Copyright 2008 NBAE (Photo by Sam Forencich/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #64, Road Game #31: Minnesota 121, Seattle 116
Season Record: 15-49
1. Engines In the Backcourt, Stoppers Up Front
My decision to keep a life and hold off on getting League Pass this NBA season is biting me this weekend, as the Wolves were short-circuited by a double-overtime hockey game (U of M vs. Mankato) that allowed me just 5 minutes of second quarter action (the hockey intermission between OT and 2OT) and then the last 20 minutes of the game (after Mankato St. won it, 1-0), from the 7:55 mark of the third onward. And tonight against Portland is blacked out. Hence the abbreviation of this trey.
But as luck would have it, the television feed clicked in just two minutes before the Wolves exploded for a 23-5 third-quarter run that transformed a 69-77 deficit into a 92-82 lead in just 5:26, the turning point of the ballgame. And they accomplished this with a lineup that almost certainly had never been deployed before, prompted first by Chris Richard subbing in for Al Jefferson, then Rashad McCants entering the game for Marko Jaric. Suddenly the Wolves had defensive stoppers as two out of three front court personnel--Richard and Kirk Snyder, with Ryan Gomes at the 4--and a couple of sticks of dynamite on the perimeter in Randy Foye and Rashad McCants.
Sonics coach PJ Carlissimo tried to staunch the outburst, using everyone in his 9-man rotation during that 5:26 stretch but Luke Ridnour, to no avail. McCants in particular found the sweet zone between sharing and selfishness, getting 11 points on 2-3 FG while drawing enough fouls to earn 6 trips to the line. Foye fostered ball movement and kicked off the burst with a trey. Gomes had five points, Richard and Snyder a pair of free throws each. But it was on the other end where the change really happened: With Richard/Gomes/Snyder all active in the paint, Seattle mustered just 2-9 FG, and their 5 points in 5:26 stood in stark contrast to the 116 they scored in 48--meaning they got 111 in the other 42:34.
Sounds like a simple plan: Spread the floor on offense with perimeter threats--Foye, McCants and Gomes all nailed treys in that 5:26 burst--who can also penetrate and either dish for open looks or draw the foul. Yes, Seattle is horrible defensively, but 23 points in 5:26 is good work against the junior varsity--it's, ah, about 200 points per 48. And on defense, put a pair of sweat equity guys (Richard and Snyder) between the savvy Gomes and instruct them to negate the paint. Presto: Zero points in nearly 4 minutes of action for Chris Wilcox, who's murdered the Wolves in all four games he played against them this season. Zero points for Kevin Durant, whose inability to solve Snyder has done more to raise Snyder's defensive profile than any player in the league this season. Just two points for Nick Collison. Just 3 points for the backcourt of Gelabale and Watson. And that was the ballgame.
2. Another Rant About Jefferson At Center
There was a disheartening story in the Strib this week about Craig Smith--not the Rhino himself, of course, who is something of a feel-good tale, albeit one that won't totally turn the frog into the prince. No, the head-slapping part was how the braintrust has told Smith they want him to work on his midrange game so that when he slots in alongside Al Jefferson in the frontcourt, they won't be ruining each other's spacing in the low block. The implication, of course, is one that the Wolves have been making in a dozen different, equally perplexing ways this season--that they foresee Jefferson as their center of the future.
Now there are times when the Jefferson-Smith tandem has been more effective than I would have imagined. It can be an interesting wrinkle, part of a lineup rotation that falls somewhere between a gimmick and the team's bread-and-butter. But I fear the Wolves Jefferson in the pivot of whatever go-to quintet they assemble. Their quartet of relatively legit centers have been purposefully sliced and diced into discontinuity: Chris Richard leads with 310 minutes, followed by Theo Ratliff with 214, Michael Doleac with 206, and Mark Madsen with 130--by comparison, Randy Foye already has 632 minutes since returning from injury about a month ago. Obviously the idea of getting Jefferson accustomed to the center slot is more of a priority than keeping him at his natural power forward position. Meanwhile, the primary alternatives at the 4 have also been relative pipsqueaks--Craig Smith (6-7 is generous), Ryan Gomes (6-8 with small forward instincts) and Antoine Walker (6-9 outside gunner).
Normally smallball is designed to pick up the pace and ambush teams with quickness in transition. To push the polemic a little bit, however, what the Wolves have done is create a frontcourt that is both small *and* slow. That's why they are 29th in blocks--at 3.65 a game ahead of only the listless Knicks--and 27th in scoring; not only 28th in fast break points but 29th in allowing fast break points, and 28th in creating points off turnovers--they get screwed on both ends of the small-and- quick versus large-and-slow equation. They *do* rank in the top 5 in second chance points, mostly because they grab more than 50% of the available rebounds despite their miserable FG%. These things are a tribute to Jefferson's tenacity.
To update the argument, let's go to some pretty stunning numbers versus Seattle last night. As usual, rather than playing a defensive-minded center like Richard beside Jefferson in a large duo, Wittman and the front office subbed one in for the other. And the numbers give a pretty good indication when Jefferson does not belong as the main man on defense beneath the hoop.
In the first quarter, the Sonics were 12-17 from the field until Richard replaced Big Al with 1:26 to play in the first, at which point Seattle shot 2-4 FG. When Richard was logging the 6:26 of the second period, Seattle shot 6-15, or 40%. When Jefferson came in to play the remaining 5:36, Seattle was a perfect 8-8 from the field. Got that? First half stats: Seattle shoots 8-19 FG with Richard in the game and a whopping 20-25 FG--80%!--with Jefferson as the last line of defense. Go the second half, which included that 2-9 FG stretch for the Sonics mentioned in the first point of this trey. With Jefferson on the floor for the first 3:07 of the third, Seattle shot 3-4 FG, which actually reduced the percentage the Sonics were shooting against him. When Richard too over for the final 8:53, Seattle shot 7-18. Okay, so after three periods, it is 15-37 against Richard and 23-29 FG against Jefferson.
Richard finished his night helping Seattle go 0-2 FG in the first 1:22 of the 4th quarter, by which point the Wolves had grabbed a commanding 101-88 lead. Understand that Jefferson is a proud man, who could see the disparity that was occurring between he and Richard on the court as keenly as anyone. In his concluding 10:38 of the game, he worked really hard on that end of the court, frequently biting on up fakes and making a determined effort to deny penetration, two things that provoked 3 fouls in that 10:38--all of them greeted with a passionate protest from Jefferson. But the good news is, Seattle shot only 8-20 FG during that 4th period, giving Jefferson a final mark of 31-49 FG, or 62%, versus Richard's 15-39 FG, which works out to 38%.
Obviously these stark numbers are not quite that simple. There were always four players besides Jefferson or Richard working the defense, and that needs to be considered. But to me, the more glaring stat is the 0:00 that a limited scorer but hustle guy defender like Richard spent alongside a gifted scorer who has trouble on D like Jefferson. Finally, on the plus/minus end of things, Jefferson was minus -12 in 29:30 (despite shooting 8-13 FG, committing three steals and blocking two shots) and Richard was plus +17 in the remaining 18:30.
3. Not Tanking
There will be the usual controversy about what teams are dogging it for the lottery and what ones are not. Right now, the Wolves will almost certainly finish ahead of Miami, and last night's win puts them in a win tie with Memphis, just one behind Seattle. The Knicks are also in their sights. The arguments for and against tanking have been made ad nauseum. But for what it's worth, I just want to give the ballclub credit for continuing to work hard to maximize their production on the court. Perhaps karma will reward them. Because it certainly seems karma has punished them the past two seasons, robbing their tank-centric draft picks of a second productive year in the league two times in a row (McCants and Foye).
Okay, the Portland tilt is on tap and I am sans visuals. For those who catch the game, educate us about it in the comments.
What do you think is the future for Cory Brewer? I have been thinking about him as a defensive specialist for the 2 or 3 spot. But, if he adds some weight, could he guard a Power Forward in the future?
After watching him for 3/4 of season, I have firmly decided that Brewer has the most upside of any current Wolves. He does one or two extremely athletic things each game that are really impressive. He reminds me of Dennis Rodman which is great praise because Rodman in his prime could guard everyone on the court from a point guard to a center.
I have no doubt that Brewer will improve his shooting this summer and be a more complete player next year. I would not trade Brewer for Durant at this point since I think in 3-4 years Brewer will be the better player.
Sorry to bring up the Foye thing again but there was a little "look back" thing on ESPN.com that I read and this might shed a little different light on what went down that draft nigh...
Also good to be remembered that Atlanta actually drafted Shelden Williams in front of both Roye and Foye .. I'd take Foye over Williams anytime..
"Actually, from what I've heard, the Wolves selected Roy for the Rockets. The Rockets were going to select Foye and send him to Minnesota along with either Luther Head or a future first-round pick. But the Blazers knew what was going on, selected Foye and forced the trade of Foye for Roy."
fyi; the rockets drafted 8th, right after boston -> portland.
Also, before we traded Roy for Foye+cash, Boston already traded Roy for Telfair, whom we now also have .. and he's even playing better for us than he did for Boston.
So, we might have been better of keeping Roy, you can't say we had a bad draft and that the management, if it's true, didn't do it's work.
Interesing stuff Wim. Thanks for the info.
Close your eyes everybody, it's the Foye stat update. Since taking over point guard (4 games), Foye is averaging 16.3 points, 7.3 assists and 6 rebounds. Possibly more important than those impressive numbers is the 1.5 turnovers/game.
I have to admit I wish Foye had went into scoring made against Portland--just to shut up the Roy/Foye debate for a few days. Alas, he played a good all around game statistically, which is what you want from a point guard, but only shot the ball 9 times (scoring 9 points, to go along with 10 rebounds and 8 assists). I missed the game. Anybody have some insight on how he played? Thanks in advance.
Wim (Belgium) wrote:
"Actually, from what I've heard, the Wolves selected Roy for the Rockets. The Rockets were going to select Foye and send him to Minnesota along with either Luther Head or a future first-round pick. But the Blazers knew what was going on, selected Foye and forced the trade of Foye for Roy."
Huh?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2006/news/story?id=2503390
.....The Celtics took Foye with the No. 7 pick, then promptly traded him to the Portland Trail Blazers for Sebastian Telfair in a five-player deal.
.....Minnesota sent the rights to No. 6 Brandon Roy to Portland for the rights to No. 7 Randy Foye.
Ummm, and Portland gave the Wolves a million dollars to boot...
Dang, I'm missing the logic behind Wim's ESPN "Look Back"story.
Wops my bad; should have included the link.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2006/insider/columns/story?columnist...
It was the grades thingy where they said that quoted thing.
I would really like to know WHY they put Jefferson at Center. Untile we hear it from Witmann himself we can only speculate and is there anyone who has good guess? Don't they agree Jefferson is a natural PF? Are they just trying crazy things?
I would really like to know the logic behind it, so if anyone could ask Witt... :).
It's good to see Randy get another of his 20+ points and 6+ assist games. There are defenitly bright spots on the horizon.
There are some days where I think the only reason why Jefferson is at the 5 is because he's told the braintrust to figure out a way he doesn't have to get back on defense so fast during a transition fast break. He'll be happy to follow guys like Shaq and Przybilla down the court, but NOT gents like Aldridge. Way too much work!
Last night's game against the Blazers was a prime reason why--again--no one should really care who the Wolves get in the draft. Their core strategy is flawed, so unless a Major Deity is still available at their pick, chances are it won't make much of a difference. On defense, if you have an undersized 4 and 5, the club will have to double-team any reasonable post threat in the blocks. As we saw last night, this team has terrible perimeter defense. All a good team has to do is move the ball and find the open shooter, which translated last night into James Jones, Travis Outlaw, and our erstwhile 1st round pick, Brandon Roy. Since closing out is a concept long forgotten by our defensive strategists, I can't wait for the sight of McCants, Smith, Brewer all running out at least a second late trying to put a hand in the face of those shooters. Much like the price of oil, oxygen tank prices will spike to unheard levels, trying to breathe enough enthusiasm and hustle into folks who much rather be stopping ball movement on the offensive, as opposed to defensive end. The Blazers had 32 assists last night, and their three point shooting absolutely killed the Wolves.
Jefferson has shown some improvement as a weakside help defender, but when does he strike fear in the heart of opposing penetrators? On offense, it's really not much better. Al has trouble with guys with any length at all. Przybilla, Dalembert...anyone who's a decent shot blocker usually makes Al think twice about how to attack the basket. Yeah, he gets his eventually, but at what cost to the rest of the offense? And, as we saw last night in the second half, the rest of the club doesn't need much reason NOT to pass him the ball. It's simply a bad idea and bad strategy to keep Jefferson at the 5, if that's what they truly plan to do. But hey, the Wolves have clearly demonstrated their ability to rebuild a team and put a competitive product on the court in the last few years, so I should not be nearly as doubtful as I am...right?
It seems that if this season has taught us anything, it is that the Wolves do not have a player on the roster to build around. We have several nice players (Jefferson, McCants, Foye, Smith, Brewer...), but none are so good that we should really stress out too much on how they fit together.
A good blueprint for now is stock piling players that other teams would want and signing them to contracts that could be moved if need be....1)recognize talent and 2) value it appropriately.
Eventually we'll land that transformational, superstar player and THEN we can use our attractive assets to make the whole thing fit together.
It's not the Wolves fault that the NBA has a system in place that rewards teams for intentionally losing games in the last quarter of the season, so I can't blame them for winning games like the Seattle game, even though it may directly prevent them from becoming a contender in the coming years. Stern should set the lottery ball count at the trade deadline, which would force tankers to do it earlier in the season and cost them much more money and fan support. MN has been so obviously a bottom 2-team that I won't know what to think if we get a 6 or 7 pick, which won't be any higher than we were getting with KG the last couple years. Anyway, I'm through with the speculation/bitching about tanking, until I see what we get.
Andy G--
Remembering some of your other comments on this topic, let me sincerely thank you for your restraint. I wasn't trying to wave a red flag in front of your face with my "not tanking" comments, just trying to acknowledge the solid effort of the past few games in light of my harsh criticism of the effort a week or two ago. I agree that the speculating and anti-cheerleading is a waste of time and "see what we get" should be the dominant mindset.
No problem--I actually didn't take anything you wrote as a "red flag" but was just making my last vent about the subject. I hate the NBA's system in place, but certainly can't fault a team like MN for working hard to improve.
If there is any consolation for Wolves fans to take from the "see what we get" approach it is that there is only 1 5 star player in this draft: Beasley. Outside of Beasley, the Wolves simply can't go wrong with whoever they select. They have needs across the board and whether they select a 1, 2, 3, or, depending on where Big Al ends up, a 4, and 5, they need help EVERYWHERE. Would someone like Rose, Bayless, or Gordon compound the problem of Foye and McCants? Yes. Would they make the team better? Probably. Yes there are picks that don't make sense with the current roster, but the end result of increasing the team's talent will not change.
Furthermore, each and every pick in the lottery is weighted against the field. No matter how bad the Wolves get, the "best" they can do is to have 3-1 odds against them vis-a-vis the field. That's it. That's what the worst record gets you. The Wolves are going to finish with the 3rd or 4th worst record in the league and have a 12-15% chance of getting the top pick...or about 6-1 odds against them for Beasley against the field. They'll get a pick in the top 5 or 7. Tanking gets you no guarantees in a system that is inherently weighted against any single team. For all the talk of tanking in the NBA, only 2 teams with the worst record have taken the top pick since the rules were changed in 1994. Houston got Yao and Portland got Oden. Tanking guarantees you nothing but angry fans.
S&P,
I agree with you on the unproductive value of tanking. I think the reason the Wolves tanked the last two years was to secure having a first round pick and not lose it too the Clippers. I am confused by this though.
"For all the talk of tanking in the NBA, only 2 teams with the worst record have taken the top pick since the rules were changed in 1994. Houston got Yao and Portland got Oden."
I'm not sure about when Houston drafted Yao, but Portland did not have the worst record last year. They leaped ahead of three teams to several teams to get the pick that landed Oden. Right?
That was some bad writing on my part. I was trying to juxtapose the 2 teams that got lucky with 2 teams that didn't tank. Thanks for pointing that out. It was very unclear on my part.
I agree with the trickiness of tanking. Having the highest pick possible is easier if they have a worse record, but they don't need to do anything as drastic as they've done the last two seasons. It's difficult to project whether someone would elevate them to a future contender, especially because good teams can come in many different types. However, if, for example, they felt that Gordon/Bayless/Mayo/Westbrook were the best ones available, we should at least be able to expect them to know and pick the one who best fits what they do and has the best long-term potential. Having at least 2 freakishly-good athletes who can play would be helpful; that's why I'm crossing my fingers for Rose or Jordan. Also, there's the possibility of trading the pick for an already-established player (including a potential sign-and-trade if we threw in Walker's contract) or using Walker's contract in another deal. As fans, there's very little we can control; around here, management hasn't bowed to public pressure that much, if ever.
You're lucky you are without visuals for the Portland game, if only for the sight of 400lbs+ Kevin Duckworth on the Trail Blazer's 1/2 time show.
As for the game action, at the beginning of the 4th quarter it's the same old same old with the Wolves. Richard subs for Big Al, racks up a positive +/- and we are treated to a Smith, Brewer and Jefferson frontcourt to close out the 3rd. Foye is having a remarkably efficient game and he seems to be able to get in the lane at will against whoever the Blazers throw out at him. If anything, he needs to be more aggressive and ball-hoggy against the inferior Blake.
The team has gone to the Foye/McCants duo to begin the 4th but the interior defense is noticeably absent with Brewer, Smith and Jefferson. Of course, something this obvious is greeted with....wait for it...Jaric being the first 4th quarter sub, for Foye. Zero sense.
Let me praise you for your columns and the the people who comment here. Both you and the posters are the most literate I've seen on any sports blog. You are also excellent in your analysis of dynamics on the court and players.
Now after the sugar, let me disagree with you on several points.
I've watched Gomes since his 2nd year at Providence College. Gomes is a natural 4. He always played there until last season when the Celtics wanted AJ to play the 4 so that Kendrick Perkins could play the 5. I think if you asked Gomes which slot he prefers, it would be the 4. He can play closer to the basket and be more effective as a rebounder.His advantage at the 4 was that he is quick to the basket, quick to loose balls, and a good rebounder for his size. With his newly acquired range, I think he'd be much tougher offensively at the 4.
Gomes problem at the 4 was that he was too small to play guys like Gasol, Dirk, and KG. I always thought that was a bit of a bad rap, because no one can stop those guys except for maybe KG. Gomes doesn't block shots. It's because he is both deceivingly large and doesn't have hops. On the other hand never gets in foul trouble and he playsguys like Boozer and Randolph.
He's a good team defender at either position and rotates well, and has quick hands that allows him to get a lot of tips. At the 3 he is a little too slow defensively out near the arc. Offensively, he can back people down, but his quickness to the basket is somewhat offset by the quickness of other 3's defensively. So now, he's relegated to being a jump shooter..
Now for Al. He's better at the 5 because he gets exposed at the 4 and will get into foul trouble, He's very quick offensively, but that hurts him defensively at the 4. A sucker for ball fakes and he rushs out on shooters and then they go right by. Maybe his quickness is a liability in those situations. Too quick into the air too. One important thing is that Al really took off when he stopped fouling so much and wasn't able to stay on the court. It's also true that he hasn't put as much effort into defense and that he doesn't put as much effort into it on the court. There are also a lot of good 4 scorers.
At the 5, his weaknesses are hidden quite a bit because he doesn't have to move fast, there aren't a lot of good 5s, and he doesn't face many up fakes. He's also a decent weak size shot blocker. He's a better rebounder at the 5, though he's a top tier rebounder at both the 4 and 5. He's too quick at the 5 for any center I've seen. Best set of inside moves I've seen since McHale. Finally, he'll get a higher FG%at the 5 thought his jumper is much improved this year.
Some final thoughts. Gomes is a better player than Smith especially defensively. Gomes playing the 4 allows Brewer to play more and he's a very good defender. I assume that CB will work all summer on his jumper and not be such an offensive liability. Lastly, team blocks are one of the worst indicators of team success based on my study of the stats. Maybe its because for all but the elite shot blockers, block attempts result in more fouls than blocks. (Surprisingly, rebounds aren't a good indicator either. Maybe because bad teams miss a lot of shots and give up a lot of shots.)
ColinCB--
Very solid post. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the main points, at least for now--I'll watch the next few with your comments in mind, particularly about Gomes.
My rebuttal comes to down a truism/cliche: You can't teach height.
Thus, when Jefferson gets fooled in the paint--be it up in the air on a ball fake or slow to suss or re-react to the pick and roll--I'd rather it happen with a defensive-minded big man beside him rather than him being the largest man on the court for Minnesota. He has a relatively small sample size at the power forward slot this season (which feels weird even to write), but the 82games.com numbers show 5's having a much better eFG% against him than 4's. Bottom line, I've seen both Jefferson and Gomes overwhelmed in the low box on numerous occasions this season. I don't doubt that Gomes was a quality college PF, but the NBA game is another level physically.
I do agree that Gomes is better defensively than Smith, even at the 4, but that's damning with faint praise. To choose a couple of recent examples, give me a Theo Ratliff-like 5 and Jefferson at the 4 over Jefferson and Gomes against Wilcox-Collison or Pryzbilla-Aldridge. Plus, if the idea for this season truly is to build for the future, teams that go 6-10 and 6-7 at the center and power forward slots simply aren't suited for playoff basketball, and are assumed to run out that kind of a lineup because they play quick, uptempo small ball, The Wolves don't: they're small and slow.
Hence the blocks reference, used in the context of paired things the Wolves were bad at. I agree that on their own blocks are not that clear an indicator (although they have been called overrated so often lately that I think they are becoming underrated, particularly their impact on an opponents' psyche and altered style of play). What I was trying to say is when you can't defend in transition or defend in the paint, you've got a lineup problem.
Thanks for the comments. You're at home in this "literate" environment.
ColinCB
I, like Britt, also appreciate the maintenance of civility in this discourse of divergent opinions. What doesn't interest me, however, is playing fast and loose with quantifiables: e. g. "he plays guys (well defensively) like Boozer and Randolph."
Carlos Boozer v. Ryan Gomes
Game 1: 9-16 FG, 34 pts, 8 rebounds
Game 2: 7-10 FG, 16 pts, 14 rebounds
(no useable sample size yet for Randolph - Jefferson & Ratliff's minutes were 37 and 33, respectively, to Randolph's 33 in 1st meeting with New York)
The Boozer contention simply hold no water. Not only are his numbers solid, but in both games he gave his team the numbers they needed when they needed them: efficent points when no one was scoring (including 16-18 FT) in the UT loss and more efficiency & rebounds when others were scoring in the win. The only number going Gomes' way is Boozer's 6 turnovers in game 1, although you have to equally credit Boozer's aggresivness (18 FT attempts) for that.
SRA--
I edited out the last two graphs of your post because they seemed to edge away from the very civility we are all trying to maintain. And I appreciate the diligence of your research. I do want to point out, however, that most of the time when the Wolves played Utah the past two, Jefferson took Boozer in the low block and Gomes went with Okur on the perimeter.
And since Gomes and Randolph flipped leagues this season after also being in opposite leagues the previous years, their total matchups have been no more than a handful, with some of those occurring when Gomes was a sub.
Britt
No worries there. Those games occurred during a period of time when I was having (low)tech difficulties with my media, and scheduling conflicts with live viewing. I hope to see one of the last 2 games.
It would be interesting if the reportedly grim nature of that last loss precipitated a defensive switch per ColinCB's contention...