Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
On the Ball
Abbreviated Three-Pointer: Same Lesson, Another Loss
Game #20, Road Game #10: Minnesota 94, Philadelphia 98
Season record: 3-17
1. This Just In: Al Jefferson Has Problems With Big Centers
The most valuable player in last night Wolves loss to Washington was opposing center Brendan Haywood, who was too much to handle for the tandem power forwards, Craig Smith and Al Jefferson, Minnesota deployed in its frontcourt. Tonight's most valuable player in the Wolves' loss to Philadelphia was opposing center Samuel Dalembert, who was too much to handle for the tandem power forwards, Craig Smith and Al Jefferson, Minnesota deployed, albeit slightly less often, in its frontcourt. Believe me, reading those two redundant sentences is less annoying than watching two redundant losses.
Dalembert had 9 blocked shots, tying a Wolves' franchise record for an opposing shot swatter. Five of those rejections, including the play that could have tied the game for Minnesota in the final seconds, came on shots by Jefferson, the gifted power forward compelled to play out of position because coach Randy Wittman wants to use his little bucking bronco frontcourt of Jefferson, Craig Smith and Corey Brewer. Against some teams--Atlanta and Phoenix are recent examples--this is a fine strategy. But against those with large, strong centers--the Lakers, the Wizards and now the 76ers qualify--Minnesota is overmatched.
Jefferson battled all night, finishing with 22 points (10-20 FG, 2-5 FT) and 11 rebounds, 6 on the offensive glass. But once again, the plus/minus stat tonight is a reliable barometer of what really happened. Jefferson and rookie Chris Richard split the center position. In 31:49, Jefferson was a team worst minus -20 in a four point loss. In the other 17:11, Richard was a team best plus +16. He put that time to good use, with a pair a steals, a pair of blocks, and a pair of baskets in a pair of attempts. If only he had been paired with Jefferson once or twice so "Big Al" could have played the position he was meant to play.
Is this the way it is going to be for the rest of the season? Of the four centers on Minnesota's roster, Theo Ratliff may be taking millions in insurance not to play on that suspiciously balky knee; Michael Doleac is a journeyman; Mark Madsen is game but undersized; and Richard is a rookie. Nevertheless, it is unfair to Jefferson and to the team to ride the Smith-Jefferson power forward train when seven-footers are having a field day in the paint. Right now, I'd see if Richard's past couple of weeks of impressive action in limited usage can be extended. I think Minnesota can get by with the two PFs against Seattle and Milwaukee. But when they go to Miami to meet Shaq and the boys, it would seem foolhardy not to go with a center by committee.
2. Free throw woes
With 1:15 left to go in the third quarter, the game was tied at 73. For the final 13:15, Minnesota shot 4-8 from the free throw line; Philadelphia was 7-8, according for 3/4 of its margin of victory. For the game, Minnesota had more field goals and three-pointers than the Sixers, but lost it at the free throw line, going 16-25 while Philly made 25 out of 31 attempts. When asked after the game how he would assess his squad's 64% free throw shooting, Wittman responded, "There is nothing to assess. We're a good free throw shooting team."
Um, no they aren't. Even before tonight's clanking at the charity stripe, Minnesota ranked 23rd among the 30 teams in FT%, making a hair over 72% when the league average is better than 75%. Similar disinformation appears at nba.com, where Jefferson's All Star credentials are buttressed with this statement: "Big Al has added a reliable free throw to his arsenal." Okay, if you count 69.1% as reliable. It is better than any of his previous three seasons, and he has shown steady improvement from 63% his rookie year to 64.2% and then 68.1% last year.
Bottom line, despite everything else, if the Wolves make their free throws tonight they probably win the game.
3. Quick hits
Another double-digit assist outing for Sebastian Telfair, with 11 dimes versus only two turnovers. And Marko Jaric bounced back from an off night in Washington to put up 14 points on only 7 shots (4-7 FG, 6-8 FT).
The general consensus is that the bench did a great job, and it is true that McCants, Gomes, Walker and of course Richard all had strong moments. But only McCants really seems to have consciously improved his ball movement recently, and even he is prone to egregious lapses where he starts firing away. The beautiful offensive flow of the last three quarters of the Atlanta game and the Phoenix upset has been pretty much absent.
There's plenty more to say: Have at it, and I'll be back with a look at Friday's tilt versus Kevin Durant, Jeff Green and the Sonics sometime over the weekend.
45 Reader Comments
Um....I really don't get your first point AT ALL. Big AL had 22 points and 10 boards when Randy took him out in the THIRD quarter.
Yeah, Dalembert was really schooling him...NOT.
Rather, Big Al's problems were that Randy, in all his inexplicable genius, decided that the bench was the best place to put him until 6:00 were left in the game. And then, after he put Al back in the game, he decided not to tell any of Al's teammates to FEED HIM THE FREAKING BALL. Because he got the ball a grand total of twice in those last 6 minutes.
Seriously, Al didn't have any problems vs. Dalembert, Wittman did.
The 2nd team did a good job fighting back and even taking a lead. But if you are going to insert Al back in the game, you better get a memo to Rashad saying "Good Job. But now I need you to push the ball inside to Al." If you aren't willing to send that message as a Coach, then WTF are you putting Al back in the game for?
The bench was the best place to put Jefferson because the team was playing much better when he was on it. When he sat with his 22 and 10 with 2:56 left in the third, the Wolves were down 7, 66-73. When he returned with 5:20 to play in the game, the Wolves were up 3, 89-86, a 23-13 run in approximately 8 and a half minutes.
Jefferson led the team in shots per minute by a wide margin, taking 20 in 31:49. He got the rock with the game on the line, and was lunched *for the fifth time in the game* by Dalembert on the play. When somebody blocks your shot five times in a single game, I've got to say you probably are having a bit of a problem with that defender. Jefferson also led the team in worst plus/minus by a wide margin, logging a minus -20 while the next worst teammate, Craig Smith, was minus -14.
Jefferson had 22 points in 20 shots. The rest of the Timberwolves had 72 points in 61 shots.
How many different ways do you want me to tell you that Dalembert effectively defended Al Jefferson, or that Al Jefferson received a sufficient, to say the least, amount of touches?
Somebody is using my very original blog handle... "Patrick". This Patrick is in full agreement with you Britt. And I can't believe that Big Al tried to take it at Dalembert AGAIN! at the end of the game.
One thing to note is that even if we paired Richard and Big Al, Dalembert still would have likely guarded Jefferson, and still would have stuffed him 5 times. As I was saying yesterday, Big Al needs to make adjustments if he is guarded by/guarding a bigger player. His overconfidence in his post game (yes Al it's true some of your moves don't work on a legit shotblocker!) and slack D are the bigger issues
Henceforth I will be posting under RhinoLove, so that this new Patrick can use his name.
Patrick,
I read the blog all the time - my first comment.
I serious beg to differ. Big Al took the ball at Dalembert because WITTMAN CALLED THE PLAY. It was a set play to isolate him on Dalembert.
I could not believe, with Dalembert dominating the paint in the last few minutes, that Wittman felt our best option was to challenge him one on one. Just another one of the very questionable decisions from Wittman that I have seen all year.
Think about it. With the roster we currently have, who would you rather have - Wittman or Casey? We had the right coach with the wrong mix. Now, we have a very promising mix with the wrong coach.
I doubt that we called a play in that situtation that didn't include an option or two. But even if we did, do you think Wittman told Jefferson "don't worry about getting separation or a clean look, just take it straight at him, he can't stop you".
I am hardly a Wittman fan, but he seems to be catching a lot of heat on this blog for shit he can't completely control...like poor execution of a single play.
I fondly remember on this blog last year long discussions about KG needing to take it to the hole at the end of the game and not settle for jumpers.
Now, KG probably doesn't get his shot blocked by Dalembert if he takes it to the rim, but I found it a bit funny that Big Al does what a lot of us readers were clamoring for KG to do, taking to the rim, and he just gets abused on that last shot. I feel sorry for him that he even talks about getting fouled. The dude got swatted, end of story.
Britt, I totally agree that Al cannot handle the big centers. But, as others have noted, maybe it makes sense to let him try it and see if he can learn to play against these guys. I do think, however, that makes sense to give Richard some burn. The wolves know exactly what they'll get out of Madsen,but Richard is young and has the potential to grow into a 20-25 minute a night contributor.
Al speaks of using Duncan as a model, but isn't Duncan maybe 3 inches taller than Al? I think Duncan is over 7 feet but has the Garnett-syndrome and wants to be listed under 7 feet.
On that last play, my heart sunk as soon as Al got the ball. He barely had gotten any touches in the quarter, was being dominated (already blocked FOUR times) by Dalembert, and that was the play Wittman could come up with? It was immediately transparent, proved by Dalembert reading the play the whole way. I remember when Sichting was coaching and we lost to Atlanta - he demonstrated there are more clever ways to get to the rim. That play last night was, to me at least, retarded. I am constantly bewildered by Witt's decision making, and in serious doubt of his coaching ability. When has the guy ever made any really smart coaching decisions? What are the positives he has done for this club? I remember things were half decent before he assumed duties, and looked promising when he was out injured as well.
I think the reason Wolves fans are as patient with him as they have been is because we are "rebuilding" and he is given, it seems as much room for error as our young players. This is ridiculous, the man has had enough time coaching in the NBA to have convinced some people that he knows how to. Problem is he hasn't.
Since Witt has started coaching the Wolves, our team has never been able to maintain focus. I dont think he is much for inspiring players or much for craftiness either. If we wanted a disciplinarian we could have hired a school teacher. We need a basketball coach. I felt like ripping on him some more as there are plenty of specifics one could bring up (not calling a timeouts, when the momentum is so obviously switching to our opponents favor) but it's only because I do actualy tend to sort of like the guy as a person that I don't. Either way my patience with him as our coach is wearing exceedingly thin. How much longer do we have to wait? And why even wait at all?
First off, Dalembert is a good shot blocker. You can say what you want about his offensive skill, but I've always thought of the guy as a second coming of Theo. Gotta give him some credit. But if things had gone the other way and Al either drew the foul or faked Dalembert into the air, we'd all be marveling at how he can get off shots against those dominant shot-blockers. We've all seen him get quality defenders to bite on fakes, so I have trouble second-guessing that call, even if it didn't look like it was Al's night. If our offense is going to run through the man, he's gotta learn what to do at the end of games as well.
One of the biggest problems I've continually noticed is Al's "inability" to react to doubleteams quickly. The guy gets doubled every time he touches the ball in the post, but how many times have I seen him dump the ball underneath to a cutter? Not too often.
Because when I say that Al doesn't do this, it's because his teammates don't create the opportunity. What I see is the defense with 2 defenders on Al and 3 zone-covering our guys on the perimeter. By the time someone gets the brilliant idea to cut to the hoop, the doubleteam is already there and the pass is 10 times more difficult to execute. It's making a fast read - "my man is leaving me, I'm open 25 feet from the hoop - do I call for the ball or dive to the basket?" Bottom line - we need guards cutting and getting open before that double-team is set.
I continue to be patient with Wittman - a basketball team needs chemistry arguably more than any other sport, and when you're dealing with the strange assemblage we have (i.e. lots of different options at the 2-3-4 spots, not many at 1 or 5), it's tough for players to find their roles. They're playing with different guys frequently for various reasons and need to learn how to play effectively with different sets of teammates. Yes, you could argue that Witt should cut some guys out of rotation to create some continuity, but I think at this stage it's more important to evaluate as much talent as you can.
AJ and Smitty need to learn to pass. Too each other and out to the perimeter. Maybe then they could play together.
I can tell you why I am easier on Wittman, and Saunders and Casey (and Blair and even Jimmy Rodgers going waaay back) before then, than I am with the players on the team: the consequences. Criticize a player harshly and you are implicitly arguing that they receive less playing time until or unless they get a clue. And they always have practices and (albeit briefer) time during the games to demonstrate improvement.
But criticize a coach harshly and, like it or not, you are implicitly arguing that he lose his job. And that's why, with a few notable exceptions, I generally tend to voice criticisms of a coach only when I see a mistake (or my perception of one) repeated, or if the coach's action is spectacularly dumb, or comes at a crucial time and seems to me very questionable.
I don't have problems being honest about my feelings for a coach. Folks will remember me really liking Saunders (since tempered by his playoff failures with a second straight team, but I'm still generally a fan), running hot and cold on Casey, and being very hard on Wittman last season and more charitable (deservedly so, IMO) thus far this year. I also don't mind pointing out when a coach is voicing something that is easily contradicted, as happened in this post with Wittman claiming his squad shoots free throws well. But on judgment calls, the leash will be a little longer and the snap decisions will hopefully pass through at least a little bit of a filter when I am evaluating a coach.
And even then, Isiah Thomas is at least two years past his expiration date as coach of the Knicks.
Hey! I am RhinoLove! Get yer own name, Patrick number 2!
Ok, just kidding. I am not really RhinoLove, I am just an anonymous troublecauser.
But at what point do we start focusing on Wittman as a problem here? I frequent a few different Minnesota online sports spots and Childress was getting focused on pretty severely in the recent past. The same thing has happened with McHale and even Casey to a certain degree. But I really haven't heard too many people calling out Wittman. Maybe I am just missing it but he seems to be getting a longer leash from the public, as well as the press. I know this season is early but I have to say the signs are not pointing to Wittman being around long.
And I am no great Wolves analyst but it does seem clear that Al was getting worked by Dalembert, just as he has been by all the big lugs he has faced. Patrick #1 might be in denial but you can't deny the facts, or maybe you can as we have just seen.
And just to throw this out there, my take on the Theo thing is that he is mailing in this season and bailing on the Wolves because they are horrible and he doesn't think he will be around long. He probably wants to save a year of wear on his body and wait until next year when he can try to get on a better team.
Just some thoughts.
Britt,
I'm not going to gripe to much. I agree with your assessment on the dilemma at center and Big Als obvious trouble with large opposing centers. However, your citation of plus/minus stats usually come with a caveat that they don't tell the whole story. For the Wolves with teams that focus on Big Al (such as Daniels revealed after the Washington game) they make adjustments when Big Al is on the bench and when Wittman sends him back out on the floor. In last nights game, it meant that Big Al got to see Dalembert and Chris Richards was able to match up with Jason Smith.
I still see Jefferson and Smith with Brewer at the 3 as the best frontcourt lineup we have on the roster right not in terms of development. The question is going to be whether or not Big Al can make the adjustment to playing opposing players who are larger than he is. If he can't then Wittman and the Wolves management need to make that assessment by the end of the year and add a piece to the roster allowing Jefferson to flourish as a PF while Smith gets pushed back in the rotation or is allowed to go somewhere else. I don't think Smith is going to get many minutes at the 3 both because of Brewer and because his matchups with smaller players will create mismathes in favor of smaller and quicker small forwards.
Its what we have at the moment - Jefferson, Smith and Brewer. Give them some time to learn and make the adjustments. Its still a long process, but if Duncan is truly the model PF that Jefferson is trying to emulate, then he's going to have to matchup with opposing centers sometimes. Sometimes even guys like Haywood, Dalembert of an aging Shaq. I anticipate a time in a year or two where these centers will be worrying more about their assignment of matching up with the quicker and more fundamentally sound Jefferson than Jefferson will be worrying about being matched up against a larger center. But, we'll see.
Considering Dalembert averages 2.5 BPG, I suspect that Samuel has seen Al Jefferson's post moves before. A huge night for Dalembert and credit is due.
Patrick,
You are taking a simplistic approach if you only look at the 22 points and 11 rebounds pulled down by Jefferson. You neglect to take into account that Dalembert played way over his head and created at best for the Wolves, a push at the position. If Jeff is at PF, the Wolves dominate the PF spot and probably have a push at C. Richard showed he can be effective at the spot, and much better than Jefferson. There is a reason the Jefferson had such a bad plus/minus.
...and there is a good reason Richard had such a good +/-.
You may be right that Jefferson will never be a good or even adequate center. However, I think it is way too early to come to this conclusion. You can't just look at height, reach and jumping ability and conclude someone cannot guard someone else much larger. There are ways to guard opposing players who are bigger. Bill Russel showed us that and the same rules still apply.
Wittman is right to continue to explore what Jefferson ceiling is and to determine whether or not he will, or can, make the adjustment to playing center in the NBA - especially given the lack of a current center on the roster who is a better option. Richards may be a quality center someday, but he is still maddog size and gives up a lot of inches as well. I don't think hes a long-term solution for a starting center.
You can tweak with it all you want, but the future is still Jefferson, Smith and Brewer with Richards carving a place off the bench in the front court. That is not going to change until the roster changes sometime after the season is over.
Bill Russel was a natural shot blocker. He had good leaping ability and timing . . .things you can't teach. There are many guys who are under 7 feet who can play center. Enough with the generalizations. Focus on Jeff's ability. If you've watched even a little of Jefferson's game, you know he does not belong to that group. He can't jump, is not a natural shot blocker and doesn't have great timing. Great PF that will never be a good C. That's not a knock against him. Karl Malone would not have made a good C, yet he's one of the best PFs ever.
That being said, if matchups are played correctly, he can slide over to C at times. But he *should not* be the primary center. It's a waster of his talent.
enough with what??
Listen Paul, we are both making generalizations. How else can we talk about it. You're generalization is that anyone who is 22 and has limited leaping ability and is only 6' 10" absolutely cannot succeed ever as a 5 in the NBA regardless of what they are taught or learn over their career - thus, if you play them there you are wasting or misusing their talent and you should not be a coach regardless of the makeup of the roster. Jeesus, enough with the ...
I think we can agree to disagree here. The way I see it is that there are not many other options at center other than Big Al for Wittman to turn to at the moment. Especially, given that you need to get Craig Smith on the floor as well.
You see this as a waste of Big Al's talent and I already conceded that you may be correct (although, I still think it is too early to make that assessment). You are ready to move on with Richards/Doleac and Maddog or some combination. I think that Jefferson still might turn out to be effective at the 5, given a learning curve that he is currently on. differnt people with different opinions on a subject with no right or wrong answers - imagine that?
I still haven't found one comment about Jefferson's game. Again, enough with the generalizations. Rather than focus on Bill Russel and other centers, how about commenting on Jefferson's game and how it could translate effectively at center. I got no problem with differing opinions, but it would be nice to see at least something to warrant the opinion.
How about answering how a Jefferson Richard lineup is a better option for Wittman than Jefferson/Smith without the skewed +/-?
Agree to disagree Paul. You're generalizations are no better than mine. I acknowledged Jefferson's current limitations. I proposed that he might grow out of it given experience and coaching.
I hear ya. I disagree with you generalizations. IMO young players get better and we have not seen the best that Jefferson?smith have to offer. and, repeating for the hundredth time, There are no better options in terms of the current plan of developing young talent.
First, let's get one of your misrepresentations straight. Richard played a majority of his minutes against Dalembert (11 of 16). Dalembert scored 4 points on Richard, an alley oop and 2 two foul shots.
I've been pretty specific about Jefferson's ability and how it does not translate to the center position. No need to rehash. How is a Jefferson/Richard lineup better? I have not said that it exclusively is. In fact, if you read my post after the Washington game, I point out that the Smith-Jefferson lineup can be very effective and has the best plus/minus of any lineup (because most of the minutes came against a team it works against).
My point has been how to use Jefferson. He can't play center against certain types of centers. Dalambert and Haywood are two examples of the type that give Jefferson fits. With Jefferson's physical limitations, he will likely always have problems with these types. The only way he could "grow out of it" would be to grow a few inches or add a few to his vertical. Ain't gonna happen. It's a waste of his talent to play him at C against these types of players.
Even if Richard was just as bad as Jefferson at C (which he is not), playing Richard at C gives the Wolves a big advantage at one position. Jefferson dominates the PF spot against a team like Philly. Add Richard, who has a 7'5" wingspan and is a better natural defender than Jefferson, and you've got a somewhat formidable front line. At the least, more formidable than Smith and Jefferson.
Which front line is better, Smith/Jefferson or Jefferson/Richard? That's not the question to ask. The more important question is which is better against a Phoenix, and which is better against a Philly. It's already obvious.
BTW, you have neglected to mention, when talking about developing players, that Richard is a player to develop. If Florida did not have Horford, Richard would have started and there's a good possibility he would have been a first rounder. He certainly has looked impressive when given the chance with the Wolves.
first I'm generalizing, now I'm misrepresenting.
Its one of the side effects of debates that each sides frames their argument in their own favor. I try and be aware of it as much as possible and generally ask myself in each discussion about the possibilty that I might be wrong. So, first of all I might be wrong and you might be right. Now you try it.
The misrepresentation on your part is that Dalembert played a lot of minutes (39) against Minnesota. He sat when Jefferson was out. Jason Smith only played while Jefferson was on the bench. I'c accuse you of misrepresentation, but what you are really doing is framing the debate to support your position for your argument. I am doing the same thing. We all do it. But, what we should also try and do is learn from each other. I'd be more receptive to your argumentation (actually I agree with a lot of your points, just not that we can conclude that Jefferson should not be playing center against bigger opponents - ever. and that Wittman has a better option in Richards rather than just another option to explore) if it were presented in a more humble way acknowledging that someone like Wittman (not me - we know that I certainly do not) might actually know something you do not.
But, this is enough for me now. Lets watch the Wolves compete (and with luck beat) Seattle.
In a previous post you said Jefferson had to play Dalembert and Richard did not. That's not true. Go check the play by play. Probably an honest mistake. Still a misrepresentation.
"The misrepresentation on your part is that Dalembert played a lot of minutes (39) against Minnesota."
I don't follow. If I made any factual errors, I hope I am corrected. I would hate to make an argument on incorrect facts.
The difficulty one runs across in debate is the refusal of one's interlocutor to step outside his frame of the argument to reach a consensus understanding of each other's position.
honest mistake? no. factual error? no. misrepresentation, no?
What I was guilty of was overplaying my case to demonstrate that your use of the +/- statistic is skewed because defenses are focusing upon Jefferson and not focusing on Richard. Jefferson was always faced up against Dalembert and would likely have had to face him no matter who was playing along side him at the 4 or 5. When Jefferson went to the bench Smith came in. Dalembert was soon to depart. Dalembert did not get coached before the game on what he needs to do to defend Richards. Richards was not a thought in his mind. He was coached to defend Jefferson and he did a great job.
I will say one more time in a different way and see if this time we can meet upon some ground. We agree that Jefferson has trouble with larger and opposing Big men like Haywood and Dalembert. IT is obvious. You think this is the fault of Wittman for placing Jefferson in a position where he CANNOT succeed. I disagree. I think Jefferson has the IQ to adjust his offensive game to get the better of Dalembert next time or next year as well as other larger opponents. He will have a more difficult time on the defensive end, but I think eventually he can get the better of the match-up. Neither his size nor his lack of leaping ability will prevent him from gaining the necessary experience to become and adequate defender of larger players and also a polished scorer against them.
I COULD BE WRONG! But, the only way for a coach to find out is to continue to play him and see if he improves against opposing teams strategies of matching him up against larger opponents (which could happen whether he is playing the 4 or 5 - I doubt if Richards was playing alongside of Jefferson, Dalembert would have been assigned to defend Richards). And if I am wrong about that as well, I still believe that Wittman is not left with many options given that Smith and Jefferson have shown the most potential to develop into the future frontcourt for the Wolves and Richards is more suited for a career back-up role. But, I could be wrong about that as well.
What more do you want me to say in support of my argument? That I measured Jefferson's vertical leap last weak and it improved by one inch? I don't have facts. Just observations. I agree Jefferson is best suited to play the 4. But, Smith is also best suited to play the 4. And we don't have a good option at the 5. I can't find any fault in Wittman going as far as he can to see what he can get out of the combo of Jefferson/Smith even against matchups with larger opposing centers. Its the best option he has in most cases in my opinion.
I understand your position *completely*. I have not written anything to suggest otherwise. However, I think it is flat out wrong.
And I understand you think I am "flat out wrong." I've even agreed with you that it is possible.
I guess that means you win.
Since neither one of you wants the other to have the last word, and because nobody else seems to be chiming in, I think we'll call it a day on this. As anyone who reads my responses to the "new" Patrick (as opposed to Rhinolove) can see, I have empathy for dogged arguers. But both sides have pretty much laid out their positions and it's time to move on.
Thank you Britt!
By the way, this new Patrick is making me want to change my name, not just my blog handle.
Hopefully tonight's game delivers not only a W, but some new conversation fodder.
What do you guys think? Throw Cory Brewer at Durant (shift Marko on to the SF)? Seems like a good matchup, at least in terms of body types. College hoops fans...did Florida play Texas last year? Sorry, I am too lazy to look this up.
I just read that Ratliff is getting his knee scoped. So the implications and outright claims that Theo's been feigning an injury are bs.
Sure hope it turns out well. Theo was looking pretty damn good, and let's not forget this is a contract year. Not playing means no offers.
I was among the suspicious, not only on Theo's part, but because a source who may or may not have known what he was talking about raised the notion of insurance paying for Theo's $11 m deal this year if he was waylaid for the rest of the season. But I forgot about following up on the tip last trip down to Target Center. Hopefully I'll ask tonight and get back to folks about this. But as of now, yeah, let's hope the scope clears everything from up from both a physical and innuendo point of view.
I would love to see Brewer on Durant. Go ahead and tire Brewer out, It's not like his shot is going to fall anyway. It would be an entertaining matchup for two teams at the bottom and Brewer never played Durant in college (answering your question) so there would be that intrigue as well.
We might also come away with a W. With Thomas and Wilcox as the centers, the wolves can trot out Jefferson and Smith without fear. In fact, the Sonics are a team that strikes fear in no one right now... kind of like our squad.
I have to agree with the idea that Al should be playing PF with Smith as backup. Haywood & Dally have both shown that.
I also have to agree with the suggestion of giving more minutes to Richard. He has appeared very active to me, racing out to give screens to guards, rotating on defense, and blocking shots. He can also dunk when given the chance, which is sadly more than can be said about Madsen.
Witt has mentioned Richard's play lately in the post game comments, so hopefully he is working his way up the coach's 'respect' ladder. It doesn't seem like it should take Shaq-like play to move ahead of Doleac and Madsen.
I'm just wondering
How come coaches/gm's sometimes don't see what everyone else sees. How does whitman not see he needs to play richards and maybe doleac more against teams with a big center. Are we missing something or is he?
Anyway, it continues to be great to hear the ass/turnover ratio of telfair, I've been longing for that type of point guard player for the wolves...
As with most things, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. It's easy for us to watch games, see 2 "average" centers dominate, and conclude that we need to play Smith less and Richards or Doleac or Madsen more. But sometimes it's about evaluating guys too - Al's weakness against centers is well-documented, but maybe we're teaching him new things at practice and seeing if he can execute in games. I also think Jefferson and Smith are two of our best young players, so I'd be trying everything I could possibly think of to keep those two on the court as often as possible. If you take this into account and factor in the possibility of adding a center to the mix, it slides Craig over to the SF and you have to choose - do you want Smith guarding Iguodala and Caron Butler (with a Wolves' center), or Jefferson guarding Haywood and Dalembert (without one)?
It is a sad day for any team when you can legitimately ask, "where would we be without Sebastian Telfair?"
Britt -
Nice to see Henry Abbott (ESPN) linking to your piece again today. I admire Henry's work too.
Looks like Chris Richards won't be sent down to D-League and will earn more ticks. The other Gator brother looked elated over Richard's play.
Chris Richards not playing with Big Al is just typical of Wittman, who didn't play Craig Smith and Big Al together either, till Sichting showed how well it could work. Sadly Jerry Sichting cannot run the team with Witt getting to coach Big Al and some of the other big men. That's a shame because I think he's a better strategic thinker than Witt and not as likely to put the blinders on like Witt (who is really bending over backwards to "protect" a young team from the truth with that statement about a "good free throw shooting team."
So we have to hope the Richards does in fact get the minutes his recent play has merited, which should be 25+ a game for a while. Then you can play Brewer at the 2 as often as possible, as he can defense most shooting guards and cause them to work hard on defense if he stays active (and he's only 21, he better use all that energy to stay active.) You can have him on the court with Big Al, Rhino and Richards, and they'll rebound even against bigger line-ups (since so much of boarding is positioning and effort, not height) and we''ll have a quickness edge. Against really big centers put in Doleac a bit to move the Dalembert's out of the lane on D. And only Shaq merits playing Mad Dog.
Will Foye ever be back? I didn't see much definitive news after this last doctor's exam this past Monday.
Can't believe sending Richard to the D-League was ever seriously considered. Even if he never played, he's built solid enough to be a valuable player in practice.
Also, the D-League doesn't seem to be a true minor-league system. I thought we sent Bracey there to learn the point; they used him as a scorer and did a great job of developing him for European ball. This might work out well for Wright, but it's a missed opportunity for the Wolves.
Sorry if I missed this discussion before, but can someone explain how the D-League is supposed to work?
"When somebody blocks your shot five times in a single game, I've got to say you probably are having a bit of a problem with that defender."
I see two problems with your argument. One is that you overrate blocked shots, and two is that you give Al all of the blame for his +/- and none to his teammates.
If you look at Al's FG% and TOs, he quite clearly was not being dominated by Dalembert or otherwise causing his team problems. There were at least 4 or 5 very easy shots that Al made because he got Dalembert (always over-eager to block shots) to bite. Blocked shots are one of those stats that are a little overrated. What's better, contesting every shot so that your opponent shoots a poor % or blocking every 3rd shot and letting your opponent shoot 100% when you get faked out? And Al faked out Dalembert quite a few times.
I'd rather take Tim Duncan defending the paint, blocking 2 shots a game than Dalembert blocking 9. Any day.
Big Al had the biggest +/-, but how much of it was really his fault? Point to some numbers, please. I don't think it was those 5 blocked shots. In particular, I thought Rashad played very terribly whenever he shared the floor with Al, and average/competently otherwise. It also didn't help that Antoine had practically his only good shooting stretch of the game when Al just happened to be on the bench. Again, hardly Al's fault.
By the +/- numbers, Al might look a little worse than his game was, but choosing his offensive numbers as telling the whole story is arguably more biased the other way. Besides the 9 blocks, Dalembert also had 18 points on 5 of 8 shooting and 8 trips to the line, as well as 11 rebounds. It reminds me of all of the guards we've had over the last zillion years. Sometimes they would have very good games, each getting around 15 points, but the opposing guards would get somewhere between 50 and 60.
As much as we like Al's offensive game we need to be honest about his defense. It's more than a little blip. After what we're used to, he completely stinks. For 11 years we had our best offensive player also be our pivotal defensive player; at his best, covering the perimeter and still getting back for help in the paint. Al is a traditional scorer. He can score consistently, but needs to be protected on defense. Poor Wittman has two players like this. He can't protect them both.
...and although blocks can be overrated, it's tough to overrate a block in the paint on the last play of the game. It was clutch. And remember that Dalembert was not like our guy Theo. Dalembert stayed in position enough for 8 defensive rebounds. Taking it all in, it seems pretty dominant to me.
Do you understand your language of denial here, Patrick? Rashad played terribly when on the floor with Al, and better when not with Al, but that's somehow Rashad's fault, not Al's. And "Antoine had practically his only good shooting stretch of the game when Al just happened to be on the bench. Again, hardly Al's fault."
You just conceded that at least two Timberwolves played better without Al than with him. And you're saying my argument is flawed because I don't pay attention to the play of his teammates?! Yeah, you're right, it is all Rashad and Antoine's fault because they didn't play better when Al was on the court.
You have the gall to write "point to some numbers please," after not providing any numbers-based evidence for your contorted argument and either ignoring or making the flimsiest pretense of rebutting the boatload of numbers I gave you yesterday morning. What about scoring efficiency--the one where Al's teammates had a better points per shot ratio than Al himself? Or what about the shots-per minute ratio numbers that rebutted your argument about Al not getting the ball enough? Or what about the numbers for Dalembert that another commenter pointed out, demonstrating that Jefferson's defense is also a factor in those plus/minus numbers? Or you could go back to my previous Three Pointer on the Washington game, and look at the numbers for Brendan Haywood and the numbers for Jefferson.
I understand why you want to throw the plus/minus out the window, because it is pretty inconvenient to your argument. I mean when two players split a position and one is -20 and the other is +16 in about half the time of the first, it is tough to justify the first guy being very effective. So, let's go small-bore and offer up these numbers: 2-2. That was Chris Richard's number of field goals and his number of attempts. Zero shots blocked, zero misses. And I didn't even have to bring Tim Duncan into the conversation.
Or go to 82games.com and look up Jefferson's performance in 5-man rotations when he's playing center and his performance in 5-man rotations when he's playing power forward. You'll be amazed at how many numbers you can look at.
Then go back and read my original post: It gives Jefferson his due and explicitly argues for him to go back to playing the position he is best suited for--power forward--unless he is able to guard other power forwards masquerading as centers, as happened versus Atlanta and Phoenix. Somehow my argument that Jefferson played admirably under the circumstances and is being played out of position got lost in your little campaign--based on *no evidence*--that Jefferson played just fine in the pivot against Philadelphia.
Last but certainly not least, let's throw all the damn numbers away for a minute, and forget about where Walker, McCants and your uncle Vinny was at the time, and focus on the play of the game: Jefferson with the ball versus Dalembert with the game on the line. What happened?
Shot blocking overrated? 3 or 4 blocked shots in one game is pretty impressive, but 9? Come on dude.
A seven-footer that can move around quickly enough to block shots like Dalembert is a dime a dozen in this league. A guy like him, or even a healthy Ratliff (if such a thing exists), would be the ideal counterpart to Al.
There's a reason guys like these get huge-ass contracts while only scoring 7 or 8 points a game.
Blocked shots are definitely overrated. They work out as rebounds in the grand scheme of things. Because of the blocked shots, the Wolves out shot the 76ers 81-74. If a defender blocks a shot and the Wolves recover, that is essentially an offensive rebound.
Post new comment
Blogs
Sports
Baseball:
Warning Track Power by Alex Halsted
Sports:
On the Ball by Britt Robson
Society
Weather:
Dude Weather by Jimmy Gaines
A&E
Fiction:
Write Now! by Terry Faust
Retired
Hockey:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Style:
Hook & Eye
Misc:
Is This News?
Fiction:
Yo, Ivanhoe by Brad Zellar
Food:
Consider the Egg by Stephanie March
Wine:
Beyond the Cask
Food:
Food Fight!
Media:
To the Slaughter
Misc:
Outrage by Staff
Food:
Chef's Table
Guest Commentary:
Just Passing Through
Humor:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Cars:
Road Rake by Chris Birt
Commentary:
Read Menace by Tom Bartel
Society:
The Adventures of Melinda by Melinda Jacobs
Politics:
Defenestrator by Rich Goldsmith
Food:
Breaking Bread by Jeremy Iggers & Ann Bauer
Books:
Cracking Spines by Max Ross
Music:
Hear, Hear by Staff
Art:
The Vicious Circle by 6 Critics
Secrets:
Secrets of the Day by Kate Iverson
Theater:
Seen in the City by Staff
Film:
Talk About Talkies by Staff
- Contact:
- Secrets Staff
- Write to Editors
- Send Press Release
- Reprint Request
- Work at Secrets of the City
- Our Address:
- Secrets of the City
- PO Box 3690
- Minneapolis, MN 55403
- (651) 356-8714
©2002-2009 Entropy Publishing, LLC. No part of this site may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Entropy Publishing, LLC. except that an individual may print for personal use and/or forward articles via e-mail to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes. Thanks to FAMFAMFAM and Tango Project for their icons.
Media Partners
