we’ve seen through 10 games—what everyone seems to agree is a small sample size. From what I have seen, however, I think it’s likely that shooting percentages will increase even with the same opportunities. Ellington has shot poorly on solid opportunities. Milicic has a terrible percentage on shots that history indicates he should shoot at a merely mediocre percentage. Love and Johnson have had poor shot selection; Love because he’s tried to do too much and Johnson because he’s adjusting to the NBA.
These performances suggest that the team can execute the offense better than they have thus far, which will make the offense look a lot better. This is not to say that Rambis’s offense will produce an optimal variety of shots, if there even is such a thing. But maybe decent offensive performance isn’t out of reach as this young, inexperienced team grows together.
by IpickedPooh'spocket on Nov 14, 2010 12:18 AM CST 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’
