Lessons from Mark
by Stop-n-Pop on Mar 8, 2010 9:40 PM CST
Email
PrintFrom the Department of Good Timing (via Hardwood Paroxysm):
"It’s really important for the coaches to design schemes around the data," said Zarren. "But it’s not important for the players to know everything that went into designing it."
The goal should be to integrate the analysis into the overall coaching philosophy, but for many players — some of which can’t even remember the plays they are supposed to run — advanced stats are not something that can be used to change the way they play.
"We had Gerald Green," said Cuban, with a glance over towards Zarren. "You had Green. He does stuff [athletically] that makes you say ‘Oh my God!’ … He just doesn’t understand the game of basketball."
Offering further evidence of the difficulty in putting any of this into the players hands, Cuban talked about the logistical problems presented by the arduous schedule of the NBA season. "We haven’t had a practice since the trade," he said in reference to the deal that brought Caron Butler and Brendan Haywood to the Mavs.
Last night the Wolves gave their two worst players (Pavs and Hollins) more minutes than their best player, Kevin Love. Granted, Love did not have his best game, but a) he's still a young player and should be afforded at least as much leeway as someone like Jonny Flynn, and b) it should be obvious by this point that Love affects the game above and beyond what can be found in a basic box score.
Whether it's adjusted +/-, PER, or a Roland Rating, Love comes out near the top of his team's performance ratings because of the way he affects the team's 5 man rotations. His upper echelon rebounding allows his fellow teammates to run out in transition on the defensive glass; his ability to run the pick and roll opens up perimeter players in the 1/2 court; his hustle on the offensive glass extends numerous possessions; and so on and so forth.
Even when he is having a bad game, as was the case in last night's contest, he affords his team a chance to play at even or slightly above average in terms of 5 man +/-. This is especially the case when you consider who he is being replaced with. Last night, the Mavs went to a zone defense early on and this meant that the Wolves ran out a combo forward rotation more than they typically would have. It meant extended doses of Pavlovic and Gomes. It meant that they would have to adjust on the fly and figure out personnel combos that would give the team the best chance at success.
Unfortunately for the Wolves and their fans, it appears that no adjustments were made and there was a profound lack of creativity in how the team responded to the Mavs' zone defense. Instead of putting Kevin Love at the free throw line and attempting to run the offense through the center of the Dallas zone d, the Wolves continued to...well, it wasn't really clear what they were trying to do. Whatever it was, it didn't work and we were treated to a panoply of wild shots and no organized response to the obvious Dallas defensive decision.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the Wolves this season has been watching the team's rotations devolve into something that apparently has no connection to its players' strengths or even a stated coaching philosophy. While the coaching staff is to be lauded for its development of guys like Corey Brewer, Wayne Ellington, and Kevin Love, it is often baffling to watch Rambis roll out rotations that are, most charitably, less than optimal. There is no reason on god's green earth why Kevin Love should get less than 15 minutes of burn, no matter how poorly he is playing. There is no reason on god's green earth why Pavlovic should get as much burn as he got last night. There is no reason on god's green earth why the team should look so discombobulated against a simple zone defense. At some point, these things start to add up and it becomes harder and harder for fans to believe that this coaching staff is giving the squad its best chance to win on a night-in/night-out basis. We're not at Wittman-levels of despair, but it's slowly starting to build up into a gigantic WTF?! moment. It's during games like this where you really have to wonder about the direction of this franchise. Where is the coordination between coaching philosophy and player performance? Where is the creativity? Where is the rolling with the punches? None of it seems to be making much sense of late. We need to see more of what the Mavs are doing vis-a-vis stats and rotations and less of what we have seen from our favorite squad over the course of the season.
Until later.
276 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Spot On
The rotations were awful. Watching Jonny Flynn try to run an Offense in the Half-Court is disturbing. I’m dumbfounded as to why such limited burn for Kevin Love. I’m starting to doubt Rambis and Kahn for allowing such silliness.
Ehh, the coaching doesn't bother me much
In the end, what matters is the players, and ours just aren’t very good no matter what combination you play them in.
Let’s not run this out like we’d be winning all these games if Rambis was a better coach. We could be coached by Pops and we’d still lose all the time. The talent disparity between us and everyone not playing for the Nets is too much for any coach to overcome.
I'd take Jefferson and Love over Lopez
If they gave me Lopez and their #1 pick, I’d trade either one though…….
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 12:40 PM CST up reply actions
There's no way you take Love or Jefferson over Lopez
Lopez can score just as effectively…and much more efficiently….than Jefferson, and is a superior defender. And literally the only thing Love does better than Lopez is rebound.
I realize I’m not exactly Love’s biggest fan, but comments like these are why I feel Wolves fans so vastly overrate Love as a player. His rebounding is the only thing he does better than his peers. Everything else is a wash or lags behind.
oceanary
Love 3pointers > Lopez 3 pointers. Others would also say Love’s passing is better, especially the outlets.
by littleboxes on Mar 10, 2010 12:10 AM CST up reply actions
Love vs Lopez
Love isn’t just a slightly better rebounder than Lopez. He collects nearly 50% rebounds per minute. His Per 40 Rebound Numbers are vastly superior to Brook Lopez’s. It’s not just a slight upgrade in this area.
by Jose Cordoba on Mar 10, 2010 10:36 AM CST up reply actions
on what basis do you say Lopez is a good defender?
His on court stats and his on court/off court stats are both worse than Yi’s.
If you look at opponents PER, Lopez’s stats are similar to Love’s and similar to Al’s when Al is healthy.
Lopez does block more shots than Love, but thats not terribly meaningful.
Lopez’s shot blocking is similar to Al’s when Al is healthy.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 10, 2010 2:40 PM CST up reply actions
I think the idea that Lopez is some kind of supreme talent ...
is a myth in general. He played like a highly polished rookie last year, and has been wonderfully average this year.
I really think it is silly that people seem shocked that anyone can claim that Love and Jefferson are better talents and prospects.
He seems like a guy that will be a starting NBA player for years to come, but this idea that he is some sort of top-tier talent is weird to me.
He's less talented than both
But the fact that he’s a true center with adequate defensive ability for the position is enough to make him the most valuable player of the three.
I definitely agree...
…with the lack of overall talent and it’s something I’ve said several times before but at some point the bottom line has to be about going to war with the team you have, not the one you want to have (thanks Rummy!) and making the most of the lemons on the roster. I don’t think Rambis is doing this by a long shot. Even with a poor roster, the coach is not putting out the rotations that maximize their chances of success.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I want to know
if Rambis has ever seen a simple stat sheet showing the +/- of different 5 man lineups. If he has seen one I want to know what he said.
Rambis *specifically* said those were something he relied on before this year.
Swear to goodness, in a preseason interview he said that when he was asked about using stats in his decision making.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Get out your secret decoder rings
We should be giving Rambis props for his coaching! Who else can show honest to god ability in developing players like Brewer, Ellington, and Love while not losing the teams DESPITE losing just enough to stay solidly in line for the second overall draft pick? I mean seriously, (OK, maybe a little sarcastically), no but seriously, I think it takes someone with a very very good grasp of advanced stats and +/- to be able to continuously trot out rotations that not only prevent us from winning, but often prevent us from winning by just this much!
Rambis is either a genius or woefully misguided. But I will make one observation – if we land Wall or Turner next year nobody will remember the crazy rotations this year. Hell, my guess is we’ll suddenly start seeing much more astute rotations and strategies. As Bud Grant said, talent/players are what win you games. Rambis has no pressure to win now, so why not do a masterful job of putting yourself in position to address the biggest weakness on your team in a draft with two bona fide stars waiting at the top?
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
Follow-up
Here’s my thing – use Occam’s Razor on this (the idea that simplest solution that most comprehensively addresses a problem is usually the best or correct answer).
Rambis, as a coach last year, was put directly in charge of a Lakers defense that was well regarded as being one of the best in the league. I can look up the stats later if you want, but they were good.
Rambis, as a coach, has either directly or indirectly helped develop a seemingly fatally flawed player in Brewer into a very intriguing and useful NBA player; has helped bring one rookie along nicely (Wellington); has helped push an already great player in Love into becoming even better; by some reports is cited (re: Rambis’ departure from the Lakers) as the reason why Bynum was struggling this year, etc. The point is that the guy has as good a track record as you’ll find in the NBA for helping players get better.
Rambis, throughout his career, has been known as a very hard worker, understanding that any opportunities he has in the NBA will come because he outworks and outsmarts the competition because he’s simply not talented enough to make it otherwise.
Rambis has spent considerable time learning (in different capacities) from two of the greatest coaches ever in the game – Jackson and Riley.
So, is a man whose resume suggests that he’s fluent in strategy and tactics (see: playing in the NBA despite being less athletic and talented than the competition; see: Lakers defense last year), is hardworking, and who apparently understands the skills side of basketball enough to identify and rectify weaknesses in player’s games – no matter the talent level – so that they become better – is a coach with this type of resume suddenly completely inept when it comes to strategy and rotations? Certainly could be, or the more likely answer (to me anyways) is that he’s coaching like someone who doesn’t care about winning. He’s coaching like a guy who’s testing combinations, testing different kinds of players in different situations in different combinations to see what happens. He’s testing his own coaching abilities, assessments, and assumptions by actually putting them on the line via different rotations and strategies and seeing what happens.
While it’s certainly an option, I just don’t buy that a guy who understands players well enough to develop Corey Brewer the shooter into the TWolves 3 pt. consecutive game record holder – the guy who was given huge responsibility with the Lakers last year and produced – that this dude just suddenly lost it. I just don’t. Everything in his track record suggests that he’s better than this – that he’s more aware of the game and what to do than this. Thus, the most plausible answer to me is that he simply isn’t trying to win right now and is focusing on other stuff.
Ugh…I need more coffee. I wrote way more than I meant to about this. Brain’s still a little fuzzy…
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
by biggity2bit on Mar 9, 2010 9:10 AM CST up reply actions 7 recs
Yes.
And quite frankly, I don’t care if the tanking is overt, covert, extrovert, culvert, Dilbert, whatever.
Yes, it’s embarrassing. Yes, it sends an awful message. Yes, the NBA should do something about it.
But in the meantime, a team with so little talent, a so-far well-below-average ability to scout and obtain talent, and no inclination to overspend to just buy talent needs all the help it can get.
If the alternate plan is to bust your ass, win 30 games, get Jerome Whitehead or whoever in the draft and then continue to act out Waiting for Rubio, I’ll gladly take Tanking to a Top Two Pick for one hundred, Alex.
I don't really see "tanking" in the way I understand the term
I think they are trying to win. Now, there are levels of that. If they were trying to win at all costs, would the rotation be tighter? Yes. Would Flynn be getting less minutes? Yes.
But there’s a difference between what they are doing and tanking, I think.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2010 9:25 AM CST up reply actions
True
‘Tanking’ is a relative term. I think Hollins’ and Pavs extended minutes represent tanking, even though they’re competing hard and trying to win. We’re not in Madsen Redux mode yet.
Also, the NBA probably should do something about tacit tanking, but they should probably do something about trades where Z just goes back to Cleveland first.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
Or trades where Sam Presti gives Kurt Thomas back to his old bosses in SA
Despite getting offered a higher first-round pick by Orlando.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Mar 9, 2010 12:07 PM CST up reply actions
What you're failing to grasp is that
Love is a known unknown. Under the circumstances, Sasha being a known known is reassuring.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Sasha is a known weakness
I’ve heard it was Rambis who wanted him. Why can’t he admit he was wrong? I’ll take my chances with Pavs flourishing elsewhere.
by ChicagoViking on Mar 9, 2010 8:23 AM CST up reply actions
Who said anything about winning?
The Wolves aren’t trying to win right now, they’re trying to develop young talent. If the game is developing young talent, and that’s the professed goal of Rambis and his team this year, then why are we not playing Kevin Love, who is already at the very least among our best players at the age of 21? When Al Jefferson was out his two games, how could we possibly justify starting Darko over Love, next to Hollins instead of Love?? That’s the one that really kills me.
And do you get either wins or talent development from someone like Sasha? No, you do not.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I actually think I have figured out why they aren't playing Love more - 2 reasons:
I just saw an NBA.com article (David Aldridge??) discussing some bad teams. In the article, David Kahn admitted that while he thinks Love and AL can play together, they can’t do it 35-38 MPG. That just told me a trade is imminent this summer. They aren’t going to keep playing Love less than 30 MPG when he has trade value. I still don’t know who gets traded (my money says Love goes), but either Al is being showcased, or Love is playing less to decrease the odds of him getting hurt before he can get traded! Other teams already have an opinion on Love, playing more isn’t going to change their scouting.
The other reason – Rambis said it again, Love had a bad matchup and didn’t seem to be bringing energy. This is about the 5th time this season that I have seen this comment from Rambis. He obviously has an issue with Love’s hustle, especially in games against quicker players.
I still suspect long term plans...
…in the form of motivational head games for Love. Phil Jackson (The Mandarin) loves this sort of thing. I think Rambis is following suit.
LOL
You could even argue that he was worse than a “waste of space” since he often hurts us more than if he did nothing at all. If you were to ask “What do our players bring to the table?” this is what are players would be…
Kevin Love = Mccutcheon’s Whiskey. It’s always a good time for Mccutcheon’s Whiskey. Much better than we deserve.
Jonny Flynn = Orbitz. Seemed like a good idea at first, but those floating gel orbs got really old really fast…much like Jonny Flynn’s over dribbling!
Ryan Gomes = Water: Doesn’t take away, but clearly doesn’t add much either…unless you’re just super thirsty.
Ryan Hollins = Poop in a cup. Pretty much speaks for itself.
It has been truly puzzling
and frustrating. But, given the fact that I’ve already completely emotionally detached from the 2009-10 Wolves games (I watch to see progress in Love and Brewer, but that’s about it — way past the point of caring about the outcome), I will reserve judgement of Rambis the coach until next year, when (hopefully) the team’s only aim will be to win as many games as possible.
I don’t want to spend time thinking about any cooky number of reasons for some of the decisions Rambis makes, and I prefer not to know. I’m not saying there’s active tanking going on, just that there are priorities in place, which we aren’t necessarily privy to, that supercede winning. I will assume that Rambis has some reason that he believes makes it beneficial to the team to jerk Love around (motivational?) and play Pavlovic (rewarding him for good behavior or effort in practice?). Next year, when the Wolves’ lottery pick is in Los Angeles, and all of Kahn’s windows have closed, will be time to start truly evaluating Rambis. This year is a throwaway in every respect.
Cuban's comments about Gerald Green were pretty funny
It’s like Calvin Griffith (former Twins owner) made a comment about a pitcher in the 70’s, said the pitcher had a million dollar arm and a ten cent brain.
As to the Wolves and their rotations, I’ve said before and still believe, Rambis and Kahn want to give everybody a chance to see who can contribute enough to get another look next season. It’s like Corey Brewer, in November half the fans wanted him permanently benched, now he might be the team MVP this season. They know what Love can do, they want to see what other guys have to offer. On the flip side, they should have used a 13 man roster this season, don’t need to see more Sasha. I’d actually like to see the NBA go back to 12 man rosters, end of the bench is wasted money and PT.
Wow AL plays his best game of the season and he's not even mentioned in your article.
What exactly would Love prove by playing 25 minutes and going 2-14 from the field instead of playing 12 minutes and going 1-7?
But I do agree Pavlobrick should never play another NBA minute ever again. I think this is Exhibit A that Rambis cares so little about winning this season (to the point where it actually HURTS developing players) and him and Kahn are looking for the big payoff in the lottery drawing.
I advocated us calling up Reggie Williams from the d-league and taking any minutes Pavs or Wilkins would get, but alas the Warriors called him up and now he’s tearing it up for them. Scored 28 points tonight.
The minutes that Pavlobrick plays could be valuable in developing a young player. They are just wasted minutes right now.
There is a certain point when playing for ping pong balls, when it goes too far. Rambis is way past that point.
"What exactly would Love prove by playing 25 minutes and going 2-14..."
That logic is too dumb to even refute. Come on, man!
By your logic then, Pavlobrick should have played 40 minutes
tonight because he was going to “turn it around”
Are you having a contest with yourself?
Your utter lack of even the most basic rationality is downright staggering.
Obviously we disagree because you wayyyyyyyy overrate Love and I see him for what he is
Should he have probably played more? Yes.
Does he deserve to play more at the expense of AL, who was in process of having his best game of the season? No.
Love is only the 2nd best PF on the 2nd worst team in the league. Get a grip on reality.
yep you're right
Love is awesome. probably will be a 12-time all-star.
We should build our team around him and let him play 40 minutes a night so he can get rejected 10 times and watch him wheeze up and down the court
...since I said that.
Example of something someone said:
Love is probably gay.
I have a finely tuned gaydar and Love is definitely beeping like crazy.
Pau Gasol also sets off the ‘ol gaydar. I know he’s married, but I’m pretty certain he’s gay, whereas I only have a hunch about Love.
by roundhouse on Mar 9, 2010 12:14 AM CST
If only he was
it would be awesome to root for the first openly gay player in the NBA!
And one with a hella good OREB% to boot!
Yea man, I have nothing against gay people.
I don’t know how this is relevant to an argument at how good Love is at the game of basketball.
I think it would be a huge step forward for an openly gay player in the NBA.
Nice argument, but sadly, way worse than your original one.
It's relevant to
your inability to get reasonable arguments into these little comment boxes, though.
If you’d simply said “Al blew up, so Love didn’t play; it sure looks like Rambis has decided it’s either-or between those two” you’d have been making an observation that made some sense. Instead it’s pretty clear that you’re digging yourself in to a stance about Love, feeling persecuted on behalf of Jefferson, and all that kind of whatnot…. Given the attempt at a numbers argument, the gay remark doesn’t exactly come across well.
(I’d be cool with it. We deserve our Gay Love combination, and Rudy we’d overpay as a free agent.)
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I don't know how
I don’t know how your saying you don’t know how this is relevant to an argument at [sic] how good Love is at the game of basketball is relevant to an argument that isn’t about how good Love is at basketball.
To be clear, this is about you saying stupid things, me calling you on them, and then you deflecting the criticism by ignoring it, putting words in my mouth, then responding to those words instead (thus repeating the cycle).
As a fun game, why don’t you quote a post of mine in which I’ve said anything about how good I think Kevin Love is. You know, my “original argument.”
Now you're just playing dumb, which is pathetic
You’re right that you never specifically said “Kevin Love is really good and should have played way more minutes” but you implied it with your comments.
Better to play dumb than actually be it.
The most I ever implied about Love was that it is wholly unfair to look at a 12 minute sample size in which Love shot 1-7 and assume that he would continue to shoot 14% from the field in any further playing time. This incredibly reasonable implication does not give you the license to put words in my mouth such as implying that I think Love will be a 12 time all-star.
That’s called a straw man argument. It’s what people do when they’re backed into a corner and have nothing tangible to respond with, forcing them to make something up instead. The sooner you stop doing it, the sooner this argument can end.
I'd suggest that Love
was closer to 1/4 or 1/5 even. With at least 2 of his misses coming from heavily guarded (and most likely fouled) putbacks that he had no right to be getting in the first place.
It is better to be quiet and thought of as a fool
than to speak and remove all doubt.
Roundhouse is correct...
Shame on anyone that can’t see it. And I feel bad for anyone that rips him.
Oh, and the extreme lovefest for KLove is out of control around here. Don’t get me wrong, he’s good, but get a grip people.
If you're being sarcastic
excuse my inability to see it.
But you’re shaming anyone who “can’t see that Roundhouse is correct?” Is that so?
Dark Love is a-Brewin...
Roundhouse was correct about every statement he made...
except maybe not playing Love. I do agree Love (or any teams top player(s) should get more than 12 minutes. Still, he was playing terribly and is a bad matchup.
That would be the one I would argue against.
Good players can turn around a bad performance.
Love should have played more. And I’ve no shame in saying so.
Dark Love is a-Brewin...
"Pavlovic is bad and Love is good."
This is correct. In my opinion. And in reality.
Dark Love is a-Brewin...
New theory brewing...
Perhaps in an uncharted covert pre-tanking method, Sasha’s contract actually has negative incentive bonuses, i.e. play at least X minutes while not exceeding a 35% FG%, a 25% 3ptFG%, or a 1:1 A/T, and we’ll try to find you a hotter girlfriend.
Come to think of it, I don’t think this is uncharted territory. I give you exhibit A.
Dark Love is a-Brewin...
How can Marko have any court vision?
His eyes are way too close together for proper depth of field vision.
"Never make predictions, especially about the future." Casey Stengel
I don't see Rambis' decisions this season affecting their future
Frankly, the future is their 1st pick and Rubio. This season is irrelevant.
Hoopus Night can't come soon enough
The worst part of all this is that we’re being offered no explanation and have no means to demand one. To the best of my knowledge, no reporter has been willing to ask tough questions to Rambis or Kahn. Jim Peterson seems aware of the issue, but isn’t allowed to criticize anything of that magnitude during the broadcast. The Wolves get no coverage from the mainstream media, so there’s no one there trying to bring it issue to light. Love deleted his twitter account, so we can’t ask him for an explanation or even offer encouragement. And the stated goals of Rambis and Kahn fly directly in the fact of Rambis’s actual actions. WHAT GIVES???
I hope Kahn isn’t easily offended. I certainly won’t be disrespectful, but I don’t plan on leaving the April 3rd “chalk talk” with these questions unanswered.
Shout out to Al Jefferson! It’s a shame that such a great game had to be overshadowed by this increasingly infuriating issue of playing time, but that was an almost flawless performance. He’s the first Timberwolf to crack 30 points, first to crack the top 3 on the ESPN Scoreboard’s Top Performers (an honor I think only I care about). Here’s hoping the week of rest allowed him to get a little healthier and that this type of performance can become the norm.
by John Doe on Mar 9, 2010 12:26 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
From Jerry zgoda's post game report
While Love played a season-low 12 minutes and none in the fourth quarter, Sasha Pavlovic played nearly 21 minutes. Rambis opted instead for Hollins or Darko Milicic in the fourth because he said he needed someone who could attack Dirk Nowitzki offensively and defend him, as well.
“He [Love] didn’t look like he had any energy to play in stretches and a lot of it had to do with matchups,” Rambis said.
IMO that’s a pathetic excuse
We beat the Mavs recently. Maybe Rambis heard?
On February 5, Love was 8-12 from the floor for 17 points with 11 boards, in 30 minutes of PT.
That was before their trade. Maybe Rambis thinks Love did all his damage on Drew Gooden.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Check out Rambis' press conference
after the Rockets game. Somebody did ask when “At what point do you run out of patience with Sasha?”. Rambis asked, “Tonight or Period?”. The reporter said, “Period” and then Rambis gave a cliche answer. The reply wasn’t satisfying but I’m glad somebody asked the question.
Jefferson's performance last night is a perfect example of why
he should stay and Love should be traded. Love will never have a game approaching what Jefferson brought yesterday. The upside potential of these just isn’t the same.
What would Jefferson do with a quality wing and PG?
Until the Wolves get a wing who can score nearly as well as Jefferson
I don’t think any of us know how many more assists he may get.
Normally a nice one-liner...
…but less than appropriate after the passes Jefferson made last night. His two assists were just gorgeous, and he had a third really nice pass that didn’t result in a made field goal, but was encouraging nonetheless.
If Jefferson is going to play like that, and Love is going to play as we’ve seen him play, I still see no reason not to keep both of them, and add a Whiteside type to round out the 3 man rotation, provided Rambis can stay committed to bringing the third guy in at the 8 minute mark of the 1st and 3rd quarters.
Damien Wilkins
Anyone know why Wilkins only played 1 minute? (Scared to ask) Is it because Pavlovic has moved ahead of him in the rotation?
Probably had to do with the zone
by pagingstanleyroberts on Mar 9, 2010 1:14 AM CST up reply actions
The zone which Love should have been great against from the high post.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Yeah
I think Rambis has Pavlovic == shooter programmed somewhere in his brain.
Here’s what happened to Kurt last night.
In spooky Robot voice (or Jonah Hill’s robot voice from Knocked Up):
I see a Zone. Zone implies having shooters on the court. Pavlovic is a good shooter. Must play Pavlovic. Love is also a good shooter, but he is trying to date my daughter. I can’t play him.
Ahhhh...
That explains the up and down thing with Love….he’s trying to date Rambis’ daughter!
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
Didn't see much of the game, but here are some thoughts anyway
Playing Sasha is a complete and utter waste. I see the value in playing Wilkins because he gives maximum effort and provides the physicality at the 3 that Gomes refuses to. They’re better off upping Sessions’ or Gomes’ minutes if Make it Wayne is out than providing the facade that Sasha can shoot. I just don’t know what opinion to have on Rambis. It’s tough to muster indignation because, well, the other choice is complaining about a change that won’t be made or dumping him for a stopgap that sets the team back even further. I would say that the team’s wins against good teams, while more exception than rule, probably have something to do with Rambis. Beyond that, though, it’s unclear. If this is a player development team, then they need to develop the hell out of them and let the wins come where they may, then pick the best players available in the draft and develop the hell out of them. If they’re not thinking that the best way to build is the Celtics’ way (get a lot of good young players and hope to flip them for an All-Star), they should be, because it’s their best shot. With that in mind, play the best players and say to hell with positions. That means giving Love and Jefferson all the minutes they can handle, playing Flynn and Sessions together, etc. They have 7 guys with enough invested in them to get set minutes every night: Ellington, Sessions, Gomes, Brewer, Flynn, Love, and Jefferson. They can earn more through good play. They have 2 others who deserve minutes because they produce when on the floor: Darko and Wilkins. Then they have young projects who can play if there’s a specific situation: Jawai, Hollins, Tucker, Pecherov. It’s still not clear why Hollins is starting if they have him for 3 years and he’s not better than any of the guys who rotate on the inactive list.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Mar 9, 2010 1:08 AM CST reply actions
Development
If this is the goal, rather than wins, why not play Flynn or Sessions at the 2. I would think it would be good for Flynn and Sessions to learn playing some off the ball, a new perspective on the triangle. Am I crazy?
The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness
by Victor Mature on Mar 9, 2010 8:04 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
The Plan
I am sorry that I have to explain what is so painfully obvious to everyone else. They are playing Hollins so much because they are padding his stats to trade him. Sasha understand the triangle better than anyone on the team so he is helping them learn. Mean while Love just does not get it. I hope it all makes sense to you now!
(Complete joke post.)
As much as I think Love is “just” a great role player and massively overrated by many Wolves fans, he has a right to be pissed off. Pretty much anybody can see that he’s a top player on this team and deserves 30+ minutes per game. Unless he’s got an attitude or work ethic issue that is impossible to detect from the stands or from our tv screens, there’s no good reason — outside of tanking — to sit him like this.
Speaking of tanking, that might be what’s going on, here. Everyone who follows the league can see how terrible Golden State is, and they are right on our heels for the #2 ping pong spot, in a 2-star draft. Perhaps it is easily-justified with the “development” approach to this season. (Maybe they’ve convinced themselves that Ryan Hollins will get more out of game action than Love, who knows?)
Finally, it was nice to see a vintage Al Jefferson performance. That type of scorer and rebounder can help any team, whether they’re a bottom feeder like the Wolves or a contender like the Lakers.
Al's performance
Will certainly look good for teams considering trading for him. Does last night mark the beginning of the Showcase Al Campaign?
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
I hope not...
I’d rather have it mark the beginning of Al’s return to low-post dominance in a Wolves uni.
Awesome
Al finally has a great game, Love has a terrible one, and what happens?
Al gets no mention in the game wrap up and people want to trade him in the comments.
Love gets mentioned (again) as the Wolves “best player”.
I don’t know how people on this board can make LMA jokes with a straight face because people here are about 20 times worse with Kevin Love.
by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2010 10:20 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
And yet Roundhouse gets attacked for point this out.
Such a double standard.
by College Wolf on Mar 9, 2010 10:22 AM CST up reply actions
I know...
I was agreeing with your post.
by College Wolf on Mar 9, 2010 10:27 AM CST up reply actions
The LMA jokes...
seemed to slow down after the ass-kicking he laid on us at Target Center a while back.
The either/or mentality is baffling
They’re the two most capable players on the squad and should both be on floor for 30-plus per night. Enough with the deathmatches; unless they get equal or more talent for one or both, they should both be staying and playing as much as possible. I get that they’re undersized, but at some point complementarity should get thrown out the window in order to play the best players on the team.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Mar 9, 2010 12:15 PM CST up reply actions
what stands out
is that if the team replaces Hollins’ minutes with Love last night the Wolves might have actually won. Yes, you are correct, we don’t know this for sure. Put the vast preponderance of evidence points towards the fact that over any 30 minute span Kevin Love is absurdly more likely to generate positive contributions on the court than is Ryan Hollins.
We fans (some of us) are thirsty for victory.
Jefferson had a great game, perhaps if he had Love by his side it results in a victory. Of course that is what everyone is going to talk about.
+1 to TimAllen
good to see there is still some sanity around here.
But just remember, don’t say anything negative about Love, the canispoopus golden boy, or else you will get attacked by the masses.
Without picking Love or Jefferson
you are definitely right. I could rip Jefferson all day with minor retorts, but every Love bash or pro-Jefferson statement is followed by several counter posts.
biggity2bit is correct....
shame on anyone who can’t see this…. =P
What I hate is that before the season, it seems like Rambis decided two things...
1. I’m not gonna give Love and Jefferson extended minutes together (as in both ending up at the 34 minute mark or above).
2. I don’t want to play Sessions and Flynn at the same time.
You would think that with a record of 14-50. Rambis could say: “Ya know, we’re really bad…why don’t I just start Love and Jefferson and play them a lot!”. Or he could say “Our team is devoid of talent, maybe it would make sense to do something different and play Sessions and Flynn together!”
But no, he’ll try anything (see: Pavlovic, Sasha) as long as it’s not that.
It's true
For all the player development that I know I’ve at least argued is going on (see my comments above), it is really really strange that Rambis has played Sessions and Flynn together for less than, what, 130 minutes this year? (I added it up a while ago and it was just under 120, so we’ll say 130 just to be safe.) Rambis appears to hate playing all the guys who ‘get it’ together at once (Love, Wilkens, Sessions, Ellington, even Al and Brewer, Darko), and instead seems to relish playing two good guys together with at least one horrifically bad player. Considering the commitment this team has made to Rubio (which I think it has committed to Rubio), you’d think they’d want to see Flynn and Sessions put some time in at the 2, and especially next to another PG, right?
Somewhere is a storyline/strategic explanation as to why all this makes sense. There’s more to this story and I keep thinking that it’s staring us right in the face.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
I think Rambis is just stubborn...
He said he didn’t like it initially, and so he’s not going to go back on his word and do it. But really, what does he have to lose? I’ve heard him say that he likes using Sessions as a “deterrent” for Jonny Flynn, but it’s not like Jonny Flynn has gotten any better. He’s actually gotten worse. He looked a lot better in the pre-season.
Ya
the replacement refs made Flynn look really good. Too bad NBA refs don’t call it like they see it.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
To go back to the earlier comps with Riley and Jackson
Remember that Jackson started Smush Parker for 82 games in 2 consecutive seasons and rotated Chris Mihm and Kwame Brown as his main centers during those seasons as well. He also replaced Michael Jordan with Pete Myers.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Mar 9, 2010 12:17 PM CST up reply actions
Kind of
Mihm was effective enough to indicate a similar-styled player who was much, much better than him (Gasol) could fit with the team. Brown was a project who probably played his best in LA but was partially shipped out due to cap space. If the guys the Wolves were trotting out were as strong/tall/athletic as those guys, the problem would be decreased, but all of those guys were at least effective enough to not keep them from making the playoffs.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Mar 9, 2010 5:03 PM CST up reply actions
Rambis decided that Love and Jefferson would play extended minutes together after December... when they were top 10 in adjusted "at the rim" defense.
since then, one or the other has sat and people have stewed…. said rotations are stupid…..
as is playing Flynn so much especially at the end of games…
as is playing hollins so much….
all of this assumes we are trying to win….
But it easily understood if we are tanking….
Are we tanking?
No one can prove it. But I defy any other logical explanation to the nutty rotations we have seen, if we assume Rambis understands anything about basketball
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 12:55 PM CST up reply actions
is Kevin Love overrated??
1. He’s got the Best/Plus Minus by 1.5 per 48 minutes of anyone on the team seeing more than 40% of the minutes.
2. He’s got a Per Differential of positive 6.6 at the 4 where he plays the great majority of his minutes.
3. He’d lead the league in Offensive Rebounding Rate while shooting 39% from deep. He’d only be 2nd in Total Rebound Rate
4. He’s 13rd in the League in PER after slipping some from the previous two games.
5. His Wages of Win Score is .395 after 61 games. This is head and shoulders better per minute production than anyone on the team.
6. He’s got a Differential of plus 8 when it comes to the splits between Offensive Rating and Defensive Rating.
The only possible comeback to all this is that Love must be a horrible defender. This doesn’t seem to be reflected though in plus/minus numbers. I’ll grant you Love isn’t a great defender although rebounds would consistute a defensive skill.
It’s hard to define what it means for Kevin Love to be overrated.
Is he one of the Ten Best Players in the league? No.
Is he clearly the best player on the Wolves? Yes
Is he clearly better than Ryan Gomes and Ryan Hollins? Yes
Is his production level than of a Fringe All-Star? Probably- John Hollinger tends to agree with me- http://www.howlintwolf.com/2010/01/wolf-track-chat-with-john-hollinger-espn-2/
Should he be playing more than 12 minutes a game? Yes
Someone has to put up stats, even on the crappy teams.
With that said, I completely agree he should be getting a minimum of 25 minutes pretty much every game (unless foul trouble or extenuating circumstances.)
by College Wolf on Mar 9, 2010 11:00 AM CST up reply actions
If that's your response
then you probably don’t understand stats.
Yours is a true statement in the sense that “somebody has to score the points” and “every team has to have a best player.” But every team doesn’t have a guy with Love’s credentials by default. The stats JC quoted aren’t the type to be changed wildly by the presence of better or worse teammates. Love wouldn’t be head and shoulders better than the rest of the team, but his individual numbers would be just as good.
Why is he "clearly" the best player on the Wolves?
Because apparently, that is not as clear to some people here (like myself) as you seem to think it is.
I think Kevin Love is underrated on the national scene. He is a very good player. I actually like him. But he’s very overrated on Canis Hoopus.
For me, it’s like the movie Avatar. When I saw the trailer, it looked good to me – not the best movie ever, but good. But then so many people went crazy about the movie (“it’s going to change movies forever!”) that it got nauseating and I didn’t really want to see it as much. Reading this board makes me feel the same way about Kevin Love.
Agreed.
Oh, and everyone knows Ryan Gomes is our best player. Total STUD!
by College Wolf on Mar 9, 2010 11:06 AM CST up reply actions
He's the best player
based on a variety of statistical measures as stated above. The only other player one could make a case for would be Big Al. Although considering the Wolves are 6.0 PPG worse with Al on the court as opposed to K. Love. Big Al’s not exactly a lockdown defender in his own right.
As far as K.Love needing to put up stats none of these stats I cited are considered volume stats.
The Wes Unseld comp is hard for me to really address since Wes career was winding down as soon as I was born. SNP though isn’t the only one to make this comp- it was made by Bill Simmons in his book. The Comparsion has some merits based on Outlet Passing and Rebounding Ability. K.Love actually probably has a higher skill level on Offense. The comparsion makes sense in comparing Love to Wes in both being upper-level complimentary talent. Hopefully Evan Turner could be K.Love’s Elvin Hayes.
by Jose Cordoba on Mar 9, 2010 11:37 AM CST up reply actions
Love v. Al
Here’s the way I see it – Love makes the team better, makes anybody he plays with better (like Sessions does). Is he an All-Star? Maybe, maybe not. Is he a foundation player? Not by himself. Is he the kind of guy that can make a huge difference when playing next to two other stars? Oh hell yes.
Al – sorry, but being Super Complimentary player is not Al’s role or talent. He’s supposed to be a star, a foundation-type player, and he’s not. He just doesn’t lead his team to victories like the upper echelon guys do. In my opinion keeping him on this team clouds the direction and the acquisition of other players more than keeping Love does. Furthermore, I have seen enough of Al over the years to believe that he will not lead us to the playoffs – some other player will. Maybe Rubio comes over and blows up and suddenly we’re a 45-50 win team with Al and Love. Or maybe we cut bait on Al and trade him for another player who fits with the system and better fits what the team needs him to do/be.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
Like Kahn said
Al Jefferson is probably a #2 guy in a championship team. K-Love is probably a #4 guy. The more I watch this season, the more I think Kahn was on the mark with that statement. Love is like a Robert Horry (without as good of a shot, of course) kind of player. Championship teams certainly need players like him, but Horry’s never going to lead a team to victories.
Jefferson is like a Pau Gasol. By himself, he’s not enough to make his team a true playoff contender. But if he has a star with him, that could change dramatically.
And Love's rebounding ability
is a far greater asset/ability than Horry’s shot. Don’t get me wrong, Horry dropped a ton of daggers on people, but I think Love’s ability in the scrum is simply stupendous in that role. And realistically I think that’s the ideal role for him. He’s like some bizarro super duper role player – I totally want him on my team and he’s super important but he’s not one of the team’s three ‘stars’ (going with the idea that every team needs three stars to compete).
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
Love is a much better player than Horry. Big shot bob was a career 6th man talent wise, whereas Love is a good starter. I’m struggling to come up with a comp to the role he should play because he’s so unique. The best I can do is that he’s similar to Odom (on the Lakers) type player. Not a #1, or even a #2/3 guy, but a really useful super role player type of guy.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Agreed
I almost referenced Odom because that’s the only guy in the NBA I can think of right now who’s kinda like Love. I don’t know what Odom is, but I do know that he can be and is a huge difference maker for the Lakers, even though that team is Kobe and Pau all the way, with Bynum or Artest in the running for #3 on that team.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
I'd like to see how Gasol's stats the last two seasons compare
to what they looked like the last couple years in Memphis.
let's see...
I know his WP48 (Berri’s metric) took a slight dip after moving to the Lakers but nothing significant.
Looking at the Roland rating he went 7.7 (griz), 5.5 (griz), 8.9 (lakers)
Win Score for 07-08 3.9 over 39 games with Griz and 4.6 over 27 with the Lakers
PER very steady across his career.
Basically Gasol has been roughly the same player statistically that he was in Memphis. His last year in Memphis looks to be one of his worst years, with the years before that (w/ grizzlies) and the years after that (w/ Lakers) looking almost identical on most measures.
What about his +/-
Also, his last team on Memphis was lousy, which based on you saying his stats were bad that year is, IMO, proof that personal stats are affected by your teammates.
in your opinion I'm sure it is proof, but...
all of the stats you tested for year to year consistency and especially effects due to team changes. Guess what. Most statistics are very robust against team changes, and year to year differences in team ability.
“Some folks, if they don’t know, you can’t tell ’em.” – Louis Armstrong
So how is Gasol's +/- with the Lakers
vs. his last couple years with Memphis??
“Numbers lie, and liars love numbers” – Old adage
I don't even understand some of the stats you posted
For instance:
“6. He’s got a Differential of plus 8 when it comes to the splits between Offensive Rating and Defensive Rating.” I have no clue what this sentence means or why it makes Love better than Al Jefferson.
And who called Big Al a lockdown defender?
Response
Offensive Rating is the Number of Points a Player contributes through a variety of Offensive-Based Metrics per 100 possesions. Defensive Rating would be a Reverse of this.
No one called Al a “Lockdown Defender” . The point is Defense can’t be a reason to take minutes away from K.Love.
by Jose Cordoba on Mar 9, 2010 12:44 PM CST up reply actions
I can appreciate...
that you’d rather not make an Unseld-Love comparison without seeing Wes play. I have the same hesitation, as I think there is a lot more to be gathered by watching the games than by the statsheet. But the fact that he was league MVP and has been voted as Top-50 of All Time makes me quite confident that, even if he was a similar “type” of player to Love, he was a much-higher “quality” of player.
Hard to Qualify
Wes won the League MVP as soon as he entered the league. The reason being his addition transformed a 36 win Bullets team into a 57 Win Bullet team. He also had another high quality player in Earl the Pearl who is vastly superior to any Wolves Guards. Wes was a better defender. I think it’s fair to say K.Love probably has more Offensive Skill. They both excel at things like setting picks, and outlet passing that are often unrecognized. I think Love can be this type of player since his third year in the league next year will correspond to Wes’ MVP-Rookie Season.
by Jose Cordoba on Mar 9, 2010 12:51 PM CST up reply actions
There's a problem with statistics
The Wolves are a lousy team and Jefferson is playing significantly more minutes than Love, which is going to negatively affect Jefferson’s stats more than Love’s. If their minutes were reversed, I (and I think many other people) think Love would look worse while Jefferson would look better. The fact Love only plays 12 minutes against a superior team makes him look better statistically because his minutes against poor teams are weighted higher.
Two caveats
1) What evidence do you have that Love consistently gets limited minutes versus elite teams and big minutes versus weak ones? Hopefully it’s more than just this one game…
2) At the very least, Love has a stellar adjusted +/-, which is weighted based on the quality of ones’ teammates and competition, so your argument has no bearing on that one.
the far bigger issue is that jefferson was hurt this season. See his stats from last season, when healthy, they are comparable to Love's stats this year.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 10, 2010 9:19 AM CST up reply actions
And I have no problem with that.
You’re certainly more prominently thought of, but I am also a supporter of both Love and Jefferson. I think they’re both good players, and I don’t look for reasons to say one is better than the other. If Jefferson can return to form and if Rambis comes to his senses and realizes that playing them together for 20 minutes/night is better than the alternative of slashing both players’ minutes in order to keep them apart, my first choice is still to keep both.
You could find 5 games this season
and probably 20 from last season, where Love had his playing time reduced because he had a bad matchup. I can’t think of a game that the same could be said about Jefferson.
Do I have concrete proof, no, if you don’t believe me look it up and prove me wrong. I know I watch every game on TV and have seen this with my own eyes, that’s all the proof I need.
How Dare You John Doe!!
Make Sensible Thought Out Points.
by Jose Cordoba on Mar 10, 2010 10:37 AM CST up reply actions
I could make an argument that jefferson, when healthy is better than Love, built around "go to" scoring...
But I could make the same arguments as you the other way also….
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 12:58 PM CST up reply actions
Yea he's way overrated here because his advanced stats look so good
He doesn’t do nearly as well using the “eye test” and watching actual games, which you, me, CW, and whoever else may use.
But there are 2 truths:
1. AL and Love cannot coexist on a winning team
2. Love is a better fit for this team even though AL is the more talented player.
So even if I’m starting to despise Love for the simple fact that his fans are so overbearing, I’d still keep him and trade AL.
We don't agree much..
…but I think those two items are well put. They could have worked together in a more traditional pick-and-roll oriented offense with a few nice outside shooters and some up tempo play, but it’s out of the question with what Kahn and Rambis have said about the team in the last year. It’s one thing to draft Curry, keep Mike Miller and run a ton of in/out p-n-r action with 2 undersized bigs and some awesome outside shooters; it’s quite another to install a wing-oriented offense and head down the Triangle route. I think it could have worked with Curry/Miller/Jefferson/Love and an athletic defensive 3, but this new direction has blown that all to hell.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
'this new direction has blown that all to hell"
That’s really interesting, isn’t it. Did they think that the system would be so great it would make up for the lack of specific skills needed to run it? Did they think that they would easily swap the few decent players and picks they have for a bevy of players better suited to the system? Even if they were that shrewd and/or willing to spend money and/or picks on players able to maximize the advantages—there can’t be more than 2-3 in the whole draft whom you would say, “Yep, that guy.” And there won’t be much more available in free agency or trade over the next two years, either.
It makes me believe that during the next 11 months and through Windows 7 or whatever phase Kahn says the Wolves are in, there is going to have to be a make over for this team to the point that maybe one starter and two or three bench players are going to be the only ones left.
Maybe they can get a sponsorship with Microsoft
With all the windows they’ll be going through.
Kahn: “I’m a PC, and WIndows 11 is coming soon. The most important window yet”
by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2010 6:34 PM CST up reply actions
I said it...
… In the season preview that this season could be viewed against what they could have had without the wiz trade: curry, miller, brewer , love and Jefferson.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Mar 9, 2010 10:16 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Then I'm pretty "meh"
on that line-up, too, as much as I like Curry. And could you at least add “Rights to Rubio” to every discussion of the current roster? Not that I think he’s going to be tossing his knit hat in the air a la Mary Tyler Moore any time soon, but it makes me feel a little better.
I’m clinging to the belief that Kahn and Rambo planned to, uh, “evaluate” the current roster down to a record that gives them a shot at the top two picks, who will be someone like Turner. Then this summer they sign or trade for a starter in the top half of the league at his position. They don’t make the playoffs next year, but they give a mid-round pick back to the Clippers.
The year after supposedly Rubio comes over, and the team is back to respectability.
To be fair..
…I’m meh too on that one. I think Kahn made the right decision if he can pull Rubio, a good free agent, and a nice draft pick off. If not, then he’s fallen flat on his face. He needs those 3 things to happen otherwise he’s screwed the pooch, I think.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Al and Love can't coexist on a winning team? How does Utah fit into your scheme of things?
No big shot blocker, relatively short big men, yet they win?
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 7:01 PM CST up reply actions
They are pretty much...
…the upper level of what the old style wolves could have been. Also they are pick and roll monsters with an athletic combo forward to help on defense and an upper level point.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Mar 9, 2010 9:24 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
So if you add Turner and Rubio, are the wolves as good as Utah? ["athletic combo forward and an upper level point"]
How about if you also add say Gay or another athletic shooter? are we better than Utah?
What if Rambis wakes up next season and says: "I like what our guys have learned about movement and taking what the defense gives us, when playing the triangle, but our players will perform better playing pick and roll, so we will be doing more of that this season [for the 2010-1011 season.] ?
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 9:33 PM CST up reply actions
I do think
Style of play matters a lot.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Mar 9, 2010 10:17 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Love is overrated...
when he’s called a better version of Wes Unseld, or is described as “unguardable.” I’ve seen both written on this blog.
True.
Occasionally, you’ll see some comments that are a little silly.
But I think the few posters criticizing the “lovefest” of Kevin Love are somewhat exaggerating the issue. I, for one, have never seen a consensus (let’s say more than an overzealous post or two) that Love is a #1 option on a playoff team, or that he’s a top-10 player in the league, or that he’s even a surefire All-Star someday. Sometimes the topic of those things is brought up and discussed, but almost always the discussion decides that he’s close to those things, but not.
It’s probably made to seem more pronounced by the hate for Al Jefferson, which I do agree is out of hand. He puts up a 30-something and 13, and it starts the Showcase Jefferson Tour? What?
Weren't a few people here talking about Love as an MVP candidate earlier this season?...
… I’d say that’s overrating him.
Why do I not remember seeing either or those comments?
Love is a good player who is not great because he can’t physically dominate his opponents. He most likely never will. But he is crafty and skilled in several areas. I believe when Rambis plays him, and limits his minutes it is for his own personal development to allow him to have a better overall career. Because Love can’t (and won’t) be able to just show up and dominate someone on either end he has to also make the hustle plays, complete runouts faster, etc. If he does those things he will cease to become a potential liability on the court in given situations and that will allow Rambis to play him whenever he wants to. He is trying to send the message to Love (who he believes will be here longer than this year) that this is how hard I want you to work or you won’t get PT.
Yes, Love is one of the more talented wolves right now, but he doesn’t want Love to get that sense of entitlement to PT that comes from playing on a bad team.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 9, 2010 11:42 AM CST up reply actions
Now seems as good a time as any to revisit a question I had before the season
I was pretty vehement before the season started that, while I understood rebuilding and endorsed the Wizards trade, I had serious concerns about putting a terrible team on the floor yet again; not because of fan concerns, but because I feared that it would not be good for development if they were a 15 win team that had real trouble competing.
So here we are, stumbling toward the finish of another terrible season; we’re arguing about players, coaching and rotations, and I ask: what has been accomplished?
On the one hand, there has been some skill development of certain players: Corey Brewer is a better player now than he used to be. Ellington has been a pleasant surprise. Love has added a jump shot, though is still, apparently, the subject of furious debate. On the other hand, it’s hard to see if Jonny Flynn has gotten any better; despite last night, it has not been a good year for Al Jefferson, and with the possible exception of Darko, who a) isn’t that good, and b) will probably be gone next year, there haven’t been any real positive surprises.
Ultimately, though, the problem is what we haven’t seen is team development. It’s hard to know what to make of these guys when none of them have shown an ability to actually, you know, contribute to an even average NBA team. We still don’t know about Al Jefferson—6 years into his career, he’s been on nothing but losing teams. We like Kevin Love’s advanced stats; his team has won 38 games in nearly 2 years. My point is, we still don’t know if any of these guys can be significant pieces of a good team. The idea that we have X number of positions filled is just wishful thinking on a team this bad. We just don’t know if we have ANY positions filled.
Perhaps it has become clear that, whether or not they can, it’s looking unlikely that Jefferson and Love will co-exist long-term on this squad, as the coach seems not to think it’s possible.
Regardless of that, I invite comment on whether or not, or how much, this season has been wasted.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2010 12:08 PM CST reply actions
Clearly this has been a wasted season.
Just like the past 4 before it…
by College Wolf on Mar 9, 2010 12:12 PM CST up reply actions
Fair enough
but what if they get the 4th pick and their choice is between guys like Cousins, Aldrich, Johnson, and Aminu? Or what if they get Turner, and he turns out not to be Brandon Roy?
My point is, the draft lottery is all well and good, but how long can you play for that?
by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2010 12:24 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, I know...
we’ll be in some real trouble if we don’t land a Top-2 pick. I really think Turner is removing (has removed?) any doubt that he’s a future star. There just aren’t guys of that size and ability who come into the league very often. But if we’re talking Wes Johnson or Al-Farouq Aminu, that sounds a little bit more like picking Donyell Marshall right after Jason Kidd and Grant Hill.
To your larger point, I don’t think the season has been a waste — I (we) just have to have some faith that Rambis is devoted to a system that works with good players. We know that Wittman’s system did not work, as McHale’s “let em play” style immediately boosted us from pathetic to mediocre. If Rambis successfully installs a winning system, and a players like Rubio, Wall, or Turner can help make it work, then this year wasn’t a waste. Early in the year, it seemed like we were losing because Love and Jefferson were either out with injuries or playing at less than 100%. Now, it seems like we’re losing because Rambis wants to give us the best shot at Evan Turner, by playing Pavs and Hollins.
Who knows, maybe this has been communicated to Love, behind the scenes. It’s hard to say and we’ll almost-definitely never know.
One more year
I’m not sure whether I’m an optimist or a pessimist, but I think the Wolves really need to get a star with their pick this year or we’ll be destined for mediocrity. That is, I think between draft picks, trades, free agency, and player development, I don’t think we’ll be a cellar dweller next year (there’s the optimist). Whether we have the potential to rise above mediocrity in the next few years depends on how good Rubio and our #1 in 2010 are, because I think our chances of getting a star after that aren’t good (until we blow the team up again in X years).
Without a star in the draft
they’ll be lucky to be mediocre. Again, simply too much talent in the league. To win consistently, they need a major influx of outstanding talent.
"Never make predictions, especially about the future." Casey Stengel
Like I said, maybe I'm an optimist
but I think we could do enough in the off-season to rise to the late lottery next year, at which point you need to be REALLY lucky to get a top pick in the draft. So maybe I’m defining “mediocre” down. I’ll define it as being just good enough to have no realistic shot at a top pick in the draft.
Optimism is good, actually
These things are impossible to predict, too. If Kahn and Rambis have a viable vision for this team, which they have stated they do, and can put together the pieces, in the best of all possible worlds, then they can improve, to be sure. Look at Milwaukee of late. But playing in the Western Conference, which now has emerging teams such as OKC on the rise without a serious dropoff (yet) from the other more established teams, it is going to be very difficult to compete consistently. Even with Turner or Wall, it isn’t a given that they will necessarily be top contenders. So I cannot be as optimistic, though hope does spring eternal.
"Never make predictions, especially about the future." Casey Stengel
yeah the bucks are way better than us this season
last season we both sucked now they will lose in the first round and we will get to pick 1 or 2 in the draft
and the bucks will stay mediocre
and in 3 seasons we will a championship if everything works out with Rubio
the point is we can’t get much lower than this everything must go up from this point. right?
No
Everything most certainly does not have to go up from here. 3 years from now, this team could just as easily be winning 22 games as it could be making the playoffs.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2010 4:56 PM CST up reply actions
and...
with Jennings-Ilyasova-Bogut and a good coach, I’m not sure the Bucks stay mediocre. Their upside is actually pretty high, I think.
If Jennings/Ilyasova/Bogut/good coach is high upside
Then I’ll happily take my chances with Rubio/pick/Jefferson/Love/cap space/questionable coach.
Here’s some optimism: Even if we get screwed in the lottery and Rubio is never a star, Rubio + whoever we do draft surely won’t be total scrubs. The addition of those two players will be more than enough for us to be at least mediocre. To those who think we’ll be lucky to be mediocre, rest assured that it’s a very attainable goal. (And to those who feel mediocrity is a worse fate than what we are currently, I’m scared sh*tless too.)
I'm incredibly nervous..
for the lottery. I think it’s not unreasonable to say that if we don’t get a top-two pick, it’s a legitimately crushing moment.
It'll be worse than last year
Wall/Turner are better than Griffin/Rubio, and the consolation prize last year was a bunch of guards, which we needed, versus lots of power forwards this year, which we certainly do not need. Plus we’re one year closer to losing our pick to LAC, having to extend Brewer and Love, etc.
I suppose we have the assets to package the 4th pick + something to move into the top 2, but people say that every year and it never actually happens. We’re going to have to get lucky for the first time ever.
Hmmm
I wonder what Brewer’s FMV would be if he had to be resigned today… I’d wager 5M/per average.
In response to the Bucks upside. Well I’ve mentioned many times how I don’t like Jennings much and I’ve mentioned once my love affair with Bogut. The man flat out produces and makes his teammates better (defense in the lane and moves well without the ball/creates easy assist opportunities for Jennings). I also had a random urge for the Wolves to pursue Ilyasova before the year started because I heard he had improved quite a bit in his time away from the NBA and he showed off a couple nice games near the start of the year. I also figured he could be had for a small amount because of how he performed during his first stint here. Too bad…
Anywho, I think the Bucks have a decent setup for the future. Luc Richard is a pretty solid piece to work with too. They’ll really need to spend some money in order to get something in FA to push them a little further. They probably have the same or more problems than we do in attracting FAs. Salmons was a good pick up for them (so far). They’ll be lucky to get anything for Redd so once he expires that’ll be a nice weight off of their backs. But they have some nice pieces and they’ll be able to add something via the draft this year (as the depth will reach them easily enough to pick up a solid wing player). Personally I think the Bucks will somehow end up with Patterson because that’s just the exact type of player they seem to attract in drafts. Nothing with huge upside, but a guy who will come in and be able to have an immediate impact (until Jennings that is). They’re like the Pacers only slghtly better.
K Pups
your logic is based on inference. My point is that all the pieces need to be in place. Even if the Wolves have higher draft picks than the Bucks, it does not naturally follow that they will improve, especially enough to win a title. Those pieces need to fit together well. Think back to first few years of this franchise: they drafted high for years in a row, but they still stank bad. Even after getting Garnett, then Marbury, they finished at .500 and did not win a first-round of the playoffs for many years consecutively.
"Never make predictions, especially about the future." Casey Stengel
I'm an optimist
So you’ll forgive my optimistic take on everything, but I think a lot has been learned this year:
-Al is what he is. 20-10, so-so defense at best, slightly improved passing. Not going to be the guy who transforms a franchise.
-Love is not a building block either. He’s kind of his own thing, really – great skills and IQ, but with a physical profile that limits what he can do. His upside as a super glue, do everything #3 guy is tremendous, but he’s not the centerpiece of this team any more than Al is.
-IQ (of the basketball variety) matters in Rambis’ system. I’d say that Darko’s been a nice surprise, as has Damien Wilkins (first vet in awhile that kind of reminds me of the Terry Porter/Sam Mitchell years). Sessions has shown he can play, as has Love.
Gomes and Brewer don’t always fit perfectly from a flow perspective but have shown an aptitude for capitalizing on the opportunities the system creates for them. Ellington is showing up like a veteran and might move into the top group next year, and even a guy like Jawai shows something in limited minutes. All of those guys seem to have a solid to great innate feel and understanding for the game, and if we had a team of them I think we’d have 10 more wins this season – we’d look a lot more like the Rockets.
Now think about the guys who’ve struggled or seem like misfits – Al to certain extent, Flynn to a greater extent, Pavs, Hollins, Stewie. They struggle because of their mentality, their over estimation of skills, their lack of skills, or their lack of ability to simply grasp (or want to grasp) the system, and maybe because of a lack of experience. I think if Flynn wants to join the intermediate group he can but he’ll have to embrace how he fundamentally perceives the game. The other guys? I believe Al is what he is, and you either make an exception for him in the system or you trade him for other pieces.
-We have no stars (franchise altering kind). If this season has yielded anything, it’s the realization that there is no KG type player on this roster (no player with KG like potential). Rubio might be, and Turner/Wall might be that kind of player, but until we get another KG-type talent on this roster we are stuck in 30 wins is awesome-ville.
-As clear an insight into what gaps are important to fill in this system as you’re going to get. Wing wing wing wing. Interior defender interior defender interior defender. I know we’ve known this for years, but what more evidence do you need?
-Taken together, I think this season paints a fairly clear roadmap for what needs to be done. There will always be debates about Al and Love, but I think – given everything above – you put Al in play for getting pieces we don’t have. Hell, you even put Love in play for getting pieces if you have to. (I say Al instead of Love because Love fits the system better, but either guys must be in play if you’re serious about getting back in the promised land). This team has no upper echelon stars, no ‘The Guy’. When we do get that guy, the question will be who do you think fits better around him – Al or Love (and Flynn and so on).
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
Much of the merits of Love vs. Al
discussed here ignore what (for the team, anyway) is what I think is almost as important as the oncourt success:
The financial ramifications.
Over the next three seasons Al is scheduled to be paid three times what Kevin Love will be paid. And Al is a less marketable player, as well. Now you can argue all you want about Al being better, or Love being overrated, but you can’t say that over the next three years you think Al will be three times as valuable to this organization as Love will be.
This is a huge point
but cuts both ways. Al is less valuable to teams because he is paid what he’s worth; he’s also less valuable to the Wolves because he’s paid what he’s worth. If you go out to market either or both of these players around the league, Love will almost certainly bring a better return, because he’s a better value, even if he is a lesser player.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2010 12:49 PM CST up reply actions
Yes.
Be thankful I don’t have more free time, because if I did I would put together a post on why Al should go before Love does. A prime reason is that I believe the Wolves would rather trade Al for pennies on the dollar (in terms of player value), instead of trade Love for a higher paid, but more complementary piece.
Your argument only really makes sense if we assume we're trading one of them
Why can’t we just keep both of them?
Well, for one thing
we’re on pace to win 18 games with two of them, and if you call the Target Center and ask, “What time does the next home game start,” they’ll say, “What time can you get here?”
I don’t think the organization is going to pay a third of payroll to two relatively-similar players, and would prefer that they spread the dollars out to bona fide starters at other positions.
PD
How do we know what Love will make after next season, when his contract is up and a new CBA is put in effect?
Love’s contract is not up after next season.
by Sham-onnnnnnnnnnna on Mar 10, 2010 2:11 AM CST up reply actions
from Kelly Dwyer - Behind the Boxscore
The Timberwolves are awful, mainly because Kurt Rambis is about as bad a coach as we have in this league. Kevin Love (averaging 15 and 11 this year in only 29 minutes per game, ridiculous numbers) finally had a bad game, so my point is pretty shot, but the guy played only 12 minutes. He shot 1-for-7 and had six rebounds.
So, play the guy 36 minutes, he might approach 20 rebounds (against one of the worst rebounding teams in the NBA, playing without their two 7-foot centers), and his shooting percentage will likely return to the mean. Right? The rebounding is a constant, the scoring has to come around provided you play him more than Mbenga minutes.
But not Rambis. He plays Sasha Pavlovic 21 minutes. Sasha is the worst player in the NBA this season, he registered a -20 in this loss, he missed more shots than Love did over that span, came through with two rebounds and two turnovers, and generally played like Sasha Pavlovic. But Kevin Love finally turned in a stinker, so let’s cut his minutes nearly by a third.
Kurt Rambis? You are terrible at this job. There is no passable reason why this team should have lost 50 of its first 64 games.
by GWST11 on Mar 9, 2010 2:10 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
The Wolves are no all-star team...
But I think Love, Jefferson, Brewer, and Sessions is a core that should be better than 14-50.
I would agree if we had The Artist Formerly Known as Al Jefferson Who Finally Reappeared at Target Center Last Night, for the whole season. But he has been bad-to-terrible for much of the season, presumably due to the knee rehab and trying to fit into a new offense. If/when he’s back to his old self, we’re not a 14-50 team. More like 22-42 :)
BTW and FWIW
The reason I didn’t run with the Al-had-a-good-game angle is because Dallas didn’t play a center. Not a single minute:
http://popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20100308&game=DALMIN
Dallas basically said they’d give the Wolves whatever they could get with Al vs. Marion and Najera and that they’d have to win with the perimeter guys figuring out the zone. The fact that Dallas played without a center or a post threat against Al is more of a story line than him going off for 36 points. Dallas was perfectly fine with letting that happen and it was obvious from the second they went with the zone. Al would have had to gone for 50 for this approach to work for the Wolves. That’s the catch and Dallas knew it from the opening tap.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Did Al play Center
I didn’t get to catch very much of the game and I understand that the Mavs played a zone most of the game but didn’t Al Jefferson play primarily as a PF last night? I get that a bigger body in the middle of the zone would have affected his output, but if the Mavs had their Centers wouldn’t they have played more man to man? I’m not trying to be a jerk, I"m just curious. Couldn’t Al have had the exact same output even if the Mavs had their Centers since you wouldn’t think they would have guarded Al anyway?
The bottom line...
…is that they guarded him with Marion and Najera and rotated down double (and sometimes triple) teams from the perimeter because they knew the Wolves couldn’t beat them with just Al going nuts. The silver lining here is that a competent wing player or point guard (or coaching strategy) could have gone nuts against Dallas last night. Dallas made the bet that Al couldn’t score 50+ and they packed in the zone after Al went crazy in the 1st quarter…without a center.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Do we really know if Al could have beat them by himself? Al should have had 60% of the possessions until they did stop him.
Too much, "I’ve got to get my points
Why did Brewer and Pavlovic need 10 shots or Flynn need 12? Together they went 10 for 32.
Between the 3 of them they also had 13 turnovers.
So thats 10 baskets in 45 possessions.
Give most of those possessions to Jefferson and we win, in my opinion!
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 4:07 PM CST up reply actions
A few things
a- He’s not that effective where they could have simply pounded it to him on 2/3 of the team’s possessions. He’s good. He’s not that good.
b- Part of the effectiveness of the Dallas zone was that they were able to collapse on Al without consequence when he did get the ball in a 1/2 court setting. He’s good enough to get a bunch of points, but the team wasn’t good enough to take advantage of 3 defenders collapsing on a single guy.
c- Al has a fairly solid track record of points/possession, to/poss, etc. Nothing in his track record suggest that he’s the type of guy that can win games with that type of workload. It’s just not realistic. He’s a fantastic player and I do think there is something to those who really want to see how he plays next to a competent wing and a defensive big, but the level at which he would have to perform in order to single-handedly win a game like this is well beyond his abilities…especially on a regular basis.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I didn't say that should be our game plan every night, but last night, when they had NO CENTERS and no bench.... it would have worked in my view...
if we truly wanted to win.
I do take exception “he’s not that good”…. when healthy, before Feb 2009, he hit roughly 50% no matter how many possessions he was given.
He is that good, when healthy.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 7:07 PM CST up reply actions
He's a good player..
…but being that good would mean that he would need to find a way to get more points/play and points/possession than he currently does. The jump from Big Al’s low 20s FT/FG rate to Tim Duncan’s high 30s is a huge deal and while Al has a lot of low post moves, at the end of the day he’s just a guy who can hit 50% of shots that most other players can hit 50% of. He’s really good at it, but they’re still 2 pointers and he doesn’t get to the line as much as he should, partly because of his awesome finesse near the rim. There aren’t too many players who are that good. I didn’t mean it as a slight against the guy. He’s just not an A1 option.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I understand your reason
but then you should also call out Love when he presents such a bad defensive matchup and lacks energy (unless you disagree with Rambis). I think there have been more games where Rambis has stated this as a reason for low playing time for Love than there have been games where Jefferson is given a free pass by the opposition.
I would say there have been at least five games this season (while missing six weeks) where Love has been essentially benched because of lack of energy or a matchup he can’t handle. Yet people still insist vigorously that Love is the best player on this team or despise Jefferson.
Leash Length
This is why people on this board get worked up about Love’s playing time. Jefferson, Flynn, and pretty much everyone but Brewer does not regularly bring top level defensive effort and energy. Yet, Jefferson and Flynn (etc) seem to be allowed to play through it but Love is yanked immediately. People speculate as to why Love appears to be on a tighter leash then Jefferson, Flynn and even Pavlovic. It’s an interesting question.
Exactly..
….with the last sentence. It doesn’t make sense.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I think leash length is certainly part of the issue
This may be Rambis playing mind games with Love, although let’s not forget, when Love and Jefferson are slacking on defense Jefferson stills adds more to the offense.
Flynn??? I think they just want him to get experience. I’m not equating the two, but Brett Favre played terribly early in his career, sometimes you need to play to learn.
We forget that we have seen the reverse also. Love playing well, and jefferson sitting down the stretch of games.
Its happened to Love more often than jefferson, but it happens to both of them, frequently!
Rambis refuses to play both of them together.
If it was about showcasing one or the other, then at least one of them would play all of the time.
If was about development [and remember Love is only a 2nd year player, and even jefferson is still young and returning from major injury] then they BOTH would be playing 35 minutes plus per game.
Its about neither winning nor development. Its about “SOMETHING ELSE”!
In my opinion, that “something else” starts with a T and sounds like “spanking”, which is what this team has taken all season because of this mysterious “somethings else”.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 7:13 PM CST up reply actions
I don't see anyone..
…despising Jefferson. I certainly don’t. I think most people have framed the comparison between the two in terms of comparative value. Part of the reason why I side with Love over Jefferson is the matter of overall team production with the time they are given. This is an aggregate opinion over the course of the season and my style on this site is, was, and probably always will be to tie broad season-long events to individual games. Does Love have terrible games? Of course, but the broad thrust of his season has been that he is a surprisingly effective player for a 21 year old front court player and that he does fantastic things while he’s on the court compared to his teammates. In this context, the idea about Love getting 12 minutes is more of a story than him having a bad game and getting a 1/2 to a 1/3 of what is typically afforded to Jonny Flynn on an equally terrible night.
I’d call out Love if he had a long trend towards crappy play and it was indicative of his overall performance over a longer period of time. A bad game against a team he did well against (14/14, -4) less than a week ago doesn’t clear that bar.
As for the effort angle, I would agree with it if Love’s minutes weren’t being replaced by one of the worst 5 regulars in the NBA. That being said, maybe it will work out in the long run and I’m willing to be wrong about this if Rambis’ mind games work when Love is 24 and (hopefully) going crazy.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I'm not saying everyone here (or you) despise Jefferson
but he definitely has haters, while for some reason Love does not. Just look at the responses after the DWI, there are posters who have a bias against Jefferson that is difficult to explain. My biggest issue is I don’t see how Love has contributed any more over the last couple seasons than Jefferson, but people defend Love like crazy while not hesitating to criticize Jefferson (this fanpost after Jefferson’s best game and Love’s worst game of the year is a perfect example). If Love was so great I think this team would have more than 14 wins. I guess my biggest issue is why is Love defended so hard on a team of losers?
I also think the Love/Flynn comparisons are somewhat off. Love loses PT due to lack of effort (at least according to Rambis), many of Flynn’s issues can be traced to a need for experience.
There are two good reasons why Jefferson gets criticized
more than Love:
1. Contract. Jefferson is the team’s highest paid player.
2. Experience. Jefferson is a 6 year veteran, though still young. Love is a 21 year old 2nd year player.
The sense is, I think, that Jefferson is what he is, whereas there is still room for Love to get even better.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2010 6:44 PM CST up reply actions
WHY DOES ANYONE HERE CARE WHAT JEFFERSON IS PAID??
He isn’t keeping the Wolves from pursuing a free agent this summer, he isn’t causing ticket prices to increase (season tickets in the lower level for $10 next season)…it’s Taylor’s money, who cares???
I would understand the salary issue if it affected the team in some way, but it doesn’t.
Why is Jefferson “what he is”? Do the Darko praisers feel the same about him, they are about the same age? Jefferson would be a big guy in his 2nd season if he played four years in college, and he lost most of one season with the ACL. Why can’t he improve from where he is now? I haven’t seen any sign that he has plateaued, unless you think not making progress in an offseason while rehabbing an ACL tear is a sign of plateauing.
Um....his salary absolutely affects the team
It’s going to be about 25% of the salary cap next season. I have no idea how you can come to the conclusion that it doesn’t affect the team. It could be that it’s the best use of that money to pay Al Jefferson, but to suggest that it doesn’t affect the team makes no sense.
Further, he’s supposed to be (and probably is) the team’s best player, he’s getting paid like the team’s best player, and the team sucks. Of course he’s going to take more criticism than a 2nd year guy who doesn’t play as much and makes much less money.
As for your other point, Al Jefferson is a 6 year vet, who has been getting heavy minutes for 4 of them. I don’t know that he can’t get better, but I’ll take the younger guy with less experience as being more likely to improve.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2010 7:36 PM CST up reply actions
Exactly..
…he carries a large percentage of the total salary on a crappy team. Value matters.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Simple question to either of you
Which free agent this summer will the Wolves lose out on because of Jefferson’s salary. SNP, I know you want Rudy Gay…Jefferson’s contract isn’t going to prevent the Wolves from getting Gay.
I’ll ask also, if Jefferson was making $8 mil this season, would your opinion change, and more importantly, would the team be any different?
I want...
..Al’s contract to be turned into a similarly good starting wing player who can score a bunch. I think Love can provide as much value at the 4 while allowing the Wolves to move Jefferson to fill another starting position with that salary slot. I think Gay is the best option for that money. It’s more to do with the allocation of resources than it is about liking Jefferson over Gay or Love. Gay + Love > Love + Jefferson, both in terms of value and, I hope and think, production.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Why trade jefferson for Gay, if you can get Gay and give up nothing? Gay is a restricted free agent.
Will memphis match a “high offer”? Can they afford to?
Someone will offer Gay close to a max deal this off season, if you want him that badly, then you think it should the wolves. [I disagree that Gay is worth a max contract, but thats what we will pay, if we get the rights to Gay. The knicks or nets or chicago or someone will give Gay a max contract or close to it.
Do you want to give up Jefferson “AND” give Gay a Max contract?
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 7:59 PM CST up reply actions
I just think..
…a sign and trade is the only way the Wolves can get him.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I have no problem with your idea about
trading Jefferson for a comparable wing. I’d actually take it a step further, I want to move Brewer and Jefferson (or Love) for an All-Star caliber wing. Depending on the strengths of the wing, either Love or Jefferson could be a great complement. If Love stays, then someone like Gay who drives inside is the perfect match, if Jefferson stays then a great three point shooter is the match. Either way, the wing better be a solid defender to make up for the defensive weakness of either Love or AL.
I hate to burst your bubble, but Gay isn’t coming to the Wolves. The trade deadline had a massive impact on free agency (IMO) that so far has been under-reported, but will be noticed once the season ends. Cleveland getting Jamison will make LeBron stay home. The Knicks, Clippers and Chicago freeing up more space is going to cause the 2nd tier to get overpaid (which the Wolves won’t do for Gay). I’m already seeing some New York reports about the Knicks “settling” Joe Johnson instead of getting LeBron. If the Knicks don’t get one of the big 3 (they won’t), they’ll have no choice but to overpay a 2nd tier guy, their high paying fans will not take anymore of this (especially if Durant re-ups this summer so the Knicks can dangle him for a year). I think the Bulls probably get Wade, but then Miami or NJ ultimately ends up overpaying for Gay. The problem is that so many big market teams cleared roster spots that they have no choice but to be over-aggressive. A team like NJ so far below the cap can front load a contract and make it almost impossible for other teams to match the offers.
Last point on Love/Jefferson here, I ultimately think the lottery will have a major impact on what they do. If they get #2(Turner), he’ll need room to drive (Jefferson expendable). If they get the #3-5, I think Kahn will trade either Love or AL (whatever it takes) to get into the top 2. Also, if Darko returns, this makes it easier to keep Love over Jefferson.
even if you are right, for memphis payroll is everything.....they would much rather have Love over Jefferson due to money but in reality probably want neither Love nor Jefferson since they have too enough invested in big men.
They’d want to trade Gay and get back the rights to another younger, cheaper wing…….if you really wanted Gay, they might do our draft pick for him, but then you still have to give Gay a huge contract since another teams overpays and we have to match.
Another hole in the memphis line up is PG. So they might take the rights to Rubio (if they thought Rubio would ever agree to play there) for Gay.
I’d rather keep Jefferson, Love and the rights to Turner or Rubio.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 9:57 PM CST up reply actions
It would probably be a three team
IF, IF, IF the Wolves get a player like Gay, Jefferson is the guy traded. Gay will be overpaid by a couple million this summer, moving Jefferson’s contract will help offset that fact.
Lastly, do not make this deal for Rubio. Flynn yes, not Rubio.
Just saying, I didn't think memphis wanted Jefferson (or love for that matter).
Though Love would be more popular than Jefferson because less expensive.
A three-way deal like you’ve delineated with memphis and the Nets is possible, if Nets wanted Wall over Turner.
I don’t think we will know the final ranking of draft picks till after the NCAA tournament. Turner could move past Wall.
Which sad to say, would give us a 3rd PG at #2, after Rubio and Flynn.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 10, 2010 9:29 AM CST up reply actions
Which factor affects a player's value the most:
1) Salary
2) Experience
3) ACL Reconstruction within the past year
I vote 3, and it’s why it’s been frustrating to read so much Jefferson-bashing this year. His critics ignore the obvious downward spike in his career progression that just happened to occur at the same time he tore his ACL. It’s pretty reasonable to expect the old Jefferson back, next year.
OK, granting that "the old Jefferson" is back next
year, the question is whether that’s the best use of the team’s resources, given all the circumstances: the rest of the roster, the coaching staff, the intended style of play.
I don’t know, I’m asking. My biggest concern about this is that Rambis seems to have decided that he doesn’t like to play Jefferson and Love together for heavy minutes. If that’s the case, having both of them on the roster doesn’t seem like the best use of resources.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2010 7:51 PM CST up reply actions
Maybe, maybe not...
it’s all relative, and depends on what the other options actually are.
In my opinion, a healthy Jefferson is worthy of his salary, and probably slightly more than his salary. He’s an All-Star caliber player when he’s playing at his late ’08/early ’09 level.
So, for a trade to make sense, we’d have to get back an All-Star, who plays a more convenient position (not difficult to find on the Wolves roster) who is not too old to make it make sense. Danny Granger or Brandon Roy come to mind, and neither is walkin’ through that door.
Or, we’d have to turn Al into a very-high lottery pick and whatever contracts that team wanted to get rid of to make it work. Not a Cole Aldrich lottery pick, but an Evan Turner lottery pick. Something where we can be sure that we’re getting a bigtime player in return.
Of the two, I think the second is the most realistic, and it might even happen. If Kahn approaches the ‘10 Draft as aggressively as he did in ’09, all bets are off. If the Wolves win the lotto or get 2nd, I won’t be shocked if Kahn tries to land both Wall and Turner. Rubio and Jefferson would be hard for a lot of teams to pass on. Or if the more likely scenario happens and we’re picking 3-5, I won’t be shocked to see a package that includes Jefferson exchanged for the Evan Turner slot. Who knows.
My God, I wish that would happen.
Jefferson, Rubio, and even the Utah pick if we had to do it for the 2nd pick (assuming we had the 1st already).
Wall and Turner would be the best backcourt in the league within 3 years. Somehow get a true center with some upside (drafting Whiteside/Aldrich/Udoh etc. with the Charlotte pick, or trading Flynn/Sessions for one), and you’ve got:
Wall/Flynn
Turner/Ellington/Brewer
Brewer/Turner/Gomes
Love/Pekovic/Gomes
NewCenter/Pekovic/Love
mmmmmm…..
If Darko gave some Darkogasms
What would a Wall-Turner backcourt do for us? Call 911, please.
"Never make predictions, especially about the future." Casey Stengel
If you are discussing team production this season, its not fair to Jefferson.
If you look at those same “advanced stats” for last season, you’ll see Jefferson looked much much better than Love…
For instance 2009
Jefferson On court/off court >> plus 3,9
Love on court off court >> minus 2.8
Jefferson on court >> minus 2.8
Love on court >> minus 6.2
Jefferson’s production 25.7, opponent 19.4, NET positive 6.3
Love’s production 20.5, opponent 19.8, Net positive 0.7
Adjusted plus minus last season
Jefferson >> plus 5.04
Love >> minus 7.63
I realize that Love’s numbers are better this year, what they are is comparable to Jefferson’s numbers last year…. they are both very good players and make their team better. Thats why I want to see them play together.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 7:22 PM CST up reply actions
Wow that is such a copout
If Love put up 36 points against anybody, whether they be a 12th man, starter, retired player, or matched up against a PG, you would declare that day a holiday around here.
Besides, AL is a power forward anyways, just like Love.
Yes..
…by extrapolating imaginary evidence from a hypothetical you really have boxed me in. Well done. Get yourself a cookie and some milk for that one.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Yes I have exaggerated a hypothetical situation
But let’s be serious, if Love scored 36 points in a game, your entire game wrap would be all about how good he is and there would be pandemonium in the canishoopus streets.
Let's also be serious...
…Love isn’t going to score 36 points in a game. Chances are, even if something like this happened it would be a fluke and nothing to build on…which is exactly the point I made with Al when he scores 36 points against a team that decides not to play a center for an entire 48 minutes of game action. We go nuts for Love when he posts per 36 numbers of about 18/14 while getting to the line better than anyone else on the team and dominating the glass at both ends of the court. He’s efficient on a level above and beyond anyone else on this team and that’s what all the fuss is about.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
SNP
I really like this site, there are only a couple things that I don’t like here. Perhaps the biggest issue I have(maybe the only issue) is the illogical bias of Love over Jefferson. Whether you want to admit it or not, or can or cannot see it, there is a bias (not saying racial) that has existed since I starting reading here a year ago.
I can say as I fan I like Jefferson as much as Love, and Love as much as Jefferson, perhaps that is why I see the bias. The only thing I might say in favor of Jefferson is he is like a power hitter in baseball and Love is a Piranha. The Piranhas are fun to watch and can be effective, but nothing beats a three run homer. When the Twins were at their Piranha best, guys like Punto were an asset, but without Morneau they still don’t win. That’s why I just don’t understand the anti-Jefferson sentiment. Love can be the greatest facilitator in the league, but he relies on others to be effective, while Jefferson can be effective with guys like Gomes and Sasha around him.
A few things:
1- Thanks for the feedback. I have always said that this site’s editor is its readers and I hope it continues to be that way.
2- I don’t view bias as being a bad word. I think I am consistent, fair, and open in my reasoning for liking Love more than Jefferson. There are certain types of players I like more than others and Love just happens to fall in that wheelhouse more than most other guys. I’m all about being partisan…as long as it is done consistently and openly…which I think I have been. This isn’t the FOX News of SB Nation. Fair and Balanced is an insult and we definitely have an opinion about the direction of our takes.
3- I think I have been logical in my support of Love over Jefferson. He’s just the type of player that I enjoy watching and I have been consistent with that for a long time.
4- Just be thankful the Wolves didn’t get Curry. I wanted him on the team as much as Love ;)
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I liked Curry too,
although he scared me off when he wouldn’t come here to be interviewed. Not a good enough player if he’s going to cause trouble down the road. Rubio may have the same issues but his upside makes it worth the potential hassle.
I do know what you are saying about Love, like I said somewhere above I think both Love and Al can be on successful teams, but they need the right complements. I enjoy watching great post players, especially since they are now so rare, but Love’s basketball instincts are almost as fun to watch.
Just to clarify, your post didn’t bother me, I just wish more people who question Rambis (or Jefferson) would also be willing to ask if Love is a defensive liability against some teams, and also give Love a tougher time about not playing with high energy. Love has had about five games over the last couple months were his hustle has been openly questioned by Rambis, this should be a concern to fans. He doesn’t have the athletic ability to play at less than 100%. What Rambis is doing to Love strikes me as very similar to what Jacques LeMaire does with his young players…setting expectations. LeMaire’s teams work hard for him, I think Rambis has the same intention and should get lauded for that fact while Love gets criticized, instead of the other way around.
in the 10 games before Jefferson was hurt in 2009, he averaged 26.7 pts, 12.5 reb and shot 52%.
The teams he played in those 10 games >> Hornets, Bulls, Bucks, Pistons, Lakers, Celtics, Pacers, Hawks, Rockets, Hornets again…. so good teams! He had 2 games in those 10, where he was 16 of 30, one against the Bulls and the other against the Rockets. In the Bulls game he played against Noah (35 minutes) and Thomas (27 minutes). And he made Noah, a mascot of many on this site, look like a babe in the jungle.
We forget too easily how good jefferson is when not injured. He is the best low post scorer in the NBA.
And could easily have scored 60 against the Mav’s yesterday and won the game single handed.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 7:47 PM CST up reply actions
Agree with the premise of the post..
But you think that Jefferson is still suffering from injury enough to cost him 24 points in a single game?
Jefferson shot 15 for 21 yesterday, thats 71%. You keep giving him the ball, at least until he starts shooting closer to 50%.
Flynn wants his shots as do others.
Keep feeding the hot man until the opponent slows him down!
jefferson was NEVER SLOWED DOWN!
It was just stupid PG play and stupid play in general by our ball handlers.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 9:40 PM CST up reply actions
No Way
Do you know how hard it is for anyone to drop 60 points in a game?
by College Wolf on Mar 9, 2010 10:57 PM CST up reply actions
A big guy would need a lot of dunks and FTs to get that
For his efficiency last night, he wasn’t doing enough of either.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Mar 10, 2010 12:01 PM CST up reply actions
in the 10 games before Jefferson was injured he score over 30, 4 times....
39 against the Bulls playing Noah — 53.3%
34 against the world champion Lakers — 48.1%
34 against the Celtics — 71.4%
36 against the Rockets againgst Yao — 53.3%
Tell me this man couldn’t score 60 against a team like the Mav’s with no centers….
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 10, 2010 2:50 PM CST up reply actions
I agree
I actually think this team is underachieving its true talent level. I think Rambis is dogmatic in his beliefs and makes his player rotation decisions based purely on his own theoretical template of success. Theoretically, Ryan Hollins is a better defensive matchup against face-up bigs like Dirk since Ryan is long and mobile. In theory, he should be more effective than the shorter, unathletic Kevin Love. The actual production is thrown completely out the window in favor of the best theoretical physical matchup. Same thing with Sasha. Theoretically he understands the Triangle offense and he can space the floor with outside shooting. So damn it, he’s playing. Theoretically, having a Big 2-guard is the correct way to run the Triangle, so having Jonny Flynn and Ramon Sessions on the floor together for long stretches is anathema. It’s puzzling stuff.
by Rascal Flatts on Mar 9, 2010 2:54 PM CST up reply actions
In my opinion, they only explanation for not playing Jefferson and Love 35 minutes plus per game is trying to maximize ping pong balls.
We don’t want the warriors to slip by us into 2nd place and take Turner.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 4:10 PM CST up reply actions
Rambis's strategy could also tell one more thing. He doesn't need to see more of Jefferson and Love together.
He has made up his mind about them. Most people believe that means Jefferson or Love are traded.
But it could mean the opposite. It could mean that a top 10 pace adjusted “at the rim” defense in December [after only playing together for a month], was enough to convince Rambis and Kahn that jefferson and love are compatible, especially with a big athletic defender.
It might mean we are intent on keeping both Jefferson and Love unless we get the proverbial “deal you can’t refuse”.
The player would would currently get the most on the trade market is Love. He is less expensive and no concerns about “major injury” as we have seen with jefferson. Yet Love has been playing limited minutes since January 1st.
Love’s minutes by month
Dec 31.9
Jan 28.5
Feb 26.8
Mar 25.7
Love is definitely not “being showcased”.
Is Jefferson being showcased then?
Jefferson has sat at the end of a bunch of games also. Something Kahn would not allow if jefferson was being showcased.
Neither Jefferson nor Love is being showcased. Basically only one at a time is being played, especially at the end of games.
We’ll see this summer and things might change, but if Rambis continues his current pattern for playing Jefferson and Love, I think odds are better than 50;50 that neither is traded.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 9, 2010 4:24 PM CST up reply actions
if this season was about winning, yes
but this season is all about evaluating the talent on the roster and trying to improve roster flexibility, hence the nickel-and-dime trades and puzzling player rotations.
It was a lost season from the get-go, if concerned about Wins.
I still don’t think the core you list is THAT much better than 14-50.
"There is no passable reason why this team should have lost 50 of its first 64 games"
unless, of course, you’re not worried about and perhaps would even benefit by having lost 50 of its first 64 games . . .
I wonder where this reply will land...
Click.
In response to the Kelly Dwyer quote, wow, he put it more eloquently than any of us were able to. That’s a perfect indictment of Rambis’s rotations. I’m even more impressed by the fact that this guy is covering the entire NBA, yet still has such a keen grasp of what’s wrong with the Timberwolves. I’m going to have his blog bookmarked from now on. Thanks for sharing, GWST11.
lol
All the way at the bottom, I guess. Further props to GWST11 for making a post that has incited upwards of 100 replies within its chain.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
