Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
On the Ball
The Three-Pointer: Searching for the Bottom
Related Content
Photo copyright 2008 NBAE (Photo by Garrett W. Ellwood/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #8, Home Game #4: Minnesota 83, Portland 88
Game #9, Road Game #5: Denver 90, Minnesota 84
Season Record: 1-8
1. The Power of Negative Thinking
Over the course of their 20 seasons in the NBA, the Wolves have slapped together some pretty dreadful teams. Between the 1991-92 club and the 1994-95 edition, they never won more than 21 games in a season. That happens to be the period I started covering the team, and while I don't remember it well, there was some fairly vivid bickering, back-biting and clueless performance out on the court.
But I don't remember a team as mentally screwed up as this one has been the past two weeks. I don't remember a team consistently playing well enough to post double-digit second-half leads on various opponents and then figuring out a thousand different little ways to disfigure their self-respect, to unfurl a potpourri of ineptitude that goes waaay beyond a failure to box out or a lack of ball movement or a bone-headed play-call or substitution. Forget about mental toughness; this is a team without survival skills, a ballclub silently pleading to be blown apart.
[rakead:SOTC_Middle1_300x250]
They were up 13 in the third quarter against Golden State last week, the third time in their four road games they'd been up double-digits. They were up 9 midway through the fourth, and lost in overtime. So they come home and play inspired ball against a good, deep Portland team, up 11 with two minutes to play in the third quarter. After three, they'd hit more than half their shots, 29-57 FG. In the fourth, Al Jefferson shots 4-7 FG and the rest of the squad makes one shot in 13 attempts, frittering away the ballgame. In the postgame press conference, Randy Wittman calls it Groundhog Day, another one just like the other ones.
So what does he say after tonight's loss to Denver on the road? Minnesota is up in the high altitudes against a Nuggets squad that is pumped by the trade for Chauncey Billups and has won 4 of 5. So naturally the Wolves play relatively smart, impressive basketball and build a 9-point lead with 6:25 to play in the final period. They probably could have gone another minute or two playing well and still lost the game, but they needed to make sure, and began choking their way to a 21-4 Denver run that sewed up their 8th straight loss.
Denver did not play particularly well, but that's beside the point. One gets the impression that even if Denver played like champions the first three quarters, the Wolves might well have elevated their game in kind, and that no matter how low Denver could go in crunchtime, Minnesota would find a way to burrow beneath it. It's actually becoming a bit of a mystery as to what opponent will play badly enough to end this hari kari habit, this jones for abasement that has quickly come to stand in for what we normally think of as character.
I'm not trying to be cruel, I'm trying to accurately report about an enormously resilient level of dysfunction. Almost every night during this eight-game losing streak, the Wolves have reinforced the notion that they have some talent. This isn't lovable-loser days of Scott Roth and Tod Murphy, or the days when Doug West was the team's best player. Nor is this a case where important players clearly disdain each other, as happened with Laettner-Person, Marbury-Gugliotta, Garnett-Szczerbiak. Nor is there heavy drama between the coaches and players-the biggest source of friction is between Wittman and McCants, and anyone who saw JR Rider and Bill Blair, or heard stories after the fact about how much Dwane Casey disliked Ricky Davis, knows that any contretemps between Shaddy and Witt is strictly small potatoes.
No, the problem here is between each player and coach and what he sees when he looks in the mirror. The Wolves and their fans have to hope it is just a spell, a freak of (human) nature broken by a necessarily miraculous win. The evidence suggest that it has become something like a fever, and that the performance equivalent of cold sweats and delirium will eventually abate. But history also suggests that teams this chronically dysfunctional don't transform themselves overnight. These Wolves may tamp down their demons, but they're not likely to banish them. Meanwhile, until something happens to change the circumstance, attitude will be the dominant influence on the won-lost record.
2. Let's Talk Hoops Anyway
I'm not going to pretend this is all Randy Wittman's fault. Looking at the Portland Trailblazer lineup and then over at Craig Smith, I probably would have left Smith on the bench the entire game Saturday night. But Witt gave Smith 23:10 of burn and the Rhino responded with probably his best game of the season thus far, demonstrating great discipline on his shot selection (2-2 FG) while upgrading his defense and ball movment on the way to a team-best plus +7.
But on Sunday night I started bawling out my TV set for the second time in three games regarding Wittman's choice to leave Smith in the game as the opponents wiped out a Wolves lead in crunchtime. Watching the Rhino get punked in the paint was double disappointing because Wittman had begun the third quarter with the year's first extended period of playing time for the quintet I regard as possessing enough complementary skills to be the logical starters: A large front line of Collins-Jefferson-Gomes, with a large backcourt of Miller and Foye. They played less than 2 minutes in the first period (and were a minus -1) after Foye replaced Telfair and before Collins sat for Kevin Love. But in the first 8:17 of the second half, they demonstrated the makings of an effective half court offense, with Miller and Jefferson running some nice high post pick-and-rolls and same-side inside-outside dishing, Gomes drifting to the baseline for catch and shoots, Foye and his teammates happily reconciled to his combo-guard status in the proceedings, and Collins not only cleaning up the garbage, but executing a nice pass or two. And at the other end, well, it is an alien experience watching a Wolves' opponent have to adjust his shot because of the size of the man guarding him.
Bottom line, they turned a four-point halftime deficit (40-44) into a 62-54 lead with 3:43 to play in the third, a nifty 22-10 bump caused by Jefferson bingeing on offense while not having to be the main stalwart in the paint on D. Ah, but this was the thin air of the mile-high city, Collins was only in his second game back from injury, and Witt needed to rest his troops for the final period. With Love and Smith in for Jefferson and Collins, the Wolves lost their length and their rhythm at both ends of the court. The Nuggets scored more points in that last 3:43 then they'd had in the entire period up until then, and the lead was whittled to two with a quarter to play.
Wittman brought back Jefferson and Foye, but was compelled to give Gomes a blow, and subbed in McCants and Brewer for Gomes and Miller. It worked for awhile, mostly because Billups was getting a rest to start the 4th, enabling the Wolves to start the period with an 11-4 run. But when Chauncey and K-Mart returned, soon followed by Nene and Wittman left McCants and the Rhino in there, it was relative Smallball. McCants frequently found himself getting posted up by the 6-9 Melo, who teamed with K-mart and Nene to start getting offensive rebounds and working an inside-outside game with Billups and JR Smith. It wasn't until Nene snagged an offensive rebound off a missed free throw on Smith's side of the lane that Wittman finally brought Collins back, but by then there was just 2:18 to play and the Wolves were down a point.
My other specific criticism of the coach involves his continual hectoring of Foye over on the sidelines during breaks in the action during crunchtime. Just about everyone on the team is a part of the current dysfunction but if anyone if the poster boy for the fragile psyche the team has demonstrated during this losing streak, it is Foye. During the past two losses, the erstwhile "4th Quarter Foye" has shot 11-19 FG in the first three periods with 6 assists and 3 turnovers, then gone 1-10 FG in the 4th quarter with 2 assists and two turnovers. Meanwhile, a pair of team leaders who perhaps best represent the kind of combo-guard abilities that might serve as a template for Foye's skill set-Brandon Roy and Billups-were stepping up in the clutch and seizing the game by displaying a keen sense of when to shoot and when to dish. Don't think Foye is oblivious to all of this. The last thing he needs is Witt chewing him out on the sidelines with the game on the line.
On a happier note, Witt's tough love with Rashad McCants was more successful. Asked about McCants-who jacked it up 9 times and got to the line another 3 in less than 9 minutes Saturday night, Wittman barked, "next question." Shaddy was one of the last people off the bench Sunday night. And for the first time in a long while, he started looking for his teammates in the offense
3. Mike Miller Holsters His Gun
For the second game in a row, Miller had more assists than he did made baskets. This is not a positive trend. If anyone should be catching and shooting it is Miller, a career marksman who, somewhat remarkably, leads the Wolves in FG% and 3pt FG attempts. Yet Miller has been too gunshy, with just 12 FG attempts in a combined 67 minutes of action versus Portland and Denver, or less than 10 FGA per 48 minutes. Meanwhile, the Wolves haven't shot 45% as a team since their opening night win over Sacramento.
94 Reader Comments
I like your mention of the sideline ass chewing. Seems to me that it is rarely productive, especially in the pros.
Anyone else watch Saturday's game on TV? When Shaddy was pulled in the second quarter after hoisting a questionable three-pointer early in the shot clock (and putting Witt into a fury on the sideline), the cameraman got a tight shot of him on the bench. If my lipreading was accurate, here's what was said:
McCants: "What? He's mad at me?"
Teammate, out of view, answers to the affirmative.
McCants: "For what?"
And I've (finally?) officially stopped being a McCants apologist.
Quick question: Is it just me, or is the reception on Channel 45 broadcasts terrible for everyone? I'm wondering if I should call Charter or if it's a KSTP thing ...
Regarding Miller's apparent reluctance to shoot, personally, I'm glad he's showing admirable restraint and not just jacking up a shot because he's got the ball in his hands with the chance to "get his numbers".
More importantly, I believe that it is due to the Wolves "stagnant at best" offensive scheme. Even when the Wolves are making runs, piling on points, etc., my impression is that they are pretty much just standing around out there. Very little movement of either ball or players, setting of picks, off-ball adjustments making oneself available for passes, cuts to the basket -- well, the list is long. So for Miller, accustomed to -- and needing, really -- his team's help to get good open shots, a low shot count is explainable. If you notice a lot of "shoot it Mikey" situations that's one thing (and I don't). If you're just looking at the shot count and wondering why it's so low...well, that's my explanation.
And this lack of any coherent offense is exactly what is killing the Wolves every night. As soon as the other team decides to ratchet up a little bit of defense, boom, instant drought. And especially at crunch time. Now, Love and Brewer look like they are trying to create some movement, but not so much from anyone else. Admittedly, I don't know Wittman's plan -- and if it's an execution issue or what -- but what's (not) going on out there isn't working when the chips go down.
Sorry about the comment moderation queue, everyone. We're working on turning that off and getting rid of the double CAPTCHA.
Let's keep it real, ah,Randy Wittman & McHale must be fired, every other analytical observation is irrelevant like the Republican party.
jonjon--
A surly attitude and hackneyed information isn't what we're looking for here, and once I figure out the system, comments like this won't necessarily get through.
Calling for the firing of Wittman and McHale is as original as declaring the Republicans irrelevant. You don't bother backing up the statement because you know the reasons have been given ad infinitum. So, what have you got about this team that might educate people?
We're starting to see a pattern: Kevin Love looks physically overmatched not only on defense but also on offense, and he really struggles to get high-quality shots in the paint. He isn't a perimeter player, but he's forced to play out there because Jefferson is an alpha dog on the low block. This limits Love's opportunity to get comfortable (or play at all) on the low block and thereby limits his effectiveness on offense. Given his general ineffectiveness on defense, Love doesn't bring much to the table when he's on the floor with Jefferson. It's clear that there is a good deal of redundancy between the two, and McHale seems to have misevaluated the available talent again, and also misevaluated how Love and Al would (or more aptly, would not) complement each other. I think that one needs to go, and unlike some others on this board, I'm not sure that it should be Jefferson.
I don't want to turn this into a Love-Mayo debate, but the trade especially hurts us given that the supposed "logjam" in the backcourt, which was a prime reason for moving Mayo, has become perhaps our greatest weakness. Shaddy and Foye have been prime reasons why we've only won one game, and a fresh talent like OJ Mayo would give us a better option in the backcourt AND erase the redundancy problem.
I know it's sacrilege on this board to question the Love trade or to call Love on his athletic shortcoming because of his "intangibles" (I agree they're good), but the trade is looking less-and-less smart by the day.
The Wolves have spent the last two years overvaluing intangibles and "glue guys." Love, Brewer, Miller and Gomes would no doubt be fantastic 8th/9th men on playoff teams, but that's obviously not what the Wolves need.
I disagree with all the assessments I hear that the Wolves have a lot of talent but just can't put it together right. Compared to the rest of the rosters in this league, the Wolves talent level isn't very impressive.
Bad teams lose close games becasue they aren't good enough to compete when the opposition digs in. That's what we've seen the first nine games and it has much more to do with a lack of ability than mental toughness and coaching (I agree the later two have sucked as well).
I've been saying this since last year, but I still think the biggest (maybe middle) finger needs to be pointed at Al Jefferson. His attitude and demeanor on the court is ridiculous and is clearly affecting all of his teammates.
The mistake made was simply appointing Jefferson as the team leader instead of letting the process occur organically and seeing who steps up out of this young bunch of players.
It kind of reminds me of how high-school kids vote for team captains. Instead of selecting a peer based on actual qualifications and leadership abilities, the kids usually just choose who is most "popular", and very rarely are these kids the best leaders. This assertion that leaders are "born, not made" is way off base (unless we are talking in the empirical sense of being a born leader, but this isn't Japan now then is it).
Leadership skills are learned from life experiences and how one handles them, especially adversity. Look at a guy like Billups. He was considered a combo-guard who could play a little point. He has since evolved into Mr. BigShot by going through adversity, learning the lessons being taught to him and applying the knowledge during the game.
Al has shown no ability to overcome adversity or lead "his" team through a tough stretch. He points fingers, chastises teammates and hides behind the fact that the team is bound to him because he was traded for KG.
If its me getting yelled at by this overgrown baby, Al and I are throwing blows by now. I'm talking all out, take the gloves off and lets get this thing on playground brawl. If you won't give me respect, I'm going to take if from you type stuff. You know, how men in the NBA used to sort out problems like this.
If this team is going to become anything other than a bunch of individuals with Wolves written on their chests and paychecks, Al is going to have to take it upon himself to be a better teammate, leader and player. 20 and 10 means nothing on a 1-8 team.
Yay for no more comment threading!
I have to agree with Shogun & Jim's comments above.
Love-Jefferson didn't seem like a logical frontcourt pairing on draft night, and that's becoming evident as more games get played (and lost). Neither is athletic, and together they make an undersized, unathletic front line. Mayo might be great or just pretty good, but it was well-worth a shot at giving Al Jeff a competent mate who happens to enjoy playing defense.
I've defended Brewer a lot, and he does look a little better, so far. But, on this bad team he's just not what we need. He might look really effective on a good team, like Trevor Ariza has on LAL this year. Hopefully, we luck out or make a move to bring in some star power, so Brew's strengths are more relevant and noticeable. Right now, we need a stable half-court offense with a perimeter player who can be counted on in the 4th Quarter. We don't need a crazy-intense swingman who can dig up loose balls, but miss open jumpers.
Some are criticizing Wittman for yelling at players, and others are criticizing Jefferson for doing the same. I'm not sure who should demand accountability from this 1-8 team, but head coach and best player are probably two good places to start. I haven't always liked Witt's treatment of McCants, since Shaddy was one of our best players last year and was hardly treated like it. But, the way he and Foye are playing this year, I can understand the frustration. It won't be Wittman's team for much longer, so he might as well go down yelling and barking whatever it is that he's trying to communicate to this group.
A few things:
I've noticed Witt laying into Foye over the last 2 games and I think you know how much of a Bobby Knight hater I am, but some of the stuff Foye is doing at the point defies belief and...well, I wouldn't yell at the guy but Witt is Witt and this is what you get with a Knight guy.
I want everyone to watch Foye in the next game and look for 3 things:
1- How many open shots he passes up on kick backs from Al.
2- How many poor angles he takes on drives to the hoop. They may work for him, but they set up no one else.
3- How he continually drives into area that destroys spacing.
Witt's yelling is probably counter productive, but so is playing a guy at point who doesn't know how to play the position. I counted 3-4 times in the Portland game where he would have an open shot behind the line...pause...and then dribble either into traffic or just inside the arc. He has as much vision on the drive as McCants, and he is incapable of setting up mismatches that can be seen from the seats up near the rafters.
Also, for all the tall-ball proponents here, I hope everyone noticed what happened when the ball was entered to Jefferson when he was paired with Collins, Gomes, Miller, and Bassy. Double teams came from everywhere but Miller's guy. Mostly from Bassy's guy but after he was benched, they came from Gomes' way. This team is deficient. However, which is worse: small ball on offense or tall ball on defense? I will continue to point to the fact that the Wolves' internal defensive numbers give them a relatively even efficiency and production ratio while their offensive numbers are skewed by poor shooting and a system that doesn't match the personnel.
Finally, regardless of tall or small ball, or coaching or GM'ing, this team doesn't have a perimeter player who is a worthy 2nd fiddle to Big Al. If the pro-Mayo crowd has a trump card in their deck, it's that Kevin Love is sitting the 4th while Foye, McCants, and Telfair prove they can't cut it. I still love the trade and I think that a lot of the issues that face this club can be solved by:
1- Installing a system that matches the personnel
2- Deciding the Shaddy/Foye Death Match (likely to be settled by not resigning McCants)
3- Maximizing assets to walk away with 2 keepers in next year's draft.
I'd like to see Witt get the hook and McHale being placed at the end of the bench in a coach-it-to-.500-or-else ultimatum from Papa Glen, but that probably won't happen.
Whatever it is, it's still going in the right direction and they are starting to get *some* talent on this team, but...well, this little stretch is testing everybody's patience. I do think it's time to start wondering what you can get for Miller. Is it best to hold him until the draft or do you package him during the year? He's a fantastic asset for a contending team and if they can attach Cardinal's contract + Shaddy or Craig Smith to any deal, it should be done immediately .
I agree with Britt on this one. All we can evaluate are the results on the floor, and those returns indicate that the Wolves have several losses of 5 points or less in games where they held leads in the second half. Against Portland, they played a talented team that was playing aggressively and strategizing to stop them; no other teams have gone to lengths of triple-teaming and trapping Al Jefferson and/or guarding Randy Foye with a 6-9 player (Travis Outlaw). Despite that, and despite the fact that the team outside of Jefferson had a horrible shooting night, they had a decent chance to win.
Beyond that, there's evidence that they're talented enough to beat good teams. Last year, they beat Phoenix twice when Phoenix was the best in the West (pre-Shaq trade). They won at New Orleans. There are other examples. I'm not saying they're playoff-worthy, but there's historical proof that they can beat good teams.
Britt, if you had to take a guess, why is this team self-destructing at the end of games? To me, the lack of NBA winning experience on the roster hurts them. However, maybe that's overrated, particularly since more than half of the roster has been on a playoff team and the other guys played for winning college programs.
During out current losing streak, I can't help but flash back to those young teams of the 90's. I can't remember how many games we would have won if those games had only been 3 quarters...
Of course, those teams had more promise - KG was still maturing and improving, and Steph's ceiling was higher than any current T'Wolf. Those were fun teams to watch.
But our current youth movement? Other than Al, none of our players have a combination of explosiveness and killer instinct to make things exciting. Fun to watch? Sometimes, but so far there have been more "cringe" moments - when Shaddy shoots an ill-advised shot, when Brewer handles the ball, when Foye dribbles into a crowd.
Quick analysis of the game last night: thanks Witt for finally playing Al and Collins at the same time. It didn't quite click at the beginning of the game, but it certainly did to start the second half.
The most important aspect of the Nuggets run: they have 3 high-quality 3-point shooters, we counter with our 3-point squad (Foye, McCants, Miller), but that means we're defensively challenged at EVERY POSITION (due in part to Craig on the court instead of Collins).
Interesting ideas, stop-n-pop. I think your point on the system not matching the personnel is spot on. The team doesn't even know what it is supposed to be, from the management on down.
That being said, how can this mismatch of players be utilized as currently constructed?
Can't run-n-gun with Al and Love meandering their way down the floor and our quick guys unable to finish at the rim or on a pull up, can't play half-court without a competent play maker and consistent ball/player movement, can't be a defensive minded team if the players don't show the want or know how...
What do we do???
If only the numbers are taken into account, sure the Wolves look like they should have more wins. And, I can only speak for myself on this, but it is not the loses, it is the way we are losing.
So, while each loss is the same as far as blowing late leads and shrinking in the face of adversity, they are each different because there is a different catalyst to each one. Be it a bad rotation by the coach, a poorly timed shot, a disgraceful show of belittling a teammate, a bad call by the ref or all of the above, the Wolves never respond in kind. They have no fight-back in them, only empty responses to meaningful events.
That is why I feel like we can't just judge this team on raw numbers and results, but rather how these numbers and results are being reached. I think we have to read between the lines to reach a logical conclusion on this years team.
I've watched every game so far, and I've taken to paying attention to who makes a run in the final few minutes of each quarter. My impression has been that the Wolves always lose the final few minutes of the quarter. But I don't think my impression is good enough for you, so I looked it up on popcornmachine.net. In the last 16 quarters (Denver, Portland, Golden State (not including OT), Portland), the Wolves have (1) given up a run at the end of the quarter 12 times, (2) played roughly even twice, and (3) made a run twice.
Color commentators are fond of saying that good teams make runs at the end of quarters. I think the Wolves have proven that so far.
So why is this happening? I'm not sure. Based on my impressions, I think it's a combination of things. Sometimes it has to do with poor substitution patterns. Sometimes the Wolves fail to match the other teams bump in intensity--shouldn't the coaching staff be pushing for more intensity at these points? Certainly, the mental dysfunction that Britt recounts has a lot to do with it. Those twelve bad quarters include each of the last four fourth quarters.
As for the mental dysfunction, here's my pop psychology take. I think Foye and McCants--who are the two guys otherwise most capable of being primary ballhandlers in the clutch (I don't include Miller, because he can't create his own shot)--have Wittman in their heads so much during crunch time, that they think too much and play too little.
What do they do?
This year, not much. I think you can get away with Love and Big Al playing the majority of the minutes at the 4/5 but you'll need to compliment them with a versatile athlete off the bench. I was a big fan of Jason Thompson in last year's draft and the year before that I thought the Wovles took the wrong Gator in Brewer over Noah.
Ultimately, the NBA at its highest levels isn't really a system thing; it's all about The Guy. Teams like Boston, Cleveland, and the Lakers win because of talent, not systems. Guys like D'Antoni and JVG win and get to the conference finals because of systems. It's what you do when you don't have The Man or when The Man you have has significant flaws.
The most important part of post-KG rebuilding is and always will be this upcoming draft. The trade allowed them to likely save the Clipper pick and pick up assets that will allow them to head into the draft with up to 4 1st rounders, Mike Miller with an expiring contract, guys like Smith and Foye signed to reasonable and movable deals, etc.
If I were fantasy owner/GM right now, I move McHale to the bench and ask him to produce on his .500 promise. Give him the last 70 games of the year to make it happen. I'd also get on the horn to Chicago and see what it would take to get Noah (Craig Smith + late 1st?). He's not playing a lot there and he'd be a perfect compliment off the bench to both Love and Jefferson. After that, I'd look for a good offer on Miller but would ideally hold on to him until the draft.
After the season the main goal should be to find a coach with an up tempo system who can develop young talent. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of assistant coaching in the NBA so I don't know who this would be. I'd then focus the entire draft and available assets on finding a functional backcourt. Between Ricky Rubio, Tyreke Evans, Jrue Holliday, Demar Derozan, Brandon Jennings, and Stephen Curry the Wolves need to walk away with a real guard.
I agree with Jim that we simply don't have the personnel to compete with average-to-good NBA teams on a nightly basis. The coaching problems are frustrating, but the personnel issues are inexcusable and make coaching a team like this a very difficult job. The mediocrity of the assembled talent doesn't shine through on paper or even on television like it does when you see the team in person. I attended the Golden State game last week, and it was the first game I've attended this year despite seeing all the others on television. When you can see the players mingling about in the pre-game, warming up, and then playing the game, you can see 1) how small the team is; and 2) how unathletic it is. I've never heard of a "blueprint" for any winning franchise that involves stockpiling small, unathletic players. There are exceptions, obviously, but upon attending a game it really sinks in how amiss this rebuilding project seems to have unfolded.
SnP's suggestions are probably about the best that we can hope for with the incumbent group. In the future, we're going to have to break up that group, as well as the front office and coaching staff. Unless we strike gold in the lottery AND make the right pick (which isn't a foregone conclusion for this management team), we're in for a very long rebuilding process. And clearing cap space for a free agent run in 2010 is not going to be of much help, because free agents will only come to Minnesota as a last resort.
I too have been hoping to see Miller be more of the offense,but it doesnt seem that he gets many open looks from the 3. The reason, I think is that as the Wolve's only respected sharpshooter he is always covered. Maybe a good 3 point shooting team needs more than one threat from out there.Or run some plays for him like they did for Wally.
I too have been hoping to see Miller be more of the offense,but it doesnt seem that he gets many open looks from the 3. The reason, I think is that as the Wolve's only respected sharpshooter he is always covered. Maybe a good 3 point shooting team needs more than one threat from out there. Or maybe they should run some plays for him like they did for Wally.
It gets harder and harder to watch every game, let alone write my thoughts or "analyze" them.
I still read all your articles Britt (and most of the comments.) Keep it up, you are the man.
Just a few observations and thoughts after watching the majority of last nights game.
1) Mike Miller has a really hard time getting off his own shot unless he is wide open. It would seem that he has the height advantage on other guards. Are we not setting enough plays for him? Or is he just trying to get others involved??
2) Foye is not the main problem in the 4th. I think a lack of other talented shooters are. We cannot have Gomes and Smith jacking up shots in the 4th. This brings me back to Miller. Come on Mike. Hog the ball a bit. OJ Mayo would. Right Kevin McHale??
3) I need to drink alot more before watching anymore games. They have sucked all the fun out of my enjoyment for the game. Reading these comments afterward is the only thing that keeps me interested and I thank all of you. Better days are ahead.
Oh...and I hope that Collins starts from here on out. It's good to see a tall guy out there that can be a defensive presence.
I'm tied up with other assignments right now so I can't give all this fabulous feedback the specific attention and recognition it deserves. But I do want to throw a couple other things into the mix to further stimulate debate.
First, does anyone seriously believe OJ Mayo would have stayed in Minnesota beyond his first deal? For that matter, does anyone think he'll stay in Memphis?
Second, how can people be putting down the talent when Collins is just now getting into shape enough to be utilized in regular rotations? From the beginning, Collins seemed to me to be a key role player on this roster, and I think last night's third quarter was a promising sign of how he can mesh on a big front line with Jefferson and Gomes and a backcourt of Miller and Foye. Obviously, that will require Foye to revert back to last year's mean performance, which, given Miller's desire and relative ability to share the ball and Collins' lack of need for touches, should work out okay... provided the team can get past this toxic attitude. Listen, I've seen overmatched basketball teams--I covered the Wolves pre-KG, remember? There is a lot of young talent on this ballclub. Is it mismatched? Yup. Is it totally in disarray right now? Without question. Will they ever come close to reaching their collective potential? Right now that seems dubious.
Foye and McCants have significantly underperformed. But Love is just going through the trials of being a rookie--and yes, anyone who thought he and Jefferson could be a defensively adequate front line unduly optimistic. But Love is neither as spectacular as he looked in the first few games of the season nor as desultory as he's looked in the last few--he's a 20-year old undersized rookie, so he's bound to struggle. But right now Love's problem is a lack of confidence and rhythm in his jump shot. Once he hits a few of those midrange j's--and why wouldn't he?--it will open up dribble penetration, pick and rolls, and dribble passing for him. The kid knows how to play. So does Jefferson. It isn't synergy when both are on the court, but it doesn't have to be as corrosive as this constant losing has made everything seem thus far. If it comes down to Jefferson and Gomes or Jefferson and Smith as the alternatives, give me Jefferson and Love on the front line. But better yet, give me a healthy Collins with Jefferson at the 4 and let Love run with Bassy, Brewer, Shaddy and the boys in the second unit.
One thing that I'd really like to see is a definite, set rotation with a consistent starting 5 and subs that know both their roles and their expected minutes. Everyone is healthy now, so now is a great time to get it established.
Big men: Big Al, Collins, Love, (leftovers) Smith
Swing men: Miller, Brewer, Gomes, McCants
PGs: Foye and Telfair
That's 10 guys, which is still one more than I'd like to see used regularly, but lets limit it to that. No one else need apply outside of injury or foul trouble. No more first quarters where 11 people play. No more starting 3 different starting line-ups in 7 days. No more starting a player and them playing only 5 minutes in the game. No more starting one player one half, then another the other half. No more playing "ride the hot hand" across four of the five spots on the floor.
Pick a starting line-up, pick the main reserves, pick the 9th/10th man that get the leftover minutes, and roll with it for at least 20 games. At the very least, that let's the players know what to expect and what's expected of them, so the can at least pretend to have a game plan from night to night...
New to commenting on the blog. Enjoy the analysis very much.
I don't think you can quantify whether or not someone is going to stay after their rookie contract. Therefore, you shouldn't try. You take the best player and you've got them for five years. Make the most of it, and maybe they won't want to leave when the time comes, because you'll be a championship contender who can pay just as much as anyone else. Even if it becomes clear that the guy isn't going to stay around, you have the chance to trade him and get something in return.
Assuming that a player is going to leave is like admitting defeat even before you play the game.
I've got to take issue with the "does anyone think Mayo would stay in Minnesota" question. If that's the attitude, then I think it's time to shut down. You can't run a draft afraid some players won't like it here. Drafting the best available player is the only consideration. There is no evidence Mayo would not have stayed here. The vast majority of players re-up with their original teams simply because they can sign earlier there and don't risk losing out on the gauranteed money. The way to win is to draft a star player, surround them with competent supporting players and a sound front office and coaching staff. Sant Antoinio isn't a glamour destinationa nd neither is Detroit, yet great players are dying to go to both cities.
Good questions, Britt. In response, there is no way OJ Mayo would be here after his rookie deal expired. He has bright lights and national exposure on his mind. The kid is a marketing machine in the waiting and I'd assume both he and Rudy Gay will be gone from Memphis soon enough.
The toxic attitude and corrosive/combustible combination of players is going to be the hardest part to address. Who could be brought in to lead this team and be a unifying presence? I have floated Avery Johnson as an idea before, anyone else like this idea or have any others? Or maybe Wittman just needs more time?
I do like stop-n-pops idea about making McHale man up and coach this team to the .500 record he thinks they are capable of, but I'm not sure that is a long term answer.
Not adding too much, but click my name for an interesting chart of DEEEEP 3-point percentage leaders (deep is 28 to 40 feet). Who's on top? Mike Miller (26 out of 65 over the years 2003 - 2007)! He's just gotta play further from the hoop...
I just can't agree with Jim, especially for the draft the "best available player" part because that term is so subjective.
I do believe economics should be a factor in drafting in the sense the team should draft for best potential value (unless were talking a distinct advantage like LeBron and D.Howard). If a player is highly desirable to numerous teams, it would be a good idea to draft that player and get max value back for them (Yi Jianlian, most recently). We are not talking fantasy sports, this is modern day business at it's worst. Mayo was a poker chip, not a piece of building a team, and the staff threw that chip in the pot and came back out with Love and Miller.
Detroit and San Antonio are known for winning championships, running a solid organization and treating players fairly. That would make any where more appealing...
Unfortunately, the Wolves have a long way to go before having those types of credentials.
I think the Wittman has to start handing out more minutes to fewere players. The Wolves have to develop cohesiveness and, especially, in the 4rth qtr. The reason the wolves can't find any consistent rotation is because too many guys are playing for too short of time together. The only thing Wittman is right about Groundhog days and the same thing everynight is that he has yet to find a stable lineup that can be counted on in the 4rth qtr to close out games. win and lose with the same five every night, regardless of matchups. So which five.
Jefferson/Collins/Love at the 4 and 5
Brewer and Gomes at the three
Miller, Foye and Telfair at the guard spot.
minimal minutes divided amongst the rest. Sorry McCants and sorry Smith. I like both players, but the WOlves and wittman don't need to find or discover 5 guys who can play together, they need to let five guys figure out how to play together and you just can't do that by playing 10-12 guys every night.
I don't think "best available player" is subjective as much as it is difficult to ascertain on draft night. But, in the Love-Mayo case, the analysts were overwhelmingly rating Mayo as the 3rd best prospect in the draft. When Minnesota decided that Mike Miller was reason-enough to downgrade rookies, I thought it was kind of stupid. I hope to be(and sometimes in the very-early going have thought that I have been) proven wrong on this, but Mayo is playing well and putting up numbers while Love struggles to get his shot off or elevate for rebounds. Considering our only bona fide star was an undersized center/unathletic power forward, I didn't see good possibilities for making a Love-Jefferson tandem.
Eli Manning, John Elway, Steve Francis and others have made their positions clear on draft days past about not playing for the team that would otherwise take them. Mayo was a class-act about the Minnesota possibility, even if fans interpreted his serious demeanor as a lack of joy upon hearing his name called at number three. Really? Was he really hoping to go #4 to Seattle/OKC or #5 to Memphis? Hoiberg (from reports) had this one right, and he should point this out to Taylor if and when that VP of Basketball Ops position ever becomes available.
The problem is, though, you can't expect to have a plan that goes much beyond two years in pro sports. So the notion that you can have Kevin Love for his entire career may sound great today, but may look completely stupid in a year.
That doesn't mean you thrash around and remake the team every year, but you can't shy away from a player based on what they might choose to do four years down the road. You have to optimize the short term without trashing the long term.
Detroit and San Antonio know that, too. They don't hesitate to make moves to change their roster when needed and they don't pretend that they can just keep the same guys together for years and years.
It bothers me when people say Mayo wouldn't have stayed here so shouldn't have been drafted because there is no evidence that it's true. And if that's the assumption, than Beasley and Rose were out too because why would either of them want to come/stay here? Good thing we didn't get the number one pick, we would have had to trade it since none of the best three players would have wanted to play in Minnesota anyway.
It's a draft, not a recruitment. The Wolves need to fix the front office, develop a winning program and stop making excuses for their terrible record on th court and on draft day.
While I was always a Love guy when it came to Love v. Mayo, I do agree with Britt about him not staying here in Minny after the 1st contract (or Memphis...although they will probably beat us to Seattle). Doesn't everyone remember the face he had when his name was called out for the Wolves? It took every molecule in his body not to cry. Now keep this little ditty in mind when you hear the front office talk about how they'll land a free agent in 2010. Sorry, this year's draft is the make or break moment for this club. Either they get The Guy or they don't.
Why wouldn't a player's willingness and desire to come here to play ball be one of the many considerations when you are determining a first-round pick? If folks want to simplify that into being the *only* criteria, or one dominant enough to bump the Wolves off drafting a Rose or a Beasley if they had the top pick, well, I'd suggest stepping away from the comfort of your straw man arguments.
I haven't seen Beasley yet, but I have seen Rose and I have seen Mayo, and the distance between Rose and Mayo is much further than the distance between Mayo and Love--if, indeed, there is any distance at all. It's ultimately an apples-oranges comparison (unlike Foye and Roy) but I always figured Mayo would contend for ROY honors on that Memphis ballclub and that Love would have the inferior season this year. And regardless of how redudant you believe Jefferson and Love to be, redundancy arguments seem a little ironic if you're asking the Wolves to follow up drafts of McCants, Foye and Brewer with another backcourt 'tweener. Getting a deadeye outside shooter and a legit seven-footer for the two worst contracts on your roster--Walker and Jaric is likewise a factor in this mix.
I don't begrudge stalwart Mayo fans their opinion, I just want an accurate context. In retrospect, the Marbury for Allen draft night trade looks much worse due to Marbury's desire to leave Minnesota. Baron Davis left the Warriors because he wanted to go home to LA. And the looming LeBron sweepstakes is being handicapped on items such as Portland being the headquartes of Nike and New Jersey having a hip hop part-owner, Jay Z, who's friend with James. Put simply, a player's preferences, now and in the near future, must be factored into the mix. And as for teams like San Antonio and Detroit, constant winning makes the mistakes less memorable. But one drafted Luis Scola and let him go for nothing and the other chose Darko over Melo and Wade because they already had Tayshaun Prince at the small forward position.
That brings up my nightmare scenario for the Wolves: they finally luck out in the draft and Rubio lands in their lap and he refuses to play in Minnesota. They finally get the lotto to go their way and the guy that would absolutely fit--a supremely talented young point with decent size and a flair for defense--would rather stay at home than suit up for the puppies.
Britt-
For the record, I'm a much bigger hater of the undersized/unathletic front line idea than I am a fan of OJ Mayo. (Watching Aldrige-Oden-Pryzbilla didn't lessen these feelings any, either.) But, there is enough to like about a 6'4" guard whose game already looks like Sam Cassell's in his prime to think that he and Jefferson could've made a good pair. Redundancy arguments involving Foye and McCants are only valid if you consider Foye and McCants to be good NBA players. I don't, but I do consider Jefferson to be very good and not a player that we should seek to replace and/or duplicate with a very high draft choice.
Agreed on Rose. I've never wanted us to get a player as badly as I wanted that guy--his strong start only makes it sting worse. I think I remember hearing Trent Tucker (or some other basketball personality/analyst) say that we should trade Jefferson for Rose and a Chicago big. I'm not sure if that deal was possible or not, but it would've been a no-brainer in my opinion.
APB: I agree that if the Wolves are trying to win, that a reduction in rotations probably needs to happen. I do take a bit of an exception to your comment about how "they need to let five guys figure out how to play together" -- I say that it is the coach's job to figure out who should be playing together and then show them a method for winning within that combination.
Stop-n-pop (and all):
The draft talk is a little surreal to me, because the cupboard is, IMHO, pretty empty of guys that can be "The Guy". To me it looks like there are three possibilities: Rubio (PG) or the better of Mullen(C) and Thabeet(C).
I think many people don't want to accept that Mayo wouldn't stay at Minny besides the facts before the predraft period.Mayo worked out for the Knicks and the Clippers(the Clippers!!!) and wouldn't come at Minnesota,who had the third pick.At the workout at Chicago,he only gave an arranged period of time for the interview,not letting the wolves people to ask everything they wanted.It was obvious that,as it was said in a previous comment,Mayo was a chip and the team cashed it.The results is a whole different matter.
Levi:
I agree it's early but a) I think this next draft has a few more guys capable of being the type of player the Wolves need and b) the things that need to change with this club won't, so we're left back with the draft. I agree on Rubio and Mullen but would also point you towards Derozan and Evans.
It's too bad Portland is going to beat everyone to the 2010 free agency punch. Let's say you're a Cleveland or a Miami Heat and you know you're going to be losing your guy. Portland can literally start you over with their young talent in a sign-and-trade. Hey Cleveland, instead of losing Lebron outright, take Pryz, Sergio Rodriguez, Travis Outlaw, Rudy Fernandez, and Nic Batum for #23. They could literally offer Cleveland a better starting 5 than the Wolves for Lebron while locking him up for years and years and years.
Oh well, that's a long ways off. I just wanted to make a point that the Wolves are going to have to get lucky in this year's draft if they are going to win at all with this core group of players.
I agree that the redundancy argument only applies to when the player with whom another player is redundant cannot be moved. This is the case with Love-Jefferson; it would not have been the case with Mayo-Foye/McCants. If we had drafted Mayo and he was performing for us like he has been for Memphis, McCants or Foye would be moved and the team would not be hurt. But we can't easily get rid of Jefferson to make room for Love to play the position he's best suited for - PF - without trading our best player and admitting we were wrong about acquiring Al to be our marquee player in the post-Garnett years. And, now, we can't easily trade Love, even though there are indications that he and Jefferson don't fit together very well. Doing so would require the front office to admit that they made a bad trade, and there's no way that they could get a talent comparable to Mayo's in return for Love at this point. So McHale will simply wait, cross his fingers, and hope that the chemistry between Love and Jefferson improves. I don't see it happening, because Love isn't very effective floating around the perimeter (at least not compared to how effective he is when he's playing his natural post position) and Jefferson is an alpha who won't leave the block for the rook. It looks like an ineffective equilibrium that we'll be in for a while. This trade has really painted us into a corner where we have to try to make Jefferson-Love work, even though there are good reasons to believe that it wasn't the right move.
The infuriating thing is that there is so much politics involved amid webs of incompetence. Because of the politics, we are handcuffed to live with our mistakes with the (false) hope that time will undo them all. It won't. Only a new GM, who has the freedom to admit McHale's mistakes and try to fix them, can solve these problems, unless, of course, McHale decides to own up to his own bad decisions, which is unlikely now that his job may be on the line. The likely move is that Wittman will be fired, which will help. But it won't redress the core problems created by McHale's poor decision-making.
Britt, I agree that it isn't yet clear that Mayo is significantly better than Love, but any honest fan who has seen both play multiple times has to admit that Mayo has looked like a much better pro player so far and seems better suited to be a star - something we desperately need- in the pro game than Love. It would've been nice if McHale would've cleared some deadwood from the backcourt (ahem, *Shaddy*, ahem) and go with a Jefferson-Mayo tandem, one which fans could've gotten behind and that would've made sense given the roster we had at the time.
Please put me down with those who feel we should have drafted Mayo. I don't have the ability to read people through the television as well as some of the commentators (well, I don't read them too well live either), but taking his words at face value he was willing to come here. If he would prefer another spot, all indications were that he would have lobbied behind the scenes to preserve his image - so even the worst case scenario might not have been too bad.
In fact, lets take the Marbury case - obviously he didn't handle it well. Despite that, the wolves still got Terrell Brandon out of the deal. Imo, he was the wolves best point guard in their history (Cassell was not his equal). We lost in that deal only because he got injured. And perhaps that's about as bad as it can get drafting what you think is the BPA...
It is always a mistake to trade what could be a great player for what might be two good players. Mayo might be bad, you don't win every bet, but he was still the one to put your money on.
I definitely agree with those who say if you're afraid too draft a player because you think he'll leave you might as well just quit the game.
One thing I think everyone can agree on is that if Mayo becomes a significantly better overall NBA player than Love, McHale owes it to the oganization and its remaining fans to finally walk away.
The trade will always be judged on Love and Mayo, whether that's 100 percent fair or not. I was surprised the organization was willing to risk the move on the heels of the Foye-Roy debacle.
Mike Miller is at best an upper level role player and getting rid of previous mistakes like Jaric and Walker, or assuming Mayo would refuse to resign here in four years, simply aren't legit reasons to make the move if Mayo is the real deal, which from what I've seen, it appears he's got a solid chance to be.
caerochren: Going wayyyy back (1989) you may recall the drama involving Rick Mahorn when the Wolves selected him in the expansion draft. He flatly refused to play here. The Wolves were only able to salvage a few college draft picks out of the affair -- and to boot, they have remained relative (to Mahorn) pansies on the court ever since.
All I'm saying, as Britt did, that a wise team sounds out a guy they're looking at. IF they don't, then maybe that's when they should consider "quitting the game".
Or moving the team to warmer climes.
Jim: I agree wholeheartedly with all three points. McHale sounded so misguided when he defended the trade by acting like Memphis has forced his hand by making an offer he couldn't refuse when, out of desperation, they included superstar midwesterner Mike Miller. What a joke. It isn't that I dislike Miller, it's that he's a middling 28 year old role player on a young rebuilding team that needs star-caliber talent. And I have serious doubts about our ability to turn Miller into an asset that, combined with Love, will be as valuable as Mayo could've been. I hope I'm wrong, and like I said, I don't necessarily dislike either Miller or Love, but I just think it was the wrong decision for a rebuilding franchise for many different reasons. I wouldn't belabor the point, but like the Roy decision a few years earlier, I think it has the potential to set our rebuilding project back a few years. And that's worth scrutinizing and debating.
First, in answer to Cheap Seats Erick, Channel 45 on Comcast northeast suburbs has atrocious video quality. I think Channel 45 is heavily compressing the signal to save money on the satellite transmission of road games.
Now I am a CPA so I look at things from a dollar and sense perspective. Every trade the Wolves have made has resulted in lowering the player payroll. Sending Walker, Jaric and Buckner to Memphis in exchange for Miller, Cardinal, Booth and Collins will save the Wolves about $3.5 million over the term of those contracts. On top of that, Love will make $3.3 million less than Mayo over the first four years of their deals. A total savings of almost $7 million.
Even the Roy for Foye deal saved them quite a lot. The salaries over four years will be close to a million less plus the Wolves got a million as a trade kicker.
Finally, they will save almost $8 million this season if you compare KG's salary to the total of Jefferson, Gomes and Telfair.
So all this adds up to about $17 million in savings. If you wonder why McHale hasn't been fired, I think there is a good explanation- the owners told him to cut player payroll and he did it.
Now, I suppose they could use this money to sign free agents, but under normal circumstances, it would be unlikely that really good ones would come here. However, I think pro sports are in for some very rough times due to the de-leveraging of the economy. The billionaires who buy the pro sports teams don't usually just pull out their checkbooks, they borrow the money. Then they own the teams for a few years and sell, Red McCombs is a good example. It worked just like the housing market used to. Well, the days of easy credit are over. On top of that, ticket sales are bound to go down due to the recession. I think a lot of owners are going to think awfully hard before they sign a big, juicy free agent contract. So next summer a lot of players may be wondering why there are no big offers which will give the Wolves a chance, if they choose to take it.
It's at least good that people are willing to agree to disagree on Love/Mayo. I find it strange that people would be willing to make any conclusions after 3 weeks, so I'm still for the deal. Obviously, if it's similar to this in 3 years, then it's probably time for a final verdict. However, all of the true tests of Mayo's ability (how to score when the J isn't falling, how to score when teams are gearing up to stop you) are yet to come.
This team has played far worse with much better talent. The 04-05 season was painful to watch, particularly the stretch in which they were getting blown out by the Bobcats and losing 20-point leads at home to the Grizz. The 99-00 team had an 8-game losing streak. During the Flip era, a 3-game road trip to the West Coast guaranteed at least 1 blowout loss. With that in mind, my guess is that this team could stand pat with what they have and still show more success and/or improvement.
http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/videos/2008/11/17/randy-foye-we-believe...
Found that to be an interesting,albiet interview. Just thought I'd pass it along.
Forgive the have written sentence...
I've always maintained it's tough to get people to come to the tundra--weather, taxes, and crappy teams notwithstanding. That's why it's even more important to be able to draft and trade well, and have a front office and coach who can assemble--and reassemble--the pieces. Utah to me, is a prime example. By his second year, Deron Williams became a very good point guard, at pick number 3 in 2005. Add Boozer, a dash of AK-47 (the dry goods version), and get role players like Milsap and Korver with a great coach who emphasizes offensive efficiency (top 15 last 3 years) along with respectable defense defense (never top 5, generally between 8 and 15th best), and you have franchise respectability. Right now, they're second in the West, and with the rise of Williams, have been in the playoff mix the last couple of years. They probably won't win a ring either, but Crazy Larry and his crew and given their fans at least a thrill up their collective, predominately Mormon legs.
So, what player really wants to go to Utah? (Silence) Yep, thought as much.
I think the moral of the story here is that there's hope--even in Minnesota. However, if each high draft choice or acquisition has to take their entire rookie contract years to develop, the front office is so ego invested in each one of them they simply can't admit when they've blown it and cut their losses, and they can't get a decent coach to agree on how to play, well, I present to you your Minnesota Timberwolves.
BTW, it wasn't just a choice between Rose and Mayo on draft night. Hindsight being what it is, they could have probably traded down a few notches and gotten Brook Lopez, who in around 20 minutes of play is showing potential for the Nets. He's a legit center. I hated Lopez even more than I did Love, which again is still another reason (short, overweight, disrespectful to authority) why I'm not in the NBA personnel business.
But, as far as Love goes, can we just wait for awhile to see if this guy pans out at all? I never liked the guy much, but he does have skills and should be given a chance to--wait for the catch phrase--see what he can do.
But even if a team sounds out the guy before the draft, there's precisely zero guarantee that what they say then will still be in force when he has the opportunity to become a free agent. Kevin Love has always been a West Coast guy. Who's to say that if one of those teams makes a play for him that he won't go?
Some people who are seemingly happy here (Tom Gugliotta, for instance) end up leaving.
So why try to pre-read a guy's mind in advance? Do the best job you can to build the best possible team, and deal with what happens four years down the road.
(I'm not drawing any conclusion about the Love-Mayo deal. I cautiously supported the deal for other reasons, although I liked Mayo much better than Love. I just don't think the reason to pass on a player is because you think he might leave at the end of his rookie contract. You should take the better player and make it work the best you can.)
I'm a little surprised at how quickly such an intelligent readership wants to declare the Love-Mayo thing a disaster. I'm even more surprised that Coach Wittman has (according to today's Strib) decided to blame the latest choke on a pair of misses by Love late in the third quarter of the Denver game. Maybe we ought to hire Kevin Ollie, who in the same Strib item is mentioned as encouraging Love after the rook had muffed a couple of bunnies, to be the new coach.
Let's go to the 82games.com numbers board (updated as of today), shall we? Love has played almost exactly half of his team's minutes thus far (49%). In the 219 minutes he's been on the court, the Wolves are minus -4. In the 227 minutes he's been off the court, the Wolves are minus -41. Meanwhile, OJ Mayo has played 82% of Memphis's minutes. The Grizz are minus -54 in the 396 minutes he's been on the court and minus -3 in the 88 minutes he's been off it.
Oh, and as for Jefferson and Love not playing well together, the three most common five-man units that feature both Big Al and Love on the court all have plus or neutral figures on the plus/minus number. In fact, among the eight most common five man units deployed by the Wolves thus far, the only one that is not a either a net plus or neutral is the most frequently deployed quintet, the one with Jefferson and Gomes at the 5 and 4.
The Love-Mayo stuff doesn't mean very much because it is a woefully small sample. But if we're going to elevate Mayo and badmouth Love on the basis of the latter's 217 NBA minutes and some perceived failing beside Jefferson, it would be nice to see some numbers to support that contention. The ones I'm looking at don't.
Levi-I think we pretty much agree. My point is that Wittman is still trying to figure out which five players. At some point he is just going to have to say, "these are my guys." A guy like Smith is going to have some good games and hes going to outplay Love for some significant portions. But one job of a coach is to determine who is guys are. WHo he is going to let play through mistakes and who is just going to have to wait until an opportunity arrives. WIttman should know by now who his 4rth qtr guys are and when and how to use his main 3 guys off the bench. Right now I think hes still trying to find those guys and is giving too many guys chances to earn the right to play with limitied minutes available.
Britt - I agree with your take on Love and Mayo. Love and Jefferson need to be on the floor together for the Wolves right now.
I was also surprised by Wittman's balme for the loss on Love's misses in the 3rd. But, what is even more surprising is how players are often quoted contradicting Wittman. Love said something like, "yeah, I missed a couple layups, but we still have to figure out how to close out the 4rth qtr." Like Ollie, he sounds more like a coach. Wittman doesn't sound very sure of himself ("...that's my opinion"), and I think the players sense that. There have been other instances this year where he says something and the players say something else.
I don't think it will happen, but I agree with what Ruesse advocated this morning. Taylor should reach out to Flip and let McHale quietly go to pasture.
Minnesota has played an easier schedule than Memphis. Our opponents combined record is 39-54 to their 56-49. They've played 5 teams with over .500 records and we've played 3. Small sample-sizes, but if we're going to talk about +/-, I think it's relevant that Mayo has played Houston, Phoenix, Orlando, Denver, Chicago and New York. Minnesota's toughest opponents have been two games against Portland, one of which was completely Oden-less and the other 1/2 Oden-less. Portland would be 5-5 if we won either game. The other was at Denver--a legitimately tough opponent. Nobody else over .500.
I think the +/- being about even for the Jefferson/Love combo right now is a bit of a downer because Love started out so well. The thing with Love, though, is that you can see that he can get it and that he can help out the team.
And Mayo might not have played as well here as in Memphis. They have featured him there, whereas we have our franchise player in Big Al. Roy, had we drafted him, would have been in an even worse situation. Talent wise, it's difficult to knock Ricky Davis. He can do it all and Roy would not have outplayed him into Rookie of the Year minutes. And as much as we distrust the Iron Ranger's decisions, how can we ever trust Wittman to make a good minutes decisions.
... or is this Wittman being clever and he's masking permanent tanking behind a convincing veneer of incompetence.
I will agree it’s too early to judge the trade, but the number one rationale for keeping Mayo was the star potential and that’s exactly what we’ve seen so far this season. Should more stock be put in +/- numbers than individual stats of two players on lousy teams? Maybe, I'll admit I don't know. but it's hard not to be extrememly impressed with Mayo, who over the last five games has averaged 25 points, shot 45 percent from the floor and 40 percent behind the line while getting 3.4 assists and a steal. He dropped 33 points on the Suns to go along with five assists, three steals and three boards. And he's been getting to the free throw line, which was one of the knocks against him. Simply put he’s been a lot more impressive than Love in the admittedly small sample size we have to go on. Too earlt to judge the trade absolutely, but no one here should give the Wolves the benefit of the doubt after the failed moved they've made in the past.
Andy G--
The argument I was making had nothing at all to do with the caliber of competition and everything to do with how well each rookie's team responded when he was on or off the court. Regardless of who they played, Minnesota is statistically a better team with Love playing than when he sits--especially if Jefferson is also on the floor. Statistically, Memphis is a better team when Mayo sits than when he plays. Given that parameter, the competition doesn't matter because we are talking about the same team's performance.
Now admittedly, I am using ridiculously small samples to make a point--I mean the 88 minutes Mayo sat could easily be skewed by garbage time blowouts, or a dozen other things. But the point I'm making is that a 1-8 start has caused people to lose perspective. If folks didn't expect Mayo to put up much better numbers than Love this season, they hadn't really thought the thing through. Quite frankly, I'd have been inclined to turn down the deal if it was Mayo for Love straight up--and ditto Glen Taylor, judging from the fact that it took Miller, Collins and some nifty contract incentives on the bit pieces to complete the transaction.
Consequently, it is absurd to reduce the whole thing to Mayo and Love. Regardless of what another poster said, Miller is not an upper level role player--he's a former rookie of the year, 6th man of the year and a bona fide scorer who can also dish. I also disagree with the notion that he can't get his own shot. He has both the length and the savvy to do just that and I recall more than one game versus Minnesota when he stuck jumpers with a hand in his face. What we need from Miller is more offensive leadership and I suspect if he was playing with even an NBA-adequate point guard, we'd been seeing more jumpers and less passes. Again, 1-8 has caused a loss of perspective. Miller was acquired to stretch the floor and provide an offensive boost, a role that is elevated in importance as Collins gets healthy and requires fewer touches than other options in the half-court game. Thus, Miller needs to be told to go for his more often. If he is going to stay on the floor versus Iguodala tomorrow night against Philly, he better be ready to put the ball in the hoop; otherwise, I'd give more minutes to Brewer for defensive purposes and send the message that way.
I'm not a big believer in the +/- statistic because it doesn't control for any other variables and is thus difficult to make reliable inferences from. To follow-onto Andy G's comment about schedule difficult, another potential confounding variable in Britt's inference is that probably have of Love's minutes have been with the second unit playing against rival second units, where he should have a bigger positive impact. Throw Mayo on the Twolves' second unit (at least part of the time), and the numbers might look more even.
I'm not saying you're wrong to look for numbers, Britt, but I think that in so doing you're talking about tactics while we're talking about strategy. At the tactical level, it really doesn't matter for Minnesota or Memphis this year whether Love or Mayo posts a better +/- than the other. But if you are of the belief that championship teams are built around a small core of small players, then you want the star player. A rebuilding team's strategy should be to find way to acquire those rising stars. What the pro-Mayo camp is saying is that OJ has, at times, looked like a star player, or at least like he has the potential to be one. Love hasn't, and his lack of athleticism suggests that he won't become one. A more meaningful statistic might be to look at the number of players since, say, 1970 (approximately the time when NBA basketball truly became an athlete's rather than a skilled player's game) with roughly the same physical tools as Love (and please don't recite those phony combine measurements) who went on to become stars. I wasn't alive to see Wes Unseld, but he might be the only one. If we generated a statistic using those data, I think we'd be discouraged about Love's potential to become one of those stars on a championship-caliber team. I think that's the core grievance of the pro-Mayo group here. Am I off?
Oops, should proofread my posts. Small group of *star* players. Right now we have a small group of small players, and it isn't working ;)
Good call on the Luis Scola/Darko point when mentioning San Antonio and Detroit, but it's amazing those are the only 2 examples of management blunders that can really be found.
I can't agree more on the Love-Mayo trade reaction. It seems like it is all based on box-score/sportscenter watching and not taking a wide view of the trade Beancounter made some good points about the raw financial numbers of the deal, and from that perspective alone, this was a no brainer deal for the Wolves. I made the point earlier that this is not fantasy sports, I'll trade my guy straight up for your guy to make statistics work, this is a business being run for profit. Since the fan base has clearly shrunk, and with good reason, Taylor would have to find ways to increase his liquidity and safe guard against dropping income from attendance/concessions/gear sales. Every business does this during hard times, just turn on CNN to see how many people are losing their jobs. Taylor can't just fire his players to make up that extra cash, so the next best thing would be to lower expenditures by getting rid of horrible contracts (dealing with the source of those contracts appears secondary to Mr. Taylor, but that is for later...) and dropping your payroll.
Sure, that is hard to hear as a fan, but it is the truth of a competitive market place.
From a raw player vs player standpoint, too early to call. OJ Mayo is in a situation where Memphis is so devoid of offensive options that he gets to jack up as many shots as he wants. Love is caught in a horrible situation that really isn't letting anyone outside of #25 shine. Give it time before we all decide Mayo is the next whoever and Love is Madsen.
The most relevant question is which player, Love or Mayo, is more likely to be a part of a championship team in Minnesota. No draft-day scenario was going to bring us to contender-status within a year or two. So, while I watch and attend too many games to not care about immediate results, I also keep a constant eye on the future and what sort of roster is being built. Miller is a solid veteran and should help us win games for the next couple years. But, his defense has already been exploited by the likes of John Salmons, and I doubt it will improve as he enters his thirties. Collins hasn't had much opportunity yet, but I also suspect that he's going to be replaced before we can even dream of playoff basketball.
So, in looking at our future prospects, it's Mayo vs. Love. Mayo hating Minnesota would be a relevant consideration, but he didn't come close to the likes of Yi or Stevie Franchise in stating this displeasure before (or after) getting drafted. He clearly wanted to play for Miami, but that wasn't going to happen. After they passed, I doubt he cared whether it was Minnesota or Memphis. As players, Mayo probably has more upside, at his respective position, than Love does. I say this because he and Love both have average size, phenomenal skill-sets, but Mayo's athleticism is above-average at worst, and Love's is below-average, at best. Add to this the fact that Minnesota needs a great guard and does not need a great power forward and it makes the move more puzzling. Anyway, that's as much as I can say on it. I said most of this on draft night, but got a little bit excited about Love's play in the Vegas League. I probably should've noted the level of competition and types of players who have excelled there in summers past.
If K-Love showed us that 35" vert from the pre-draft camps, I'd change my opinion very quickly. I'm not sure whether it's chocolate milk or faulty measurements, but he's struggling to sky up for the high rebounds and is definitely not jumping 35".
Not to just blatantly take Britt's side on this argument, but I'll second the thought that this remains a good trade. Obviously Mayo is the best talent in the deal, but remember who else was on this team? We were all complaining about our bad contracts, and we dumped our most difficult, picked up a quality "role player" in Mike Miller, got someone to play the 5 spot, and still tabbed a great prospect.
All those things needed to happen. While I don't think Collins is quite at the level of Ervin Johnson (which sounds mean but really isn't), he gives Al a break at the 5 spot, something I think we all whined about last year. He's not the long-term answer, but at least we can watch Al (and Love) play the 4 rather than being out of position.
The trade also has set ourselves up nicely for the pending 2010 free agency debacle. Some of you are warming up your "no FAs will ever come here because it's cold" boilerplate, but please save it. We have 4 guys with expiring deals, all at different salary tiers - we don't have to move anyone, but the flexibility makes us an attractive target for other teams to deal with.
Last point, it's Mayo-related: I know he's proven himself a capable scorer thus far into the season, and I didn't have my doubts about overall talent, but he's gotten to the line at a higher clip than I think many anticipated. I saw him as primarily a jump shooter, not an attack-the-basket slasher.
Andy G - future prospects also have to take into account the financial aspects of the deals made. Add in the ability to sign a big name FA in the next couple of years due to dropping bloated contracts with the short term financial savings and maybe this doesn't look so bad.
The realities of that prospect (signing a big name FA) can be debated, but the potential for it is there and has to be considered along with the stats of Love and Mayo.
Maybe we can ask the Feds for a bit of the TARP, since right now the Wolves appear to be a Toxic Asset (sorry, I'm listening to Paulson and Bernanke fumble around explaining this TARP fiasco and am being reminded of a McHale press conference)
Shogun and Andy G perfectly stated what i was getting at on Love-Mayo. I'd just add that when I called Miller an upper level role player, it wasn't a slight at all. It was just my way of saying I don't believe he's capable of being an upper level starter in the NBA at this poing in his career, so I don't believe his inclusion in the Mayo deal made it worth the price of potentially giving up an upper level starter, ditto the shedding of bad contracts, saving money, ect.
Since everyone can agree the deal wouldn't have been made straight up, the argument becomes what Miller, Collins and the loss of bad contracts is worth and I don't think it's enough to justify the trade
Britt, I'm a huge proponent of APBRmetrics and statistical analysis of basketball, but I don't think you can use the +/- stat as a primary argument for Love against Mayo thus far even outside of the small sample size or opponent caliber (which does have a bearing, even on in-game +/- against the same team).
The biggest thing is that you're using +/- in a way that you have always strenuously argued against when comparing Big Al to players like McCants. As we've discussed before, McCants has tended to have higher +/- scores than Big Al even though Big Al is more valuable and every GM in the league would take him first. And I postulated that part of the reason for that is team role, i.e. that McCants may have been better at a needed secondary scorer role for this team than Big Al has been as the primary foundation piece. But even a flawed potential superstar piece is generally more valuable than a very solid secondary piece.
Well, in this example, the reverse is true. Mayo is playing a Big-Al-like primary part for the Grizzlies, and Love has been playing a McCants-like 6th man role for the Wolves. If you (rightly) aren't willing to use a year's worth of 82games.com adjusted +/- stats as a primary argument for McCants being more valuable than Big Al (I think you called the notion ridiculous), I don't think you can do it here for Love over Mayo.
(I'm sorry if it seems I'm trying to jump on you, as this isn't my intent. I haven't fully made up my mind on the debate (I said draft night that the Wolves were banking on Mayo not being a stud, that if he isn't they win and if he is they lose, and I haven't changed my mind yet), so it's not your stance that I take issue with. It's just that, because I'm so pro-stats for basketball analysis, I hate to see them used in a questionable way because IMO that's what gives so many of the non-stats guys traction when arguing against their usage.)
This is an interesting piece on NBA owners and Taylor is the first one criticized.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AhA6dMgeOytyZS3Fe0JSthM5nYcB?slug=...
By my eyes, the one problem with Love right now is his shots aren't going down. Outside of that, there's an awful lot to build on, even if we choose to ignore debating some of the intangibles he offers. He's a good rebounder despite even losing out on a few of them due to a quicker or longer opponent, he's already probably their best player at getting to the line (and he does good work at the charity stripe), and I'd argue his defense has been a pleasant surprise, as he offers the requisite strength to body up and shows willingness, instincts, and IQ to be a solid-if-unspectacular help defender.
As for his shooting %, I'm optimistic because his jumper simply isn't falling, and odds are it eventually will. Also, he seems to be attempting an awful lot of putbacks that are simply not working (a la the end of the game in Portland). I don't know if that's because his offensive role at this point is to set picks and crash the weakside, or if he's trying to compensate for his size by trying to sneak it in, but it's just not working yet. (I'd actually like to see him incorporate some more gather-and-jump to try to remedy some of this; bring the rebound down first and then either go up hard or use some moves to draw fouls.)
And of course, like Foye with Roy, there's always going to be a comparison between Love and Mayo, and I suspect it will take a lot longer to declare a winner in this one in that they're such different players. Mayo will be a more prolific scorer, and that alone will probably cause many to favor him. (He's also showing more slashing ability than he did at USC, even though he was given free reign offensively there, but what can you do) But I think there's really something to be said for Love's all-around contributions. Historically even their profiles are different: Mayo, a high scoring, high turnover type, tends to be hyped in general while do-it-all types, as Love projects to be, tend to be more favored by the Wages of Wins/Dean Oliver disciples. We'll see.
Or maybe it won't be that close. Maybe Love takes the Michael Sweetney career path. Who knows? Given the luck of this organization, it wouldn't surprise me.
Finally, keep in mind Love's greatest asset is his high skill level for his size, something that the team really hasn't featured/taken advantage of much yet. (As I said, when he's out there with Jefferson, he's primarily setting high screens and coming down on the weakside.) Mayo's been given the keys to the car. Sometimes a lot of this comes down to environment.
Beancounter -- perhaps you read my comment a couple of articles back about how we couldn't fully judge Kevin McHale's performance without knowing how much profit/loss he was garnering for Glen Taylor. Nice to see your numbers re salary savings. Got any ideas for rough numbers about how much the relatively empty arena is costing?
<grin> How much fun could we have with an estimated operating profit/loss statement?
Britt (et al) -- Ditto on drza44's remarks re usage of +/- stat.
drza44: An honest question because I want to learn more about statistical analysis of basketball: under which circumstances can +/- be used most effectively?
I like the idea of the stat but just can't get over the fact that it can't control for the myriad variables that make players good or bad individually or in terms of contribution to a team. It's the correlation/causation problem you referred to in the Jefferson/McCants example. But it must be useful because it is such a popular statistic. So, when can it really help us understand a player's effect on a team?
Shogun,
My view is that statistics tell a story, but only from one perspective. +/- is a useful stat because it provides a perspective on how well a team performs while a player is on the court. However, it does not tell who was on the court with him. Like any statistic its value is limited when comparing the +/- of different players.
Like any statistic it is useful, and just as with anything else that is popular, its usefullness is likely overvalued. Use it to shine an emphasis upon whatever story you are telling. Its a piece of evidence, but it doesn't prove anything-just like any statistic (It is not Truth).
APB: Thanks. I like to use the most basic statistics, such as points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals, in the context of what I (believe I) know about how basketball works and what I know about each team and its personnel. It's the set of crudest numerical measures out there, but also the most meaningful because they capture very important parts of the game. If one knows enough about personnel and teams, then one can make sense of whether players are overperforming or underperforming, and whether they get their number while helping a team or not.
As I said, I like the +/- and other stats, but I think a lot of stats people overvalue some of the new stats that have become available the past few years because they like the complexity and the esoteric uniqueness of some of them. I'm a geek too, and I like to analyze things to death, but I think that in being so quick to cite these new stats as conclusive evidence to support their positions, many people begin to undervalue traditional stats.
I swear, I'm not trying to start a stats versus scouting debate - we all know all the standard arguments for and against each side - but I just wonder whether any of the people here who use stats agree that the traditional measures might be becoming undervalued vis-a-vis other more complex measures. And if this is true, what effect does it have on our analysis?
I think Andy G has expressed my sentiments exactly, he even went so far as to touch on the one point I wanted to respond to Levi about: what to do about a player who absolutely refuses to play for your franchise (e.g. Mahorn, Francis, Yi). Without a doubt, there will be such players - and they will present a problem. Most players however will not be that extreme and certainly I never had the impression that Mayo was in this category. So I still don't think his playing preferences should have been a factor in the decision.
In defense of the trade, I did think Mayo came in a bit undersized for his position, maybe only slightly bigger than McCants? So it was a concern to draft a potential 3rd combo guard in a row. That said, always go for the BPA is my motto, regardless of position.
I think the primary pull to +/-, adj +/-, and on/off rtg is to have something close to the basketball equivalent of VORP. What is Player X worth to his team compared to a generic replacement? This is the golden goose of baskektball stats and would be the best available tool for evaluating a player's worth.
While there is quite a bit of noise associated with adj +/-, it still is pretty damn useful as an evaluation tool when you combine it with top five 5 man rotations, top 2 man units, and weighted on/off. Even with a small sample size, you can really get a sense that the Wolves are simply better with Love on the court compared to when he is off (as if you couldn't see this already when Craig Smith is on the court in the 4th). Granted, there is no way to properly weigh some of the internals and you may have an unacceptable margin of error, but it certainly points you in the right direction and that is, I think, all that anyone is claiming with this stat.
I suspect that by the end of the year we'll be looking at two rookies with similar PERs and a series of ratings that are promising for their position (Love's rebound rate; Mayo's 3 pt%; etc).
As for traditional stats, I think they should be valued as long as they are possession or 36 minute based.
Getting back to Love and Mayo, I think Love will suffer the most in terms of fan perception because of the Wolves' history with Roy/Foye and because Mayo appears to have all the tools to be better than any guard on the Wolves' roster. Long term, I still think Love wins out and that the Wolves will find a guard that is comparable to Mayo in next year's draft. Watch for Stephen Curry against Oklahoma tonight. He has been given Davidson's point duties and he'll have big games agasinst Purdue and Duke within the next month or so. He'd be a steal with the Heat pick.
stop-n-pop: Thanks for your thoughts. That's helpful.
One further question about the +/- stats internal assumptions needs to be asked: is it reasonable to assume a "generic" substitute? We fans spend all of our time discussing (nitpicking) the differences among players, why A is more effective than B, etc, etc. This seems to indicate that there is no such thing, especially when you take into account all the fluctuating and variable rotations and the variability of the quality of the players on those rotations. As you said, that's a lot of noise, but the assumption any truly average player is the constant against which we can evaluate the marginal effect of our player of interest seems totally unbelievable and therefore useless in most cases. I understand that any kind of theoretical econometric model (I think that's what this is, isn't it?) has to have a baseline constant (the generic player) against which the independent variable can be evaluated, but that doesn't exist in reality and is therefore misleading. I like using these stats as heuristics, but I'm not sure that they can stand alone as evidence for arguments about individual players' effectiveness.
I'm very interested to see Curry, tonight. (I think it's on regular cable?) Specifically, I'd like to see him outside of the tournament zone he was in, last year, and trying to play point guard. It sounds like his coach is doing him the favor of playing point for a year, to show pro scouts that he can do it.
Just to clarify: I'm not saying that +/- assumes a generic substitute; rather, that it is simply the closest thing that basketball has to baseball's VORP.
VORP is the holy grail because of its balance of quality and quantity. Kevin Pelton gave it a run here:
http://sonicscentral.com/vorp.html
It's obviously something that is very hard to put together but I think it's more akin to an average Hollinger rating than anything else. There are simply too many damn variables to make it a simple number (for instance, is the replacement for a starter or bench player? How do you break this down amongst different positions? etc) but I do think that if you could find a way to balance out 100 possessions (or 36 minutes) and net minutes (which is the flaw that allows Shaddy to look better than Al in some measurements), you'd be on to something.
I'm not sure it's possible to get to this sort of stat in basketball but it sure is worth a try. I do think that adj +/- becomes more effective over time and that if you weigh it against something like PER + 5 man rotations and on/off OE/DE ratings, you can get close enough to say that, say, Kevin Love is worth more to the Wolves than OJ Mayo is to the Griz.
I guess the main thing that +/- tells me is how important a particular player's production and role are to a particular team. After that, you have to apply your own reasoning to it with regards to how useful it is to whatever you're comparing. Corroborate it with other data and good-ol' common sense, and make your determination from there. In other words, the best way to use +/- is as a data point/part of the argument in conjunction with other back-up support, not as the whole argument.
As for some specific examples where I think it works:
1) Gauging the impact of a stud player across teams. For instance, Boozer and Duncan were both 20/10-type big men centerpieces for 50-win teams last season. But Duncan’s adjusted +/- was top-3 in the league, whereas Boozer barely broke even. Similarly, LeBron and Melo were both primary offensive weapons on their respective teams and Melo’s Nuggets had a better record than LeBron’s Cavs, but LeBron’s +/- numbers were off the charts while Melo’s were negative. I think +/- in these examples helps support the arguments that LeBron and Duncan were more valuable last year than Melo and Boozer, respectively, regardless of what their traditional numbers or team records might say.
2) Compare players with similar sized roles on the same team. While comparing a stud that other teams game-plan for (like Big Al) to a secondary type (like McCants) isn’t really ideal, the +/- stat is good for comparing “Big twos” like Duncan/Ginobili (roughly even adjusted +/- last year, both positive), Garnett/Pierce (Pierce very positive but KG leading the league), Kobe/Gasol (Both positive, Kobe ahead), Yao/TMac (both positive, Yao ahead), etc. It doesn’t necessarily say which of the two is the BETTER player (though in many cases it falls out like that), but it says which of the two was most important/impactful for their particular team in a major role.
3) Identifying good role players. Role player defender-types like Shane Battier or Bruce Bowen don't seem to have much value using production-based stats, but players like them always tend to have good +/- numbers which indicate that they are filling a successful role on the team.
4) Gauging "empty" numbers vs. good player on bad team syndrome. Every year there are players that put up big traditional numbers on bad teams, and you never know if they're stat-padding or if it would translate to a good team (many's the team with buyer's remorse for signing/trading for one of those empty stats guys, only to not see it translate). Then you look at someone like KG, who led the league in +/- in 2007 on a terrible team which would suggest his numbers weren't empty, and it translated to many more wins when he got some talent around him.
(I'll stop here. Sorry so long, but I get carried away)
Wow, in typing that last book I missed out on several posts (I was responding to Shogun several posts up). I'd like to respond to a couple of the follow-ups:
1) APB. I agree with his final point (use stats as tools, not whole arguments) but don't necessarily agree that they're overvalued. I think, used correctly, stats are just as valuable as observation because they introduce a bit more objectivity and can pull from a larger pool of data. But "used correctly" is the key term.
2) Shogun, traditional stats vs. new stats. I don't think it has to be a one-or-the-other thing. Traditional stats are fine, but they don't take ANYTHING into consideration beyond pure output, they don't attempt to quantify how valuable different aspects of the game are, they don't do much to measure defense at all, and they don't necessarily correlate with team impact. I think those are all areas where newer stats can be useful when doing analysis, in conjunction with things like scouting and traditional numbers.
Very educational, SnP and drza44. I've always considered myself open-minded about new stats but have been less enamored of their utility. Now I can see where they can provide a lot of insight (as well as identify areas and types of arguments that they can't shed much light on). Thanks!
drza44--
I certainly wasn't trying to be definitive with the +/- citations, nor was I trying to say that Kevin Love was somehow better than OJ Mayo. What I *was* trying to do, perhaps too subtly, is point out how quickly everyone was jumping the gun here in making the comparison and then exclaiming that the Wolves got screwed.
I think your abiding equation--if Mayo is a star, bad move, if not, probably good move--is a good yardstick, provided Love isn't a bust and pans out as a solid contributor. I repeat, it wouldn't surprise me if Mayo has the better year, and, I honestly don't know who I'd guess would have the better career. But I am more confident that the Wolves will ultimately be shown to be the beneficiary of this deal because, unlike Jim, I don't think the distance in talent and "star quality" between Mayo and Love is greater than the value of Miller, Collins, and cap flexibility. If Mike Miller were being used properly and playing up to his potential right now, he and Mayo would be a push, right now.
Remember how much everyone loved and appreciated Fred Hoiberg? Well, Miller is a turbo-Hoiberg. But for whatever reason, his shots-per-minute thus far this season are melodramatically lower than they've ever been. Throw in the fact that Jason Collins has been injured for all but the last two games and that Love is in a slump while Mayo has yet to hit the rookie wall and I think you've got a perfect storm scenario for declaring this Memphis deal a bust. Let's talk again in a month or two.
In answer to levi's question, I can't make a reasonable estimate of the lost dollars due to empty seats, the prices vary too much to just multiply the empty seats by an assumed price. (The prices go from $80 up to $3,400.) However, when you watch on tv, there are a lot of empty lower level seats. They must be hurting, judging by a tv ad I noticed during the Denver game. You would think the one game that would sellout would be the Celtics. But they were advertising a deal of buy a ticket to the Celtics and get a free one to the Sixers.
This is a tough market because hockey is a more favored sport and they must compete with the Wild and hockey Gophers as well as a resurgent Gopher basketball program. It would help if they had at least one exciting player to watch, but they don't. How many casual basketball fans are going to buy a ticket to see Al Jefferson or Kevin Love? In fact, I think Memphis did the deal to get Mayo because they thought he would help sell some tickets.
Oh, I forgot to respond to Andy G's comment, seconded and thirded by many others, that the goal here is a championship down the road. See, this is where I've always departed from others. I'd rather have a solid contending team over and over again then lurching for the championship and maybe getting it, maybe not. In baseball, I'd rather be a fan of the St. Louis Cardinals than the Florida Marlins. In basketball, I'd rather be a fan of the Utah Jazz than the Miami Heat. Of course the ideal scenario is both consistency and championship quality, a la the Spurs. But give me a perennial contender over a magical season or two. I know this isn't the predominant view. I was one of the rare Target Center attendees who was very happy with the Saunders/Garnett tenure here.
I second Britt's call for entertaining ball. I'd much rather see the Wolves put out a fantastically entertaining brand of ball that is maintained over the period of several years than waiting for a superstar re-load. I want 110 points per game with lots of 3s and up and down action. I think they can come close to this system of play with their current core + at least 1 real starting quality guard. As mentioned before, I'm really hoping they land Stephen Curry + one of the following: Rubio, Jennings, Tyreke Evans, Demar Derozan, James Harden, Nick Calathes, or Jrue Holliday.
Getting back to the stat thing for a moment, the one area I'd like to see expanded is a stat that covers the percentage of favorable possessions a player gives his team per 100 possessions. A player would have to have a minimum of possessions to qualify (much like a minimum of at bats is needed to qualify for the batting title) but it could cover both ends of the court and would be a fairly solid indicator of success even across different situations and rotations.
Britt, drza44, and SnP,
Did you happen to catch this one today?
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-36-67/Stat-Geeks-and-Coaches.html
It discusses the impact a coach makes on wins and losses. The bottom line seems to be (from the author's POV) most coaches make little difference.
This is a bit depressing for Wolves fans (like me) hoping a Wittman replacement would bring significantly better results.
The problem with bad coaches is the same problem we have with PGs, how much of an improvemtn will you trade out one player with glaring flaws and replace him with another who has equally obvious but different flaws? Whitman nabbed a 20-20 team and ran it into the ground. I think his body of work shows that while in general a coach might have little impact, our guy has impact well beyond expectation.
WCC: I did see that article. It will be interesting to read the full study when it comes out in the book. Berri is interesting. Wages of Wins is kind of a divisive piece of work. You don't find too many people who kind of shrug their shoulders at his b-ball work.
I did see that Dean Oliver was in dissent and that, to me, means a great deal. He is the author of Basketball on Paper, which I think is a superior read to Berri's book. I can't imagine what sort of stat Berri cooked up to make this claim.
drza44-I did not mean to imply that stats are overvalued. I use them everyday. My comment on overvalued was directed at popular - as in popular statistic.
I am a fan of the outlier not the mean.
Here's Berri's response to the "deck chair" comment...
He notes his study is trying to find how much NBA coaches affect statistical performances of their players (by looking at the play of players under different coaches), and notes that the key is his study is looking at NBA COACHES. We're talking about an exclusive group, here, and presumably one must first possess a unique skillset to even get considered. In other words, if you're trying to choose between, I don't know, Lawrence Frank and Nate McMillan, it might not really matter much. But if it's between one of those two and some schmoe, then you probably go with the former. So he notes the "deck chair" comment isn't necessarily accurate.
Interesting thing about his study: Flip Saunders shows up as one of the select few coaches who might have a positive statistical contribution.
I'm not surprised that the numbers show Saunders as one of the better coaches. I think though, that this also shows that you can't base evaluations of coaches or players based on numbers alone.
Flip's tenure in Minnesota was far better than what came before or after, so far. Of course, the primary cause of that improvement was KG, not Flip.
Similarly, in Detroit, Flip coaxed a few more wins in the regular season out of the Pistons than Larry Brown did only to seem them fail at playoff time (as the Wolves did under Flip).
I read the articles too, and I think there is an important distinction between "coaching vs. individual player output" and "coaching vs. team record". This study definitely looks at the former, but may not really address the latter.
Also, in the study there was a "bad coach" effect as epitomized by Tim Floyd. I would have to think that Witt would be a posterchild for that kind of negative effect, so his removal could at least improve things somewhat.
- From that same article we read:
- "The job of an NBA coach, then, may be less about coaxing better performances out of athletes than about getting their skills and personalities to fit together. By the time a player has moved through the basketball machine to the NBA, he’s a relatively finished product. Despite Mike D’Antoni’s best efforts, the plodding center Eddy Curry is doomed to be himself."
Well -- Duh.
Now, in the case of Randy Wittman, it seems obvious to most us that he has not been able to find a way to get his teams to "fit together", whether here or at Cleveland.
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
