Game #28, Road Game #15: Minnesota 96, Portland 109
Game #29, Road Game #16: Minnesota 90, Seattle 109
Season record: 4-25
1. Play Richard
Wolves color commentator Jim Petersen and I probably differ as much as we agree on myriad aspects of the team, but as far as I'm concerned, the only thing missing from J-Pete's constant lobbying on behalf of more playing time for center Chris Richard is a tone of simultaneous anger and disbelief that this elemental notion still hasn't permeated the skull of coach Randy Wittman. There are many many things that can be blame-shifted or held in abeyance due to the injuries that have befallen point guard Randy Foye and pivot man Theo Ratliff--it is the Swiss Army knife of excuses--but the inability of center Al Jefferson and power forward Craig Smith to defend even mediocre NBA front lines certainly ain't one of them.
Is this Timberwolves team sincerely playing to develop the talent and start the learning curve of defining roles for members of its current roster or is this franchise tanking in December? Given how obstinate Wittman has been about putting Jefferson and Smith in a position to fail, it's unfortunately a legitimate question. I've already hammered on this point a couple of times this season, but watching the Wolves get waxed last night and tonight just diddles on the raw nerve of it.
First, let's drag out the numbers once again. The latest figures from 82games.com don't even take into account this weekend's losses to Portland and Seattle. But they show that Al Jefferson--who everyone and their third cousin knows is a classic NBA power forward--has played the center position for 54% of the minutes the Wolves have been on the court during the team's first 27 games. During that time, the Wolves were minus -222. During the 46% of the time Al Jefferson was NOT playing center for the Timberwolves, the team was minus -1. People can usually juggle statistics to justify most anything they want, but it is difficult to imagine numbers this stark and dramatic shrieking anything but "Play Jefferson at the 4, beside a legit center!"
Short of deliberately tanking games to get a high draft pick, there are only two reasons why the Wolves would pursue this wretched strategy. One is that they believe Jefferson will slowly but surely mature into a top notch center and that that is the best place for his skills. I whole-heartedly disagree, but at least that would be a justification that demonstrates some supposed foresight. The other reason is that the Wolves are very excited about Craig Smith and want to give him as much seasoning as possible. This makes a little more sense, because the Rhino certainly has shown he is capable of scoring in traffic against larger foes and be a beast on the offensive glass. But the guy is way undersized--generously listed at 6-7--which is exacerbated by the fact that most of the time he is playing with an undersized center--Al Jefferson. And both are, to put it charitably, defensively challenged.
Again, let's go to the numbers from 82games.com. Through the Wolves' first 27 games, Smith has logged 33% of the team's minutes at the power forward slot. During that time, Minnesota is minus -125. By contrast, the Wolves are minus -98 during the 67% of the time Smith is not at the power forward slot.
Why are these plus/minuses so horrible for Jeff at the 5 and Smith at the 4? Well, according to 82games.com, Minnesota yields 108.6 points per 48 minutes (the full length of a game) when Smith is at power forward, and 109.7 points per 48 minutes when Jefferson is at center. That's at least 6 points more than the 102.2 points per game the Wolves were yielding overall through their first 27 contests. Bottom line, the Jefferson-Smith tandem is a defensive sieve.
But anyone who watches the games knows that. Portland coach Nate McMillan and the Trailblazer scout watch games. On Portland's first possession Friday night, 6-10 power forward Lamarcus Aldridge took Smith down in the low post and scored on a very basis and relatively unimpeded turnaround jumper. When the Wolves cut a longtime Blazer lead down to a single point with 7:32 to go in the third quarter, McMillan called a timeout and then called for Aldridge to post up Smith for a rally-stemming bucket. And five of Portland's subsequent seven shots came from either Aldridge or Channing Frye--who came into the game at power forward, nudging Aldridge over the center--forcing Wittman to sub out Smith with Portland up 5 with three minutes to play in the period.
Now let's talk about Chris Richard. I won't gush over Richard like J-Pete does. Not because Pete gushed over Mark Blount and we all know how that worked out. Because I, unlike Petersen, don't have to fill up precious airtime polishing the turds Minnesota has been laying with alarming frequency thus far this season. Petersen gushes because he is paid to keep viewers interested, and because he sees the Wolves' most glaring flaw being that they are a mentally clueless, physically overmatched defensive team. He sees Chris Richard as the player with the most potential to partially remedy that flaw and at the same time follow the Wolves supposed blueprint of playing young kids as much as possible to see how they pan out--hopefully at a position in which they have a chance to succeed.
Already Richard is a better defender than Jefferson or Smith--not high praise, but a good reason to grant him more burn. He compensates for a relatively small 6-9 height with a reported 7-6 wingspan, and certainly plays taller than he looks. You can tell he listened carefully to good coaching for four years of college--be it pick and roll defense or boxing out and setting picks on offense, he is already fundamentally better than Jefferson and physically more capable than Smith (who is also fundamentally pretty solid). Thus far he hasn't shown much on offense, but if he's playing beside relative black holes like Jeff and Rhino, that's probably a good thing. (There is a reason why Richard and intuitive gunner Rashad McCants are the best two-man combination on the team thus far, compiling a plus +34 together, according to 82games.com.)
Put it this way: there is only one player on this entire team who willingly and capably does the dirty work, doesn't need the ball, and is under 25 years of age. He currently rides the bench most of the time for a ballclub with a record of 4-25 that has yielded an *average* or more than 110 points per game over its last six contests.
2. Choose McCants Over Green
Gerald Green is a child. Friday against Portland, he unsuccessfully swooped down for an offensive rebound and had to scramble at double-time to get back on defense, flying by the jump shooter in the corner who had been left alone by his miscalculation to crash the boards. When he nicked the guy's arm and the ref blew the whistle, Green grabbed his head--his favorite form of protest--jumped up once and then writhed in agony. Tonight against Seattle, Wally Szczerbiak drew the foul on him with an up fake, then Green missed a jumper before heading to the bench with other players consoling him as he came.
How about this: Close out on your man when he drifts to the corner for a trey. Know your pick and roll assignments. Now that you are in your third year and have played more than 2300 NBA minutes, understand how to impact the flow of the game in a positive way at both ends of the court. And have enough composure that your coaches and teammates don't feel the need to constantly coddle your volatile emotions. According to 82games.com, through the first 27 games, the Wolves scored an average of 88.5 points per 48 when Green was on the court and while yielding an average of 104.8 points per 48. That -16.3 point differential was by far the largest on the club, with Greg Buckner second at -13.1.
Yes, I am picking on Green. Maybe I am trying to model how a team demonstrates to its rapidly diminishing fan base that it is serious about building for the future. That means making decisions that diminish time for some players so that other players get more burn, and have a larger sample by which to judge them at the end of the season. The Wolves---wisely, in my view--signaled that Green was not likely part of their long term plans by refusing to sign him to an extension this season. His physical makeup--from the springs in his legs to the form on his jumper--is magnificent and his potential is thus very teasing. And as someone who won't turn 22 for another four weeks, he may yet mature, figure it out, and make caustic critics like yours truly look stupid for ripping him.
But are there signs that Green is "getting it"? Certainly not from the defense he played against Portland and Seattle. Yes, he had plenty of company in that regard. In both games, Minnesota rotated horribly, aped the keystone cops more often than Duncan and Bowen on the pick and roll, and generally looked either disinterested and/or poorly coached on a wide variety of fundamental defensive sets. By the way, that includes Rashad McCants and Marko Jaric, two players with whom Green is competing for minutes. To a lesser extent, on both counts, it also includes Corey Brewer and Ryan Gomes. There's a logjam of mediocrity at the swingman slots right now.
Lately, Witt has been rolling the dice by tossing forth a trio of bombadiers from his bench--Green, McCants and Antoine Walker--with typical boom-or-bust results. Yeah, it's more fun than the peanut vendors who can sling their wares four or five rows to the point of sale, but is that the way to best evaluate a player like McCants, for whom the team utilized a first-round pick and who is in the midst of his make-or-break season with the squad?
What has happened to McCants? Is the guy just a rock-solid enigma, ultimately a bigger heartbreak than Gerald Green, or can he become a valuable piece on a good team. The evidence continues to mount for both sides. Against Portland, McCants duplicated what has become something of a maddening pattern: Missing jumpers and otherwise disappearing when the game is close, but suddenly catching fire when the team is down late in the game and rallying them 70 or 80 percent of the way back--but never, except for that first win against Sacramento--to victory. On both offense and defense he is inconsistent not only in his performance but in the particular attributes of the performance. Sometimes he's a huge defensive liability because he doesn't rotate; sometimes because he reaches in for dumb fouls, sometimes because his turnovers cause easy transition baskets. Sometimes he hurts the offense because he hogs the ball, or misses shots, or for some reason doesn't shoot when he should. After nailing a couple of treys against Portland, he and Telfair played catch on the perimeter three times, with Shaddy turning down Telfair's nonverbal entreaty to jack it up each time--very Kobesque.
Tonight versus Seattle was typical McCants. His shooting was suspect, not only because he went 2-8 FG, but because only one of those shots wasn't a trey and he had zero free throws, both of which indicate a lack of penetration against one of the more porous and least intimidating NBA opponents. At the same time, he had four steals, five rebounds, three assists and a block, and was a respectable minus -1 in 21:16 of a 19-point loss.
Even more than 4-25, what must exasperate die-hard Wolves fans is the lack of any apparent plan, or methodology for examining key talent. I mean, if McCants can't crack the starting lineup or be the prominent sixth man on a squad missing Randy Foye for the entire season thus far, what does that say about his future? And should the Timberwolves be subtlely sending that negative signal based on such relatively few minutes for such a relatively large investment and potential key cog? I understand the frustration with the enigma--I yo-yo back and forth on the dude constantly himself. But isn't this the season to stick him in a role--starting two guard or designated scorer and sparkplug as 6th man--and milk it until it is patently obvious he just doesn't have it, or until you understand how deep the enigma goes? Right now Wittman is fond of starting Gomes at small forward and Brewer at shooting guard. While I generally applaud the recognition that Brewer is physically better at the 2 right now--Seattle's Wally Szczerbiak was the latest to body him up--and think Gomes has finally started playing the way I figured he could before the season started (although he still gets beaten on D and clangs open looks more than I figured), I think McCants needs to encroach on both Gomes and Brewer, mostly Gomes, who doesn't figure to resign here, especially if he plays well. (And how was that for a convoluted sentence?)
3. Quick Hits
Who else is tired of hearing how rarin' to go Randy Foye is while Brandon Roy gets named NBA Western Conference Player of the Week two times running and Portland fans chant MVP when he steps to the free throw line? Funny, the Wolves probably opted for Foye over Roy because they figure Foye was a better fit as a combo/point guard and that Roy was more of an injury risk. Who said irony was dead? Personally, I'll never forget how much Dwane Casey favored Roy over Foye with his body language and tone of voice when the braintrust came down to first announce the choosing of Roy and then the trading for Foye.
The best time to make this observation is when it doesn't matter to the outcome of the games and won't seem like sour grapes: The officials job the Timberwolves almost every game. Part of it is the star syndrome (the Wolves really don't have any), part of it is favoriting vets, and part of it is favoring hustle and smart aggression. But even granting the Wolves' paucity in all those areas, they consistently are on the wrong end of the refs' double standard when it comes to charges versus blocks on player contact, on borderline shooting fouls, and on being sticklers for travels, double-dribbles, moving picks, etc. It penalizes the poor and when you are as poor as the Timberwolves, very noticeable.
Ever since the beginning of the season, the best half court offensive play for the Wolves has been Jefferson on the block and Ryan Gomes cutting baseline, usually on a give and go but occasionally to clear out so Jeff can go for the turnaround jumper.
Foye gets the next report on his knee January 7. If more delays are announced, it is time to stop this cat and mouse and engage in a full-blown press conference that lays out all options in a realistic manner. Because it is beginning to look like Foye will never suit up this season and that the team is being very disingenuous about that possibility.
I've just been reading about the Clippers loss. It does not look good for the Wolves. Odds are that we will have the Wolves worst team record this season. And we might even have the worst record in the NBA's history. It is possible.
Remember when that guy wrote in the Star Tribune that the Wolves might be the worst team ever? And the team got all uppity? Well he might turn out to be right. Knock on wood.
So the thing that is becoming apparent is that Kevin Garnett helped prop up this team for 12 years. People are really ripping him know that he is gone. Saying that he wasn't that good. He couldn't win games for us. But look at the team he had around him for almost the entire time. It was complete garbage. Our front office with McHale consistently puts together garbage teams. McHale has had one good move in all his years. He got Garnett. And he has coasted on that ever since. Almost every other move McHale has done has been just mind-bendingly godawful. His incompetence is only matched by Taylor's.
So now that Garnett has finally gone, we see what we have. We have a bottom feeder team with a horrible front office and owner and coach. And that has pretty much been how it has been ever since the Wolves started. Garnett lifted us up. He is really an amazing player. But now you remove that crutch and our team sinks to its natural level.
I apologize for my negative tone but this team is really getting me down. I just don't see any hope in sight with Taylor running the show. He does not seem to have any idea how to run this organization. He is the worst owner in professional sports. He makes the Lions look good.
Hope springs eternal.
Is it just me or is it every comment from coach seems to be "I don't know what to do.". Yesterday's comments after the Seattle game totally echo what I have been hearing all season. I challenge someone to go over the last couple of months of 4th quarter losses and come up with an archive of Wittman comments about not knowing what to do after losing in the fourth quarter. Some coaches are natural leaders and some while some are better at a number 2 or 3 slot (read: offensive and defensive coordinators in the NFL that may or may not be up to the #1 position). Think Tubby Smith versus Dan Monson, (egad, not to mention Brewster) it''s all about getting the maximum talent out of what you are given. Natural leaders and coaches get it and do it, lesser talents can contribute and have skills, but don't get it done consistently at the top level.
ie. "I don't know," Wittman said, when asked what options he has to shake things up. "I'm thinking. I don't have an answer. We've got to do something. We can't just accept a defeat like that. Do I have to do something to grab back their attention?"
And by the way, it is lost on anyone else how the Garnett-Allen duo is making big waves (okay, Paul Pierce too). This could have been the core of the Wolves back when Allen was drafted, than abruptly traded to the Bucks for Marbury. I am having bad feelings about the Roy-Foye exchange as being a carbon copy - it might be too early to tell, but my Spidey sense is tingling bad vibes.
I'd like other thoughts on these comments.
I've also noticed he seems to comment with "I don't know" alot. Think I've even mentioned it in these comments, not sure though.
The most frustrating thing isn't we're losing alot, cuz we knew we would but the fact that the coach doesn't seem to improve anything, give direction or figure things out it just so disheartening.
Is there any hope for this team, considering who is in charge ? I was blown away by the Rick Alonso article with Glen Taylor before the season started, where Taylor said that McHale does a decent job, except for he's not good at the details, like checking on a player's attitude, work ethic, etc. Taylor said that he didn't know of anyone who could do a better job. How about Bryan Colangelo, who ended up with Toronto, or Sam Presti, who worked for San Antonio and got hired by Seattle ?
As far as the players go, it seems like almost nobody knows how to take a charging foul or even tries. Craig Smith does a decent job of this, but who else ? Madsen would if he played. Is the coaching staff trying to teach the regular players to take a charge ?
Is anyone teaching Smith and Jefferson how to play defense or put a body on their man and box out ? This team really needs a full-time center, be it Chris Richard, or someone else, who can block shots and rebound.
What is Wittman doing to change the give-up, heads down attitude of this team ? When the opponent makes a run, these guys tend to fold and give up. If their attitude can't be changed, then we need different players. This is likely where Foye can be helpful with confidence and giving the team some fight.
Are the players being taught not to give up fast break points and get back on defense ? If they don't get back on defense, why aren't they taken out of the game ? These guys give up far too many fast break dunks and layups.
Is anything being done to stop McCants, Brewer, Green, etc. from making stupid fouls on guys 50 feet from the basket or on players driving to the hole and we brush up against them and they get the basket and the foul ?
Shouldn't we be seeing improvement at the 29 game mark of the season ? In what areas has this team consistently improved ??
On a side note, I got some enjoyment out of reading the Miami papers online as to how they are now lamenting the Ricky Davis/Mark Blount trade. Nice to see that we actually came out pretty well on that one.
Tim, your comments about Glen Taylor not knowing anyone better to replace McHale is interesting.
Basically, Taylor is just a regular guy who happens to own a basketball team. It is kind of the same as if I suddenly became the owner of the Wolves.
I don't follow the NBA. I don't know anyone in the league really. I just like the Wolves. If I suddenly became the owner of the Wolves, who would I hire? I don't know anyone so I'd probably just call someone famous that I had heard about. Maybe I would call Michael Jordan. In Taylor's case he just called McHale because, A. he was from Minnesota and B. he was a good basketball player. That is as far as Taylor's thought process went.
It is kind of like how a simpleton would run a basketball organization.
Now when Taylor says that he doesn't know anyone better to be the GM, he is being honest. He really doesn't know anyone better. Not that there isn't anyone better, but he just doesn't know them.
Sure you can list a bunch of great people who are in the NBA moving around and being hired and doing good things, but Taylor doesn't know about these people. And that is too bad. But I think it explains a lot about the Wolves.
Britt -
I read your columns all the time but first time poster. I agree with your takes on Richard but still have reservations on your take of Green. Having watched or been at every game this season he appears to be more the kind of guy who needs more development than thrown to the end of the bench and given spot minutes.
Green has had some problems with defensive recognition and confidence, I will grant you, but in my opinion so has everyone on the team including many veterans. Since Green has gotten some minutes he has showed some issues with losing his man on defense but he has done some things consistently that McCants has failed to correct. Green has moved the ball more on offense and begun taking better shots while at least showing effort in his play, while McCants continues to take shots outside of the offense and has spurts where the effort is questionable. Also Green has shown the ability to hit outside shots as often as McCants without really being any option on offense. Has Green done more things behind the scenes that shows my judgement is incorrect?
I would like to see some different things happen in terms of rotations as well. I would try:
-- Playing Richard and Doleac more with Jefferson to provide more help inside.
-- Seeing more of Walker at the three position and Green at the two. It would allow the Wolves to have rebounding at the 4 and 5 positions while outside shooting might help Jefferson play in the post with less double teams.
-- Coaches doing a better job of recognizing key things like rotations, favorable matchups, and putting players in positions to succeed with regards to playcalling.
Robert--
I don't mind agreeing to disagree about Green. No, as far as I know, there is no "extra" baggage. He apparently is a hard worker, which makes his lack of progress that much more disturbing--you do know he has logged more NBA minutes than McCants, don't you? And for all the silly things McCants does on D (enumerated in the most recent post) , he is light years ahead of Green on defense. This is no small matter if Jefferson and his mediocre defense are going to be a cornerstone of this franchise.
Great call on 'Toine at the 3. I proposed this a few posts ago, and was going to reiterate it again (wanted to see Walker matched up more often with Jeff Green of Seattle Saturday) in my "Quick Hits," but ran out of energy in the wee morning hours. Maybe for the trey on the Clippers game.
When I see Green grab is head when he makes a stupid foul, I start thinking to myself: "What the heck happened in Boston?" Last year, Green should have had plenty of "low pressure" minutes to get the kinks worked out in playing pro basketball, yet the I wouldn't trust him in any crunch time situation even on this pathetic team. Shaddy still remains an enigma to me, it is almost like he works on one aspect of his offensive game rather than trying to put it all together. One night he is a facilitator, one night he is a three point shooter, one night he might drive to the basket. With Gomes coming out of his slump, I have no problems with giving Brewer big chunks of time at the SG spot. He is far less likely to be overmatched on defense there, and he does do all the little things, but it sure would be nice if he could throw the ball in the ocean, so they could let all his intangibles be in play when the game is on the line. In other words, the SG position is a mess, every single one of them has flaws, but I would bank more on Brewer more so than either Shaddy or Green to work through their flaws and be a productive NBA player.
I think Wittman is the only one to not have figured out by now that the Smith/Jefferson tandem is not going to work. I agree with S&P that the tough choice has to be made with Smith. Perhaps the Wolves should be shopping him for a center, like, maybe, Patrick O'Bryant at GS.
Next, Wittman has to come up with a shortened rotation. Jefferson, McCants, Telfair and Brewer all need to be part of this rotation for building purposes. Richards seems like the obvious choice at center. Thats five. Then, there needs to be some veteran stability - Jaric and Walker. Play Smith, Gomes and Doleac depending on the night with the knowledge that none fit into the long-term plans of the Wolves future. McCants needs to shed the enigma label by the time Foye comes back - if he comes back.
All that said, if the Wolves win tonight, they still are are on track to win three games in December. Four more in January, 5 in February, 6 or 7 in March and a few more in April still puts them on pace to finish close to 25 wins for the year and Wittman still mans the sidelines in 08-09 who - with some luck - lands the top pick in the draft to compliment Jefferson, Foye, Richards, Telfair and Brewer on the roster and begins the Wolves climb back to playoff basketball. If the Wolves are unable to achieve this modest level of improvement from month to month this then we start next year without Wittman, and many questions still unanswered about the future of this club. I am still rooting for the improvement plan, but time is running out on the 3 wins for December.
Andy B -
I like most of the things you have said here, and am glad that both you and Britt have made the point that the Jefferson/Smith duo stinks up the frontcourt, at least defensively. Even Wittman should be realizing this by now, and I dont think we will see Smith as a starter tonight. Wittman says it is time for a shake-up and has even been quoted on how to do so by saying "I'm thinking." Wolves fans, exhale. Im sure we will all be impressed with what Witt comes up with. As I recall the last time our team needed a good shake-up we forced Kevin Garnett out of town. Now with Wittman trying to come up with a shake-up of his own, can we really expect something either slightly innovative or effective? Back to the Rhino, I like Craig Smith but he's not going to get any taller. On this team with a really good PF I don't see him as anything besides Jefferson's backup. And that really sucks because he is a high percentage shooter, and overall a consistent guy. If we shop him, we also aren't going to get much back correct? Considering he is still in his rookie contract.
It would be difficult to trade Smith, I would agree. I would think that someone would be intrigued by him though. I was trying to think of a young center that wasn't getting much playing time and O'Bryant came to mind. He doesn't fit the mold of a Nellie and GS player, so he might be available and Smith has many of the intangibles that Nellie might desire. But, their salaries don't match, so the Wolves would have package someone to go with him. Immediately Green comes to mind as someone else with unique qualities pick the interest of Nelson, but his salary is too small to match with Smiths for O'Bryant as well. That leaves the enigma McCants who becomes redundant after and if Foye returns.
So, Smith and McCants for O'Bryant. Its worth doing because neither player fits into the Wolves future and are likely not with us next year, even if O'Bryant proves a bust as well. At least we have someone to fit into this years rotation and we free up some of the space at the swing position. Its one long-shot possibility stab in the dark. But, its looking like we don't have a need for Smith and Smith is good enough to be of nterest to some other teams this year. If we can package him with another player like McCants, Green or eve Gomes for a $2M or so prospect at the center position not getting much playing time somewhere else, I think it might be worth a shot.
Im not sure if I would do that deal. I like McCants, his game doesn't have many of flaws, except maybe his inability to play within the offensive flow at times. But who are we kidding, we don't really have any kind of offensive flow.
Also just wondering, maybe somebody knows. Who are the youngest teams in the NBA? Im thinking Portland, LA, New Orleans, even Utah and Goldenstate maybe? Dont all these teams have proven coaches? I mean I know what our front office says about why we have Wittman, but it seems strange to me to have a coach who is supposed to be growing alongside the team. That's not a good balance, can hardly be seen as a recipe for success. Imagine our team being coached by a Phil Jackson or a Jerry Sloan or simply anyone with a formula for success, or at least the experience to promote confidence in our players. A coach needs to come in and have a plan, needs to give a team an identity and a style of play. Wittman is always searching for answers, instead of simply having any.
Wittman is torn between winning right now and using this season as an audition for next year and the future. Right now he is under performing on both counts. But I wouldn't want to have his job.
Consider the teams players as financial investments. If you were managing a stock portfolio, you would be basing stock investments using relative volatility (or the beta factor). The higher the beta factor, the higher the uncertainty of your stock investment. You would also need to factor in future growth potential of your investment.
Based on historic and current performance:
Low Beta/Low Future Growth (i.e., you know what you have)
- Doleac
- Buckner
- Mad Dog
- Theo
- Gomes
Low Beta/Modest Future Growth (relative to where they are today)
- Rhino
- Foye
- Jefferson (at 4 position)
Medium Beta/Low Future Growth (know what you have but lack consistency)
- Walker
- Jaric
- Bassy
High Beta/Low Future Growth (know what you have but performs in pikes and deep valleys)
- McCants
- Green
Low Beta/High Future Growth
- Richards
- Brewer
The problems for coaching this squad include: (1) having five veterans who can't score but you know what you got and are going to get with them on the floor, (2) three guys out of 15 like Foye, Rhino, and Jefferson who are approaching their zenith in performance but are put in awkward assignments like Big Al at center. It's hard to reach their potential when put in other positions, (3) Two players like McCants and Green who give the game away as much or more than they contribute to a win.
Walker has reached his performance zenith and provides intangibles on or off the court. Still, he is a streaky shooter and poor defender. Bassy is playing his best right now but is inconsistent, especially on the end of back-to-back games.
Brewer and Richards still have huge upsides. Still, you know what you have in them from game to game.
In order to complicate matters more, Wittman is torn between two arguably divergent goals: (1) to win now, thereby possibly preserving his job, and (2) trying to develop his talent. This conflicts with what fans have come to expect. Wolves' management has stressed short term pain for long term pain.
CA--
That's an intriguing way to look at it. But if I understand your terms correctly, I'd flip Foye and Richard. I think (and Taylor and McHale and Wittman are betting on it heavily) that Foye still has an appreciably higher ceiling than what he has shown thus far. Richard, on the other hand, I think is "modest growth" at best. I love his game precisely because he seems to have already gotten a lot of a modest talent at a young age.
Britt --
Points well taken. Foye has a bigger upside that should include attacking the rim in ways other than from the right side and if he can notch up his parameter J percentage. Lots of talent there.
Richards, as you allude to, is so mechanically sound for a rookie he makes some vets look bad. He's a table setter for others but probably never will become an offensive threat.
Best wishes for the New Year!
A solid kudo to Jim Pete for his comment last night, saying that youth is a crutch. Despite their chronological age, on average players in their 3rd or 4th year of NBA should start to get it, and be evaluated for their long term value to a team on that basis. Many of the Wolves players fit that mold; if they're enigmas now, they probably will be their entire career.
Let's get to the heart of the matter however. Pardon the CSI-like prose, but the mounting evidence suggests that this is the wrong front office to acquire and develop talent. Some may scream prematurity, as well as injury, but irony is king here. Casey was fired for inconsistency, Wittman has demonstrated only a consistent capacity for losing, the rest has been a mess.
Upon what basketball principles are these supposed evaluations being made? Smashmouth? When the opposition starts making a run, where's the timeout to remind folks to calm down, and get Al at least a touch in the low post? Defense? You have to actually hustle to defend the perimeter and rotate in this league. Fastbreak? You have to eliminate offensive rebounds, play better defense or be the Phoenix Suns to develop transition opportunities.
If the framework here is "build around Big Al", then why not put him in where's he's going to be most successful, and then find the other pieces? We've already seen the 10 minute stretches where he might be an effective 5; the rest is pretty awful, and doesn't suggest winning basketball. Even the ordinary fan who "doesn't know the game" can see that.
The gap between stated objectives and actual results suggest other agendas, or a heaping helping of clueless. I was thinking conspiracy here, but now I'm leaning toward clueless.
It just keeps sounding like Wittmand doesn't know how to coach. Why is he still at the wheel of this thing. Why does Skiles get fired and Witt doesn't?
Wim -
When I think about Wittman's job security, two things come to mind:
1) The curse of expectations. Wittman is in charge of team that is supposed to bottom out, while Skiles was leading a team that is supposed to be a title contender this year. I was one of the most optimistic in looking at the Wolves this season, and I came up with 31 wins.
2) The cost of operations. This is actually pure speculation, but I wonder if Glen Taylor is (rightly) worried about the cost of the Timberwolves. According to hoopshype, the Wolves are currently paying 20 players $68 million for the season, along with whatever they owe Casey from his firing. I don't think anyone's expecting the Wolves to be anywhere near the black financially, so keeping Wittman might be purely a financial concern.
There was an interesting point in last night's game where Telfair was yanked for not getting the ball into Jefferson in the post. I think the Wolves were down by 20 at the time and Big Al had had the ball stripped from him once or twice in a row. Granted, I'm just a casual observer, but it seems that when the "discipline" does come from Witt, it's timing seems to be way off and with arbitrary motives.
Even more frustrating is that if you look at the post-flu bug game flows, young players like Brewer and Richard (and even Telfair) are seeing their minutes fluctuate like a yo-yo. Richard goes from 5 to 17 minutes a game; up and down and even though he's had 2 donut games in the last five, the downturn in his minutes doesn't seem to be attached to anything performance-wise on the court. I have no idea what they're trying to teach or glean from these young players. It all seems completely arbitrary and unrelated to anything that could reasonably be recognized as a pattern. We now have the worst team in the league with a mish-mash rotation that has bundled the 2 and 3 into a meaningless mess with no direction (Gomes, Brewer, McCants, Jaric, Green), an out of position 4 and 5, and the bombardier platoon of Green, Walker, and McCants to come in and turn 15 point deficits into 25 point ones. No direction. No metrics. No order. No patterns. No plan.
I'll say it again: keeping Smith is the toughest decision facing this front office and I think it's safe to say that they've already made it with little thought other than keeping a fan favorite around. As much as I like the Rhino, what use do the Wolves have for a 6'5" defensive liability who will likely cost between $3-5 million/year while playing out of position and/or off the bench? As much as they'll need front court help, will they sign him or Telfair to go over the cap? Will they go for both and enter the year in the mid $60s? Or, do they keep the only true point on the team and sign Richard at the league minimum while drafting a forward in the 2nd round; keeping the roster low-cost and priced to move?
As for coaches, I'd like to see the Wolves go for a Euro-league skipper. Cut loose the Bobby Knight crap and go for true player development, innovative offensive schemes, and back-to-basics fundamentals.
Three blowouts in a row to not-so-great teams?!
Looks like the wheels have officially fallen off. I had been pretty patient with Wittman and thought his job was most likely secure through season end. But I am starting to wonder....
Losing with youth is one thing. Getting your asses kicked regularly with youth is quite another. If die hard optimistic (delusional) fans like me are becoming disgusted, I can only imagine what the general publics' perception of this team is.
It seems time for a rash move, and firing the coach is always an easy one.
Maybe Wittman is tanking in December?
It would certainly make sense. Even disregarding the Wolves past lottery luck (i.e., BAD), securing the worst record in the league gives the wolves at least the fourth pick of the draft. Last year Memphis had the worst record and secured the fourth pick.
I believe that even with the worst record the wolves only have a 22% chance of landing the top pick. Thus, it's much more likely the wolves do not end up the 1st pick then they do. This franchise should, however, limit its downside risk. That is, it would really suck if the wolves got (say) the 7th pick again even though the team is absolutely horrible.
Yes, it's depressing to be thinking of draft probabilities already, but this team needs some luck to improve. What we should look for is a somewhat dramatic change in rotation and playing time once the wolves can feel fairly certain that they've likely secured the worst record in the league. This would provide me with all the evidence I need.
Hey Guys:
I'm "stuck" where it is warm and where the Wolves are not on the airwaves. Until this enlightening read, my news this week has been from the Palm Beach Post sports section - box score and no more.
Not much to add, but I appreciate the write up and analysis by one and all. May 2008 bring some hope.
Best,
AK