Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul

On the Ball

New Thread: Fessing Up and Some Wolves Stats For Perspective

Share

Related Content

Photo copyright 2008 NBAE (Photo by Steve Yeater/NBAE via Getty Images)

A few of my faithful readers who also contribute to the most erudite NBA comments page around made a humble request yesterday for a new post so they don't have to comb through the thicket of our admittedly abstruse comment patterns to figure out who has chimed in recently. Since I won't post another trey until this weekend's games are complete--meaning late Sunday/early Monday--I thought it appropriate to accede to their wishes.

But what to write about to prime new pumps and perhaps short-circuit dead-end arguments from the previous post? Well, I didn't see many folks predicting a Wolves season as unsuccessful as last year's. And I know that I picked them to win 30 games--lower than most locals, but still a robust 8 game improvement. So, it is time to fess up on what has happened negatively that we didn't expect. To get the ball rolling, I'll not only give you my prioritized list, I'll add in the places in my NBA picks where I've felt particularly smart or dumb thus far. And I'll finish up with some stats to mull over regarding the Wolves through the first 7 games.

Reasons Wolves Have Underachieved My Expectations

1. Smallball

For all the complaining I did about it last year, and all the warning I voiced about it during the preseason, you'd have thought I would have seen this coming, and factored it in. But then coach Randy Wittman played Mark Madsen quite a bit en route to a 6-2 preseason, leading me to believe that the front office had seen the folly of a Jefferson-Gomes frontcourt tandem and would play Mad Dog in the pivot until Jason Collins got healthy, if only to get Big Al and Gomes accustomed to their more suitable roles and hitting on all cylinders with Collins's return. Notice that I wasn't even expecting much out of Kevin Love in the low post, regarding him as an evolving project along the lines of the past three first-rounders.

Well, I underestimated the braintrust's capacity to stick with what doesn't work. Seven games into the season, Mark Madsen has all of 13 minutes, and Jefferson and Gomes have seen the overwhelming majority of their minutes at positions for which they are relatively undersized. Even more damaging, Craig Smith, a player I was frankly perplexed they re-signed, someone I expected to get mop-up and early foul trouble minutes only, has played 116 minutes thus far, or more than 16 minutes per game. When Smith subs in, Smallball almost always gets smaller. There are precious few power forwards, let alone centers, that the Rhino can adequately defend. And then there were times when it was Smith and Gomes in the frontcourt!

Last but not least, Jason Collins has not been brought back with alacrity. If reports are true that Collins was ready to go against Golden State but was held out because of matchups, I ask who better to guard Biedrins--a guy with absolutely no shooting range outside the paint, a terrible free throw shooter who should have a player who can afford the fouls guarding him, and a guy ranked second in the league in rebounds who needs a player dedicated to boxing out putting a body on him--than Jason Collins? Or why not Collins on Rony Turiaf, who turned the game around for GS in the first quarter when Nellie went big?

But forget Collins. Merely flipping the minutes between Madsen and Smith gets this team a couple more wins, in my opinion. And 3-4 against sub-mediocre competition puts them in range of my 30-52 prediction.

2. Commitment To Defense

I bought the line that the Wolves would devote the entire preseason to firming up their D, and thus emerge much improved in that area this year. Obviously Smallball is the biggest dent in that supposition, so perhaps this should be rated 1a instead of 2. But the perimeter D has likewise been incredibly shoddy and ballclubs once again dribble-drive with impunity. Fact is, this franchise has *never* defended the perimeter well; it's just that KG covered up for that glaring weakness for quite a few years. Well, Al Jefferson is not KG in that regard. And with the exception of Corey Brewer, there isn't a player on this team that should be proud of his defense thus far this year. That's on Coach Wittman, who proclaimed it a priority and is being shown up. And that's on the players, for lacking the pride, discipline and common sense to follow through on the most important aspect of winning games in the NBA--cohesive team D. Or did everyone miss the Celtics lesson of a year ago (if so, they're renewing it now)? 

3. Foye's Uncertainty

Regular readers will know that I had few illusions about Foye's capability to play the point. Put simply, he is not a point guard. But I thought we'd see the Foye of the last six weeks of the previous season; someone who distributed the ball just enough to hold on to the job and also fill the other criteria of a legit combo guard by scoring from various points around the court, from the three-point line to (less often) the paint.

This year? Foye has occasionally looked lost. He allowed his two-game, 3-24 FG performance to affect other aspects of his play, including dishing and defense. And his surreal pretense that nothing is wrong and that he's fundamentally a stud at the point who can do and get pretty much whatever he wants with the ball in his hands has to be really grating on his teammates, who are dependent upon him at least being the barely-adequate distributor he was last season--and scoring besides.

I think Foye will improve. But his standing on the team, and, I'd bet, in his heart of hearts and his own psyche, has been diminished. And that's not good news.

4. The Stubborn Style of McCants

Again, I didn't expect McCants to suddenly become Manu Ginobili or Stephen Jackson or somebody else who scores in bundles but still manages to do his job in other large and small ways on the court that connote leadership. I didn't expect McCants to be a leader, if for no other reason than the franchise has never treated him or cared about him in remotely that capacity. But I did think McCants would take a breath and survey the future of his career as he came upon a pivotal season for him. I thought we'd see better defense, more conscious passing, and less totally tunnel-visioned offensive spurts, where opponents can feel safe triple teaming him on his way to the hoop, secure in the knowledge he lacks the handle, the peripheral vision and, most of all, the wisdom, to dish it to the open man. Again, as with Foye, I thought we'd at least see the McCants of a year ago, and probably someone taking another step in this, his 4th year in the league.

On to the NBA.

Stupidest Prediction

Clips in the playoffs. Man, what a credibility-crusher that has turned out to be. Don't know why I stupidly figured Baron Davis and Marcus Camby would make it through the season uninjured. On the other hand, how the hell is a team with Camby and Kaman ranking last among all 30 teams in rebounding differential? And the games in general have been blowout after blowout? At this rate, newly promoted Mike Dunleavey is in the crosshairs of the Elgin Baylor loyalists inside that franchise. If the Wolves think they have problems, check out the Clippers, the worst team in basketball sharing an arena with the best team in basketball.

The other things that have gone awry are less egregious. I still think the Spurs will pull it together enough to make the playoffs and can at least take credit for saying their time as legit contenders was fading if not extinguished. I underestimated the resolve of both the Lakers and the Celtics to remain the class of their conferences, and it looks like I might have undersold the Jazz (I had them 4th), who blitzed out of the gate even without Deron Williams. And once again, I underestimated Reggie Theus and the Kings, who for the second year in a row are making me look dumb for calling them the worst team in the West. And Mike D'Antoni may in fact win 35 games with the Knicks this year, a notion I ridiculed.

Looking Smart So Far

I don't most folks were shoveling dirt on Dallas with quite the same vigor as I was to start the season. Now they're 2-6 and it turns out that Avery Johnson wasn't the problem after all. I also was less than enamored with the trendy pick of the Sixers as legit Eastern Conference contenders, figuring they'd make the playoffs but not much further. I had Washington's nonstop injuries finally taking their toll this year, and they have. I thought Mo Williams would be the best teammate LeBron ever had in the backcourt, and he has been. I said a few other things right, but most of it was conventional wisdom.

Wolves Stats

One commenter in the last post noted that Minnesota was ranked 2nd in the league in assists, and near the top in fewest turnovers, and wanted to know how they were losing so often. Well, the answer is defense, and a lot of it is due to Smallball. The worst raw number is 105.57, which is how many points this ballclub is yielding per game, and that, folks, is the worst among all 30 NBA teams. So why is this happening?

Minnesota ranks 27th out of 30 teams in opponents FG%, watching 47.5% of enemy shots fall through the hoop. Given that their 3pt FG% allowed is only 20th in the league (36.4%), that means they are getting housed inside the arc. In fact, if you consider the ppg allowed and all the dribble penetration we've seen, plus the Smallball front line D, I'd imagine that the Wolves have yielded more points in the paint than any other ballclub by a wide margin.  And Smallball also has put them 26th in the league in rebounding differential. Throw in the fact that they're 24th in steals, and it doesn't matter if they drop a lot of dimes, don't turn the ball over much, and are in fact 5th in points scored. It still adds up to 1-6.

Okay, before turning it over to the commenters, one brief note: For those of you who have signed on for my "Twitter" comments, be patient. I'm not remotely close to being competent with this stuff, or in even understanding how much fun and enlightening it must assuredly be. Fact is, the site manager is behind the Twitter push. Any maybe in the near future I'll grasp the technology completely and play along. But don't bet the mortgage.

52 Reader Comments

HeezyA (not verified)01:10pm
Nov 14
chronic weakness at the point, poor perimeter defense.... is it too early to start hoping for Ricky Rubio to fall into our laps this summer?
Sam (not verified)01:44pm
Nov 14
I was thinking about Ricky the other day. I know we need size more, but man, Ricky would be great. Can we package Foye and McCants for a bad, but playable big man? Maybe we should do that anyways. So yeah, I'm already looking to next year.
HeezyA (not verified)07:56pm
Nov 14
given that we're a few pieces away (and by a few i mean at least three) from competing in the West, i think we have to grab the guy who can actually maximize what we have now. in my mind, that's a point guard, not a big man, even though i concede that we NEED a defensive presence taller than corey brewer. the only defensive big in the draft worth a lottery pick is probably thabeet, which makes your suggestion of trading for a big more attractive than spending what i assume will be a very high pick on one. here's hoping the stars align and we have a number of first rounders to play with this coming summer, even if the draft pales in comparison to previous ones.
stop-n-pop (not verified)01:43pm
Nov 14
While the defense has been troublesome, this team hasn't exactly put together too many consecutive quarters of good offensive ball. I think the ideal goal for this club this year was to have a neutral (or as close to neutral) OE/DE ranking as possible. Right now they've improved their OE from 103.8 to 106.4 but their DE has actually increased by 0.3. I still don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility with this club to see them operate around 108 in both of these categories. The Charlotte Bobcats come in at 108.8 and the Clippers are at 109.5. eFG is killing this team right now. That being said, this team is leaving a lot on the court in terms of offense; probably more than they are on the defensive end of the court. The Wolves have the 15th most efficient offense in the league at 106.4 pts/100 possessions. They are the 5th highest scoring team in the league at 100.7 points/game. They have the 11th slowest pace in the league at 90.6. Defensively, they are the 28th most inefficient team in the league at 111.5 pts/100 possessions and they are the worst in terms of opponents points per game at 105.6. They also rank 25th in the league in terms of eFG. In other words, there is a greater dissonance between efficiency and production on the offensive end of the court than there is on defense. Why is this the case? As one would expect, they don't get to the line very well. Despite an early push, they are back to their negative free throw ways; having both a negative differential and a very low ft/fg rate. They are losing 3 attempts and 2 makes/game at the line. Right away you can account for most of their point differential. They also have a ridiculously slow pace for the type of ball they are playing. I can't for the life of me think of a small ball team who plays as slowly as the Wolves do. I suspect that this, along with FT and eFG, is where a large amount of their offensive dissonance comes from. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. They have good assist, oreb%, and TO numbers, and their overall OE is solid, but they are leaving a lot on the floor with poor shooting, and a relative lack of free throws. Defensively, they are who they are. Trying harder may help a bit but the fact remains that their internal defensive numbers (opp eff, efg, to, oreb, ft/fg) are across the board bad. There's no dissonance in these numbers. They are bad, bad, bad, bad, bad and there is little reason to think they can make a massive improvement. That being said, they aren't that far from a team like the Bobcats (who force more TOs and allow fewer relative ft/fg) or the Clippers (hold opponents to lower eFG). This team is losing these close games more because of offense than defense. They shouldn't be this bad from the floor. They are attempting more shots than anyone else in the league (with a slow pace, no less). If they shoot 45% from the floor, they make 2 more buckets/game and we're talking about a .500 team. They have the personnel to make this work (and get turned around quickly) on the offensive end. Not so much on defense.
Matt Dowell (not verified)10:53am
Nov 15
SnP. I am fully aware of your superior knowledge in this arena, but I have to fully disagree with your emphasis on offensive efficiency being the key to winning. You and I "commented" about this during the draft when I was all for Mayo, and you loved Love because of his OE. I challenge you to name a a couple champions in ANY sport the last ten years that did not have a great defense. I can name a bunch that had great OE but fell apart in a big game (98 Vikes, 08 Lakes, 07/08 Pats, etc..) I can grant you that offensive teams are fun to watch, but I want a champion.
stop-n-pop (not verified)11:05am
Nov 15
I think I would add a caveat to this argument by adding "with this squad" to "offensive efficiency being the key to winning." I wrote about this over at Hoopus today and I'll repeat it here: the NBA requires competency + luck for winning personnel. You have to have a top-flight player land in your lap and you have to have a front office good enough to pull the trigger. As Wolves fans we know our favorite team lacks the latter and it most likely doesn't have the former. Don't underestimate how much of a factor offense played in Boston and San Antonio's run to the championship. Boston had an OE of 111 last year. SAS had one of 111 the year before. Look at the scores Boston put up in the Finals. These teams also had upper-level talent which is far more important than anything else. With the Wolves, and with the personnel they have, I think focusing on defense is like wishing the Twins would hit more home runs. They aren't built that way and the only way they're going to be effective is if they run a system that fits their personnel and hope like hell that they a) get lucky in the draft again and b) get The Guy when it is presented to them. And yes, I know that may people view the OJ Mayo trade as being yet another example of the FO FUBARing a winning hand.
Collin Trude (not verified)04:33pm
Nov 15
I have to agree with snp here, the wolves might do better with a focus on offensive officiency for a number of reasons. This team is not the celtics. It's not built with as many defensive parts like Garnett, Perkins, and Rajon Rondo. As great as a good defensive unit is, it cannot exist on its own and still win games, especially when you're talking basketball. In football, you'd be right about defense in a few extreme examples like this decade's super bowl winning Ravens and Bucs teams. However, even in football, the notably balanced Patriots have dominated. Balance is important because the quality of offense determines to an important degree the difficulty of defense. Especially in basketball, playing defense has to be a lot harder with a low offensive efficiency. Offensive efficiency reduces an opponent's ratio of easy baskets to difficult baskets by preventing a large number of those types of rebounds that are easy to turn into a fast break and by minimizing turnovers which often turn into layups or free throws. Inefficient offense increases the amount of effort required to play good defense by forcing your players to race down court to cover the other team and by increasing the amount of time that is spent playing defense. This is especially important when you throw big men like Kevin Love, Al Jefferson, and Craig Smith. The way those men are built(they're not in perfect shape either) means that they're not going to play well on defense if they have to race down court 80 times a night. There's a reason distance runners aren't two hundred and fifty pounds. If the wolves had a team full of players like Corey Brewer, Sebastian Telfair, and McCants(actually McCants might be a bad example, the guy is built for his height), to go with big men who liked to run the court like Chris Bosh, Amare Stoudamire, Shawn Marion, Joakim Noah, vintage Garnett and Tyrus Thomas, Offensive Officiency would be less important. With such a roster, the Wolves could theoretically outscore the opponent by creating chaos on the defensive end and wearing down their defense with the sheer number of shot attempts generated through turnovers and rebounds. The wolves wouldn't need a true center because the other team's true center would still be at the other end of the court before the wolves took a shot, and the wolves would sell out to deny entry to the center on when he was on offense. That team's center would probably still score a lot of points but not enough to negate turnovers. The rebounding aspect the center brought to the table would be hard to negate which is why this sort of team needs good rebounders at every position. The team could still use a center that got left behind on the offensive side much of the time, but made important defensive rebounds, denied penetration, and defended post up scorers. However, and I find this ironic, because the wolve's power forwards are so horizontally massive(with the exception of Gomes who isn't a power forward except in the minds of Wittman and McHale), the team needs a center to play with them. The body types of Al Jefferson, Kevin Love, and Craig Smith keep the players from contributing to any type of team that can survive without a center. They don't have the reactive quickness required for a chaotic defense that defends the center by denying entry passes. They've failed to rotate quickly enough to prevent penetration and inside shots, the types of shots most likely to bounce off the rim so that a tall center near the basket might grab the rebound over the heads of shorter players. They don't have offensive games that fit within a 7 seconds or less offense, the type of offense that wears down opposing big men would wear them down just as fast and even prevent them from contributing on offense. The best solution would be to get a center or at least use a center we have. This is even more important than getting a point guard. In fact the market for point guards is a bit crazy right now considering deals for tj ford and chris duhon and where rose and dj augustin were drafted, so now would be a bad time to go shopping for one. At the very least a new center would prevent the opposition's offense from getting so many offensive rebounds, and really what's more deflating than bunches of offensive rebounds when one is playing defense. When a coach allows his team to give up offensive rebounds, he's telling his team there's not much need to bother playing defense because even if a player's man misses the well defended shot, the tall guy on the other team is just going to scoop it up and attempt another shot. I think the front office wants Al Jefferson to magically transform into a center much like they wanted Kevin Garnet to magically play without a Perkins type beside him. In this case, they can at least try to maximize their offensive efficiency, which will save them on the defensive end to a point because the other team's offense will get fewer possessions and those possessions will be better defended. This allows Jefferson and Love to get in better position which means fewer post up points and fewer offensive rebounds. Ruling out a number of helpful trades, our defense has limited potential, but our offense has sprawling potential. Al Jefferson has an amazing post up game, and Kevin Love has a promising post up game to go with great court awareness. On the perimeter, Mike Miller, Randy Foye, and McCants have effective perimeter shots. The team collectively needs to figure out how to make sure Foye and McCants never take a tre without the ball going through a post player's hands or forcing the other team to sell out in preventing the ball from getting to the post player's hands. This would be easier if Foye and McCants weren't so proud of their shot creating skills. However, I would propose that Love and McCants share as much court time as possible since Love seems to be the one player McCants enjoys passing the ball to. He's dieing to be loved after all.(sorry) It would help if McCants and Foye were routinely rewarded for finding a way to get the ball into Al or Love's hands with offensive sets providing the best possible passing lanes from big man to outside shooter. The inside outside game is great for making full use of the shot clock and getting teh best shot possible, and when I've seen the wolves, they don't look like an inside outside team even though it's the offense that matches best with their roster. Given the fruits of working on team defense in october, I kind of wished they'd spent more time developing this sort of offense.
levi (not verified)05:24pm
Nov 15
grin...If you want a Champion, history tells us that you will get your druthers sooner, and more often, if you move to LA or Boston.
Patrick Minton (not verified)02:05pm
Nov 14
I disagree with some of the stuff you say, but PLEASE keep preaching about how much small ball sucks on this club. I mean, to some extent Wittmann probably thinks he is turning the Wolves' lack of size into a virtue. But that's just because Witt has no clue about the talent of his players. But the Wolves are easily a .500 team if Witt just gives all of Craig Smith's minutes to Love and/or Collins and never (ever) played Gomes at PF. By far the best lineup for the Wolves has been Jefferson, Love, Gomes, Miller and Foye/Telfair (both PGs are underperforming). But we've seen that lineup for what, 20 minutes? Gomes is fine as an SF but terrible as a PF. My fervant hope is that the Wolves find a taker for McCants (some team will be willing to bet on his potential), fire Witt and bring in JVG, and find some way to convince Andre Miller to sign as an FA in the offseason -- he's very underrated and if we offer enough, he would do it because so many teams will be saving for 2010. Because with a good PG, this team would be a playoff contender. But this is unlikely because McCants is known for being a bit poisonous, JVG probably doesn't want to come here, and the front office is more into overpaying for overrated FAs than overpaying for underrated ones.
levi (not verified)02:56pm
Nov 14
I *used* to be in the Andre Miller fan club. Now I'm in full agreement with John Hollinger, who has picked him for inclusion in his All-2008 Decline Club, listed under "Older Guards Who Can't Shoot": http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108495 Even so, Andre would probably be a big upgrade for the Wolves' PG situation. But playoff contender? Possibly, but certainly no better than 1st round patsy.
levi (not verified)02:19pm
Nov 14
Britt asks... > On the other hand, how the hell is a team with Camby and Kaman > ranking last among all 30 teams in rebounding differential? > And the games in general have been blowout after blowout? ...and I answer (tongue in cheek)... Because the Clips have played Ricky Davis for 40% of their minutes? That, and also that I believe that Camby's reputation rests more on hype that upon reality.
pagingstanleyroberts (not verified)08:44pm
Nov 14
To clarify, I (who posted those two stats) wasn't necessarily surprised that they're 1-6; traditional stats mean little. It was just strange to read that they were so high on those lists. I do think, though, that that indicates they might not be far away offensively from putting together some games where they win just by outscoring the other team, particularly if they shoot the 3 better.
wtd3 (not verified)09:57pm
Nov 14
While I do think you have, as usual, some very astute observations on this team, I have to disagree strongly that "smallball" is one of the key reasons they've started out so badly. I do think it is a problem, don't get me wrong, but I think the smallball lineups, at best, represent the difference between "good" and "mediocre," and unfortunately the 1-6 start is a lot worse than mediocre. The real culprit for this team, it seems clear to me, is coaching. Not that anybody expected much out of Wittman, but the way the team choked away games against OKC, the Spurs and Warriors strikes me as a direct reflection on the quality of coaching this team is getting. Of course it is the players who have to execute, but when you have a 9 point lead with 4:30 left to play in the 4th, there is absolutely no excuse for not finding a way to get the ball into your best player's hands at least once or putting your best rebouding/defensive unit on the floor. With even a moderately competent coach, this team is looking at 4-3 at least. As a comparison, look at the NY Knicks. How in the hell are they 6-3 with that team? They, like the Wolves, don't have a regular contributor taller than 6'9" (Zach Randolph, who I'm guessing isn't even that tall). They, like the Wolves, don't play much defense (giving up over 103 ppg on 49% shooting). And I don't claim to be an expert talent evaluator, but the Wolves seem to me to have far more talent on their roster than the Knicks do on theirs. So what is the difference? I think it has to be coaching. D'Antoni has them playing a consistent style and manages to not choke away games that they're in. He plays the players who earn it, and the team seems to respect him. If only the Wolves had someone close to that competent... As for the smallball argument, I agree that Gomes is completely misused at the 4, but I do think that Craig Smith is a valuable contributor - he may be playing too many crunch time minutes that he shouldn't be playing, but he's brought some valuable scoring and energy to a few games where the starters didn't bring any, and he's also been one of the few Wolves who can find his way to the FT line (he's 3rd on the team in FTA per game despite playing significantly fewer minutes than Al or Love, who are 1 and 2). The Rhino may not play great defense, but I don't think he's as much of a liability as our perimeter defenders, who are generally the worst culprits on that side of the ball. Bottom line - coaching is a far worse problem than smallball for this team right now.
midlife crisis (not verified)10:30pm
Nov 14
Unfortunately, I haven't seen any of the Knicks games this year, but based on last year's team, I completely agree with the "How in the hell are they 6-3" comment. But as opposed to the Knick's success, I believe small ball has crushed this team. As SnP pointed out earlier, the rebounding is also horrible. When combined with the oppenents FG%, you end up with the ridiculous opposing offensive efficiency. I like Craig Smith, but I think he eats Love's minutes, and that's not good. And how will Rhino play at all if Collins is taking minutes? And if we have a glut at PF with Jefferson, Love and Smith, why would Gomes play minutes there? Apprently, I agree that coaching is the problem, but I feel small ball is the greatest evidence of that. To rock the cliche', D'Antoni has put his players in a position to succeed, whereas woofies are in a position to fail.
wtd3 (not verified)10:48pm
Nov 14
My point, though, is that smallball by itself does not seem to be an intrinsic evil. Sure, it will be a problem against some teams and it's unlikely that a championship will be won playing really small lineups, but the point about the Knicks was meant to say that overall coaching ability seems to be much more important to a team's success than running out an undersized frontcourt. To wit: Minnesota is -3.6 rebounds per game and allowing opponents to shoot 47.52% from the field. BUT, the Knicks are -7.9 RPG and their opponents are shooting a league best (or worst, depending on how you want to look at it) 49.19%! Only Phoenix is shooting better than 49.19% on offense, so that to me is pretty remarkable. New York plays terrible defense and doesn't rebound well, yet somehow they are 6-3. So if smallball works for them, why doesn't it work for the Wolves? I don't think it's the talent of the lineups, so again it all comes back to coaching. Again, smallball is not "crushing" this team. Randy Wittman is.
Britt Robson11:04pm
Nov 14
I'll grant you that Smallball in the right hands is not intrinsically bad. And D'Antoni plays the kind of uptempo style that never pays much attention to rebounds and points against. He's obviously great at it. Let's face it, as much as any coach in the NBA, he is identifiable, moreso even than the Zen Master's triangle, Pops' suffocating D, Adelman's high post big guys passing O, and so forth. The most identifiable stylist ever to coach the Wolves was obviously Flip: High assists, low turnovers, and a plethora of high-percentage midrange jumpers with precious few trips to the foul line. It was beautiful to watch but not so effective in the postseason. Does Wittman have a style? No, not that I can ascertain. But that by itself isn't a testimonial to competence. I'm no fan of Pat Riley's but the dude won rings with Showtime and with Shaq and Wade. To sum up: Smallball with players racing up and down the floor, launching treys and paying no attention to the shot clock is different than Smallball with a lumbering post-up scorer, not a single great ballhandler on the roster (Telfair probably comes closest and he's not top 25 in the league) and a proclaimed emphasize on defense.
wtd3 (not verified)11:24pm
Nov 14
Fair enough that D'Antoni has a recognizable "style" and that the Wolves aren't exactly built for that style, but how different are the Knicks and Wolves really in terms of "style" right now? The Knicks are averaging 97 possesions per game on offense - the Wolves, 95. Not a huge difference. The Knicks take 76% of their shots within the first 15 seconds of the shot clock - the Wolves, 63%. That's a more noticeable difference. But remember, this isn't D'Antoni paired with Steve Nash. He's using Jamal Crawford. And Zach Randolph, who I'm not sure fits that running style any better than Al Jefferson. We could debate the "style" point all day, I imagine, but the bigger point for me is this: the Wolves have been in almost all of their games late, despite playing smallball. They have consistently failed to execute at the end of games, as happened last year. Aside from rotations, there is probably no aspect of the game that a coach controls more than late-game situations. He cant control the execution, but he can at least put his team in the right sets and in a position to win. The Wolves never seem to be set up to win late because Wittman doesn't seem able to put them in good situations. By contrast, D'Antoni seems to be doing that. I do respect your point about the roster not being set up for run-and-gun, but I'd be much more inclined to buy the smallball-as-problem argument if the Wolves were consistently getting beaten throughout the course of their games. But they're actually doing quite well, all things considered, until things fall apart for them in crunch time.
Britt Robson11:44pm
Nov 14
Well put. I guess what I'm saying is that Smallball and bad coaching are inseparable on this ballclub at this particular time. If Wittman had emphasized the benefits of Smallball, as S+P has encouraged, he might well be having Knicks-like success with it. But that doesn't negate the point that it is not the organizational philosophy or even the coach's own philosophy, judging by his constant preaching of defense. D'Antoni plays Smallball because he knows it so well, and, not incidentally, because he's got nothing to lose with a roster full of bloated contracts that everyone knows he is stuck with for awhile. Wittman has a roster full of moldable parts. Some, like Jefferson, are not Smallball oriented. But during the preseason, I made a lot of noise about a second unit that I called a potential "go go" unit that would comprise Love (good rebounder and outlet passer), Telfair (best in transition off the dribble), Brewer (best in transition and causing chaos), McCants (who can run and also bail out clankers like Bassy and Brewer) and either Smith or Madsen (big men who know they need to hustle to triumph in the paint). Now if Wittman had shown me that kind of Smallball, subbed in for an equally interesting, albeit stylistically opposite, quintet of Collins and Jefferson and Gomes up front and Miller and Foye in the backcourt, then we'd have our Big Al ball, our Smallball and a decent coaching performance to boot. Bottom line, we agree much more than we disagree.
wtd3 (not verified)12:06am
Nov 15
Agreed pretty much all around, especially on the different looks you've proposed before. And although it seems like I'm advocating smallball, I guess my feeling is more that certain small lineups can work for this team, while others are just disastrous. Gomes should pretty much always play the 3 (he is so much better there). Jefferson and Love is much more effective than either of the two with Gomes or Smith. And as much as I love the Rhino, the couple of times I've seen him out there with Gomes (meaning Smith is playing the 5), I've just cringed. Thanks again for the post.
ChubbyForTubby (not verified)11:57am
Nov 15
{The Knicks are averaging 97 possesions per game on offense - the Wolves, 95. Not a huge difference. The Knicks take 76% of their shots within the first 15 seconds of the shot clock - the Wolves, 63%} Where do you find stats such as these?
wtd3 (not verified)06:26pm
Nov 15
http://www.82games.com/ Check out this site for some interesting +/- and other stats (like the possessions per game stuff). If you're into stats, this is a good site with which to be acquainted.
midlife crisis (not verified)11:08pm
Nov 14
The problem with comparing our smallball to theirs, however, is that we don't have talent at the smaller positions. Chris Duhon and Nate Robertson are far more capable at the point than Foye. When we go small, we shift players out of position. But at the heart of it, you're right. This team could probably find a way to function if people had secure roles. Too many possessions seem lost... I miss Flip.
midlife crisis (not verified)12:27am
Nov 15
Sorry for the totally off base subject... but if we're all convinced that this is actually a 1-7 club, and that the schedule gets worse before it gets better, and that it looks like it will be a pretty much lost season after all, don't we become the guys to take Darius Miles. Playing him the needed minutes to put Portland back on the hook isn't nearly as disasterous for us as it would be for a contender.
Steve J (not verified)01:27am
Nov 15
Midlife- That's a fantstic idea, however it would be a double-edged sword. Sure, we could potentially hinder Portland in the next couple of years, however I'm not sure I want to be "that team" in this situation. Can you imagine Roy/Oden/Bayless going off on us for the next 6-8 years every time they suit up against the Wolves? On one hand, it would bring a much-needed "rival" factor into the matchup, which we completely lack as of this moment. At least it would be worth a jaunt down to Target Center to check it out. Okay, I'm on board. Watching Mayo score 25 per game this season is going to be tough, we may as well do something.
HeezyA (not verified)01:36am
Nov 15
i say 'yes'. we have to look at it from the perspective of the next decade. could be 8 minutes a game, just for a few weeks of the season, but the result could be forcing their hand on the release of at least one of their youngsters or preventing them from adding a posey-type difference maker. i say do it sooner rather than later so you can PR it as trying to find some spark in a struggling start, hang it around the neck of wittman and mchale, sweep it away after the season with the rest of their body of work, hand the keys to hoiberg already and throw money at a teaching coach who can allow these guys to make the most out of the two (at least) seasons before they could possibly become contenders.
Peter Weinhold (not verified)11:49am
Nov 16
After watching last night's Portland debacle in a TC suite with the Hoopus guys (thanks and great time last night, BTW), and reading the comments about offense being more important than defense, the only thing I have to say is: You must be joking. Please, put down the stats and simply look at who's won championships over the last few years: Detroit, San Antonio, Boston. All these team have been extremely capable and clutch offensively, but if they couldn't play defense, they don't win...period. Don Nelson, Mike D'Antoni and Flip have had great success winning in the league, but they haven't won a ring. Defense wins championships. If the Wolves, as I have half-jokingly offered awhile back, want to dust Flip off and get him back in the game so they can optimize themselves offensively and actually win a few games, that's actually okay with me. Given all the empty seats at Target Center yesterday, on a Saturday night against an emerging team, this franchise is in dire straits. Flip would get more out of this bunch than Wittman. In fact, since they are in dire straits, Mark Knopfler could probably get more out of this club than Wittman, and would provide better half time and time-out entertainment as well. The fan base is being decimated, one section at a time. Something has to change here, in the short-term. Go Gophers, I guess. The long-term vision for this club is a whole different animal. If someone in the Wolves brain trust has figured out that the financial sweet spot for this team is to be good enough to legitimately sell championship aspirations, but never actually achieve them, that's one thing. With the right coach, patience, and a few more players, they might get there. Maybe Kevin Love, a cast of thousands, and a playoff seed between 5 and 8 will once again fill the Target Center arena. And, that could be enough to send Kevin McHale back to North Oaks, or a elevated deer stand somewhere in the Iron Range. But, if anyone thinks that there are maybe more than one or two assets on this team who could be on a real championship contending club...well, delusional is the first word that pops up in my head. Some of these guys may be chronologically young, but guys like Big Al--who'll be 24 in January, I think--have already been in the league five years. Telfair's also in his fifth year, McCants and Gomes are in their fourth year, and this is Foye's third year. At what point can you simply say that these guys are who they are; players who are good enough to play in the NBA, but aren't guys who you can build a championship base around. In this time of audacious hope, one can still believe, but the evidence isn't there. The dilemma is that the more Kevin McHale fails as a personnel evaluator, the more he's determined to "save the franchise". And, there's Glen Taylor, who continues to spend money and dig ditches wherever the Iron Ranger tells him to. Of course, there is the sort of perverse pleasure in watching this club stumble out of the gate again. Maybe this poor start will finally be Taylor's rock bottom, the button that finally jettisons the current front office personnel and gets a new bunch in. Given the "eleventh hour" status of this team, and the stubbornness of both Taylor and McHale to admit failure, I'd much rather see short-term progress and a continued viable franchise with those folks at the helm, rather than gain any visceral elation from McHale being sent packing, at the ultimate cost of the NBA no longer around. So, bring in a new coach, crank up the offense...whatever. Do something. Just don't try to sell me that this club has the makings of a true championship club...someday. Until they get players who understand the concept of defense, and get someone who can produce a better track record of acquiring talent than Kevin McHale, to borrow a concept from Seinfeld's the Soup Nazi: no rings for us!
Levi (not verified)08:18am
Nov 17

I admit, I'm not "smart" enough to read the Rake (except for Britt's blog), so I didn't see the new site coming until it ran over me.

>Rant On<

I hope that the blog comment section will be modified. The new format seems to be severely lacking in the ability to develop conversation threads (i.e. reply to a particular comment) and is quite inconvenient, (e.g., requiring solving two Captcha puzzles -- one just to preview your post).

>Rant Off<

That is all.
Carry on.

levi08:31am
Nov 17

Folks, it seems to be MUCH easier to post comments if you establish a login account for this site.

Paranoia must run deep -- my nine digit password was deemed only medium security.

levi08:37am
Nov 17

Without a password, a previous comment (my rant on how inconvenient commenting is on the new site) did not get posted.

Perhaps it was a case of Luser error, perhaps it's waiting in some bin for Britt to approve, perhaps it's simply lost in the confusion.

levi08:40am
Nov 17

Repost...

I admit, I'm not "smart" enough to read the Rake (except for Britt's blog), so I didn't see the new site coming until it ran over me.

>Rant On<

I hope that the blog comment section will be modified. The new format seems to be severely lacking in the ability to develop conversational threads (i.e. reply to a particular comment) and is quite inconvenient, (e.g., requiring solving a minmum of two Captcha puzzles -- one just to preview your post).

>Rant Off<

That is all.
Carry on.

Britt Robson09:07am
Nov 17

Levi and others--

Sorry I didn't warn anybody. I knew the format change was coming, just didn't know when.

Most readers know that I believe the quality of the commenters here is what distinguishes On the Ball from most other sites. It is something I cherish and will work to retain. That said, I do think that comments will be easier to read and glean that they were previously; there is an oldest and newest component, for example, so you don't have to scroll through every thread to see the latest remarks. I do think logging in helps a lot, as Levi says, but I don't think a login involves anything onerous. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know.

New post is up a short while ago, written in the wee hours and given to the gurus remaking the site to post when appropriate. Hopefully all will work out.

Thanks for your patience.

levi09:16am
Nov 17

Nice rant, Peter.

I agree with just about everything you said.

However, I believe that Glen Taylor has reviewed the books after the MV3 season and decided that Championship aspirations are not profitable enough -- in fact some have reported that he lost money, and I believe the quote was that the season was a "failed experiment".

Perhaps the real plan is to cash in the profits from his investment in the franchise and sell the franchise ASAP, for relocation to some other market. And who would blame him following a season of crickets chirping (instead of Chuck Taylors) on the floor of the Target Center?

Yesterday, I made a comment that the Wolves were playing that night and a random stranger -- who certainly didn't look like a basketball fan (female, approx 35+ y/o, decidedly not athletic in appearance, and perusing the security software section at Best Buy) -- overheard me, looked up and asked in mock seriousness:

"Minnesota still has a team?"

Sadly, except for some franchise paperwork and a few hundred million in various numbered bank accounts, the real answer appears to be:

"No Virginia, there is no team in Minnesota."
Zoran (not verified)07:48pm
Mar 12

Fantastic post. Bookmarked this site and emailed it to a few friends, your post was that great, keep it up.online roulettepoker siteonline blackjackvideo pokerdownloading movies

sunvisor monitor (not verified)03:42am
May 6

There are some KTV room with very goodKaraoke Amplifier

fashion jewelry (not verified)03:42am
May 29

well,it is really a great sport meeting,
wholesale jewelry

JamesHopes1 (not verified)05:26am
Jun 13

I do think logging in helps a lot, as Levi says, but I don't think a login involves anything onerous. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know.
Work experience degree | Purchase a degree

Online Poker Guide (not verified)08:38pm
Jul 4

Both basketball and online poker strategy are similar, surprisingly. Luck contributes, but skill is always what makes the difference.

lingerie wholesale (not verified)08:16pm
Jul 27
jim johnson (not verified)11:52pm
Jul 30

this is so good to see.
silver charms
sterling silver jewelry

james jones (not verified)09:21pm
Aug 1

this is so crazy to even think about. What a great story.
boulder mortgage
colorado springs mortgage
denver mortgage

stanley (not verified)09:35am
Aug 12

It is something I cherish and will work to retain. That said, I do think that comments will be easier to read and glean that they were previously; there is an oldest and newest component
link building services | blog commenting service

dofus (not verified)07:50am
Aug 14

Bon marche dofus kamas
dofus
Wakfu

CarInsurance (not verified)04:58pm
Sep 3

The stubborness counts a lot for the under performance. He can not force people to doo whatever he likes. He shoud have been more democratic. cheap car insurance

Chanel replica handbags (not verified)09:55am
Sep 8

With six early entrants, the returning players will have to put on their work boots to match last year's relative success by the conference (seven NCAA bids and the national championship).
______________________
Gucci knockoff handbags Gucci replica handbags replica Hermes handbags

gerald (not verified)02:17pm
Sep 20

There has got to be a major team building to be undertaken if we were to see a potent wolves team. I know it would take a whole lot of money to get some good guys into the team. But in my opinion, what would count is the good chemistry among the players. If the management could just get some good role players, then the timberwolves would be a team to be reckoned with in the NBA. electric treadmill

haiko (not verified)10:35am
Sep 30

In all honesty, it's just not anything new. College Term Paper. The mullet is not a new entity, and riffing on it is just as old. Also, it is (at least in a minor way) offensive, not just a playful riff. The explicit comparison to Black Like Me is ridiculous.It's neither groundbreaking nor well thought-out. I have nothing against young white guys (I quite like 'em, in fact).Persuasive Essay.
Regards,

stuartpeterson6001:56pm
Oct 5

What's up with all of this shitty spam?

LX (not verified)06:27am
Oct 8

It is cold, so bitter cold, on this dark, metin2 fast leveling

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