Home Game #3: Minnesota 108, Sacramento 103
Season Record: 1-5
1. Mea Culpa--For Now
I thought Rashad McCants had a horrible game during last Saturday night's Wolves loss to the Kings in Sacramento, and quite righteously said so. Thought he was a narcissistic gunner who sabotaged the team's offensive priority of pounding the ball into Al Jefferson in the paint. And when McCants stubbornly came out playing the same way tonight against these very same Kings at the Target Center--missing two shots and turning the ball over two times before Jefferson even got a touch in the half-court set as the Kings raced to a 7-1 lead in the first two and a half minutes of the first quarter--I started sharpening the knives to slice him up again in this trey.
Except that after that heat check, McCants began looking for Jefferson and others a bit more. And then when he did start gunning again, and pirouetting through the lane, the ball was going in on a pretty regular basis. He finished with a career-high 33 points, on 13-22 FG, 4-7 from beyond the arc and 3-5 from the line. More importantly, that second turnover early in the first period was his last. Jefferson likewise got off, to the tune of 23 points (11-16 FG), including 13 first half points on just eight shots in a glorious display of footwork, shooting touch, and the psycho-physics of ignoring elbows and hands in your face, but it was McCants who made most of the big shots that cinched the victory down the stretch.
I still think this is a risky circumstance. I don't buy Kent Youngblood's column in the Strib today, in which Shaddy says "We're a post-first offense. Our main objective is to get it into Al and play off of that," and adds that he hopes "people will really see what I can do," followed by Youngblood opining, "But he won't force it." Really? Right after he just compared himself to Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade earlier in the piece? And after we've seen him continually force it first, to see if he can take over, and only then defer to Jeff?
Tonight, things worked the way they were supposed to work, with McCants and Jefferson forming a dynamic outside-inside punch that forced the Kings to pick their poison. And there are those who will logically ask, why can't the team strive for that every game and just play out the hot hand? My response is that young teams create an identity by establishing patterns; and that one key to good team chemistry is a consensual pecking order. McCants has a strong enough sense of self confidence to believe he is the alpha option on offense, and not Jefferson, if his shots are falling early. And yes, that could disrupt the team's progress this season.
So why is this point called Mea Culpa? Because tonight the Wolves made it work and very effectively rebutted my kvetching. Because the greater lesson, for this game anyway, might well be that Minnesota does indeed have a dynamic scorer on the perimeter who can also take it to the hole, which was far from a sure thing before the season started, and must be taken as a very good sign, or at least a pleasant dilemma, should pecking order questions arise due to McCants's continued strong production. I can suspect that the risk remains, and the situation won't last, but those who were chiding me about this last time I brought it up were vindicated by this win. Hats off to both McCants and Jefferson for enabling the other.
2. A Veteran's Poise, and the Serbian Sidekick
Even in this season of the post-Garnett rubble, it wouldn't be productive for Coach Randy Wittman to just let all the kids play without salting in a few veterans for ballast. (How's that for a multi-mixed metaphor?) A series of 20, 30, 40 point losses while the rooks and sophs and young newbies to the squad try to read the license plates of the trucks rolling over them isn't quite the way to engender either confidence or perspective and context. The team needs some poise. And believe it or not, tonight--with Greg Buckner hobbled and Theo Ratliff merely adequate--that means they needed Antoine Walker, who filled the void with grace and intelligence.
Everyone knows that 'Toine and the Wolves have a footnote relationship, and that even under the best of circumstances, 'Toine likes doing the big things. such as launching three-pointers and dominating the rock. But tonight he was the balm, the sage, the guy who was more valuable on the court than he appears to be in the box score. He dutifully banged with the Kings' two very different bruisers, forward Ron Artest and center Brad Miller, and held his own defending against both.
When it was apparent that the Wolves didn't have numbers in their favor on the fast break, it was Walker who slowed it down and brought the ball back out to set up a play. It was Walker who knew the Wolves had a foul to give--and committed it to waylay a Kings' play--near the end of the third quarter; Walker who also fouled Miller from behind before he could dispose of an easy putback through the hoop; Walker who drove the lane with the shot clock going down; Walker feeding both Jefferson and Shaddy and fostering ball movement in general. He finished with 19 points in 29:33, plus a pair of steals and four rebounds. Given that his presence on the Wolves means that Ricky Davis and Mark Blount have taken their dysfunction to Miami, any other positives he produces for the rest of the season is all gravy.
Some might wonder why I didn't cite Marko Jaric as the veteran poise tonight. After all, he's been with the team much longer than Walker, plays the point, and had a game-high plus +12 and a game-high 8 rebounds in 25:24. The quick answer is that Marko is not poise, not balm, not sage. I suspect you will cut him much more slack and like him a lot better if you realize he is not a leader in most any way. He is, however a glorious sidekick when you're bent on stoking an adrenaline rush. When bodies are flying around and the ballclub is in that sweet, overlapping zone in the venn diagram of being loosey-goosey and razor-sharp, Jaric thrives like no other and winds up being a super character actor in the prevailing drama. Tonight, given the added advantage of matching up against Slovenian Beno Udrih, whose game Jaric almost surely knows well, he was a large pain in the Kings' posterior, crashing the boards, diving on the floor for loose balls, snatching a pair of steals and dropping three dimes on his teammates.
3.The Boon of Defensive Aggression and other Quick Takes
Last Saturday the Wolves limited the Kings to just 40.5% shooting (30-74) and 100 points. Tonight Sacramento shot 50% (39-78) and scored 103 points. Yet I think Minnesota's defense was more effective tonight. The reason? Pick and roll defense. "We worked on it this week and decided to just be aggressive," Wittman said in the postgame press conference. "Before we were playing one part soft and then one part aggressive." Sometimes this varied approach confuses the opposition. But it also brings forth a cascade of whistles from the refs.
Flip Saunders used to preach that "the more aggressive team gets the calls." In other words, if you are consistently laying a body on somebody and dogging their every dribble, the refs become accustomed to it and consider it part of your "normal" defense. But if you play loose or soft on one play and aggressively the next, the disparity is heightened and is the aggression seems harsher.
Coming into tonight's game, the Wolves had been hamstrung by an exorbitant disparity in fouls, and thus free throws. Opponents were getting to the line an average of 30 times; the Wolves, just 13. Obviously, that's a huge disadvantage. Tonight, the Wolves were pretty much on their standard pace, generating 12 before the Kings were forced to foul in attempt to overcome a fairly big deficit late in the game, resulting in an additional ten free throws for the Wolves in the final minute and four seconds of play. But the real difference was that the Wolves enabled the Kings to get to the line only 14 times, or less than half the season average for Wolves opponents. Yes, the Kings made more field goals and ultimately more points in tonight's second meeting than as compared to Saturday's game, but there is something energy sucking and momentum-depressing about frequent stoppages in play that allow opponents to score when the clock isn't ticking. Making hard, aggressive "shows" on the pick-and-roll, and then sustaining that aggressive approach to the end of the play reduced the whistles. So did better footwork and a slightly more lenient officiating crew.
Randy Wittman coached a good game from the sidelines, voicing his verbal displeasure more frequently in the first half at a plethora of mental mistakes, and deploying a crisp rotation schedule that had nine different playing logging at least 20 minutes of action. But even the mere 3:42 that second-round pick and backup center Chris Richard received is instructive of Witt's acumen. Richard subbed in to be matched against another, younger rookie in Sac center Spencer Hawes. In addition, Richard's college teammate Corey Brewer was with him on the floor during his stint and assisted on a nifty pick and roll that resulted in a Richard slam dunk. Nice of the coach to give the kid an optimal chance to succeed.
Point guard Sebastian Telfair had one of those inexplicable games where he recorded eight assists and three steals in merely 20:13, yet still seemed inept at decision-making and ineffectual on defense en route to a team-worst minus-3.
Finally, I never would have thought that less than three weeks into the season scrappy rook Corey Brewer would be giving currently moribund vet Ryan Gomes a run for his money at the starting small forward position.
Good stuff Britt!
I have been a bit busy but have still watched all the Wolves games that have been on TV so far. I will sat it's kinda of nice not having to worry about wins. I really like how you're focusing in on some of the play of the players and where they are finding their nitches (sp?). Anyway, just wondering if you think things will change a bit now that it seems Theo Ratliff went down for a spell, and will that mean more Walker?
I bashed Telfair quite a bit before he started playing for us. And I gotta say he's kept it together off the court so far. And on the court he has far exceeded my expectations. His shooting is still lacking but as a back up guard I actually think Telfair makes a good one. But perhaps a 3rd string guard, Jaric I think has actually played well in his spots, and I'm pretty pleased with Buckner, though why do I feel he's become like the Mo Williams type point guard than the defensivve specialist type guard?
Lastly, is 72-10 in danger out in the East?
Thanks for the stuff Britt and all!!!
In regards to the McCants vs. Jefferson debate I was wondering if anyone knew of teams in the last twenty years that could be defined as smashmouth. It's not a term I ever remember seeing applied to an NBA team before, and I was hoping to compare the ball distribution on those teams to the Wolves current split. Thanks in advance for any help.
I would define it as rugged physicality over finesse athleticism; box-outs and picks and hard fouls on brazen layups; a general focus on the paint at both ends of the court. I think the Mahorn-Rodman-Salley-Dumars-Zeke Pistons, with Laimbeer when he wasn't chucking treys, might qualify as the ultimate smashmouth team. But I think McHale may even have invented the term in a hoops context. It certainly hasn't been a part of the NBA lexicon; I've heard it more often used in connection with football and hockey, which is probably where the Hibbing-ite picked it up.
Oddly, offensively Detroit was a finesse team. The jumpers had to fall for them too have success. Even their main post players, Dantley (while battling the celtics) and McGuire, were more about finesse than the incredibily strength that Al Jeff brings. Defensively, they shared a smash mouth style with just about everyone in the Eastern conference. Nobody beat them on fast breaks, and like Britt mentioned, the lane was not a safe place. Although the Piston's fouls were harder than everyone else, offensively, with McHale and Parrish, the Celtics are the model that McHale is attempting to emulate.
I think it's a strange situation for Wittman to balance. It makes sense for Jefferson to take the shots (McHale was #1 offensive option over Bird most of the time when both on the floor) when he can get them, but what if McCants really does belong in the same sentence with some of those great 2 guards. We are supposed to know on his third year, but we don't even know if he or Foye is the better option. Probably Wittman will be more free with his outside players taking shots because winning is still counterproductive (we need a legit PG), and this allows him to see what we have for the future. In a few months, they need to decide who stays.
Midlife,
The Celtic team that I saw win championships did not have Mchale as the number one option. McHale was an integral part of the team, but not nearly as reliable as Bird was. Just looking back on those championships series with the Lakers. Bird and Magic brought it every game and usually the home team came out ahead because the production from visitor's pieces around Bird or Magic were down. Worthy usually was held down in Boston and Mchale Parrish and Ainge were below -production in LA. But Bird, undoubtedly the number one offensive option for Boston, brought it no matter what arena he played in, while feeding Mchale, Parrish, and Ainge to offensive prowess for the wins in Boston.
Forgive me for saying that I believe the assertion that Mchale was the number one option for Boston when he and Bird were on the floor at the same time is absurd and I think McHale would agree with me.
Also, I think Al Jefferson has some finesse to his game. He is not strictly reliable on his "incredible strength." Like Mchale, he is gifted with finesse moves around the basket and has a very quick release on his shot.
According to Google, we are the top 4 results for "smashmouth basketball". Yikes! (it's a vague term anyway) Here's a start:
The fifth result is useful though - he 1996-1998 Knicks are definitely smashmouth. Oakley, Ewing, Buck Williams, Starks, LJ...those were some gritty guys who wouldn't back down.
I think Malone/Stockton qualifies as well...I'll admit to not watching that much Jazz basketball during their heyday, but a supporting cast consisting of Hornacek, Russell, and Ostertag cannot be a finesse team.
The Rasheed Wallace teams - Blazers with Dale Davis and Pippen, Pistons with Ben Wallace and Prince.
The earlier, Isiah-led Pistons as well.
It's really hard to call an entire team by that term. I consider it to mean having big men who stayed at home and were able to intimidate and were scrappers (and scrapers). The first Chicago titles all required Horace Grant, the second all required Dennis Rodman.
I'd be interested to at least hear what anyone else thinks of this whole smashmouth concept. Personally, I think it's only mildly descriptive, but more of a "we just lost our heart and soul and need a new identity" thing.
Anton,
Thanks for the assist. When I tried smashmouth basketball in Google a few days ago I got the same results, sans the Knicks. Those are some good suggestions, and hopefully I can put together some information on how those teams compare to the Wolves this weekend.
Asch on Garnett in the MINNPOST.com
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2007/11/16/115/a_fresh_start_for_kg_relu...
On the Ballers:
This has been a great 36 hours of blogging since Britt posted his Three Pointer. Britt, I hope you don't mind a suggestion, but here goes.
What if in addition to watching and enjoying each game, interested regulars each took one aspect of the game and paid extra attention and reported their observations on that particular aspect. It could be focusing on one player, or certain aspects of the game (perimeter D, offensive rebounds) People who attend the game could focus on what's going on on the bench. These are just some quick ideas off the top of my head.
I'd be interested in reaction to my idea. I bring this to the table only with the intent of making a great thing even better. Plus, it might be kind of fun.
My inclination would be for this to be voluntary and for interested regulars to choose their own areas of focus.
Thoughts?
I think it is a great idea, especially if it is regarded as a forum thing with no set responsibilities other than what someone wants to take on for themselves. I say that because I too have been bowled over by the quality of commentary the past day or two, which has been high even by the past standards you guys have set, but makes me feel sheepish that I can't respond to every quality query or provocative point. For example, Garwood had a quality post that actually did what you are suggesting, AK, and I never got back to it with a response.
In other words, there aren't many threads where I'll have the time and focus to jump in as often as I have this go-around, but as long as that is understood up front by folks, I'd love to see what people choose to isolate and what their takes are on various aspects.
As happened last weekend, Fri and Sat night games will have me posting a trey for both sometime on Sunday. OTB folks can either work this thread in the meantime or store up Wizard and Hornet impressions for Sunday.
It was in fact Garwood's post that got me thinking along these lines. Before sitting down to a game, whether at Traget Center or the comfort of your own home, pick something to isolate and tell all of us what you find.
Nothing particularly new for typical Wolves and NBA fans to glean, but man it is fun reading Asch freed from the Strib style straightjacket. "Kermit in a Prius" as an example of green is probably my favorite line, in stiff competition with a half-dozen other beauts.
Agreed. This passage gave me a chill:
"There was Garnett's warrior yell on the videoboard during intros, his trademark clap of rosin at the scorer's table right before tipoff. Geez, it was like watching your ex-spouse snuggle with a new squeeze, right there in your living room."
Britt,
I was wondering if you would be willing to explain your Gomes/Brewer comment in more detail? I haven't been impressed with Gomes, but I don't think I've seen enough from Brewer to justify the change.
McCleak--
Sure. I thought Gomes would quickly establish himself as the second-best player on the roster after Jefferson, and be the kind of invaluable glue guy who is solid at everything but doesn't need to be tended to or otherwise stoked. But after ratifying that impression in the first couple of games, Gomes began missing wide-open jumpers and then--I'm just speculating now--letting it affect the rest of his game. He hasn't been moving his feet as well on D, isn't getting to loose balls, isn't closing out rotations the way he was in the preseason--he just seems listless, and that was about the last thing I expected from him.
By contrast, Brewer is just raw energy. He's very unschooled, and without looking it wouldn't surprise me if he was among the worst plus/minus guys on the team right now. But he has made steady improvement in most every game, and no longer looks lost and wide-eyed out there; now he's merely wild and wandering. But seriously, he did a nice job on Kevin Martin the other night (as did Shaddy), and can already get to the hoop in the NBA better than I expected.
But here is the real bottom line: I think the Wolves have at best a 50-50 chance of retaining Gomes after his deal expires at the end of this year. I fully expect him to rebound from this little bad patch, but right now he's headed in one direction and Brewer is headed in another. Brewer is the first post-KG top draft pick and thus will be given every chance to succeed as the franchise strives to put good things on a clean slate. If I was forced to apportion minutes at the 3 between Gomes and Brewer for the rest of the year and make the call right now, without any regard to what happens after this year, I'd go about 33/15 in favor of Gomes. But for the variety of reasons just mentioned, a little spirited competition between the two has a lot of advantages right now.
I have to admit, I also cringe a little bit when I hear McCants talk as if Kobe and Wade are his peers. I would much rather he see himself as someone who could thrive as a 6th man and contribute to a winning team. I just don't see McCants among the league leaders in scoring. I think he can go off for 33 occassionally, but I see him as a 16 - 18 ppg and scoring in bunches when matchups are favoring him. I think he needs a coach that puts him in at the right times, while encouraging his scorers mentality and reminding him to stay alert on defense.
I am not sure I see the Jefferson thing as a typical pecking order that we've seen in the past here for reasons I stated above. Jefferson is going to get his points by just being around the basket. Sometimes, hes going to have to shout at his teammates to say, "Hey Fellas, don't forget about the big guy!, I'm here to help you out and I'm open - get me the ball." But, he doesn't need to discourage the players around him from taking shots or from going one on one each time down the court before looking to see if hes open.
The problem with Shaq and Kobe wasn't with Shaq understanding the pecking order. Yes, he did have to say at times, "Kobe, I'm your meal ticket - don't forget about me" but, he also knew that he needed Kobe to score for him to win and he didn't want to discourage that. Likewise in Miami, he immediately ceded to Wade in the pecking order. I don't think low post players should have problems with pecking orders like guys who hang out on the wing or a KG type that can do it all (pass or score) and has the offense run through them. Guys in the paint are going to score just by being in the paint and sometimes its best to keep the paint from getting all clogged up. The way to give Jefferson space to work the paint is by giving the green light to one or more players out there on the floor with him. Jefferson needs to understand that this is to his benefit, while occasionally reminding (in a forceful manner), "HEY, BIG AL, IS OPEN INSIDE. THEY HAVE ONE GUY ON ME AND I CAN TAKE HIM. GET ME THE BALL UNTIL THEY START DENYING ME AGAIN."
There will be a flow to the game and times when BIG AL should get the ball, but once he's being denied - then the MCCants and the Foyes have to go to work until Big Al is being single covered again.
In the spirit of "Let's not get too accustomed to Antoine's contributions":
Does anyone else think that we’re going to package Walker and Green in a trade? Seems an awful question to ask when Milk Shake played such a key role in our first win, but ... if the “deal inside the deal” McHale mentioned at the time of the Heat-Wolves trade required a player in addition to Walker, then according to the CBA, we need to wait 60 days (not the already-passed 15 days for a player-for-player trade) before a deal can happen. I mean, the idea that Walker needed time to acquaint himself with the offense and that both he and Green’s playing time are falling victim to the “roster numbers” game falls somewhere within the realm of reason, to be sure. But if you were gunna trade these guys, wouldn’t you offer exactly those excuses, play both as sparingly as possible (only during a C. Smith injury, for instance, or when you need some veteran steadiness during your best chance to gain your first win), and not pick up the cheapy $2.2M option on Green?
If anybody out there sees this scenario as a possibility, it’d be interesting to hear who folks think might want Walker and Green. How ‘bout Golden State? Walker is a Don Nelson guy (isn't he?), and Green is the type of athletic high-flyer they hoard on that squad.
p.s. Love your wordsmithery, Britt, but Tom Hanneman beat you to "McCants! McCan!" last night. Good luck besting that turn of phrase.
Britt,
I am familiar with the term Mea Culpa, but thank you for the dictionary citation. I just don't think "Mea Culpa- For Now" truly qualifies as an admisson of error. Your note of caution is unwarranted because its a given that he is he is going to fall into some of his negative patterns again. He's a young player, he's got a lot to learn, he's going to make mistakes.But let's appreciate his talents.McCants play, thus far, is probably the biggest bright spot of this young season.
I truly think the guy has turned a corner.
Patrick--
Sure he's going to fall into some of his negative patterns again. And if that's all it is, I don't begrudge him the normal learning curve. Do you sincerely think that's all that concerns me? After today's comments I realize I'm in the minority on this, but if McCants is not ready to concede alpha status to Jefferson, and accumulates evidence to indicate he shouldn't, it is at best a mixed blessing. The braintrust of this organization is at least theoretically committed to establishing paint prowess first, then working outward toward the perimeter. Deviating from that thrust creates the perception that the braintrust is not in control, or at the very least can be fudged with. On an extremely young, burgeoning team, that is not a recipe for steady, sure progression.
Pecking order is the key to team chemistry. If two or three very talented players aren't clear between themselves on what that order is, problems ensue--Marbury vs. Gugliotta is perhaps the prime example in the history of this franchise, although Laettner vs Person and Laettner vs. Garnett are other salient examples. Laettner got dealt for peanuts--Andrew Lang and scrubs--within a day or two of casting aspersions on KG's primacy, and it was a shrewd shredding, enabling this franchise to dodge large pecking order questions for the rest of KG's tenure here. Kobe vs. Shaq is probably the best known example among younger NBA buffs.
Meanwhile, you take all this context to mean that I don't appreciate Shaddy's talent and am ignoring "the biggest bright spot of this young season." Go back and read what I've written about him in previous years; generally speaking, I think I'm on record as being a pretty big McCants booster. But this isn't about individual play; this is about team growth. Remember?
Britt, I'm feeling you on what you're saying about McCants. I too like him but the main focus on this team should be the team.
I'm a bit torn on the "McCants vs. Jefferson as Alpha Dog" issue. I see what you're saying, Britt, but what if in the longrun McCants is just the better, more consistent offensive threat? I think Wade or Kobe might be a stretch, but it's not inconceivable that he could be like Richard Hamilton, Ray Allen, Vince Carter or similar score-first shooting guards that consistently put up 20+ points per night.
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute: If the question is whether McCants is going to be the Ginobli to Jeff's Duncan, or if Jefferson is going to be the Yao to McCants' T-Mac ... well who cares? If they both pan out as viable inside-out franchise cornerstones, Wolves fans should be happy no matter who's "Top Dog."
On the other hand, this issue could indeed be problematic, especially since it might turn into a three-way fight once Foye returns.
Watched most of the game last night but tried to really *watch* the second half. One note that may be instructive on the Shaddy/Jeff/inbound pass issue and what will happen when Foye comes back has to do with Marko's ability to initiate the half court set.
Because he was aggressively defending the pick-and-roll, alternately covering Martin or Udrih, and leading the Wolves in rebounding by crashing the boards, Marko was bringing the ball up the court at a relaxed pace. He would stop at the top of the arc, let everyone get set, and then pick up his dribble. His first pass, almost every time was a short pass along the perimeter, usually to McCants who received the ball either moving away from or with his back to the basket. Once he faced up, Sacramento was positioned exactly as they wanted to be making the inbounds pass to the low block considerably more difficult.
Contrast that to Telfair who plays with more of a point guard mentality: maintaining his dribble, looking to initiate the offense, and trying to find the right spacing to get the ball immediately in to Jefferson or to penetrate and kick to a shooter with his feet square. 6 of Telfair's 8 assists were on jumpers of over 20-feet, the other two were a lay-up and a dunk by Jefferson).
I'm not bagging on Marko, I thought he played a really good game, was much better generally than Telfair (hence the +12 vs -2) and was as composed as is reasonable to expect. But he's Marko. He's a long way from a pure point guard. He's not able to maintain his dribble in tight spaces AND see the floor at the same time. McCants or Walker on the wings have to be the defacto initiators of the offense when Marko brings the ball up. And while I couldn't be happier that he's gone, neither has the court vision or the passing prowess of Ricky Davis who filled that wing/initiator role last year.
The hope is that with another capable offensive point guard, you're able to get the defense moving/leaning and then exploit the gaps and lanes. If McCants can improve his vision and decision-making, Jefferson can improve his ability to show/flash to the right spot, and Foye can keep the defense honest, we could have the makings of a solid half-court game. Gomes canning weak-side jumpers when the ball rotates his way is the icing on the cake.
Foye's return also could foster a lineup consisting of Telfair, Jaric, Craig Smith, and Brewer. Add Jefferson to go big, Walker to go small. Jaric and Telfair on the court at the same time could allow the best aspects of each to flourish and hopefully hide the considerable flaws in each of their games.
McCants has certainly shown some serious improvement so far this season. Giving him more of a green light has been a key - when he's tentative or worried about playing "within the offense", he just doesn't look good. But when he's allowed to be aggressive, he makes better decisions. And what can you say about his shooting? As a guard, you don't shoot over 50 percent by taking bad shots...though I cringe when any player (other than maybe Kobe) does the "sweet-looking dribble move to create marginal space then rise and shoot". Rashad and Bassy both do it sometimes. There's a casino ad that plays during wolves games that says "Your Odds Are Better Here". True dat.
Also interesting to note: Walker played the entire 2nd and 4th quarters. He's one of those guys who either gets things rolling or makes us look foolish. He looked like he was going to have a "perimeter" night, after getting that steal and knocking down a trey, but then he used his quickness (no, seriously) down low on the bigs. One reason I kinda like Walker and also Craig Smith is that they're big men who can handle the ball - when you can rip the ball from a big, it's typically a fast-break the other way, but it doesn't happen often with these two, despite their aggression.
According to the Popcorn Machine, we really pulled away in the 4th when we subbed in Jaric and Gomes for Brewer and Telfair.
You know whose perimeter game Corey Brewer reminds me of? (you guys are gonna kill me) KG's. Hear me out - Corey doesn't quite have the length, but from that far away from the hoop, they both have that sweeping crossover, are slightly out of control with the ball, and can cover huge distances with one move. No jukes or any of that cute stuff. Unfortunately, that crossover is more effective on C-Webb than on Artest, but you get the idea.
I also thought Richard made the most of his minutes - in addition to the dunk, there was also a Wolves turnover leading to a Sac fastbreak, but Richard hustled to get downcourt and wound up with a loose ball. I like this Richard fellow.
Antonymous-
You're right about KGs crossover working better on CWebb than Artest. Because of you, all the teams out east are going to start trying small ball on KG just like they do on Nowitzki. I hope you can sleep at night.
I agree a bit with Andy that as strong as Al Jeff is, he probably isn't best at being number one every time down the floor. If he can improve at finding the open man out of the post, he'll be deserving of the ball each and every time. Right now, though, he'll be taking all those shots, and the offense will become stagnant. I think his presence needs to be established first in order to make room, and I think he should have the ball when a shot needs to be made, but I think much of the game should flow elsewhere...
and who can argue with 30+ from shaddy?
I liked McCants much more this game than the previous Kings game - but I'm still wondering why he's so soft on the boards (3.8/40mins) when he's so athletic and isn't a small guard when you figure in his reach. It's probably just that he doesn't have energy to crash the boards, but I hope that side of Jaric rubs off on him. I am very glad that McCants cut down the TOs and to a lesser extent the fouls (I'll talk about fouls in a few secs). His FGA/M actually rose in comparison to his other games, so that's something to keep an eye on - it's nearly the same as Kobe's. Even though McCants is a great scorer, I think Al needs to get the ball just as often if not moreso. I'm actually shocked that Jefferson still scored 23 points even though it seemed like he had limited touches.
Besides that, I think a lot of things went right for the Timberwolves which led to the victory - mainly John Salmons never getting into a groove and the Kings frontline playing worse than it normally would defensively (even if they are one of the worst frontlines in the NBA, they played pretty bad this game).
I think the main thing, though, is the fouls and freethrows by the Kings. It's very misleading to see the Timberwolves commit 20 fouls and the Kings only attempting 14 FTs and then have some people say "hey, they must have done a much better job". I saw plenty of reaching going on by the Timberwolves players and a lot of it not being called - something which normally won't be the case. I think the Timberwolves are maturing, but there are still players (mainly McCants and Brewer) who need to quit reaching when players are moving past them.
Anyway, I liked your vets section the best this time. Walker looks much better when he's driving to the hoop than when he's chucking up 20-25 footers. Jaric looked great outside of his shot.
By the way, it'd be nice to know how to verify a name so that I don't have to fill out this stuff every time. Not that it's a big deal, but just seems weird that I can't find out how to verify and even thoguh I'm giving my email.
Personally if Foye is gonna play like I think he will, Rashad could be such a force if you use him as 6th man. A bit like Ginobili, come to think of it, aren't they kinda the same type of offensive players?
Either way it would make sure there's always long range threat to spread the floor, Jaric and Telfair could both be paired with either Foye or Rashad, while I think Jaric and Telfair at the same time works less?
This is McCants opportunity. If I was him, I would do exactly the same. By that, I mean, I would look to score each and everytime I had the ball in my hands first, then look for a pass. And, if I were Wittman, I would encourage this attitude for as long as it took to come to the conclusion that McCants is either going to be a future cornerstone of this team along with Jefferson, or he is not.
McCants is a small shooting guard. He is not going to make his mark as a defensive stopper. If he is going to be a starter, he has to show he can score. I have some doubts in his ability due to his size and his knee surgery, but what we have seen so far this year is extremely promising.
I have to disagree with Britt regarding Jefferson being the number one option on offense, i.e., pounding the ball inside to him and letting the offense run through him. Jefferson is going to be an all star in this league, I am pretty confident of that. Jefferson is going to get his double-doubles, whether he is on a winning team or a losing team. But, he will only be on a winning team if he is the second or even the third option on offense down the floor.
People have been critical of the guards getting the ball to jefferson, as if entry passes are solely the responsibility of the guard. If defenses know that the Wolves want to pound it inside, it is pretty easy to take away that option with double and triple teams. Jefferson has to see double teams after he gets the ball as defenders rotate to him. If defenses decide to double team him and deny him even getting the ball, there is not much the guards can do accept look to score.
What the Wolves want is for opposing defenses to first worry about the guy with the ball - and that has to be the guards. When McCants gets going, all it is going to do is make it easier for Jefferson to get the ball inside and to score. McCants being the first option will not lower Jefferson's offensive production, and it is likely to increase it.
People who worry about the return of Foye and limited offensive touches between McCants and him also worry needlessly. Again, having two offensive threats to worry about for opposing defenses will open it up for Jefferson inside. It is on the defensive end that we need to worry and having Jaric available to sub in for either guard can allow us some peace of mind when either Foye or McCants is being exploited by bigger guards.
I am looking forward to Foye running the point and having several options for assists to McCants, Brewer and Jefferson, while defenses must still respect that Foye is their biggest worry as long as the ball is in his hands. Its one win against a subpar team, so we can't get excited about much. But, McCants development as a scorer would put the wolves one step forward towards being a competitive team.
Andy B,
Could you please clarify *why* you think Jefferson can't be on a winning team if he's he number one option on offense?
Paul,
Because, its too easy to defend. There will be times in the game when Al Jeffersons number should be called and it might be best for Wittman to draw up plays at the end of the game with Jefferson in mind, but not every time. If opposing defenses know that the Wolves are going to be going to Al, they can easily defend this by denying him the ball with more than one defender.
I am trying to think of a post up player that was the number one option on a winning team. Wilt had Jerry West, Kareem had first the big O then Magic, Shaq had Kobe and Wade. You need a scorer to go with the post player if your going to win with smashmouth and I think that McHale knows that. Even Duncan or Olajuwan had scorers surrounding them.
Jefferson cannot be denied and I think his numbers will always be in the range of 18-22 ppg to go with 11-13 rebounds regardless of if he is the number one option or not. His points will just come easier if there are other scorers surrounding him that opposing defenses have to be concerned about first, so they don't sag in on him and deny him getting the ball in the first place.
I agree a post man needs scoreres around him. However, you said he could never be on a winning team if he was the "number one" option. I disagree with that. IMO, it's better to have a *dominant, skilled* big man as the number one option than perimeter players (unless your perimeter player is Jordan). A guy like Jefferson opens up space for everybody.
Why was McCants able to get free so easily against Sac? He was single covered. Why was he single covered? Because the focus of the D was on the number one option.
All of the focus on pecking order is kind of silly to me when we are talking about a team. I stand by my statement that as long as Jefferson is the number one option (which means that the guards look to feeding him before they look to score themselves) he will be on a losing team. This is NOT saying that Jefferson isn't the most important offensive player on the team.
Jefferson benefits from guards and swingmen who can beat their man off the dribble and who can knock down open looks at the basket. Arguing that the guards and swingmen benefit from Jefferson inside is an obvious point. Who benefits more from the other is a question that needs not be answered, because team synergy requires that everyone benefits from the players surrounding them. Yes, of course, McCants benefits when defenses are focusing on Jefferson and that is the point.
Team basketball is all about recognizing how opposing defenses are playing and reacting. It is easier to defend the guy who doesn't have the ball if he is the number offensive option by denying the ball to them. The way to beat that is to allow someone else to take their shots at the basket.
Andy B--
It's not that simple. There is no flash card that says "this guy is open" or "this guy is covered" during an NBA game. Yes, it can become obvious when a defense is trying to take something away, and then the offense must make the decision about whether the defense is capable of taking it away even with its added attention. For example, is Corey Brewer left alone on the perimeter a better shooting option than Jefferson double teamed but having established position down low?
More to the point, if Jefferson is being guarded in a standard manner but McCants thinks he can shake his guy with a quick dribble to get off an open jumper, what should happen?
Kevin McHale has made some horrible decisions in his tenure with the Wolves, but he is right about one thing: Games are won and lost in the paint in the NBA. Golden State was a boatload of fun and Phoenix and Dallas play cool, whiz-bang hoops up and down in transition, but it was Utah and San Antonio in the Western Conference finals.
Now it is absolutely true that you need both low post titans *and* great perimeter scorers *who can also get to the hole* to win in the NBA; that there will always be that inside-outside synergy that is at the heart of your argument. I don't dispute that. But Tim Duncan is the number one option on the Spurs--despite the fact that Parker usually leads the team in FG% and Ginobili is arguably the game's best clutch player--because that is the way the Spurs play basketball and win titles. Sure, if Duncan is taken away, they have fabulous options--but Duncan in the low block is almost always the first thing explored. Ditto any team Shaq plays on when he is healthy, whether Kobe or Wade are on the perimeter or not. The Heat can still be "Wade's team" while Shaq is the alpha-dog option on offense.
In an attempt not to ramble more than I already have, let me sum it up by saying that smart defenses will always prefer that opponents try to beat them from the perimeter. Smart offenses explore opportunities in the paint first, and exploit the perimeter matchups if the paint is taken away. What you regard as fluidity often works out to be confusion and potentially festering minor resentments. Practically every NBA player has been a stud scorer through high school and college, and can often go off for 20 in the NBA if they can get up 20 shots. It is the responsibility of the coaching staff to set a pecking order that is not only logical in terms of talent level, but in terms of what is most successful in establishing a coherent pattern and identity that will give the franchise the best chance to prevail in the long run.
I was going to respond to you Andy, but Britt summed up my thoughts better than I could myself :)
I'd like to point out that I don't mean to diminish the role of perimeter players. While Shaq was the number one option when on the Lakers, Kobe as the second option was almost as important (not that Jefferson is Shaq).
Also, when talking of "pecking order", sure, in an ideal world, it would be great not to have to worry about stuff like that. In theory, true communism sounds good too. However, when humans are involved, you can't get by without establishing some sort of order.
btw,
I think you meant anarchy sounds good in theory and not communism to make your analogy work.
Paul,
there is order and then there is chaos. All the interesting patterns happen where order meets chaos. I am not arguing the Wolves adopt either a chatic approach to basketball, nor one that is strictly ordered. Rather they should operate at the edge of chaos where we see the complex patterns develop that make us love NBA basketball.
Have a great weekend and go Wolves!
I should also answer these specific questions?
"Is Corey Brewer left alone on the perimeter a better shooting option than Jefferson double teamed but having established position down low?" I think a small forward left alone on the perimeter must take that shot. If you have small forwards that cannot hit open shots on the perimeter at a percentage rate higher than post players double teamed inside, then the small forward shouldn't be on the floor. If I'm the coach, I tell Brewer to take that shot.
"if Jefferson is being guarded in a standard manner but McCants thinks he can shake his guy with a quick dribble to get off an open jumper, what should happen?" Well, at this point I'm not sure. I'd say Wittman should tell McCants to make the pass into Jefferson on most possessions. But, sometimes McCants should shake his guy and take the ball in towards the basket because good things can result. He can make his shot. He can draw Jefferson's man to him and then dish it to him for an easy dunk. He can draw Jefferson's man to him, still take his shot and miss, leaving Jefferson in position to get the offensive rebound. As you say, its not simple and there are no signs or placards.But, McCants shouldn't do the same predictable thing each time down, whether its taking the shot or passing inside each time. Sometimes, in an attempt to create the space to make a good pass inside to Jefferson, McCants may have shaken his man enough to keep driving.
But, really, I do worry about McCants thinking he's Kobe. I don't want him to believe hes the Man. I do want him to keep thinking about scoring though and especially without Foye on the floor, because I think it helps more than hurts Jeffersons game inside the paint. There's a delicate balance of keeping McCants motivated and confident, yet not feeding his hungry ego to be a superstar. I sure would not want Wittman's responsibility of navigating that balance.
I agree that Jefferson is the person to build around and the he is the most important piece we have right now.
I just think all the talk about pecking order is premature. It seems to me it is more important for Wittman to see what he has on the roster that can work with Jefferson and players like McCants shouldn't be held back.
We agree about the paint and the importance of inside players versus perimeter players, but that bolsters my point that you need to have something that keeps opposing defenses honest so the paint is not clogged up because everyone knows that McCants won't play outside of the pecking order dictating that he throws it inside to Jefferson every time the ball swings his way.Its a little bit of the chicken and the egg argument. I agree that Duncan is the most important piece for San Antonios Spurs, but Parker and Ginobli do not have to defer to him each time they come down the court. They can read how the defense is playing Duncan and make a decision and sopmetimes that means they beat their man off the dribble to the basket. Wittman needs to find out if players like McCants and Brewer can do the same thing.
I couldn't agree more about forcing it to Jefferson. The fact that they overplay Al (fronting + weakside for lob) means that other options are open - we need to swing the ball to shooters like Foye, McCants, Gomes, Buckner. Speaking of which, that Hassell trade is really looking great - remember when defenses used to sag off him, daring him to shoot? Anyone heard any updates regarding Randy, anyway?
And someone below this comment asked about Rashad's rebounding - from what I've seen so far this year, Rashad tends to create angles and make himself available as the first outlet pass from a rebound. He doesn't cherrypick like Pretty Ricky, but he's often one of the top 2 ballhandlers on the court (and often is willing to push), so I'm okay with him not crashing boards as long as the ball winds up in his hands somehow.
It's worth noting that McCants has been a much better player than Ricky D so far this embryonic season. (Not that McCants has been outstanding: he's at -2 pts/100 possessions on 82games.com, but compared to Ricky's dreadful -15, that's improvement.)
Rashad's shooting percentages right now are off the charts and certainly are not sustainable over the long run (he's over 50% both from the floor and beyond the arc), but he certainly looks like he's ready to contribute as an effective, versatile scorer, and it seems his microfracture concerns are behind him.
I agree it will be interesting to see how things shake out when Foye returns. I still don't forsee an eventual Foye/McCants starting backcourt...figuring out who starts in 2008/09 and who becomes sixth man will be a priority for the team. Or, since they're rather similar, should one go? Or maybe they indeed can become a winning starting backcourt. Like I said, I doubt it, but what do I know?
SHAD WAS GREAT, AND HE WILL REMAIN IN SAME RHYTHM, AS LONG AS RANDY IS OUT...
Anonymous #2 -
So what happens when Foye does come back? Will Shad be able to keep it up? Can he be consistent? Will he share the rock? It will be interesting to see at the very least...
In defense of the Anonymous posters, perhaps the Blog should require a name rather than make "Anonymous" the acceptable auto default.
If not for you Britt, I would think Rashad the Second Coming. Last Wednesday against the Magic I was wowed by McCants' s 8 minutes before going down. Saturday I was otherwise occupied and missed the game. Last evening I arrived in my seats with six minutes to go in the first, thus having missed Rashad's poor start and seeing him apparently pick up where I left him the prior Wednesday - looking like our strong second option.
I never hated Pat Riley until he knifed Van Gundy. Now seeing him suffer through a horrible start is made all the more fun knowing how much he probably regrets grabbing Ricky and Mark.
My joy in Ricky's departure is overshadowed I'm sure by the joy felt by McCants. As I've said here before, this season is make or break for Rashad. Davis's departure provided opportunity and he seems to be making the most of it.
As the final moments ticked off the clock last night my thoughts went to Antoine's role and the pros and cons of his veteran leavening on display. I came down exactly with Britt - the pros of tasting victory and learning by doing rather than learning by being schooled every night far out weighing any negatives of lost rookie PT.
Win-loss is secondary, but winning, closing and being competitive from beginning to end are critical lessons and experiences for this team. When veterans can help get the Wolves those experiences it truly aids team development.
I'll wait to revise my opinion of McCants until I see how he meshes with Foye on a regular basis. My hunch is, not enough basketball to go around and one of them is going to have to be the sixth man.
Game was pretty slow at first, but we played well in the second half.
Defense was bad to horrible at times.
As usual they didn't feed Al enough down low. On that note, the majority of our players are TERRIBLE at trying to make an entry pass into the low post. It was nice to see Al get mad about it.
Where the heck did that come from, Antoine????
Attendence listed at 11,656 (or something close) on ESPN.com and NBA.com. I would guess there was *maybe* 9,000 people there. Possibly the worst attendence I have personably ever seen for a regular season game at any NBA basketball arena.
I admit it... McCants looked pretty good most of the time. I could nitpick, but there's no point making enemies. Hope he can keep it up. The Wolves really need a scorer like him.
Thanks for another great read.
Let's hope shaddy keeps his head together. I'm really starting to look forward to when Foye will be back since he I really loved his play in the Summer league.
He can shoot when he should, and he will, but he can also feed Jefferson, and he will, that might be the biggest difference between Foye and Shaddy.
If Foye shows the same kind of intelligent play in the summer league I really can't image we're not getting more W's like this one, especially with his crunch time scoring...
Big Al cannot have the offense run exclusively through him until he learns how to pass out of the post with purpose.
33 points and the W, and McCants still can't catch a break?
Even when McCants receives a little praise on this blog it is often in a backhanded form. Why is everyone treating him as if he is a veteran player with a big contract? This is essentially the start of his second season, and he should still be making some mistakes.
The fact is McCants is the most dynamic player on this team. We absolutely need him to play big minutes and look for his shot if we want to keep these games competitive.
I have been critical of him in the past as well, but I absolutely love his game this season...his shot, his confidence, his improved dribbling skills, and ability to free himself at will. Yes, he has his lapses, but again he is a 2nd year player and the good is far outweighing the bad.
McCants is looking more and more like another cornerstone piece, and we should be thrilled.
Patrick--
The dictionary defines "mea culpa" as "an acknowledgement of your error or guilt." And I think if you read the last graph of the Mea Culpa point you'll find very little difference between what I said and what you just posted. Hint: That's why I called it mea culpa.
And yes, there is a qualifying "For Now" tacked on. It is precisely because he is not a veteran player with a big contract that I am leery of McCants automatically ceding alpha status to Jefferson. And if he doesn't, that might create problems on this team. You apparently think that note of caution is unwarranted. I hope you're right. I suspect there will be some games like Saturday's night's, and some games like Wednesday night's. On balance, that's a much better prospect than what we expected before the season started.