There won't be a three pointer on the Wolves' dreadful collapse against the Hawks Saturday night. Frankly, it didn't bother me as much as the pig-headed play and lack of effort that fostered Minnesota's loss to a thoroughly disinterested Denver Nuggets squad the night before. At least the Atlanta game found the Wolves playing inspired ball for an entire half. What happened in the second half was a team-wide choke, but veteran Wolves' watchers have certainly seen it before in previous years. As it was, spitting up a 21-point lead was only the third largest edge the team has sacrificed in franchise history. In other words, more talented and seasoned squads than this one have choked on larger advantages.
Or maybe my outrage meter redlined against Denver and it made more sense to put this sorry squad into perspective again.
Still, if not a full-blown trey, we should note a few items. Al Jefferson had a stunning 18 points on 6 shots from the field in the first half (6-6 FG, 6-6 FT), plus 11 rebounds. When Atlanta adjusted its coverage and put two or three guys on Jefferson, the Wolves were flummoxed and the offense stalled. Coach Wittman has discovered that his most intelligent offensive player, the guy who can best "make something happen" in the half-court sets, is Antoine Walker. But Witt's adjustment has been to slide Jefferson over to center and install 'Toine at the power forward slot. This allignment is deadly to the front court matchups at both positions. As Paul "ikrushsots" so helpfully pointed out with statistics from 82games.com in the comments sections of the last trey, Jefferson's effectiveness plummets at the center position. And Walker simply can't guard quality power forwards, like, for instance, Atlanta's Josh Smith.
Minnesota's huge el foldo act isn't just limited to that substitution. As the Wolves coughed up the lead, Jefferson was rushing his shots, especially on putbacks of offensive rebounds. That would have happened whether he was a "4" or a "5." And the growing backlash against the horrible, and selfish, shooting performances put in by Rashad McCants the previous three games certainly had him reluctant to pull the trigger on his own shot during crunch time (at least I assume that's what held him back). Finally, the ability of Hawks' point guard Tyrone Lue to get his teammates involved in the offense dramatizes how crucial heady point guard play can be. And while Marko Jaric had a second good game in a row, and actually went to the hoop with authority, he is not on even the mediocre Lue's level when it comes to seeing the court and enablign good half court possessions.
For most of the season, I've been pleasantly surprised that Wittman hasn't been incompetent. That is not to say that he's been especially competent either, but last year's 12-30 mark and constant carping about discipline while the inmates still seemed to run the asylum (and yes, Pretty Ricky Davis, I'm talking about you and your boy Blount) set the bar pretty damn low for Wittman. And he's still above that nadir.
But without Theo Ratliff on your roster, how do you leave Michael Doleac in street clothes? Doleac is a larger body than Mark Madsen, and, while not as quick, bangs very well. More importantly, he can pop out for a little 12-15 footer and nail it 50 percent of the time. That's a good counter to teams who double Jefferson with a couple of bigs. Do you think it is a problem for Atlanta to double Jefferson with Madsen's man? Me neither. And as I said, Walker at power forward makes for a lousy defensive front line. The statistics indicate that Jefferson suffers at center; so do the eyes of anyone watching these games. Why doesn't Wittman see it; or, if he does, why doesn't he respond?
Here's another criticism of the coach. He strongly lamented the inability of his ballclub to penetrate to the hoop for most of the second half. He seemed mystified that it would happen. During the postgame press conference, I mentioned that Marko seemed to be penetrating well, and the coach jumped in before I finished my sentence, saying (and I paraphrase because I wasn't taping): Yeah, in the first half, and on the first possession of the third quarter. But not after that. We stopped penetrating until we had given up the lead and there were two minutes left.
Okay, fine. What is the one attribute that Wittman was cited for as the reason to keep him on board this year? His ability to run a tight ship, to discipline his players, keep them on the same page, eliminate the bullshit. So why wasn't he able to emulate Gregg Popovich (a much better example than Witt's mentor, Bobby Knight) and simply call a timeout, sit across from the players and tell them if they didn't start fucking going for points in the paint he was going to bench their asses and find people who could? Because that's what Pops says when his squad isn't playing defense to his liking. And he backs it up by sitting them down. Instead, Witt watched it happen for what he claims was almost all of the second half, a 24-minute stretch when the squad scored 24 points after getting 63 in the opening 24 minutes, and couldn't stress how important penetration was to the game; either wouldn't, or couldn't, get through to them. And this happened, by the way, in the immediate wake of Wittman telling the press that Rashad McCants didn't take bad shots in his 1-15 performance against the Nuggets the night before; a game in which Shaddy consistently jacked it up from outside rather than engaging in dribble penetration.
On to another thing that has my undies in a twist. As those of you who read the comments know, I have been a little peeved at the ill will expressed toward KG's new ballclub, the Boston Celtics, both in terms of observers disliking and underestimating the accumulation of talent on the team. There is a Garnett backlash happening, and I imagine it has to do with owner Glen Taylor's interview with the PiPress's Rick Alonzo, and even with my comments in an interview on Dan Barreiro's radio show, where I pointed out how Garnett was two-faced about his support for Flip Saunders and his disdain for Kevin McHale.
I stand by those comments--just as I did when I originally wrote them, both back when Flip was fired, and when KG went off on McHale at the beginning of either last season or the year before. And I also believe KG was a lousy general manager with respect to his advocacy of Troy Hudson and Mike James. Garnett isn't perfect, by any stretch. But man, his positive impact on the Timberwolves is larger than any one player's impact on any one franchise that I can come up with in all of team sports. And, it should be remembered, it was management's decision to trade him. Now, for reasons I have stated, I endorse the trade, and by now I'm sure KG endorses the trade, if he didn't at first. But this backlash business is bullshit.
The latest example is a column in today's Strib by Jim Souhan, a writer I happen to like better than most of the people I talk to about him (or maybe bitching about the Strib guy is just the nature of the business for most folks). First a little background. On Thanksgiving Day, Souhan wrote a piece about Torii Hunter signing with the Angels, entitled "An unhappy adieu, but a wise decision." As the subhed indicates, the thrust of Souhan's column was that "it didn't make sense for the Twins to pony up the money to keep him." Funny, that was the argument I was making with Souhan on the radio this summer, and he was forcefully disagreeing, going so far as to say it would be preferable to trade Johan Santana and keep Hunter if one or the other must go.
Anyway, having agreed with Hunter's departure, Souhan felt the need to balance it by paying tribute to the Twins' longtime center fielder two days later. And he allowed his fondness for Hunter's sunny disposition to besmirch his perspective in a significant way. Here are his first three paragraphs:
"Tori Hunter's departure creates more than a void in the Twins lineup-- it creates a void in Minnesota sports.
"In the past decade we've heard Latrell Sprewell complaining that a three-year $21 million contract wasn't enough to help him feed his family. We went through the Love Boat scandal. We watched Sam Cassell dog his way out of Minnesota, and Randy Moss make even a team desperate for star power and talent eager to dump him.
"We've watched Kevin Garnett sulk while playing under the terms of a record-setting contract, watched Kyle Lohse take a baseball bat to his manager's door, watched A.J. Pierzynski talk his way out of town. [emphasis mine] Through it all--and since he first signed with the Twins back in 1994-- Hunter made himself our model athlete by bringing to life all the cliches about persistence, perseverence and passion."
That's right: To better glorify Torii Hunter, Souhan lumps KG in with, in order, Sprewell, Fred Smoot and the Love Boat crew, Sam Cassell, Randy Moss, Kyle Lohse and AJ Pierzynski. Apparently Garnett did not bring to life "all the cliches about persistence, perseverence and passion." He was too busy sulking.
It just so happens that the very same day that this tripe appears, Sid Hartman also had a column in which he quotes at length a recent interview he had with Hunter:
"Had the Twins' three-year offer for $45 million been five years for $75 million, he might have considered it, Hunter said, but on the other hand he wanted to play with a winner. He said he doesn't think the Twins are going to have the talent to win in the future.
"...'I was going to get what I was going to get. I just wanted to make sure I was with a team that wants to win, that's going to try to win day in and day out...I just didn't feel the Twins were that ballclub.'
"It will be hard for the Twins to attract free agents, Hunter added, because the new stadium lacks a roof.
"'People aren't even thinking about this,' he said. 'I wouldn't play in Minnesota unless my career was at an end and I had to go to Minnesota to play the game...People think that's not true--that's 100 percent accurate. This is coming from a player, so I'm telling you.'"
See, all the talk about wanting to remain with the Twins, and especially being able to finish his career playing on that wonderful grass in the new outdoor ballpark, that was Hunter's passion--not to mention his persistence and perseverence--coming through. I mean, at least he wasn't like that sulker Garnett, who took less money than the market would pay him so that his local franchise could go out and sign better players. If he made that challenge to management, I'm sure Hunter would have backed it up the way Garnett did, by going out and earning the MVP Award when management stepped up and got those players. And Hunter certainly would have been his same old honest, effervescent self if he'd then watched the franchise make a series of disastrous personnel moves and cost his squad any chance of competing for a championship three years running. I mean, just because he took a poke at Justin Morneau the last time the Twins didn't make the playoffs and he didn't have an expiring contract for his escape doesn't mean the guy would sulk in that situation--at least not the way that bad Garnett sulked. Isn't that what you remember about his 12 years in town?
Later in Souhan's piece he offers up these pearls of wisdom:
"What do we ask of our best athletes? To play hard. To play hurt. To recognize how lucky they are to be wealthy, to take care of their families and invest wisely. To be a good teammate. To work on their craft. To show a little joy. To care about winning
"Hunter did all of that."
If Souhan doesn't realize that KG also did all of that, while performing at a level beyond Hunter's grasp, then he ought not to write about things he doesn't understand. Like hoops. And human character.
Finally, in memory of the Wolves latest collapse, I present some typically compelling info from stat guru Paul Swanson (apologies for what I'm sure will be a somewhat garbled transfer):
2007-08 4th Quarters
(through November 24)
NBA Wolves Wolves
Average Offense Defense
------- ------- -------
Points 24.5 21.2 26.7
FG Pct 44.0% 34.7% 46.6%
3Pt Pct 35.6% 41.8% 37.5%
FT Pct 74.9% 75.0% 79.0%
FT Att 7.8 7.3 9.1
Off Reb 2.8 3.6 3.3
Def Reb 7.6 6.3 8.6
Tot Reb 10.4 9.9 11.9
Assists 4.7 3.6 4.4
Steals 1.7 1.5 1.8
TOs 3.6 3.5 3.3
Blocks 1.2 1.2 1.5
*
2007-08 Minnesota Timberwolves
Individual 4th Quarter Statistics
(through Nov. 24)
Player Min FGM-A FG% 3FG-A FTM-A Reb Ast Stl TO Blk Pts
Jefferson 92 17-42 .405 0- 0 11-14 30 4 3 8 2 45
McCants 63 11-29 .379 6-14 8-10 8 3 3 4 0 36
Jaric 61 7-19 .368 2- 5 8-10 5 6 3 2 2 24
Gomes 57 5-17 .294 4- 8 10-12 7 4 1 2 0 24
Walker 81 7-30 .233 4-13 5-11 20 5 1 5 0 23
Telfair 68 9-26 .346 3- 6 2- 2 5 7 1 3 2 23
Brewer 65 4-11 .364 0- 2 7-10 10 4 1 2 2 15
Buckner 61 4-13 .308 3- 5 3- 4 8 2 2 5 0 14
Green 33 6-12 .500 1- 2 0- 0 4 4 1 4 1 13
Ratliff 24 3- 4 .750 0- 0 3- 3 6 1 0 1 3 9
Smith 46 1-12 .083 0- 0 3- 4 6 0 1 1 1 5
Richard 7 1- 1 1.00 0- 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Doleac 2 0- 0 .000 0- 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wolves 75-216 .347 23-55 60-80 109 40 17 38 13 233
Opponents 97-208 .466 21-56 79-100 131 48 20 36 16 294
Wow. I will never read another Souhan article. I can't believe the disrespect he showed KG in those excerpts you presented. Yeah, maybe KG was 'two-faced' about Flip and/or McHale... but he carried himself for 12 years better than just about any superstar I can think of, he played with the most intense passion and joy I've ever seen, and made the Timberwolves relevant every year, despite never breaking through.
I, for one, am pulling extremely hard for the Celtics as long as KG is there. He deserves this chance and I hope like hell he can get a ring or two out of it.
many thanks for the great comments on here; if anything, this board has improved this year as the team has declined. at least there are hundreds of different ways of talking about how terrible the wolves are. there are also a surprising number of creative ways to find some potential in this squad, and those are the conversations that are bringing it alive.
in that spirit let me add that out of all the possible fantasy scenarios for this season the one i like the best is the one that finds a rejuvenated marko responding to the burden of leadership and not only putting up double digit points like he has been of late but also contributing his manic scrappiness every night, and occasionally coming out with his jersey on backwards, etc. oh, and improbably dating out of his league. that's a team that might be fun to watch, even when they lose 80 percent of the time.
The recent comments by Hunter have me thinking that he never intended to stay. I always felt that his mouth has been a little larger than it should've been. And also one cannot even begin to compare Hunter to Garnett. A good player to a first ballot Hall of Farmer. There is no doubt in my mind that KG meant more to the Wolves than Hunter ever meant to the twins.
When looking over the previous night's boxscores, I have been looking closely at the mpg for the Boston Three. What has been impressive is that the Celtics are winning both home and away and Doc has been limiting the minutes of the three as well. Over the first few games, all three were averaging 38-40 mpg, but for the past few games only one of the three has been near 40 and its not been KG.
IF the Celtics can win keeping KGs minutes around 36 mpg and Doc manages to give Pierce and Allen needed rest as well, I think they will do some damage this year in the playoffs. But, the biggest question concerning Boston still remains their age and whether they can sustain this level of play through the season. Only time will tell.
I won't go as far as sitting in the left field bleachers of the Metrodome and throwing hotdogs at Chuck Knoblauch, but fans have a little different perspective on sports than sportwriters. We don't get to meet the players and bonds don't really run that deep. We love and hate our teams and when a player leaves, even on as momentous and inspiring a player as KG, we easily let them go. I find it hard to root for KG in Celtics uniform. I loved him in a Wolves uniform and I don't want him to fail miserably, but I will get a measure of satisfaction if he is unable to achieve a level of success equal to what he was able to achieve as a wolf.
My allegiance shifts easily among players, but remains with the Wolves who I feel justified in criticizing harshly, while defending wolves players against the criticism of others. KG is no longer a wolf, so I don't hold the same irrational opinions of him any longer and will merely admire his accomplishments without rooting for his success - similar to how I feel about other NBA superstars.
I think the same can be said of Hunter.
But, this year's Wolves? I can't really say I'm disappointed with their play when my expectations were so low to begin with. Throw in the injury to Foye and its hard to think that the Wolves could be much better than they've been. I agree that Wittman should play the veterans more to give the young players some idea of what it takes to win in the NBA. Ratliff, Doleac and Walker should all be getting significant minutes and, perhaps, Howard should never have been allowed to leave so soon.
Oh, and, I agree with Witmann that McCants should shoot more, not less. With Foye out, there is only Walker and McCants that the Wolves can turn to to get some pressure away from Jefferson in the 4th qtr. McCants is still young and inexperienced. His level of play should be going up and down at this point in his career. He needs a level of confidence in his game that can be mistaken for selfishness at times. He needs it and the Wolves need it. I'm not saying I love McCants or that he is guaranteed to be a proven NBA scorer some day. I am saying he is the closest thing to a scoring threat outside of Jefferson on the roster right now and Wittman needs to nurture that by telling McCants to shoot the ball and take it to the basket on a regular basis.
"I don't want [K.G.] to fail miserably, but I will get a measure of satisfaction if he is unable to achieve a level of success equal to what he was able to achieve as a wolf"
What I don't understand is the "measure of satisfaction" - why would a player's failure give rise to personal pleasure or satisfaction for you?
As should be obvious from my post, because I am first and foremost a Wolves fan and not a KG fan.
Thus I want him to have experienced more success as a Wolf than as a Celtic. I get nothing out of KG failing, I just am not rooting for his success. Why should I? I follow the Wolves, not the Celtics.
I guess I could understand, if KG was still in MN's division - but as it is, he's going to see MN twice a year. Never more than that, because KG will go to the playoffs for at least the next few years, while the Wolves, barring a miracle, won't. This is why I don't get the "measure of satisfaction" if he's not as good with the Celts as with the Wolves - in no way could his success with the Celtics hurt the Wolves, or affect them in any way. And this is why your comments, to me, sound like Schadenfreude, pure and simple.
So be it.
My comments are Schadenfreude - pure and simple to you. My comments usually do come accross as pure and simple anyway - just as my thoughts.
However, I hope you do realize that not rooting for someone's success is not exactly rooting for their failure. Likewise KG had large amount of success as a Wolf and rooting for KG and the Celtics to not go beyond the Eastern Conference finals, also is not rooting for his failure. Finally, we have the Celtics draft pick this year, so rooting for the Celtics to lose actually would benefit us.
But, go ahead root for KG.
As a Celtic, I don't favor him anymore than I favor Jason Kidd, or Lebron, or Wade, or Chauncey... None of them play for the Wolves.
Just have to add that my jaw dropped when Souhan's Hunter column appeared ... thanks for writing that, Britt. It was a complete 180 from his lachrymose columns all summer about the Twins' stinginess. Perhaps he can use the Angels' ultimate offer (far higher than anyone expected, I think) as an excuse, but a little shame, please.
Also, note how classy KG has stayed in the weeks after Taylor's Alonzo interview versus Hunter's instant shittiness about the Twins. I don't mind the guy signing for more cash and don't even disagree necessarily with parts of his critique, but talk about two-faced ... sheesh.
So ... new column ... trade Santana? I say yes, though I suspect the Twins will get less than people expect (though more than if they lose him to free agency).
Thanks, Britt, for your always-thoughtful insight, which is what's lacking in Souhan's column and Barreiro's before him. I don't care who they rip--and it's not like there's a lot to praise around town--but they should go deeper than the analysis you could hear at Chammppss sports bar.
Thanks, too, for bringing up the failed shoestring catch. I like Hunter as a guy to read about, but his Ernie Banks act is laughable. Hey, Torii, there are a hundred runners standing on third, waving goodbye.
Still, I'm tired of worrying about how much Hunter's worth and if the Twins can afford him. There's no salary cap in baseball. It should make no difference to us fans what the payroll is. It's not a consideration as far as the rules of Major League Baseball are concerned.
If the Twins won't pay Hunter the going rate, they should tell us why. They ought to stop pretending they made him--and more importantly Santana--legitimate offers. $30 million light is not a legitimate offer. And there's no reason Santana shouldn't expect a contract like Barry Zito's. That is now the going rate for premier pichers.
The Twins evidently refuse to compete for the championship of their league. In August at the groundbreaking for their gigantic government handout, Twins management never even mentioned Johann sticking around, just the catcher from Cretin, who they spotlight in the same way as Zac from "High School Musical." They spoke of "trying to be competitive." It's time we called them on it. You either compete or you decide not to compete. It's not about trying.
Souhan is emblematic of typical Minnesota whining and finger pointing. The Wolves problem is incompetent ownership/management. The Twins are stuck with an owner who insists on fat profit margins. For fan's its frustrating and I suspect its the same for writers. Some time in the near future Torii will make a comment about how much better the Angels are than the Twins and how management is doing everything they can to build a winner and Souhan, Sid and others of their ilk will take umbrage and he'll be the target.
As a Minneapolitan now in the Boston area, I'd like to report that KG is doing what he did every night for the Wolves, playing hard and involving his teammates. The difference is the level of talent and the commitment that Pierce and Allen share with him.
What's with the shot at Minnesota? I don't think whining and finger pointing is unique to us by any means. Though on a related note, I have to say I'm not a huge fan of that style of writing. One of the things I enjoy about good articles (or television commentary) is when they teach me something about the game I might not have picked up on by myself.
As far as the KG trade, I think it was a mistake. There is no other team sport where the skill of one player can have such a large impact on a team. By having one of the best players in the game on your team, you're always one lucky trade or player break-through to a becoming a dominate team. When you have a player of his level you always play for the moment, trading him away to build for the future is to take on a task that can be endless. The wolves better hope that lightning strikes twice.
Britt...
I actually see a parallel with KG and his buddy Hunter. It goes like this:
1. Player approaches end of contract
2. Player strongly reinforces devotion to team and fans
3. Club makes offer to player
4. Player and agent declare open for bidding
5. Player and agent use club offer as market ante
6. Player (and agent) signs with highest bidder
7. Player says it wasn't his idea to leave, wanted to stay
8. Player says he's glad he joined a club committed to winning (unlike previous club)
This scenario plays so often with various players and clubs they should make it into a musical.
At any rate, it's hard to miss the hypocrisy and double speak. For example, did said player want to stay with home club that was not committed to winning?
On another note, while we are on Witt, does he really want Shoddy to shoot his way out of his funk? Witt said he studied Shoddy's shots during the infamous three games and said Shoddy was mostly open during his missed shots. If he does want Shoddy to jack 'em, Shoddy wasn't listening in the last game. He still managed 4 turnovers in 28 minutes, maintaining his lead for turnovers over a 48-minute game.
Finally, Mad Dog, despite his warts and blemishes, managed the only positive +/- for the team v. Hawks: +10
CA--
There are two important differences between KG and Hunter in your eight-act musical. First, on the last contract Garnett signed with the Wolves, the process ended between #3 and #4, with Garnett taking less money than the max so the Wolves had a little salary flexibility to go get better players. Yes, the contract still averaged a whopping $20 m per year, but it could have been more.
The second difference is context. Hunter baited and switched the Twins after they had surrounded him with quality, competitive talent for the past five years, including a team that he helped squander in the playoffs by misjudging a shoestring catch for an inside-the-park homer. Garnett still had a year left on his contract at the time the ballclub traded him, and this after three straight years of disastrous trades and free agent signings by the front office doomed the club to also-ran status. The one year the Wolves were legitimately competitive, Garnett went off for the performance of his life in Game 7 versus Sacramento.
No, I don't think either "said player wanted to stay with home club that was not committed to winning." But I do think KG's had a much longer rope with his patience with management, and that management demonstrated far more incompetence.
Trying to bolster McCants' confidence at a time when he is in a dreadful slump is defensible. Not amending or attaching conditions on how Shaddy could improve his shooting percentage and help his team--and then ripping his team for not penetrating--is not defensible.
Mad Dog, like Jaric, generally puts up better +/- than people realize, mostly because both players work hard on defense. But the reason he was plus +10 versus Atlanta was because the Wolves' biggest problem was on the offensive end in the second half due to the adjustment on Jefferson. And as I explained, having Madsen play beside Jeff would have done nothing to dispel those double and triple teams he was getting. Thus, Madsen avoided the collapse that would have wrecked his +/-. Jaric actually had a better margin than Mad Dog in the first quarter-- he was +16--but because he played during the crunchtime meltdown, that figure disappeared.
The real indictment was having Doleac in street clothes.
Just wanted to correct on the details of the Marbury-Allen trade, because it's weird that no one has made this correction: the trade was announced at the draft as including a first-rounder, however, the plan all along was to send C Andrew Lang (who we got for Laettner) to the Bucks, which is what we did. That doesn't mean I haven't thought about the possibilities of Allen-Garnett for 10-plus years, but they didn't give up a pick.
I agree about having Doleac on the roster when Ratliff's not playing, but I don't think switching him for Madsen is going to fix the bigger issue: interior defense when Jefferson and Walker are the five and four. Madsen might not be an offensive threat like Doleac, but he knows how to get open under the basket when his guy leaves him (and my guess is that, if Al found him -- which he should be thinking about because the answer to double-teams is not always to pass it back out). Also, Madsen's defensive positioning reduces the number of open shots the other team gets. I'm surprised they're not either playing Richard or sending him to the D-League. WDYT?
I forgot about the Andrew Lang part of the deal. What I remember is this.
The Wolves wanted or, at least, felt they needed a point guard. Allen Iverson and Stephan Marbury were both highly regarded and were considered top prospects and also unlikely to be available when the Wolves picked 5th. The next best point guard in the draft was Steve Nash from Santa Clara and he was considered not worthy of a lottery pick, much less a pick at number five. Mchale orchestrated the trade with Milwaukee after drafting Allen. Everyone was happy. But he could have traded down and drafted Nash to pair with KG...or traded down further and drafted Kobe.
Oh the possibilities...
Thanks for that insight - I don't really follow the Torii situation as much as others do, but I was pleasantly surprised at the Twins offer, actually. $45mil/3years is an awful lot of money, but obviously isn't as long-term as Hunter could command, though I do think we made him the offer knowing he would get more elsewhere. I haven't read anything else on the subject (including the Strib), but if Torii is throwing management under the bus for its inability to build a competitive team, that's a shame. I think his quote says it all - sorry Torii, I don't think we were ever planning on bringing in big-name free agents. We've built this team by putting resources into minor-league development, leveraging decent players into trades, and complementing those players with cheaper free agents who still have a little left in the tank (so we've hoped - see: Ponson, R. White, Cirillo). I'm out of my league here, so I'll be quiet now.
As for KG...I hope his Celts' performance proves what we've all known for some time - just give him a couple of dedicated vets who want to win and watch him go. Did he make some poor choices by wanting guys like Joe Smith, Mike James and Troy Hudson? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd even start with the 1996 draft, when we traded Ray Allen AND a first-round pick to move up ONE SLOT to get Marbury. That and the Joe Smith debacle cannot be overstated enough - the loss of those 3 picks really hamstrung our team, yet KG stuck it out. At least KG said what he felt and was specific, rather than just banging the general "get me more help" drum. The Wolves had fallen out of competition for the last couple of years, and there was no end in sight - all the other "franchise" players have at least ONE "all-star" (in caliber, at least - Bryant/Odom, McGrady/Yao, Howard/Lewis), while we were getting excited about Randy Foye, a second-year guy who we hoped would prove himself even more.
All that said, I've never bought the "he could've gotten more money" argument. Yes, he could have. He also could've taken less and used his passion for the game to attract some real winners via free agency. It's a chicken-and-egg dilemma - which came first, KG's massive deal or our inability to acquire and retain talent?
Here, here about Doleac. While Mad Dog was the only Wolves player with a positive +/- (last time I checked 82 games.com; albeit with limited minutes), his 5 man lineup stats do not work out as well as Doleac's; mainly because Doleac is the only other legit 5 on the squad besides Ratliff, and if Mad Dog is on the floor, then someone (cough...Jefferson...cough) is out of position on the defensive side or tag-teamed when he gets the ball.
It's really interesting to look at the 5 man rotation stats; when the Wolves have something approaching positional integrity, they do alright. When Walker and Jefferson end up at the 4 and 5 or when Brewer is forced in with the 3 (it's kind of depressing how he doesn't fit in pretty much any combo that Wittman puts out there) they really fall apart.
The 5 man rotation stats also give a good window to the problems Wittman faces with the roster: there's no quality backup at the 2 and 3, Ratliff and Doleac are the only quasi-legit 5s, and so on and so forth.
The Wolves' most effective line has been Telfair, McCants, Gomes, Jefferson, and Ratliff. Their least effective line has been Jaric, McCants, Brewer, Walker and Jefferson. While the situation at the point is troubling, if Big Al is going to flourish, he'll need help at the 5 and I think it's becoming more and more apparent that we'll need to go with a front line player with our first pick. I wouldn't rule out a legit 3 at this point because I really don't see Brewer ever becoming the type of player that could ease the double team on Jefferson.
I'm convinced. Doleac should be starting sans Theo. Mad Dog's forte is bringing instant energy and defense against the opponent's second unit.
Interesting about Doleac, he has played so many years averaging 15 minutes per game. But, when he did play more, he seemed to add some offense with comparatively few turnovers.
If Shaddy can't appreciatively and progressively move his numbers, I still think Foye is the better starting 2 when healthy. Foye will slash to the cup although last year he was predictively favoring the right side layup or hook.
Would love to see Derrick Rose next year at PG with an essential need for a quality big in the hole.
1. Everyone makes a solid point about the lack of playing time for Doleac. It's puzzling why he doesn't play more. His lack of playing time is mildly depressing for what it implies about us fans and possibly Randy Wittman
a. Doleac doesn't play because Wittman and his assistants are unable to figure out what the readers on this board have figured out. That is, Doleac is better able to open up the inside for big Al and the frontline defense is likely better with him and Al at 4 and 5 rather than Al and Walker. Conclusion: Wittman is a really bad coach.
b. Doleac doesn't play for some incredibly intelligent reason steeped in basketball logic and knowledge, but we (the readers of this blog) just don't get it. That is, we have a very limited understanding of the game of basketball.
Sure, there may be other explanations, but these seem like the main alternative explanations for Wittman's decisions on playing time for Doleac.
I'm slightly more disturbed by the possibility that what seems so obvious to me is actually an idiotic decision.
2. Britt, you make a great point about Popovich. I think Pop is able to demand effort and a certain style of play for two reasons
a. His organization supports him and his preferred style of play
b. His best player supports him (his best players support him)
Of course, his best player might support him because Pop has proven himself to be honest and a good strategist.
I have a difficult time determining if Wittman is very honest with his players. By honesty I mean consistently backing up his demands with both rewards and punishments. These players are not stupid and they figure out quickly what they can get away with both on and off the court. Feeling good about the rebuilding requires feeling good about Wittman. I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt but I had hoped to see more evidence of smart rotations and the enforcement of a definitive style of play at his point in the season.
A great question (asked by Britt): Why is Wittman unable to get his team to drive to the basket? How can a coach who supposedly desires his team to play in the paint sit by and allow his team to take silly jumpshots for almost the entire second half?
Some other possibilities are a) that Doleac has done team-undermining things to which we are not privy; b) is actually nursing an injury we don't know about; or c) they don't want to get dependent on the guy because they are planning to unload him shortly.
I'm a bit more sympathetic to Wittman's plight trying to get guys to drive to the hoop than Britt is--after all, when Popovich sits someone down for playing stupidly/selfishly, he has an actual smart, good player to take his place. If your whole team is standing around and taking jumpers, you can't sit them ALL down, especially when you're shorthanded to begin with. I get the feeling that trying to convince a group of young millionaires to do what you want them to do is a bit like herding cats.
There has to be something else with Doleac. We're an 8th of the way through the season and that should be enough to start seeing some trends as far as line-ups goes. The most glaring trend is that the Wolves are at their worst when Jefferson has to play out of position at the 5. This throws everything out of whack and it exposes a lack of depth at the other positions as the only serviceable 7/8 man rotation the Wolves can muster needs to have a Gomes, Walker, Jefferson rotation at the 3 and 4.
I think the most telling thing of all about the way our 5 spot has malfunctioned is that Brewer's minutes are increasingly tied to Jefferson playing out of position and Walker doing his best at the 4. If Ratliff comes back and Mad Dog/Doleac pick up the remaining minutes at the 5, Brewer is going to see about 8-12 minutes a game as he really is a liability at the 3. I think they seriously need to consider giving him some opportunities at the 2. In fantasy blog land (where I am coach and general manager), this is what their rotation should look like:
1- Telfair/Jaric
2- McCants/Brewer
3- Gomes/Walker
4- Jefferson/Walker
5- Ratliff/Doleac/Mad Dog
Buckner and Smith get the remaining minutes and I'd also seriously consider starting Buckner at the 2 with Brewer as the main backup. Telfair, McCants, Gomes, Jefferson, and Ratliff is as good as this team can do right now (again, I think Buckner could take Shad's spot) and Walker/Jaric are your best subs. This line up would also let you develop Brewer at the 2, Telfair at the point and it would allow Jefferson to keep his focus where it belongs: on the 4.
The Wolves desperately need a legitimate point guard (the promise of Randy Foye and the nice game by Marko tonight notwithstanding.) McHale should call Memphis and make them an offer for Michael Conley Jr. Lowry is playing fantastic for them, so this makes Conley expendable. The Wolves should not hesitate to package some of their players for the true point guard they need, even if he too is a bit of a project. You can't teach quickness or court vision, and Conley has both.