Game #68, Road Game #33: Minnesota 113, Indiana 124
Game #69, Home Game #36: New York 93, Minnesota 114
Season Record: 18-51
1. Illusions of Mediocrity
Let's start with the good news. Over the last five or six weeks, Timberwolves coach Randy Wittman has challenged the team's three most prominent building blocks to upgrade their respective games in specific ways. For Al Jefferson, it has been better defense; for Randy Foye, more overt point-guard related behavior; for Rashad McCants, less holding of the ball and more dish or penetration. And all three have made tangible progress in these areas, with the sort of slow, steady improvement that creates optimism about the future. Much more than in the previous three seasons, the Timberwolves do indeed look like they are putting specific pieces in place and rebuilding the right way--from the ground up.
But here's the nasty chaser: Despite its 13-17 record over the past two months, and 8-10 mark since Foye claimed the point guard slot in the starting lineup, the Wolves continue to be routinely trounced when playing quality ballclubs. Over the past 30, their record is 9-5 against sub-.500 teams, 1-0 against the .500 Philadelphia 76ers, and 3-12 versus teams that have won more than they've lost. In the 18 since Foye took the point guard reins, those figures are 6-3 versus sub.500, 1-0 against Philly, and 1-7 against over-.500 ballclubs.
This week offered a pretty decent view of whether the Wolves could achieve mediocrity. They faced four sub-.500 opponents. Three of them are absolutely horrible ballclubs at the present time: A Clippers team with Chris Kamen out, Al Thornton dinged, and Sam Cassell released (not to mention Elton Brand, shelved for the season with an injury); a Memphis team that unloaded Pau Gasol for nickels on the dollar; and a wretched Knicks outfit that is destined to produce at least two or three best-selling accounts of the abject stupidity, mendacity and incompetence of their dysfunction. Almost by default, then, the gut check game for the Wolves this past week came on the road against an Indiana Pacers team still improbably in the hunt for an Eastern Conference playoff spot despite what at the time was a record of 27-41.
To Minnesota's credit, the club took care of business against the weakest trio of patsies. This is not to be discounted: I think it's fair to say that two months ago, the mark versus these same Clips/Grizz/Knicks would have been at best 2-1 and probably 1-2 (there is probably no point in their season when they couldn't have beaten these professional imposters known as the Knicks). But the loss to Indiana is just as meaningful a gauge of the apparently limited ceiling of this club. The Pacers play horrible defense, and with Jermaine O'Neal out, the don't have a reliable low-post threat. Yet they were able to blitz the Wolves for 66 points in the first half, largely because Minnesota's "small" lineup was still too slow for the rapid ball movement that usually resulted in made treys--the Pacers racked up 16 assists (6 by backup point guard Travis Diener, who was plus +18 in 15:20) and Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy nailed 7-8 from beyond the arc. All this in one half.
Meanwhile, the ever-underrated Jeff Foster and the relatively tall lineup that enabled Indiana to bring size to the double-teams frustrated Al Jefferson into just 5 points. The other Wolves didn't necessarily pick up the slack. although a stupid foul in the final seconds of the half enabled Foye to hit three FTs and finish with 12 at intermission. Jefferson, Foye and McCants were a combined 5-20 FG. The Wolves were down 17 at the break, and, despite some gunner heroics from McCants in the second half, were doomed by Jefferson's foul trouble and the ongoing inability to the Pacers perimeter game.
Aside from building a little confidence, the Knicks game was a waste of time. There hasn't been a worse performance by a ballclub thus far this season than what the Knicks showed at Target Center Saturday night--no mean feat when you consider the Wolves are half of every matchup there. All the hullaballoo about Jefferson's improved defense looked silly when David Lee and Malik Rose took turns abusing him down low. (After blocking four shots and taking a charge in the first half of the Pacer game, Jefferson played more like the guy leery of picking up cheap fouls a la the second half in Indiana.) But it didn't matter that Lee and Rose were a combined 14-19 FG (led by Lee's perfect 6 for 6), because "point guard" Jamal Crawford was busy chucking up 19 field goal attempts all by his lonesome and making only 6.
Jeffeson's weak D was not the only example of how the three and a half quarters of garbage time that comprised the Knicks game allowed the Wolves to engage in half-assed habits without penalty. Take Shaddy McCants's Jekyll-and-Hyde halves versus Indiana and New York. On Friday, McCants was 0-5 FG in the first half, and defended poorly as well. But his saving grace was ball movement, with 4 assists, including a gorgeous bounce pass to Chris Richard, in just 8:48 of action. Then, in the second half, McCants went off for 8-12 FG, including a couple of unbelievable shots over the Pacers' tall perimeter pressure. After he nailed a pair of treys to bring the Wolves from 17 down to 82-93 after three, Indiana ratcheted up the coverage, especially when Jefferson was sidelined with foul trouble. McCants squeezed off two Js he had no business releasing, let alone converting, as he went up in perimeter traffic: the first a step back two-pointer to make it 90-103 with 7 minutes-plus to play and the other a prayer-bomb for three to pretty-up the margin to 106-120 with about two minutes to play.
This is the rub with McCants, that he gets hot when it doesn't matter. While that may be so thus far, particularly compared to Jefferson and Foye, there is no denying his passing and overall teamwork have taken a quantum leap forward lately, which is why his second half of the Knicks game was so negatively funky. After some shooting practice against New York's nonexistent defense--he shot 9-13 FG, giving him 41 points in the four quarters comprised by the Indy second half and the New York first half--he clanked for 1-8 FG in the second half, making him 1-13 FG in the wrap-around halves to that 41-point middle. The difference yesterday was, zero assists in 16:46 of the second half. Asked to explain the difference between the two Knicks halves, Wittman replied that "he settled more. He attacked in the first half, and got to the free throw line for those 15-foot, 18-foot shots. In the second half it was more threes." And less vision. Oh well, at least he wasn't holding the ball--just chucking it.
To return to square one from our wayward path on this point, the Wolves now face six straight opponents with over-.500 records. By the lights of even their recent "surge" (and yes, the word match is intentional), they figure to win but one of these games, going into the final 7 with 19 victories. The draft pick isn't going to the Clips, in other words, but karmic intervention will be necessary (or very shrewd talent evaluation) to land a collegiate or foreign-born stud.
2. What's Needed
Different folks have different ideas about the abiding priority for this club, in part because there is clearly more than one glaring need. I maintain that it is a defensive-oriented center who can step out and hit a midrange jumper on occasion. And no, I don't mean Craig Smith, who has upped his quotient of 8-to-15 footers in response to advice from the team's braintrust on how to be a better complement to Jefferson on the front line. I mean a center, who can snuff David Lee when he gets past Jefferson on the baseline, and slide over to cover when Big Al is inevitably too slow returning from the show on the pick and roll. Is it a coincidence that as Jefferson's blocks and defensive focus has gone up that his scoring has dipped some? Don't know, and don't want him to get a pass at the defensive end, but when someone is as gifted at putting the ball in the hole from the paint as Jefferson is, you want to ride that horse as much as possible. A guy like Marcus Camby would be ideal--tremendous on-ball and help defender who mostly shoots midrange jumpers--but since Cambys don't grow on trees, any large, stanuch defender who can keep defenses even a little honest will do nicely.
Personally, my second priority would be an uber-athletic small forward. I resist a strong internal pull for lanky, defensive-oriented point guard--a Rondo type would really be good--because Randy Foye has shown enough at the point in recent weeks to see if he can continue to develop. Make no mistake: Foye at the point is a vital part of the Wolves' foundation in that if it doesn't work out, the rebuilding scheme could easily come tumbling down. If Foye is ensconced at the point, Brewer and Gomes can swing from 2-3 and 3-4 respectively without squeezing McCants out of the picture because you need to play Foye more as a combo 2. If Foye can't hack it serving a majority of his minutes at the point, McCants is more redundant, and Brewer, Gomes and Jefferson must contend with more smallball or fall by the wayside. A stud small forward, on the other hand, makes Gomes a valuable 7th man at both forward slots and lets Brewer defer shots and score more in transition running the floor with Foye and the new guy.
Teams don't do well in the playoffs going 6-10 and 6-7 in the frontcourt. And they don't do well without someone who can both pounce in transition and run the half-court with aplomb in the backcourt. That's why, even during their recent hot streak, the Wolves are losing at least 5 out of 6 to over-.500 opponents.
3. Quick Hits
Jefferson's family was here for the Knicks' game (and presumably for Easter). I assumed the guy with the very prominent, Al Jeffersonian brow had to be his biological father, but a recent City Pages feature said his father had died. In any case, this guy was impassive; whereas the three females in the group about a half-dozen rows up behind the Wolves' bench boisterously clapped and hollared for everything pro-Jefferson and -Timberwolves, the father-figure clapped only when Jefferson dished for an assist. And wouldn't you know it, Big Al set his career high with a half-dozen of those dimes versus the Knicks.
One thing about Gomes at the 4, he can step out on a big and hit that midrange, and then when the guy comes out to greet him, can put the ball on the floor and create. As Gomes' confidence in his offense increases, we are seeing more and more of that. Despite his 8 rebounds to go with his game-high 26 points yesterday, however, Gomes is less impressive defending the paint, especially on-ball defense.
Tough times for the Florida duo. I've been on the Chris Richard bandwagon all season, but it is hard to ignore his delayed reaction when a big flashes into the paint on him. He's a piece of oak in the low block--precious few backing him down are able to sneak through, and must resort to the baby hook or something--but slow to react to good perimeter passing. But Brewer is the real disappointment lately. After displaying pretty savvy shot selection all season, he seems determined not to let his accuracy woes affect him--only to have it affect him by his pulling the trigger too soon (and thus way too foolishly) on the shot clock. His clanking was a significant factor in the snuffed comeback against the Pacers and he hasn't made more than a third of his shots in four straight games. Worst of all, Kirk Snyder pushing ahead of him in the rotation seems to have affected his Flying Wallendas defensive persona.
By contrast, Snyder is playing with great confidence and carving out a spot for himself on somebody's roster next season. An unrestricted free agent in less than 4 weeks, it will be curious to see if he can bag anything more than the $1 M exemption from anyone looking for a relatively hard-nosed 24-year old with an intriguing upside. Snyder barged into the rotation by becoming a hairshirt on Kevin Durant in the February Seattle game. But lately he's impressed with his ability to get to the rim (and/or the free throw line) via dribble penetration, and his throttle-down mindset when he snags a rebound on the defensive end. He could be a sleeper-steal in the trade for the already cut Gerald Green, or a fleeting footnote in Wolves history.
It'd be pretty spiffy if we could trade for Joel Pryzbella after Oden returns to Portland, but the chances of a divisional rival trading a center who rebounds and blocks shots to us seem slim. It's too bad we couldn't get Perkins in the Garnet trade. He would fit nicely next to Jefferson. I'd almost rather have him than Gomes. I'm definetely curious about the big men who will be free agents next summer. Minnesota isn't good for attracting super stars, but it's a great place for a center looking for starter's minutes. Maybe someone like Jamaal Magloire?
Also, I think the abundance of short forwards compounds the problem of having a number of smaller guards. Mark Madsen and Chris Richards seem to have identical skill sets and make for very undersized centers. Craig Smith is skilled offensively, but he gets killed on the defensive glass, which makes him a liability. He doesn't seem capable of losing enough mass to defend small forwards either. As a guy who played the post without being more than 6 feet tall, I certainly love to watch Craig play, but whenever I watch the wolves, they seem horribly overmatched on the defensive glass and as post defenders. Is Craig Smith worth keeping if it means having one more player who doesn't help the wolves in those two key areas and less money to pursue a player who can?
If the Wolves do get the chance to pick up Rose, why not take it? Would you refuse to draft Michael Jordan because you already had Clyde Drexler? Rose isn't Jordan, but he's much more phsycially skilled than Foye and there would be ways to use the two together. When it comes to OJ Mayo or Eric Gordon, it's a little different, but Rose is intriguing enough to take the risk. That's if he declares.
Awesome stuff Britt and all...
Has my mind running tons of ideas about the Wolves. First, Britt, I'm with you that we need a big man, but I just don't think we have to reach in the draft for this type of player. I've been watching the NCAA tourney and I've seen more than a few big guys, that won't be lottery picks, but they have the skill set that would compliment AJ.
Peter W, I agree with you that the Wolves have failed at getting the best player available. I think we can both agree other teams have failed as well, but it's a moot point; we're focusing on the Wolves here. A friend of mine has pointed out the recent success of Wolves management. We have been making some good deals, and we haven't been just throwing away our 2nd round picks like we used to... But, he pointed out that doesn't it seem strange that these good moves have coincided with the addition of Fred Hoiberg as assistant GM???
In all honesty, I think a big problem with this team is there are so many players between 6 feet 1 inch to 6 feet 6 inches. There's like 6 guys in that height. Management has refused to let some of these guys go. Instead, they have stock piled an army of guards.
Telfair, Foye, Buckner, McCants, Jaric, Snyder,
The other problem is that we don't have a coach who knows how to deal with the types of players that are on our roster. Is the team playing better because of him? Or is the team playing better because they as individuals are getting better, and learning more about one another on their own. Also, you can say better late than never but...this "surge" as Britt puts it is coming so late into the season, I'm not sure who or what to accredit it.
Folks, I have a ad sense it won't matter who we draft in this years draft, we'll be looking at almost the exact same kind of team next year. Whoever the rookie is will be brought along just like Foye, like Craig,like Richard, Like Brewer...yo-yo'd sparse time, never getting their niche, never having enough time to hit their groove, to keep the learning curve consistent.
There is a bit of a cluster at guard, but I think our crappy record could just as easily evidence a need at guard--given that our best player is a post. From a contract/roster perspective, though, you're right that we've got too many small guys.
Regardless of the draft, I think next year's team will look significantly better than this one. That's not to say we'll be in the playoffs, but just that Foye and Jefferson are good enough players to make each game competitive, regardless of what position they play. Britt is probably on to something with his theory that McCants is deterred from some of his antics by Foye's mere presence in the lineup, and likelihood of taking his minutes. Those three guys should all look improved next year, and we'll just have to cross our fingers about Brewer. He has so much of the game figured out, that I personally believe he'll get the shooting stuff worked out. The lifting and gaining weight will take more time, but most would agree that he'd do fine right now with skinny bod and all, if he could hit the broad side of a barn. 20 additional pounds will just sure up his already promising defensive ability.
As for Wittman, it's easy to criticize a team with our current record. In his defense, I've been surprised to see McCants stay under control in the second half of this season. There were times when it looked like he was on the verge of major blowups, and that has calmed a bit, without taking anything away from his production. Jefferson has shown some signs of improved defense, and Gomes has found a niche as a "fill in the blanks" guy. There's plenty of things to criticize with just about any NBA coach (George Karl is pretty well-respected, and he might not make the playoffs with Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony and Marcus Camby), but I think Wittman, this year, has met the expectations of most fans, given the youth, inexperience, and major injury to his best backcourt player. If we come back next year as you expect, looking like the exact same team, then Wittman should take a hike.
Britt:
You give these guys an inch on draft speculation and a mile they take. For the sake of this blog, please refrain from draft talk until the Celtics claim their prize in June.
Here's a different (and I would argue, more interesting) question: Who should the Wolves keep for next year and the long haul:
On the lock side, Al's going nowhere. On the who cares side, Doleac is an Unrestricted FA, Buckner, Maddog and Walker are non-pariticipatory trade bait.
What's left is Restricted FAs Snyder, Gomes, Richard, Smith and Telfair along with McCants, Foye, Brewer and Jaric.
Jaric is the only guy earning real scratch among the nine, and therefore the toughest to move if you don't want him. The rest are bargain basement building blocks.
Here's how I'd rank order the eight potential building blocks:
Gomes
Foye
McCants
Snyder
Telfair
Brewer
Smith
Richard
I'd hate to lose more than one of the top 4 and I'd hate to keep more than two of the bottom four.
For the purposes of the thread, leave aside what we get in trades and drafts- focus on what these guys can or can potentially bring to the future of the team. Thoughts?
My thoughts on upcoming free agents:
Keepers:
Gomes (as 7th man PF/SF (in that order))
Foye (starting point)
McCants (as 6th man SG)
Telfair (backup point)
Brewer (starting SG ! in the future ! with some time at SF)
Redudant because of upcoming draft:
Smith
Not keeper:
Richard
Snyder (rather have a more athletic, offensive minded SF)
A. K.
I'd put Foye on top and move Brewer way up the list, just because I believe their success is more crucial than those ahead of them. I'd say the same about McCants. But, the list should just be the FA restricted and unrestricted - I'd read somewhere recently that Snyder would be unrestricted).
Of the FAs'here is my order.
1. Gomes
2. Telfair
3. Snyder
4. Smith
5. Richard
Looking at the roster and next year we will have two new draft choices (or 3 w/two second rounders?) to make space for. Buckner, Walker and Maddog should all be either traded or bought out before the season starts to make room for new additions. But, most likely we won't be keeping all 5.
We will have Foye, Jefferson, Brewer returning for sure. McCants can be offered an option I think. Then you have the 1rst and 2nd round pick (maybe another?). Whatever shakes out with Maddog, Buckner and Walker. A free agent signing from outside to fill a need(s) (defensive pivot, pure shooter, veteran PG...) but I think we may only sign 2 of the 5 and it might be who comes the cheapest, thus we might lose Gomes and maybe even Snyder. I doubt Telfair, SMith or Richard will be very sought after by other teams.
Andy - I've heard the same thing about Snyder, but the two sites I checked both had him listed as Restricted, so I am assuming we can keep him if we choose to.
You probably heard it from me, and further investigation shows that there is indeed a qualifying offer of more than $3 M on the books for Snyder next season. What that means--Has he accepted it? When does he have to? Was it proffered by Houston or Minnesota?--is unknown to me. All the website I checked this on also have nothing on the books for Gomes next year, yet I have been assured by team officials that Gomes is in fact a restricted free agent. So, I'm guessing that Snyder is too, but if someone wants to points us toward official confirmation, it would probably be helpful.
Snyder is in the same boat and draft class as Telfair. The Wolves have the player option on him and they can match.
He's Restricted according to Today's Pi Press:
When Snyder was acquired, some outside the organization thought he wouldn't get much of a chance with the Wolves. But Snyder, a restricted free agent at the end of the season, likely has earned careful evaluation from the Wolves in the remaining 13 games.
"He's caught our eye," Wittman said.
The coach said he wasn't quite sure what to expect when Snyder arrived. With athleticism and explosiveness, Snyder helps the Wolves in fast-break opportunities, and he's making good decisions.
He first entered the starting lineup as a fill-in for rookie Corey Brewer, who missed two games because of a thigh bruise, and Snyder hasn't relinquished the starting spot.
Regarding his future, Snyder said he's going to explore free agency and see what happens. The Wolves can retain him by matching another team's contract offer, and Snyder said he's open to returning to Minnesota.
"I like it here," he said. "It's a nice place. I've got to get used to the cold. It's snowing here and there. I'm looking outside and it's like, OK, it's Christmas every day."
- AK
If my mind serves me correctly Foye didn't become the starting PG until Bassy got hurt in Sacramento. The wins against quality teams came before that. Nevertheless, the fact that they are winning these games is a sign of progress.
These next couple of weeks figure to be a real test. If the Wolves can make these games competitive and even steal a few, then I'll be convinced things are moving in the right direction with Foye. It will be a lot harder to move the ball around against these superior defenses. The burden for creating for others will fall squarely on Foye.
Bassy has shown he can run an offense against good teams, so now we'll see where Foye's head really is.
I'd say that Telfair has shown us more at PG than Foye. Perhaps my memory is hazy, but from day one with the Wolves he actually looked and acted like an actual point guard. Foye has yet to convince me that he is even PG material, seemingly lacking the necessary instincts. And as the season progressed, Telfair became an increasingly reliable shooter and effective ball distributor. His relatively small stature is something that he cannot improve, though, and will always count against him, but I think he's the keeper of the two. Too bad for him (and us?) that the Wolves front office have too much capital (both financial and ego) invested in Foye.
Capital has nothing to do with it. Foye is a better player.
Foye as PG?
Let's review Foye's stats again. March vs. February is a good comparison, Foye plays 12 games in each month. Of course, it's not a perfect comparison since in March he's been the starting PG, but it's all we've got.
February 12 games , 28:48 minutes, 38.2 (FG%) 41.9 (3P %) 3.0 (Rebs) 2.6 (Ast) 2.3 (TO) 10.0 (Pts)
March 12 games 35:06 minutes 44.9 (FG%) 39.0 (3P5) 4.6 (Rebs) 5.4 (Ast) 1.9 (TO) 13.6 (Pts)
Telfair's post all-star game numbers offer a good comparison to Foye. Telfair's FG% is substantially higher after the all-star break (up by 6%), although is assists are down slightly. Telfair's FG% has not steadily increased throughout the year. His monthly splits show a fluctuating FG%, with only one month, March, showing a FG% over 40%. Of course, he gets hurt in March.
Post All-Star (Telfair)
10 games 32:06 minutes 45.3 (FG%) 40.0 (3P%)
2.0 (Rebs) 5.3 (Ast) 2.0 (TO) 8.2 (Pts)
Foye's PER (Hollinger) is 11.46 after 26 games.
Telfair's PER is 10.54 after 60 games.
This puts neither player in the top 50 point guards by PER, and Marko Jaric is slightly ahead of both players at 11.74.
Hollinger does not appear to offer PER splits by month, etc.
I've used stats on Yahoo! Sports and ESPN to compile this.
Stats alone do not make for good judgement, but I thought I would throw these out there.
My opinion: Unless he comes cheap, I don't think the Wolves should resign Telfair. It's not that he's not good, but he's not that great either, changes the team can get a veteran for less money.
Nate, in the past, I've been a pretty big user of stats and I'm especially fond of Hollinger's PER numbers. However, for this year's Wolves I simply cannot take most numbers at face value. This team is too fragmented, has too many people playing out of their most effective position, and my opinion of Wittman's coaching is "Chaotic At Best".
The 82games site tracks the PER number by position, where we see that Foye's PER is up around 13.1 when he's playing PG and that Telfair is at around 11.9. Sadly, the PER number is weighted such that 15.0 is intended to be the league average, so both of our primary PG candidates are sub par. "By the Numbers", Marko is a better PG than either of them, especially when you consider the opponent's production numbers, but no one should be smoking that number either.
Randy: http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN2C.HTM
Bassy: http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN1C.HTM
Marko: http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN3C.HTM
So yes, by the stats, Foye looks better. We should be cognizant that Foye has played less than half the minutes that Telfair has when comparing those numbers, and there's plenty other caveats as well. But my eyes tell me that Sebastian is the guy I'd have running the team rather than Randy.
My eyes tell me that Telfair can dribble around the court with aplomb, and occasionally make a fancy pass. That is not exactly what I would call running a team.
...chuckles... In my playbook, the point guard position requires the ability to dribble around the court with aplomb. That was actually one of the talents of Sam Cassell had that was (and IMHO still is) sorely missed after his, um, departure. The occasional fancy pass, oh, not so much of a requirement -- although it may point to the ability to deliver the not-so-fancy pass. So good for Telfair (I guess). Sadly, I always feel that the ball is in shaky hands when Foye has it, though not quite down to the level of say, Troy Hudson.
The stats that Britt's presented below are certainly worth consideration and deeper, more rigorous analysis. And just to confound things, here's a link to an 82games page that shows McCants shooting .475 over 810 minutes paired with Telfair, while "merely" mustering .455 thru the 236 minutes he was on the court with Foye. A caveat there is that 300 minutes of play is the minimum accepted number of minutes needed for directly comparing shooting percentages.
Levi--
That is interesting about McCants. So who is knocking down the shots? Two theories: Simply Foye's better accuracy compared to Telfair's accounts for some of it, and the cutback in Brewer's minutes in favor of Snyder accounts for some of it. Also, Craig Smith has been unusually hot from the field lately, but if anybody seems able to take credit for that it would be McCants, who has something going with him on picks and rolls and other inside-outside play.
Sure, I'll agree that more Snyder / less Brewer, more Foye / less Telfair, and maybe some of Craig Smith all contribute to an improved FG%. And what about Ryan's Gome's recent tear (which I think has little to do with Foye in particular, but we do see him shooting .456 with Telfair and .482 with Foye)?
However, I suspect that the improvement in the Wolves' shooting percentage since Foye became the starting PG (.438 ==> .448) is small enough that it probably falls into the category of normal variability.
There are statistical tests to determine whether the change is, or is not, likely due to happenstance. The Fischer test is easy to use if you have the raw "makes" and "misses" numbers . If the change between two sets of numbers is large enough, statisticians will say that some causative agent *may* be responsible for the change. Here's a link to a "calculator" you can plug the numbers into:
http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/contingency1.cfm
Link to that player pair data:
http://82games.com/0708/0708MINP.HTM
I think I established myself as a fairly notorious Foye basher as a point guard when he came off the DL. And I never liked Foye at the point last year.
But folks, the primary responsibility for any point guard is enhancing the team's field goal percentage--creating or converting makeable shots--and on that score, Foye is clearly superior to Telfair. Consider that in the team's first 51 games, they shot better than 45% only half as often (17) as they shot below 45% (34). But in the 18 games since Foye has entered the starting lineup, the team has shot better than 45% 14 times and below 45% only four times. One obvious reason for this has been that Foye is much more of an offensive threat than Telfair, meaning there is less 4-on-5 offense with Bassy left wide open. But I also think the ball movement has improved dramatically and the scoring load is much more balanced since Foye's return. Yes, some of that is McCants' maturity, but I also think Shaddy has buckled down more because Foye is a threat to his minutes as a more redundant player than is Telfair.
Where Telfair supporters have a case is on defense. Foye remains a fairly indifferent defender, which is something I'll probably tackle during the next few treys.
On the day Foye returned to the starting lineup, the Wolves were collectively shooting .438 and allowing .463. Before the Knicks game on Sunday they were shooting .448 and allowing .467.
That's a pretty good assessment of a point guard's job. But there are some other variables at play, which inform the percentages, not the least of which is the total elimination of Antoine's 25 MPG and 36% shooting along with the emergence of Snyder in the rotation at the expense of Brewer. And you can't discount the fact that these young guys have learned to play with each other and may have been *gasp* well-coached.
Then there is the very obvious reality that all things are not exactly equal. Since Bassy went down, they've played a bunch of really bad teams at a point in the year where you have to question whether they were giving their all on defense.
We'll have a chance to test this hypothesis beginning Wednesday. Have we been witnessing fool's gold? Or is the team really getting better looks with Foye on point? Even if there is a correction over the next two weeks, I don't think it matters. Bassy has packed his bags.
I'll only add that, just because the team may be better with Foye at point instead of Telfair, that doesn't mean Foye's best position on the court is point guard. It might just be attributable to his being a much better player than Telfair, and just having him out there, albeit out of position, makes the net difference a positive one. I think most would agree that Kobe Bryant running the point for us would be better than Steve Wojohowski, and yet Wojo is a true point and Kobe is not. That's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. In the short term, we're better just having Foye on the court, but in the long-term, it would be preferable to get him in his most comfortable spot.
Although I do think the best position for Foye and the Wolves is PG, I do agree with you on the shooting percentages. Actually, I don't think the shooting percentage of the team with Foye running the point vs. Telfair tells us much at all. There are too many qualitative issues that are not represented going to be represented with any statistical test, but should be obvious to all (I like stats as much as the next fan-but, sorry Levi, when you start talking Fisher tests and any other tests statisticians might use, I think you’ve gone beyond whatever use the original stat might have told you in the first place, such as a player is currently shooting free throws at a pace that would convert 69 out of 100 attempts). Foye has been lucky with a recent stretch of playing some teams that do not really play any defense. Seattle, Memphis, New York, Indiana, Clippers, etc. I doubt the Wolves will have as high of a FG% vs. SA.
Still, I think PG is a position Foye can handle on the offensive end and Telfair makes a nice backup option. Like Jefferson's recent emphasis on an occasional charge and block, I am hoping Foye will be able to occasional lock down his opponent on defense. I wouldn't go into the draft saying no to any guard available (Rose), but I do agree with Britt on the emphasis for Center as a Wolves need, followed by an athletic swingman who can shoot.
Andy B - I simply don't follow your line of thought at all. I don't see how knowing whether the change in percentages that Britt used is, or is not, significant goes "beyond whatever use the original stat might have told you in the first place".
The purpose of applying the Fischer test is to see if the change in shooting percentage *could* be attributable to something other than normal variation. If the change is large enough that something other than (ahem) luck was more likely the cause, then perhaps Foye's play was the causative agent. And/or any number of other reasons that you, and others, have pointed out.
Levi - its not a criticism of you. I just don't trust statisticians or quoted statistical studies with various statistical tests is all. I think they are of very limitied value for uncovering trends in many fields more important than basketball and, in my opinion, are used more often to obfuscate than to clarify. I don't think this is what you were attempting to do. My point has to do with the FG% of the team with Foye running it and the FG% with Telfair. Its interesting, but it tells us nothing about who is the better PG, because they are two different samples with each player playing under vastly different conditions. You do not need to know anything about statistics to understand this point. I admit to not knowing what the Fisher test does, but whether or not the differences are not the result of normal variations, again is not very telling. I'm not partiicularly impressed by how statiticians define normal. When you say luck you mean random, but random is not so easily defined either. I just don't find the difference that interesting and whether or not it falls within the range of normal even makes it less interesting. There is no causitive factor explaining the difference that can be discovered by anything other than going back and comparing samples that are more similar. Such as the FG% against the Clippers withot Kaman with Foye as the point and the Telfair. But, there isn't a sample of that. So, go on to the next similar one. I wouldn't waste time with a test that tells very little.
Not being a statistician you'll have to bear with me, but I do think Foye instead of Bassy at the point is affecting FG% more than luck. As I pointed out before, 45% is a pretty reliable mean for accuracy in the NBA nowadays, and before Foye joined the starting lineup the Wolves managed to top it just 33% of the time; since then they've topped it 14 out of 18 games or 77% of the time. That seems like more than luck to me.
For example, you mention the jump in Gomes's percentage. Well, Gomes is especially adept at moving without the ball. And that is more effective when everyone must stay with their man on defense, which didn't necessarily happen with Telfair on the floor.
I think people know I like Telfair; especially the old purist in me enjoys the way he kick-starts things and becomes pro-active. But the word was out on Telfair long ago: Make him shoot. It's a message very similar to the purest point this franchise has ever had: Sidney Lowe. He couldn't shoot either, and paid the price.
All that said, I love SettlingForJumpers and the consistency of his support for Telfair.
Without access to the sets of numbers Britt references, more specifically the raw makes and misses, we cannot determine whether those changes are statistically significant or not. Unless of course, I pulled up every box score for all those games and compiled the numbers myself. I'm a little too lazy to do that for such a minor point.
But remember Andy, there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics". To dismiss statistical reasoning out of ignorance (and resultant mistrust) just makes it harder to know when the truth is (probably) being told.
Agreed that sagging off and making Telfair shoot was likely an effective defensive strategy against the Wolves. Now, I don't think that Foye's .415 FG% is all that much better than Telfair's .401, but Foye's 3pt shooting is much better and may cause the defense to spread a little more as Britt suggests.
Telfair's percentage had slightly improved but you have to take it with a grain of salt because he was often left wide open, and dared to shoot like Britt mentioned. Leaving Telfair open means defenses can contest more of his teamates' shots, which probably explains why the team percentage is lower with Telfair on the floor. Teams play Foye much more honestly. It's another example of why very few players can survive in this league without proving they can knock down open shots on a regular basis.
Yes - the irony is that we agree with each other on the fact that the higher FG% with Foye as PG is not necessarily reflective of Foye being a better PG. I really thingk that while Telfair manned the point againt the full array of NBA teams durign the first half of the season, Foye has only been running the Point during a much samller sample of teams that included a larger percentage of bottom feeders who don't play good defense (even more irony is that I still think Foye is the man for the PG job).
I trust statisitics, but I trust what they tell me. There is no arguing with the facts and the facts are what Britt presents. Foye has a higher percentage. Next, you go to explaining the facts or numbers. I prefer to compare samples and try and remove variations between the samples. Variances that deviate from normal according to the bell curve as measured by one of many different tests only confuse the issue and never lead to anything we can be confident is the truth. It only tells us what we tested for, which was probabilities and all that. There is no statistical test to establish whether or not Foye makes his teammates better shooters, only astute opbservations.
Let me suggest that if you phrased it something like "with Foye at point guard, the Timberwolves' aggregate shooting percentage rose by one percentage point" most people would think that the increase was totally meaningless. My observation is that it's an awfully shaky stake to hang conclusions from.
Personally, I'm in the camp that believes that the quality of opponents, schedule, etc., have a lot more to do with the noted statistical differences than anything else. I was really getting to like Telfair's all around play.
A defensive-minded center is needed, but is more easily acquired via free agency and trades than are superstars, so I hope we don't burn a top seven pick on a guy like Jordan, who has only proven that he can't get consistent minutes on an average Texas A & M team.
Because of his size, athleticism and true point guard mentality and tendencies, I hope we do everything within reason to get Derrick Rose. Those who like Foye running the point will wholeheartedly disagree, but I like Foye very much at the two, and not at all at the one. I see no reason in wasting entire seasons to figure out what's already evident, and that is, unless Foye is running a set pick & roll, he doesn't survey the floor, and doesn't create opportunities for teammates. However, he can catch and shoot, and penetrate to score--both helpful qualities for an NBA two-guard.
Surprised that there isn't more talk about the guy averaging 35.0 ppg through two rounds, after taking down a 7 seed and a 2 seed--Stephen Curry. He looks about 14 years old, but he's listed at 6'3" and 185 pounds. If he declares--(he's a sophomore)--I would completely support taking him with an early 2nd Round pick. He looks to have nice handles, an automatic perimeter shot with deep range, and great fundamentals all-around.
I agree with your assessment on a defensive-minded center, especially using Camby as a comparison. But we are relying on McHale to find this player; need I say more. It's especially critical if we rely on Gomes and Brewer to play more 4 and 3.
I would trade Brewer for Noah straight up. Noah is exactly the type of player we need on this team. While I discuss do-overs, I'll take Roy too. Noah would have Big Al's back on every play.
I'm praying we get lucky in free agency and the draft.
I was watching Kevin Love save ucla the other day and wondered if he could play center or if he was only good at the power forward position. Perhaps his talents overlap too much with Jeffersons since he's very wiley in the low post on offense, but he also had a lot of important blocks and seemed to have a decent jumper from the high post. Maybe he's too short though. If only he was the 6'10'' he's listed at. He'd be perfect.
Then there's Brooke Lopez from standford,
And longer term projects Deandre Jordan from texas a and m, and some hasheem thabeet guy from ucon.
If the Wolves slip out of the top two, I wouldn't be surpised if they ended up with one of those guys to play the center position next to jefferson.
We could at least find solace in McHale's decent feel for post players. Most of his draft screw ups involved perimeter players (or at least players he thought could play on the perimeter) like Ndubi Ebi and Will Avery. True he took Rasho, but he turned out ok for a middle of the pack pick.
Any other post players that didn't pan out (rick rickert, loren woods) were drafted in the second round, which is fine. That's how the second round works. It's hard to find Gilbert Arenas in the second round and athletic 7 footers don't tend to slip out of the lottery.
Of course, the need for a talented three makes the low odds of landing Beasley a bit more devestating. His defense against Wisconsin surpised me. Better than you'd expect from such a hyped player who supposedly has possible attitued problems. Actually, his defense probably did more to help his team than his offense.
At least there's Danilo Gallinari if we can't have Beasley. Apparently he might be a good small forward.
Paul Grant. First round pick, #20, 1997. 7 feet tall, 245 lbs. total and complete bust.
Again, not a lot of evidence that McHale drafts well, big or small.
Britt,
Could not agree with you more - a defensive, mid range shooting center is A1 need for the Wolves next year. What if UCLA wins it all? Might Love come out? He would likely be in the 3-5 range which is where I think our ping pong balls wil land. I think Love can get thicker with age and love (pun intended) is fundamentals.
Speaking of which, based on what I saw in the NCAA, I want nothing to do with Beasley. Did not see any defensive effort the entire tournament. Plus, he needs the ball. I could see major match up problems with him, Jefferson and McCants on the floor at the same time. For the first time in my life, I hope we don't get the #1 pick.
The Synder situation is another one of my pet peeves regarding Wittman. He is playing Synder, a player not under contract for next year, at the expense of Brewer, our #1 pick. I think it is not a coincidence that Brewer's game has gone down since his demotion.
Now if we had a contract on Synder, I could see playing him hoping to raise his value as a trade chip (or to make Brewer a trade chip). But someone please explain what the purpose is to play Synder? To win a few more games? Sorry, I see no game that we won where Synder playing over Brewer was the difference. Raising Synder's value for someone else? Degrading the confidence of our #1 pick? Yep, that is happening.
I know. We are playing him to add one more name to the free agent dilemma we already face (who and how much to sign Gomes, Smith, Telfair, and now Synder for)?
Wittman simply is not a coach who can develop players. Thank goodness the one good thing out of Taylor's KG tank interview was that Wittman would be held to a higher standard next year. The quicker he is gone the better.
First off, it's Snyder, not Synder (just a pet peeve of mine since I share the surname).
Now, I like Brewer and I'm glad the Wolves drafted him, but couldn't he be suffering a bit from a rookie wall of sorts? I know that normally hits around mid-season when rookies move past the 30-some games they are used to playing in college, but I could see how that, combined with the injury might be affecting Brewer.
From what I have seen, Kirk Snyder has done what Wittman has said he's done. Showed consistency on offense and defense. Why wouldn't you give minutes to a player who's done that? Also, why wouldn't you want a player on your roster that is better-suited physically to match up with some of those SFs that can push Brewer around and will likely be able to do so until he can add some 20-30 pounds.
Personally, I think it might be a good idea for the Wolves to consider Snyder as a cheaper option to Gomes should some other team make Gomes a ridiculous contract offer, which is certainly likely.
The word on Love is that he's a mid-first rounder because he has a glaring lack of athleticism. He'd probably need to be traded for (maybe use our 2 second-rounders?), but I think he'd be a good fit.
Far be it from me to extend a discussion about potential draft additions to our club in this thread, but I ask you, how does an undersized center fit into our plans? I'm certainly no expert, but Kevin Love doesn't block shots, doesn't run the floor particularly well, and if he were to go to the next level, would be an undersized 4 or 5. We already have a few of those, thank you. You could play him at a high post, but who's he gonna defend?
At the risk of not only beating, but donating dead horse organs so that other fillies or colts may live, we come back full circle to the notion that somehow this front office will be able to add the right mix of talent. I'm not terribly into numbers, but I'm on the verge of developing a new personnel efficiency statistic: the Stiff to Stud Ratio, which defined is a team's ability to find and retain talent without turning over entire rosters. Just exactly how many stiffs have we gone through in the last three years to find one, maybe two studs? If there was such a stat (I'm still refining it, mind you), I think we would lead the league, or be right up there with, say, the Knicks.
We're going to need to somehow add 25-30 wins in the Western Conference just to be considered for the playoffs in the next few years. The team continues to miss out on the best player available to us in the draft--at least in the first round. We also have swung and missed on our free agent selections of late. What this team needs is their own "yes we can" moment, but can the audacity of hope survive the reality of our experiences?
I know that speculation about the draft isn't something that plays too well around here but I'll take #2 as a green flag to get in my two cents about the (likely) available players in the upcoming draft.
I can't remember a draft class that has deteriorated in stature as much as this year's group of players. Outside of Beasley, there's no clear cut NBA stud. I'll say what I've said again and again about Rose: his size and athleticism are amazing but he's still a 19 year old guard on a non-pro style offense in a mediocre conference. Has he shown glimpses of being an amazing player? Yes. I went to the games here in Little Rock over the weekend and I'd be lying to you if I didn't say he was the most talented player on the court. However, with the Wolves' own personnel issues (2 6'4" guards taken in the last 3 drafts), their lack of frontcourt size and athleticism/perimeter shooting at the 3, Rose is an untested luxury the team simply can't spring for. The team is all-in on Foye and there's no walking that choice back.
The most dissappointing group in this year's draft are the big men. Britt, I know you think the team needs a big defensive-minded 5 to pair with Jefferson, but this motley crew of centers are not the droids you are looking for. Hibbert has been exposed in the last 1/2 of the season (does Davidson even have a player over 6'9"?), Thabeet can't play man-on-man defense (not to mention he was absolutely abused during the last 5 minutes of UConn's loss), Jordan sat on the bench during crunch time in the Aggies' loss, and Lopez has 1 offensive move while not appearing all that interested in running back on defense, blocking shots, and all of the other little things that would make a difference next to Mr. Jefferson. Devon Hardin ended the season while injured, Joey Dorsey is one of the stupider basketball players I have seen in quite some time, and Kevin Love simply isn't an NBA center. The Wolves' best hope is that Jason Thompson of Rider falls in their laps with one of the top 2nd round picks.
As for the point guards, the two top non-Rose lead guards are both about 5'10" (Lawson and Augustin). Maybe Kyle Weaver could be available with one of the top 2nd rounders, but beyond that, it's more of the same: mid-1st players like Collison that are undersized and may or may not pan out at the next level.
Who do they pick? Well, if they don't have a chance to grab Beasley, they're in a pickle. Rose is the 2nd best talent in the draft but do they take another 6'4" guard when their 08-09 signed frontcourt consists of Mad Dog and Jefferson? They need a 3 (maybe a 2) who can hit the outside shot and put the ball on the floor. Folks like Anthony Randolph, Danilo Gallinari, Donte Green, Joe Alexander, Chase Budinger, CDR, and maybe OJ Mayo. Not exactly a stunning list, but neither is one composed of six-nothings Jerryd Bayless and Eric Gordon or underwhelming bigs like Lopez or Hibbert.
I really like Budinger and Alexander. They're the best athletes in the draft and they both have nice dribble drive games combined with a nice outside shot that should translate well in the pro game. That being said, they both have red flags. (I'd much rather have Budinger.) All of these players do outside of Beasley.
Of course, the Wolves have a long and proud history of picking players that perform well in the tourney (see Wally and Foye) and I fully expect them to pick in the 6-8 range and walk away with Kevin Love. And you know what? If the Wolves found a way to get the young man in the teens, I'm all on board as long as they get a 3 or 2/3 combo with the top pick. Big Al would be even more of a force with a fellow front court player who could pass the hell out of the ball. Although, whenever I see Love, I get the bad feeling that he's Sean May 2.0.
Anywho, this draft has turned out to be slim-pickins'.
Stephen Curry?
What say you on him S&P?
I think he's the best non-Duke Dukie in all of college ball, if that makes sense.
Without being obtuse, the only way I would consider the guy is if he fell to them in free agency. 6 nothing and 180 pounds can get it done in college but he's a 15 minute bench player 3 point specialist at best in the pros; Travis Diener with a slightly better jumper. He's a great college player...a lot of fun to watch...especially since I was essentially the same size when I played at that age. I'm not sure what position he would guard at the next level, but...well, who knows?
How about a guy like Pat Calathes? He's 6'10" and can shoot the hell out of the ball. I'm thinking an off-the-bench Matt Bullard sort of player. Plus, maybe it would go a long way for his brother to want to play here ;) His little brother is a hell of a player and he would be an awesome compliment to Foye at the 2 guard. He's a bit undersized a'la Corey Brewer, but he's got length and b-ball IQ to spare. I'd take Pat Calathes over Curry any day. As for Nick...well, he'd be a steal if the Wolves could get him. For all the talk about Ricky Rubio, if Calathes had a Spanish name and played in the Euroleague, he'd have a ton of buzz. They're very similar players.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=32284
So, you're not buying this 6'3" 185 lbs? I think he looks really young out there, but if he truly is this size, and has all the ability that is currently dismantling premiere programs, I'd love him with anything but our lotto pick. Other than Jay Williams and J.J. Redick, I've never seen a Dukie guard who can light it up like this guy, and it looks like he's got more Williams (an NBA stud if he doesn't get hurt) than Redick (currently getting no burn for Orlando), since he's got quick feet and nifty moves to the basket.
Thanks S&P,
It would be a risk to take him, but he has been fun to watch play this past weekend.
His father didn't have a bad NBA career and was a very good 3pt shooting guard. He also had a similar build, if I recall correctly. I do wish the Wolves had a guy like that coming off the bench. Someone who defenses had to respect and stay close too cause if Big All throws it out to the guy with his feet set, you know its going to be 3. Right now, the closest thing is McCants, but hes too streaky. And Brewer standing out there is worthless. Of course it would be nice if the tree point specialist could guard someone too. Thanks for the tip on Calathes.
The thing with Curry was that he was 5'9" coming out of high school. Not many 5'9" shooting guards end up at elite school, even with an NBA pedigree. He has grown 6 inches since then, he was listed at 6'0" during last year's NCAAs and he's now listed at 6'3". I think his father was something like 6'6" /6'7" so who know if he is still growing or not. The kid really can score though. I don't think he'll be coming out this year unless Davidson goes nuts and gets to the Final Four ala George Mason.
According to Wikipedia, Dell Curry is 6'5" and Stephen's mother was a (presumably tall) college volleyball player, so maybe he is not done growing.
Interesting insights. Even at 6'3" he's worth taking a chance on--it would be one thing if these last two games were a fluke, but his 25 ppg average seems to suggest he looks like this pretty regularly. A little bit reminiscent of young Steve Nash making a Sweet 16 run at Santa Clara.
I agree that Love is not an NBA center though I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the Centers in this draft class. If you look at previous years, there just wasn't anybody here. OK, they might all have their flaws, there are no clear-cut studs among them .. but do we really need that?
For the defensive center there are plenty of options, as I already said here many times, I really like thabeet, in the very late first round or start of the second round he'll be a good pick you'd have to develop more. Lopez isn't really defensive minded enough so I wouldn't waste my top 10 pick on him. Hibbert doesn't really exel at defense either dough he does add some size that would allow us to quit the smallball.
My favourite for that super athletic, versatile SF is without a doubt Gallinari. He's really good offensively and fills one of our shortcomings -> getting to the free throw line. He has a nice inside-outside game. SF might not be our number one need but he's currently my favourite for our first rounder.
If we do pick a center first, Tyler Smith from Tennessee also seems to fit the profile, he might be available at one of our 2nd rounders. Though I'm not really sure he has enough overall talent.
I know it's a bit reading tea leave, but my favourite scenario is if we trade up to get a mid first rounder:
Top10 pick: Gallinari (versatile SF)
Mid first rounder: if we can get 15-20: Hibbert; if we can get somewhere higher: Thabeet
Again, great assessment; though it were easy teams, they wouldn't have had this results earlier in the year. Great read
Love seems plenty athletic for a four or five, but I don't know if he's tall enough to play center in the pros. He plays like a shorter version of TIm Duncan.
Some draft comments as long as others are going in that direction.
On the Love doesn't block shots comment, he had half a dozen blocks in the Texas A & M game against their big front line. While I completely understand the Sean May 2.0 comment, I really think Love will be a good NBA player. He has amazing basketball IQ. He plays tough and smart, both on the defensive and offensive sides of the ball. He maybe only 6'10", but he is an oak tree in the box and won't be moved by anyone short of Shaq. Plus he has a nice outside touch and is a big game player. Would it be great if he were a few inches taller? Sure, but I think he has a nice 12 year NBA career and brings a lot of things to the table the Wolves need.
My favorite in the draft is Derrick Rose however. I know we hem and haw about Foye or Bassy as our future point, but there is no reason to ever pass up on someone like Rose. Beasley reminds me of Carmelo, both the good and the bad, and will be a fine pro and maybe an All-Star someday, but Rose is a stud and will be the best player from this draft.
I DON'T want Jordan. So many red flags on him that we can't take him. Athletic bigs who don't really seem to care always tempt some NBA GM into an early pick, I just pray we don't fall for it.
If the balls bounce us out of Rose or a quality center, then I like the Italian kid.
I see us having no chance at finishing with anything worse then the 3rd worst record. We might jump past Memphis and New York as well, but New Yorks schedule is so easy they HAVE to win some games and we play Memphis twice more. I hope we haven't lost all our karma points for not tanking with the stupid remarks of Glen Taylor about KG.