Road Game # 2: Minnesota 93, LA Lakers 107
Road Game # 3: Minnesota 93, Sacramento 100
1. Half Empty
The die-hards among us who pledged to ride with the Minnesota Timberwolves throughout the 2007-08 season know that higher levels of tolerance and different parameters of success will be required. Put bluntly, wins and losses take a backseat to player development and team synergy. For those who merely peruse the stats or want to view things in isolation, there were some promising things to take away from this weekend's losses to the Lakers and the Kings. Those who saw the games, however, might be finding their patience tested by this seemingly willfully callow crew.
In Los Angeles, the Wolves jumped out to a big first quarter lead--albeit only 8 points, the first time in their first four games it wasn't double digits--and was still within 7 points with 4:15 left to play. In addition, Sebastian Telfair has his best offensive outing, posting 15 points (6-12 FG), to go with 17 from Ryan Gomes and yet another double-double for Al Jefferson, who scored 24 to go with his 15 rebounds, seven on the offensive glass. In all, the Wolves racked up 42 points in the paint.
Sacramento's statistical high points were even better: A whopping 52-34 advantage on points in the paint, a career-high 15 points from Corey Brewer to go with 16 from Rashad McCants and another team high 17 from Jefferson. Oh, and six blocks by Theo Ratliff.
Yet even by the new and downgraded 2007-08 standards, it was a discouraging couple of games.
The Timberwolves rarely put together extended stretches of solid team play in either contest. One would think the offensive gameplan would always be to establish Al Jefferson in the low block, compel the double and even triple-coverage that might ensue (as happened in Sacramento), and then utilize ball movement to create open shots and/or open seams for penetration.
Nope. Far more often, the Wolves' perimeter players saw fit to take the game into their own hands, with by far the biggest offender being McCants. Out with a sprained ankle versus the Lakers, Shaddy was inserted into the Kings game late in the first quarter, and wound up playing a little more than 26 minutes, enough time to jack up 14 shots and do a credible imitation of someone fantasizing about being Michael Jordan while working on moves alone at the playground. The most memorable stretch occurred when McCants replaced Gomes with 5:53 to play in the third period and ran amuck until he sat with 20 seconds left in the quarter. During those five and half minutes, he performed some beautiful things, including a trey caught and shot in rhythm right off the bench, and a couple of strong, literally beautiful moves through traffic to get to the rim. But the predominant vibe was palpable, purposeful narcissism--McCants uber alles. Along with five shots in 5:32, he also turned the ball over four times and committed three personal fouls, heedless of anything resembling a practical, incremental action. And despite his seven points, the Wolves were a net minus-1 during his stint. For the game, McCants was minus-9, the second worst total on the team.
The worst total, minus-13, belonged to Brewer in his "breakout" game. Announcers Tom Hanneman and Jim Petersen helpfully pointed out that Brewer is more prolific offensively when "he doesn't have to think," and it's true: Those one-on-five drives that McCants utilized and Brewer dutifully copied also got Brewer some fabulous buckets in traffic, as well as notching him 7 free throws, all of which he sank. But do you think there was a reason the normally mild-mannered Al Jefferson started screaming at his teammates to get him the fuckin' ball about midway through the fourth quarter? Was there a reason the Wolves made two, count 'em, two, field goals in 21 attempts in the 4th quarter? And do you think one of the reasons McCants and Brewer had some success drawing fouls on dribble penetration had to do with the fact that the Kings were minus Ron Artest and were playing their beefiest front line--Brad Miller and Kenny Thomas--to deter Jefferson, who would have enabled Shaddy and the rook even more had they dumped it to Jeff enough to further take Miller and Thomas out of the picture and open up seams.
Meanwhile, the guys McCants and Brewer were supposedly guarding, Kevin Martin and the unheralded John Salmons, went off for 29 points (25 in the second half!) and 19 points. And Spurs (and Wolves) castoff Benno Udrih had a profitable plus +5 running the point in the second half, after the Kings started out-of-position Francisco Garcia at the point due to the absence of Mike Bibby. Such was the juggernaut that handed Minnesota its fifth straight loss.
2. Painted Ugly
Ah, but what about those combined 94 points in the paint this weekend? Yup, that's a legitimate glass-half-full stat to hang on to. Jefferson is a bona fide bulldog, and both Craig Smith and Theo Ratliff had their moments.
Here's the rebuttal: The Lakers game on Friday night turned on the fact that Bynum and Odom simply overwhelmed Jefferson and Smith on the occasions when they were the frontcourt matchups. Bynum was simply too big for Jefferson to handle--it is becoming increasing obvious that "Big Al" is big as a power forward but not capable of negating classic NBA centers--and Odom was waaay too quick for Smith. (For that matter, Odom was too big for Gomes, and a matchup nightmare all game, which is why he scored 18 points on only ten shots (7-10 FG), registered 10 boards, didn't turn the ball over once and finished with a game-high plus +22.) Yes, the Wolves got 42 points in the paint. The Lakers, alas, got 56.
Against the Kings, the problem was more situational--like crunchtime. With 2:42 to play and the Wolves down by just a single point, the Kings grabbed six offensive rebounds on a single possession before Ratliff finally fouled Martin at 2:03. And with the Wolves down three with 10 seconds to go, Brad Miller had a tip-in to ice the game.
On paper, a front court of Ratliff, Jefferson and Gomes would seem to be rock-solid defensively. But the problem is positioning. Theo's thirst for blocks is a high risk strategy that frequently leaves his team vulnerable to put-backs on the offensive glass. Here's an amazing stat to chew on: In 123 minutes of play thus far this season, Ratliff has more blocked shots (14) than defensive rebounds (13).
Back to the basic parameters by which fans should judge this team. Looking over the roster, it makes sense that the Wolves should be tenth worst in the NBA in points per game (94.6), because they are minus point guard Randy Foye and, with the likes of Greg Buckner and Marko Jaric in the backcourt supplmenting a front line of Ratliff-Jefferson-Gomes, have the makings of being a pretty good defensive oriented team who needs to depress the score in order to triumph. Consequently, the Wolves' rank as 9th worst defensive team in points per game allowed (102.8) is the bigger disappointment of the season thus far, especially when you consider that the aforementioned five players rank in the team's top 6 in minutes played (Telfair, second on the team with 155 minutes, is the other).
One significant problem, for whatever reason, is that the Wolves have had trouble defending the pick and roll. It fosters the surfeit of fouls the team commits, or otherwise yields situations where open midrange jumpers and interior passes for layups become the norm. Perhaps, as against the Lakers, it is a matter of matchups and having to worry about Kobe so much that a talented 'tweener like Odom can burn you and a big burgeoning galoot like Bynum can make hay cleaning up. But one could hardly accuse the Kings of being stocked with talent, yet they were still able to post a triple-digit score. The Kings, as with every other Wolves opponent, lived on the free throw line, shooting 40 times, including a whopping 30 attempts in the second half. And while it is true that the refs have been stingy and biased about giving Minnesota the calls on offense, most of the whistles against them on D are legitimate. Put simply, this team isn't moving its feet diligently enough and isn't building that flowing trust relationship on rotations and other pick-and-roll decisions that create a defensive identity and place a body in front of a defender at the moment a shot is inevitable. Instead, we see the reach-in, the desperate lunge, or the "whistle is better than an automatic bucket" mentality. Blame for that lack of precision and cohesion (which isn't getting better) starts with the coaching staff and goes right through the team, including Jefferson, who for all his blue-collar effort this season has been lackluster defending the paint.
3. Quick Observations
Sebastian Telfair sure seems like fool's gold at the moment, if that isn't overestimating somebody with such a shaky rep. The past two games he's come off the bench for Jaric and played the entire 4th quarter. Against the Lakers the Wolves were down 14 entering that final period and in that nothing-to-lose circumstance Telfair shot 4-7 FG, including a pair of treys for 10 overall points, and chipped in a pair of assists and two rebounds. Versus the Kings, it was tied with a quarter to play and he missed all four of his shots (1-8 FG for the game) and had one rebound and zero dimes. If he missed 'em all equally in both games we could chalk it up to a lack of skill. But this discrepancy seems psychological--not good for a wannabe NBA point guard.
Gerald Green finally saw some action in that same 4th quarter of the Lakers tilt and immediately showed that he too does not play well with others. Yeah, he nailed a couple of nice jumpers in his 9-plus minutes of action, but also got tunnel-visioned about winning the game himself, resulting in a pair of forced misses and a pair of turnovers. I know he's scored 33 points before in an NBA game, but without looking, it wouldn't surprise me if his team lost that night. Here is yet another example of a player who would have greatly benefited from being bossed around--schooled--by an autocrat like Roy Williams, John Thompson or Billy Donovan, rather than grabbing that NBA teenager dough. Among Green, McCants and Brewer, it sure was a sour weekend for smart, disciplined play at the swingman slot.
The exception, of course, is the vet Buckner, who continues to do most of the little things (that I expected and saw out of Gomes until his steps back on the West Coast): Play generous, rotational defense to help his teammates; enhance ball movement; and know how to draw and avoid fouls. Yes, Buck too occasionally gets the shooter's itch at inopportune moments, no doubt from his exasperation at the prevailing low basketball IQ happening all around on the court, but compared to the gloryhounds with whom he shares the backcourt, he is a paragon of discretion.
Craig Smith was felled by a sprained ankle late in the Kings game, which contributed to the loss, given that Ratliff fouled out and Coach Wittman was forced to use the rook Richard, who promptly ceded Miller's tip in in the final seconds. Up to then it had been a good game for Smitty, who ranks with Jaric and Gomes thus far this season as inexplicable performers, capable of shining one stint and stinking it up the next. It is too early to know if it is matchups or that he plays better with some teammates than with others, although as On the Ball commenter Andy B noted--and Jim Pete reiterated during the Lakers game--Smitty was better suited to Kevin Garnett's game than Al Jefferson's. Nevertheless, what this squad will get out of Smith or Jaric is up to your ouija board. At least Gomes's doldrums can be attributed at least in part to him missing wide open jumpers and not being able to handle larger players like Odom. The former, at least, will be rectified often before game 82.
Asch sums up sports coverage, access and blogs at MinnPost
http://www.minnpost.com/steveaschburner/2007/11/13/87/access_in_sports_r...
This is nice
"No longer dependent on old media to get their stories out, most NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL teams host Web sites and pay staffers to put out features, stats and, when needed, heavy spin on tougher stories. Blogs, when written by fans who never actually talk with or ask questions of the principals, only encourage more detachment.
And the coverage just gets harsher."
Its ironic. I think most of us come here to get Britt's take on the game because he does find ways to get access to players and management of the Wolves, plus he has a lot of knowledge of NBA basketball. But, his access is limited in ways from the past that Asch writes about. Those of us who remember the old days come to blogs to read about sports because we no longer get the stuff we used to from the locals that let us know an Allen Page or a Carl Eller, or even a Trent Tucker. But the irony comes in when we make comments.
We are fans. I rarely attend games and I learn more from reading about the games than actually watching them. I played competitive ball in High School and I was lucky to have a coach who actually understood how to play the game teaching fundamentals like team defense and moving without the ball. But I have no access to the Wolves and I rarely attend games, and yet, I get the feeling that some people might read my comments and might think I actually know something about the Wolves they can learn from.
Just to be straight - I don't! I'm just a knucklehead fan, like the rest of you. Most of what I know I learn from old school journalists like Asch and Britt.
At the risk of having my comment bounced for feeding Britt's ego, here's my take:
What Britt offers on this blog is not matched by beat reporters because he doesn't hide the truth from readers in order to maintain relationships with players, coaches and management. Britt gives us facts -- and opinions based on facts -- that many beat writers would withhold for fear of losing sources.
And I don't necessarily mean this as a slight to the Strib or PiPress beat writers ... who do a pretty good job, IMO. But their meal ticket is based on being able to write several stories a week. In writing these stories, they need to keep a lot of people happy in order to maintain the relationships necessary to acquire quotes and information. Ripping a player, whether he deserves it or not, can cause a lot of problems for a beat reporter.
The reason I love Britt's take on the Wolves is that he doesn't pull any punches. I don't always agree with him, but his candor is unmatched.
Andy B--
You sell yourself short. Weren't you the one who was looking forward to last weekend because there were two network games on the West Coast and you could put your kids to bed and settle in with a beer for an evening of viewing? That active interest--you're not watching just because it's on and you happen to be there; you're planning for it--plus your experience playing for a knowledgeable coach with the right priorities puts you in a position to make good insights, as your comments have proven.
As the cliche goes, this isn't rocket science. I have a lot of passion for the NBA and I have been able to go to almost all the home games and watch the vast majority of the road games played by the Wolves, plus a bevy of others, for nearly as long as the franchise has existed. That's because my access is free and I get paid some to write about it. I daresay that most of you would be able to spool out useful nuggets if you had that kind of exposure.
The point is, the insights will rise and fall on their own in the forum of opinions. Some people "get" the game or have it taught to them well, and some people don't. But the most important thing is to care about what you are watching; if that happens, usually the rest takes care of itself. It's like in music: The way I know when I innately dislike or am particularly ignorant about a certain type of music is when it all sounds the same to me. Knowledge is really about discernment; the more you can pick things out and make them distinctive, the more fun and the more education you will glean. If every basketball game pretty much looks and feels the same to you, maybe you're not that interested. No crime in that. Fortunately, we're blessed here with a lot of passionate readers and commenters.
Yeah, you're right Britt. I do have a passion for the game. I have a passion for sports. But, probably my greatest passion is for good writing about sports.
I learned to read from the sports pages or the local papers. Every morning beginning in Elementary School. I don't remember the bylines and which journalists I was reading. There was SOucherey,Sid, Doug Grow, and Ruesse, but a whole lot of others that remain anonymous. But, I grew to love the local sports heros likeTwins players Rod Carew, Disco Dan Ford and Bombo Riveria. Vikings players like Jim Marshall, Ron Yary and Sir Francis. Then there were the Gopher Basketball players who were the as revered as the professional athletes in town. I sucked up everything I could read.
Its different today. I'm not complaining, because I love reading sites like FreeDarko, but you get the sense that young readers are more impressed with the writers than the actual sport. They see the bloggers as much as heroes the sports athletes, because they can relate to the bloggers more than the superstars. It is a different dynamic than in the past when we actually believed we could grow up into Alan Page, instead of growing up and starting our own blog so we could criticize Troy Williamson and praise Adrian Peterson. Perhaps, its better this way, what the heck do I know - because I still say, I'm a knucklehead. Albeit, a knucklehead who knows a thing or two about the game of basketball.
I am definitely in the camp that says we must be patient with this team from Wittman to Brewer. I am not expecting many wins this year and really just want to see "improvement" through the year and then a high draft pick next year giving us the player we need to supplement Jefferson as an offensive threat because, as much as I like the Mchales idea of Smashmouth, I am a little confused on the priority of getting Jefferson the ball each time down the floor. More on that.
First, a side to McCleak and signing Green. Remember, we will likely have three first round draft picks next year. Finding a swingman to replace Green will not be hard.
Back to Smashmouth and McHale, it has been so long and I've long since become adapted to NBA offenses that either focus on the pick and roll between two players or else ball movement that swings around the the outside until someone gets a clean look at the basket or else feeds a man cutting to the basket. I watched a lot of Celtic ball in my youth and, for the life of me, I don't remember what Smashmouth looked like, but I do know that the ball didn't land in McHales hands each and everytime down the floor. There was a guy named Bird who was quite proficient at scoring and DJ ran the floor and could hit a jumper and post up down low, Ainge was there to hit threes for awhile, and Parish was on the other block next to McHale and he got a few touches as well. They say that his teammates called Mchale a blackhole because when the ball went in to him it wouldn't come out again - but Mchale had a knack for putting the ball in the hole, as Jefferson seems to have as well. I don't know what type of offense the Celtics ran, but I do know that if they simply set up Mchale on the block and passed it inside to him each and everytime down the floor, then the Celtics would never have won a championship during those years.
There are matchups, and then there is setting up offenses. The Wolves don't have Bird, Parrish, DJ and Ainge to surround Jefferson with - that is obvious. But, they still need to find players that can score in multiple ways to keep opposing teams defenses honest. Either, they develop what they have or they give up on who they have and hope they land some players in the future. So, I don't mind letting McCants and Brewer doing the one-on-one thing as well, but they might need to pick better times than crunch time in the fourth quarter when possessions become more meaningful. The Development of Foyes, Brewers, McCants, Gomes, Smith and Green might not be as important individually as Jefferrsons devlopment on the low post, but of these players it is equally important that up to three of these players develop into offensive threats to compliment Jefferson's game.
I also agree with Anton that no one defends the pick and roll well when it is properly executed, which again begs the question of how which players will run the pick and roll for the Wolves and how proficient will we become with it.
Wow, I can hardly keep up with this blog. The posts are flying.
Has anyone seen the Strib piece on Walker? He is already moaning about his role and PT. I'll be honest, I hate his game, especially this older, chubbier version on display now. I don't think he is substantially better than any of our young guys, and he is robbing us of development time whenever he sees the court.
Is there any chance we can dump him for something useful? Even a less talented vet with a better attitude (a backup C or PG ideally)? I fear that we are stuck with him until the trade deadline, but I'd love to hear some ideas.
Asch's most recent article is on Walker
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/steve_aschburner/11/09/wal...
http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/wolves_practice_roundup_071113.html
From the Wolves' website. Buckner (sick) and Smith (ankle) are both unlikely for tomorrow's game.
A few worthy additional nuggets as well.
Britt (and most everyone else I guess),
Haha, you did tweak me there. I had to go back and re-read what you posted in response to CSE about McCants. I guess I'm in the minority for thinking that players should look nice at official team functions? Anyhow, I guess that doesn't really matter all that much at this point, so I'll let it go.
As you all know I'm not the biggest McCants fan around here (some would say I'm a "hater", but whatever.) I'm not too stubborn to admit that he has impressed me at some points this season, but then my disdain is quickly revived when he does such things as taking bad shots, committing sloppy turnovers, and playing listless and careless defense. I dunno... I guess he's not the worst player on our team, but I just don't see in him what some of you others do that are heaping on the praise. I'll continued to be boggled by that.
In regards to Big Al... I can't believe the people that are taking potshots at him. It's obvious he's our best player and should be THE MAN. He should get the touches and they should get him the ball as much as possible. It's pathetic how bad our guards are at entry passes (or more appropriately, the lack thereof.) Yeah, his defense is average at best, but he's just 22 and has time to improve. I remember telling people when the trade went down that his defense isn't very good, so that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. On the flipside he doesn't have a whole lot of help either. I forget who it was, but whoever compared him to Zach Randolph... now that's just a shame. Completely terrible comparison.
File this under "it stinks being a rookie":
Lamar Odom toyed with Corey Brewer under the Laker's offensive boards. Corey is so eager to demonstrate to the wolves that they got a great draft choice (they did), so he is overly aggressive with Lamar. Lamar knew what to do, he led Corey away from the basket on the baseline only to beat it back for the pass and easy dunk.
Relax Corey, but not too much.
Cap,
Brewer is not a power forward. Let's not over analyze what's in his head. If Brewer is expected to successfully guard PFs, he will be a bust. Just as Yi will be if he's expected to guard shooting guards.
Cap,
The worst matchup that Corey (a rook) can have is on a player like Lamar. He's much too big, too smart, and isn't the perimeter threat that Brewer should play D against (in an ideal world). Gomes would have a slightly better chance, given his size and b-ball IQ, but Odom is a mismatch against most NBA defenders - a very underrated piece of the Lakers' puzzle. Brewer, at the moment, cannot possibly guard power SFs like Odom, Maggette, Artest, etc.
And I don't think that the players' desire to score is counter to Witt's philosophy. If he were judging players on points alone, shouldn't Gerald be playing more? Sorry, I mean he's "sick". ;) Every player needs to prove themselves on some level, but I don't think our coaching staff is using points-scored as a barometer.
I agree regarding Jeff though - he's a post one-on-one threat ala Zack Randolph - he can score in a thousand different ways, but passing is not a strong suit. We don't have cutters, especially from the weakside, where the help comes from. 95 percent of PFs can't find the 3-point shooter in the opposite corner anyway - it's a tough read/pass. But pounding the ball into Jeff is the only way he can learn - he's also at a clear disadvantage re: comparisons to KG (high vs. low post).
I also agree on the rotations - Jaric, Walker, and Smith are solid bench players - little to write home about, but compared to other teams' 7-8-9 guys, all good options.
Anto--
I've let a lot of fairly negative things about Jefferson fly on this thread, and obviously said one or two myself, but comparing him to Zach Randolph is beyond the pale.
I'm not picking on you; it's just that I think Jefferson is a smart, dedicated ballplayer who is going to continue to get better and better. He already is more inclined to pass than the vet Randolph, and is a better passer than folks are giving him credit for, albeit nowhere near in KG's orbit, which is part of the problem.
All Jefferson really needs to refine his defense and his dimes is time.
I can't believe the amount of negativity I'm reading about a 22 year old kid 3 years out of high school who is averaging 20 points, 12 rebounds and shooting 50 percent from the field.
Yeah, there are a couple of elements to his game that need improving. While he needs to get better at passing out of double teams, I don't want him to be like KG and average 5 assists per game. I want him to dominate the paint and rim, not look to pass first. He'll get better at passing, especially considering this is probably the first time in his career he's been the focus of the defense.
His defense is not that bad either. He'll get better. The fact that the effort is there is a plus, and it's important to note that the entire team defense has been bad.
Whoa! I usually preview, but sometimes skip it (because I've gotta do the capcha twice!). I obviously wasn't very clear on the Randolph comparison, but I don't take it back - from a purely "skillset" perspective (i.e. not relating to work-ethic or intangibles), they're pretty similar players. It wasn't a knock on Al at all. Give Zack a LITTLE credit, please - he wasn't just born with a golden pen and ridiculous contract!
Both players require low-post double teams. Neither is blessed with exceptional vision (a nice way of saying they don't actively look to set up teammates). Both can get good post position, though Randolph is more inclined to step back and shoot a J whereas Jeff works to get his defender out of position. Both are just average defenders for the PF spot at this point in time - Al has more room to grow. Both have huge expectations, subpar supporting casts, and, trivially, guess which one is getting more rebounds per game this year?
Obviously Al has a higher ceiling, more motivation, and a better criminal record - I'm sure we'd all pick him over Zack. But sometimes this board's well-formed opinions are like an etch-a-sketch begging to be shaken.
It was extremely frustrating to watch McCants hog the ball against the Kings. He reminded me of Ricky Buckets. He claims he wants to be a leader on this team, but he is leading them into the toilet.
One of the unintended consequences of coach Wittman's minutes allotment experiment is that each guy is trying to prove himself worthy of more minutes. This runs counter to coach Wittman's attempt at team basketball.
I think it's time to pick two units and stick with them. Let them play themselves on or off the court based on sharing the rock.
I also noticed how Jefferson's demand for the rock lead the Kings to double and triple team him. Yet I saw few cutters, only players loitering on the parameter waiting for the "magic moment" to hoist their monogrammed brick.
Weren't we supposed to start fresh this season without the individualism? This is not amusing.
Regarding the Wolves troubles defending the pick-and-roll, while Foye's return might give the offense a shot in the arm, it's worth noting last season he too struggled defending the pick-and-roll. That could be one problem we'll have to endure the entire season (perhaps at the least).
As for the lack of synergy, I'll echo the comments of some others: The KG deal was made primarily to get Al Jefferson, everyone else was filler, with more consideration given to their contracts than their on-court roles. Combine that with the fact that the remnants of the post-KG Wolves team, which wasn't exactly a well-oiled machine on the court even with KG, and I think we can expect it will be some time before we'll see some harmonious play. We'll need patience, indeed. We're short an adequate center, a point guard, at least one shooter, lots of perimeter defense... And--my opinion--I don't think the team's eventual second franchise cornerstone is on the current roster.
One more thing, Britt's observation that Jefferson's solely a 4, I think,is accurate and problematic for Craig Smith, also only a 4. Last year the team's best +/- duo was Garnett and Smith. Since Jefferson doesn't have the versatility of Garnett, it begs the question of whether or not Smith might soon become more valuable to the team as trade bait than as a contributor. While Smith's upside (and therefor trade value) is limited, you certainly can't argue with his ability to score down low. I have to think a team like the Bulls or Wizards would love to have him. If Smith presents an opportunity to horde another draft pick and/or grease the skids on getting out or Jaric's albatross contract, the Wolves might have an interesting decision to make. Particularly since Smith is a free agent after this year, one whom they suddenly may not want to invest too heavily in, given what's above.
I'm with you 100 percent on the lack of pick-and-roll D - Foye didn't do great with it last year either and isn't the answer. In his defense (ha), I'll point out that many players make their biggest overall leap during their second season (despite the "sophomore slump" notion). But how many guys can you name who are great pick-and-roll defenders? I can't think of many - it's a two-man game heavily reliant on chemistry and instinct. KG could cover a lot more space when he would "show" - something that could help negate the inadequacies of a Cassell or Brandon. Heck, KG could guard most PGs - very helpful at the end of games when your defense is switching on all picks. Even Bliz, if he felt like trying, could do his half-hearted show and get back to his man. I think Al has the desire, but just not the timing, knowledge, or chemistry with perimeter defenders to play good defense. He's young, and I would hope he can learn more from Kevin McHale than Doc Rivers.
I'm a pretty big Craig Smith fan as well, but his skills are much more redundant with the addition of Al. If we were to unload him, some team would get a great deal - there's no way he can play up to his value on this squad - he'd be a good fit with any team with plodding big men - he's got that knack for jackknifing through seams and grabbing a board.
I don't think we're short too many pieces though. I think we've got solid perimeter defenders (Buckner, Gomes, Brewer, in that order), a few good scorers (Jeff, Foye, McCants, in that order), a servicable center in Theo, and a slightly-above-average collection of randoms (every team has them). The problem is that the Wolves are uniquely handicapped in that we can only play 5 people at a time. Curse you David Stern! But seriously, it's just a matter of taking advantage of good mismatches, and covering up the bad. Despite our start, I still think this team has talent and depth.
A couple problems with exploiting mismatches is we only have on consistent player. Exploiting some of the nuances that might make McCants a better choice in a particular situation than Brewer seems a bit more than Wittman is meant for. This might be ok, because the woofies are switching to more of a hammer to the head approach (I refuse to write "smash mou**"). Unfortunately, I don't think that leads to overachieving, and this team needs to overachieve to get more than just a handful of victories.
I really wish the powers that be didn't plop Al into KGs locker. Although a "real" PF rather than a really tall SF, Al is going to suffer by comparison in so many ways. Al will never guard the pick&roll like Garnett, though I agree with Antonymous that if he listens to McHale (a fine defensive presence back in the day), he could become ok.
Britt,
I think you're being too hard on McCants, and a bit too lenient on Jefferson. McCants is the best all around scorer on the team. Jefferson has been very solid, and better than common wisdom would have, but he's also been getting his share of shots in. Against Sacramento he had the most attempts of anyone on the team, and he has taken more shots than anyone on the team, almost twice as many as McCants (89 to 47). Depending on the back court, I have no problem with McCants being the goto guy, especially when Telfair and Walker are on the floor. As for Brewer, I think putting "breakout" in quotes is far to polite. He was playing like Troy Hudson for the first three games, but managed to climb up to being a better rebounding Marko Jaric. I do like him, though place him solidly in fourth on this team in terms of potential. Oh, and the unheralded John Salmons has been playing 38 minutes a game, shooting above the league in field goal and true shooting percentage (48.9% and 59.2%), and scoring 25.7 points per 48 minutes. I don't know if you were being sarcastic about his performance, but he's definitely done a solid job so far this season.
Finally (if I can steal the spotlight for two seconds), I've started up a Timberwolves blog of my own at:
http://minnesotatwolves.blogspot.com/
The blog is a more stats based perspective on the Wolves. I try to update three to five times a week. Currently there are posts on (among other things) why no one should be surprised by McCants' season to date, why not taking the option on Gerald Green was a mistake, a perspective on the Jefferson contract, predictions for the season, and, most excitingly, an argument for moving Mark Blount to small forward.
McCleak--
Jefferson has taken almost twice as many shots as Shaddy because he's played more than twice as many minutes. Among players averaging at least 15 minutes per game, McCants is far and away the leader in shots per minute, and leads the team in turnovers despite ranking 8th on the squad in minutes. So no, I don't think I'm being too tough on McCants and too lenient on Jeff.
Let's get away from statistics for a minute and think about the games we see and what we have heard. The stated philosophy and new identity for this squad has been paint-oriented, smashmouth basketball, and Jefferson's fat contract makes it plain, if it somehow wasn't before, that he's the fulcrum. As you watch these games, do you really believe McCants is more important to the offensive gameplan than Jefferson? And do you really think it benefits this franchise in the long run if the players buck the intended system by not establishing Jefferson first, and working off that?
Passing on Green's option was not a mistake. And Mark Blount at the 3 is not exciting.
Britt,
Unless I did my math wrong McCants is actually fifth in shots per minute, behind Kevin Durant, Tracy McGrady, Carmelo Antony, and Kobe Bryant. He's better in field goal, three points, and true shooting % than those four. He's fourth in points per minute among the five, almost entirely due to his horrendous free throw attempts per minute numbers (which is a team-wide problem). I don't think he's good as McGrady, Antony, or Bryant, but so far he's been hanging with them in scoring for the first five games, which is more than anyone expected from him. Now, is he turnover prone? Does he make some absolutely boneheaded plays? Yes and yes. But he's been the strongest offensive force on the team through five games, and he should get some accolades for that admist the deserved scolding.
I believe McCants has been more successful offensively than Jefferson to this point. Hopefully that will change soon, because if Jeff can use some of those flashes we've seen this season, he and McCants create absolute havoc offensively. But when Jefferson is faltering, I have no problem with letting McCants have some burn. He lost almost an entire season of development, and I think it behooves the team to get him some touches. And I'm not sure the system needs to be Jefferson first, all the time. Maybe I feel burned by the last few years of the Wolves, but I'm leery of making anyone The Man for the team, at least at toe moment.
I believe not picking up Green's option was a mistake because equivalently capable free agents average either $5.3 million or $3.7 million a season, depending on whether you count the ludicrous Jamal Crawford contract. He's a backup scorer at the 2 and the 3, something I don't see on the Wolves roster elsewhere. So next year the Wolves will have to either draft another swingman to fill that space, which would be a mistake since most of the Wolves youth is already at those two positions, and because all the non-Green players whose contracts expire after the season play in the paint, or the Wolves will have to pay someone more money to do what Green does.
The Blount thing was a joke. My first post (prior to the trade) was on Blount's career, and how if you look at his career stats in isolation he looks like a small forward.
McCleak--
My comment on McCants' shots per minutes referred to his position on the team, not the league; sorry I didn't make that more explicit.
I am not for anointing anyone as "The Man" either, but that's not the point. Whether you or I like it or not, the stated gameplan and offensive philosophy for this franchise is to establish Jefferson in the low post and then work off of that. Any deliberate deviation from that plan would thus seem to hinder the progress this team will make this season establishing an offensive identity.
Anyone paying Gerald Green $3.7 million deserves the grief. And getting a "backup scorer" at the swingman spots would seem to be a very very low priority for a squad that may not win 20 games this season. On the other hand, playing solid team ball "the right way" at both ends of the court would seem to be job one. And Green ain't the guy to help make that happen.
I would like to see Al do a better job of passing out of the post. Al get his touches but he is somewhat of a blackhole. KG knew how to find the open man on the perimeter or hit the guy cutting the basket.
I agree that Jefferson needs to improve his passing, but I think comparing him to KG in this regard is sort of apples & oranges.
KG got the ball almost every single possession, and much of the time it was in the high post. So he was not expected to score with every touch, and he was positioned in a vantage-point to see and pass to much of the floor.
Al is close to the basket on most of the possessions. If he gets single coverage, he should look to score. And from the low post, especially when double teamed, he may have poor visibility and angles to pass. He'll likely need to kick it back to the guy on the wing who fed the post.
Best article yet.
About Jefferson and the 4th quarter:
The reason the Timberwolves lost the game, at least in my eyes, was not getting Jefferson the ball... in the 3rd quarter. He played 7:32 in the 3rd quarter, not one shot attempt, not one FT attempt. Was horrible to watch a team neglect their most efficient scorer.
That was the worst frontline the Timberwolves will see the entire year, and he goes an entire quarter without a shot attempt. Come on... Kenny Thomas, Mikki Moore, and Brad Miller? How are those three going to stop Jefferson from going off if he gets touches? The only way it can happen is if he's constantly doubled - and honestly it didn't happen that often in the 3rd.
I'm betting (hoping) that during the break between the 3rd and 4th quarter, Wittman told the team to get Jefferson the ball.
When the 4th quarter started, Jefferson gets touches two out of the first three possessions, scoring four points. Keep giving him the ball right? Nope, he is ignored for over 4 minutes as the team is shooting mid-range jumpers - he doesn't hit a FG the rest of the game.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I think it's fairly obvious the way this team will win games is to give Jefferson consistent touches - even when Foye comes back, the team needs to give Jefferson the ball every few possessions and let him try to work.
And really, the +/- for that game is misleading in Brewer's case, as when the Timberwolves went away from Al is when the team suffered. So whoever played the majority of the 3rd and 4th in that game (Brewer, Ratliff, McCants, Telfair) is going to look bad - and it's unfair for Brewer.
McCants hurt the team badly in the 2nd half - LVP of the game. Might be a good offensive threat, but not when he's got that "I'm the man" mentality. Wittman needs to pull him out and insert Buckner in the game if that becomes the case.
Also, good stat on Ratliff about the defensive rebounds. I like that he has energy, but he's starting to annoy me on both ends of the floor. Taking too many 7-10 foot shots (not his forte) on offense, and his defense is overrated for the reasons you mentioned.
You might not get fans in the lockerroom for writing some of this stuff, but you are doing a great job of telling it like it is.
Hi Britt,
Your comments regarding McCants' and Brewer's one-on-one focus and neglect of Al Jeff seem like an obvious thing for Witt & crew to notice. I'm one of those fans willing to give Witt some time to prove whether he can coach rather than just assume he cannot. Wednesday's game seems like a good opportunity to show some competence. If Witt handles it right, we'll hopefully see a more team-oriented game and more touches for Al. If he doesn't, we'll see more disagreements and chemistry will starting going the way of 2006-2007.
One explanation of the one-on-one play would be the players trying to improve the free throw situation. I'm assuming they are instructed to attack the basket and get to the line. It may be subtle to understand when driving to the hoop is still within the team concept. Kobe has certainly not figured it out in his many years of play.
I saw a good chunk of the LA game and almost none of the Sac game.
If one were to graph the Wolves performance thus far individually by game there would be solid straight lines from two players - Jefferson and Buckner. From the rest of the team I'm seeing an unpredictable up and down pattern.
For the first 2-3 games, I was pleasantly surprised at the overall team "aggregate starting point". The Wolves were more competitive Week One than I anticipated. The concern now is that the team performance as a whole has not improved since the opener.
The team now has four games and eleven days at home for the coaching staff to stabilize some individual performances and move the aggregate line upward.
If following LeBron's visit next Wednesday the team remains winless and stagnant in the aggregate this patient fan will have lost some enthusiasm.
I looked it up and Green's 33-point game last April occurred during an 8-point loss to Atlanta. I don't like how Green plays and would prefer Witt to keep his ass on the bench permanently. Let's face it, he was a throw-in on the KG trade to make salaries match up and nobody would even know his name if any NBA stars were willing to participate in the dunk contest.
So far, the player on this team that has me scratching my head more than anyone is McCants. He seems to counter every smart, athletic play with a stupid, forced mistake. Unlike some others on this board, I absolutely do not question his talent at the NBA level. On the other hand, if he doesn't learn to play smarter (read: team basketball on both ends of the court), his opportunity will pass him by and that talent will be wasted.
I think the hardest thing about a team going through a losing drought is to break through for a win with team play. Too often what is happening is one guy is trying to do "too much" and trying to be "the man" to lift the team to victory. Afterall, the guy that gets the glory is the guy that does make the "big shot" at the end. The problem is that they need to realize that it was good team play that does get them the leads in the first quarter, and they have to revert to that, rather than one on one play. If I were Al I would have been pretty frustrated as well, he has faced double and triple teams all season, and for a brief time he had single coverage by Brad Miller, and the team didn't get him the ball! I also don't think we should dismiss the fact that there is a certain matter of pride on the line, no team wants to be the team that is the first one to lose to either Minnesota or Seattle. Sacramento's two wins have come from playing the Sonics and the Wolves. I expected the season to begin quite rocky, and I hope that in March they will be playing better so people are reading the 3 pointers then.
That's been my beef with McCants the whole time he's been here - his aggression is his best weapon but also his chief weakness. I think during a rebuilding year it's easier to look past the mistakes and give Shaddy 30+ minutes a night. He's fun to watch, explosive, and is one of the only Wolves who could go off for 30 on any given night. But on the other hand, he plays D with his hands ("you reach, I teach" - he hasn't learned) rather than his feet, giving his man a step or leaving his teammates to pick up the slack. He remains a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.
Britt (and most everyone else I guess),
Haha, you did tweak me there. I had to go back and re-read what you posted in response to CSE about McCants. I guess I'm in the minority for thinking that players should look nice at official team functions? Anyhow, I guess that doesn't really matter all that much at this point, so I'll let it go.
As you all know I'm not the biggest McCants fan around here (some would say I'm a "hater", but whatever.) I'm not too stubborn to admit that he has impressed me at some points this season, but then my disdain is quickly revived when he does such things as taking bad shots, committing sloppy turnovers, and playing listless and careless defense. I dunno... I guess he's not the worst player on our team, but I just don't see in him what some of you others do that are heaping on the praise. I'll continued to be boggled by that.
In regards to Big Al... I can't believe the people that are taking potshots at him. It's obvious he's our best player and should be THE MAN. He should get the touches and they should get him the ball as much as possible. It's pathetic how bad our guards are at entry passes (or more appropriately, the lack thereof.) Yeah, his defense is average at best, but he's just 22 and has time to improve. I remember telling people when the trade went down that his defense isn't very good, so that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. On the flipside he doesn't have a whole lot of help either. I forget who it was, but whoever compared him to Zach Randolph... now that's just a shame. Completely terrible comparison.
Hey thanks for the update. It's hard to keep on track from overseas. Hope they pick up that teamplay.
The thing I noticed is the wolves are getting a lot less turnovers. I thought this was an indication of better teamplay; now it seems they're not losing it often cuz they're just not passing it.
Sure hope that changes, it's too soon to question the coach(ing staff), so let's hope they pick it up. We'll just have to be patient.
Wins and losses mean nothing to be this season. I only care about the following:
1 - the development of possible franchise anchors Jefferson, Foye, and Brewer.
2 - the development of valuable role players Gomes, McCants and Smith.
3 - the development of Wittman as a coach.
Everything else is insignificant. For example, the Wolves may have lost the Kings game, but was a win in the development of Jefferson and Brewer. Watching Jefferson, it's hard to remember he is only 22 years old. He has the type of interior presence and moves that few players have. I have no doubt he is a future all-star (maybe even this season). For the first time, this franchise has a PF who wants the ball down the stretch and isn't afraid to attack the basket. The word gets overused, but is perfect for Big Al, he's a "beast".
While Brewer's play was not at Jefferson's level, he did show some postives. He can get to the basket. He's not afraid to pentrate and has a nice first step. At times he played above average defense and understands the team defense concept. Unfortunately for him, he had little help when pushing Martin toward his big men. He also needs to learn not to foul when he's beat. Still, Martin was 7-17 from the field.
McCants showed what I think he'll always be. An instant offense type you bring in from the bench for scoring.
It's too bad Foye is hurt. It's not a stretch to think that the Wolves would have two or three wins with Foye playing in the 4th instead of Jaric and Telfair.
Even with low expectations, I was disappointed in Saturday's game. I thought that could be a game, especially w/o bibby and artest, that could be a victory during a long year. If the woofies couldn't beat a team that stinks even if those players are on the court, who are they gonna beat this year.
I enjoyed Jefferson's offensive game. He is more than defenders can handle because he has great skills in his type of game. It's as if he has stayed focused on his development to exactly match the type of game his body is suited for. I've also noticed his FT shooting has become better every year. That's necessary to remain a go to guy at the end of games.
On the flip side, his defense on the pick and roll is not what we've become accustomed to over the last 10 years. Although he shows aggressively, his feet aren't quick enough to return to his man and his hands are too slow to have any chance at the steal. Until we get another big man to defend it, it seems like that will be an ongoing sore spot. I seem to remember comments that Jefferson's D was weak coming in and those comments appear to be right on.
One thing we should remember, especially when we talk about "franchise anchors" or cornerstones, is that we don't have a guy on the team to carry us to the next level. Jefferson is not a complete player (no D) and he is by far the best player on our team. If we got rid of KG so we could potentially become not just a playoff team but a factor, we all need to realize that the franchise strategy needs another top draft pick. Sadly, since we've been in this spot for the last two years, our stinking team is a necessity to find our franchise player. Hopefully we don't have the Atlanta/Boston experience.
I feel like a broken record, but Wittman has never done anything to establish that he can be a head coach in the NBA. To me he seems to have traveled quite far in the NBA on the basis of having been a played for Bobby Knight (which always seems to bestow credibility if you desire to coach) and having played the game. Can anyone point to a player or a system that he ever developed?
If he is really focused on defense, team work and a ball-rotation offense, why doesn't he have a quick hook when his players are exhibiting none of the same? I understand not creating an atmosphere of fear on the players' part, that they won't get yanked quick for a mistake, but I believe you will need to beat the lessons into their heads that defense and team work gets you on the court and will keep you there. Almost everyone of these young players could score prior to getting to the NBA, but now their natural talent will not automatically result in points. They need to understand that it will take teamwork to score, and teamwork to get PT. If he doesn't demand it now, when will he ever?
The organization's commitment to Wittman is misguided. I guess that should be no surprise, as most every decision this management makes is suspect.
krush--
I hear you, and agree, on the wins and losses. And the last thing I want to do is discourage you--I need *someone* reading these treys in early March. But the bar you set for the Sac game is below see level (misspelling intended). Consider:
Sacramento was playing without Bibby and Artest.
Like the Wolves, they were on the tail end of a back to back.
Kevin Martin had a horrible night at the free throw line, coming in at 89 percent and missing 5 of his first six attempts. Yet he still scored 29 points, including 25 in the second half.
The Kings point guards were 1) a guy who played a lot of small forward for them last year, is at best a role player at that position and has no business running a half-court offense, and 2) a guy the Wolves cut for nothing after acquiring him strictly to dump him in a cost-cutting move.
The two healthy players you are most interested in developing played the entire fourth quarter and were part of a lineup that missed 19 of 21 shots and went -7 for the period.
The guy you properly identify as the team's best player was so pissed off at not getting the ball that he began screaming at his own teammates during that quarter.
Is all that really a "win" in your book? And if so, what would constitute a "loss"?
Britt,
I had to do a double take on your description of Sac point guards. It sounded a lot like the Wolves situation. While he is still learning the position, Foye will be a big upgrade if he returns healthy.
More important to me was the fact that Jefferson and Brewer did did not play scared in the 4th quarter. Jefferson was double and triple teamed. I think that says something about him. I also like the fact that he wasn't passive about not getting the ball.
What would I conside a "loss"? Brewer looking as clueless as he did during much of the preaseason and first few games. He was much improved against Sac. Jefferson playing like a 22 year old. Gomes, Smith and McCants failing to develop. I think a case can be made for a McCants loss here.
I look at the 0 fer start much as I do with Seattle. There, it's all about the development of Green and Durant. Losses mean nothing.
The previous "anonymous" pst is me.
Patience has not come easy. It was tough to get past the fact that McHale wasted much of KG's prime years, not to mention the Casey firing and Wittman hiring. Once I got past that and was ready to watch Foye and company develop, Foye gets hurt.
Trivia question: Who has the best =/- on the team? The answer will surprise.
BTW, with all the talk of Jefferson not being effective at center, the team is still +2 when he's in the middle.
"see level" -- Hilarious!
I've been telling Krush for years that we must not have seen the same game.
But I'm sure that it's true that there is so much action in an NBA game that people will watch different aspects. And that what one focuses on may indeed be influenced by the flavor of Kool-Aid one prefers.
Britt asks the question: What should constitute "victory" for the Timberwolves (and their observers) this season?
My preferred flavor of Kool-Aid involves team play that utilizes the talents of each individual to create a better opportunity for success than any individual could achieve alone. That Al Jefferson resorted to screaming at team mates does not bode well for me to have a "victorious" season.