Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
On the Ball
The Three-Pointer: A Sloppy Split
Photo copyright 2009 NBAE (Photo by David Sherman/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #47, Road Game #24: Indiana 111, Minnesota 116
Game #48, Home Game #24: Minnesota 86, Atlanta 94
Season Record: 17-31
1.Holes In The Lineup
The Indiana Pacers dared the Wolves to run and gun with them and Minnesota did, winning a sloppy game down the stretch. The Atlanta Hawks dared the Wolves to beat them with outside shooting and Minnesota didn't, clanking their way to a home defeat against a squad missing their only All Star. In the postgame press conference tonight, coach Kevin McHale delivered his typically astute summary of events (it is no coincidence that the two best coaches in franchise history, McHale and Flip Saunders, also provide the best postgame analysis) and then said that he always tells "the guys" that if they put themselves in a position to win in the last few minutes, that's what it is all about. Minnesota did that the past two contests. They have dropped four out of five after winning 12 of 16, but it doesn't feel like they've fallen off a cliff. The caliber of competition is higher, the things the squad did well during its hot streak have been seen and responded to, and the law of averages on what most people expected to be a 30-35 win team going into the season has begun reasserting itself.
After dropping 34 points apiece on last year's NBA finalists over the weekend, Al Jefferson found himself the subject of much attention against the Pacers and Hawks and was not well-served by the offensive response of his teammates. The complaints about Jefferson's disinclination to pass out of double-teams were on shakey ground even before the Indiana game, but then really debunked in a first half that saw the big man launch just three FGA. More than that, Jefferson wasn't dawdling over his options down in the low-post swarm while burning precious seconds off the shot clock; he was kicking it out quickly and intelligently, fostering ball movement that was marred by a horrendous half from Randy Foye, who amassed seven turnovers, most of them on wayward passes. Jefferson was also working hard on the boards, with a game-high 15 rebounds. But his defense was shoddy. The DVR on my fancy new set package of TV tools consistently ferrets out Jefferson being inattentive to the action or misunderstanding of the scheme, especially on the pick and roll. It happened a lot in Indy.
This was also true of Craig Smith, who bruised his ribs, perhaps in a collision with Troy Murphy that left Murphy's cheek bloodied and Murphy being called for a questionable offensive foul when the two collided in mid air on a long Murphy jumper. Smith's line was a gaudy 4-4FG for 10 points in less than a quarter's worth of play. Unfortunately, Murphy was going off for 13 points over the same span. Some of it was just a bad matchup--Murphy can live out on the three-point line. But it is not atypical for Smith, who generally gets a praiseworthy amount of points, while sacrificing just a smidgen more. It seems more exciting than a terrible shooter who works hard on D and holds his man to a single trey while going scoreless, but the net effect is the same.
Back to Jefferson: Both Indiana and Atlanta fronted him quite a bit, and were relatively effective at it. This makes sense because Jefferson doesn't rule in the low post via height, power, or speed--he's a reactor, a counter-puncher. He throws moves on his man, watches his opponent adjust, and responds with more moves, a pattern generally repeated until he feels he has sufficient advantage to attempt the shot. As we all know, it is a hell of a lot of fun to watch. But the classic way to beat the "front" is to throw over the top of it and go strong to the hoop immediately on the catch. This requires more of the typical strength-height-speed troika of virtues and offers no read of his man, who is behind him, with others closing from the sides--there's no counterpunch. It so happens that the Hawks are almost perfectly assembled for this type of defense: They've got Josh Smith, who is a pogo stick; Al Horford, who plays intelligently and has a quick second jump if he's faked off his feet the first time; and traditional center Zaza Pachulia and lithe forward Marvin Williams for variety. For many possessions during this game, they used their length and athleticism to play zone while fronting Jefferson, and, as mentioned, dared Foye and Bassy Telfair to knock down some wide open outside shots.
The backcourt (and swingman) shooting was pathetic. Telfair didn't make any of his nine attempts, Foye was 4-19 FG, and Ryan Gomes threw up his 1-10 FG, for a nifty 5-38 FG, with a 2-17 FG cherry on top from the three point line. Meanwhile, the front court of Jefferson and Kevin Love (starting while Smith nurses his ribs to health) shot a respectable 13-27 FG while grabbing 25 rebounds between them, including 13 at the offensive end, one reason why the Wolves launched 22 more shots than Atlanta (and made one fewer). The nature of Atlanta's zone had something to do with Love's opportunities crashing the boards, but the rook was back to his own glass-munching self, with four tip-ins and a more classic layup-putback buttressing his 6-10 FG performance. McHale, who has ample man-Love, again called him a "world class rebounder" at both ends of the court, predicted many years of him being "a double-double machine," and then jokingly said, "I keep saying if the coach would play him 30 minutes he'd really do something. But the coach keeps screwing him." Love got his 30--30:12, to be exact--tonight and got 16 points and 14 rebounds.
That's a bit of good news. The bad news is that this squad is still full of holes. Love should have been starting over Smith two months ago, but that begs the question of what you do off the bench. As a fervant opponent of smallball, it bugs me to see Jason Collins, Mark Madsen and Calvin Booth all in uniform and ready to go and all DNP-CD. Then again, banging the drum for Collins, Madsen and Booth is like panhandling in the skyway--decent folks scurry by casting looks of fear and disapproval and pretty soon a security guard appears and leads you back out into the cold. If a tall rendition of the Three Stooges is your most viable strategic solution, well, what's the harm in playing the kids, Love and Smith. Such common sense retorts leave me muttering to my inner phantoms as I head down the street. In other words, as I've said before, the Wolves need a legit big, preferably a hulking center, to get in a three-man rotation with Jefferson and Love. They don't have one. So that's a hole.
The team also needs a genuine point guard who can stick the jumper more than 35% of the time. Telfair has been a nice story the past six weeks for the way he has taken another half-step forward from last year's full-step forward, and that's partly because he hasn't allowed himself to be exposed as a bad shooter very often this season, instead making things happen via penetration and just enough makes with superb shot selection to keep the vultures at bay. Well, tonight the Hawks exposed him. It had to be a confidence bender for Bassy, who sat with more than half the 3rd quarter yet to be played and never returned. The Hawks were running away from him as he went up for the shot in Wednesday's game. If he can't repay that insult with a bucket, the hole created at the point grows larger.
Then there is depth. Foye played over 40 minutes of a fast-paced, up-and-down game that saw him sky for a monster block on Danny Granger Tuesday night in Indianapolis, then come home and log 44:48 on the other side of the back-to-back. No wonder he looked tired. Ditto Gomes, who played 40:15 and shot 1-10 FG.
2. A Pulse From Mike Miller
It is soooo easy to imagine that Mike Miller is playing the game the right way. There he is, whipping his stocky body around with all he's got. In Indiana, he actually did a pretty nice job defending Granger, who may be the NBA's 5th leading scorer, but gets a lot of treys due to his height and is pretty slow off the dribble, elements that make it easy to see why the 6-8 Miller might have some success on him. But even when Miller's slow-footedness costs him on D, you can tell by his hustle that the deficiency is physical--he's trying. He runs the floor well, finishing fast breaks or playing the middle man with equal aplomb. He rebounds extremely well for a two-guard and slightly better than average for a 3. And his passing is almost always crisp and proactive, with original angles--body-twisting feeds from wing to opposite baseline, or faking both the draw-and-kick and the banker on a right lane drive in favor of an overhead dump to the cutting big man coming down the middle. His court vision is expansive and his brain proactive.
But Miller is not playing the game the right way, because he's not doing what would help this team the most--shoot. Shoot. Shoot. When he eschews that open jumper early in the shot clock and instead barrels toward the hoop, only to whip over a pass to Bassy Telfair, who catches it right in rhythm for an uncontested three-pointer--that's not a good play by Miller. Because the erstwhile "South Dakota Sniper" had a far better chance of registering those two or three points for Minnesota by sticking that open J right from the git-go, without the dribble or the dish to Telfair, or Foye, or Gomes. By the way, sticking his own shot would also save a lot of wear and tear on Foye during these 40-minute marathons he's been playing lately.
Tonight, for the first time in a long long while, Miller aggressively looked for his shot for a few plays in a row. What it took was Atlanta effectively sealing off access to Jefferson with quick, lengthy guys locked in a zone D, and three of his teammates constantly clanking shots that the Hawks were begging them to take. Miller had already nailed his first trey, but recently all that's meant is that he filled his quota and would wait for the next game before jacking up another. But this time, after jump-starting the ball movement and player movement with quick passes and strong drives around a team that was just standing pat, only to watch yet more misses bounce off the rim, Miller zeroed in on his own offense. That's putting it kindly. Miller finally grasped the neon signs telling him that with the Wolves down 13 with 10 minutes to play, nobody was scoring but him. So, he split the zone and drove for a layup (with his 4th step, but who's counting?). Then he sank a long trey to cut the Atlanta margin to single digits. Twenty seconds later, he did it again. Boom. In 68 seconds, Miller had single-handedly cut the lead from 13 to 5.
Those long three-pointers, *those* were the right way to play. Five straight airballs would have been alright with me and every other Wolves fan who has watched him pretend to be Jason Kidd for three months. Because Miller is, or should be, the zone-buster, the Jefferson complement, the space maker, and, at the very least, the number 2a scorer on this team, behind 1-Jeffeson and 2-Foye. When Miller hit the second of those treys, he was 7-9 from the field; the rest of the Wolves were 21-67. What more do you need than that? Do the math Mikey.
Yet 33 seconds after that 8-point explosion, Miller came down, launched another bomb, watched it bounce away, and packed in his jumper for the evening. For the remaining 8:09, there were no more shot attempts. When the game had ended, Miller's shots-per-minute total ranked last among the 7 Wolves who played at least 15 minutes, yet his 7 field goals tied with Jefferson for most on the team. Miller led the team in assists with 4, but if you think that's admirable, consider again the odds on his dimes: He personally shot 70% (7-10 FG) while his team as a whole shot 36.4% (32-88 FG). Even if Miller's passing was so good it elevated the shooting of guys getting his feeds up to 50%, instead of the 32% the team shot without his accuracy added in, that's still not as good a bet as Mike Miller himself letting one fly.
Got that? Until Miller starts to actively look for his shot, he is not playing the game the right way--not under these current circumstances.
3. A Shaddy Sighting
Atlanta's zone and the Wolves' back-to-back had so thoroughly sapped the team's offense that it made perfect sense when Rashad McCants strode to the scorer's table with less than 4 minutes to play in the third and the Wolves down by 16. Shaddy hadn't played since January 7, and there was a buzz in the crowd as he stepped on to the court, about 60 percent of it positive. His understanding of the flow of the game has always been acute, and right off the bat he demonstrated the right way to get his feet wet after 4 weeks of practice-only activity, causing the defense to react to him off the dribble but then dishing the ball. The first time he led a cutting Jefferson just a bit too much. Inexorably he went for his--it was why he was in the game, after all--making one layup and missing another, but both were good, appropriate shots. He sank a second layup before the third quarter ended.
In the 4th quarter, McCants began to get back into his old rhythm--both a good and a bad thing. He was moving the ball well and hitting some shots--each of a pair of treys brought the Wolves to within 4 points. But there were the little behaviors. Dribbling the ball out on the wing, he began to tell his teammates to start moving around. When he hit a three, he jogged back downcourt holding up three fingers. He launched 7 shots, grabbed 4 rebounds, committed 3 fouls, a steal, and 2 turnovers in a 15:19 stint that made him a team-high plus +9 for the game. After the game, after commenting that McCants had earned the playing time by practicing well recently, McHale said "Shaddy gave us a spark." True.
But when that spark lights a fuse, what's on the other end? It almost doesn't matter whether he plays well or not: During his entire time with the Wolves, including tonight's game against Atlanta, McCants has demonstrated that he won't be (perhaps can't be) comfortable being a star role player, which represents his upside right now. Instead, he wants to be a star, period. I don't think he'll stop pushing until he shows--or even more thoroughly disproves--that he can or can't be. Perhaps Shaddy simply has to play with a chip on his shoulder. Fair enough, I suppose, but there's too much water under the bridge with him and this franchise. History and circumstance make this situation a bad fit for the Wolves. More minutes for McCants complicates positioning for Randy Foye, a smallish combo guard who needs no more than 10 minutes at the point. Sooner or later it complicates the pecking order, with Jefferson, Foye, and even Kevin Love earning more consideration for touches.
Best case scenario, the obvious good attributes of McCants's signature style were enough on display tonight to make this a nice showcase for Shaddy; that he'll be attractive enough for others teams to prompt an offer before this month's trading deadline expires in two weeks. May he find a good place to land and enough of an allignment between a coach he listens to and his own self-regard.
29 Reader Comments
Britt,
I think Bassy has a far more serious injury than we have been lead to believe. He was really favoring that leg last night. It was clear to me that Bassy was cheating on defense (not a good idea against a savvy vet like Bibby) to compensate. He was a good 4" lower (ie jumping lower than normal) on his J which caused most of those shots to be short. It is a concern because with 3 games left to All Star break, I am not sure he will (or even should) contribute much. And I don't see a rotation with Foye/McCants playing 1 being successful in the short term.
Which leads to the next issue - Foye can effective play 10-12 minutes at point - not 35. When he does play that many, you see it everywhere, his turnovers, his shooting, and even his defense suffers a bit. I still think a cheap, veteran back up point plus a first line taller, shooting 2 guard is the best use of resources.
Would not Miller be the perfect 8th man for the Celtics, Cavs, or another contender looking for a veteran wing? Someone who can play the right way for 15 minutes a game, offer a variety of complimentary skills, and stick the occasional J? Unfortunately, we need a 35 minute, scoring focused starter and Miller just does not seem to want that role. I am still keeping my fingers crossed for a trade.
Finally, what is up with Carney? Now frankly, I was not as excited as many during his explosion in January as I thought he was somewhat playing over his ability. I figured he would come back to earth which he has. But McHale seems to really be cutting back his minutes the last 3-4 games. Anyone have insight? While not as upset about his minutes (after all he is a free agent this summer) as I am about Love's, it is puzzling.
Wonderful post, wonderful first comment from Just A Fan. You both addressed the issues that had been concerning me and offered me insights deeper and better than my own.
As a side note, the McCants sighting was fascinating. Was it to showcase him? To fill a need with Bassy hurting, Foye stinking, and Ollie healing? Or was it McHale saying, "Okay, come out of the doghouse and show me what you've learned"?
Also a note on Love. I find myself waiting for him to get into the game to see how he is going to impact it. I have gone from a bitcher to a believer. I wish there was a stat for how many times a person impacts a game with tips, touches, redirections, etc., as well as assists, points, and rebounds. This guy gives every indication of being God's own definition of a complementary player. If only we had him AND Mayo. Well, yeah, if only I was six feet seven and could do a three-sixty. . .
Fun stuff, these Wolves these days.
Right here. This is what I expected and maybe even hoped for when I look back to October.
McHale has coached 12-16 - that's a 35-win pace.
The team is fun to watch. Big Al has delivered on offense night after night. Wolves as bottom-feeder losing 13 straight? Al's numbers are there. Coach-of-the-month 10-4 in January with plenty of help, Al's numbers stand up.
Love has provided as much for this team in the past six weeks as Foye and Al.
Bassy has taken a step forward and has kept his nose entirely clean (this alone has not gotten enough attention - think back to trade day and his perceived place in the deal).
Will the Wolves make a move in the next couple of weeks? Reasonable people can make an argument both ways.
People are where they should be. McHale on the bench. Shaddy 10 seats down.
Best of the worst, worst of the best. That's progress.
Really nice write up, Britt. Regretfully, Shaddy hasn't matured as I have hoped for so long. His web site is revealing. As one can imagine, it is all about...wait for it....himself.
The web site is a vanity. It provides a narrative of Shaddy's tats. It has a "news section" which pares down Wolves news into his own personal involvement.
I'd love to see Shaddy dealt to Jerry Sloan or Pop, where he would have to fit into a system. It would be a huge risk/reward situation, but it could potentially save his career too.
Interesting post on the Wages of Wins blog that includes a table on the wins produced by each player this season: http://www.wagesofwins.com/AllPlayerMid0809.html. Top 5: Paul, Howard, James, Camby (?), and Kidd (?). Wolves on the list: Jefferson (27), Love (49), Miller (53), Foye (106), Ollie (184), Gomes (224), Smith (228), Brewer (236), Carney (256), Madsen (321), Cardinal (362), Telfair (384), Collins (403), McCants (417). The five worst are all rotation players: Al Harrington, Ricky Davis, Hilton Armstrong, Andres Nocioni, and Antoine Wright. Obviously, stats can't completely represent value, but it provides interesting fodder.
Britt,
Been reading your posts all season, as Mike Miller is on my fantasy team, and this is the best place to get in-depth analysis of what the Wolves are doing on the court. Your commentary is almost as good as watching the games themselves (and when the Wolves are absolutely struggling and it's too painful to watch, your commentary is better than the games).
I am heartened by Miller making 3(!) three-pointers last night, and am a huge fan of his efficiency and array of skills, but when does his on-court behavior this season cross into the realm of vanity? It's like he's passing up shots while he's in a slump because he doesn't want to hurt his %. He'd rather average 2-3 for 4 points and 67% shooting than risk an occassional 5-15 night to provide what this team really needs: dead eye shooting from distance.
My question is, can McHale coach him out of this slump? How can McHale force the issue? Can you bench him if he doesn't shoot, or do the Wolves problems at the point prevent that from happening? Also, Just A Fan makes a very astute (if frightening) observationt: Miller just doesn't seem to want to play starter's minutes and take/make big shots on this team. Is he auditioning for that sixth man role for the Cavs/Celtics?
I must say, I've grown to be a fan of the Wolves since watching through your window into the team. You have some nice pieces (Jefferson and Love are an intriguing duo, and I've always rooted for Randy Foye) and I wish you guys the best.
The rotation seems a little screwed up. McHale needs to not be afraid to make 4th quarter substitutions. Gomes's J was obviously broke late in the game, and, after a quick blow, Love should've been finishing the game for him. Leaving McCraps on the court for that overlong stretch was bound to fail--he hadn't had any "game" minutes in a month, and should've been pulled with about 5 to go... I think Carney was ready to bust a couple. Sure, it's easy to second-guess McHale's subbing patterns, but I'd like to see some stats on his 4th quarter moves b/c it seems like he takes his hand off the ship's wheel and just lets the team drift into port, win or lose. The best coaches know when to do that and when to make that minor tweak toward game endings.
How about some more Brian Cardinal in the crunch? Guy is a step slow, but he's a great passer, not afraid to mix it up with hard fouls (in the way Posey did for the Cs last year), and he seems to have that sixth "basketball" sense for making the right play. An extra shift for him? I wouldn't mind McHale shuffling in Booth or Collins for a short shift, either.
As for McCraps, that junk he pulled with the "3" signal after he made a trey... garbage. He's like Sprewell in the way that even if he's helping your team, it's hard to get behind him. I can't stand how he wears his headband. I can't stand how he grandstands every call or winks at the bench. I can't stand his YBG neck tattoo--Young Black Gifted? Uh, you're not going to be in your 20s forever, and who says you're gifted? Maybe he can change it into Yellow Bellied Goofball someday. Remembering his finest moment--winning the NCAA title at UNC--is even annoying b/c why did he have to take off his shirt? Guh.
First off, I've gotta admit that the Hawks are a fun team to watch. Neither team played very well last night, but it's hard to win when you're clanking open jumpers. In addition, all those tall trees the Hawks have make it really tough for guys like Bassy and Foye to get into the paint for high percentage shots. That negates the key matchup we should have been able to take advantage of (Bibby guarding anyone).
Second, I know Miller is here to shoot, but those dribble handoff drives are often a good setup for future threes. If I recall correctly, most of Miller's open looks came when he had the ball in his hands and a screen was set - they give the defender that split-second of hesitation (whether to go over or under). I'll agree that he should've kept shooting after his Troy Hudson Memorial Heatcheck Three, but I don't think trading him is going to help.
On Shaddy, I really didn't expect anything less than what he did tonight. He played with something to prove, and energized our team when no one else was getting it done. We all know that he's not going to keep up this production if he actually cracks the rotation again, but I'd like to see what he can do without Wittman's leash, especially when/if our offense gets stagnant again.
word verification: Rucker that
Regarding the roster holes:
I agree that point guard and center are the glaring problems, going forward. This is a great situation compared to December, when it looked like Jefferson was the only keeper on the entire roster.
The respective need for each (point guard and center) is about the same. Telfair will not ever be a good shooter, with his mechanics. Given that he's also small and unable to finish in the paint very well, he's not a long-term solution. I praise him a lot for the things he does well--which most everybody agrees on--but on a team without a Kobe, D-Wade, or LeBron in the backcourt, the point has to do more than push the ball, shoot 2-9 from the floor and make a few nice passes.
Center is a glaring need when we play good teams. I don't think it's a coincidence that all of the serious playoff teams have big players that end up in All-Star games. Whether you're talking about high school ball (like the Cooper-Hopkins matchup on Tuesday), college ball (UConn is currently #1 in the nation) or pro ball, the teams with size are, by default, the favorites to win. Until we add a bigtime physical presence to our front line, we'll be the default underdog against legitimate contenders.
If we have a chance, through trade, draft or free agency, to pick up a bigtime player at either position, that would decide which spot gets filled, first. If there is no obvious choice, I'd rather get the big man. Bassy does enough out there to keep everybody involved, and a shotblocking 7-footer solves the fundamental problem of defending the paint.
As is typical with you folks, really good and varied stuff.
Boots75, the pejorative nicknames and rehashing of personal, non-hoops stuff regarding McCants undercuts your arguments--it seems like you don't like or respect this guy for reasons other than hoops. If I were you, I wouldn't want to go there, especially on this board.
Just A Fan, the stuff about Bassy is astute and probably accurate, although I thought he played well just the night before in Indy, so I'm not convinced the injury can be laid down as the cause quite so directly. As for what you and others are saying about Miller, I agree that it is curious. The vanity aspect mentioned by Miller Time is something I've been toying with a lot with respect to Miller. The way he plays up the pain he feels when he gets hurt, yet refuses to come out of a game or stay on the shelf for very long somehow lines up with his ostentatiously unselfish play, which is of course not that unselfish after all, because it supposedly insulates him from criticism.
I ask McHale about Miller enough in the postgame pressers that the context has been established. Last night when I said he went off for awhile and then disappeared, McHale started talking about how hard it is when a player is struggling, how you don't want to put more pressure on him, how diligently Miller comes out and gets up his shots before every game, and how the team just needs to find ways to make him more comfortable. Yeah, I answered, but he hasn't been cold lately--in fact he's been pretty hot and could have used that hot hand on a night when you guys weren't hitting. "I hear ya" McHale answered, then quickly returned a quick summation in defense of Miller.
Look, McHale knows the situation here: The guy has been breaking down these games really well the past few weeks. I have every confidence the organization is trying to figure out how to get Miller to play the right way for the current circumstance, and I am baffled as to why Miller won't play that way. But his snippy reaction to a Strib reporter asking him--"I take what the other team gives me. It's called basketball, James Naismith invented it," is to my best recollection the quote he provided--indicates that there is a fundamental insecurity still at work here. Either that or periodic rumors that the guy has never been happy here are true. Either way, of all the scenarios that could positively impact this team before the trading deadline, moving Miller for decent, if not equal, value is the most hopeful thing I see on the horizon.
* Britt, I love the skyway analogy with regard to playing the bigs. Brilliant..and true. We need another skilled big man. Gaudy numbers are not required, but a 6 and 6 kind of guy in 20 minutes of action with stout D and just enough offense to keep the defense honest is good 'nuff. Cole Aldrich, your table is ready!
* I'm worried about Foye. It seems like his shooting has regressed to the mean after that fantastic 15-game stretch. I was hoping given the length of his hot streak, that he had perhaps took a permanent step forward in his efficiency, but not to be. He's increasingly looking more like a 6th man combo guard on a playoff caliber team.
* I don't see Miller changing at this point. If we had other guys that could shoot the ball (like McCants circa '07-'08), the drive and kicks would be more palatable and synergistic.
Here's hoping that Atlanta liked what they saw in Miller and a Miller/Willams deal can be worked out. Plllleaaaaassssseeee.....Wolves, get Marvin Williams.
PS:
Rascal Flatts, completely agreed with Aldrich. The Wolves would be beyond lucky if he fell into their laps with the Heat pick. I don't think he'll last that long. If he comes out I suspect he'll impress folks in workouts and move way up. They need a big to play the 30-35 minutes that Love and Big Al won't handle at the 4/5. A Rhino upgrade is what we could call it. We want an elephant.
S-n-P: Though buried in a previous post, I appreciated your comment on one of Bloomington's finest. I also make your canishoopus.com page at least once a day and your articles are top notch. Although, I think you are little high on Ariza as a franchise savior ;)
Britt - nice recap. And to defend boots a little, I think he was simply expressing Shaddy's ego as an unnecessary addition to his game. Without some of his self-absorbed antics, you have a better player, contributor and teammate. I appreciated Boots' humorous change of pace on this issue.
On another note, as the trade deadline approaches, what are your thoughts on potential roster moves? A lot of people are crying for a fire sale, but that doesn't follow previous patterns of Wolves management, nor is it smart (unless a really nice offer comes our way). Mike Miller deserves at least a full season, and our assets will only continue to "gain interest" especially as albatross contracts (Cardinal/Miller) suddenly become invaluable trading chips as expiring dollars in lieu of the summer of LeBron.
I would like to see Stack engineer a minor trade involving Craig Smith. Ideally we would net an expiring contract on the return, which adds a wee bit more salary space for 2009 and frees up both roster redundancy and the starting spot for Love. Trading one of our '09 first round picks for a '10 pick of better position would lessen the salary liability this summer as well, and allow for us to amortize our draft assets over two summers. Curious your thoughts on the Wolves roster position.
WallyWorld--
The problem I have with trade speculation is you have no idea what is out there in terms of other teams and their desires and needs, let alone Minnesota's. It is worse than the blind man with the elephant: It is the blind man with the anonymous animal.
All that said, I would like to see progress toward a legit center and a quality point guard, in that order. Whether that involves an immediate deal or positioning for a future deal to produce that outcome is not as important as seeing that plan come to fruition. The players I value on this roster are Jefferson, Foye and Love, with Gomes and Cardinal valuable for their glue (although Cardinal is obviously overpaid and better used as a salary chip if such a thing is possible). The players I do not value as much as some others seem to are Smith, Carney, Miller, and, perhaps, Brewer.
Again, that doesn't mean I wouldn't trade anybody if I thought the value was there. I had a long and faux-heated conversation with four people the other night in which I took the positon that I'd trade Jefferson for Bynum, a position subsequently complicated by Bynum's second major injury in 4 years. But the point is, can a player I admire fetch a player I admire more? If so, of course I pull the trigger, all things being equal.
But Jim Stack has his own preferences, as does Glen Taylor, Kevin McHale, and the various members of the braintrust of 29 other NBA teams. Who knows what could or should happen?
Not me.
McCants played good basketball in the short time he was in the game--taking smart shots and providing energy. Rashad was doing the same thing that Carney was doing in his short hot streak.
As far as the "three" gesture after he made the shot, it's hard to see the big deal surrounding it--the guy's in his first game in almost a month and comes out and hits a clutch shot; he has a reason to celebrate a little bit. I fail to see how it is detrimental to the team.
How about McCants (with a tight leash) off the bench in a role similar to Carney's role he had during his hot streak? Give Shaddy another opportunity to prove himself with 15-20 minutes per game. It would showcase him before the trade deadline, and he could give us some much needed points considering Foye's recent inability to find the basket. I would definitely like to see more Shaddy if he can play like he did last night.
Anyone else notice how Foye of recent is starting to look like Foye under Wittman?
I was at the game last night as well and I thought McCants performed admirably. I'll add this as perspective on the three sign. Those guys at the end of the bench seemed to be really fired up at McCants efforts and performance. There was one time after he had hit a couple open threes and was open on the wing for another as he lined up and shot, Collins and Booth both jumped to their feet ready to hollar, but alas, that one missed. You could see that they were really pulling for him. I wonder if the three was a sign to the bench as much to the Hawks and the world.
Thanks WallyWorld. Much appreciated. Speaking of Bloomington ball, Mike McCullough was on the PA show the other day.
As for Ariza, after learning that the Lakers are his hometown team and that he aims to switch his Lakers # next year I think Marvin Williams takes his place at the top of the free agent wish list ;)
Mike McCullough? What was he doing on the PA show? I'm glad you are now on the Marvin bandwagon. It is an unlikely scenario, but fun to imagine. A great 2009 target in free agency, as every reason why I condone freeing up that extra 2-3 million by moving Craig's contract.
I agree with the McCants talk. It may be a bit too soon to even put a toe back on bandwagon, but it is safe to say he deserves at least another shot in spot duty minutes provided he keeps up the defensive intensity. It makes the game more fun when certain players wear their emotions on their sleeves; provided it’s the right time, which it was.
A co-worker of mine has some pretty entertaining stories (including the players offering some interesting commentary on the racial makeup of our second unit) from a recent game where he sat near the bench next to Collins, Shaddy and Booth. It seems like everyone on our team is rooting for each other, which is encouraging and seems to be different from what many think. It speaks a lot of how better our team chemistry is compared to last year, with the exception of Big Al and his east coast style of public confrontation in the work place. What happened to passive-aggressive Minnesota nice? Love seemed to be getting the evil eye a few times against the Hawks. Hopefully Al realizes he is getting the evil eye from just about every Minnesota fan for his defensive efforts.
Nonetheless, it was nice to see Miller squeeze the trigger 10 times. If Love is starting, Miller and Smith should be the sole focus of the 2nd unit offense.
I don't know why everyone is freaking out by foye's recent "downswing." He is averaging 18 pts and 5 assists over his last 10 and if anything, he is regressing to about where he should be - somewhere between the amazing stats he put up from the enod of December through most of January and the slightly less enjoyable version at the beginning of the season.
"Anonymous"-
I left your comment up (normally everyone around here is required to call themselves something identifiable so we know who we are talking to) because it is a classic case of someone reading the stat sheets instead of watching the games. If you don't know the difference between the Randy Foye before the hot streak, the Randy Foye of the hot streak and the Randy Foye after the hot streak, or if you don't think there have been major differences, then we are watching different games.
If you want to aggregate Foye's last 10 into 18 and 5 go for it. Those numbers are about the crudest implements available with which to stake out an argument. I'm not going to go chapter and verse because it is not worth it. But I could really have some fun aggregating some Foye numbers in light of his 9 turnovers two games ago and his 4-19 FG last game.
To repeat: We actually watch the games. We see what happens, minute-by-minute. Average points and assists over a ten game span is worthy of an anonymous comment. If you want to get yourself a name and bring some specifics next time you come, you'll be welcomed. But this is weak sauce.
Just a couple of somewhat random comments after watching the Lakers/Celts game last night on an off night around here.
1) It is an absolute pleasure watching KG get to play with a real PG in Rondo, it get's my blood a boilin' to think of all of the seasons KG was forced to play without it. Just the number of alley-oops alone seem to indicate that he has never been able to generate some points as easily.
2) Why, at the end of so many NBA games, after so many well run plays, screens, pick and rolls, hi-low, does the last play involve iso, 40 feet from the basket, dribbling in place and forcing a contested long jumper? What is the real success of that play. I don't think I'll ever understand it. I recall the Wolves/Bulls game ending this way as well.
I caught the Pacers game but didn't manage to see the Hawks one. Bassy played really well at Indiana and seemed to be the only starter interested in playing D. It helped that he was matched up against another small point guard in T.J. Ford. I think the Wolves are doing him a big disservice by not bringing in a true backup point on a 10-day contract to play roughly 10 minutes a game. Foye's 9 turnovers in that game suggested to me that he's a combo guard who is closer to a 3rd string point guard - starting shooting guard. Given that Bassy's been a bit banged up, it's not too surprising that his shooting in the Hawks game was so bad, even by his standards. While I don't believe Bassy is the long term answer, it is amazing to me how important his play has been to the team's revival into lower-middle class status. He's definitely a keeper as a solid backup point guard.
I realize that you are loath to speculation on trade manuvers, but the Indiana game showed that Smith has got to go for either a player or cap space for this offseason, not in 2010 as we have no shot. Troy Murphy, yes nimble footed Troy Murphy, torched him. The only possible reason for starting Smith has got to be as an ongoing showcase for a move. Some contender with a bigger front line that can absorb his defensive deficiencies has got to be interested in a "big" that can provide some instant offense in the low post. Smith is a luxury that we can't afford, and Love is ready to play starters minutes for the remainder of the season.
While it is true, I have not watched all the games, and I do appreciate your commentary, my point is simply that he is probably not nearly as good as his hot streak claimed and not nearly as bad as he was for the first six weeks of the season. Turnovers are obviously an issue, but this is probably what we would have expected to see last year if not because of his fits and starts with injuries.
He is developing slowly (compared to expectations, at least). The important thing is that he is getting better, even if he is slowing down at the moment. Let's wait until the end of the season to get a true evaluation of his game and his worth to the team.
I think were going to see McCants getting some more time here. Foye and Bassy both looked tired. They have been playing great but they are logging over 36 mins. a game and in Foye's case over 40 mins. That is too much for him to be effective. I like watching Love and McCants together. Rashad also spaces the floor for Foye and Vice Versa and if Miller can knock down those 3's like he did the other night then the three of them should be out there more.
I couldn't agree with you more about the Center call out. Too bad McHale didn't draft Gasol like a lot of us were screaming at the TV a couple years ago for him to do. Instead he took Richards, another undersized 5. If the Lakers game taught us anything is that we need some size for when we play certain teams. One will be this weekend when we play the Rockets.
Just a thought
Recalling how essentially everyone (other than Miller) had elevated their game during our new year win streak due to in large part confidence. It seems to me that perhaps nobody would benefit more from such gained confidence (something so critical to his play and entire persona)than Rashad McCants. Thats what his website, his tattoos are all about, himself. Who could confidence possibly play a bigger role for. Get him involved in a few wins, and we may even see him, like Foye, play up to his potential.
The guy writing this column is as good a basketball beat writer as there is...I find this through espn's true hoop and am always pleased by it...I have become a Wolves fan because of this reporting...outstanding stuff with regard to the Xs and Os of hoops and nice little analyses of the human drama that is going on at the same time...I like a bit more of the latter--but that is a minor complaint...
ODP,
That's a very good question (RE: game winning iso shot/play). I read this on True Hoop today and thought you would find it interesting:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-38-139/One-Shot--with-the-Game-on-....
It speaks to that very question.
My guess is the give-the-ball-to-your-star-and-clear
out play is a drama/suspense thing that exists to elevate the entertainment aspect of the game. That is almost always a very predictable, low percentage shot, but people tend to remember the big ones that go in more than the ones that don't, so the shot has become part of the culture of the league.
ODP,
That's a very good question (RE: game winning iso shot/play). I read this on True Hoop today and thought you would find it interesting:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-38-139/One-Shot--with-the-Game-on-....
It speaks to that very question.
My guess is the give-the-ball-to-your-star-and-clear
out play is a drama/suspense thing that exists to elevate the entertainment aspect of the game. That is almost always a very predictable, low percentage shot, but people tend to remember the big ones that go in more than the ones that don't, so the shot has become part of the culture of the league.
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
