Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
On the Ball
The Three-Pointer: Winning Pretty, Winning Ugly
Photo copyright 2008 NBAE (Photo by Noah Graham/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #38, Road Game #19: Phoenix 103, Minnesota 105
Game #39, Road Game #20: LA Clippers 86, Minnesota 94
Season Record: 13-26
1. Double Barrel
We're full of hubris tonight, so let's begin with Newton's Third Law of Motion (layman's rendition): For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. What that means on the basketball court is that the more constantly something positive happens for one team, the more that team's opponent will strive to take it away. For 100 games or so, the lone positive constant for the Timberwolves was Al Jefferson wheeling and dealing like a riverboat gambler (with marked cards) in the low block. There are all kinds of reasons why this is not a good thing. First, Jefferson simply isn't good enough to make a one-man team even mediocre. Second, a dominant Big Al can become complacent on defense and bitchy with his teammates. Third, good players deserve the chance to be great, great players deserve the chance to be legendary, and Timberwolves' fans deserve the chance to be excited watching their team perform. None of those things are going to happen if Al Jefferson doesn't have a legitimate sidekick.
This is the KG debate writ small: Is Garnett a great player or a legendary player? The transformation of the Celtic franchise (and the collapse of the Timberwolves) in his image, even as his stats drop, indicates the latter--but without the supporting cast, you never know. (Ditto Tim Duncan, by the way.) Is Jefferson a good player or a great player? To frame an opportunity for greatness, he needs at least a teammate or two consistent enough to compel opponents to divert their attention and spread their takeaway strategies. It could be a staunch defender and monster shot-blocker who lets him roam, a sharpshooter from the perimeter who frees him in the paint, or a deft passer who spoon-feeds him easy buckets so the harder ones are easier with the energy he's conserved. The best he ever had was Paul Pierce in Boston, but Jefferson wasn't ready, and the pecking order was unruly and dysfunctional.
But now, for the first time since he arrived in Minnesota, a Timberwolves teammate has Jefferson's back, generating enough consistent positive action to set up an equal and opposite reaction from opposing scouts, coaches and players. Last year, the Wolves' second-best offensive player, Shaddy McCants, was woefully inconsistent, except in the clutch, when he was dependably unsuccessful. The Wolves' most well-rounded player, Ryan Gomes, was never going to make opponents think twice about adjusting their strategies to counteract him. By the Ides of March, Jefferson was showing signs of fatigue; a week or two later, he was admitting exhaustion.
In flipping their horrendous 4-23 start into a startling 9-3, the Wolves have generated a slew of feel-good stories: Kevin Love, Kevin McHale,. Bassy Telfair, Rodney Carney, Brian Cardinal and Craig Smith all come to mind. But the ascension of Randy Foye as a constant second force, a star-in-waiting beside Jefferson, is the bankable cause for genuine optimism. Foye has registered double-figure points in 14 straight games, averaging a hair under 20 ppg during that span while nailing 47.4% of his three-pointers. It was only after Wolves' management threw in the towel on the notion of Foye as a full-time point guard that he truly florished--he's a playmaker, not a play caller. More recently he truly has created a "combo guard" backcourt with Telfair that can divvy up the duties as the matchups warrant. Like a classical violinist born to play jazz, his improv game quickens his court sense, sharpens his instincts, enlivens his judgment. Propelling the Wolves to a 7-1 record in 2009, he has nearly as many steals (12) as turnovers (13), and almost three times as many assists (34).
Consequently, people are not gushing about Jefferson as much, but it bears noting that his game has not diminished as others have ascended. The big man went off for 32 points in the 2009-christening blitz of Golden State, and had a surprisingly subpar 9 points in the only loss on this calendar year last Friday at home to Miami. But in the other six games, all Wolves' wins, Jefferson has scored either 8, 9, or 10 field goals on between 14 and 21 attempts, his point total holding steady between 18 and 22 points in each game--and double-digit rebounds every time. The feel-goods feel good. But dependable, go-to goodness is what truly satisfies.
The last two games illustrate what has happened to this franchise. Love rightfully garnered most of the huzzahs for his inspired play against Phoenix Friday, with his active hands, aggressiveness toward the hoop and willingness to challenge Shaq with the best defense he could muster. Rodney Carney was a team-best plus +10 and continued his torrid trey-transition two-fer on offense, burying the long ones and flying downcourt to slam in the short ones. But when the score was tied midway through the final period on the road, Jefferson and then Foye got the tough points. From 6:28 to 4:18, Jefferson got all six Minnesota points (two free throws from a foul on Shaq and then a pair of layups after Shaq went to the bench) to keep it tied from 89-89 to 95-95. Then Foye took over, hitting the free throw generated by Matt Barnes' technical on Love, and canning a pair of jumpers that put Minnesota in the lead to stay in the final two minutes.
This afternoon against the Clips, Love and Carney came back to earth a bit with sub-par efforts relative to their recent boomlets. But Jefferson and Foye were money once more, especially when it counted. After trailing by double digits for much of the game, the Clips were making a last ditch effort midway through the 4th, when Jefferson replaced Love at 5:46 with the Wolves up 84-78. For the five minutes from that moment down to when there was :55 seconds left to play, Jefferson scored all of the Wolves points on free throws, a lay up and a jumper, drawing a foul on the last bucket. Down five, 91-86, with 55 ticks to play, the Clippers called timeout and called a play for hot rook Eric Gordon, who led them in scoring with 25. But Foye, continuing a recent pattern of stalwart defensive plays in crunchtime (a bit of "4th quarter Foye" we didn't see when the term was coined his rookie year), bottled Gordon up and then stole the ball, causing Gordon to foul him. The Clips were in the penalty, so Foye strode to the line and calmly sank both free throws (another underrated part of his arsenal). Ballgame.
At 7-1 for January and six left to play, the Wolves have already assured themselves of at least a .500 month. But the flaccid gauntlet of weak opponents is coming to a close. In their next seven contests, Minnesota will face Utah and Boston on the road, New Orleans and the Lakers at home, bracketing a trio of Eastern Conference clubs they have recently beaten--Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit. It is an excellent 7-game barometer to determine whether the Wolves recent hot streak has been a pleasant blip or a heartening trend. The double-barrel consistency of Jefferson and Foye makes a better than .500 mark during this stretch--meaning at least one significant upset--a viable possibility.
2. My Problem With Miller
During his postgame press recap today, coach Kevin McHale went out of his way to praise Mike Miller for the great ball movement and key crunchtime block he executed to help seal the win. And it's true: Miller was faked out on a shot by Al Thornton yet through diligent effort spun around and again left his feet to get a piece of Thornton's shot in the waning minutes of the fourth period. He also dished for a pair of dimes, a total that could have been five or six if folks had converted his feeds. He's got a nifty 19/7 assist-to-turnover ratio over the last eight games.
Despite all this, I've been critical of Miller for nearly the entire season, and recent events haven't changed that negativity. Miller has not been a net-plus for the Wolves this season because he hasn't played the role and delivered the skills that were expected of him--he hasn't maximized his value to this ballclub. Coming into this season, his most noteworthy talent on the court, by a country mile, was his shooting--mostly long range but also midrange jumpers. For awhile, Miller's disinclination to shoot this season was merely puzzling, and not *that* injurious, because he still had his sharpshooter rep, because even the threat of him shooting helped spread the floor, and because on the few occasions when he did deign to let one fly, the ball often went through the hoop.
Not anymore. Now you can add "Miller can't shoot" to the complaint of "Miller won't shoot." In the eight games (7 of them Wolves' wins) of 2009, Miller is a wretched 31.3% from the field (15 for 48) and 15.4% from long range (4 for 26). Asked about his inability to score just before getting on the plane to Phoenix last week, Miller's response to the young Strib writer Brian Stensaas reeked of condescension: "I take what's there. It's called basketball; James Naismith invented it a long time ago."
Well, that's some haughty bullshit.
Rather than "take what's there," Miller turns down good open looks every game and everybody has begun to recognize it and adjust accordingly. In the 4th quarter of today's game, he fed the ball into Kevin Love in the post and took a few steps back behind the three point line. The man guarding him, Eric Gordon, gave him plenty of space. Love, generally a conscientious passer, didn't bother kicking it back out but instead spun and shot against the double team. I can't imagine Love or Gordon reacting the same way if that had been Foye out on the perimeter. But during the previous three quarters, I watched Miller receive the ball with ample room to shoot and either put the ball on the floor or immediately swing it. It didn't matter whether this was early or late in the shot clock--the reaction was the same. And, as I've said before, there is no rhyme or reason to it--the shots Miller does attempt are just as good or bad as the ones he passes up. Raise your hand if Miller driving toward the hoop makes you feel as good--even now, while he's clanking away--as his jumper from beyond the arc.
The coaching staff and the front office have acknowledged the obvious and stated that Miller's primary function out on the court is to knock down shots. Yet Miller inexplicably does not do this. During his time on the court, on a FGA-per-minute basis, the guy generally regarded as one of the top 10 or 15 jumpshooters in the NBA has not only shot less frequently than Jefferson, Foye, McCants and Smith, but less than notorious clankers like Telfair and Brewer, or the rookie Love or the judicious Gomes or the increasingly emboldened Carney.
Miller says he "takes what is there." But the way James Naismith invented the game, if you're 6-8 with a decent handle and someone is crowding you enough to deny your jumper, you can put the ball on the floor and draw the foul, or rise up and draw contact and head straight for the foul line. But here again, Miller's FT per minute--he's had just 46 FTA in 889 minutes--ranks below nearly everyone on the roster. Put them together, field goals and free throws, and Mark Madsen, Brian Cardinal and Jason Collins are probably the only three playes on the roster less likely to shoot when out on the court than Mike Miller.
Now, if Miller's ankle injuries are precipitating this behavior, he needs to take a break and let it heal. If his confidence is compelling him to pass up good looks, he needs to fight through the fear and chuck it up anyway. Because everybody knows it is extremely rare for a shooter who has been as proficient as Miller was for as long as Miller was to suddenly lose it completely, especially at age 28. To regain his rhythm, he needs to find his rhythm by jacking it up. If the Wolves lose a game or three as a result, so be it. The Mike Miller of Orlando and Memphis vintage paired with the current Jefferson-Foye tandem would make the Wolves an offense to be reckoned with. Miller's steadfast inability to grasp and help facilitate that potential is mystifying, and makes him the most disappointing Timberwolf since Mike James. And that's a pretty big insult.
3. Love and the Opposition
The market value of Kevin Love has soared with the Wolves' improved play, as fans and more impartial observers see that he's a lot more valuable on the court than he is on paper. But just as people were getting too down on Love when he got off to a slow start, the bandwagon may be rolling a little too fast right now. Love has the makings of being a really nice player, but as these past two games have demonstrated (even his stellar Phoenix performance), he can't buy a bucket beneath the hoop to save his life. Yup, he's a monster on the offensive glass, and those much ballyhooed, then derided, outlet passes have become more frequent and effective recently. His defensive is likewise about average--not bad for a 20-year old 6-9 "big" in the paint. But there is a still a viable range of outcomes for his career--from something fairly special to a mild disappointment.
Speaking of rookies, the Clippers seem to have a good pair in Eric Gordon and especially DeAndre Jordan, who had six blocks and made color commentator Jim Petersen look bad for gleefully anticipating that Al Jefferson was going to tear Jordan to pieces. But my cautionary note about Love was informed at least in part from what seems to be a regression from Al Thornton this season, last year's hot Clips rook who many folks thought would have made a better pick than Corey Brewer. Jordan's strong game burned a bit when coupled with the Wolves unsuccessfully resortin\g to small ball (a frontcourt of Love and Gomes) early in the 4th. He was still on the board when Minnesota dumped their second-round pick to Miami.
Amare Stoudamire and Craig Smith make Shaq and Jefferson look like quality defenders by comparison--but they aren't. And either Steve Nash's skills have fallen off a cliff or the passive-aggressive war between Nash and Steve Kerr is at a point of no return and Nash should be dealt. One of my favorite players, Nash looked worse than I've ever seen him--rookie year included--on Friday night.
33 Reader Comments
Oh lord it's fun to watch this team. Randy Foye brings the ball up the floor like he knew all along... Kevin Love pokes away Robin Lopez's rebound right into the mitts of his teammate for an easy bucket and gets credited with neither steal nor assist... Rod Carney breaks early on a Love steal, takes 5 strides from the half court line, gets away with an obvious travel, and lays it in easily to put the wolves up 105-101 late against the Suns... It's easy to root for a young team even when they're losing, but now that this young team is on a roll its fun as hell to see them earn a little swagger, to watch them learn what works and what doesn't and to adjust to their more clearly defined roles.
I wish I had TIVO so I could back up these observations with specifics. But even as generalities I submit them for consideration.
1. To me, the most amazing and telling revelation during the Clippers game was how long McHale let the team stumble and fumble without calling a time-out at the start of the second half. Here's where TIVO would help so I could document the misadventures that would have had Wittman popping his veins and shouting for the TO. I, in fact, was popping my veins and yelling at the TV for McHale to call the TO. But he didn't. He let the guys play through. I thought it was great coaching in that it let them find their footing and not get back into the "afraid to make a mistake" mode. Nice work, McHale.
2. We need to give Miller a "Mad Dog Day," where he is given the license, even the mandate, to jack up about twenty treys. If this slump is an issue of confidence, we need to find out. If it isn't, what the hell is it? To me, it's worth tanking a game to find out.
3. Stay with me here: Love's offensive game reminds me of KG's when he first came out. What I mean is, he does everything as a fall-away for fear of getting his shot blocked. A good hip check or push while he's doing his fall-away J or his frightened baby hook is all it takes to send the shot off course. End of KG comparison, because the basic difference in athleticism makes any remedy that Love will come up with be far different from the one KG came up with. But it's obvious that Love's 3.6 vertical is starting to reveal itself as a real offensive liability. Rebounding is position and hands; shooting is legs. Right now he's trying to make his shots with his hands, and his legs are all screwed up. As someone who has a whole lot more opinions than knowledge, I suggest he begin to pattern his offensive game on Olajawon's and Big Al's and start developing some up-fakes that actually fake somebody out. I can't imagine that there's a better teacher out there for him than McHale.
Along with the move to off-guard, it seems like Foye plays his best games when he begins with a few treys, and later mixes in some drives. While a lot of guys do the opposite, and try to get to the foul line to establish a rhythm, it seems like Randy has found a groove where he starts off more passive and stays on the perimeter, until 4th Quarter Foye time and he begins making tough shots in the paint. He's been, by far, the most pleasant surprise of the season.
It's also been good to see Love playing solid ball. I'm never going to be comfortable with smallball as a long-term option, but it's nice to see his improvement and a much-greater likelihood that he'll pan out as a nice player.
I didn't see yesterday's game, but I have to think DeAndre Jordan would've looked good next to either Love or Jefferson, in the blue unis. I realize how raw he is and that he probably has no offensive game. The problem is that a center next to Jefferson (or Love) wouldn't really need any game, other than to block 6 shots, like DJ did against the Wolves. I wonder if a guy with his combination of size and athleticism will ever fall to the 2nd Round again.
In future drafts and especially the next one, I hope the Wolves place a higher priority on athleticism and potential, and less priority on "solid fundamentals" and "NBA-readiness." We've overstocked the latter and have too little of the former. Between Telfair, Gomes, Brewer, Carney and Love, we've got plenty of the intangibles covered. The emergence of Foye has shown what star-power does for a team, but we're still one big gun short of being a good team, and it's up in the air whether Foye can continue the hot streak he's curerently on. College fans will have an easier time guessing who has "upside" by March or April, but I hope there is already a plan in place to draft with that in mind.
In my last post I said that this is the Wolves team I hoped/thought I'd see to start this season. That's actually not true...this is the team I hoped I'd see to start LAST season. With Foye showing that indeed the All Rookie first year wasn't a fluke, suddenly the Wolves have two offensive players that the opponents have to game-plan for. It makes games fun to watch, when you know there is actually a legitimate chance the team can win.
I said in the offseason that Foye had it in him to be better than any guard of the KG era before he's done, and though it's a small sample size (and a long time coming) I'm glad to see some signs that I wasn't completely off-base in setting that (relatively modest, outside of 1 season of Cassell) goal for him.
I also said that Love had the potential to be the best 2nd big for the Wolves this decade, and that he might have already been that just coming out of college. He's also been showing more signs lately, while at the same time leveling out the OJ comps quite a bit. More good feelings, here.
My final prediction isn't looking nearly as good. I said that Miller had the goods to be the best Wolves swingman of this decade, and that the crew of Miller/Brewer/McCants/Gomes should be the best 2/3 rotation the Wolves have had. Well, not so much. But Gomes has been solid, Carney a revelation, and with the emergence of Bassy that has bumped some of Foye's production to this position as well.
Overall, I'm thrilled with the feeling of this team now as opposed to as short as a month ago. Hope is a very refreshing thing.
In honor of one of your favorite contributors here, you probably should have called this one Pop and Slop.
Both games were won because the ice fish shot more, negating horrible shooting both games. The Suns game was won because of rebounding and actually out 3-pointing them with those extra shots (both teams made the same # of FGs). The Clippers game was won because of sloppy ball-handling by a team with even less NBA experience than the ice fish, which was made up for in part by DeAndre Jordan making it look like Camby had simply morphed. I'm guessing any chance we had to still trade for him is gone, but the ice-phone execs should still be pushing hard to find a way to make it happen.
A prediction for tonight's Jazz game where neither rebounding, turnovers, and defense are not weak points: ice fish are re-introduced to the double-digit loss. It might not be that bad if Miller starts hitting 3s, and lots of them, again, but only an ice fish would hold its breath.
In honor of one of your favorite contributors here, you probably should have called this one Pop and Slop.
Both games were won because the ice fish shot more, negating horrible shooting both games. The Suns game was won because of rebounding and actually out 3-pointing them with those extra shots (both teams made the same # of FGs). The Clippers game was won because of sloppy ball-handling by a team with even less NBA experience than the ice fish, which was made up for in part by DeAndre Jordan making it look like Camby had simply morphed. I'm guessing any chance we had to still trade for him is gone, but the ice-phone execs should still be pushing hard to find a way to make it happen.
A prediction for tonight's Jazz game where neither rebounding, turnovers, and defense are not weak points: ice fish are re-introduced to the double-digit loss. It might not be that bad if Miller starts hitting 3s, and lots of them, again, but only an ice fish would hold its breath.
Dreaming of Deandre Jordan? Just keep saying to yourself
Jerome James.
Jerome James.
Jerome JAmes.
That, IMO, is Deandre's upside.
Never have I seen a college big look as clueless as Jordan last year.
Stay far far away
* I'll take clueless and 7-feet with no strings attached (2nd rounder) versus a fist-full of air, which is pretty much what we came up with in the 2nd round of one of the deepest drafts in NBA history. As far as Pekovic is concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
* I still think Miller comes around at some point. With Foye at the 2 now able to garner more volume for himself, I'm fine with a judicious Mike Miller. Just bring the accuracy back.
* Jefferson advocates have always maintained that Al's deficiencies were largely the result of having to carry too much of the load for his team. Well, now that he's not the lone wolf, where is the improvement in his efficiency? He still requires way too many shots to get his points, his assists haven't improved, and his defense remains suspect.
Just watched a basketball player get sworn in as the next president of the United States. We must be on the track now.
SI.com has a nice article about Barack Obama and basketball. go check it out at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/alexander_wolff/01/13/obam...
I was reading it while listening to Barack's speech. It was kind of an unreal experience.
I agree with Rascal... this past draft was one of the deepest and we get another 6'9ish, 6'10ish guy who may never come to the States.
I am in the minority thinking that we can play Love and Jefferson major minutes - short and long term, but that draft choice to me really duplicates what we have in Love - a hard nose banger who plays a team game. If Jordan is a bust - he busts as a 2nd round pick. That being said - I think that was probably Jordan's best game of the year.
Watching Ricky Davis yesterday makes me appreciate Foye more. Even if his 15-17 a game doesn't pop out of a box score, he does it at the right times and within the team concept. Ricky was a free lancer that can score in bunches - shoot you into and out of games. This team has evolved by getting parts that work together in (WARNING - retro 90s term coming at you) synergy.
Great snag on the Stack interview.
And what harm would it have done to stash him in the D-League or on the bench for a year or two, like LAL did with Bynum? We'd still have Love, Jefferson, Rhino and Cardinal to play the same minutes they are now. Man, that pissed me off when we passed on Jordan--he fell way below every expert's projection for him and he fit a huge need of ours. There's at least some likelihood that we'll take Hasheem Thabeet in the next draft...when you consider that his bust potential is probably not all that different from Jordan's it seems even stupider. Oh well. At least McHale is no longer VP.
Greetings, thanks for the excellent write ups, I don't have much to add to the excellent give and take beyond:
1. For whatever it's worth, the radio color guy for the game yesterday was beside himself complimenting Jordon. He was beside himself at Jordon's draft position, and dreamed about his hypothetical impact if the Wolve had drafted him. Interesting given the comments here today.
2. I truly hope that Britt is able to find a way to become part of the TrueHoop Blog network formed by Henry Abbott and ESPN. Looks to be a dynamite way to get more NBA info, and I would love to see Britt's insight used in the love of the NBA as whole.
I see Britt's name in the TrueHoop sometimes. In fact Henry Abbott tends to give him nice compliments. Surprised Britt hasn't been named an ESPN Northwest Division Blogger. I think he would be good in that position. Might make him less crazy if he could cover other teams, outside of the Wolfies. :)
Britt makes a great point about Big Al. At 24, the guy is not a great defensive player, maybe never will be - but man is he clutch in crunch time. And every team gears up to stop him first, the other players around him have benefited. That to me is one major part of the McHale "blueprint" that seems to be working well as of late.
The hand-wringing over the second 2nd-rounder is somewhat of a moot point. The trade with Miami was made way before the second round because they weren't going to buy out any more players. They didn't want to add players to the roster who they might end up cutting, like they did when they chose Calvin Booth over Chris Richard. McHale was a below-average personnel guy, but he made that trade because Taylor told him he wasn't going to buy out any more players.
We won't know for a few years whether the second round of the draft worked out or not because Pekovic is 22, and we haven't seen what will happen with the two second-rounders they got from Miami for trading that pick. Portland picked Arvydas Sabonis in 1986 and didn't get him on their team until 1995 when he was 31, so it's not like Pekovic will never come over just because he's not interested now. Also, his rights could always be traded for a second-rounder or included to sweeten a trade.
I don't know whether Pekovic will ever come over, and I liked Jordan and the other guys floated out there before the draft (Chalmers, Douglas-Roberts, etc.). But it's too early to indicate whether this will end up hurting them.
Paging--
I don't think it is too early to know that dumping that second second-rounder hurt them. Chalmers and Jordan are both players who fit easily on this current roster. The cost of paying a second-rounder is negligible, especially since we are nowhere near the luxury tax.
Maybe I'm dumb about this (wouldn't be the first time when it comes to cap matters) but isn't the difference between keeping the Miami pick and dumping Calvin Booth simply the cost of that pick? If so, Chalmers is listed on shamsports as making $700K this year, $756K next year, with a team option on $854K the third year. That's $2.3M spread over three years for a guy that's already averaging 31 minutes per game, ranks 39th in the NBA in assists despite playing beside ball-controller Dwyane Wade, and has an A/TO ratio of 2.2/1. Or you could tab a beastly 7-footer like Jordan, who right now is more valuable than Booth. Please, what am I missing?
As to the TrueHoop blog nation, I was flattered to be asked to join it by Henry Abbott a few weeks ago. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately in this case), I am one of precious few pro hoops bloggers who is paid for their work as an employee on an independent website, which at the current time makes the TrueHoop contract very difficult to sign (I won't go into the gory details).
Suffice it to say that I am pulling for Henry and TrueHoop to make this work, congratulate all those who are part of the network and look forward, as always, to reading very enlightening things on basketball's best one-stop shop.
Another issue with the 2nd round picks (and with the potential for 4 1st rounders and 2 2nd rounders) is that the Wolves can only carry a full load of 15 players. One of the major benefits of the Philly trade is that Philly is picking up the majority of the tab for Booth and Carney. Granted, this trade took place after the draft, but I'd argue that you don't want to have 15 locked in contracts before starting free agency because it severely limits any additional off-season options. By drafting Euros and trading 2nd rounders (and late 1sts) teams can enter free agency with some roster flexibility on their last few roster spots. Also, rosters don't have to be set until October but it still can be a lot to handle with an excess of players that will have to be cut down to size.
I still don't think this excuses letting one of the top 2nd rounders go in a year where you had several worthwhile players still on the board but I can see where they were coming from on this front, especially with the possibility of 3-6 picks in the next draft. They've filled their roster with a very solid mix of low cost, short deals that give them a tremendous amount of flexibility going forward. Remember, if the status quo remains, they have 10 guaranteed deals with all those draft picks next season; with 4 of them possibly being guaranteed. That doesn't include guys like Carney or McCants (who I don't think will be back).
I also think we're forgetting that Jordan was, I believe, explicitly rejected by the front office and that his college stats left a whole lot to be desired. Yes, he's big and athletic but so was Devon Harden. He's played in only 19 games this year and his 33 minutes against the Wolves were a season high only because the Clips' top 3 front court players were injured. He's very limiting on offense and despite what he may have done against Jefferson (with considerable help) his ORtg/DRtg carries a -13 rating (with a 105 Drtg).
I can't speak for everybody who wants DeAndre, but I'm not forgetting that he was explicitly rejected by the front office--I'm complaining (and have, since Draft Night) about that exact point. His college stats mean next-to-nothing to me, since he's clearly a project with huge upside as a defender and rebounder. For all of us that spent 2007-08 bitching about Al Jefferson playing out of position, the thought of a big, athletic, raw, seven-foot shotblocker with limited offensive tools sounded pretty good--especially if he jumps out of the gym. (Please don't cite that 30" vertical measurement from the same test that had K-Love at 35"--just watch his youtube collection and decide for yourself if he's a freak athlete). Anyway, even if you like Love-Jefferson as a 4-5, it couldn't possibly hurt to have an athletic big coming off the bench or stashed for a possible return in a year or two. LAL spent a lottery pick on this type of player, and it's now the reason that many think they have a new edge over Boston. We could've gotten one with the 34th pick in the draft.
Didn't want Jordan.. Thought he would benefit by staying another year, but I felt that way about Beasley also. The somewhat warped logic that McHale had for trading the 2nd 2nd round pick to Miami made a little sense, since it was done before the Love/Mayo trade. I like this team. I think it is starting to have a solid core to build around and PATIENCE with drafts, trades and FA will build another contender here. I am also glad that McHale does not freely roam the front office anymore.
Britt --
To me, it's too early because they got two future second-rounders from Miami for the pick. The assumption with a lot of people (not necessarily you) is that they'll screw up those picks, which will make the deal a bad deal. The picks will probably be in the 40s, which is obviously worse than #34 in a deep draft, but they still haven't been made. I don't consider trading a pick for two future picks to be dumping the pick.
As for the cap cost, it's not about the luxury tax; it's about an owner who doesn't want to pay any more players who aren't on his team's roster. That's why Booth (guaranteed contract) was kept instead of Richard (nonguaranteed contract).
I don't agree with the move, but it's at least explainable. It was made because the FO wanted to keep all of their free agents and the owner didn't want to pay guys to sit on the couch or play for another team. If the picks they get from Miami don't equal the value that could've been had by picking Chalmers or someone else, then it was a waste. But the trade is still based partially on things that haven't happened.
His college stats do mean something and so, apparently, did his performance behind the scenes. The guy was passed on by everybody. Was the cost/risk calculation blown on Jordan with the 2nd 2nd rounder? I have no idea. My own personal take is that there is nothing in the guy's resume other than height that suggests he was worth the pick. I completely get that the idea of a player like Jordan is tantalizing. Guys with that type of size and athleticism don't grow on trees. However, if you simply draft based on the size and athleticism, what does that say about the methodology or metrics that guide this, that, or the other selection? I get that the Wolves are rebuilding but NBA picks are even more high-leveraged than NFL ones and I don't think that they can be faulted for not wanting to take a flier on a guy who vastly underperformed in college and who didn't show enough of the behind-the-scenes stuff to the other 29 teams in the league to make himself--a 7 foot athletic monster--an attractive hire. The guy went from a projected top 5 pick to the second round for a reason; probably the same reason why he's only getting minutes after the entire Clipper front line goes down with an injury.
The trade of the 2nd round pick was all about money. The Wolves got $1.5 million back from Miami in the trade. In addition, they didn't have to buyout Calvin Booth to free up a roster spot. The Wolves continue to make draft day trades with cash considerations year and year out. Why isn't Taylor called out on this ? If the Wolves are going to improve enough on the court, then the owner needs to use all his draft picks to obtain talent, not dollars.
S+P and Paging--
I'm not going to pretend this is my area of expertise. Both salary cap management and college prospects are things in which I generally defer to others.
That said, here is my naive take. Glen doesn't want to pay anyone to sit on the couch, but isn't that exactly what is happening with Booth now? The dude literally has one minute played thus far this year--how is that different than dumping him to go toil elsewhere, save that we need to fill his spot with another salary? And if it isn't different, why not have that salary be a low-risk, high-reward slot like an undervalued second-round pick?
Now let's take the logic of the Miami swap another step. Minnesota didn't want to keep the pick because they didn't want too many players clogging up salary space on the roster. So they dump the pick for...two second rounders who will simply compound the roster problem at the next draft. Unless you really think those two second-rounders and going to be serious bargaining chips or yield players that will bump guys off the current roster, what has been accomplished with this move? Meanwhile, you've lost the chance for Chalmers or Jordan.
I didn't see much of Chalmers or Jordan in college, but watching them now in the pros, I understand why S+P liked Chalmers a lot for where he was drafted, and why Andy G liked Jordan at the same slot. Both seem to me to be mid-first round level talents, with a potential for bust but also a potential to be a very nice piece on a contending team. At worst, Chalmers looks to be a better version of Kevin Ollie. At worst, Jordan is going to be a guy who gets in foul trouble three out of four games and blocks a half-dozen shots and intimidates in the paint the other times. Seriously, without Jordan, the Clips lose yesterday by 20 points.
I don't care what the rap on Jordan was coming out of school, or his lack of burn with the Clips thus far this year. Even on the basis of what I saw yesterday, he doesn't rate minutes ahead of Kamen, Camby and Zach Randolph, so the lack of PT is understandable. But to say he has no offensive game, well, that's simply not so. He is athletic enough to go and get the ball and then slam it through the hoop. It is *very* fundamental, but Kevin Love can no more do it consistently than Jordan can consistently step out and hit a 12-footer. I understand it is an impossibly small sample, but Jordan's FG% is higher than Love's. Besides, what you want beside the likes of Jefferson and Love is a guy who *doesn't* shoot but craves defense. Jefferson and Jordan were on the court together only 26:46 yesterday and Jordan blocked Big Al's shot three times. I think that alone makes him more than what the naysayers are claiming about him.
Bottom line, isn't the top of the second round exactly the place where you go after longshot projects?
This is a rare example of me trying to play with stats, so bear with me.
If Jordan's freshman stats at A&M are extrapolated to 32.0 mpg, instead of the 20.1 mpg that he got, he had the following numbers:
12.6 PPG
9.6 RPG
2.0 BPG
61.7 FG%
Not Earth-shattering numbers, but solid, and All-Conference-worthy if he played for the right team and they had some success. Maybe his coach was freezing him out, so he wouldn't declare (it almost worked, if I remember right).
In any case, I don't care about the stats much, in any case, and not at all, in this case. Guys like Jordan don't fall to #34, except in 2008 when Minnesota was lucky enough to have it happen.
If he fell that far for some legitimate reason, I've never heard it. I (and others) are clearly putting their own judgment ahead of McHale's here, so I don't care that he wasn't impressed with him in a workout, or something. It seemed like a no-brainer, and I think that the little indications from yesterday and the Wolves' consistent lack of enough size are proving it to be just that.
Booth's salary (and 2/3rds of Carney's) is being paid for by Philly. He is literally a free player. Glen is only on the books for 13 1/3 players this season. By going with Booth and Carney over potential 2nd round picks, the Wolves not only rolled their picks into a future draft where they could potentially keep who they drafted, but where they will have less guaranteed contracts. Booth is valuable in the sense that he's a free roster spot who expires. Is that worth more than someone like Jordan or CDR? I don't know. But from a financial point of view, the Wolves are saving nearly $3 mil this year by playing Booth and Carney instead of 2nd round picks. Both players have expiring deals and could be wiped clean off the books heading forward. The Wolves also owe 2 2nd round picks (one to Philly, one to Detroit) so it is likely they either won't face a clogged round or that they will trade the pick or draft a Euro.
Again, I completely get the desire to have a player like Jordan. The guy looks as close to a Dwight Howard physical specimen as we've seen out of college ball in a while and watching him even for a little while you can see that he has the physical gifts that, if transplanted to Kevin Love, would have made him (Love) the consensus #1 pick in the draft. That being said, check out how he's getting his shots:
http://www.82games.com/0809/08LAC17.HTM
48% of his attempts are dunks. Amazingly, he's missing a 3rd of them. He has a .333 eFG on chip shots and can't shoot a lick beyond 5 feet. Checking his hot spots shows him to be 17-30 in the low post and 0-1 beyond that. If he had something in his track record in college to suggest that he's nothing more than a 7 foot Gerald Green I think it would be well worth the investment of a 2nd round pick on a guy that can jump high and dunk. If there were just something there beyond being tall and being able to jump; perhaps if he had a good rebound rate or a decent ppr for his position.
Love was the Pac-10 player of the year. He put up numbers every bit as impressive as Beasley. He had amazing rebound rates and showed promise with a mid range jumper. In the NBA he hasn't shot well (it's improving) but he's still averaging more points, assists, and free throws per possession than O.J. Mayo. He leads the league in OReb%. At 22 minutes/game he's 5th in the league in net offensive boards. In other words, there was something else in his game in college to suggest him being worth the pick. There was something in Chalmers' game (i.e. stats) to suggest him being worth the pick. There was something in Jason Thompson's game to suggest him being worth the pick. The top of the second round is exactly the place where you go after longshot projects but I'd argue that Jordan doesn't even rise to this level, especially on a team that needs offense from the spot he would be playing. If a near 7 footer with that type of athletic ability can't figure it out to even the tune of modest freshman stats in a single area, and if he goes from starter to bench player in his freshman season, and if he doesn't create an impression with each and every single team in the league with those types of physical gifts than I don't think he merits even the title of longshot project. That being said, if there was any sort of a hint that Jordan would put all of his playing eggs in the defensive/rebounding basket, I think that would immediately make him a more valuable commodity and I imagine (I'm completely guessing here) that a lack of self-awareness about what his game could be is what led to bad interviews/behind-the-scenes stuff. A guy with his size and athleticism can will himself into a decent rebounder/defender....soooooo....I guess...well, what I'm trying to say is that I'm not trying to say I have all the answers about the guy and I can completely see why some people like him. I just don't see any hint of value beyond his physical tools. Sorry if I came off as a dick about this. I blame the internets.
As a side note going forward, it will be interesting to see if BJ Mullens gives a repeat performance of Jordan in this year's draft. Guys like Mullens and Jordan played through high school being the biggest, baddest, strongest guys on the court. Once they move up a level it is always interesting to see if there is some skill there or if they were just coasting on god-given ability against inferior competition.
Glad I prefaced my last post acknowledging I don't know salary cap. Philly's paying for Booth and Carney may have briefly been in my cranium at some point, but not recently.
Once again, it's a pleasure to be educated by my readers, especially via intelligent disagreements like the one between Andy G and S+P and PagingStanleyRoberts (who with his moniker should be heavily on the Jordan bandwagon!).
I also forgot about those added perks to the Philly trade. That makes it a bit more mystifying why Booth wasn't set free. To clarify a little bit more, I didn't and don't agree with the trade; although Chalmers isn't a true point guard, his defense and outside shooting would be nice to have. I also thought Jordan was worth a flier with such a good pick. But deals with future considerations should be given a chance. S-n-P did a good job of describing the ins and outs of it in much more detail.
The OKC Hijackers also showed that having 6 picks in a draft can work to one's advantage if done correctly; they used two 2nd-rounders to trade up and stashed one first rounder and one second rounder in Europe. The only pick they sold was #56.
Yes, the moniker is a plea for someone bigger at the 5 spot. It's also a tribute to the different journeymen who have populated the roster (Chris Carr, Bill Curley, Dennis Scott, Reggie Slater, etc.). Having 1-2 players like that are interesting in the right context.
One of the things that I thought was very interesting about Stack's interview was that he viewed the team's needs less in terms of position and more of need. They need more play making and defense at the rim. I think they thought they would get some of that defense from Brewer from the weak side. A guy like Josh Smith would be perfect for the team. A big 5 would definitely bring that quality to the team but balance against the rest of the existing roster, he would have to bring something else; transition game, mid-range offensive skills, rebounding, etc. They've clearly chosen the small ball route and they have to win with offense. It has to be weighed in terms of overall quality of possessions. Love balances his defensive and short-range deficiencies with massively upper-level rebounding and superior per/possession stats (to say nothing of his ability to keep possessions alive with hustle and the "little things"). If they do bring in a 5, they need to make sure that whoever it is can balance out his game in terms that are favorable to the rest of the roster. A big shot blocker would be great for Big Al on defense, but if he doesn't take pressure off him on the offensive end, or on the boards, then I think it's a wash...or less. Jefferson is a supremely talented offensive player but he requires a very specific type of front court mate; one that I think Love fits the bill of more than a guy like Jordan. I think that best fits where I'm coming from in terms of that specific player.
Has anyone mentioned already that Miller is shooting 66.7% from the stipe this year? It's mind boggling, considering that his career average is 76.8% and last three seasons he shot 77.4%, 79.3% and 80% respectifully. This is not just a shooting slump, to large of a drop for that. Besides, it's not FG% we're talking about, it's free throws, shooting slumps of this caliber doesn't happen with free throws and especially with soneone like Mike Miller, who practiced a couple hundred millons of them at this point. I mean he's actually a liability of Antawn Walker's proportions at the stripe right now, despite having a rep of one of the NBA most profilic shooters. That why he hasn't been launching much as a Wolf, cause he knows that his shot is waaay off right now. The question is: what's the problem? Something is wrong with either his hands or his confidence, and if he doesn't fix it soon, he's done as an NBA player. I mean really, if Miller doesn't shoot, what is the use from him on a bball court exactly?
SnP-
(First, I'll keep posting on this thread, since Britt's Utah post probably doesn't need more debate about a rookie averaging less than 3 ppg)
You and I are each making an assumption, here. I'm assuming that a raw talent can be developed over time. You're assuming that DeAndre showed SOMETHING (an unknown, since neither of us can identify it) that rightfully scared off so many teams. That could be an IQ Test of 24, a hardcore drug addiction that surfaced in the pre-draft evaluations, or an incredibly bad attitude. In any case, I haven't heard of it, and even if his offensive skills looked like a 4th Grader's, I don't think it diminished his value beyond the 20th or so pick, given his physical tools and young age.
You're comparing him to Kevin Love--something I have not done. Even if we made the colossal mistake of trading away OJ Mayo, I still would want DeAndre Jordan, perhaps as a bench player who can eventually learn enough to start in the league, the exact same way that Andrew Bynum has.
Finally, you said that DeAndre did not have even "modest" freshman stats in a single area. I thought I refuted that, before you even wrote it, with his per 32-minute numbers in the major categories for a big man. His scoring isn't particularly high, but double figures with an outstanding FG%. I don't care if they were all dunks--in fact I'd prefer that's the case. We don't need a Marc Blount--we need a Dwight Howard--even a homeless man's version.
To clarify a few things, I'm not comparing him to Love; I'm just trying to show that players like Love showed things in college that are reflected in their college play...which is a positive version of what is happening with Jordan.
A comparison in that sense is illustrative. Love carried the following college stats:
PPR: -2.93
ORtg: 126.6
%poss: 27.7
Oreb%: 15.4
DReb%: 28.4
ToR: 14.9
pts/pos: 1.27
winshares/40: 18.7
Jordan's:
PPR: -6.70
ORtg: 99.4
%poss: 22.6
OReb%: 11.6
Dreb%: 22.3
ToR: 22
pts/pos: 1.06
winshares/40: 10.9
Both guys were freshman big men and both showed fairly substantial differences in their ability to do certain things on the court. Love showed that he could be an upper level rebounder who didn't turn the ball over, was all-around efficient, and could get to the line. Jordan showed that he rebounded poorly for his size, he turned it over a lot and didn't score as much as would be expected for someone with his size, position, and the amount of time he had the ball in his hands. Jordan has carried his game to the pros. He can't really score outside of dunks, he turns the ball over a fair amount when he gets his hands on it, and he doesn't rebound well for his position. He's transfered to the pro game just like his college stats would have suggested.
whoops...they showed things in college that are reflected in the pros.
I don't know what any of those stats you listed are, so I can't really take much from them.
And you can't keep saying "for his size" when "his size" is such a big part of his potential value. If Jordan were a great player "for his size" then he would be Dwight Howard.
Shaq's Freshman Stats:
13.9 PPG
12.0 RPB
2.9 BPG
57% FG%
I couldn't find his minute stats, but is it fair to say he played about 32 MPG? If so, those aren't all-that much better than DeAndre's per-32 stats at A&M.
Size is important because 7 footers should have basic expectations of rebounding and shooting from in close. Take a look at some big men from last year's draft:
http://www.draftexpress.com/stats.php?year=2007%2F08&q=&per=pergame&qual...
Out of a group of Trent Plaisted (who is every bit as big and athletic as Jordan), Roy Hibbert, Javelle McGee, Brook Lopez, Kosta Koufos, and Andrew Ogilvy, Jordan had the fewest OReb, poorest Dreb rate, lowest percentage of team rebounds, fewest points per possession, highest turnover rate per possession, and zero passing game to speak of. What he could do relatively well (get to the line) was short-circuited by him having a 43% ft%. Compared to his 7 foot peer group he does not have solid stats. I don't have possession based stats for O'Neal at LSU but my guess would be that the difference would be striking.
Jordan isn't even a modestly good player for his size. Not even close. He's far behind the guys listed above.
As for the stats, I think the best way to evaluate players is to break down their numbers in terms of possession percentage. It's like batting average in baseball. Since each game has a different number of possessions, it's hard to take net stats and compare one player to another just as it is hard to look at different hitters and compare them only by, say, the net number of hits they have.
How often does player x have the ball in his hands compared to his team's overall possessions and what does he do when he gets his hands on the ball? Jordan played in 65.7% of his team's possessions/game. Of these possessions, he factored in 11.4% of them. During these possessions he carried the lowest number of FTAs, points, rebounds, and assists while having the highest # of turnovers compared to his center peers. In other words, he was underwhelming when he was on the court.
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
