Game #69, Home Game #33: Minnesota 94, Portland 93
1. Two Cheers For Wittman, Davis and James
I originally wasn't going to post after the Portland game, if only because I usually only go once on the weekend when the online traffic is down and already posted yesterday after Friday's loss. But the Wolves pulled out a win in the last second against Portland this afternoon and some of my favorite targets of late did well for themselves. Specifically, I've ripped coach Randy Wittman, Ricky Davis and Mike James to varying degrees over the past month of two--and still regard them heavily responsible for the team's disappointing season--and have been particularly scornful during the recently concluded five game road trip. So, silence after a rare win didn't seem quite fair.
I really started sharpening my fangs when Wittman replaced Rashad McCants with Mike James alongside Randy Foye in the backcourt with 5:04 to play and the Wolves down 80-82. The Trailblazers had a big lineup in the game and on Portland's first possession after the substitution, James was on soon-to-be Rookie of the Year Brandon Roy. As soon as Roy received a pass, Minnesota went into scramble mode and Zach Randolph eventually was fouled to save a slam dunk. The next time down, Martell Webster nailed a trey. Then Randolph tipped in a miss. Blount and KG were pressuring the perimeter to help out the small backcourt, opening up the inside. When they didn't help, Portland had open looks. I expected a substitution adjustment.
But Wittman stuck with it, and Ricky Davis began playing some monster defense on Roy, compelling two turnovers in the last two minutes, one occurring when he forced a jump ball with Zach Randolph and then won the jump with a perfectly timed leap on the toss. This was in addition to Davis's eight assists, including one beautiful stretch early in the third period when Pretty Ricky fed James for a 19-footer on on possession, Blount for a 20-footer on the next, and KG for a finger roll on the next--3 dimes in 65 seconds, taking the Wolves from one down to three up.
"Ricky was huge," Wittman said after the game. "Forget about his offense--his defense ignited us. At 89-84 [the Wolves down five], he started us getting us back into it, which obviously he can do." Then Wittman addressed the little backcourt. "I decided to go small because I liked Randy and Mike giving us more pressure." When it was pointed out that Randy Foye went off in the 4th quarter once again with a series of beautiful drives right up the gut of the defense, Wittman pointed out that the plan was to spread the floor, putting James on one corner baseline and Davis on the other so that Foye had room to penetrate in the middle or dish it to a three-point threat. And he was right--James and Davis were worthy decoys if that's what Portland chose to cover, and decent threats to hit the big one if they didn't. So, nice work all around.
2. KG Saves the Day He Almost Lost
It was a beautiful turnaround jumper by Kevin Garnett at the buzzer which won the game by a single point, and that's probably what is being shown on the television highlights tonight. But Garnett's traveling violation when he didn't anticipate Roy come down to double on him with 20 second left and the Wolves up 1, and then his (and Blount's) inability to keep Lamarcus Aldridge off the boards for a tip-in that gave Portland the lead had Garnett pencilled in as the goat of the game without that sweet swish at the end.
I've been reluctant to criticize Garnett for not going to the hole over the years (and months, and days), because he has done it more than his reputation would indicate, because even though he is 7-1 and the best rebounder in the NBA over the past 5 years, he is not a paint-oriented warrior, and because it feels like nit-picking compared to all the marvelous things he does do. But the last two games have seen KG especially reticent about going hard to the hoop and drawing fouls. As I mentioned in the Seattle trey, he was almost always double and triple teamed versus the Sonics and still only got to the line once. Today, he tried three finger rolls, the sort of pastry moves that don't earn you the respect of officials even if you do get wacked a little. Yes he was 10-19 FG, but only got the line 4 times, had but 9 rebounds (a rare non-double-double) and four turnovers. Getting just two calls on the rook Aldridge in 29:15 seems a wasted opportunity.
3. Foye versus Roy
I know there is quite a pitched battle going on in some internet hoops circles about the whole Foye-Roy switcheroo the Wolves pulled on draft day, with many claiming that Roy's wonderful year coupled with Foye's inability to immediately grab the point position and make it his own indicates that Minnesota made a mistake and should have kept Roy all along. Color me brightly ambivalent. I've been very impressed with Foye most of this season, and likewise really have enjoyed Roy's game the three of four times I caught him on television. But live, Roy is even better, a tough sonavagun (ditto Foye), simultaneously unselfish and with a nose for the hoop. The Wolves obviously spent a lot of their pregame planning figuring out how to stop him, and frequently displayed a zone with KG at the top of the key to disrupt his playmaking. When it was over, Roy had 22 hard-earned points (9-14 FG), 5 boards and 2 assists in a team-high 35:56, with the two crunchtime turnovers the major blot on his line. (One occurred when Davis and Blount mugged him on a pick and roll that got a no-call from the refs.) Foye had 17 points (7-10 FG, 1 rebound and three assists) in 23:13 and, characteristically, put up 13 points (5-6 FG) in the final period. It may sound like a cop-out, but I honestly think there is no "loser" in this competition--or if there is, we won't know which for at least another three or four years. I'll close with this bit of info from Wolves stat guru Paul Swanson on Foye's crunchtime proclivities.
Randy Foye, 2006-07
* Has scored 319 of his 646 total points in the 4th & OT (49 percent)
* Shooting 47.9% [from 2], 38.7% [from 3] 90.3% [from the line] for the season in the 4th & OT
* Has seven double-digit scoring 4th quarters (four in the last nine games)
Okay, folks, as much as I admire the sensitivity and consideration you are demonstrating toward each other, there is a danger of falling into the cavern of our own navels (and it takes a spelunker to know a spelunker in that regard).
Regardless of the niceties and lack thereof, El Machino originally hit upon a salient point: How much conscious "tanking" is permissible? And if you want the team to lose to ensure a better prospect for the future, how do you feel if an indifferent effort on the part of a player or players (or coaches) makes that more possible?
After the Madsen circus in last year's finale, I remember being at odds with most readers here in my steadfast contention that teams should never try to purposefully lose games; that the slope is just too slippery to allow. I believe you play to the best of your ability with the squad you have and let the chips fall where they may. Now, that doesn't mean that after a certain point when there is no good outcome to your season you can't begin preparing yourself for next year. But the key for me is that you do it by legitimately trying to maximize the readiness for next year of the existing players on your roster. In other words, you don't sit KG and Davis with obviously bogus injuries and have Maddog jacking treys, as occurred last year. You also don't start Troy Hudson at point guard, refuse to give Foye-McCants-Smith quality minutes, and allow veterans with chronic inconsistencies and/or attitude problems the same status you afforded them earlier in the season.
This should be a period of sending messages both pro and con. If players look like they are mailing in their effort, sit them down with a DNP-CD the next game or two. If a player shows signs of getting it, reward them with more play. If someone needs time to learn a new position, use these games to maximize the learning curve. Now if in doing all these you accelerate your improvement to the point where you do get in the playoffs and/or lose a draft pick, I say so be it--that's the honest way to go. Is that "better" for the team's chances next season? No. But where do you draw the line? Why not purposefully lose every game, finish with 30 wins, and really move up the draft ladder?
Reestablishing that Huddy can't defend anyone, Blount doesn't box out, or that Mike James is a terror in meaningless games isn't going to help this team that much next year. I'd like to know how far McCants can be pushed physically at this stage; what Foye's ceiling at the point is in 06-07; what impact Davis would have as a 6th man with KG getting valuable bench minutes to recharge; and whether Mark Madsen can be effective alongside anyone but KG. What I'm going to be watching the next 13 games is for things I don't already know. Because it is plainly established that the current direction leads to dolor and embarrassment.
My previous comment was not directed specifically at midlife, despite the use of "integrity." It was more a general comment in relation to a variety of previous posts about the subject of "tanking." And I found some of those comments interesting/ironic.
I think Nate's follow-up comments were dead-on. Like him, I'm looking for this organization to convince me it has integrity (or at least a clue).
My gosh, nate, I feel like I've just gone through an intervention. I keep rereading your post for: "denial isn't a river in Egypt."
If Wittman is doing this straight (and I guess he must be), then even if we get a pick, even if we won the lottery to gain "the perfect fit", Oden could very well get his minutes Blaired because he's a rookie.
Scheisse
midlife,
My post was more directed toward this comment
"But all this tanking talk? Hmm. Here we are talking about deliberately throwing games, sometimes in an overtly embarrassing manner, and then we have the audacity over the past few months to criticize the "integrity" of a player like Ricky Davis?" than your post.
I refuse to believe that Wittman is using rotations to tank, however. My evidence is KG's minutes. He's averaging more minutes in March than any other month this season. The easiest way to tank games would be to reduce KG's minutes from 42.4 per game (!!) to 36 minutes per game. This would barely be noticeable to the league (just sit him earlier in the first and the third quarters) and would definitely produce a few losses.
No, we are not so lucky as to have Wittman creatively tanking games, Wittman is a dolt, as you suggested.
I don't think anyone has accused this team of having integrity, and I apologize if my post implied that. I have been of the opinion that tanking is only way to explain the lack of rookie playing time, the counterproductive substitutions (avoiding the mix that wins games) and the appearance of THud on the court rather than on the bench.
If the Wolves would had correctly realized about 15 games ago that they would not and should not make the playoffs there would be no need to tank games at the very end of the season.
All they had to do was play the young guys a bit more to help the future and also rest Garnett more to help the future. The losing would take care of itself and would not be the end goal, merely a beneficial side effect of going with youth.
Instead we desperately attempt to win every single game at the expense of developing our younger players. Also, quite possibly at the expense of rewarding defensive intensity and mental toughness with more minutes.
Playing the young guys through their mistakes is not the best way to win TODAY, but it is the best way to win in the FUTURE. Playing for the future rather than today would go a long way to convincing me that this organization actually has integrity rather than just an empty pursuit of a useless playoff spot in order to appease a few fair weather fans. It's delusional!
And...it's idiotic to go for a win today when the most likely scenario is ending up without a draft pick. If we don't play our young guys enough minutes and we don't get a draft pick then what the hell was the point of the season?
OK, I'm an idiot. And I don't follow the postings as religiously as some others. Or the game itself. Used to, before the business and the style overtook the substance. But all this tanking talk? Hmm. Here we are talking about deliberately throwing games, sometimes in an overtly embarrassing manner, and then we have the audacity over the past few months to criticize the "integrity" of a player like Ricky Davis?
As for the Roy vs.Foye debate, hindsight or no, we once again drafted a player who was not ready to play the position for which he was drafted. The list is long and embarrassing: Will Avery, Paul Grant, Ndudid Ebi, Rick Rickert, Gerald Glass, etc., Granted, Foye is on another level than those jokers. But the fact is that Portland got a guy who stepped right into the proper position on the court and started producing immediately, big time. Maybe Foye will pan out as a PG, and he's obviously a gamer and one of our better draft picks purely for his ability and potential. But yet another year has ticked off on KGs journey to becoming a Hallf of Famer/TNT commentator, with not much hope in sight. Tanked draft pick or not.
Mainly I am posting just to mention that I predicted last year on draft day, after the Roy-for-Foye swap, that we had just traded away the 2007 Rookie of the Year; so it's looking like I at least will have the consolation of having been right.
I agree with everyone else about the need to make certain we get a top ten pick (what kind of screwup doesn't negotiate full lottery protection on their pick, by the way?). I like College Wolf's suggestions, but I actually would not be averse to shutting KG down for the last few games of the season again; this year it seems like every bad team is tanking, so it would be tough to single out the Wolves for punishment by the league.
In a way, if Wittman is tanking the season, his method had the most integrity. He does everything in his power, via substitutions and head games to lose games, buy the plyers are allowed to play as hard (Ricky vs KG) or as well (KG vs Madsen) ad they can. By randomly mixing his substitutions he has gone through more permutations of his roster than Don Nelson. This would set things up well for next season while still giving us moments like yesterday.
Or he might be a dolt...
I am sure that Taylor and McHale are aware that a draft pick is more important than a playoff spot this year, especially given the possibility that they end up in the "void" missing the playoff, yet not one of the top ten lottery teams. But, looking at the remaining thirteen games I think the prospects of the Wolves might be lucky if they win five of them, even without a conscious effort to "Tank." I think KG's unwillingness to bang down low recently fighting for rebounds and getting fouls charged against his opponent is an indication that he is not willing to sacrifice his health for a playoff spot. I think Wittman would be wise to follow College Wolf's suggestion of limiting his minutes.
Here is a look at what is left.
1.Seattle (h)
2. Utah (a)
3. Miami (h)
4. Orlando (a)
5. Cleveland (h)
6. New York (a)
7. New Orleans (h)
8. Toronto (h)
9. Dallas (h)
10. San Antonio (h)
11. Golden State (a)
12. Denver (a)
13. Memphis (h)
Whats interesting is the last game and I think we are going to see some sort of recreation of last year, because chances are a draft position will depend on the Wolves losing to Memphis at home won't be an easy task to accomplish on the last game of the season. A Maddog 3-point shooting spree or other such shenanigans forthcoming.
My mind isn't made up as to who I think got the best of the Foye-Roy swap. It's clear Roy had the better rookie year, however, and because Foye has to learn a new position in the pro game, right now the Blazers got to be feelin good.
The only beef I've got with the Shady and Foye picks is that they will make a very undersized back court if and when they both finally start. Add Smith, and you've got a very short "blue print for the future" for a club that has been woefully undersized its entire existence.
With that said, should we have a top-ten pick, which like every other fan I hope we do, then McHale and his three sidekicks must take the best player available regardlesss of position. A top ten pick in the draft is too valuable to draft for need. Even if it's yet another point guard, the Wolves got to take the best guy on the board. Hopefully Glen will be willing to pay the luxery cap to finally get a banger in free agency.
As of today, wolves have 11th pick if the lottery doesn't do anything funky. Of course, this means that the Clippers get the pick.
Question: Do the T-wolves send a representative to the lottery? Things that could happen:
1. We send someone, receive the 11th pick and we get to see the dejected look on Hoiberg's face as the announcers say we don't have a draft pick.
2. We don't send anyone. We win the lottery and no one is there to accept it. Hilarious, but awesome.
I outlined a few things we could do a few posts back.
- Play KG less minutes. 30 or so a game max.
- Activate Bracey. Put forth a concerted effort to play the young-ins.
- Rotate everyone in and more often. Don't play anyone more than 30 minutes.
In my opinion that's about the best way we can "tank," aka lose games without drawing the wrath and ire of Stern.
I can't believe our "braintrust" is still trying to sell the fans on the fact that we are in "the playoff race" and continues to start these lineups lol.... whatever.
I'm beginning to become very concerned. The playoffs are a pipe dream since we are 3.5 games back with 13 games to go and 3 teams to leap. My main concern is keeping the draft pick. We are currently tied with the Knicks for the #10 slot. There are only 2-3 teams who could potentially leap us in the draft order. At this point in time there is no question that the best thing for the future of the franchise is to have a top 10 pick, especially since McHale has a solid track record with high 1st rounders. But with a probable win coming up on Tuesday night, I'm already dreading the prospect of winning just enough games to give the Clips a pick in the 11-14 range. Hopefully we don't have to resort to inviting the Mark Madsen 3 point circus to town again, but if thats what it takes, I won't complain.
Mixed emotions. A loss would have been great for our draft pick, seeing as how we are now tied for 10th place with the Knicks which is NOT good. However, I'll be the first to admit I was standing up and cheering like crazy with two seconds left and then when KG nailed that shot. So I dunno.... whatever happens I just hope we don't finish in the Void. I don't think I'll be able to take that....
Especially since there is no way we are making the playoffs. We might as well at least try and keep our draft pick then. The wins make me feel good but its bad for our future.
I completely agree that pretty Ricky plays beautiful D, can easily create his own shot and passes creatively. He's the second best player on this team (with an enormous gap to get to number 3) and doesn't appear to have a hole in his game. I can't picture a scenario where the twolves move him on and have our low talent team become even less capable.
Unfortunately, we don't get to keep this Ricky every night, and by Wednesday I might be clamoring for us to trade him to the retiree league for Olden Polynice.