Poll: What's your projected opening night lineup- Small Forward?
by Mano on Aug 18, 2010 1:44 AM CDT
Email
Print
160 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
He's no baby Melo
He’s a bigger version of Melo that just hasn’t produced to his potential yet.
by Rascal Flatts on Aug 18, 2010 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions
I remember Basketball Prospectus projected him as a...
better rebounding Melo.
Let us pray. In all fairness, Melo was pretty bad his first two years and drastically improved in his third.
Actually he was solid his first couple of years, similar to Beasley, then got really good
But yeah, we’re all hoping and praying that Beasley can make a similar 3rd year leap. Don’t forget though that even if Beasley produces identically to his first two years in the league, it’s still an upgrade to Ryan Gomes.
by Rascal Flatts on Aug 18, 2010 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Gomes wasn't bad
He just wasn’t good….He was just….blah I guess. He played solid one-on-one defense, but lacked the range or explosiveness to play good help defense. He was one of the NBA’s best mid-range shooters, but didn’t have a quick enough release to take a high volume of shots. He rarely made boneheaded plays, but a team that so desperately lacks talent needs protagonists, not wallflowers. In other words, he fits perfectly with a top shelf contending team that needs gap-fillers for their roster. He’d be perfect in Miami.
by Rascal Flatts on Aug 18, 2010 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions
My problem with Gomes
was his lack of aggression. He rarely got to the line, and seemed content to just stop n pop. He had his good days shooting, and his bad days. But he was very one dimensional. He reminded of a throwback era, back to all the jump shooting days of Timberwolves past. We needed slashers, aggrerssive, get to the rim, create contact kind of guys, and he definitely wasn’t one.
hey Gomes is better than Foye,
at least Sterling remembered his name…
by Bad News Wolves on Aug 18, 2010 10:28 PM CDT up reply actions
I guess I will give you solid..
although both were pretty inefficient scorers through their second year in the league.
Comparison here
I guess my point was that Beasley and Melo were at about the same level their third year in the league… What that level is has more to do with different opinions on what is valuable.
The 3rd year improvement for high usage scoring SFs is pretty impressive, and has me optimistic about Beasley with the Wolves.
Carmello and Durant both make huge strides in their 3rd year.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=anthoca01&y1=2005&p2=anthoca01&y2=2006&p3=duranke01&y3=2009&p4=duranke01&y4=2010
Lebron and Brandon Roy both improved, Roy impressively so, and LeBron was already so good any improvement is great.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=jamesle01&y1=2005&p2=jamesle01&y2=2006&p3=roybr01&y3=2008&p4=roybr01&y4=2009
No 3rd year improvement for Gay or Pierce however…
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=gayru01&y1=2008&p2=gayru01&y2=2009&p3=piercpa01&y3=2000&p4=piercpa01&y4=2001
Are there any other guys to looks at?
More for fun...
Rashard Lewis had a healthy jump, Gerald Wallace still hadn’t found his game by the third season
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=lewisra02&y1=2000&p2=lewisra02&y2=2001&p3=wallage01&y3=2003&p4=wallage01&y4=2004
I used to bring these same stats out....
…in defense of Martell Webster, as a Portland fan. T Mac is another one.
by peregrinebrm on Aug 22, 2010 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions
i think wes starts at the 3.
i’m thinking beastley will come off the bench at the beginning of the year.
But not unprecendented...
case in point, Flynn over Sessions
Talking myself into DeMarcus Cousins since 5/18/10
I guess People don't understand the meaning of a "running team"
Beasley at the 3 Love at the 4 and Darko at the 5. We would have the slowest front court for a team that supposedly wants to run.
Then that's on Beasley
I actually think Beasley is fine as SF on a running team. I think you do too, but you’re real objection is Love at the 4. I have no problem starting Webster or wes at the 3 over Beasley, depending on how all the pieces mesh. I’m not sure you realize how historically bad a front court of Darko, Beasley, and Webster would be on the boards.
I think you overvalue rebounding because its Loves best attribute
The Thunder last year won 50 games with a front court of Kevin Durant, Jeff Green and Nenad Krstic. Kevin Durant lead the team in rebounding with 7.6 per game followed by Jeff Green at 6 and their center Nenad Krstic only had 5.
They also outrebounded their opponents by almost 3 rpg...
During the season and were 3rd in the league in offensive rebounding %. They were one of the best rebounding teams in the league. If anything, Love needs to play because the Wolves would get dominated on the boards if he didn’t, which is exactly what happened to them when he was out at the beginning of last season.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Aug 18, 2010 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions
This proves my point. Thank you
You do no need a dominate rebounder to be a good rebounding team. I would rather have a team of athletic disruptor’s that cause turnovers instead of a slow team with one dominate rebounder.
I kind if envy the folks who post
bold assertions on the internet with no need to prove, even to themselves that they are right. It certainly would save a lot of time if I had that sort of make up. Unfortunately for me, I like to make sure that there is some merit to what I write, even if it seems correct to me on a gut level, like my point about the horros of a Darko, Beasley, and anybody starting rotation. So, here’s what the numbers say.
As a league average, teams grab 73.7% of the rebounds when on defense and, logically, 26.3% of the boards on offense. Those numbers match up great and account for 100% of missed shots. Last season, the worst rebounding team on both ends of the court was Golden State and their merry band of D-Leaguers (no offense Mr. Tolliver) who grabbed 68.5% and 20.9% of available rebounds. That is a lot of possessions to give up vs. the league average. So, let’s look at a Wolves starting lineup of Darko, Beasley and Webster at the 5, 4, and 3. The numbers presented are the ORR and DRR for each player, followed by the league average ORR and DRR for their position (using solid rotational players (20+ games, 20+ mpg). All numbers from hoopsdata.
Darko: 7.5% ORR/16.9% DRR; Cave: 9.5%/22%
Beasley: 6.3%/18.8%; PFave: 8.8%/20.8%
Webster: 2.9%/13.7%’ SFave: 4.1%/14.3%
So, stopping right there, the Wolves front court would be out rebounded
16.7% to 22.4% on offense and 49.4% to 57.1% on defense against average players. That’s a lot of posessions in a game. But to get a better idea of the full impact, you need to get full team numbers, so by adding in Jonny Flynn and Corey Brewer as the backcourt you get the following:
Flynn: 1.1%/8.1%; PGave: 2.1%/9.4%
Brewer: 3.1%/9.6%; SGave: 2.6%/10.8%
So now we can total up our starting 5 and see that we’d get 20.9% of offensive boards and 67.1% of devensive boards. You’ll notice that that figure is behind Golden States NBA-worst total. It is even worse when you compare those numbers against the league averages listed above, and worse still when you compare those numbers against the sum averages for regular rotation players at each position. NBA averages there are 27.1% of offensive boards, and 77.3% of defensive. Those numbers are higher than league averages because they are the average for rotation guys and are not brought down by the scrubs.
So, it is fair to argue that our starting 5 would give up 6 possessions on the offensive end and 10 on the defensive end against an average 5 man rotation, given 100 missed shots for each team. Since the league average for missed shots per game is about 44, our starting 5 would grab about 3 fewer offensive boards each game, and more than 5 fewer defensive boards per game than an average rotation. A swing of more than 8 possessions per game.
Now, while you might think I overvalue rebounds because I am a fan of Kevin Love. Actually, I correctly value rebounds because I started examining the impact of rebounding to try to explain why Kevin Love’s advanced stats metrics, such as win shares per 48 min, were so crazy high compared to his promising, but still modest production in other areas. And the fact is that scoring efficiency does not vary that much across individual players or teams. I mean there is a good range, and it’s easy to find efficient and inefficient teams, but the range from top to bottom represents a 10% difference in points per possession. However, there’s a huge difference in rebounding rate, in particular offensive rebounding. So, a team is better off maximizing their potential to add additional possessions, since what is done with each possession does not vary considerably (on average).
Replacing Beasley with Love immediately gains 8 offensive boards per 100 misses, putting us at a net +2, and all 10 of the missing defensive boards.
by dropstep on Aug 18, 2010 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions 5 recs
tell you what
you give me your gut impressions, I will make a bold assertion based off of half baked logic and then once you finish doing your research you can either back me up or refute my “findings.” How does that sound?
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 18, 2010 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions
My gut impression right now %
is that I need a sandwich. If I go do some ‘research’, will you have gotten me one by the time I get back? :)
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Aug 19, 2010 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions
my offer was limited
to being able to make bold statements and not really do anything else. Comments like:
I invented the internet…because Dropstep said so.
Actual work requies actual payment. Yay capitalism.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 19, 2010 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions
Aw man!
I was really getting excited for some magically appearing Potbelly sandwiches!
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Aug 19, 2010 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions
i agree with evil here
where as i appreciate your thorough analysis. i think my eyes are bleeding now
after reading through it all. you could boil it down into more of a summary, and
i will totally believe you. good job, though.
p.s. these guys haven’t even played together yet.
phuckin' machine took my quarter.
I was going more for the
I can make his pure conjecture statements for him so he can interject them into a conversation without feeling like he has to back them up. That way the conversation continues and he can continue to do research to continually develop his position in a more refined manner.
That way he doesn’t have any direct attachment to my summary and conjecture.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 18, 2010 9:53 PM CDT up reply actions
I've always wanted a spokesman
well, actually a spokesmodel, but I’m sure this would be a good arrangement.
in my defense
I am rather good looking…if I do say so myself. Although, that still probably isn’t the kind of spokesmodel you were going for.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 19, 2010 7:43 AM CDT up reply actions
The super-rebounder effect
The problem with your analysis is that you fail to account for the ‘super-rebounder effect’ and seem to assume that these statistics take place in a vacuum . A super-rebounder is a guy who makes it his main job to rebound and has a high rebounding rate, Al, Love, etc.. When you have a guy like this on the team he invariably affects the DRR and ORR of his teammates, not only because he gets a lot of the rebounds and skews the statistics, but also because with a guy like that on the team they focus their efforts on other aspects of the game knowing that someone else will focus on getting the rebound.
With the quoted lineup you used to make your argument Darko-Beasley-Webster-Brewer-Flynn, three of those players posted all of their stats while on the court with either one or two super-rebounders (Love, Al). If neither of those players were on the court I think it would be fair to say that Darko, Brewer and Flynn would probably post better RRs. The same could be said of Webster (Camby, Oden, Pryz) and Beasley to some extent. If a super-rebounder were not in the game the rest of these players would have to pick up the slack and my guess is that all of their rebounding rates would improve as a result. Whether or not it would be up to the league average is impossible to tell, but it would certainly be better than the figure you posted and the GS number you use as the low water mark.
We could argue until we’re blue in the face about the importance of rebounding. I wouldn’t say rebounding isn’t important, I simply think that depending on the circumstances and players involved a team doesn’t necessarily need a designated rebounder like Love and could prosper by spreading the rebounding duties around to guys who are only average rebounders.
My gut tells me you're wrong
And TheEvilProfessor is absolutely positive you’re wrong.
Absolutely*
*Official Dropstep gut reaction proclaimation.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 19, 2010 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions
although in all seriousness
it would have to depend on the players rebounding history. From a stats perspective, have they ever been an average rebounder or better? If so, then it is entirely positive depending on specific assignments that there numbers might take a slight dive. Not sure how much of a drop is reasonable.
The eye test here really helps because you can see if one person on a team is consistently sagging off to grab the board (and whether or not the coach seems angry about it). If all the other players let them go get it while still boxing out their guys, then it may be a specialized role on that team. But I hardly think this is something that is going to be a large constistent trend. Most teams will still demand that their players focus on getting the rebounds they are closest too.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 19, 2010 7:48 AM CDT up reply actions
The numbers also think he’s wrong. Rebounding rate is the most consistent stat in basketball. Switching teams/teammates rarely has a serious effect and when it does, it’s usually an indictment of the player in question or the result of playing a new position on the floor (Amare pre/post Shaq is an example of both, he moved back to PF and got straight up lazier on the defensive end, both in man D and on the glass).
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
More than just gazelles
A running team is more than just guys who can pick em up and put em down. It is about guys who are all going to run full speed down the court on a break. This creates lots of opportunities for setting up uncontested 3s on the break when the other team is out of position and for just passing to someone who is trailing for an easier dunk or layup when you have numbers. A good running team needs to have constant hustle.
Not that you can tell everything by the combine numbers, but Love and Beasley came in at 3.22 and 3.24 on the sprint respectivley according to DX. Not blistering like Derrick Rose at 3.05, but pretty much the same as Ellington who showed a 3.20. Both of their numbers are pretty respectable for bigs. You want lumbering how about DMC at 3.55?
The big thing is to have the conditioning that can sustain running and the deep bench that can keep people coming in waves and keep things up tempo. The former is a good question at this time, but the youth of this team will help and the latter I think the Wolves actually have this year since the second squad is greatly improved IMO.
Exactly
to me a running team needs 2-3 guys who are ready and quick to sprint up the floor at any time. For those sprints to be effective they need 1-2 guys who can get the ball and get it out to them quickly. Hopefully this is where Love and Darko will find some synergy on the floor (and even Pek too – he’s great at trailing fast breaks). As we know Love will sometimes sell out on defense in order to get the board, and hopefully Darko will focus on D and become enough of an interior presence to help mitigate this. The point is that over 82 games Love’s rebounding and smart (meaning quick) passing down the floor combined with Darko’s also smart (meaning quick) passing will produce more than what we give up with Love selling out on D for the board.
As I see it we’ve got three bigs who are perfect for a running team in that someone has to start the break (and Love and Darko’s passing ability is perfect for that – it’s more than being able to pass, it’s knowing who to pass it to and where for the break to be effective), with Darko and Pek being more than mobile enough (compared to their other big man peers). They get to feed it to a collection of shooters and dunkers that’s also ideal – Wesley and Martell and Brewer can all knock it down from three or take it strong to the hole; Beasley is a beast waiting to dominate some unsuspecting guard; and even Flynn and Ridnour have some range and (in Flynn’s case) are fast enough and athletic enough to also convert at the hoop.
My hope is that this team really makes an effort to play to its strengths, and to be honest it really would be nice to have Rubio here. I just keep imagining either Steve Nash or Jason Kidd running this team and I get soooo excited because I trust those guys to look at our players and say, ‘You know, we could really do some interesting and fun things here. We just gotta make sure we play to those strengths.’ And those strengths are three point shooting, setting up cutters/dunkers, and making the intelligence and craftiness of our low post players an asset. Darko, Love, and Pek aren’t the kind of guys who are just going to dominate other guys based on strength and size (the Shaq/DMC mold). But they are the kind of guys who can give other teams fits because they make everyone else better (for lack of a better example, the Vlade or Sabonis mold).
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Aug 18, 2010 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The team will not run like the Suns and the Nets
With a front court of Beasley at the 3 Love at the 4 and Darko at the 5. In fact the wolves might not be able to run with a team like the Spurs.
The starters play more than the guys off the Bench
So for most of the games the wolves opponents will be the ones running instead of the wolves.
Not necessarily true
I really don’t see a player on this team getting over 30 minutes a game, plenty of time for rotations.
by NorthernLights666 on Aug 18, 2010 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions
There's no way Beasley starts at the 3...
If last year is any indication, Kurt Rambis loves to have some scoring come off the bench. I think Beasley will definitely be coming off the bench as a 3/4 along with Pekovic.
Talking myself into DeMarcus Cousins since 5/18/10
The question is
will he be content with that role? IDK, I just don’t see him settling in that role. He’s much too competitive. If it’s proven in Training Camp that Beasley cannot play 3, he will eventually beat out Love for the 4 spot.
by NorthernLights666 on Aug 18, 2010 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions
The starting lineup needs scorers too
So if the starting lineup is something like Darko-Love-Wes-Webster-Ridnour, than who exactly is the scorer in that group? Not one of those guys is very good at creating his own shot. Pekovic, Beasley, and Flynn may very well be the three best shot creators on our squad. To me we need a guy like Beasley in the starting lineup.
by Rascal Flatts on Aug 18, 2010 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions
personally
I agree. You want to split up the guys who are bucket getters. The split that makes the most sense is Beastley on the starting unit and Pek on the backup. At least to start the season with Flynn injured (no one knows whether he will be the starter when he comes back…but I think he will).
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 18, 2010 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree
I think Wes would be fine as off the bench to start the year. I think this team really needs to give Beasley and Love some strong minutes together to see what they have in those guys. Wes will be a terrific bench guy who will only help Bassy and Pek’s games (and vice versa).
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
That lineup
does lack a creator but i think it more than makes up for it with a combo of BBIQ, shooting, passing, unselfishness,….. All those guys (even Love) are going to put their ego’s away and play good (triangle) basketball. Guys will be cutting and the ball will be moving. That lineup could make for some really really entertaining basketball, a real contrast from ‘modern’ NBA basketball (ie one on one).
This also makes for a different style of the 2nd unit that would be something like
Flynn-Brewer-Beasley-Pek (not sure who fills in the 2 or 3 around Brewer- hopefully Wes, Web, Ridnour)
but that would also be entertaining basketball. A lot of athleticism, still pretty good size. This could be the take it to the hoop, drive and kick basketball that is more like the current NBA game.
Hopefully Rambis can figure out some line-ups that really feed off of each other. I think these 2 as a starting and back-up unit could gel and have some chemistry based on style, but as always we’ll have to wait and see.
by NuthinBurger on Aug 18, 2010 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
The passing and cutting offense is all good in theory
until you bring up that little ole thing known as the 24-second shot clock. If something isn’t created out of the system within the first 18 seconds of the shotclock, then someone is going to have to create a shot for themselves, whether it’s dumping it into the post or giving it to a guy out on the perimeter to break things down.
by Rascal Flatts on Aug 18, 2010 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions
I think Wes, Beasley, and Love could eventually be the 2-3-4
but definitely not opening night. Webster-Wes-Love is much more realistic. Skittles is the first sub, in for Wes. After a few minutes, in comes Brewer and Pek for Love and Darko (who for all their summer conditioning still come to the bench sucking wind), and Skittles slides to the 4. I think that’s the most likely scenario for Rambis’s early-season early-game rotations.
I have a hard time believing
that Wes starts over Beasley. If Rambis considers Beasley a 3 at all, then he will start. Rambis started Ryan Gomes after all.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 18, 2010 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
+1000
Beasley will get the start at 3, Wes will be brought along slowly, and all of this will be adjusted based on game evidence after 15-20 games.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
Love, Darko, or both sucking wind?
I am hoping for the lineup in your subject line on opening night and hopefully it will work out for the long run this year.
When we picked up Webster there was lots of talk about him getting big mintues and hints of starting. However, since that time Beasley has come along and I think that might change things a bit with Webster.
I can see Darko coming out the game pretty quickly, but I am wondering if they will maybe try to slide Love to the 5 at that point and actually bring a wing (Webster maybe) in while moving Beasley up to the 4. I really hope Love is in better shape this year and can handle more minutes.
for very long
you are correct. Almost anyone can play center for a few minutes, but it is matchup specific and never a long term strategy. Love will play 0 minutes at the 5 in the playoffs (assuming they get there of course).
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 18, 2010 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Kind of
It is pretty common for the 5 to get an early rest and usually the first guy in at the 5 is a pretty big drop off. So Love being shorter shouldn’t be as much of a defensive liabilty and his shooting range could come in handy against a second stringer.
I see this ploy as more of a way to keep Love and Beasley out on the floor for extended mintues.
Totally agree than Love can play some 5
Are guys like Nick Collison, Joel Anthony, Chuck Hayes, and Brad Miller really going to take Love in the post and dominate him?
I think the bigger issue with Love at 5 is more in terms of team defense and the fact he offers very little weakside resistance or rim protection. But then again, that’s probably an issue with Pekovic too.
by Rascal Flatts on Aug 18, 2010 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Hear you there
Love playing goalie has never seemed to be much of deterrent for teams driving the lane. Not sure what Pek will bring to the table.
Unless Darko really, really did improve his conditioning I can only see him doing the first 5 minutes of each quarter. While Love isn’t perfect there, it could be a good use of minutes as a bridge to getting Pek in the game. So probably no more than 8 minutes a night at the 5 for Love.
I think Love is fine at center
for 5-8 minutes a night. For crying out loud Tolliver got some serious burn there last year. I don’t think Love at center will be a common occurrence, but rather a matchups type deal. For example, suppose we’re playing the Rockets. You could easily play Love against Chuck Hayes (who’d be backing up Brad Miller assuming Yao is still out), which would then allow you to play Beasley against whoever their PFs are (that is you’re maximizing your mismatch of Beasley against them, even against Scola), and also allow you to play any two of Wes, Martell, or Corey against Kevin Martin, Courtney Lee, or Budinger. In other words, Beasley at SF against Houston isn’t as good, but Beasley at PF is (especially when Love at C is also a plus for 5-8 minutes). Does that make sense?
Another example would be the Thunder. Cole and Krstic are both much bigger than Love, but Love’s three point range and passing ability could pose a nice mismatch for 5 minutes. Again that would allow you to play Beasley against Green or Ibaka and allow you to put Wes, Martell, or Corey on Durant and Harden (your best defenders against their best scorers).
These examples are by no means an argument for playing Love at center for extended minutes, but rather intended to illustrate that their are times where playing him for 3, 4, 5 minutes at time at center allows the team some nice mismatch opportunities that might create some nice +6-8 point runs for us until the other team adjusts.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
not a bad idea
Once we know what our general playing time allocation will be, pick a player each week and do an write up on what types of matchups and teams he should be getting more time against and which he should play less against.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 18, 2010 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions
How about against the Jazz where they start...
Okur and Big Al or Milsap and Big Al?
by NorthernLights666 on Aug 18, 2010 9:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Thought about that
I’m actually looking forward to playing the Jazz because I think our bigs match up pretty well with them. Darko has the range and size to defend Okur or Al, Pek is fine against Al or Milsap, and best of all we’ll hopefully get to see Al and Love go head to head, in which case I hope Love just takes a couple steps away from the basket and makes it rain.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Aug 19, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
Beasley should start at the 3
If Beasley is ever going to be a star in this league, it will be as a 3. He’ll never become anything other than an average to slightly above average PF because he simply doesn’t have a physical advantage over most PFs in the NBA. He’s rendered into a mid-range jumpshooter. As a 3, Beasley has a distinct length, strength, and girth advantage against most other NBA 3’s. The triangle should enable him to take advantage of this by putting him in the low or high post and letting him go to work on smaller opponents. The question is whether Beasley can guard 3’s. If not, then yeah, he ends up becoming an instant offense 4 that comes off the bench and probably never develops into the type of star we need.
How is it that Beasley doesn't have a physical advantage and Love is able to hold his own?
If both players are the same size but Beasley is way more athletic.
Same Height
But Love is listed at 260 compared to 235 for Beasley. That extra 25 pounds can help in the mosh pit that is the NBA paint.
Listed weights are as flawed as listed heights
Kevin love is not that big anymore. He had to lose that weight in order to get on the court. Beasley I can tell you is 10-15 pounds heavier than his listed weight. Prime example of how bad these numbers are is LeBron James. That dude is 6’9 275-280 not 6’8 250
Does that mean Shaq really doesn't weigh 325 :)
The best source for heights are the combine measurements since those list a height without shoes and are all measured in an objective way. You just have to hope that for some of the straight from high school or one and done guys haven’t added another inch.
LBJ was listed at 6’ 7.25" without shoes in 2003 and 6’8" with shoes. Which means he must have been wearing flip flops or something since most tennis shoes add an inch at least. Don’t know if he has grown any since that time.
Weights on the other hand are a crap shoot for a player currently in the NBA. I certainly will concede that Love has lost weight since his rookie year, but he still has more heft to him than Beasley in my opinion. I will give Beasley the nod for being more chisled.
not sure about that
it appears that love has trimmed down, but that could just be pudge removal. if he is working out and adding some muscle, then his weight might actually go up (or remain the same). it would only be his physique that is altered.
either way, i hope he’s in aerobic shape when the season starts.
Love slimmed down significantly
for the combine, which is where I’m assuming hoopsfan1 got those numbers. Either way, anyone that watches these two play can tell that Love has a much stronger base and ability to hold his position in the paint compared to Beasley. And “hold his own” is probably an accurate statement for how Love matches up against most PFs. It’s not like he’s physically dominating them either, it’s just that he has a strength and girth advantage that probably helps him bang more in the paint than Beasley.
by Rascal Flatts on Aug 18, 2010 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Pulled the numbers for weight from the T-Wolves site
So those are the curent listed weights. Love slimmd down to 255 for the combine and I am guessing he dined on nothing but Krispy Kremes for the next few months. He looked pretty wide during his rookie season and much better last year.
Either way
He’s probably replaced some baby fat with muscle and it’s hard to ever imagine him weighing less than 250-265 range. His frame is too big to naturally slim down much more than that.
by Rascal Flatts on Aug 18, 2010 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Hey nodnarb, or should I say Brandon (Nodnarb bass ackward?)
I too share that sentiment. I just wanted to see if brandon was your real name.
I understand...
You don’t like Kevin Love. I get it. It feels like you spend each and every day on here having that same argument. You don’t think Love can hack it. You think Beasley should be starting PF. At some point, you need to try to use facts. Not just constantly saying I guarantee or I can tell you. You’re annoying, dude.
No you don't understand
I have said countless times that Kevin love is a good player But I say a running team with front court of Beasley at the 3 Love at the 4 and Darko at the 5. doest not cut it. Take out Beasley for Wes that would be a better fit for a running team and for the love lovers.
For a true running team its Beasley at the 4 Wes at the 3 and Darko at the 5. This is our fastest front court.
If people think that Beasley is fast enough to play the three than he would have more of a speed and quickness advantage if he played the 4.
Key words are speed and quickness these are the things you need for a running team.
Look Beasley's a tweener
that and the fact that he’s never learned to adapt his game to players he can’t physically dominate like he did in college, is what has limited his NBA game. It’s pick your poison here. You either want to give him an advantage in quickness or in size over his opponent, but face the probability of the other sort of mismatch occurring on the other end.
No I think Beasley is learning while love has not .
In college Love had a good to dominate post game. now in the pros its non existent. Beasley on the other hand knows how to adapt his game. He proved it in college when he went up against Blake griffin. also when he has gone against Zach randolph.
I’d like to see some actual evidence behind Beasley adapting his game. He’s become more of a jumpshooter while missing more shots and he hasn’t rebounded nearly as well in the pros as he did in college. You can blame his role in Miami for his poor play (and that’s a legitimate concern), but to say that he’s been evolving as a player without explaining that at all isn’t helpful. I need more than “also when he has gone against Zach randolph.”
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Its called watching games. That is my evidence
I don’t have some cute stat that everyone here likes to use.
They have youtube videos that show Beasley against Blake griffin. and last year when he put 30 on Zach Randolph.
Here are links
How does that demonstrate that he’s adapted his game? Youtube doesn’t make your point for you. Explain what you’re talking about. All I saw was him making a bunch of midrange jumpers. He took a lot of those last year. Missed a lot of them, too. Why do you think that one game against Memphis and a stellar defender like Zach Randolph indicates that he’s going to put it all together?
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Read this
DraftExpress did a rookie retrospective on Beasley after a few months in the NBA. Granted, that’s not a lot of time to adapt his game, and I’m sure he’s improved his play somewhat, but I’d argue that the main points that they identify for his struggles are still there. He’s still playing a limited perimeter game and has not learned to adapt his interior game against bigger players, or become enough of a multifaceted scorer to exploit mismatches on the perimeter. Tell me where this scouting report (not statistical analysis) is wrong.
I said LEARNING look at what they said about love
Love has struggled in one-on-one post situations against much more athletic opponents y, Kevin Love is converting 55% of his shot attempts around the rim, but just 37% of his post-up chances. This is a significant drop-off from last season at UCLA, where he finished 63% of his shots around the hoop, including 53% of his post possessions –an indication that Love’s critics did a good job projecting his weaknesses on the next level.
From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Kevin-Love-1062/#ixzz0wznL1bwk
http://www.draftexpress.com
Cont
In instances where he (Love) does catch the ball inside with his back to the basket, Love prefers to operate over his left shoulder nearly three times as often as his right, almost always relying on a baby hook shot over his defender. Due to his lack of explosiveness and athleticism, Love struggles to finish many post attempts, and he is extremely susceptible to having his shot blocked by longer, more athletic weak side defenders.
From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Kevin-Love-1062/#ixzz0wznlpiaS
http://www.draftexpress.com
No one's arguing with you about Love's post game
Let’s talk about your Beasley statements.
Another one of our wonderful CH posters
Who base their basketball knowledge on YouTube Highlights, how original. I can’t believe you actually tried to prove your point with Mix Tapes, and then said “Try harder to hate”, do you want to be taken seriously?
by NorthernLights666 on Aug 18, 2010 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Perhaps
but chuckd’s got some good points nonetheless.
One of the things I’ve been thinking about re: Beasley lately is how he represents a great barometer of our coaching staff. Rambis has been credited for much of Bynum’s developments (I know KAJ has been as well, but weren’t there suggestions last year that Bynum had some struggles because Rambis was no longer there?). In many ways Beasley’s strengths are that of a mini-Bynum – likes to be near the basket, athletic and strong for his size, excellent mismatch for driving to the hole.
However Beasley’s had some troubles adjusting his game to the NBA, and in this respect I think you have to call out Miami’s coaching staff. Reading his scouting reports and watching some of his videos you can just see that Beasley is soooo close, in my opinion. This kid just needs some clear coaching that focuses him on what he does well and helps him recognize when he’s about to force something (tries to execute a weakness, not a strength). I say that he will make an excellent barometer for this coaching staff because a good/great coaching staff will quickly figure out how to work with him on this – and will stick with his learning curve throughout the season. A poor coaching staff will let it be what it is and fail to put him in the best situation to succeed.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Aug 19, 2010 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions
it would also help if...
the g.m. doesn’t publicly humiliate the player with his color commentary about beasley’s weed habit. just quietly monitor and support him with help on this.
i kind of like the idea of beasley and love having to compete with each other for recognition and playing time. i think it will make each of them better (instead of making beasley the 3).
i want beasley to prevail and reach the potential that you mentioned….(“beasley is soooo close”).
phuckin' machine took my quarter.
You need to
get off that 30 point game against Memphis as meaning something. First off, he took 25 shots. Nice efficiency. Second, in terms of meaning he could carry the team in DWade’s absence, in the next 3 games as the “team leader” he went a combined 11 for 43, scoring 12, 14 and 10, and including getting outscored by Love in a loss to the Wolves.
I actually like Beasley, and hope he reaches his potential with the Wolves, but let’s not pretend he’s really accomplished or earned anything in the league yet.
Being an asshole
would not be spending time creating a post with links so that you can get information that seems to me to be especially easy to find for someone who is already on the internet.
Being an asshole
by saying Seriously, you can’t look those up? This is implying that I cant do something as simple as finding stats from these games.
then why did you ask?
you knew they were the 3 games following the 30 pt memphis game.
I wanted you to see for yourself
Instead of just going on your preferences and gut feelings on this matter.
See for myself?
You think I hadn’t looked at the stats? But I’d just posted what the totals were for those games. I really don’t understand what you’re saying.
No...
This..
Tell me the dates and who the heat played in those games.
chuckd@79
is implying that you cant do something as simple as finding stats from those games.
why are you saying anything
this has nothing to with you
What is wrong with you?
Seriously? I have to believe this is all an act, this can’t be real, I can’t stop laughing. I love it: “This is implying I can’t do something as simple as finding stats from these games” Can’t breathe, seriously, if you’re not putting on an act, what’s wrong with you, are you human?
by NorthernLights666 on Aug 18, 2010 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions
chuckd@79
I’m sorry if I’ve offended you with my previous statements, but I’ve just never seen anybody question somebody for questioning their intelligence, but also questioning their own intelligence at the same time. Why couldn’t you look the box scores up yourself?
by NorthernLights666 on Aug 18, 2010 10:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe he's lazy like me
I’d rather just read this site and have all the stat guys give me the relevant info.
Rubio, who art thou savior.
He took 25 shots but made 13 of them
His FG% is 52 %
So what is you point about being efficient ?
His efficiency in that game is not horrible,
but you’re using it as an example of him showing the ability to dominate, and the absence of 3 pt shots and FT, in combination with 52% shooting, which is average for a PF, gives him a TS% for this game that is below Kevin Love’s seasonal average. So, I see a high volume, low efficiency game. A good game, but not one I’d stake too much on.
See this is what I am talking about
People on this site cherry pick stats they like in order to prove the point they want to make. Thats fine but don’t act like what you say is fact when it is really an opinion BTW Beasley has a better TS% than Love last year.
Actuially, that's wrong
last year TS%:
Love 54.9
Beasley 50.5
I’m not cherry picking anything. Beasley had a nice scoring game vs. Mamphis, but only due to putting up an awful lot of shots. There was nothing else extraordinary about the game. He’s a good player. He can score. But he’s very erratic and has not brought his promise from college to fruition in the NBA. Let’s hope he does.
That's Rileys greatest nightmare
That Beasley will come back to score 30+ against him, and become the player everyone thought he’d become. We screwed Riley when McFail Kahnned him into taking Davis and Blount for a #1 pick. Now it’s Kahn’s turn to Kahn him.
You right it not TS%s
I have to look at the numbers again.
You hit the nail with this point
He’s a good player. He can score. But he’s very erratic and has not brought his promise from college to fruition in the NBA.
I think with more time on the court he might be able to figure out his game more. I hope with Love we can get more than just a dude that get boards and scores garbage buckets.
I agree
Love does need to add another element to his game. There’s no reason he couldn’t develop some post moves, but he’s trending in the direction of polishing his outside game. If he becomes a really accurate outside shooter, that will work, and he will be a legitimate scoring threat as a strecth 4 in a ball movement offense, but he won’t be creating his own shot that way. If he does neither he’s still a 16-18 ppg/13-14 rbg facilitator who gets his without taking away many shots from his high usage teammates.
A better rebounding Troy Murphy
Not the worst thing that would happen, but I’d hope Love can continue to work on playing inside and cleaning up garbage. That’s where I see him being the most valuable.
He’s also a better defender than Murphy. This cannot be ignored with the Troy Murphy comparison. Murphy would be in the conversation for “worst defensive big man in the NBA.” Love holds post position well, but struggles on the weakside. He’s not winning DPOY anytime soon, but Troy Murphy makes him look like Bill Russell.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Body type.
Yeah, they are roughly the same height. But Love is banger. Beasley isn’t.
by Hold_Steady on Aug 18, 2010 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Yup
Love’s got a thick midsection and a big butt, meaning he’s built more like an offensive lineman and less like a tight end (which is Beasley’s build). Plus everyone talks about how strong Love is, and so perhaps he’s simply better at using leverage to push guys around.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
How can Beasley drive on supposedly quicker 3's?
If he’s too slow to defend ’em, he may be too slow to drive past them, thus limiting his offensive arsenal.
He'll just
arm wrestle ‘em down. The key to Beasley as a 3 in my opinion is allowing him (and motivating him) to play his game. Make the other guys change their games to him and not the other way around. He has good mobility and athleticism for the position, not elite but not bad, but his real strength is his strength. Take these gazelle 3’s into the post, beat ‘em up, wear them down. Make them not look forward to playing him because they know they’re going to come out bruised. If Beasley can establish that against these guys then I’ll take that chance with him. For example, how long do you think Wes or Corey would hold up if everytime they played defense they were getting banged around, pushed around, and out-muscled? On offense they would hold the advantage initially, but as the game wore on they might start settling jumpers and long threes more and more quickly because they’re getting beat up too much.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
Agreed, except
Johnson is probably built to take a beating more than Brewer.
How does Tyreke Evans drive past quicker 1's and 2's?
Evans doesn’t have blazing speed or elite explosiveness. He uses his size, strength, and body control to get into the paint and get shots off. Beasley can do the same thing against smaller 2’s. He also has a length advantage over many of them, which should make it easier for him to get his mid-range jumper off. So it’s not just about posting guys up or muscling through them on drives to the hoop.
by Rascal Flatts on Aug 18, 2010 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions
I take this as a vote for who I think Rambis will start.
not who I would have start. I voted for Wes. I would like to start Beasley though in a preseason game and see how he does at the 3. Wes as his backup would come in after replacing Love with Beasley at the 4 and doing some comparing.
What most people here want to do is
Play amare stoudemire (Beasley ) at 3 so that Troy Murphy (Love) can start at the 4.
Beasley isn’t nearly as good as STAT, and Love is already better than Troy Murphy. I’m not sure how the confidence in Beasley got that high, but it’s become insane. Everyone wants to believe that the Wolves will be better and they need a go to scorer, but let’s temper the crazed homerism here. Beasley has tons to prove. He’s talented, but has woefully underperformed so far. Cautious optimism is fine, but if Beasley=Amare is what people want to say about him, there’s no way to have a real conversation. It’s based on nothing.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
No I don't think he is as good as Stat right now
I am not crazy like some on this site are. But what I was tying to do was to point out the line of thinking that is prevalent on this site. BTW Draff express they says Beasley upside is Amare Stoudemire Meets Antawn Jamison
i saw that too. WTF does that person look like?
a guy that’s athletic but undersized so he constantly settles for jumpers? if that’s the case, beastley has already achieved his DX prediction.
One thing we can all agree on, the Amare/Jamison hybrid is soft on defense and on the glass.
Yet another reason to not put too much stock into DX player comparisons.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
But on the plus side
the worst case scenario of Derrick Coleman means he’s basically like this player.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Aug 19, 2010 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
But the example you gave was totally misleading. If you don’t think Beasley is as good as Amare, then saying “it’d be like putting Amare at the SF” isn’t a useful comparison. Players who don’t warrant being built around get played wherever you can fit them. I expect Beasley to see minutes at both forward spots, since he hasn’t proved that he can take a game over at either position and needs a totally redefined role (what they were doing with him in Miami clearly wasn’t working). He should expect to have his game tinkered with—he isn’t good enough to leave well enough alone.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I don't about woefully, I understand his draft position makes that more prevalent
But a kid that’s 21 and averages 15 and 6 is pretty dece’, other than Westbrook, Lopez, and maybe our guy K Love I don’t know if I’d draft anybody over him, Mayo/Gordon=maybe?
by NorthernLights666 on Aug 18, 2010 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Right, I’m saying woefully underachieved his expectations. I don’t think he sucked, but he wasn’t impressive. Subpar efficiency, mediocre rebounding, not too impressive defensively, pretty awful passer—not what you’re looking for out of the #2 pick in the draft, especially someone who scored and rebounded the ball very well in college. He’s got the talent to turn it around, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Wouldn’t bet against it, either, just saying that the range of possibilities is pretty wide here and we don’t have much reason to assume huge improvements or stagnation for him.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I think it should be dependant on who starts and comes of the bench on the opposing team. There’s no clear cut superior between Beasley, Love or Johnson.
Only Love has so far played for the Wolves
Let us speak after both Wes and Beasley have played for the Wolves.
My bet is that Wes and Beasley will be seeing most of the playing time and Love’s long term role on this or any other competitive team will be 6th man type of role.
Why is that Love’s ideal role? Aren’t 6th men usually instant offense sort of guys? Love can’t be your go to scorer, but he does more than enough to warrant a starting spot. You need a scorer and a defender to pair with him, just like how you need a rebounder and a defender to pair with your go to scorer (someone like Melo). Love fills his role very, very well. Rebounding often gets overlooked, but it’s a huge part of winning basketball games. Just like scoring, defending and passing are.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
how about "one of the key bench players"....as in top 7 or 8 on the roster, occasional starter.
phuckin' machine took my quarter.
I don’t get why there’s no room in the starting lineup for one of the best rebounders in the NBA. Teams need rebounds.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
i got no problem with it, if he is the best guy to play pf on our roster,
but i think there are going to be a few different rotations. and if/when they get a more talented roster in place, i just don’t see him as a starting pf. but i do see his worth and think he should play good minutes in rotation and be a solid contributor and have an important role on a good roster. i’m not down on him at all.
phuckin' machine took my quarter.
by speed-racer on Aug 22, 2010 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions
A good team will need to score, defend, pass and rebound well. Not giving Love major minutes will almost certainly hurt your rebounding substantially and he’s not a guy whose presence on the floor kills you in any other ways, either. He helps ball movement, he holds post position, he makes a decent number of shots (doesn’t create them, but he scores with fairly good volume and efficiency). Teams need guys like him and they need them to play a lot.
It’s not that hard to imagine a great team that starts Kevin Love. Here’s an example of a really good starting lineup including him (and for kicks, Rubio too): Noah/Love/Ariza/Manu/Rubio. Another option: Chandler/Love/Melo/Battier/Rubio. I’m not saying that Love’s untouchable or going to carry a team to titles, just that he can be a huge part of a great team.
I think people hear gushing comments about Love, realize (accurately) that he can’t carry a team on offense and swing the pendulum back, completely underrating him. You don’t have to be a great scorer to be a great player. Love’s solid all-around game that grew considerably last year is something to be very happy with. Right now, he’s the only Wolf I’m confident could start on a contender (trade him for Jeff Green and OKC probably locks up the 2 seed early next year).
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
i like the way you make your points.
like any good player, if he is a good fit for a team and system, and his role is defined well, and he gets to develop in it….then yea, he could be a starter on a good team.
i happen to think 6-7-8 guys on a roster can be just as important as the 4-5 guys. so i don’t think it is a slight against love if he’s just paired with a certain rotation, and not necessarily the ‘starter’.
i’d like to see a more solid second scoring option on each of the examples you listed. are those potential woofie rosters you are thinking? or just more hypothetical?
phuckin' machine took my quarter.
by speed-racer on Aug 23, 2010 12:50 AM CDT up reply actions
More general than just hypothetical Wolves’ rosters, but they could be used as a template. Realistically, when the Wolves are ready to be a really good team, the players required to make it really good will be different than who’s available or productive right now.
If the Wolves want to build a team based on ball movement and getting out into space, Rubio and Love are good starting points. They need a go to scorer, and they need to be surrounded by speed, since neither one is lightning quick, but the team itself should be. A center who can defend the weakside and run, a high scoring wing, and an athletic, defense minded wing who makes open looks would be the best people to fill those roles. That’s why I’m not sold on the Darko, even though I expect him to improve next year. That’s also why Wes could end up being the right pick if they can land an elite scorer to pair him with.
A Love/Rubio core isn’t enough to expect greatness in the future, but they fit well together and it’s a pretty good start and if the pieces come together properly. There’s a lot of ways this team can go, and given all the capspace and young pieces, it’s a very flexible roster—one that might at some point be best served to move either Love or Rubio—but for now, if we want to make real suggestions for the teams future, you have to start by assuming them as the constants. There just isn’t enough talent on the team to start anywhere else.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Adam Morrison looks great, everyone
- Create-a-Caption: Tim Duncan puts some stank on it
- LeBron James won’t even give Lance Stephenson half a bar
- Let’s all hate the Oklahoma City Thunder shirts that take a needless shot at the team’s move from Seattle (PHOTO)
- The Golden State Warriors will likely move to San Francisco in 2017
