Lesson #3 for Corey
Flash back in time to November 3rd vs. the Celtics. Corey Brewer drives to the bucket with time winding down and is "wrapped up" by Kevin Garnett for a jump ball. Lesson learned: You are not a star and no matter how much contact there may be, your crazy drives to the rim will not be rewarded when it matters.
Head back to January 20th vs the Thunder. Following a superb performance against Kevin Durrant down the stretch, Corey Brewer finds himself with a path to the front of the rim with very little time remaining in a close game. Instead of taking it up hard with two hands, Brewer extends one of his toothpick digits towards the sky and is blocked by Jeff Green, leaving the Wolves with an empty possession on what should have been, at least, a trip to the line. Lesson learned: You are skinny and you need to take it hard to the rim with two hands near the end of the game, preferably with as little herky-jerky movement as possible.
Last night vs. the Bobcats Corey Brewer learned a new lesson: Do not save basketballs under the opponent's own bucket. This can lead to inverted Brewsists. With less than 10 seconds remaining, the Wolves played solid situational defense and forced up a bad shot by Boris Diaw, which caromed off of the rim, off Al Jefferson, and towards out-of-bounds. In this situation there are three correct choices for a Wolves player going for the ball:
- Grab on to the ball and hold it for as long as you can before falling out of bounds or calling a time out under control.
- Throw the ball up in the air towards the other end of the court.
- Let the ball fall out of bounds and force the other team to run another set with very little time on the clock.
There was one incorrect choice:
- Throw the ball towards the rim/lane.
Corey Brewer is probably my favorite player on this team. His motor is always running, he seems to be enjoying what he is doing, and I find it entertaining to watch a 185 lbs toothpick who is all arms and legs sprint around the court with the giants. What is especially frustrating about Brewer is that there is something fundamental missing from nearly every aspect of his game. On defense he often helps too far away from his man and is unable to d-up large 3s. On offense he lacks a solid handle and the jump shot is a work in progress. In the game awareness department, he throws the ball under the opposing basket in a close game with under 10 seconds remaining. I really want him to succeed, and I think that he has made tremendous strides this year, but sometimes I wonder if his game is just so fundamentally flawed at the seams that no matter how good his jumper gets, or no matter how well the Wolves hide him against opposing players that he doesn't get shoved around against, we'll be treated to a never-ending string of situational FUBARs like we witnessed last night.
Oh, Brewer saved the ball to Nazr Mohammed, who promptly dunked it through for the victory.
As for the rest of the tilt...
...as a team, the Wolves are every bit as frustrating as Corey Brewer. What is the last thing a young, thin team with a short, D-League bench can do against a legitimate opponent? Come out slow? Spot them a 21 point lead?
I don't know what the coaching staff is doing over at 600 First Avenue but perhaps it's time to move everyone's alarm clock up 24 minutes because a slow start has become the trademark of this team, and this is not an outfit that can afford to spot folks large leads. Check out these splits for 1st and 2nd half numbers:
| FG | 3p | FT | Reb | TO | |
| CHA 1st | 20-39 | 7-13 | 7-7 | 3-21 | 5 |
| CHA 2nd | 16-35 | 2-9 | 3-6 | 7-24 | 11 |
| MN 1st | 18-39 | 5-11 | 2-3 | 2-15 | 6 |
| MN 2nd | 21-46 | 4-8 | 3-6 | 8-19 | 3 |
That first quarter was one of the most brutal things I have seen in a long time. It was much worse than what happened in the 2nd vs. Philly just one night ago. It was a complete and total domination from a club that shot 50% from 2, over 50% from 3, perfect from the line, grabbed nearly every rebound in sight, and didn't turn it over a ton.
Overall, and turning something of a blind eye to the horrific start by the Wolves, the game was lost not because Charlotte went nuts from beyond the arc or because Stephen Jackson played out of his mind. The Wolves lost the game because the two things they have been doing relatively well disappeared during last night's contest:
| Pace | Eff | eFG | FT/FG | OREB% | TOr | |
| Charlotte | 86.0 | 108.1 | 54.0% | 16.0 | 29.4 | 18.6 |
| Minnesota | 107.0 | 51.2% | 5.9 | 22.2 | 10.5 |
I have gone over this basic fact until I was blue in the face, but the two most important things that a poor-shooting club can do is a) rebound and b) get to the line. Zero free throws in the 1st and 4th quarters is much, much, much more offensive than a general lack of effort at the start of a game. How does that happen, especially in the 4th? 0 free throws in the 4th, really? A 5.9 FT/FG rate for the game? That's bush league and I don't care if players simply have to put their head down and run into traffic, this team will never win a game with less than 10 FTA. I cannot stress to you just how big of a miracle it would have been if Corey Brewer had thrown the ball way up in the air towards his own basket instead of throwing it under the Cats' rim; this would have been a mind-and-space-bending miracle win. 10 offensive rebounds and 9 FTAs while being down by 21 and still pulling out the win...I think that would have qualified for miracle status.
Wrapping this thing up, last night's tilt was yet another example of the good things that Ramon Sessions can do for this squad. We've gone over it a few times: Where Flynn dribbles around, Sessions takes it at direct angles towards the rim; where Flynn starts things off by sizing up his man, Sessions punches it to the floor and goes...you get the picture and you've heard it before. Ramon Sessions is not an old player. If Ricky Rubio is eventually going to be the starting point guard for this franchise I fail to see how Sessions would be any less of a backup than Flynn. I don't understand what "upside" means when people talk about Jonny. Does Flynn have a chance to become a very good player? Yes, but so does Ramon and it's not like he doesn't have as much "potential" (again, whatever that means) as Flynn. Players are what they are. Sessions holds the Bucks' record for assists in a game. He has had some huge scoring nights. The Wolves play better as a team when he is in the game. He's still young. Start Sessions.
OK folks, that about does it for today. The GameFlow is here. Advanced HoopData box score is here.
Quick final note: The Wolves were 17-26 at the rim for 65.4% while the Cats were 18-23 for 78.3%. Protect the paint, I suppose.
Until later.
BTW: Not to pick on Jonah Ballow over at the team site, but this is a good example of precisely what is wrong with the way people view Flynn (highlights are mine):
Off the bench, Ellington and Sessions played a bulk of the second half to combine for 26 points in the defeat. Rookie point guard Jonny Flynn was regulated to only 21 minutes after starting strong with seven first quarter points.
The Wolves had one of their worst quarters of the year in the 1st and ended up down by 13. Their point guard did not start strong. He, and the team he leads, was blown off the court. It's not all his fault but how many different efficiency/player ratings do we need to see to know that Sessions is bringing more to the team than Flynn? Yes, Flynn is a rookie but Sessions is every bit as young and talented as the guard from Syracuse. He also gives his team a significantly better chance at doing what everyone who pays money for those tickets came to see: winning.
211 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"Lesson" implies there's going to be, you know, learning.
Since that first Boston game on the road his rookie year, Corey’s been having conspicuous meltdowns in crunch time. At the end of that year, he drove the length of the court for an easy layup and blew it, sending the final game to overtime against the Bucks. At the time I was almost convinced he’d tried to throw the game; nobody could have believed an NBA player would miss that shot in that circumstance. A few games back, look at what happened when he got doubled outside. Meltdown.
Hopefully he’s still young. Young-ish? Hopefully he can do that whole “learn to slow down” thing all over again. It’s baffling to see that Nazr dunk capping a game. That’s gently feeding the opponent the puck in front of your net. You save the ball long.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Against Boston that first time, incidentally,
was the time he held the ball too long and turned it over on an inbounds play.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Instead of talking about the game, I will instead post something I know will make S-n-P sadder than anything that happened tonight with the Wolves
Last night against the LA Clippers…
Stephen Curry
36 points
10 rebounds
13 assists
3 steals
7-11 shooting from three
Amazing -
Even more amazing is the fact that he becomes the first rookie to post that kind of stat line since – OSCAR ROBINSON. How amazing is that?!?
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Feb 11, 2010 9:32 AM CST up reply actions
And we also remember Mrs. Robinson...
…and where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
He and Jerry White were the dominant guards of the 60s.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Feb 11, 2010 11:39 AM CST up reply actions
Back to the topic at hand
Why does our interior defense continually have to make backup bigs look like the second coming of Wilt Chamberpot?
by I.M. Fletcher on Feb 11, 2010 11:51 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
No, he means Bob Couchy.
He was one of the 50 Greatest Players and won a few titles with the Boston Sellticks. You should ‘Google’ him or something.
Jon the Regulator
I had to click over to the Ballow article to see whose typo that was. Maybe we’ve got a new nickname for JF.
I know
I saw that too. Made me think of that famous sports call, “He’s [regulating] the ball down the field!….” (formerly ‘matriculating’).
As a more often than not Flynn apologist, I dig SnP’s attitude/argument for starting Sessions. For me, arguing for Flynn has been more about simply recognizing that he could become a good to really good player, and despite lots of rookie mistakes and a steep learning curve that I think he’s still showing lots of good signs for the future. However, as SnP and many others have pointed out, Sessions seems to bring something more to the offensive flow and direction/attitude of this team, and there’s something of value in that.
If we switch this conversation to analyzing Sessions as the (should be) starting PG, my biggest question for him is whether or not he will ever learn how to hit a three pointer? For all that he can do (and do well), I get nervous about his inability or reluctance to hit from downtown. Is this a valid concern for our (should be) starting PG? I mean seriously – Brian Cardinal has three times as many 3pm than Ramon on the same number of attempts (9), while playing one fifth of Ramon’s minutes. I guess my point or question is – on a team already suffering from a lack of three point shooting, how are we going to manage trading off one of our better three point shooters (Flynn) for a guy who simply won’t even take them? Or is that beside the point? Does the improved offensive game flow and rotations offset the diminished outside scoring ability?
Of course, some of this would be moot if, you know, Sessions and Flynn played together occassionally. Of course Flynn’s so-far defensive ineptitude pretty much rules that out for right now.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
On the subject of players who won't shoot the 3 ball
Let’s not forget Damien Wilkins. When was the last time he jacked up a 3, even if his defender was playing way off of him?
Mostly agree with S&P on Sessions/Flynn -- bear in mind that Sessions was ranked #10 among PG by Berri, the WOW guy. He had a similar ranking with PER...
Sessions was projected to have a breakout season by Hollinger.
Before this season sessions had played one full season and a few games…. [He played about 15 or 20 games at the end of the season before after most of the year in D league.]
Sessions could easily be the better point guard. Right now, much better defender and facilitator.
We say Flynn can learn to facilitate and he can. But Sessions can also improve his jumper.
I agree 100% that Flynn shouldn’t be developed at the expense of Sessions, unless the objective is to showcase and trade Flynn.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 12:20 PM CST up reply actions
In fairness to Brewer
it looked from my vantage point that he was trying to tip the ball to Al who frankly was not expecting it. It was not a wild attempt at a save – Brewer was reasonably under control and was just trying to tap it to Al. I was actually a little more pissed that Al had checked out after letting the ball bounce off him. An example of not playing until the whistle blows that hurts a young team.
I was pleased that Rambis did not call Brewer out. While is was a critical play that lead to a lost, it was not as dumbass a play as people make it out to be – especially if you look really closely at his teammate(s) in replay.
I was going to say something along these lines as well. Once Brewer saw that Jefferson was also going for the ball, he should’ve done something different, but by that time, he didn’t have time to think about it. I can’t totally fault Corey though.
S-n-P – I also have a problem with Corey’s lesson from the Boston game. A foul should be a foul. He can’t start playing tentatively at the end of a game because he knows the refs aren’t going to give him a call. Those refs took a beating for that game, and if the same thing happened again, I’d guess Corey would get that call.
You could use the New Orleans game as a good example of a lesson learned though when he let Posey have an uncontested layup to win the game because he was anticipating a pass to Paul.
The right play if you are not SURE to get it to a teammate is to toss it to the far end of the court. Worst that happens is you take a few more seconds off the clock and they get it back. If our guy gets it on a break away bigger lead
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 12:22 PM CST up reply actions
They also get it back from the far end of the court unless they have more timeouts...
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 12:23 PM CST up reply actions
actually
the worst thing that happens is that Big Shot Rob hits a game winning three pointer that changes the tenor of the series.
by littleboxes on Feb 11, 2010 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I hear you about the Boston lesson..
…and I intended it more as a tough luck sort of thing rather than something that will make him less aggressive.
I was a Korean Linguist in the USAF and was stationed at Osan AB. During one of the first in-country briefings we had we were told that if the North ever decided it was game on, our little outpost would be one of the first to go. Because I’m guessing there weren’t enough MPs to properly guard the base in the event of an attack, each unit designated a few guys to receive extra training. In short, we were sent to the rifle range and taught how to fire a side arm. Upon arrival at the range, the guy doing the training looked at our group (all intel analysts) and said something to the effect of “I’m here to teach you how to use a weapon that should you dorks have to use it will 150% mean that the war has been lost and the 8th army has been pushed into the sea.”
I view Corey Brewer and final possessions in much the same light. If he is the guy with the ball at the end of the contest, the game has been lost and there is already a rush to the exits. It’s nothing against him; he is what he is and he has the potential to be quite valuable at other points of the tilt, but he’s the basketball equivalent of an intel guy: if the shit goes down, he shouldn’t be the one firing the gun. Much like I would have probably shot myself in the leg were the DPRK to unleash all hell on the southern part of the peninsula, Corey Brewer will never get a call in an offensive situation during the game’s final possession. He needs to stick to mission support.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I hope so...
….I’m at the point where I’m hoping for a Turner/Rubio combo over John Wall. That’s legit size and b-ball IQ all over the place. The Wolves go from being undersized in the front court to being gigantic in the back court. If they can add Rudy Gay at the 3 with Brewer off the bench they’re as close to my ideal 6’7"-6’9" perimeter as possible.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I'm preparing for Al-Farouq Aminu's name to be called
Not because he’s my guy, but because I think we’ll end up picking in the 4 – 6 range and he will be the best talent available. He fits your vision to a degree because he can probably guard either SF or PFs, whilst giving us uber-athleticism. He’d be the combo forward to replace Gomes, while being able to help inside a little more on defense. But yeah, Turner would be sick. I’m just not getting my hopes up.
by Rascal Flatts on Feb 11, 2010 7:58 PM CST up reply actions
Eww...
Going to start having nightmares if Aminu is picked after Flynn was the 6th last year.
Turner with Brewer would be very nice to see, especially since Turner could out hustle Corey to the loose balls and not throw them under his own hoop (btw, not sure if someone already pointed out that error in the game thread post). If that happened, I’d look for a sharp shooting wing (my hope is always for Gallinari) and that would be that for the wings.
Your consensus big board has him in that 5 or 6 range
It’s just you that doesn’t like him. If not him, then we’re talking about drafting a big man in that slot.
by Rascal Flatts on Feb 11, 2010 8:36 PM CST up reply actions
That's why I choose to post consensus boards over just mine
So that people can get the picture of what is the consensus and basically use that as a barometer of sorts to see where their own differs. Also lets people kind of see the ripple effect if one of the major sites (not mine…yet :P) changes a ranking and then see the rest of the boards “chase” that ranking.
Personally, Aminu’s one of the guys I don’t get the fuss over. I’d gladly take Cousins, Aldrich, or Whiteside over him at this point because all play C which is still a need – but that’s my opinion and you’re entitled to yours… one or both of our opinions could easily change come March, let alone June.
by Casperkid23 on Feb 11, 2010 10:28 PM CST up reply actions
At this point I'd take Wes Johnson over Aminu.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 8:51 PM CST up reply actions
I'm having second thoughts about Wes
The guy will be 23 before he sets foot in the NBA and he really struggles to create his own shot. Aminu is 19 (his birthday is a month ahead of Rubio’s) and over 3 years younger than Wes Johnson. I normally think NBA scouts over-emphasize the whole age thing, but in this case I think it may be legit. Again, I don’t even want to think about these two guys, but I’m fully prepared for Evan Turner not being there when we pick.
by Rascal Flatts on Feb 11, 2010 9:00 PM CST up reply actions
more than anything else, we need good 3 point shooting. if we have jefferson, drawing double and triple teams... we need guys to CONSISTENTLY knock down the 3.
plus he rebounds, blocks shots, have the physical tools and desire to be a GREAT DEFENDER.
There are moments when I think I’d be happier taking Wes 5 – 8 over any other player in the draft.
For instance, berri’s stats show Turner and Johnson just about the same in terms of overall contribution but Wes is a much better perimeter shooter.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 10:59 PM CST up reply actions
At picks 4-7
I don’t think Wes would be a bad pickup for us. Who cares if he can’t create his own shot if we’re committed to bring Rubio over? And besides, near as I can tell, whatever offense we’re running (when it’s going smoothly) generates lots of open looks for guys anyways. We suffer because guys can’t knock down those shots. Wes should help us with that. That’s why I wouldn’t be too upset about it. The only other x-factor is if we go big at that spot with either Cole or Monroe. I don’t think Davis or Cousins will be the picks there, but then again I have no idea what Kahn’s strategy is for this draft. My guess is that it is at least a two fold strategy: one for if we pick top 2, and one if we pick after 4.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Feb 12, 2010 11:22 AM CST up reply actions
I normally think in basketball
you need to have the best players you (Wall) because they can dominate games. But I have to admit I just keep thinking how good the Turner/Rubio combo would be, especially if a Gay like wing is added. Of course a Wall/Brewer/Gay combo could be extremely effective as well.
In either case, I just hope the Wolves are able to package Flynn and something else for an All-Star caliber big guy.
Also consider that Berri has a red flag on Wall!
I’m not saying berri is right, I haven’t seen enough of Wall to make my own judgement.
But it does give me pause.
posting is below.
http://www.canishoopus.com/2010/2/11/1306344/the-wages-of-wins-journal
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 12, 2010 11:58 PM CST up reply actions
I agree
tough break — not the smartest place to throw the ball, but it was kind of a scramble/hustle play that had as much bad luck as stupidity. Those are quick decisions — not the sort of thing that should be analyzed too closely. I’m just happy his jumper is starting to fall — it’s all he really needs to be a starter in the NBA, given his defensive talents.
As for Sessions-Flynn, Ramon has definitely been better of late. But SnP’s last point requires a little clarification. Sessions is 23, and will turn 24 in two months. Flynn turned 21 last week. They are almost three years apart in age, which is not really even close to the same. I hope that, by age 24, Flynn looks like a much-improved player. He is already miles ahead of Sessions as a perimeter shooter, and frankly, I don’t get the feeling that Sessions ever intends on learning to shoot 3’s. His form isn’t very conducive to it and he never shoots them in games. Both are good scorers off of dribble penetration. Sessions is physically stronger, which is something Flynn will probably improve on, as well as learning to use his body to direct the offense, the way Sessions has.
I don’t know what either player’s future looks like on this team, since we hold Ricky Rubio’s rights and might also hold John Wall’s within 4 months. But let’s not act like there’s no good reason to play Flynn over Sessions, right now. We’re trying to build for the future and Flynn has more upside than Sessions.
I think so long as
Flynn gets at least 20 minutes a game the development piece is fine. The problem is that the players that are more conducive to Flynns style would be brewer and hollins…which currently play with the starting lineup.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 11, 2010 10:36 AM CST up reply actions
yeah...
I don’t really care which unit Flynn and Sessions play with, or even their total minutes (as long as Flynn gets 25+ to keep improving). I just don’t understand the outrage over this issue, when Flynn is much younger, with hardly any pro experience and has had a comparable season as a whole, even if slightly worse of late. Flynn earned a spot in the Rookie Game, and has had good performances against elite point guards, this year. Given his very-young age, I’m not sure what’s so bad about giving him a long leesh and building for the future. The Randy Wittman Model would have Sessions playing 40 minutes and maybe letting Flynn play every other game until he makes one mistake. I never really bought into that.
I don't disagree with you, really
Flynn should play enough to develop. I don’t really care if he starts or not, but he ought to play.
But…I think the issue with Flynn is that it’s hard to see how or whether he has improved over the course of the season. None of the numbers have really gotten better over the last 3 months, unlike a guy like Ellington, where it’s really easy to see how he couldn’t shoot in November, found his 2 point range in December, then added the 3 to it in January. With Flynn…not so much in terms of linear improvement in any category.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 11, 2010 10:50 AM CST up reply actions
What about assists and turnovers? He seems to have gotten better/more consistent with those as the year has progressed. Wish his defense has gotten better.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Feb 11, 2010 10:53 AM CST up reply actions
yes
The EvilProf has a nice post about Flynn’s improvement in Assist/TO, no?
by littleboxes on Feb 11, 2010 12:26 PM CST up reply actions
Roles
I agree — Wayne’s improvement has been nice to see.
But I think his role of spot-up shooter is much simpler than Flynn’s. Jonny needs to think a lot more out there, and that’s always going to cause ups and downs. He’s shown a lot of promise, though, with his diverse set of skills. He can shoot from outside, take it hard all the way to the rim, and make some spectacular passes in traffic. It might take a year or two to look like a savvy floor general, type, but it should come. This isn’t the kind of rookie ineptitude that plagued Corey Brewer — and look how far he’s come with athleticism and a good attitude.
Flynn being "showcased" - by starting all season, increasing trade value for a trade this summer....??
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 12:26 PM CST up reply actions
just a hypothesis - as S&P said, both Sessions and Flynn are good young players of high potential.
So why is Flynn starting when he is clearly inferior to Session in terms of 5 man unit plus minus?
[and we see with our eyes, that Sessions is the better facilitator, defender and a good scorer in his own right – ranked #10 by berri for wins produced among PG last season and also highly rated by Hollinger. Hollinger said Sessions could have a breakout season this year.]
1) one hypothesis is simply development, team sees Flynn as higher potential.
2) a second hypothesis is that the team is starting and playing Flynn more minutes to “showcase” him.
Doesn’t mean its right but its a hypothesis.
We definitely don’t need three PG: Rubio, Sessions and Flynn. So one of them will definitely be traded in the next couple of years.
Maybe its the reverse. Maybe Sessions is being showcased now to be traded as “just a fan” said in a posting.
Both Flynn and Sessions can be good players. I personally think that Sessions is undervalued by most wolves fans.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 1:09 PM CST up reply actions
"Crap" was a strong word.
Sorry, my emotions got the better of me.
no problem.... sometimes my emotions get to me also....
If I say something out of line call me on it. Sometimes my thoughts are racing so far ahead that I don’t put all of the logical links in a posting.
Like CLEARLY saying it was a hypothesis and only putting a ? mark.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 1:36 PM CST up reply actions
That was my thought too
Granted it’s not a smart play in general to throw the ball under your own basket, but it looked like Brewer was just trying to keep it in bounds. I mean, I don’t think he was falling out and going “ok, if I throw it here this will happen, but if I throw it there, that will happen.” He was just thinking “DON’T GO OUT OF BOUNDS”
I can’t really fault him for that, or for losing the game. He had a split second to react, and ultimately, like Jefferson said in the lockerroom, we should never have been down by 20 in the first place.
I say again, if we say Flynn can learn to facilitate can play defense, why can't sessions learn to shoot better with range?
Have that be his project over the summer…. It worked for Brewer.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 12:25 PM CST up reply actions
It might be easier for Sessions to learn to do one thing - shoot better with range and all of the things on Flynn's Johnny List!
Defense, facilitation (most difficult to learn) etc….
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 1:43 PM CST up reply actions
Flynn has more to learn, but he's younger
and (though this gets said a lot to excuse any poor play) a rookie. I guess I have some belief that Flynn might improve more quickly than the also young Sessions. Though if Sessions doesn’t improve a bit, I still think he’s dandy as a back-up pg moving forward. I don’t think Flynn will ever improve to the point where he’s the starting pg on a contending team, but he could be a great 6th/7th man and microwave for the second unit. I’m guessing/hoping Rambis is throwing him out there to make him learn.
Turner
One arrangement that might work pretty well, if Flynn is to stay in the starting lineup, is to pair him with another guy who is the primary offensive instigator and thus let Flynn be more of scorer (which he does naturally). Turner is the obvious guy from next year’s draft, and Rubio in the years after. This is more of a hypothetical musing than anything else.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
I want to be fair to Brewer...
…but making that pass is like starting a land war in Asia or going against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Inconceivable!!!!!
Wallace Shawn = genius
by I.M. Fletcher on Feb 12, 2010 8:36 AM CST up reply actions
My Dinner with Andre
the Giant.
"Never make predictions, especially about the future." Casey Stengel
Love's Minutes
I know this is something that is brought up often, but I just wanted to reiterate it…
Thus far in their careers Brook Lopez has played 134 games, and both OJ Mayo and Marc Gasol have played 133 games. In those games Brook Lopez has played more than 37 minutes 38 times, Marc Gasol has played more than 37 minutes 33 times, and OJ Mayo has done it 81 times.
In Kevin Love’s career, he has played 114 games and played more than 37 minutes…
4 times.
It’s really crazy to think about. I mean I understand the discrepancy between Love and Mayo because of body type and position, but how different would the non-Timberwolves following public view Love’s career if he played minutes comparable to Gasol or Lopez? Would he currently be discussed as an All-Star replacement like Lopez and Gasol have been discussed?
I thought Love played pretty poorly last night
The worst +/- on the team (-12), 3-7 shooting for 9 points. I like him off the bench, but it wasn’t his night last night.
I wonder if he has started to hear some trade rumors that have included him and he is starting to lose focus.
Rambis said he was too passive last night
and that to be effective, he has to be an effort guy, and he just didn’t see it, which is why he sat.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 11, 2010 10:44 AM CST up reply actions
My issue is
The next game Love could work his butt off, and still get about 25-28 minutes. I think it would be far better if his default was around 35 minutes, and it fluctuated from that point. This goes for Jefferson too.
I also don’t care what anyone says about Hollins I prefer his default to be negative 4 minutes.
I don't understand why Love gets benched for ineffectiveness....
…when Jonny gets a pass! There have been plenty of examples of his own ineffectiveness…. Thoughts??
Makes sense. The other thing I wonder about is with Kahn coming out and saying that the Wolves won’t contend for 2 to 3 years, have some players lost some motivation?
Love was asked about that on PTI yesterday
And his initial response again seemed like he was unhappy with that statement. While I can’t disagree with KLove, someone has GOT to teach him how to respond to media interviews. First referring to Ricky as “trade bait” in tons of interviews, now going on probably the most popular show on ESPN after Sportscenter and hemming and hawing about the 2-3 year plan.
What?
I just enjoyed a nice bagel with my coffee while reading CH!
"Never make predictions, especially about the future." Casey Stengel
Nobody called you a Luddite
I’m doing laundry today.
"Never make predictions, especially about the future." Casey Stengel
Cavemen discover that dinosaur
tastes like chicken?
Note to Kevin:
The reason that the Wolves can’t contend for 2-3 years is because you’re one of our best players and because the team won’t get better unless you and your teammates get better. If you’re pissed about that, play better. This team has this plan because they want to make sure you become a better player than what you currently are.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Feb 11, 2010 11:50 AM CST up reply actions
Step number one:
Get into game shape for the first time in your NBA (or perhaps your entire basketball) career.
What would you expect him to say?
That would be a little disconcerting if a player (not an executive) was accepting of having to wait 2-3 years before they can contend. Unless of course he thought we had to wait longer…
It's good for him to be...optimistic...
….but he should also be realistic. But more to the point, he shouldn’t be saying things publicly that undermine his boss or the team.
I disagree! Love should have said, we will get better as individuals and a team this season, over the summer Kahn is adding a lot of talent and we want to shake up the western conference next season..
Players should always be pushing the limits for goals, both individual and team.
Management can manage fan expectations.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 12:35 PM CST up reply actions
I actually thought his answer to that was fine
He said he didn’t like it, that the team thought they could get better sooner. That’s what he should say.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 11, 2010 4:15 PM CST up reply actions
S&P talked about rebounding and foul shots.... thats where Love could have helped us.... He should be averaging 35 minutes a game period!!
This season is about development, thats why Flynn gets so many minutes etc…etc…
We should be developing our second best player also. Some have said he had difficulty matching up defensively thats why his minutes were limited. Could be true, but even so, you play Love and coach him to improve his perimeter defense in this DEVELOPMENTAL YEAR!
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 12:31 PM CST up reply actions
Ball Don't Lie
Had this to say about Love’s minutes last night
The game was decided on the last play, as the Timberwolves could not secure a defensive rebound and had to save the ball back to the Bobcats. Kevin Love(notes) was not on the court for that play, or the entire fourth quarter. Kevin Love had as many rebounds (seven) in 23 minutes as Ryan Hollins(notes) and Ryan Gomes(notes) combined for in 60 minutes, the Wolves were out-rebounded by 11, and Kurt Rambis is doing a terrible job coaching the Timberwolves this season.
by littleboxes on Feb 11, 2010 12:44 PM CST up reply actions
and yet
The team was worse off (down by more points) each time Love stepped off the court last night than when he stepped on it. Don’t know if just wasn’t his night or what, but I don’t think you can really fault Rambis for not playing a guy when he’s having that kind of night – especially when he wasn’t part of the group who brought them back from 20+ down. Sounds like Ball Don’t Lie is cherry picking stats to make a lot out of nothing (as in Love’s performance last night was nothing to write home about).
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Feb 11, 2010 12:48 PM CST up reply actions
maybe
but we’ve also discussed on this site how “noisy” the +/- stat is on any given night. bottom line is love rebounds. He was not on the court for the 4th quarter comeback, hence the negative +/-. Perhaps the fourth quarter comeback does not happen with him on the court. Perhaps it does, I don’t know.
Still Love should almost always be on the floor.
Thank you
+/- over the course of one game is worse than useless; it is deceptive. I also don’t think that is why love was yanked. He has played sparingly in games where his +/- was through the roof.
The point is that Love is at least the second best player on our team (and I would argue the best by a country mile) and needs to play 30-35 minutes, especially at the end of a close game, no matter what.
Quite frankly it scares the crap out of me. Between the under-use of Love and the overuse of Flynn I have serious concerns about the talent evaluation tools that this regime is using.
Noisy, yes
I guess I was more responding this quote, and my inference that it was using +/- from the first quarter as evidence for why Ramon should be starting:
The Wolves had one of their worst quarters of the year in the 1st and ended up down by 13. Their point guard did not start strong. He, and the team he leads, was blown off the court. It’s not all his fault but how many different efficiency/player ratings do we need to see to know that Sessions is bringing more to the team than Flynn?
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
That's different.
Jonny has a bad +/- for the entire season, considerably worse than Sessions. With him, it’s an ongoing trend, so referencing a bad single game +/- of his is pointing out that the trend is continuing.
First Quarter
Actually, yes, Flynn did start off well in the first quarter. What absolutely killed the Wolves was getting outrebounded 11 to 4. Flynn had one of the four rebounds. There is no excuse for Jefferson to get only one board in nearly 11 minutes or Hollins to get one board and foul a three point shooter. I guess since Flynn “runs” the first unit, he is gets the blame. Why doesn’t Sessions get blamed then when his unit pisses away a 3 point lead with 57 seconds left? Instead he is a savior and should be starting?
I just want to see Flynn run the offense
more like Sessions. Much of it is just knowledge, but the types of moves they make in certain shot clock situations is very different. If Flynn was more aggressive in making the defense react, I don’t think people would be suggesting Sessions to start. All of this assumes that by aggressive Flynn doesn’t start just taking it to the hole to try to score, etc.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 11, 2010 10:39 AM CST up reply actions
I should clarify.
Flynn individually started okay. The offense was not an issue. The defense, Flynn included, was terrible, the Bobcats shot extremely well, and nobody rebounded.
I just want Flynn to attack as soon as he gets the ball, instead of sizing up his man. He really gives them too much time to catch back up on the ball movement, instead of taking advantage of players out of position. Once he learns how to do that effectively, he could be really good. I still think I prefer him in the Jason Terry 2.0 role and let him come off the bench and attack the hoop at will.
Totally agree
He also sometimes tries to get too clever with PnR instead of just making the simple play. But yeah, I hate it when he does the size-up-his-man thing. That is such a total waste of time and energy and, most importantly, it doesn’t work.
by Rascal Flatts on Feb 11, 2010 5:55 PM CST up reply actions
I think the consensus is the Sessions is running the offense better
and I don’t disagree. I was at last nite’s game and saw Ramon make a number of quick passes to open shooters that I don’t think Jonny would have made. I still like Jonny better than Ramon in terms of potential, but I think Jonny can learn from sitting on the bench and watching how Ramon initiates the offense, which is what I hope Rambis is doing.
Old habits die hard
Flynn has probably been playing this way for years. He’s not going to suddenly develop these instincts by watching Sessions.
by Rascal Flatts on Feb 11, 2010 6:00 PM CST up reply actions
Gameflow
I was going to make a rebuttal about Sessions getting a pass because he led the team on its comeback from 20 points down, but then I looked at the gameflow and Jonny was on the court for a couple of big runs in the second and third quarters (+7 net), and then Sessions came in and finished it off. Jonny’s first quarter was atrocious, although he matched Augustin’s fg% and only scored 2 points less than him that quarter. He did lose the assist battle (4 to 2) for the quarter.
I think that it should also be pointed out that Sessions, at the end of the game, got amazing production from Pavs (3-4 shooting), Al (4 offensive rebounds and a block), Gomes (3 of 6 shooting and a steal), plus timely contributions from Brewer (2 steals in the fourth) and Wellington (3-7 shooting). In fact, of the three starters who finished the game I think this stat sums up the difference (and raises questions about how significant PG play was at all to this game): first quarter – 1 rebound, 2 assists; fourth quarter (same three guys) – 7 rebounds (4 offensive), 1 assist, 3 steals, 1 block.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Feb 11, 2010 11:07 AM CST up reply actions
But how much of that can be attributed to Sessions PG play?
I didn’t see much of the game last night so I’m kind of curious. Did Ramon’s put guys like Gomes and Wellington in a better position to score than Jonny or was it just the fact that they warmed up down the stretch?
I love Jonny and the potential he has but it’s pretty clear that our wings get better shots when Ramon is running the offense. I’ve gotten a little tired of watching Jonny dribble the shot clock down to 5 seconds then throw it to Corey/Gomes/Wayne to force up a contested jumper.
I do think Ellington’s shooting was the direct result of Ramon’s play. And, again, I am a Flynn apologist.
agreed
by sessions being more aggressive to get the defense to start rotating, the open looks just kind of came. Only hitting contested shots would be in spite of PG play.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 11, 2010 11:33 AM CST up reply actions
I would add
that it was the overall ball movement initiated by Sessions (with Gomes and Brewer participating) that lead to Ellington’s points.
Flynn dribbles far too much for a motion based offense. That is the big difference between the 2 (and that Sessions is quite a bit bigger and strong which allows him to finish better)
The difference between Sessions and Flynn is who gets the ball. Sessions is smart enough to "feed the pig", or more conventionally find the hot hand.
Flynn isn’t seeing simply things like that yet.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 12:41 PM CST up reply actions
Before some people miss my point...
I completely agree Sessions played better. However, the entire Wolves strategy right now is to hopefully break even or give a little ground with the “starters” and make it up with a strong second unit. The second unit was strengthened (with Love) at the expense of the first unit. Sessions should “look” better and have a better plus / minus every game.
Maybe I'm just being lacksidasical, but I really don't care about the whole Flynn/Sessions thing
This team has much bigger problems than the difference between two good point guards.
And for the record, the fact we got outscored by so much in the first half last night had NOTHING to do with Flynn. I said it in the game thread, and I’ll say it again now….OUR OFFENSE WAS FINE LAST NIGHT. We shot 52%, 2-5 from three, with 7 assists and just one turnover in the first quarter. Our problem was, is, and always has been DEFENSE.
So unless the argument is that Flynn was somehow responsible for not preventing Jackson and Mohammed and Diaw from scoring, I don’t think it’s at all warranted to blame him for us falling behind early. Again, much more serious problems in other areas.
AI is a great defender
But he’s more expensive, older, and under contract. Outside of a salary dump, I can’t imagine how he’d end up on the Wolves outside of a league wide fantasy draft.
I think Dalembert would be the perfect complement to Al and Love, so I would look for a trade something like Iguodala and Dalembert for expirings, Charolotte 1st, Utah 1st, and Wayne Ellington. I think AI2 would fit this team so much better then Rudy Gay would, so I am not worried about losing salary cap space. Then Kahn could also keep Pekovic, if he wanted to move Love or Al, because Pekovic could sign for the MLE, instead of eating into salary cap space.
nope
never mind. I just realized he was referring to AI as in Iggy, not Al as in AlJeff.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
Iguodala
would probably go further in that regard ;-)
Also it would not make him sound like a Allen Iverson v2.0
"I" looks way too much like "l"
This is why I like serifs, so that I can keep my ALs and my AI’s separate.
As to having Dalembert and Iguodala on the team… I don’t know. That’s 24 million in players. And I like both players, but I don’t think that they’d make the Wolves that much better. I mean, Philly is pretty much our clone, and they’re not too good right now. I think I like our potential going forward more than their cap strangulation for slightly better players.
I dunno. The jump in production from Wilkins to Iguodala is absolutely massive, and from Hollins to Dally is pretty significant as well. I don’t think adding them indepently of anything else does enough to take us far, but in conjunction with bringing Rubio over and drafting someone like Evan Turner, it could be pretty significant.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
They may not be able to shoot 3’s all that well, but my god, a lineup with Rubio/Turner/Iguodala in the back court (and maybe Brewer, if he’s not included in the deal) would be awesomely disruptive defensively and probably the most entertaining running back court in the league. Imagine Love throwing outlets to those guys.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Rubio/Turner/Iguodala would be a dream. Maybe it ends up being Rubio/Iguodala/Wes Johnson. Any which way, I would be extremely happy. I would prefer Turner, but beggar’s can’t be choosers.
Johnson
assuming he’s a pretty good athlete and can still drain the three would look pretty damn good next to those two guys. Then again, so would the Brewer of the last couple months.
BTW – did you know Brewer’s agent’s name is Happy Walters? That’s a sweet name for an agent.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
But who would Philly take for them?
I would love to watch:
PG – Rubio/Sessions/Flynn
SG – Iggy/Brewer
SF – Turner/Brewer
PF – Jefferson/Love
C – Dalembert/Jefferson
But I don’t think Philadelphia would take our flotsam and jetsam + Gomes for an all-star guard and an athletic big. If we could get them without giving up our high draft pick, and without sacrificing Jefferson, Love, and Rubio.. heck yes. But realistically, I think we could get Gay for cheaper than Iggy, and he’d be entering his prime when Rubio comes over.
I would look for a trade something like Iguodala and Dalembert for expirings, Charolotte 1st, Utah 1st, and Wayne Ellington.
Gay turned down a 5 year, $50 million deal at the beginning of the season. He is going to get paid as much as Iggy. WIth so many teams having max cap space next season, Gay will get a max offer because they want to do it. I like Iggy better because he affects more facets of the game than Gay does.
The thing..
…I don’t quite get (or perhaps am leery about) with the Philly talk is that Iggy and Dalembert have shown themselves to be limited around an albeit diminished Elton Brand. Would they really be all that much better on the Wolves than they are on the Sixers next to Jefferson and/or Love? Granted, they’d be a huge improvement over what the Wolves currently have, but Iggy isn’t a 1st option and Dalembert is even more limited with a big contract. I still think they’re looking for that #1 option with this group. I think they become Philly on the Mississippi if they make this deal. Of course, if they get Turner and he turns out to be more than what most people expect, all bets are off, but I’m not sure adding $20+ mil for those two guys is going to do what could be done with that money in 2011 or beyond the next CBA.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I don't disagree with you
but if you put Rubio in the mix, perhaps guys like Iggy and Dally suddenly become more effective. I’m just thinking about how that team was led by Andre Miller last year and they went 41-41. But yeah, I’m not willing to pay tens of millions to these two guys to find that out.
By the way, I don’t see Gay as any more worthy of a $12+M deal than Iggy. Both of these guys turn into 2-point jump shooters come playoff time when everything slows down.
by Rascal Flatts on Feb 11, 2010 7:42 PM CST up reply actions
If Gay gets $12 mil...
…then I hope it’s not with the Wolves. I don’t think he gets it. I’m guessing $8 is what he comes home to.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
With all of the money floating around next summer, teams clearing cap space to "make a splash" and the limited number of star available, you don't think Rudy gets something much closer to Max than $8?
Did Memphis offer Rudy more than $8 million in the fall?
I thought I read something like $10 or $11 million offered by memphis… So I assume they match anything up to, at least, that, no?
Again lots of teams chasing a few “Real Stars”. I think some players get very overpaid this summer.
Maybe financial uncertainty scares teams away, but if teams want to bring in fans who have been built up with stories of clearing cap space to bring in a star or stars, I’m guessing money will flow for guys like Rudy.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 9:05 PM CST up reply actions
I'm thinking...
…the pending CBA nonsense is going to scare a lot of teams off and I think we’re at the point of NBA GM’ing where the lessons have been learned about Rashard Lewising someone just because you have the money. Detroit is the latest shining example and I don’t think we’ll see it this year. Just a hunch and nothing else to bank it on so I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Your on the right track
although I think it is safe to project a little higher. Even if the owners get everything they want (which they won’t), team payrolls will average somewhere around $50 million. The three best players on a good team are going to make about $30-35 mil, and the other players will split the remaining $15-20 mil. With the shorter contracts that will be the norm, any player not in the top 8 rotation will make less than $1 mil, partially because there won’t be any more Blount, Jaric, THud kind of deals that sit at home or on the end of a bench.
I’d be willing to put down some $$ that he gets more than 8 a year. Someone will like NY will overpay when the dust surrounding the big names settles.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
At what point do you start saying a team overpaid?
10-11mil/yr seems like market value for a guy with his impact, and in a summer where an abnormal amount of teams have that kind of room, maybe it could go higher. For the Timberwolves, I’d probably go as high as 12mil/yr, but then at that point I look at Iguodala and say he seems like a better fit for similar money, so I would want the Timberwolves to go after a trade for him first (if he’s not dealt before then) using raw cap space as an asset.
Should get above 8mil/yr easy barring some huge collapse in the discussions between owners and the players union where owners basically blackball players.
by Casperkid23 on Feb 11, 2010 10:32 PM CST up reply actions
Well, I guess overpay in the context we’re discussing, i.e. something averaging well over 10 million a year. In general, that’s probably not terrible, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone ends up giving him more than that. I definitely think Gay gets well over 8 a year.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
its not just where the deal starts but how it escalates.... what is the total payout.
Biggest restricts this past year…..
rondo $55 million – average of $11
Aldridge – $65 million — average of $13
Roy $82 million – average of $16.4
My guess is someone like Gay in the summer’s superheated free agent environment will get something between Roy and Aldridge money.
— Roy had the max but the max next summer will be somewhat lower.
$14M average over 5 years from someone like the knicks wouldn’t surprise me.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 11:48 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, that’s what I said. SnP said he thinks he’ll get 8. I’m not sure if he meant starting point or average, but even assuming he meant that figure as a starting point, I’d be willing to bet he gets more.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
If you look at other young wings
Granger, Iggy, Deng, and Martin are all around the same type of money. That’s the kind of group I see Rudy Gay fitting into (Granger being the outlier), and those are 11-13m players.
by Casperkid23 on Feb 11, 2010 11:56 PM CST up reply actions
He’ll probably get that much, but I wouldn’t necessarily let precedent set his value. You could easily argue that Martin and Deng are overpaid, and with the CBA status in limbo, I’d be hesitant to shell out huge huge money for Gay. I’d rather trade for Iggy, personally. He’s a superior defender whose motivation has never been questioned, but that might just be me.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I for one am not saying thats what we should pay... I'm saying some GM will offer it.
by the way, Kahn said we’d have $13 or $14 million and thats all he needs….
and we also heard rumours that the team likes Gay….
We’ll see…..
At this point I think thats too much for Gay. Gay is still mostly a one way player. His net positive PER is right around about 1.5. He has a postive 2 for SF but also plays some PF where he is minus 3.8
Even a 2 isn’t great. Certainly not worth $14 million in my view.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 12, 2010 12:37 AM CST up reply actions
All LMA jokes aside
I would not be ok if we had paid him 13M per… that’s just wrong.
….
..
…….
…
Good thing he donates all of his money to charity anyways, what an outstanding guy!
It made sense for Portland, kinda
They knew he wasn’t worth that, but they would have been over the cap whether he signed for $7.5 million (his true value) or $13 million. At the end of the day, they needed to keep him, so they paid him what he wanted. The only effect is that it costs Paul Allen a little more. And what’s another $5.5 million of Paul Allen’s money?
While I agree it's really a minor cost for him
he certainly didn’t get that rich by that way of thinking ;-)
It'd be the new Dean Garrett effect
with Rubio instead of Marbury:
but if you put Rubio in the mix, perhaps guys like Iggy and Dally suddenly become more effective./blockquote>
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Feb 12, 2010 11:25 AM CST up reply actions
I would get that argument if it wasn’t so hard to carry cap space from year to year and Dalembert’s contract wasn’t ending after next season. So basically it is like adding a max free agent during the offseason when you look at the 2011-2012 offseason, if Dalembert doesn’t work out. Not to mention, if David Thorpe, Kurt Rambis, and Co could fix Corey Brewer’s jump shot, I believe they can fix Iguodala’s jumper. Then add in, Rambis and Co would have all summer to tinker with Iguodala’s jumper instead of August and onwards like Corey did this year, so I would expect Iguodala to be farther ahead when the season begins next year compared to where Corey Brewer was when he started this season.
Yeah, but would you have said the same thing about Gasol? Bear in mind that Brand has stunk (seriously, he’s terrible) and the rest of that team is in disarray, but Iguodala continues to produce and play hard. Can you really fault a guy for the situation he’s in? He’s obviously not a go-to guy out there, but he’s still a really really good player who’s young enough to fit our core.
IF, and I stress IF, the Wolves can find a way to land Turner, then I think he can be that #1 guy you go to in end of game situations on the perimeter. If that’s the case, then he and Al are 1A and 1B offensively, which means Iggy gets to play the role he was born to play: all-star caliber 2-way glue guy. Basically a Bill Gates’ Ryan Gomes.
And remember, this team is apparently considering moving those two for TMac. We have to be able to field a better offer than that. We take on salary, but remember that we’re not guaranteed to land anyone in free agency. I’m all for the Rudy Gay campaign, but Iguodala is both better, and if he comes via trade, guaranteed to be here for a while. I’d almost rather they go with the guarantee than hope that free agency works out. The abundance of more attractive teams with just as much space as us really worries me about our chances.
Of course, my master plan is all contingent on landing Turner, but dammit, it’s gonna happen. IMO, the POBO should already be brainstorming contingency plans in case we don’t land in the top 2.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
According to the nifty little swap tool down below, replacing Wilkins with Iguodala nets +6.6 wins, replacing Gomes with him nets +3.7 and replacing Hollins with Dally is +1.9. Interesting.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I honestly have no idea what it incorporates :) There’s a link to it down below, though, so they may explain the mechanics somewhere on the page. I’m heading out the door so I don’t have time to look deeper.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Don't know how it works
but the tool does show/predict what the defensive and offensive efficiency for the team should like if you make these player swaps. I’d take it with a grain of salt, but my guess is that adding a guy like Iggy to the Wolves would have a pretty significant ripple effect on the overall defense of the team, especially if Brewer can be on the court at the same time. I think Dalembert would also have an effect as well, but his is lessened because in relative terms our terrible three point defense hurts us more than our poor interior defense (it takes fewer made three pointers to equal a bunch of close two pointers). That’s why I think Iggy’s impact is so dramatic.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
I will be so disappointed if Kahn doesn’t pull off a trade for Iggy and Dalembert. I would even give up Flynn in the trade if I had to. I really think Iggy is an infinitely better addition than Rudy Gay….and I highly doubt that Rudy would even sign here.
I wouldn’t hold out too much hope given that we don’t know what Kahn’s MO is in regards to big moves. But I think it makes as much sense as just about any alternative, and DAMN do I want to see Iguodala on the break with Rubio. That alone would be worth the price of admission :)
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I'd give up Flynn for Iggy
in a heartbeat.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Feb 12, 2010 11:27 AM CST up reply actions
Nifty
But I have no idea that Hollins is only two wins worse than Dalembert.
I'm in full agreement
Sessions, Flynn, whatever. Their numbers are very comparable, they have complimentary strengths and weaknesses (shooting v. facilitating), I’ll take either one, or both, which is what we’re seeing.
I think Rambis ignored defensive play for the first half of the season, probably because he wanted to implement his offensive system first. The offense is clicking, and it’s time to worry pretty seriously about stopping penetration and fixing defensive rotations.
by losDelFuego on Feb 11, 2010 12:51 PM CST up reply actions
On a more general note...
that’s an encouraging performance, as a whole. Charlotte is a very good team. Not a great team that contends for the title, but definitely playoff-bound and possibly as deep as the second round. These teams that we’ve played tough lately (Dallas, Memphis, Charlotte) are not doing any tanking and cannot afford losses to teams like ours.
Not to be contradictory
but they’re a very good home team, and a garbage road team (6-19 before tonight). I’d be much more willing to label this a moral victory had it taken place in Charlotte.
Good point
I didn’t realize that. Still, I think CHA has a pretty good thing going with S-Jack and Wallace, so it was nice that we held our own.
overall they are 14 and 7 since the new year, thats not too shabby! 6 of their 7 losses to very good teams....
Atlanta, orlando, denver, portland, lakers and new orleans,
odd man out was the Knicks when the knicks were hot.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 11:07 PM CST up reply actions
I didn’t see the game, but I’m surprised no one has mentioned that the team was outrebounded by 11 and allowed Nazr Mohammed to go for 21 and 20.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Feb 11, 2010 12:00 PM CST reply actions
I did and said Love should have played more, to improve the rebounding and foul shot advantages of bobcats.... was called a spam bot for raising the issue...lol..
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 1:00 PM CST up reply actions
Love wouldn't have been guarding Mohammed.
That seems like a problem that’s fixed by, “Hey Al, box him out for chrissakes!”
by pagingstanleyroberts on Feb 11, 2010 5:00 PM CST up reply actions
If you have one very good rebounder on the floor, opponents can focus on boxing him out even have two guys keeping him off the boards.. If you have two on the floor, its very hard to stop them both.
You can have two guys trying to box out an Al or a kevin, but there aren’t enough big bodies to block out both of them.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 9:12 PM CST up reply actions
at the game
and Love was playing horrible again, I still would have liked him in the game but at the same time I would have trouble putting a player out there that was playing as badly as he has been.
by TheMorningAfter on Feb 12, 2010 11:26 AM CST up reply actions
Flynn on Pick and Rolls
One thing I’ve noticed about Flynn is that when he runs a p-n-r with Al or Kevin, Jonny often has his head down or is looking in a different direction. It seems like he’s not even looking for the big who is rolling to the hoop and who is sometimes open. Teams are starting to hedge on those screens, knowing that Flynn isn’t going to pass it in that situation.
It’s just a small thing, but it’s something I’ve noticed a lot with Jonny.
Can we just keep a Jonny-to-do list
of things we would like Jonny to work on?
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 11, 2010 12:20 PM CST up reply actions
A Jonny-do list?
Another potential addition to the Hoopus dictionary for what a player needs to work on, not just to improve, but what he needs to work on to actually play better within a system. So, for example, Hollins’ Jonny-do list would be a lot longer than Love’s, but maybe not as long as Stewie’s.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Feb 11, 2010 12:50 PM CST up reply actions
Aaron Brooks = Jonny Flynn
I think this is the best player comparison out there, and a realistic hope for what Flynn can develop into. The Jason Terry comp never worked for me, as Terry looks to shoot jumpers before drive. I wrote this over on RealGM:
If he can improve over the next couple years, he’s the next Aaron Brooks: an undersized 20/5 point guard, decent shooter, better slasher, moderately efficient, whose playmaking is less than ideal. An average starting PG.
I looked up their rookie year Per36 numbers on Basketball-Reference. It’s worth taking a look for how eerily similar they are. Link
Agree
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again here – Brooks’ defense is far far far superior to JFly’s at this point, and if Jonny can even approach average defensively I think we’ll see a big improvement. Using the swap tool we are looking at a potential 5 win improvement if Jonny’s D gets up to speed and he becomes a bit better at finding/knowing when to take his own shot.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
What's also interesting
and not really on point for this particular comment thread, but swapping Flynn for Jennings gives us only .3 more wins over the year, while swapping Flynn for Curry actually gives us fewer wins (-1.7). Tyreke would give us only 2.8 more wins, while Lawson would give us nearly 8 more wins. I’m not sure I really believe that – seems like if that was true than Ty should be the clear front runner for rookie of the year. Just makes me think even more that these types of swap tools over value the impact of players from winning teams and undervalue the impact of players on losing teams. But then again, who knows? Maybe Lawson really would have been the perfect PG for us? Darren Collison, btw, would have produced -2.5 wins for us (in comp. to JFly) according to this swap gizmo.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
Where is the swap tool you are using? Is it an online tool we all can play with?
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 1:47 PM CST up reply actions
One interesting thing of note
I’d take a lot of this swap tool stuff with a grain of salt. Near as I can tell it tries to be pretty objective, but it seems like a lot of the final results are highly dependent on who else is on the team. For example, if you put Jonny Flynn on the Lakers in place of Derek Fisher, LAL would win 3.3 more games, and their defensive efficiency would improve from 102.2 to 100.8. But if you swap Flynn for Farmar (while LA would keep Fisher), then LAL would lose 7.8 games as a result, and their defensive efficiency would go from 100.7 to 102.2. That’s a ten game swing in wins based on three players, and illustrates the degree to which the surrounding cast can influence the impact of a given player.
Lawson may be an extreme example of this – he’s the perfect player for Denver’s system, and he’s surrounded by the perfect supporting cast for the type of player he is. Although, the truth is no matter who I swap him out for he dramatically (positively) impacts his new team. He’d even help Sacto win more games in place of Tyreke. Phoenix would be 4 wins better with Lawson instead of Nash, NOR would be 1.3 games better in place of CP3, and even Utah would be better with Lawson instead of Derron Williams. So maybe a little salt is needed with this tool.
Key point – surrounding cast makes a really big difference in how this tool calculates the impact of a given player.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
One other weird thing
Apparently you can swap players on the same team for each other, and if you swap Ramon for Jonny the Wolves actually do worse. If you swap Jonny for Ramon they do better. I don’t know what that means, but so far the basketball interwebs continuum hasn’t collapsed, so that’s good.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
lol....lol.... maybe keep switching them out in a way that we get better and we win a championship this year? lol...
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 2:35 PM CST up reply actions
Wolves improve
over 12 wins if we put in Robin Lopez instead of Hollins. We actually lose more if we put in Camby.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
Great.
Another productivity sink. Damn you Queen City Hoops!
There’s only one thing on the Sessions <> Flynn thing, They’re both young but 3 years difference is a difference. Who knows where Flynn will be in 3 years … Sessions was in the D-League 3 years back.
I’m not saying Flynn should start or whatever, just that there’s an age difference of 3 years and well, that does count for something.
Official Kahn/Rambis band-wagon rider since 2009
It is true that 3 years does make a difference. Rookie year versus 2 plus years NBA experience also makes a difference.
But people do forget how highly Sessions was also thought of.
Sessions was 10th last season among all PG in Wins Produced [Berri’s stat on wages of wins.]
He had a similar rating in PER among all PG and Hollinger’s projection for this season was a breakout performance by Sessions.
So while you are right that Flynn could surpass Sessions with a few more years of experience, Sessions was already very highly thought of and was considered “the steal of the summer” when Kahn signed him.
It’s not clear to me that Flynn has higher potential than Sessions.
It is clear that both can be good players with the right coaching. [But Flynn’s needs more development than Sessions.]
Sessions is a 3 point shot away from being a star type point guard [if he plays at last years level and adds the 3 pointer.]
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 2:06 PM CST up reply actions
So
So why doesn’t Sessions have a three point shot yet, after three years in the league? And why was he a D-leaguer to begin with? I’m all for overachievers and I love Sessions’ story, but if he is who many people on Hoopus say he is, then he needs to answer some of those questions. I think Sessions has been able to fly under the radar this year and escape a lot of scrutiny and questions. I’m not saying that there’s a reason we should be questioning him, but I am saying that I don’t know what his warts are at all beyond three point shooting because everything is always framed in “Jonny messed this up again, and Sessions didn’t.” Sessions has, to this point in the season, always been the fallback ‘way it should’ve been’ comparison to Flynn – he’s this team’s 2nd string QB (aka the most popular guy on the team).
So what is Sessions not good at? What are the tradeoffs if we start him for the next 20 games and let teams adjust to that (in other words, minimizing the Ryan Hollins surprise start 3 game stats boost).
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
He really has been in the league a little over 2 years.....and as I said, without a 3 point shot he was highly thought of by guys like Berri and Hollinger.
He was a D-leaguer because he was a late 2nd round pick. He has made himself into a very good player.
From where he started to where he was after last season, he showed amazing improvement. I wouldn’t bet against the kid.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 2:26 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not betting against him
I’m just wondering why/when we’ll see a three point shot out of him. If he’s going to be annointed the starter (at least by the Hoopus faithful), then I want to know what he’s doing to get better. Jonny’s failings are well chronicled, and we’ve also seen at least some improvement in passing/TOs. Corey’s improvements are very noticeable this year, and even Al appears to be trying to improve his game. On the other hand, Love’s only improvement has been three point shooting (although it could be argued that he always had the basics of that and was simply snuffed by Wittman), Gomes seems the same as always, Wilkens is what he is at this point, and Sessions seems the same to me as in the beginning of the year. Where’s his improvement?
Alright, I understand I’m being overly critical of Sessions here in order to make a point, which is if, as everyone seems to be falling into more or less agreement with, Sessions is the superior player to Flynn at this point, then we need to start holding him to a higher standard and to a higher set of expectations. That’s all.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
you are right, everyone must be accountable to improve. Both Sessions and Flynn had a lot in their plate this season, learning the triangle!
I’m impressed with how Wolves coaches got Brewer to go up vertically. They identified and corrected the flaw in Brewer’s shot.
Lets hope they can help Sessions in a similar way.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 2:49 PM CST up reply actions
Little strong there
I don’t like wages of wins that much, due to the insane valuation of rebounding and the somewhat patronizing tone Berri can take. But the guy’s not an idiot… just someone who I suspect doesn’t watch much basketball.
went back and looked at top 5 man rotations (plus minus) again for the season... top 4 and 6 out of the top 8 have Sessions still
Also looked at the last 10 games.
top 3 and 6 out of top 8 still have Sessions.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Feb 11, 2010 2:39 PM CST up reply actions
Great site- I'm a newbe here from the stribe....
I used the player swap and found the wolves would have more wins swapping Hollins for the following:
DeAndre Jordan (1.9)
Tyrus Thomas (3.9)
Anderson Varejao (1.6)
Zydrunas Ilgauskas (3.7)
Lebron James (22.6)
Craig Smith (9.2)
Maybe Khan does know what he’s doing!
by mnsportsjunkie on Feb 12, 2010 10:49 AM CST reply actions
thanks for reading...
…and welcome aboard.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Just looking at the numbers
It seems we’d improve quite a bit if we switched our project center out for this “James” fellow.
I'm a supporter of you, Kurt Rambis, but...
You need to praise you players more when they do something well. I’ve seen a lot
of positives out there where all you see is negatives; and you need to stop criticizing
your players in the press so much. Players are not so dumb that they don’t read about
themselves in the papers. If you kick your dog every time he comes around, pretty
soon he won’t come around, or even respond to you any more. C’mon, Kurt, we know
your frustration after having been on a winning team for your whole career - you, yourself, said that this was a project, and you said you knew what you were getting into when you inked your name. Don’t kill the spirit of these young men; don’t make them hate
you. You know what happens next? They ask for trades because they don’t want to
play for you(I know I never wanted to work for a guy who always only saw the bad things I did, and not the good.). When they ASK to be traded, you never get anything in return. Look yourself in the mirror. If you see a bitter, frustrated coach, then change the face before David Kahn does. With all that negativity, you will never get another coaching job.
Sure, Zenmaster makes it look easy; but did he ever have a cellar dwelling young
team that didn’t know up from down? No. He always chose a team that was already
a contender, or had the best pieces in a big market. Your job is tougher. You have
to be tougher. That doesn’t mean to kick the dog. That means to bring to your job
organization, answers, and proper psychology. You were a psychology major, weren’t
you? You are a parent aren’t you? What would happen if every time you saw your
kids you didn’t smile, but frowned and told them how stupid they are? Do you
think they would respond positively? I like you. You are a favorite of mine since the
old Lakers days; but I don’t recognize you any more. Get out of this me—them
adversarial attitude before the Timberwolves quit - and you quit. I have never known you to quit, but you need to bring a smile and some positiveness to a struggling team
that needs your encouragement and praise. Yeah, they sucked in the game after
the 4 win string. Forget it and move on!! On KLove. Don’t tell him he sucks and is
lazy. Tell him you want more from him without telling him how lousy he’s been
playing. Hasn’t he had some great games? Let’s focus on the positives. When
you told the world about the saved ball into Nazr Mohammad’s hands for a layup,
at least, to the press, could you not have said, laughing it off, “We’ll have to work
on it.” instead of embarrassing your player in the newspapers and on the internet.
Don’t destroy these fragile guys, but edify them — build them up That’s what you came to do, and I hope you do it, but in a way for the better. I still think you can be
the best coach in the NBA, but you need to be a little more ‘people’ person so that
you can draw the best out of your people. They’re your kids. I think you can do it.
Don't kick a live dog.
by WillistonCoyote on Feb 12, 2010 4:58 PM CST reply actions

by 


















