Shooters gotta shoot?
by Dr. Wolfenstein on Jan 7, 2012 3:12 PM CST
Email
PrintIt is my belief that what we are seeing right now with Michael Beasley is a fundamental reframing of how he sees himself contributing as an NBA player. Michael Beasley was a volume scorer. Michael Beasley was lazy on defense. Michael Beasley was inefficient.
But Michael Beasley also got to the line, could rebound, could pass relatively well for his position, and has the size and athleticism to defend well if he chose to (and worked on it).
So who is Michael Beasley - or more to the point, who should we want Michael Beasley to be as a player, either here or elsewhere? For most people the comparison has always been to Carmelo Anthony, and yet I just don't get the sense that Rick Adelman particularly wants that from Beasley. It has been noted recently that Beasley won't take shots, at least compared to his own history - he's tied for his lowest FGA per 36 right now, and is sporting his lowest USG% of his career this season. Arguably his biggest problem right now is that he can't hit a shot and he's averaging a career low FTA rate by far.
However, to focus on Beasley's scoring is to miss what might be the point, and that is that for Beasley to truly tap into his talent in the NBA his ideal role is not as a scorer. Or put differently, he's going to have to check his ego at the door and focus on how he can help a team win games instead of satisfying some unrealistic notion of what he should be but in 6000+ NBA minutes has never proven to be - an NBA lead scorer.
Now I get that there are probably going to be a lot of people debating my assertion that Beasley has never shown an all-around game or the defensive aptitude that I will argue is what he needs to embrace to become all that he can be in the League, and I encourage those arguments. I'm not completely sold on this idea myself, but in thinking about Beasley's play and Adelman's comments about him this year (needing to get his shots and not stand for seconds at a time - in other words, a change of philosophy from trying to satisfy some 'ideal' as an iso scorer versus making use of his existing talent) and then noticing that he's been pulling down more boards lately (22 rebounds vs. 28 FGAs the last two games, compared to 27 rebounds vs. 71 FGAs his first five games - or in my mind perhaps the first inkling that he's trying to do more to help his team win than just score) - well, I just keep arriving at similar notions that the Michael Beasley who is productive and effective in this league is not this guy.
More arguments/provocative thoughts after the jump.
TrueHoop this morning kind of sums up my thoughts on why I'm not sure I buy into the idea that 'Beasley as scorer' is what is most helpful for this team or for Beasley's career:
Presumably, one of the reasons the Knicks went out and acquired Carmelo Anthony was because they viewed him as a franchise cornerstone, difference-maker type player. While no one doubts his scoring prowess, it’s fair to question whether he has a tangible impact on a team’s ability to win games.
Over the last two seasons, the Knicks are two games over .500 before acquiring Anthony, and two games under after Anthony became a Knick. Their points scored, allowed and field goal percentage are virtually the same before and after Anthony.
The Denver Nuggets, on the other hand, are 23-9 since trading Carmelo Anthony, after sitting at 32-25 last season before trading their superstar. Only the Bulls have a better record since Feb. 22, 2011, the date of the trade.
(Ed. note - the bolding is mine).
Which got me thinking - well how in the world did the Nuggets do so well if they didn't have one of the best 'go-to' scorers in the league, a guy who averaged 25.6 ppg last year (AKA 0.5 fewer ppg on nearly 4 more FGA/36 than Love this year, but I digress)? They did it with by substituting Gallinari for Anthony.
Now, this post isn't about Gallinari per se, but it is about the idea that when you have a dynamic point (be it Rubio or Lawson), a creative and high caliber coach (be it Adelman or Karl), a very productive big man (be it Love or Nene), and a bunch of athletic role playing wing types, you don't need an inefficient volume scorer sporting a high 20's to low 30's USG%. Short of having Kevin Durant on your team it's looking pretty good to have a guy who fits in with an overall team concept and allows your best players to be your best players (Lawson and Nene, or Rubio and Love).
Check out the above link again and look at some of the per36 stats, and then look at the WS and WS/48 that Melo and Gallo put up last year. Gallo essentially equaled Melo despite taking 8 fewer shots/36, despite scoring nearly 10 fewer points/36, despite attempting fewer FTs, grabbing fewer boards, and dishing fewer assists. Their shooting percentages are nearly the same, Melo is much better rebounder, but Gallo finds his shots within the flow of the offense instead of interrupting it and thus you find that per 100 possessions the Nuggets were 6 points better with Gallo than with Melo.
So what about Beasley? I've begun to suspect that in many ways this season - as long as he's playing for us - as goes Michael Beasley will go the Timberwolves. When he's effectively participating in the offense and passing the ball? Wins over tough teams. When he struggles? Oops's against average to lesser teams. As SnP, Oceanary, TA, PD, and a ton of other people have noted - this team does not another 'star' to become more competitive; it needs competent, consistent play out of the SF and SG spots. Using net PER by position as a shorthand synopsis:
- PG, -1.8 (with Barea being counted as a PG for some reason, posting a +4.9)
- SG, -5.6 (with Rubio being counted as having played 32% of our minutes there, posting a +7.5)
- SF, -12.9 (although playing Lebron and KD does not help this small sample size; Beasley at a -14.7!!)
- PF, +7.7
- C, +4.3 (with Darko posting only a -1.6 but outrebounding and shooting more efficiently than his counterparts)
All we need is mostly average play at the SF position (SG is a different animal right now - Wes needs to benched. No more 'figuring it out', no more 'overthinking'. It's effing basketball - just play already.) Anyways...
This is the list of guys who I think (and it's not a complete list or even an apples to apples set of comparisons for him but more an aggregate guide to what ideal expectations for Beasley and what kind of role he should and could play is) represent his goal for similar production and best case ceiling (that being Shawn Marion).
Key points (in no particular order, and yes I realize that Taj Gibson is a PF):
- mentally adjusting from the attitude of being team's go-to or leading scorer to effective #3 option
- make defense a calling card, not iso dribble dribble long two.
- along that vein, block shots, steal the ball, harass, and keep rebounding
- play within the flow of the offense and keep passing the rock when necessary
- along that vein, be content to use your natural athletic skills - you don't have to be a Superman offensively
- 'shoot' for a USG% of about 20, not 25+.
Believe it or not but Michael Beasley once accounted for nearly 1/2 of his team's blocked shots and 1 out of every 6 of it's steals while at KState. The kid has the tools to continue to be a productive rebounder, a solid passer, and a shot blocker if he chooses too. In trying to figure out what in the hell Adelman is doing by allowing our second to worst player get the second most minutes on the team, I keep returning to two intertwined thoughts:
What if Beasley has been utterly miscast in the NBA as a guy who needs to be a scorer instead of a do-everything guy who happens to score (with Marion being the ideal example for Beasley to shoot for)? And is Adelman giving him rope to see how coachable he is (will he hang himself or run with it), and to see whether or not it's too late to shape Beasley into a different kind of player?
I'll admit that I'm not sure if I believe that this is where Beasley should turn for his development. I do think that there probably is something to the idea that it's time to get over him having been the #2 pick, having been KD's childhood friend, and get over the promise as a scorer that his one season at KState led everyone to believe. It does somehow seem right to me that Beasley could and should play third or even fourth fiddle to Love, Rubio, and Williams. That he is best served (and most helpful) if he can actually play defense, rebound, pass a little, learn to find and shoot only his good shots and not the bad ones, and maybe even block a few more shots - all while Love and Rubio and Williams get the notoriety for scoring more points, for getting more assists, for shooting more efficiently. Beasley as a consistent, average producing, do everything 'glue' SF type would be incredibly useful for this team - something that is well within his capability to do if only he has the attitude, drive, and willingness to change and a coach who can help get him there.
Of course, upgrading the SG position would probably help this team as much or more, but that's an entirely different post/issue. I love Wes, but dude does not belong in this league right now. Beasley I still have a bit more hope for.
44 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not sure whether buying or selling, but I like this post.
I really like your vision for a new Beasley and FWIW, I think he has started to show (this is my observation, so obviously colored by my biases/desire to have Beasley to succeed) the desire to contribute in other ways (defense, rebounding, whatever it takes) since his offense has been so crappy. It also looks to me (and the small-sample-size numbers seem to bear this out) that he is forcing shots less frequently. I think it is early to tell if he can accept a different/diminished (in terms of visibility) role, but I have not given up on him. His recent comments demonstrate self-awareness, at the very least.
In terms of our team right now, however, I am still not opposed to moving Beasley for a solid wing player if that opportunity were to come along. (Many people here seem to feel his value is incredibly low….I am not sure). I am just READY for a better player, so if it can happen, the FO should make it happen.
Absent such a move though, I think your plan (Dr. Wolf), makes sense. I do not believe Beasley is useless in the vein of Wes…(I agree with you that, Wes, on the other hand, I am done with, at least in terms of his playing any substantial minutes…I would LOVE to get rid of him for any sort of useful player or a chance to get into next year’s daft…..Ditto Wayne, but he has even less value; I’d be OK with cutting him).
Also along the line of Beasley taking on a new role, I imagine part of the up-shot you are envisioning is an increased role (offensive and otherwise) for Williams. I am in favor of this, but still don’t think that giving Williams Beasley’s touches/minutes/etc. deals with the positional redundancy problem. I just can’t see Williams as a 3. At this point, it is not our most pressing concern, but I am firmly on the “assuming Love is re-signed, Williams is likely going to have to go at some point for wing help” bandwagon. [Williams lovers need not panic—doesn’t look like it happens this season, even at the trade deadline].
Beas
I don’t think the Melo comparison reveals much because NY gave up a lot more than Gallinari. If they could have added Melo to what they had going last year both the team and Melo might look pretty tremendous, but trades don’t work that way. Similarly I don’t think the Wolves are likely to realize substantially measurable improvement via trading their parts. Even the Memphis/Laker trade isn’t as lopsided since the younger Gasol has turned out well.
Watching the Cleveland game I too was thinking, “As Beasley goes so go the TWolves.” Because I don’t think a trade is likely to bring us a coveted third wheel (at least without making us even thinner somewhere else,) I’m just afraid Beas might still be the best shot we have at another star. He’s got a lot to learn or adjust to and unfortunately he appears to be a slow learner.
Of course your not talking about him becoming a star here. I guess my greatest hope is that if he can rebuild the fundamental player skills he may get his mojo back, but I know a lot of CH’ers have no patience for that and I can’t really blame them.
My question is, can he become a finisher? Forget everything else, clear the garbage out of his head, when the ball leaves his hand can he make it go in the damn basket.
"pokin' the animals at the Canis Hoopus zoo"
Excellent post.
I “bought it” even though “I don’t know” would have been my answer, since Beasley is a pretty puzzling player. It’s interesting that his on/off numbers are positive, in heavy minutes. The other big-minute Wolves like Love and Ridnour have large negative net on/off’s. Imagine if Mike’s shots were falling.
It does seem as if his defense has improved, and his passing has always been a little bit better than it’s described by national NBA writers who probably weren’t watching the Wolves play.
More than anything he’s changed about his own game, I think the Rubio factor is playing into his selective shooting. When Ricky’s on the court, he’s commanding the troops. Last year, there was no such player and “throw to Beasley and watch him shoot” became a default option. As frustrating as the last two losses have been, the new system is better and will lead to more wins.
www.punchdrunkwolves.com
@PDWolves
by Andy G on Jan 7, 2012 6:45 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
+1
Spot on. I was thinking along the same lines. Now he finally has someone to put the ball in his hands when he has a position to succeed instead of just dropping it off to him at the 3pt line and hoping he can make something happen.
I've got good judgement from experience and experience from bad judgement.
His passing is probably a little better than described, okay.
We’d have to stretch to call him a plus passer, though, given how often his attempt at a simple handoff turns into a turnover. Like when he was standing waiting for Rubio to get up out of the courtside chairs, and the defense swiped it from his hand.
Actually I’m not sure where our original post got the list of potential pluses it led with:
But Michael Beasley also got to the line, could rebound, could pass relatively well for his position, and has the size and athleticism to defend well if he chose to (and worked on it).
Mike Beasley doesn’t get to the line so much. That’s one of his least advantageous traits. As more of a straight power forward type in Miami, his rebounding was okay but not outstanding. He hasn’t been distinguished here as more of a SF, boarding. (His recent effort there has been nice to see, yes.) The passing is…. okay, but prone to lapses. And in terms of “size and athleticism to defend,” isn’t one of his bigger questions that he’s got ’tweener traits as a defender?
I don’t mean to rag on Mike. Actually this year I’m rooting for him more, if anything. He’s down. He doesn’t seem to be able to shake things about his own nature as a player, but he’s working hard I think. (He reminds me a little of Rashad McCants that late season, when Rashad’s shot was broken and he actually played motivated defense. Remember Carmelo Anthony trying to back McCants down, and not being able to?)
But that list of “things he can do” makes me pretty shaky. What are those things, again?
"Opinion ...a confession."
The positives
Are relative to an ‘average’ SF and are a combo of what Beasley has done in college (stuff that typically transfers well, like blocks) and what he has done in the pros. So take passing – its not outstanding, but it’s not non-existent either. In fact he’s at a career low in AST% right now if I recall right, which suggests that he’s struggling a little with understanding a team offensive game. He may have been ‘the guy’ for so long that he’s basically a rookie when it comes to playing off others.
I think rebounding can be a strength if he wants it to. Getting to the line? Maybe I’m conditioned to not know what good getting to the line looks like, but his 4+ FTAs per36 is fine by me. Again the argument I’m making is that perhaps Beasley is never going to be upper echelon or ‘advantageous’ in any of these things – but he could be consistent in all of them and maybe even good in a couple, especially if he focuses on D.
Michael Beasley – not a star, but the utility guy of the Wolves.
by Dr. Wolfenstein on Jan 8, 2012 9:21 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
can we trade...
for shoddy? :/
by bringbackbrewer on Jan 8, 2012 9:50 AM CST via Android app up reply actions
He can be careless at times, for sure.
I just don’t think he’s a “black hole” which is how he is sometimes described.
I’d like to see two things out of Beasley; (1) more 3PA’s. He’s hitting 40 percent, which is almost as high as his free throw percentage. Problem is he’s only shooting 1.5 of them per 36 (4 for 10 on the season as a whole) which is down from 2.4 from a season ago; and (2) practice free throws. 44 percent is ridiculous for a good shooter. He’s 77 percent career, so yell at the rim, quit kissing the ball, whatever it takes—start hitting those again. He missed two big ones in a row versus Memphis.
www.punchdrunkwolves.com
@PDWolves
I would sure prefer
to see him taking more threes, instead of the habitual long two. It’s been discussed to death, but the three pointer is just a better decision on pure efficiency.
Bringing honor to uncle rico's family since 2011.
B-easy
I enjoyed your post. Beasley is such an enigma. What happened to the guy who scored 50 and had the hot scoring streak to start off last year? I think he could be a go to scorer, but many players have mentioned that Beas only has one move and I think most teams have figured it out, so he would need something else. I would rather see him become the type of player you described in your post. If Beas had the right drive and attitude I could see him becoming more like Gerald Wallace and that would be exactly what the wolves need. Getting him to see that though is going to be difficult, and I predict it will eventually happen, but further down the road and not with the wolves.
Beasley's trying, but it really seems like he just doesn't know When to pass.
He forces more passes than he does shots these days.
by googoleeoottooooleeoottooooleeeatta on Jan 7, 2012 8:17 PM CST reply actions
I just wanted to commend you on this post..
from the start of this year I have been saying I want to see what RA does with MB. I don’t want to give up on him yet, and there is evidence his game is changing (much more driving to the basket the last 4 games than we’ve seen before, improved rebounding, improved defensive effort, etc.). I don’t even want us to consider trading MB until we’ve seen 20-30 games of him with RA.
by bsg007 on Jan 7, 2012 9:56 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
This has been nice to see
But the shot still just isn’t going in.
nice post
I’m surprised it didn’t get more attention.
Looks like beast is trying to adapt his game. Change never comes without conflict. As a coach i weigh athletisism and skill set heavily and tend to think great coaches can facilitate great production. So I’m more patient than many. I’ll give him some time.
My only question is if Beasley wants to change. Most smokers have trouble quitting because they like to smoke, not because they don’t know its bad for them.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
Smokers have trouble quitting because nicotine is extremely addictive.
“Because they like to smoke”? I’ve never smoked a puff (of anything), but the “it’s all willpower, they’re just feckless” thing is silly.
"Opinion ...a confession."
And
Smoking weed is not like cigarettes, at least when it comes to stopping.
by Dr. Wolfenstein on Jan 8, 2012 9:22 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Didn't mean to imply any connection, there. Just establishing that I'm as goody-goody as possible,
and still not naive enough to think smokers just don’t want to quit.
"Opinion ...a confession."
Yeah,
I know too many smokers who desperately want to quit and repeatedly try (and fail) for me to buy into the willpower thing. Addiction messes with the ability to make clear decisions in the moment. No matter what a person’s long-term, or even immediate, convictions are, the medical condition can so confound them on the spot that they may as well be on autopilot.
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Jan 8, 2012 9:29 AM CST up reply actions
Very true, but more than that.
Addiction is much more than in the moment. You often hear addicts say, ’I’ll quit…for a while.’ While this is a worthy, and often extremely difficult goal itself, in the end the ‘..for a while’ add-on is the addict planning the relapse before they have actually stopped. When they start again it isn’t a failure since they always said it was just ‘for a while,’ right?
It is a vicious insidious thing.
He who rides a wolf cannot dismount.
I wasn't taking about weed
It was an anology to smoking cigs. I’ve had a lot of friends tell me they’ve failed in quitting not because of the nicotine but because they really like smoking.
I can try to find another analogy if need be. My question is if Beast is “addicted” (enjoys his volume role so much) they he is unable or ultimately unwiing to change.
SO MY POINT…
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 8, 2012 9:45 AM CST up reply actions
Your friends are lying.
They failed to stop because they are addicted. They lied about it because they are embarrassed.
He who rides a wolf cannot dismount.
You are wrong
Anyone can conquer a tobacco addiction. It depends on the conviction. Several of those friends who “tried” to quit time after time but confessed they enjoyed it too much finally had the resolve to quit for good. I’m not denying the addictive nature of nicotine. However anyone who has the conviction to quit can do so.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 9, 2012 3:06 AM CST up reply actions
many people in 12 step programs would disagree with you
Pek apologist
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Jan 9, 2012 7:00 AM CST up reply actions
There are lots of ways of quitting a bad habit
and 12-step groups work if you have absolutely no ability to take charge of your own life.
And yes, “smoking” is addictive well beyond the nicotine which is why the first time I quit, I just rolled doobies instead and that got me through the transition. I’m sure I had nicotine cravings, but I was too busy eating Doritos to notice.
That, however, was 30 years ago and the price of doobies is now competitive with the outpatient rates at Hazelden.
What's wrong with the NBA is what's wrong with the USA: too much respect for superstars and not enough for working class heroes.
No I'm not.
Beating an addiction requires conviction and of course everyone can find a way to beat it. No doubt. But you are falsely equating trying and succeeding (real Scotsman argument). You imply that your friends ‘confessed they enjoyed it too much’ weren’t really trying (scare quotes on tried) when they failed because they didn’t have enough conviction (due to massive enjoyment). This is bs. They (probably) really did try, but failed and just said (or the addiction said) they went back to it because it was just so enjoyable. For an addict, this is the easiest path as they are aware that people will think they are weak or didn’t really want to quit or just failed, so they act as if they are in control of it (they aren’t).
You need conviction, obviously, but failing doesn’t mean you didn’t have enough of it or didn’t really want to quit.
He who rides a wolf cannot dismount.
I'm not suggesting it's a willpower issue.
I’m suggesting it’s a habit which they enjoy too much to ultimately quit. The addictive aspect notwithstanding. And I do think that varies wildly from person to person.
The willpower comes in after you’ve established the conviction. My mother went from 1 1/2 packs to never smoking another cigarette starting the day my oldest brother went to Vietnam. The will to quit was always there.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 8, 2012 9:52 AM CST up reply actions
Don't want to drag this out, but I think your take on this is superficial.
The ventral tegmental area of our midbrains affects behavior. Nicotinic nerve receptors aren’t some sort of construct to do with people’s characters.
"Opinion ...a confession."
It's not that powerful a physical addiction
but, like any deeply ingrained habit, it’s a bitch to give up because what are you going to do with your hands?
What's wrong with the NBA is what's wrong with the USA: too much respect for superstars and not enough for working class heroes.
Effort is not Beasley's problem
He has tried hard to drive to the basket, to rebound, to pass more, to play good defense. The real difference is, his shots have not been dropping. Is it a consequence of him not being quite as much of a “volume shooter” as before? Is he not in rhythm? I don’t know. All I do know is the guy truly appears to be trying hard to help the team, whether it’s working for him or not. And we need more scoring than just Love to succeed. The San Antonio game was an aberration. The next two games, unfortunately, are more reflective of our true position. We need a stronger, more consistent #2 scorer. Will somebody please step up?! Wes hasn’t done it. Beasley has tried, but will be out for a few games now. Ridnour is the scorer of last resort on many plays. Will it be Williams? This is his opportunity. And one other thing. Turnovers from excessive passing are killing this team. They need to be MORE selfish, not less. They are all trying very hard to play Adelman’s way and, sometimes, it detracts from what would be smoother basketball.
by ogishkemuncie on Jan 8, 2012 10:21 AM CST up reply actions
Excellent post.
I bought it for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I don’t think that we have any better realistic options at the moment. For another thing, I’m just a sucker for “our” guys. I just want Beas to succeed.
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
Wonderful post!
Yet…I found myself unable to vote. Everything you say about high-volume scorers is something I’ve felt in my gut for years & years, yet even so your Carmelo stats are eye-opening. I also suspect you could go back a number of years and see Stephon Marbury as one of the all-time “greats” in that class of players.
As for Bease, all you say about the contributions he could make if he wholly embraced the “super role player” job for the Wolves (I’m thinking: like a Joe Smith that you really can’t go to sleep on) is very intriguing. But from my outsider’s perspective, the man is so utterly enigmatic, I can’t hope to predict what he is internally capable of with any degree of certainty. But a want the best for his career and this franchise, obviously, so count me as a “buyer” out of pure hope.
by dontbesomean youngfella on Jan 8, 2012 9:56 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
For me, the gold standard is Dominique Wilkins
He was a very, very flashy high volume scorer who didn’t make any of the teams he played on any better. He’s highly regarded by former players, but I’ll bet coaches don’t feel the same way. In the end, basketball is still a team game. You’ve got to make the team better.
by ogishkemuncie on Jan 8, 2012 10:22 AM CST up reply actions
say it ain't so!
You may be right on ‘Nique, but he was my favorite player as a kid; even on a poster on my bedroom door. So I just flat out can’t be down with that analogy.
I would also submit he was a one-man show, trying to elevate his team during prime years of the Chicago/Boston/LA three-headed monter years. If I were some of the other guys on this site, I’d dig into some advanced stat site and try to prove that the other guys on his team back then were no counts. As for me, I will choose to remember an epic first round playoff battle in which he & Bird were trading baskets, each unwilling to let his team lose.
The Hawks ending up losing, of course.
by dontbesomean youngfella on Jan 8, 2012 10:36 AM CST reply actions
Nice post.
I bought. Now it’s up to Beasley to buy into this kind of role. It will be interesting to see but I agree that Adelman will give him every opportunity to do so.
Very well written post DrW!
I voted as one who buys that Beas is trying very hard to transition from the fallback scorer into a more complete team player. My assumption is that Adelman has sold him on the idea that this is what’s necessary to produce more team wins. We won’t likely know for a while whether Beas will be successful in making this rather large change of mindset, but I have hope that Micheal has made positive changes in his lifestyle since arriving here and that this might indicate he is embracing changes in his game.
Wes, on the other hand, may require hypnosis therapy to allow him to see the basket as being in any way larger than the eye of the needle. There are many other parts of his game that are troublesome, but his lack of confidence in his shot is a total dealbreaker at his position! If RA can rehab Wes’s confidence, I’ll nominate him on the spot for COY.
2012 the year of Twolves porcelain extraction?
Like it and buying it
Pek apologist
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Jan 8, 2012 11:41 AM CST reply actions
Love your take on Beas
the last thing we need is a Melo on this team.
What's wrong with the NBA is what's wrong with the USA: too much respect for superstars and not enough for working class heroes.
I'm a buyer
I have been a big Beasley apologist to my friends and relatives who are hoops fans. I know he hasn’t been playing well when it comes to advanced statistics, but he is still considerably more talented than anyone on our roster currently besides Love and Rubio, so I loathe the idea that we get rid of him for an average 2 or let him walk for nothing. Whenever Beasley can put it all together, the team that he is on will like having him (assuming they aren’t paying him too much). I want it to be the Wolves. And I agree that his mentality should not be that of a pure scorer since he’s just not that type of player at this level.
Great Post - There is Hope
Good post. I’m glad there are still some positive things about Michael Beasley on CH, because I don’t have anything against the guy and want to see him succeed as opposed to going McCants-style.
1. Beasley never gets to the free throw line at all, and nothing has changed in that regard this year — except that now he does not get the free throw opportunities he has. He simply can’t be an effective go-to scorer and carry the usage he has without that ability. After three years, the numbers don’t lie in this regard. What you are suggesting is absolutely correct. Beasley has proven he can’t carry a high usage rate and be effective. Management has to push him into a new role, and Lamar Odom-like sixth man. Cement the role by actually bringing him off the bench.
2. Watching him play this year, it seems like he is more committed to: (1) all around play; and (2) professionalism. I haven’t seen him stare down the rim after missed free throws or do as many other crazy antics as last year. There is still stuff you don’t like to see, but so far I’ve seen nothing nearly as bad as last season. Once his shooting comes back around, he should bring value on the trade market looking at his statistics, but his character is in such doubt that he probably has very little value right now. Both the Wolves and Michael Beasley benefit from him showing the whole league that he can be a professional because it impacts his trade value and another team’s willingness to let him play. Like many other starters on our squad (Darko, Wes), his drtg is down about 10 points from last year, back to levels he was at in Miami. He seems to have made some strides this year in guarding SFs. Also, he gave effort the other night in pulling down 12 rebounds. His numbers in that area are up. He is bound to “progress to the mean” on his shooting and be at least an average player again.
3. Ultimately, I think Derrick Williams beats out Michael Beasley on this team as the starting SF. Beas could have huge value as our sixth man. I also do not see why he could not play the 2 in certain match-ups. You can still ride him when he has a hot hand. I may give Beasley’s character too much credit, however. I don’t think he has any future as a volume scorer, so he will have to revamp his role, as you recommend.
The injury will
Allow Adelman to bring Beas off the bench for limited minutes if he chooses, which gives the coaches a chance to fine tune his game. Although fine tuning may seem ridiculous I think a lot of the Beasley criticism melts away if he takes less shots, works on his passing, and as I said earlier starts making shots. It’s like he needs a “head coach”(psychologist) who gets him to cut back on the emotional antics and improve his concentration. I feel like he needs to really needs to “will” the ball into the basket, but there is such a fine line between concentration and just going “automatic.”
"pokin' the animals at the Canis Hoopus zoo"
by pastyearsears on Jan 8, 2012 10:47 PM CST up reply actions
I do agree that most of Beasley's problems are in his head.
He has come around a little bit in that respect. But he needs more work there to fulfill his potential. I think Rick Adelman is a good enough coach and a strong enough personality to get through to him. With only this season before Beas hits free agency, I just am not sure if Rick has enough time.
by Are we cursed? on Jan 8, 2012 11:16 PM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
Related FanShots on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Philadelphia 76ers refuse to go quietly. If at all
- Allen Iverson presented the game ball for Sixers’ Game 6, talked about his future (VIDEO)
- Can the Lakers improve with Kobe Bryant making $30 million?
- Orlando Magic coaching rumors include Jerry Sloan and Scott Skiles
- Jrue Holiday needs to shoot more for Sixers to win, according to Doug Collins
