A run for the ages
by Stop-n-Pop on Mar 25, 2010 8:00 AM CDT
Email
PrintWith 7:20 remaining in the 2nd corner, Wayne Ellington drained a 24-foot three pointer to give the Wolves a 43-34 lead. What happened next was simply too good to pass up for a Korean recipe.
Over the course of the next 6 minutes and 31 seconds, the Charlotte Bobcats went on a 20-0 run that saw the Wolves put up the following totals:
- Blocked attempts: 5
- Fouls: 4
- Missed shots (not including blocks): 6
- Defensive rebounds: 5
- Offensive rebounds: 2
- Made Shots: 0
- Turnovers: 8
- My first game note of the night: "Flynn is actually making quick decisions in the 1/2 court; he's not pounding the ball into the floor." Flynn had a really nice 1st quarter. He was bringing the ball up quickly and making a pass within 2-4 seconds of bringing it past 1/2 court. The offense didn't have the (relative) "click" that it sometimes does with Ramon Sessions out there, but it was noticeably better than what he was doing earlier in the year.
- Favorite play of the game/capsule of the problems with this team: On a 3-on-3 transition opportunity (in, I believe, the 2nd quarter run) with (I think) Flynn on (or near the ball), Darko marking the streaking Cats headed down the center of the lane, and Damien Wilkins on the wing, a Bobcat came through Wilkins' area of responsibility and darted directly to the left block. Somewhere along the line, Wilkins appeared to have simply stopped running, thinking that Darko (who was rightfully interested in protecting the rim/paint) would pick up a guy that Wilkins should have stuck with. The pass went directly to the open Bobcat for the layup. Thankfully, Wilkins didn't have to leave his area of the court so the Wolves could set up in their 1/2 court defe...wait a minute. No communication, no smarts, no effort, no win....and no fans if they continue this type of ridiculous play that has nothing to do with the talent level on the squad. You can get junior high players to communicate better in transition defense than what the Wolves do.
- The Wolves had an eFG of .625 in the 1st, .25 in the 2nd, .579 in the 3rd, and .441 in the 4th.
- Speaking of part of the Four Factors, I'm not so sure FTAs mean what we think they mean for the Wolves. Charlotte only attempted 16 FTAs last night, mostly because their attempts in situations that normally draw fouls were nothing other than open runs at the rim. Sure, this padded Charlotte's eFG, but even if the Wolves matched their effort from the field (say, 42-82 with one more 3), they still would have come up short. Of course, there's always offensive rebounding, but it is interesting to see how FTAs for bad defenses might be devalued just by a tiny bit compared to other franchises who can play things straight up. Just a hunch. It probably doesn't work itself out over a large sample size. I just continue to be amazed by the ways in which the Wolves can make me rethink the philosophy of suckitude in the NBA.
- Is Corey Brewer's reputation as a defender deserved?
- Has Ryan Gomes punched his ticket out of town?
- Winston gets 3 full scoops 2 times a day
- Kirby gets 1 full scoop 1 time a day
- Please do not "eyeball pour" or "bowl scoop" the food into the dogs' bowls
- Please remember to firmly close the lid on the food bin when you are finished
253 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nothing, Nothing Tops This
The 2001-02 Wolves were playing the Cavs on January 29, 2002. The Cavs were 14-29 coming into the game and the Wolves were 31-12. The Wolves bolted out to a 39-30 lead. The Cavs then went on a 45-4 run over 9:37. The Wolves even had halftime to try to get their bearings, but no use.
Pining for a Troy Hudson/Marko Jaric backcourt.
I Should Add that Cleveland Was Riding a 12-Game Losing Streak
That was, without question, the worst run allowed in franchise history, when you consider how much better the Wolves were than that Cleveland team. Hell, giving anyone 45 points in just over 9 minutes is mind blowing.
Pining for a Troy Hudson/Marko Jaric backcourt.
I remember that game well...
Those Flip teams could put up some stinkers on the road from time to time. This one prominently featured the corpses of Trajan Langdon, Wesley Person, and Bryant Stith.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Mar 25, 2010 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions
That was a real problem I had
with people who always defended Flip during the seven year first round skid. If the Wolves had done a better job taking care of business in the regular season, they would have had more favorable matchups in round one.
That's awesome
BTW: Interesting side-note: That was Randy Wittman’s first game back in Cleveland after being fired. He landed on the Wolves bench and we know the rest. His kid plays tonight. Interesting take on the game can be found here:
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/03/24/those-plucky-cornell-kids/
I’m with Taibbi. I don’t get the whole Cornell thing. Kentucky has 2 of the best 3 players in the land and they play an amazingly fun style of ball with future pro players. This is where I don’t get the college game.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
See, I'd agree too, if that was what was going on
But actually, Taibbi just wrote the story he wanted to write, without really examining how the story is being covered. Classic bad sportswriting. Tell the story you want to tell, even if it’s not real. Notice that he gave exactly ZERO examples of what he’s talking about with this story.
What’s funny is, we’ve seen what he’s describing before, but aren’t actually seeing it in this case. Is it a story that Cornell is in the Sweet 16? Of course it is; it should be. But the press hasn’t been disrespectful of Kentucky, or at least I haven’t seen it.
I’m generally hypersensitive to the racial subtexts in the sports media. But when you write: “they’re painting the Kentucky kids as taking-it-for-granted future millionaires,” how about a quote to that effect? I’ve seen nothing but positive stories about how good Kentucky is, how intense and hard working their star is, etc.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 25, 2010 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions
That's a good way of putting it...
…I ultimately end up on his side because of the “that’s how the game was meant to be played” aspect of the coverage. I also like that while he tipped his hat to the racial aspect of such a conclusion (and I do think there is some of that and he doesn’t provide a quote like you rightly say he should) but, for me, his biggest plus is that he framed it with class in mind. This is ivy league vs a state school no matter how their sports departments are run. This is a team filled with future pros vs future y-league all stars and fund managers.
That being said, good call on the proof texting aspect of his article. Admittedly, I read it as lazily as possible because my knee jerk reaction is to wonder why in the hell anyone would go ga-ga about an ivy league team…other than that they whipped the far more boring and awful playing Wisconsin. Thank God Bo Ryan doesn’t coach in Ithaca.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Yep
As I said, I think there is a lot of this often in sports coverage; frankly I’ve been a little surprised that Kentucky isn’t getting more…backhanded coverage than they are.
I’m not a huge college ball guy for the same reasons. I do think there probably is a swath of fans out there who are rooting for Cornell because “they play the game the right way” and “they are a team that plays together,” despite the fact that KY plays pretty freaking well together too.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 25, 2010 9:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Almost everyone I know is rooting for Cornell
Even if they have Kentucky in their brackets (like I do), or want to see the Kentucky prospects go up against better competition (again, like I do). First, a big reason is probably that we know someone who went to Cornell and they are most definitely not a basketball school. Second because it’s &%$$ing Cornell going up against Kentucky – how great would it be if Kentucky lost? I almost always root for the underdog when watching these games, though a very close second is hoping for the best prospect matchups.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
question
who wins head to head. UNI vs. Cornell?
All I know is that is some Hoosiers styll ball. I would almost expect some Pleasentville style shooting (eight people shoot threes during warmups and they all go in right after the other).
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 25, 2010 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions
Hoosiers style ball
not styll ball.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 25, 2010 9:41 AM CDT up reply actions
From what I've seen of both teams...
I’d definitely go Cornell. UNI’s win against Kansas was fluky beyond all belief in my eyes. Cornell has shown me they’re the real deal – though likely going to drop back into being nowhere close to making the tournament next year when brackets are being made, and UNI has staying power.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
Wow
Could not possibly disagree more on UNI’s win being fluky. They completely outplayed KU and it wasn’t even close. The only reason it wasn’t a total laugher is because apparently UNI has no idea how to beat a full court press. Which is going to be interesting tomorrow night, to see if MSU tries to do it a bunch and how UNI handles it if so. But there was nothing fluky about the KU game. UNI was just flat out the superior team from the opening tip, by a mile. I have no idea how anyone could say that was fluky. Haven’t seen anyone else say it either.
I don't like college ball all that much..
….but Farokhmanesh’s shot was the best dagger shot I think I’ve ever seen.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
he may as well turned to the kansas bench..
…dropped his drawers and given them a double fisted middle finger salute.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Indeed
That was one of the ballsiest shots I’ve ever seen. The most ballsiest, even. I still can’t believe he put it up, but as a native Iowan, let me just say it was a bit exciting when it went in.
My auto-spell checker has no problem with ballsiest, so apparently that’s a word.
Ditto on the Iowan thing..
…I was born in Ames and I always get a kick out of the fact the state has so many D-I schools compared to MN.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Pretty easy for me to call it fluky
Collins and Taylor played basically their worst games. Aldrich was injured midway through the game. Arguably the best defense in the country looked average for 38 minutes of the game against a team which is relatively average offensively.
They lost that game because they didn’t come to play and UNI did. UNI got lucky that was the case, they didn’t play exceptional on defense to force Collins and Taylor into sucking, they did that themselves. They didn’t do anything which caused Aldrich to get injured, it was a freak injury. UNI didn’t do anything to make the KU perimeter defense suddenly become mediocre, the only thing they did is bring Aldrich out of his comfort zone – that should not have affected the guards in the manner they struggled.
Basically, KU wins that game 9 times out of 10, and I’m likely understating that. It’s fluky because they didn’t win, they lost, and it wasn’t really UNI’s doing… KU lost.
Cornell, on the other hand, soundly beat two pretty good teams because they won. They played extremely good basketball and took two team’s best effort and still dominated them.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the laugh
Sorry, but UNI played unbelievably well. Just like Cornell. Just like they did all year.
Besides just saying "thanks for the laugh"
Maybe try and counter my points with some evidence? Did you see UNI do much to make Taylor and Collins suck, or did they just suck because they shriveled in a big game? Did you see UNI creating and hitting difficult contested shots, or did you see Kansas not play their usual defense and maybe think they could coast? Any kind of examples?
Do you not agree with KU winning that game 9 times out of 10?
Do you honestly not see the difference between Cornell outplaying a Wisconsin team that played their normal game – maybe even better than their normal game – and UNI beating a KU game that played awful by KU’s standards?
Don’t get get all smart-ass on me and then not bring anything to the table. I know what went on during that game and the Cornell game, I can literally go through and explain in even more detail why I consider it a fluky win and why Cornell’s wasn’t. However, I won’t do that if the person I’m debating with is acting like a five-year-old saying “Nuh-uh!”
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
Sorry
Just didn’t take it too seriously. Collins having a bad game doesn’t mean anything. UNI had one of the absolute best defenses in the country all year. And I’m supposed to be surprised he had a bad game? Aldrich got hurt a good thirty minutes into the game and UNI handed KU their asses for those thirty minutes prior to the injury. If KU is the kind of team that thinks they can coast, which didn’t seem the case all year, then that’s not exactly a point in favor of it being a fluke. That mentality is part of who they are. Nuh-uh!
You and I must have very different definitions of fluke
UNI was lucky that Collins played an awful game, little which had to do with UNI’s defense. UNI was lucky that Taylor played an awful game, little which had to do with UNI’s defense. UNI was lucky that KU didn’t put forth its normal level of effort on defense outside of what Aldrich gave them in the post and what they showed in that two minutes of press defense.
It’s like you and I watched two different games. The one I watched had Collins doing his best “Jonny Flynn in the NBA” imitation, it had Taylor doing his best Sasha imitation, and it had Kansas playing defense about as well as the Timberwolves.
KU coasting for the majority of the game means it was a fluke game, because they were incredibly lucky to face them when they weren’t focused. That wasn’t the case in Cornell’s games. I don’t know if it’s because you are from Iowa or what, but yeah.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
Doubt it's a question of defining the word; I disagree with everything you're saying
A lot of players all year had bad games against UNI. You might even call it a pattern. Or maybe they just got lucky 30 or so times. One thing that has nothing to do with luck is the mental make up of a team. So if KU really is so weak-minded that they just don’t feel like trying in an NCAA tournament game, it’s hardly a strike against UNI that they took advantage of an opponent’s weakness. That would just be who KU is as a team. If indeed that is part of what happened, and neither of us can know for sure. But really, UNI earned every bit of that. They were without a doubt the better team. Literally EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE I’ve read online about that game has said the same thing. Maybe all those writers are from Iowa. That isn’t to say there aren’t others that agree with you, but I haven’t seen any. I know lots of times on sports sites, smart people will take an unusual opinion just for the sake of showing insight that others haven’t brought out, unconsciously. I apologize for what might be seen as an insult (it isn’t), but I think that’s what’s going on. What you’re saying is obviously, on its face, incorrect. Just like UNI was obviously underseeded. Which I was quite vocal about before the tournament started.
So, I WIN. NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH.
Please go rewatch the game
Tell me if anything I said was false. Pay attention to how Collins was trying to be the man and ignore a clear advantage they had in the frontcourt offensively. Look at how Taylor jacks up 3s early in the clock. Compare their defensive effort to the rest of the season – especially their Big-12 schedule.
“A lot of players all year had bad games against UNI” yeah, check out those powerhouse teams and the star players they’ve faced. Non-conference SOS of .455 and the best player they played all year before KU was Brackins.
It’s like I’m spitting on your mother’s face the way you’re responding to me calling the game what it was – a fluke win. Every single article probably said they were the better team because… they won? Does that mean it wasn’t a fluke? If I beat a guy with a 0 handicap straight up in one round of golf when I’m a 20 handicap and shot a 90, wouldn’t that make me the better golfer on that day? Wouldn’t that also be a fluke win because it really wasn’t anything I did, but something he did – hence I was very lucky?
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
by Casperkid23 on Mar 25, 2010 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions
What you missed is how efficient offensively UNI was in the first half. Watch the first couple minutes and see Eglseder drain two treys. Perhaps Aldrich should be out on the perimeter guarding him there, but I give credit for setting that shot up to UNI. Most big men like to stay under the hoop so they can defend the paint. One team moved the ball and hit open shots, hustled on defense, fought for rebounds and contested shots; They’re also the team that won.
Wow good job on being in a ridiculous argument with Casper, the one guy here that absolutely knows college basketball
Bottom line: the planets alligned and all of Kansas’ big players had terrible games on the same night. Sherron Collins was horrible. They coasted most of the game, probably with their sights set on Mich St., Ohio St. and whoever else.
I’m willing to bet you didn’t even watch the Kansas-UNI game, you just don’t want to admit you were wrong about something.
HA HA HA HA!!!!!
Are you serious??? You can’t make stuff like that up. I thought there was something very bizarre about what he was saying and then you show up to take his side!! I was going to comment on what he said, but obviously there’s no need. I actually was starting to feel bad that I wasn’t taking him seriously. But then, who is that on the horizon? It’s the man who couldn’t sell steak in a famine! The man who couldn’t argue that Hitler was a bad guy without offending every Jew on the Internet! Please! Tell me more about the way things are! I need to know! I NEED TO KNOW!! AAAAAAHHHH!!!!
Seriously, thank you that was maybe my personal favorite moment on this site. Hey, I have a request! Could you come up with another funny, pottymouth name for this site? Anus Poopus was great, it was. But I know that with such tearjerkingly unique insight into everyday life, such as what you possess, that was just a t-shirt in Liberace’s closet. More. MORE. MORE MORE. I WANT MORE. I WANT MORE. I WANT MORE!!!!! MOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMORE!!!!!!!!!!
Argh
I said I wouldn’t get involved in the silly one-sided site feud again, and I did. For real, no more. We Wolves fans need to unite. The Drive To Win More Games in 82 Tries Than A Really Good NFL Team Wins in 18 Or 19 Tries should bring us together. Roundhouse: We are brothers in Pavlovic and sisters in Cardinal. No matter where life leads you, just be sure you’re being led by Kahn.
oh my god. snp did u seriously delete the responses to this bi polar manic episode? Total fail. You are a total hipocrite
by WallyW0rld on Mar 27, 2010 12:43 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I did
roundhouse has a long and proud history of being warned about our one main request on the site: no name calling.
Seeing that you just signed up to comment on this site and are probably on loan from TWolvesBlog, I’ll just take this opportunity to remind everyone that Canis Hoopus is not a completely open forum. It is a moderated community site. It was created first and foremost for Wyn and I to have a virtual pub of our own making to hopefully attract people who enjoy watching and following the team in the same manner as us. We built it, we own it, and we can ask people to leave if (to build on the pub analogy) they’ve had a bit too much to drink or simply refuse to stop pissing all over the bar.
We haven’t had to do much policing on this site. 99% of the people who come and go are able to read a post or two, figure out the tone of the site, and act accordingly…much like they would if they were to walk into their favorite local watering hole. Amazingly only a small group of people seem to have a problem with this approach, and lately they all seem to be coming from a single place. If roundhouse and College Wolf want to name call and make posts about how everyone is out to get them, they have a place of their own where they are more than welcome to do so.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
ok? im not ‘on loan,’ i just feel if you are going to run your site like a 3rd grade classroom you should also remove comments from your own commenters. The above post from museum is just….weird.
by WallyW0rld on Mar 27, 2010 1:29 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
It's not at all weird
The very fact that you registered to comment makes it not weird. That’s why people do it; so there can be some sort of moderation and control over what happens below the fold. This is common practice on non open forums and it’s something that everything from haloscan to sitemeter was built to assist. By signing up for the site to comment in the first place, you had to check off a little box with your name under the following terms:
Canis Hoopus is open to readers of all ages and backgrounds. For this reason, there are two simple rules:
1. Don’t be mean
2. Keep it clean
You clicked off that little box mere minutes before making your first comment. I’m sure you’ve done it on other sites as well.
We are remarkably tolerant of people on their first offense. No one is saying you can’t poke fun at stupid things or stupid ideas. All we ask is that it be done as cleverly and as gently as possible.
This is not a 3rd grade classroom. It is a place where we ask people to talk about whatever they want so long as they’re not mean or boorish to the other guests.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Might i also add that any ‘pub’ patron would be kicked out for standing on a chair and yelling out comments about hitler and other psychotic, odd things.
by WallyW0rld on Mar 27, 2010 1:32 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
So you want us...
…to ban odd people and comments? Didn’t you just complain about us being 3rd graders for censoring name calling? Have you been to a local bar lately? Sorry, oddity is part of the charm.
Also, the reason why we ban swearing is two fold:
1- it stifles debate/communication
2- It’s hard enough to have a reasonable back-and-forth on the internet with a bunch of guys who don’t use their real names…why add swearing?
If this were a real bar, than yeah…we’d probably have no problem with people dropping an f-bomb off in the corner. It’s not. It’s our virtual pub and everyone can see/hear everything else.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Yeah, I might’ve gone a bit far. When I first saw he jumped in out of nowhere, I thought “why bother?” but it amused me too much. Probably should’ve ignored him, but oh well, lesson learned. But the fact is, he’s impossible to take seriously. His posts have just been bad. He doesn’t know how to make points, he has no idea how to intelligently advocate for his position and he’s not civil. I really think he’s the guy driving down the street, eating a cheeseburger, texting and singing along to the radio all at the same time, who runs into a telephone pole and then gets out and starts yelling at another driver for causing the accident. So I just don’t feel the need to take him or College Wolf seriously. I don’t believe they deserve normal conversation. Next time I’ll just ignore them instead of playing around with them for cheap amusement. My apologies, SNP.
I don't want..
….anyone to not take people seriously. Let’s just remember that we’re all here to do the same thing: enjoy watching/talking about the Wolves and the NBA. That’s all Wyn and I ask. Don’t be mean, keep it clean.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
how is this any less of an example of ‘name calling’ than roundhouse exhibited? Exactly my point on the double standard.
by WallyW0rld on Mar 27, 2010 6:08 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Not attempting to call anyone names at this point
I’m done mentioning those dudes. Just explaining the mindset that led me to do it in the first place.
roundhouse..
…is a repeat offender and has never once expressed anything remotely approaching an explanation of his actions or any sort of understanding of where other people are coming from. Were he to explain what he is thinking and then provide an analogy instead of name calling, he would be a lot better off in terms of his standing on this site. Instead, he comes back with little more than “ha ha, you suck, moron” time and time again.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
so if u provide an analogy then its ok??!!! Seriously dude?
by WallyW0rld on Mar 27, 2010 6:22 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm going to let you in on a little secret
If you don’t like something on the internet, you don’t have to read it.
You’re going to disagree with whatever I say, no matter how ridiculous you may look while doing it. Are you honestly going with a response of “if it’s analogy, it’s ok?” after an example of what roundhouse could do to be in good better graces around here? That’s what you’re rolling with? Maybe you should get your own site and write a front page post about how silly all of this is. I’d be more than happy to link to your next TWolvesBlog front page article about how ridiculous the comment policy over at Canis Hoopus is. What a fantastic Wolves-related topic that I’m sure everyone would want to read! You and roundhouse can make a post together about how Canis Hoopus is a childish 3rd grade affair and broadcast is all over Bloguin. What a wonderful recruiting tool for prospective bloggers!
Why wouldn’t you do that over at your own site? Why over here? Because it’s BS and you wouldn’t want something that silly on your front page. I think Poor Dick had the best description of this little episode:
[It] is akin…
to a restaurant losing their star chef to a competitor, and then the owners of the spurned restaurant deciding to steal the competitor’s customers by going over there at the peak dinner hour, wading out among the tables, unbuttoning their pants, squatting down, and taking a dump.
"Hey! See this big pile of steamy crap? Well, if you like that and want more, come on over to our place!"
Go crap at your own place.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
And I don’t mean to be rude. I just don’t buy it at all. There’s no contrast between the performances of Cornell and UNI. Not in the second round, anyway.
I agree with
museum. KU is probably the better team talent wise and would likely win the majory of games if the two teams played each other. Having said that, UNI was the better team that day and it wasn’t as closes as the box score indicates. KU was lucky to loose by only 2. It could have easily been double digits without some lucky shots.
Collins was horrid but Henry and Taylor weren’t all that effective either. If Morris didn’t have a monster game, it would have been really embarassing for KU.
I agree with
everyone. Maybe that’s trying to be a little too diplomatic, but they’ve both made valid points, and I do honestly think the argument became semantics over the word “fluke.” UNI outplayed KU, therefore they deserved to win. Will it happen often? No. Is that a fluke? I dunno.
It’s just MaDnesSssss!!
Dark Love is a-Brewin...
I'm amazed...
…that more people don’t pick up on the class thing. Hasn’t anyone watched Animal House? These a-holes are Omega Theta Pi.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
It's because most of the people driving the story
ARE those guys—sportswriters generally are and were part of the middle/upper classes. Thus they don’t see it, and don’t want to see it that way.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 25, 2010 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions
You can get that "COLLEGE" shirt
The Mall of America has it at some sort of University Clothes shop.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I agree
I’m excited to watch this game. Kentucky is the most-fun team to watch in the country, in my opinion. Cornell played a phenomenal first weekend, and looks up to the challenge of taking on anybody. Wittman’s kid is a great college player.
The Ivy League/no scholarships story is the obvious angle to take on the matchup. It has nothing to do with racial or cultural issues. 99+% of college basketball fans are excited for this game because of the basketball on the floor, and maybe the recruiting issues of each team (one cheats, the other starts at a major disadvantage).
Can’t wait to watch it.
I think there is a difference between the coverage...
…having racial or cultural issues and the team actually being a horribly efficient work of art. Cornell’s awesomeness stands on its own. They have the 9th highest rated offense per 100 possessions with a relatively slow pace. They have a bunch of guys with TS% over 60%. They don’t force things and they take (and make) open shots. What sets off the dog whistles for me is what I call my Grandpa Jonny Test. Whenever Grandpa Jonny exhibits above normal interest in a team, you can bet the farm that race is involved. He’s not a bad guy, it’s just who he is and he has an amazing tell on these sorts of things. Dude loves Cornell. I know why he generally likes Cornell (it’s a form of ball that he can relate to how he used to play) but I also know why he really likes Cornell…even though he’s a poor farmer and the guys he roots for are more likely to pull some fiscal shenanigans on his land for a bank than him getting a cold shoulder from a poor kid who made it big in the NBA.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
ha
my granpa is the same way. No one can drop the N word like my grandpa and make make it sound totally matter of fact. Then again I believe he voted for obama over McCain. For two reasons, one he was a farmer…and two McCain was too old (oh I love the irony).
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 25, 2010 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions
Ditto
Obama was the first Democrat he voted for since the 60s. His reason wasn’t McCain. He thinks Rush and Glenn Beck are dangerous idiots who will get someone killed and, amazingly, he knows he’s racist as sin and he wanted a black president so people would grow up with an example he never had (and knows he needed).
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Positive side effect of Obama be elected over McCain
plus actually having a female hispanic supreme court justice, is that people stopped (for the most part) just using a blanket racism/sexism charge to support why something happened. Not that those things don’t exist and won’t continue to exist, but nothing gets solved by conversing in generalities. Once you wipe away the reasonableness of that excuse.
Huge cultural win for the US.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 25, 2010 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions
Good point...
I was actually going to include something about age/generation gap, and how the Taibbi column would have been more relevant in 1991, when Duke played Michigan.
I just don’t think it’s all-that relevant, anymore. Yes, there are still racist people out there. But, not like there used to be — both in number and degree. The big story with this game is that Kentucky has the most talent in the country and that Cornell doesn’t get scholarships. That, and both teams play great basketball that fans seem to enjoy.
Good call on Duke-Michigan
And then we wound up with that effing Laettner.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 25, 2010 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm rooting for Cornell
Because, thanks to the damage done to the brackets during the second round (and picking Wisconsin for the Final Four), a win would probably put me in the driver’s seat for my office pool.
Not that I have an expectation of them winning.
That Cleveland Game; College BB
Back then, I was in law school and my classmates and I would “watch” games on our laptops while studying. I remember sitting in the library reading and glancing at the screen from time to time. When the run was going on, I was IMing one of my classmates who was sitting a few feet away. I didn’t actually see the game, but it was simply astounding to watch the score change as fast as it did. Needless to say, we were absolutely stunned.
College BB (more particularly the NCAA tournament) is about cheering for anomalies that can only occur when you have a small sample size (one game). The regular season in college is totally meaningless. There’s no home court advantage and you can be 0-25, but if you can win your conference tournament, you are in – and you play all your games at a neutral site, and better yet, if you are 3-25 EVERYONE IS ROOTING FOR YOU! No other major sport, pro or college, makes such a mockery of its regular season and yet the tournament rivals the freaking Super Bowl in popularity.
Pining for a Troy Hudson/Marko Jaric backcourt.
Agree to disagree
I’ve never understood the “meaningless regular season” thing. Sure, any one loss isn’t going to sink a team the way it does in college football, but you also get some teams (like mine, Michigan State) that have the freedom to play a tough schedule without being suicidal, and it makes for some great basketball games. The MSU / Gonzaga game early in the year may not have had huge ramifications for the future of either team, but they both played like it did and it was a blast to watch.
On the conference tournaments, it’s pretty rare that a) a really awful team gets in via the conference tournament and (more importantly) b) their inclusion leads to the omission of a team that had any chance of winning the tournament anyway. So everyone gets to have a little more fun during the conference tournament week without doing much harm to the Big Dance. Fine with me.
The tournament is great precisely because anything can happen, at least for a while. But even with all of the variance caused by the one-and-done format, one of the best teams (based on regular season performance) almost always ends up winning the title. By my reading of the list of past champions, you have to go back to Villanova in 1985 to find a champion that you’d consider undeserving based on their regular season performance. And really, would the sporting world have been better off if that hadn’t happened? It was an amazing story.
by Madison Dan on Mar 25, 2010 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions
"you have to go back to Villanova in 1985 to find a champion that you’d consider undeserving"
And Duke. In every year that they have won the championship, I have considered them undeserving.
That goes for regular season games, too, as well as exhibition matches against the Czech Republic Junior team, too.
Don't forget my favorite exhibition opponent...
Athletes in Action. They always made me think of Up with People.
by Madison Dan on Mar 25, 2010 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions
Just Because a Good Team Usually Wins
Doesn’t mean the regular season isn’t totally meaningless. The Conference Champion in almost every conference (if not all, except maybe the Ivy, right) doesn’t even get an automatic bid! That goes to the post season conference tournament champion! So, if you are in a small conference, the regular season is totally meaningless. Everything hinges on the conference tournament. Some of the mid majors get at large bids and in the power conferences, every team that has had a pulse gets in. If you are a sixth or seventh in your conference, that’s a crappy season. But, if you are in the Big East, or ACC and it’s enough to get a bid and you win two games in the tournament — Sweet 16! Season is made! Yep, the winner is always from a power conference, but that’s not surprising.
If they expand the tournament to 96 teams, like is being suggested ($$$$), well then, my point is even further driven home.
Pining for a Troy Hudson/Marko Jaric backcourt.
Let's expand the influence of random 1 game outcomes!!!
My biggest beef with the conference tourneys is the injuries aspect. Minnesotans are uniquely positioned to understand this point as the Gophers got into the tourney against a bunch of less-than-full-speed opponents before getting blown out by the first full roster they saw. If you’re a 26-6 mid major team or small conference team who had a single off night in the conference tourney, the Gophs just wiped you out by playing a short string of injured teams.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I hear your points
but I think, for this particular instance, a pretty simple eye test does the trick. MSU and Purdue have both made the sweet 16, so those injured/depleted teams the Gophers beat are still superior to those 26-6 mid-major bubble teams who got ‘hosed.’ I think storming through to a major conference final is a worthy feat, but keep in mind that there have been plenty of times in the past where that hasn’t even been enough.
Bilas has been hammering the point home that the bubble field this year was so historically weak, nobody can really complain. If the Gophers hadn’t made it, I’d have been disappointed (as I was by their 1st round exit again), but I wouldn’t have complained.
Dark Love is a-Brewin...
Good points..
…my response is that I hope the Gophers are as good as Sienna and Houston and that they shouldn’t be writing home about being on the same level as A&M and Maryland (the losers to Purdue and MSU in the 2nd round). We don’t know if they’re superior or not. We know that the upper lower middle class of the Big 12 and ACC are not as good as the injured upper crust of the Big 10 on a 1 game basis. It’s still a 1 game proposition where anything can happen against major conference opponents who get the benefit of the doubt against one another for their inclusion into the tourney. Bilas’ argument reinforces the randomness of it all. It really doesn’t matter in a single elimination tourney that can be entered with a single elimination tourney. The Gophs could go 18-13 and roll off 2 conference tourney victories and a small conference team could go 32-2 and miss the tourney altogether if they blow their conference tourney against an opponent who is on try #3 against them (and probably on the 3rd game in 3 days). Nobody can really complain about not making it but they should have more ammo to be upset about how ridiculous that is in the first place.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Well a 32-2 team is gonna get an at-large bid.
Unless they don’t play anyone. This starts getting into all the RPI, SOS, selection committee BS that goes into the decisions. I think its an unchangeable situation (and not one that I have much of a gripe with) that small-conference and mid-major teams have to be far more impressive in their regular season than power-conference teams do. I think this is perfectly legitimate because they just don’t play as good of teams.
This is a problem in college football because Boise State never gets a shot at the big one. But in basketball, if you are that impressive in your small conference, you get a chance.
No, no small team has run the table. But has any really been good enough? It’s talked about at the pro level plenty, and it certainly applies here, that basketball is a star-centric sport. If you’re only playing 5 guys at a time, the big dogs are gonna win. Who’s the last big dog at a small school? Larry Bird? Well, in their first NCAA appearance, Indiana State went to the championship that year, and lost to another big dog at a big school…
Dark Love is a-Brewin...
good stuff
i still think they end up selling the farm for one game excitement on tv. i also get the sense that this is what they want and are aiming for, so maybe i should just stop complaining about a sport i don’t really follow in the first place (college ball) ;)
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Agreed
The biggest effect of conference tourneys is allowing weak conferences an extra team in the NCAA tourney. I think each conference should be slotted a certain number of teams each season based on performance the last few seasons. For the sake of argument, just say the Big Ten is guaranteed four spots each season based on past performance. The spots are given to the top four teams in conference play, regardless of overall record. Then the Big Ten could have a full conference schedule and also get rid of a couple ridiculous non-conference games that do nothing but pad records to increase the odds of getting in the tourney.
Interesting idea, but
would we really want to have had a third, or even fourth team from the PAC-10 in the tournament this year?
I think there will always be controversies over who gets in and who doesn’t (unless they just let everyone in, which seems like a possibility). I’m just not convinced that there’s an obviously better method, or that the current flaws actually add up to anything meaningful. Does anyone outside of Champaign think Illinois had a chance to win the tournament?
by Madison Dan on Mar 26, 2010 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Understand your take on the PAC-10
But that is why I add the play-in weekend. The PAC-10 getting an extra team will not deny another team the opportunity to get in the tournament, since the passed over teams (Illinois this season would be an example) determine their fate in the play-in game.
My ultimate goal is to make the conference seasons more relevant, and especially to de-emphasize garbage non-conference games early in the season. As a Gopher basketball season ticket holder I get frustrated knowing that I don’t see one or two Big Ten teams each season, but instead get stuck watching a couple games against North Pole State, and the primary reason is that teams are trying to hit 20 wins to qualify for the tourney.
The non-conference season giveth and taketh away.
As a Gopher fan, yes, the non-conference season sucks. As a Spartan fan, the non-conference season is awesome. It depends on who they schedule. While I understand the temptation coaches have to pad the win total, I think teams would be better off upping the degree of difficulty rating.
You obviously are treated to an experience
of which I am not familiar. Of course the football team is actually playing USC this fall. Maybe I should be careful what I ask for.
For the small conferences
I’ll grant you the point that the regular season champion gets hosed if someone else wins the conference tournament. But those tournaments also get the conferences national television exposure (ESPN championship week) that they wouldn’t otherwise get. I don’t think the answer is to give all of those conferences two bids.
For the major conferences, it’s not nearly as big of an issue. The best teams are going to get in if they do well in the regular season, regardless of their performance in the conference tournament. And I think the selection committee is getting better at not over-rating a team just because it’s from a major conference. See the PAC-10 this year.
But really, my only arguments are a) that the “meaningless” regular season still produces great games; and b) the one-and-done format is really exciting and doesn’t tend to produce fluke champions. A good 7-game series can produce a story arc that you can’t get in a tournament format, but they’re just different things. I choose to like them both.
i think you hit...
….on the key element of it all: the moolah. conference tourneys are just one more one-and-done made-for-tv format that can get more and more schools on tv. like i mentioned above, it probably is what it is at this point and it’s pointless to complain about it when they are accomplishing their goal. that being said, is there a point where it all becomes too much? is 96 teams the number?
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
96 is too much
I really think they’d be messing with success if they expanded the tournament. One seemingly silly thing they probably haven’t thought of: can you fit a 96-team bracket on one page? I don’t think so. Lots of people only watch college hoops during tourney time, and I don’t think the NCAA wants to mess with its bracket pools. (I play a version in which 8 of us draft 10 players each, total points scored wins. I highly recommend it.)
I still think the NBA should have a separate one-and-done tournament. It clearly can’t replace the playoffs, but it’d be a lot of fun to watch if you could convince the players that winning it meant something. It was a real revelation to me when I started watching Euro soccer that they don’t have just one thing (e.g., the Super Bowl) to win each year. Why can’t we do that here?
by Madison Dan on Mar 26, 2010 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes, 96 is too much
And I think they’re hearing enough backlash that it won’t happen. Your point on the bracket not fitting on one piece of paper actually isn’t as trite as you say. The tournament as it stands is very user-friendly. Sure, more games should mean more revenue, but an entire institution can fall flat if everyone thinks it stinks. Either way, my fingers are crossed against it.
Ahh, a 10-player points scored draft, eh? I like it. I actually always play an 8-guy draft too, but we each select 8 teams. Every game in the tourney is a head-to-head matchup between friends (weight the scoring towards early round victories for parity). Also highly recommended.
Madison Dan, I saw above you’re a Sparty man. Me too, right after my Gophs. Let’s go Izzo!
Dark Love is a-Brewin...
Reverse order for me
I had season tickets at MSU, so I’ve ended up rooting for them more than the Gophers (I grew up in Bloomington), but I still don’t much like it when they play each other.
The beauty of the 10-player draft is how many strategies it allows: you can diversify across teams or concentrate your players on as few teams as possible; you can draft to block other teams from concentrating their players or just focus on your own teams; you can draft high ppg players from lower seeds (hare strategy) or low ppg players from higher seeds (tortoise strategy), etc. And I built a logit-based simulation model to forecast the winner at the end of every round. Geek fun at its finest!
by Madison Dan on Mar 26, 2010 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions
I hope you grew up on the good side of Bloomington
;)
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
West is best!
East is least. Also true in Madison, though Eric may disagree.
by Madison Dan on Mar 26, 2010 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
Eastside Represent!
Westside is for bourgeous posers.
OK, that might be a little harsh.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 26, 2010 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions
OK...
…you’re banned. ;) Anyone from the wrong side of France Avenue should just give up now.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
France Avenue?
Some of my best friends were east of France Avenue. Those bastards on the other side of Penn are another story.
by Madison Dan on Mar 26, 2010 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
As someone who lived at the dead end of Portland Avenue..
…those are fightin’ words ;)
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
If Myers-Briggs taught me anything...
its that some people aren’t just different from me, but they don’t even aspire to be like me. So I’ll try to understand that you were probably happy to go to Kennedy.
by Madison Dan on Mar 26, 2010 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions
At least these guys figured out how to get along:
http://bloomingtonbros.wordpress.com/
What’s funny about Kennedy is that I came there from living right next to Roosevelt. All my Mpls friends thought I was going out there to be as snooty as possible. When I got there, I had no idea it was the poor school ;)
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I played little league ball...
…with their logo plastered all over my little chest…right before heading over to the Lake Inn for burgers and Space Invaders. I think Lake Inn is now a trendy burger joint.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
basketball theme
http://bloomingtonbros.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/new-video-worlds-longest-baskeball-shot/
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I hadn't heard of these guys
I love the letter jackets, though. I’ll have to check it out. Thanks!
by Madison Dan on Mar 26, 2010 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Team-based would be fun, too
I didn’t mean to ignore you’re version of the pool. The head-to-head aspect is a big part of why the player pool beats the bracket pool for me, and your team-based version has that same element. We’ve actually looked at switching to a team-based format, just because it’d be easier to manage.
by Madison Dan on Mar 26, 2010 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions
For sure
Yours sounds great, lots of strategy. If I could round up 7 guys who’d be as into it as me, that’d be golden. As it stands, ours is a quick-n-dirty that’s easy to get people to play (and easy to trash talk).
And yeah, exact opposite on the fandom. I’m Minnesota born, but grew up in Michigan. Adopted Sparty, adopted Red Wings when we lost the North Stars. And now I’m back in the right state. St. Paul, represent!
Dark Love is a-Brewin...
I would propose something slightly different
Keep the NCAA field at 64 teams, but have a play-in weekend instead of conference tourneys. Before the play-in weekend, the NCAA would select and seed 32 teams for the tourney. Then it picks out 64 teams for a one and done weekend to determine the last 32 teams. It would be huge for ratings, but not ruin the lure of the cinderella teams in the actual 64 team tourney.
Are there still automatic bids in that case?
There are 31 of them now. So are the 32 teams picked based on some measure of the “best” teams, or are they the current automatic bids plus one?
On the surface, this idea doesn’t seem like something that reduces controversy. Really, conference tournaments can already be thought of as play-in games in which everyone is invited to participate. It’s just the small-conference champions that can come out as losers. Under your system (assuming that the 32 are not the current automatic bids plus one), it seems like the small conferences are even worse off, as they are less likely to have any teams make it to the “real” tournament.
I would essentially be forcing the small conference teams
to prove they deserve to be in the tourney. The fact is, 15 and 16 seeds are already pretty much irrelevant in the tourney because they get stuck playing great teams. They might actually be better off playing a team like Illinois in a nationally televised game the weekend before, then get more credit if they win.
Frankly, another positive result in this is that it may force some conferences to merge or change. If the BIG TEN adds another team or three as has been discussed, they will also earn more slots in the tourney. Going back to what I responded to you above, larger conferences would actually improve competitive balance, and reward the people who ultimately are paying for all of this (the fans in the seats as well as TV viewers). If the BIG TEN added three teams, and had an incentive to play each other twice instead of scheduling cream puffs, it would be better for all.
Freeze Out
If I’m not mistaken, that was the post-All Star announcement freeze out of Wally by Chauncey and Company. Classy.
Check out Humdinger TV on YouTube.
http://twitter.com/HumdingerTV
by HumdingerTV on Mar 25, 2010 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Wow.
That comment got buried.
It was in reference to the dreadful Cleveland game that started this thread.
Check out Humdinger TV on YouTube.
http://twitter.com/HumdingerTV
by HumdingerTV on Mar 25, 2010 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm glad I didn't watch it.
I had a mostly pleasant evening last night… until my wife decided to start a conversation about having a 3rd child. That got me sweating.
poor sap
that’s always a loosing battle.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 25, 2010 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Indeed.
She is rather set on this idea.
by Krotz the Wall on Mar 25, 2010 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions
and you can't even throw out the line
it takes two to tango darling…because all that’s going to happen is the bedroom going ice cold.
You could always take a “business trip” get a vasectomy on the down low and enjoy months of fun. :)
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 25, 2010 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
sure
why not.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 25, 2010 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Does she want to have the kid
with you?
I’ve found it’s a good idea to verify this important component of the matter.
Well...
I’m pretty sure I’m still the choice for that. Our previous two kids are rather good looking and smart. Of course, if I say no, who knows.
by Krotz the Wall on Mar 25, 2010 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions
You forgot the quotes
“conversation”
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Definitely implied.
I took out a sentence. It was a ‘conversation’ much like the Wolves can be said to play ‘defense’… very one-sided.
by Krotz the Wall on Mar 25, 2010 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions
Your tactic: advanced stats
“See, now, the ratio of children to adults, as well as the spread of ages in the data pool….”
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
THIS! ^ ^ ^
Advanced Stats are a great investment. Do some Social Security projections and carbon footprint calculations and if needed share the neutral correlative data between happiness and having children.
You can win this!
And don't think at all...
…about how people in other parts of the world may be fighting in the streets for water in a few years or about how a massive methane leak in the Arctic could lead to abrupt global climate change.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I'm not kidding when I say...
I drove for about 15 minutes from IGH, MN to Cottage Grove MN yesterday… and flipped on the the Wolves on my car stereo. I tuned in at 43-34, and exited my vehicle while Charlotte was on a 20-0 run. What a fun time that was. I found the broadcasters reactions quite more entertaining than the actual game.. as they still seem surprised and disgusted by this type of performance from our team. Thank you New Jersey, for somehow being worse.
So, I watched the entire game last night
Kind of bummed too. Reinforced why I watch so much college ball (I didn’t find Dayton and Illinois to be an exciting match-up, however). Not even going to add anything more, since my two thoughts in the game thread summed it up: (1) I never knew Jim Peterson ever had hair before the half-time segment last night; (2) that one dancer was really hot.
Does Corey Brewer deserve his reputation as a defender? No.
Has Gomes punched his ticket out of town? Gomes should have been shipped out of town for an expiring at the deadline – not sure what Kahn was thinking on that front. It was the second move he made which truly annoyed me (first being the Flynn pick).
What should “Sonia” do? First off, welcome Sonia – I have no clue who you are, but from the one post apparently you are well liked, so that’s a good thing. My initial reaction is I like your Wolves Update posts.
Personally I find the double emphasis on the game wrap to be clutter. I like the style of these recaps more than the postings of the Gazettes/Observer, so putting them together and maybe having those be the first thing below the jump (or at the end of the post) would work best. If the newspaper recaps are posted first, then they could be edited to below, but yeah, I like original, creative words more than quotes and links to articles to be on the main page to draw attention.
Wolves updates – as I said above, I like how they look, good stuff.
Check out my NBA Draft blog: http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
Sonia's News Links
I’d say have them on the main page with the links below the fold. Welcome, by the way; your work was the only reason I went to TWolvesBlog.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Mar 25, 2010 9:33 AM CDT reply actions
+10000. Bookmark removed. Welcome aboard Sonia!
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Mar 25, 2010 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions
This made me laugh
For all of that, I continue to have a 12 year old daughter who will do things like use the bowl to scoop up the food or leave the food bin wide open when she goes down to feed the dogs. I know the face. I made it this morning when I went downstairs to find a wide open bucket of food with about a 6 inch muzzle-sized divot in it right next to a mountainous pile of liquid dog crap and a guilty looking dog.
I don’t have kids, but I have dogs and understand completely. If that’s truly the face Rambis was making last night, there are going to be changes in player personnel this off-season, something along the lines of those who are willing to play within the system can stay and those who aren’t willing to listen and do even the little things are going to get shipped out. Execution at this basic level (or lack thereof) trumps talent, and this team has nothing to lose and everything to gain. In arguably the biggest summer of the franchise nothing will speak more loudly than cutting back the deadwood and finding guys who want to (and can) play within the system.
Guys who are probably safe (for a variety of reasons): Wilkens and Cardinal (vet presence), Ellington, Sessions, and Darko (guys who get how to play in the system), Brewer (too good a complimentary piece and plays too hard consistently)
Guys who should make sure they have their agents on speed-dial: Hollins, Pavs, and Stewie (flawed low level role players better replaced by a couple of lower price, smarter vets), Al and Love (either a flawed fit for the system or immature – lack of effort/good attitude), Gomes (too good for the bench, not good enough to start, and just doesn’t sizzle in the system)
Guys who will probably slip through the cracks: Flynn (is he starting to get it? Certainly sparkplug offense off the bench at the least), Jawai (big banger with a growing innate sense of the game. Definite project but perfect 4th big man filler).
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
Naw
We’re not re-re-re-re-re-building….oh wait, yes we are. It’s kind of the Jackson Pollack approach – through a bunch of sh#t at the wall/court and see what/who sticks. Someday it’s going to be priceless.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
by biggity2bit on Mar 25, 2010 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions
Along these lines...
I’m starting to wonder if Love and Jefferson should be looked at similarly to how McCants and Foye were should have been looked at in 2008.
Are these guys players you draft around? Or, do we draft the best player available, even if he plays their position? In ’08, it seemed like a log-jam would be formed if Mayo joined the backcourt. It turned out that Mayo would have been the only man standing after one season. Shaddy is out of the league and Foye is fighting for minutes with a one-legged Shaun Livingston.
I still have hope that Jefferson will be better next year. But, it’s getting closer to re-re-rebuilding the team. The first two attempts (or stages, windows, whatever they are) have only taken us the wrong direction.
I'm all for rerererebuilding
as long as money will be spent as part of the process, rather than an incompetent and frugal front office looking to buy more time and lottery balls.
But I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. With only ten games of Tankapalooza 2010 left, here’s what I think the strategy is:
1. Get a top four player in the draft (preferably top two, but, you know . . )
2. Move Love or Al Jeff for the furreal starter we need at the 2 or 3, assuming we don’t get Turner
3. Sign a slightly-above-Sessions level and cost FA over the summer
4. Start Sessions, the new 2 and 3, the survivor of Love or Al, and Darko or Hollins or the center taken at the Charlotte pick to begin the new season
5. Bring Flynn, Brewer, and Wayne the Drain off the bench
Assuming health for the starters, more familiarity with the offense for the current players, senisible rotations and minutes, and No TANKING!, that’s probably a 30-35 win team. By the trade deadline next year, they’ll have a better idea:
1. If the new squad is worth maintaining
2. If/when Rubio is coming over
3. If a lockout looms
And they can decide at that time to make a bigger move if somebody jettisons a higher-paid player, especially if they’re within sniffing distance of the playoffs.
sound reasoning
I had fully prepared myself for a 20-25 win season, but this has been a stinkathon from the beginning. The Wolves have been my team since the beginning, but one more season like this one (poor effort, questionable personnel, absurd coaching strategy, etc.) and I may have to reconsider.
I hope that someone in the FO (either the current staff or, if rumors be true, the new crew) will at least stick to the basics of PD’s outline. It can’t be that difficult, can it?
If I get a repeat of this season
with lack of effort and hustle, I will become a thunder fan.
Reason being, they are not the lakers or another “contender” and they seem to be well run. I couldn’t live with myself if I jumped ship to a perennial power but won’t stomach a poorly run franchise.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 25, 2010 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions
My impending Thunder fandom...
…has been put off until next year’s trade deadline. I think I’ll either have moved to Oklahoma by then or I will have all I need to know about Kahn to make that decision.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
You'll be one of Coburn's constituents then, S-n-P.
Think this through.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I can deal with Coburn
True believers I have no problem with. It’s the guys who do it for show that bug me. Inhofe is the guy that gives me pause. He’s the guy who has done the real damage. He’s the guy who is on unbelieving autopilot. I honestly believe Coburn believes what he says he does. I do not believe Inhofe…or guys like Pawlenty when they suddenly start talking about how they believe in Intelligent Design at the same time they begin to set their eyes on a national audience. I actually think the world would be a better place if more politicians were like Coburn. Dude’s scrappy and consistent.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
This is the part where the liberal has
too much integrity to take his own side in an argument.
I know what you’re saying, but the guy believes silicone breast implants improve women’s health. He thinks schools don’t let more than one girl go to the bathroom at once because “lesbianism is so rampant” in Oklahoma. The things he’s so sincere about are insane and incoherent. I mean,
I believe the intentional taking of human life, except to save lives, should be a capital offense, as it is in most states in America today.
?
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
i didn't say i didn't think he was insane...
…just that he was consistent and that he actually seems to believe what he is saying. he’s not slippery and can be met head on in a clear debate. i like that. people need to be more up front with their craziness.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
yes..
…we should embrace it head on. ;)
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I actually get your point
Even if you don’t agree with someone, or they are off the deep end, when they are doing what they believe in it has some merit, unlike poll checkers and fundraisers. Many people believe the abortion debate would end in this country if money was so big (would be a compromise).
Of course if the abortion issue wasn’t dividing politics in this country perhaps we could have some sanity again in government.
For another example: I'm more respectful..
…..of conservatives who actually say they want to cut Medicare and Social Security than the ones who come out and say that they want to privatize it or otherwise cripple it to a point where it won’t work. The point of programs like that is that they are social insurance. It defeats their purpose to privatize them. It’s such a cynical approach and it’s corrosive because it’s like saying that if only basketball were more like football it would make for better basketball. Well, perhaps that’s not the best example, but it’s more of a guard against cynicism than anything else. So much of our modern political debate is people knowingly saying things they know are not true. It’s absurd.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
So you'd rather have a Coburn,
who unknowingly, and seemingly thoughtlessly, says things that aren’t true and couldn’t possibly be.
What is that, in Rummie language? An unknown unknown?
He’s a sincere demagogue. Just yesterday the guy scuttled the extension of unemployment bennies.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Yes
100% yes. There’s no sense in having a public debate with people who say things they know are false. I’m of the opinion that one of the great problems of modern political culture is that we have forgotten how to keep our crazies in check. This is in part due to our inability to be able to come to a broad public consensus that person x, y, or z is bat shit crazy. I think that this can change in one of 2 ways: the media changes or we embrace true believers who say what they mean. I’m all for increased polarization. I don’t want a mushy middle. I want clarity and clear choices. Coke or Pepsi. Do you want to side with the guy who says that girls going to the bathroom in pairs contributes to lesbianism or do you want the guy who respects choice and privacy? I’m less about the substance and more about the style on this front. Transparency and honesty uber alles. The less TV production the better.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
ps...
…my original theory works in the sense that i truly believe that if people are presented with a real debate, i think they take the correct option. i’m kind of mushy in that sense.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
take the health care debate for example...
….one moment it’s a socialist utopia and then people find out that they get to keep their unemployed college students on their insurance plan until age 26 and that they can go to the dentist and have their bad filling re-filled because pre existing conditions are no longer no-gos and they’re cool with the product.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
What are your thoughts on a...
Pekovic-Milicic front line?
Together, they could form a big front line with a low-post scorer and a passer/defender. They also both seem like kind of badasses that would be fun to watch tangle with the likes of Perkins, Nene, etc.
If Love/Jefferson/whatever else could bring back an impact wing, maybe we go with these two?
Serbia and Montenegro..
….together again!
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Mar 25, 2010 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
All that is left...
is to bring back Marko. Maybe Taylor could hire McHale on a short-term basis to help make this happen. Something reasonable, like $40 Million over 5 years.
And looked really good today
as Real upset Barca to even up their QF series in Euroleague. It was a terrible game; Rubio didn’t do much, Navarro was awful, and Ante Tomic was dominant in the post for Real.
I officially cannot stand Xavi Pasqual because he insists on playing 12 guys every game with no stability to his rotations.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 25, 2010 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, depth is supposed to be Barca's big advantage
I think Pasqual got caught in a difficult situation today with his rotations because his starting backcourt did the sum total of nothing. In game one, when everyone was solidly productive, he had the starters out there a lot more.
True
I don’t blame Pasqual for today’s loss; they played lousy and it didn’t help that Terrance Morris was out.
Still, in game 1, Pete Mikeal dominated; today he didn’t start.
Deep teams still have to make choices, and Pasqual just lurches from game to game with his lineups.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 25, 2010 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Pasqual is a Japanese baseball manager
There are just some fundamentally different assumptions there that I cannot, cannot “get” no matter how I try.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
If only we could hire Vlade Divac and Drazen Petrovic as our next assistants.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Everyone is seriously over-expecting from
Pekovic. He really isn’t that good. I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve actually seen him play whole games a few times. He isn’t going to rebound or defend, he isn’t Pau Gasol, he’s…Craig Smith at best.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 25, 2010 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions
He struck me as much bigger than that last time I watched him, closer to 6’11 than 6’9. I hope that’s the case, at least. I really wish they measured guys who didn’t/couldn’t make it to the combine.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Pekovic
might be, in the triangle, a very good player. I just got done watching a bunch of highlights of him and then a bunch of highlights of Al, and I was struck by one thing right away – Pek loves contact and traffic and is much better at moving in conjunction with his teammates than Al. Al is dominant as the sole guy, but most of his clips are just of him getting the ball and doing what he does. Pek can do the same, but there’s just a whole lot more traffic going on.
I don’t know – I guess I see Pek as having the potential to be a Luis Scola type player – a guy who thrives on capitalizing on slop. At half (or less) the cost of Al, why not? Is Al really worth $12-13 million a year for us? He’s a misfit in our system, so why not spend that money elsewhere and get 75% of his production at less than half cost? People often compare him to Rhino, which is valid, but how is Al not a Super Rhino? I mean seriously?
I just think that Pek allows us great flexibility – he can give us many of the things Al does at a greatly reduced cost. He comes from a ball movement friendly league, he has a high motor and he loves contact, and he’s strong as an ox. Laimbeer, meet your newest project – a big after your own heart. As long as we try to make this all work around Al we are going to struggle, in my opinion, unless we acquire a star who firmly supplants Al on top of the totem pole. Open up the team to all offers, consider Al a tradeable asset and re-divide up the salary dollars to emphasize star power at positions of need for this system. Otherwise scrap the system, keep Al, and trade Pek.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
An inside player who might
knock a guy on his ass instead of saying “Ole” as he passes on his way to the hoop, does this person exist? It’s an endangered species in Wolves territory.
He's like Cherokee Parks
except without the tattoos, and with a whole lot more basketball ability. Watching Pek’s highlights I think his mobility is a little underrated. He’s not an ‘athlete’ at the position, but he moves very lightly on his feet. I just keep thinking that Laimbeer would have a worthy protege in Pek – a really strong guy who loves contact, but isn’t like Hollins in his aggressiveness. Pek bruises people so they feel it, but usually he draws an +1 when he bruises them not the other way around.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
Yeah, he isn’t a soft Euro at all. You get the impression that he won’t back down from anyone and that he loves banging.
And I agree 100% with his ability to move off the ball. There’s a reason they call it the Pek and Roll! That guy rolls like a tank and looks to finish hard. Also, unlike Al, he’s ready to receive and score any time he’s near the hoop. He’s custom built to play with Rubio in the half court.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Watching him
catch often slightly off-target passes and then do an Al-like move to score is really quite refreshing after the mess that is Hollins. Pek looks like he knows not only what he wants to do with the ball after getting it, he looks like he’s expecting it 1-2 seconds before the pass comes (once he starts his cut towards the basket). If he played 20 minutes a night for us I bet he alone would improve Jonny’s assist numbers by 1-2 a game.
(That’s hyperbole, but if it comes down to Pek or Hollins I think the choice is abundantly clear).
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
The problem though
is that Rambis’s system may preclude some of the better players and prospects in the game. What if we end up with a player like John Wall or Derrick Favors and not Evan Turner? Is the triangle offense really an ideal system for their talents? It certainly hasn’t been for the majority of our current players. I like the Triangle in theory, but in practice what I’ve seen is a team that has not improved one iota with it. It crowds the paint and leaves very little room for quick guards like Jonny Flynn to get his shot off. Put Jonny in a spread offense with high screen and roll action, drawing out opposing bigs to the perimeter, and I think he’d have a much different season offensively. That doesn’t excuse the fundamental flaws we’ve seen in his game, but it certainly would build more upon his strengths.
by Rascal Flatts on Mar 25, 2010 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Easier to replace a coach than a star
Also, an old adage is a new GM always gets a pass on the first coach he hires, the accountability starts with the 2nd coach.
The choice Rambis had to make on Brewer last night:
“Do I keep him on Cap’n Jack, who’s scoring at will, or put him on Gerald Wallace who may cave in his manubrium?”
When your coach is making can’t-win choices like that in terms of a guy’s defensive matchups, there’s a problem. The larger problem is that players have just plain checked out on the season and aren’t talking or making that second or third effort on a defensive play…. But if your plan was to have Corey be the defensive stopper, he’s got a mass problem.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
But S-n-P's so right on Flynn
For whatever reason I happened to decide to watch Flynn on defense on every possession for a while just at the start of that awful run. If you check the game thread, you’ll see that I checked out to go have an Irish Creme shortly after making that decision….
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
scotch
would make for a much more enjoyable outing than watching Flynn’s “defense”
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 25, 2010 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions
So would
Jagermeiester. Or 2 buck Chuck. Or rubbing alcohol.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 25, 2010 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Phillips Vodka
…okay maybe not that. That is worse than rubbing alcohol by far.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 25, 2010 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions
I hate to say it
But I am really beginning to sour on Flynn. As much as I’ve defended him in the past, there is really no way of getting around his complete and utter lack of skills on the defensive end. Not to beat a dead horse, but he doesn’t even seem to understand basic principles like (a) never turn your back on the man you are guarding, (b) your defensive stance should be played on the front of your feet, not the heels, or © if you’re man can’t shoot, go under screens, but if he can, play him tight and go over screens. In light of this, I sincerely hope that Kahn’s prediction that Jonny will be a “tremendous on-ball defender in this league” was a marketing ploy and not an assessment of his skills.
Oh weird...
no mention of how badly Love has been sucking lately. I guess the rest of the team is just bringing him and his greatness down.
Good point
Love is playing/conducting himself onto another team by the next trade deadline at this point. Perhaps a blockbuster swap of Love and Al to Detroit for Jerebko, Maxiell, Prince, and their first?
Ya, probably giving up way too much, but I’m kinda getting the heebie jeebies about Love’s pouty attitude of late – dude’s kind of a diva. Not good for our squad. If KG were still here would we be comparing him (Love) to Wally Z in terms of over-estimated self worth and basketball ability?
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
by biggity2bit on Mar 25, 2010 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions
Trade Love or Al
Either is fine with me.
I don’t love any trade with Detroit, but if its the best deal out there I’d do it. However, I can’t imagine we’d have to give up both Love and Al. Nor should we. Not a good use of assets there.
by College Wolf on Mar 25, 2010 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, judging by Just A Fan's comments
Love’s ornery attitude isn’t about his minutes, but rather the questionable near-term objectives of this team. He, like us, is apparently sick of the losing, the regression in player improvement, the quesitonable minutes and rotations.
I was thinking this as I watched last night's game.
As between Al and Love, Love definitely has the higher trade value. So why not trade him now before other teams realize that:
1. He can’t make layups or putbacks on a consistent basis.
2. His rebounding statistics are inflated due to #1.
3. His lateral quickness and athleticism leave a lot to be desired.
4. He is developing a hint of a diva attitude which can only get worse.
Oh wait, but he can throw a really good outlet pass! How old is that one getting? If that’s the reason for keeping a guy around, then God help us all.
Money
He’s much cheaper than Al, which is one of the reasons you would rather trade Al. I myself can see it either way; I’m certainly willing to entertain either possibility.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 25, 2010 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm compiling a list of arguments appearing on this site
that are so wrong-headed that I really never want to read them again. Your point #2, which I hadn’t heard much this year when Love was performing at high efficiency, is right up there. Looking at the Hoopdata stats, Love misses, essentially, 2 shots per game at the rim (2.6M, 4.7Att). Assume he grabs a full 50% of his own misses, which should be an extreme overestimation, as this would be very difficult to do. That means 1 of the 3.8 offensive rebounds he grabs per game are from his misses. If you take away credit for those boards, he has 2.8 “earned” OR/game in his 29 minutes of PT. This per minute rate is stil equivalent to the numbers for Howard, Pau, Bogut, etc.
I understand the subjectivity that goes into personnel assessments, and I confess that I get hung up on different aspects of the play of some Twolves that are almost certainly impossible to prove by statistics. But the great thing about data is that there are moments when it can challenge the biases we bring to our evaluations.
I don't think "hung up" is a good term to use...
…just because it can’t be quantified statistically doesn’t mean it’s not a valid argument.
Although seeing you go after someone besides me over Love admittedly makes me smile =)
What I mean is that I obsess based on my bias
I don’t like Flynn’s style of play at the point. It bugs me. So, I focus on the mistakes. You’re right, just because I could never support my belief in his below average performance in playmaking with statistics doesn’t make it wrong. I am sure that I focus on examples of his poor play in a self-reinforcing bias. Just like my wife arguing that I “never” correclty perform one of any number of household chores, the negative examples are the ones that stick.
There are other posters on this site who have always been down on Love due to his lack of athleticism, and the examples that reinforce this belief are given heightened cognitive priority. Just wait until my “arguments I never want to hear again” post where I take on the notion that Love gets blocked at a high rate. I know that’s an easy subjective perception to have because even I believe it.
I'd love to see that post.
“Arguments I never want to hear again” might include: “X is just like Chauncey Billups, who took a while to develop.”
“Sports cliches I never want to hear again” would include lots of stuff about effort. Oh, and calling anyone’s fans “Gopher Nation” or any other “nation.”
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
A few cliches and excuses I'm tired of
He has the athletic tools to be a capable defender
If he hasn’t been one by now, it ain’t gonna happen.
He added 15 pounds of muscle over the summer
Go to a grocery store and make a pile of 15 pounds of ground beef. Then laugh at this claim. Or worry about steriods. Or both.
It’s not about the money. I just want to go to a team where I can win
How often does a player younger than 35 ever do this?
Once he makes the transition to PG and improves his court vision …
How often do players improve their court vision in a significant way? You drafted/signed a SG in a PG’s body. It was a mistake. Move on.
He makes other players better. He has all the intangibles.
If he is a bench guy, fine. But in your starting lineup you really need guys that – you know – do something. Score, rebound, hold the other guy 10 points below their average, DO SOMETHING!
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Mar 26, 2010 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Is court vision a "plate discipline"?
Can it fundamentally change? Do players develop significantly better court vision? Ever?
I’d love to see a substantive argument, but what are you gonna base it on? I mean, Al Jefferson’s assist percentage has improved every year he’s been in the league I think, but it’s not like he’s now a good passer. All his work has resulted in incremental improvement at best.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
That "early comparison" argument
would definitely be in the top 5. Of course, in specific cases it’s impossible to definitively refute. What’s the straegy, find all players who never became Billups and then compute the odds? I do prefer engaging arguments that have a neat mathmetical/logical construct. And it really is the completely illogical arguments that drive me nuts, especially when they are repeated enough that they are no longer even questioned when asserted.
The human mind looks for patterns.
We’re wired to do it, and we’ll see them even in white noise. It’s just, so many of the ones we seem to want to see are so…. trite.
The maths, when it comes to sport, are capable of surprising a person. They can pop that bubble.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Love and the Utah pick to Indy
for Granger. Probably not enough, but it gets the talks started. Certainly would also Jefferson instead of Love if they want to listen.
Love has been getting progressively worse throughout the season
to the point now where he really is playing like a bench player as opposed to an upper level PF. Perhaps Rambis treating him like a backup became a self-fulfilling prophecy (?)…..I don’t know, but it’s been one of the more discouraging trends this season.
by Rascal Flatts on Mar 25, 2010 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions
I wonder what we could net from trading Love
just musing more out loud here than anything, but what could trading Love get us? What would we want in return? I tossed out Detroit as a trading partner simply because they have a high draft pick, but none of their salaries really match very well to make it work (hence trying the ‘all-in’ with Love and Al).
Ultimately I see the ideal future of this franchise centered around a smart play-creating backcourt (Rubio, Sessions, Turner/Wall?) and a big like Darko – athletic and defensively able, solid rebounder/shot blocker/passer/scorer (not necessarily elite in any area but not deficient either). Guys like Brewer and Ellington serve as great complimentary pieces to this set up.
Big questions/needs: Al has more value as a go-to scorer down low, but can he play extensive minutes with Darko? Or is adding Pek enough to bruise teams into submission? Furthermore, fundamentally the team needs to swing its star power to a scoring wing, be it a SG or SF I don’t care. If you have a couple big bruising centers and a couple pogo PF/SF types (more important that they can guard PFs than what they do offensively), then that’s a pretty plausible makeup for this team and for what (I think) Rambis wants to do. So can Al fit in this as the number 2 option on a regular basis (numero uno is a wing – yet to be acquired), or does Love fit into this?
How odd is it that of the three I’m arguing (again, just musing out loud), that Darko is the keeper and Love/Al are the ones to floated out for trades? What a weird season.
So – what could we get, and what you want if Love was put on the block? Do you think we could entice Indiana to do a Granger for Love swap (something like Love, Flynn and Gomes + Utah/Charlotte pick for Granger, D. Jones, and Filler McRoberts)? Too much to give up? (trade works in ESPN trade machine)
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
by biggity2bit on Mar 25, 2010 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Perhaps
but using the player swapper thing we improve an absurd 20 wins by replacing Love with Granger. The power of the right talent in the right spot in the right system.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
by biggity2bit on Mar 25, 2010 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions
I’m not sure it is, really. Love is an issue with Al on the team and Jonny is redundant with Sessions and Rubio in the pipeline. If you can get a 24ppg 3pt sniper while retaining Al and Rubio, I think you have to seriously consider it.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Positive trend in Al's shooting efficiency
Al’s FG% has gone up every single month this year, to the point that he is knocking down 56% of his shots in March. His rebounding has not come back to pre-injury levels and his defense is atrocious, but at least there is a good trendline in his conversion rate. That’s about the only speck of good news I can cull from the last couple of months.
From Kelly Dwyer's Behind the Boxscore
Nice guys get dorked around. They always have, always will. Kevin Love is a nice guy, a smart guy, and a fantastic basketball player who should have edged closer to an All-Star berth this season. But because he won’t bitch and moan and act a prat when sent to the bench, Timberwolves coach Kurt Rambis can continue to completely misuse his second round year stud.
Because Kurt wants to make Darko Milicic happy, I guess. Never mind that Darko, while being made happy, has averaged nine points, 8.6 rebounds, and two blocks per 36 minutes of play with Minnesota. While Love has managed 18 points and 13.5 rebounds per 36 while fouling nearly half as much.
And last night was just ridiculous. Love missed four of six shots, but Darko was letting Bobcats slide past him all night. He played 11 more minutes than Love but pulled in just four rebounds to Kevin’s nine. Four turnovers to none for Love. Two blocks to Love’s one, and a garbage time bucket late made it so Darko scored 10 points to Love’s five. In 11 more minutes.
And it’s not as if Love is being left out there for two long stints to do his damage.
Rambis just completely jerks him around by playing him three minutes at a time. The longest stint Love had last night saw him on the court for the last five minutes of the first quarter, and he pulled in three rebounds, scored three points, and had a steal. Three more minutes to start the second quarter, and he added two points and two boards. So, five and five with a steal in eight minutes of play. And he played just 10 minutes the rest of the way save for a garbage time stint to relieve Darko frickin’ Milicic to end the game.
It’s not all on Darko. I wouldn’t mind seeing Darko and Love out there if it means Al Jefferson(notes) is going to continue to play like this, and it’s been pretty clear Jefferson’s going to “play like this” for the duration of 2009-10.
The bottom line is that Jefferson and Darko had just nine combined rebounds in 67 minutes of total play, as the Timberwolves were crushed on the glass by 10 caroms last night. And Love had nine rebounds himself in just under 22 minutes of play. Either Kurt Rambis is the most unobservant coach in the history of the game, or there’s something personal and/or stupid going on between him and Love. I’m choosing the former.
Because he can’t be in on a little secret, some benefit to Love’s benching that we don’t see. How is that possible? The Wolves have lost 58 times in 72 tries. We’re supposed to think this guy’s methods work?
He's being a little too nice to Love in this equation.
Kevin deserves some blame here for a declining effort level as the season’s wore on, and some bitching in the press. But yes, he should be playing more consistently, and yes, I’m getting extremely worried that the Wolves are going to choose the wrong power forward to keep.
Defense
I think Rambis sees how overmatched Love is defensively and wants more size or mobility out there. Here’s the problem though…no matter who he puts in his place, we still get blitzkreiged by opposing teams. Hollins, Darko, Gomes, Jefferson, Love. You name it – these guys are on their heels and helpless against the superior athletes on other teams. At least Darko can match up with some of the big Centers and occasionally offers some semblance of resistance at the rim, but for the most part, even he is pretty helpless. So while I can understand Rambis’s frustration with how mismatched Love is defensively, it’s really no better with anyone else. That’s where he is guilty of poor coaching. He should roll with his best players, especially one that is still young and developing.
by Rascal Flatts on Mar 25, 2010 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions
I have a hard time buying the minutes argument
I feel like everyone wants to blame Rambis for this because it’s “in style” to blame the coach, but honestly, I believe that if Love’s minutes are getting cut, there’s a reason. And I think we’ve all seen the last month especially that Love has problems that go way beyond something inconsistent minutes would cause.
It’s kind of like the defense issue S-n-P raised at the top. Everyone likes to blame Rambis for the defense (or at least everyone used to), but in the end, he’s only the coach. He’s not out on the floor, and for all his faults, he’s not stupid enough to not practice basic defense on a regular basis. It’s on the players….either they execute or they don’t. Rambis can only do so much.
Which, BTW, raises the "iron sharpens iron" issue too
How’s the team supposed to improve in any aspect when they practice against other players as bad as they are? I’m a big believer that the reason the KG era teams were always competitive, even with talent even more underwhelming that what we have now, is because they had to go at KG every day in practice, and that raised their games.
I generally agree with people here, when they temper the enthusiasm about Love, because I don’t think he’s a great player or ever will be. But, he is at worst one of the best players on this Wolves team. He’s getting hosed this year, for some reason. He and Jefferson should both get 30 minutes every single game, and that hasn’t happened with Love. Sessions can make a case, but he knew what he was getting into — Flynn’s rookie year of development.
Love isn’t great, but he’s as good as we have this year. I have no idea why he’s sat so much.
If I had to guess, it has to do with attitude concerns. The implicit tanking strategy, most-obviously used when Pavs and Hollins get minutes, maybe upset Love and caused him to say the wrong things behind the scenes. I’m not sure — but he’s clearly a guy who speaks without thinking and I wouldn’t be surprised if he has rubbed Rambis the wrong way a time or two. Jefferson used to hate losing, and maybe he still does, but he’s probably more preoccupied with trying to regain his old level of play at this point.
Basically, what I'm saying...
…is that I don’t buy that Rambis is stupid enough to bench Love just to bench him. He has reasons for it.
But...
it’s worrisome if his reason is that he thinks the team is better without Love in there.
It might be something else.
whatever it is..
…i can’t remember the last time i’ve seen a non-rookie get yanked around like this.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Maybe
there was more to the story last year too when Love had to ‘earn’ his minutes. Maybe he’s a bit of a brat behind the scenes. I’d think nothing would irk a coach more than an immature-ish sense of entitlement in a good, but could be so much more, young player.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
The Darius Miles syndrome
I do get the feeling Love and Rambis have “personality” issues. I mean, let’s be honest….the only reason Love really wanted to be here was because of McHale. He was iffy at best when Kahn was hired and practically outright hostile to Rambis at first. Maybe Love still has some resentment left over Mac being fired, or maybe he just doesn’t want to be here anymore. But I agree….his attitude is less than stellar.
The situation is kind of similar to Kirilenko/Sloan a couple years ago, when they didn’t get along and didn’t know how to fix it.
It is interesting
Love also took shots at Wittman early this season (of course who hasn’t). He seems to have issues with 2 out of his 3 NBA coaches. I do think Love needs to be in the right system to flourish, and he can be very good. I’ll also note, McHale never seemed to prioritize defense, which may be why Jefferson and Love seemed good with McHale.
One other thing
I work at a restaurant part time in the evenings, and after a Wolves game (about 45-60 minutes after) Love came in with a bunch of friends to celebrate someone’s birthday. Take this for what it’s worth, which probably isn’t much, but Love just looked for all the world like a young college kid, which basically he is. I think we forget (I know I did until I saw him out that night) that he’s really young. I mean seriously, he looked like a 19 year old who’d been given the keys to Dad’s Porsche and Dad’s credit card to go have fun with his friends out on the town. My guess is that Love in 4-5 years will be a completely different player than he is today, once he grows up a bit.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
That I don't know
He’s obviously not concerned with fielding the best lineup he can, so my guess is he’s focused on the effort aspect
Personally I think both Al and Love are gone by this time next year though, so I’m not terribly invested in puzzling it out.
Part of leadership is finding ways to keep people on board when asking them to do something difficult...
…like being part of a team not making an effort to win many games over an 82-game season. It’s not like they couldn’t see this coming. There are not many players worth keeping on the team, but Love is one.
If they can’t find a way to work it out, it’s concerning. We are supposed to lure FA’s to MN or have players resign, yet alienate a guy who wanted to come here and by most accounts is a hard worker/good guy?
My game timing
I tuned in when Jefferson went to the bench with the Wolves up 43-36, and was able to watch just enough to get to the end of the awful run. Terrible.
SNP, you nailed it in your comments, everything….including the daughter and dogs.
Before passing judgement on Brewer’s defense, I want to see him surrounded by a couple better defenders, I think he tries to do too much, but don’t know for sure.
Gomes won’t be waived, but I see the Wolves sending him to a team with too much cap space and just saving the salary….same with Hollins if Darko comes back.
Bottom line IMO, this team desperately needs a number one player, if for no reason but to stop runs like 2nd QTR yesterday. They also need a talented, smart, wing who is also trying to make his teammates better.
It'd be nice to kill both those birds with one stone...
and by “stone,” I mean 2nd overall draft pick.
Is Rambis showing Man love to Mr. Love?
I ‘m wondering wether Rambis somehow sees K Love as a mirror image of his youth and is limiting his playing time based on some Karl Malden parental guidance disciplinary model?
If so, it isn’t working! Much like SnP’s daughter K Love has tuned it out to the detriment of all parties. SnP, to be clear, I in no way mean to imply that you are patterning Karl M, just that if it were me Papa Karl would make me tune out more than 100% instantly!
There may just be a personality clash between Rambis and Love, or a great deal of immaturity on Love’s part, but team performance has really gone downhill as a result and the situation can’t continue.If Love is not going to be traded to a better parent model for his mindset, there needs to be a “come to Jesus” meeting with Rambis, Kahn and Love where expectations, duties, and guidelines are clearly spelled out to prevent next season being seriously affected by the uncertainties of the situation.
As for our guard situation, I’m wondering if Johnny Flynn would benefit from the Karl Malden parenting style, because giving him lots of minutes hasn’t seemed to have improved his pace or defense.
Lastly, Thank God there is the Draft coming up in June!
McHale had his thing about "earning a bike from dad."
Kevin Love must bring out the parental side in people.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Watching Cornell and Kentucky
….is like watching the Wolves and a real NBA team. Kentucky is bigger, faster, more athletic, and every shot they make is a layup or dunk.
Cornell
committing way too many turnovers. It was a good game when they kept the tempo down.
Wall is the fastest open court player I’ve ever seen.
Wall was unbelievable.
He didn’t score much, but every possession was an example of his blazing speed and athleticism, but also his control and IQ. He was just in control all game long.
Fantastic
Both ends, physically, mentally, everything.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 26, 2010 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm really, really, really hoping..
….for the #1 pick and this kid. Turner has put up some amazing stats, but I think this kid is clearly going to be a better player and by a long, long way. For me, it’s a 1 man draft with Cousins and Turner battling it out in the 2nd tier with Favors, Monroe, and Aminu as far-off consolation prizes. Best of all for the Wolves, he seems to be able to impact the game without the ball (hello playing with Rubio) and he gives them a do-over on Flynn.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
He does all the normal things a good PG does, but it’s the WOW plays, like seeing him come over to swat a shot out of nowhere or take a backdoor oop for a dunk that makes you realize why he’s got such a ridiculous ceiling.
If we land the #1 and take Wall, do you go all-in on a move to land Granger? Would you move 1 of Al or Love plus Flynn and a later pick for him? When was the last time a legit 3pt sniper like Granger played with such an unstoppable slasher as Wall? It would also unclog the front court and allow us to search for the athletic defensive C we need. Rubio/Wall/Granger is a ridiculous back court rotation, then add in Al or Love and do whatever it takes to find a long, athletic C. Maybe use the Cha pick + Peko to try to move up in the draft to take a flyer on a big.. Ok, I’m just dreaming now, but it’s cool that these scenarios aren’t pure pipe dreams.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Granger or Gay..
…and Manu. That’s all I want for x-mas. That’s a playoff team with one of the 2 gs and Manu. I doubt it could happen but that’s my dream.
1- Wall/Sessions/bag-o-donuts
2- Brewer/Manu/Ellington
3- (Granger/Gay)/Manu/Brewer
4- (Love or Jefferson)/Gomes/Cardinal
5- Darko/bag-o-donuts
They’d really have to overpay for Manu but they’d essentially be going from 144 minutes of Brewer, Gomes, and D-League talent at the 2/3 to about 100 of that being plugged in with Manu, Granger/Gay, and Brewer with Ellington and whatever filling in the rest. If they land Wall, they need to give up Love or Jefferson + Flynn for a legit starting 2/3.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I’d give up a whole lot more for Granger than Rudy, although Rudy’s a lot better than nothing if we have Wall locked up. I don’t want to come off like a Granger nut, because I’m not and I’ll be the first to concede that my desire to add him to this team is entirely circumstantial. He’s not going to bring you anywhere as a #1, something Indiana’s already found out, BUT I think he would be an amazing #2/3 because his speciality, his ridiculous range, is incredibly complementary to what we would have from this team. I know most people love Love, but I think that if you can field Granger next to Al’s low-post scoring and Wall’s slashing, you’re on to something. We all know Al isn’t a #1, but his crunch-time post scoring would shine sharing #2/3 duties with Granger behind Wall.
If you consider what we got for KG, you have to think that Al/Love + Flynn + Utah’s pick (maybe even Charlotte’s if we get the #1) would land Granger. He’s nowhere near KG’s level, and a package like that is damn near as much as we got for KG. In this situation you really have to consider the dearth of quality PGs after Wall, which might make Jonny look a lot more appealing to Indy than we think.
Manu’d also be a great addition if you can assemble that core. You’d be able to limit his minutes and have him come off the bench like he does in SA. The passing and quality of the ball we’d see would be an absolute thrill if you could put Manu next to Wall and Rubio. All we’d need after that is a rangy defensive C who can play in the high post and finish near the hoop.
Holy crap, I’m getting ahead of myself, but daydreaming is a speciality of mine. This suspense is going to be absolutely killer, and I really hope Kahn doesn’t let us down.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Me too.
I’ve gone back and forth a little bit between Wall and Turner. At the end of the day, Wall is a crazy-athletic superstar with great ball skills. He also plays with a ton of poise, and passion. He’s made for the NBA game. Turner would be great to have, too, but not like Wall.
Indeed
Clear-cut number one guy. Seems to me possible to keep Rubio with Wall, though there are other options, clearly. Wall, as we’ve noted, often bears a striking resemblance to Dwayne Wade.
It would take a lot of work to balance the roster if they draft Wall. But he’s too much of a talent to pass on.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 26, 2010 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions
The whole picture...
looks a lot prettier when Wall joins the team. I don’t know what happens to Flynn, Sessions, Love, Jefferson, or even Rubio, but I’d immediately feel better about things.
I don’t know if he’s a point guard or shooting guard (seems like one part Rose and another part Wade to me) but whatever he is, I’m sure he’d fit in well with a guard that could knock down perimeter shots. Beyond that, guys that run the floor and clean up misses around the basket would help, too. Wall will be one of those guys that gets a lot of unofficial assists off missed shots when he draws 2 or 3 defenders and puts it off the glass.
I agree. Maybe I’m being capricious, but Wall is absolutely built to thrive in the NBA. I love Turner and will be happy if we get him, but Wall’s THE guy in this draft with true, #1 option on a contending team potential.
If you get him, you keep 1 of Al or Love, as both have traits that will be useful on any team but you their plodding nature precludes them from playing together, and move the other for someone like Granger. A true 3pt bomber would be exactly what that team needs, and you have to think he’s going to be available.
You aren’t going anywhere if he’s your #1 guy, but he’s good enough to prevent Indy from getting that #1 guy they need to compete. Unless they think one of their current guy is going to become a #1, they’re better off moving him for cap space and young players/picks before it’s too late to get a good return for him.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
or
you clear out Love and Al for the best assets you can. Focus your efforts on Wall and Rubio in the backcourt, Brewer/Sessions/Ellington as backups to them. At SF/PF you dangle Al/Love + Flynn + pick (either Cha. or Utah) for Granger, and if not that then overpay for Gay. Resign Darko at the 5, and bring Pek over to man the 4 down low and use whichever draft pick you didn’t trade (hopefully the charlotte one) on your young pogo stick 4 (or the guy who can defend the Dirk’s of the world). Is it a complete team? Absolutely not, but is it likely a far better team to watch and perform? I think so. Interior still has some scoring punch, but most of the scoring is in the hands of high quality perimeter guys (hello Triangle!). Your interior defense should be better (more athleticism and clearer roles), and you’ve pushed two former starters to the bench so your bench is better too. I suppose you’d still be left with either Al or Love, and Love would probably work pretty well on this team too as a starter, although I’m open to moving both guys if necessary.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
Chris Wright (from the Wolves)
was on the radio this morning. He gave what I thought was an interesting hint about what they are thinking. They typical we need Wall or Turner credo was thrown out by the interviewer. Wright couldn’t get specific due to league rules, but he did imply that if the Wolves don’t get a top 2 pick they are going all out to get there. He essentially said they have plenty of assets and aren’t afraid to use them. I came away thinking they plan to draft in the top 2, no matter how the lottery turns.
That's my favorite part about Kahn so far
He doesn’t take what he can get with what he’s given. He decides what he wants and finds a way to get it
That's an interesting sentiment
because as I’ve mentioned before, I’m not sure what the Wolves have that would convince me to give up on Wall or Turner.
They have enough-
but will they offer enough. Assume they get the 3rd pick. I’m pretty sure if they offered the 3rd, 16th, 23rd, Pekovic, Love, and cap relief, they could get the #2, even the #1. Obviously it gets tougher with the 5th pick than the 3rd. I also think it depends on the other team. Would Golden State or Sacramento prefer Favors over Turner, or even Wall…especially if they can add a couple other pieces?
BTW
My choice, let’s keep it simple and get the #2 pick in the lottery.
I also think the Darko situation has an impact. If Darko leaves they may want that Charlotte pick to use on a project center, if Darko stays they may find the Charlotte pick expendable if the return is Wall or Turner.
Doh – was meant as a reply to the above hilarious string.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Mar 26, 2010 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions
I try not be obtuse
but my daughter might disagree
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
