Copyright 2008 NBAE (Photo by Melissa Majchrzak/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #60, Road Game #28: Minnesota 76, Utah 105
Season Record: 12-48
1. Giving Up
Said Sebastian Telfair, "We had no energy, no intensity. We just kind of gave up." Said Kirk Snyder: "They grind it out. They just kept doing what they do and we kind of broke down." Said Randy Wittman: "We've got to go and get our edge back."
In the 60th game of the season last year, the Wolves beat the Los Angeles Lakers 117-107 in double overtime to run their record to 27-33. Two years ago on Game 60 they also lost to the Jazz on the road--by three points, 93-96, to erode their record to 26-34. And three years ago they beat the Celtics, 93-90, to square their mark at 30-30. That history lesson is for all the folks, including owner Glen Taylor, who steadfastly claim that this year's team has been so much more fun to watch than the previous years of ineptitude.
2. The Plan For "Big Al"
The Utah Jazz beat the Wolves into submission last night; beat them until the Wolves rolled over and put their collective tail between their legs. Last time I checked, the regular season ends April 16, exactly six weeks from yesterday. During that time, 22 games will be played. Seriously, what's the plan between now and then?
We've heard way too plenty about "Build It Together," with a different member of the front office trotted out on the advertising-free halftime show to inform the miniscule audience of masochists how much better things are going to be down the road. But beyond platitudes like "We'll see who really wants to step up and who doesn't," the strategic thinking for how to prepare and array this current roster--you know, the one everyone who bought into "The Blueprint For the Future" last season is now paying full price to witness--has not been so explicitly and relentlessly shoved down our throats.
But we've certainly been given clues. The dumping of Theo Ratliff (reported savings to Glen Taylor, $2.5 million) and the sparse playing time for Chris Richard (whose plus +1 in a garbage-time abetted 19:04 last night was five points better than any other Timberwolf) indicates that Al Jefferson will continue to be played out of position at the center spot. Over at 82games.com, which probably hasn't factored last night's 29-point pasting into its data base, the numbers on Jefferson's offensive performance at center versus power forward are not that different. He shoots a little more accurately (if a tad less often) at center, yet rebounds a little better, and commits fewer fouls and turnovers, at the power forward slot.
But if you want to know why Jefferson has twice as much of an advantage over his fellow 4s (+10.5 in PER rating) versus his fellow 5s (+5.1 PER rating), check "Big Al"'s differing ability to defend centers as opposed to people more his size. The eFG% (which factors in three-pointers, not much of a consideration for centers and power forwards) for the power forwards Jefferson defends is 42.7%--pretty good D. The eFG% of centers against Jefferson is 57%--pretty horrible D.
Is stockpiling centers that don't play--even after buying out Ratliff, nearly half the Wolves' seven-person bench is comprised of Richard, Madsen and Doleac--while throwing your best player and lone true cornerstone into a less natural and effective position, is that part of last season's "Blueprint" or this season's "Build It"?
3. Around The NBA
Spurred on by the fuzzy audio resulting from the Wolves simulcasting Hanneman/Petersen/McKinney's Utah call over both TV and radio (due to illness sidelining the radio play by play man), I decided to keep listening to the audio of the Celts-Pistons game instead while watching the Wolves-Jazz. Then, during halftime and after the game, I flipped over to ESPN's telecast of the Suns-Nuggets. None of this discouraged my against-the-grain opinions that the Celts will beat the Pistons if the two should match up in the Eastern Conference Finals, and that the Suns and Mavs are in a race to the bottom that could easily see one, and perhaps both, fail to make the playoffs.
The Eastern Conference Finals prediction is admittedly complicated by the fact that I think the Pistons helped themselves more by adding Ratliff than the Celts did adding Cassell and P.J. Brown. But add in how well the Cavs bolstered themselves with the West/Wallace acquisitions and that any team with Dwight Howard can't totally be counted out, and the Celts/Pistons/Cavs/Magic quartet in the conference semis is the closest thing to a lock in what shapes up as an unbelievably exciting playoff season. Personally, I think whoever has to face the Cavs in the semis will be at a disadvantage in the finals--provided they get past the LeBrons, of course. As for now, I'll stick with the Celts, who enjoyed a season high 31 from KG in their signature victory over Detroit.
In the West, Phoenix and Dallas gambled for a ring or bust this season, which is somewhat admirable, considering that both teams really didn't look to advance much standing pat. But the pressure--not only on Shaq and Kidd, but Kerr and Cuban, and by extension D'Antoni and Avery Johnson--is going to be excruciating. Meanwhile, Denver, Golden State and Houston all have elements that make them loosey-goosey, which could be a curse or a blessing as the calendar flips to April and every loss is magnified.
Don't count out New Orleans. Chris Paul and Tyson Chandler may not be your typical 1-2 punch of stars, but the incredible versatility and charismatic leadership of CP3 and Chandler's continually superb defense (always underrated, every year, when prognosticators sort things out) make this a very dangerous club.
Finally, kudos to Allen Iverson and Deron Williams for putting on a clinic as to how the point guard position can be played in very very different but equally satisfying and effective ways. The manner in which D-Will carved up the Wolves on that opening 15-0 run to start the second half should be stenciled into Randy Foye's cranium while he sleeps every night. And Iverson, twirling for 25 shots a dozen dimes and zero turnovers last night, remains my favorite player to watch when the defense is pliable (as Phoenix's always seems to be) and he's in rhythm. Coupled with Williams' 11/0 assist to turnover total, it made for a glorious display of dishes.
Britt and fellow bloggers,
Can you believe we watched that game in Utah? There was one really ugly sequence where we turned over the ball 4 of 5 possessions. My guess it was because we were trying to set something up and score fast. But to me it just showed how little chemistry this team has. How little direction this team has.
Al Jefferson, 4 or a 5? Why waste our time with an age old problem. Plain and simple he cannot be the only big / biggest player out there on the floor. Finding a competent big man has always plagued the Wolves. I don't care if he plays the power forward, or the center. Just get another active big man out there who can defend a bit, rebound well, and hopefully score a little.
I could see a Brad Miller working well with AJ, a Divac, a Verajo, Oberto, Scola, Boone, Or dare I say-- a Ratliff? Britt I'm with you on that one. I mean why save money when you can't get a big time free agent here anyway? Perhaps Glen has been counting empty seats and sent word to McHale to cut weight.
The draft is coming folks. Really, I wouldn't put it past us to attempt to tank. And I wouldn't put it past the Wolves to screw it up.
Is it just me, or are the Wolves starting to look like the Clippers and Blazers of years ago? And more recently the Celtics? In that they are stockpiling pieces, high draft picks, good talents, unproven guys with tons of athleticism, but then ultimately going no where and then eventually trading them all away or losing them to free agency?
I don't know, my personal feeling is that all the criticism towards the Wolves GM and coach and owner are seriously becoming justified. I'm just not convinced they can right this ship. Just not sure...
On Jefferson's effectiveness as a C vs. as a PF:
I enjoy the mentions to 82games.com, since the stats presented there are pretty nuanced and often more interesting to contemplate than "traditional" stats from ESPN et al. And poking around there a little this evening, I've actually noticed some intriguing things about the Wolves' stats.
1) Your references to Jefferson's better defensive numbers at the 4 are spot-on, but it does seem a little hard to truly compare him as a 4 vs. a 5 since (according to 82games) he's only played 4% of the team's minutes as a 4 while he's played 70% of the team's minutes as a 5. You may well be right that he should be played at the PF slot, but it's just hard to be detailed in comparing his production at those positions when the sample sizes are so out of whack.
2) Maybe I'm being too optimistic here, but it seems to me that all hope for a viable Smith-Jefferson combo at the 4-5 is not lost. Case in point, the best 5-man unit for the Wolves in terms of +/- (+16) and Win% (60%) consists of Telfair, McCants, Brewer, Smith and Jefferson. While their eFGA is not too stellar (52%), the other measures of defense seem to indicate good things, as that group is the best rebounding unit on the team's list and has a positive turnover differential (somewhat shockingly). And offensively, that unit shoots well, gets more FT's than the opponent, and gets almost half its baskets from "close" range, something a team without great outside shooters needs, and all things that ease the pressure on the defensive side of the ball.
For a reference point, the Spurs, a winning team known for defense, has a 5-man unit in Parker, Ginobili, Bowen, Oberto and Duncan (arguably their best 5) that sports fairly similar overall stats to that Wolves 5 (+14 and a 60% Win%), with the most notable difference being the Spurs superior eFGA (46.5%). Also of note, though, that 5-man unit for the Spurs has twice as much floor time as the Wolves group I mentioned, so my argument about sample sizes applies against me here.
Sorry to be so stat-heavy, but I do think the issues that you've brought up so often of Jefferson not being a 5 and Smith-Jefferson being a horrible tandem are worth exploring. At first glance, I think you're probably right, but I also see that the statistics at 82games.com make those positions a little murkier.
Well put. I'd even go so far as to say the Jefferson-Smith combo can be effective in certain situations--the right move to make. If the franchise wants to spot them in against smallish and/or nonathletic front lines--especially if they have an outside threat like McCants on the wing--I think it is a viable wrinkle. I do not think, however, short of an amazing trio surrounding them, that the combo can be the signature front line duo on a playoff contender in the Western Conference. The next commenter below also makes the very good point that perhaps the Wolves are just using this "down" time when they are not competitors to expand and enhance Jefferson's skill set, something I've alluded to before. My only quibble with that is that what Jefferson most needs to improve is his defense, and defense is all about sharing and trusting your teammates to fulfill their roles. At center, Jefferson is in a different role defensively than he hopefully will be when the team is improving toward contention.
You already made the cavaet about sample size, so this is not a criticism, merely a further vetting of what kind of context we are dealing with: The 5-man unit you cite has played a grand total of 57 minutes together this year. By contrast, you say that Jefferson has only logged 4% of his team's minutes at power forward. While that is an appropriate distinction vis a vis his play at center, remember than even 4% of a team's minutes at a position through 60 games amounts to 115 minutes--a more reliable sample size than the 5-man unit comparisons.
I'm not one to give the front office the benefit of the doubt for this, but here's another potential theory. Whether the front office is tanking or not, they probably know that this year is the best year to tinker and prepare players because there's little pressure to win. At this point, they also know they have one player who will be here for a long time and who they hope will be a significant part of their success.
With that in mind, they know that if they are going to be a great team, they need to maximize Jefferson's ability. That means putting him in situations where he can succeed and in situations where the matchup isn't in his favor. Why? Because they need him on the floor as much as possible to be at their best. They know that losing a game this year because he has trouble playing C could pay off in the long run if he learns how to do it and becomes good enough to not have problems.
That means playing him at C because no one has his back. Because if there comes a time, like a crucial playoff game, where he matches up best as a 5, they would be able to play him there and hopefully not have to worry about it. Because he'll already have had the experience of needing to play C and will know how to play it the most productively he can.
One of McHale's supposedly underrated skills as a player was his ability to guard multiple positions on defense. My theory would suggest McHale knows this and knows that Jefferson will need at least some versatility for his own sake and the sake of the team. That doesn't mean playing him at SF or having him practice 3-pointers; it means putting him in uncomfortable situations because those situations will be unavoidable in his career. If he learns how to deal with them in somewhat-meaningless regular season games, he won't have to try to deal with them later during games when the stakes are much higher.
Again, it's just a theory, but something to think about. Think of all the good but not great teams that kept on losing because of some flaw that kept creeping up, usually with a star player (KG can't score in the clutch, Jason Kidd is an inconsistent shooter, Tracy McGrady hasn't been able to make his teammates better, C-Webb wasn't a good FT shooter, Nowitzki can't handle physical defenders). Maybe the team is trying to avoid that possibility with the only player they have at this point who could be considered a star.
Excellent take. As much as they can be criticized, we should also periodically entertain the notion that the braintrust probably has a decent plan in place for the team's development. It would certainly help if they shared that plan but...
Along those lines, does anyone know how much McHale has been working with Jefferson on his moves and how much this may be playing a part in his development as a pivot man? It seems as though his repertoire of scoring moves around the basket has expanded over the last month or two.
Love this site, by the way. Its always the second place I go right after checking the night's boxscore. Haven't missed a post in a couple years now.
Much Thanks.
The Wolves had no chance at this game, come on Britt. No chance. We had just beat this team - they were waiting to have another shot at us. Oh, and they're Light Years better than us to begin with. This isn't evidence of tanking - this is evidence that Utah is a great team that was ready and salivating at a chance to get pay us back. And they did.
No tank, just a butt-whupping.
Please read the post. Tanking is not cited. Where tanking has been mentioned by me, it has been in response to others using the word--I will henceforth not use it because I get caught in semantical merry-go-rounds like this.
I did quote one team member saying the squad gave up, and another saying it broke down. I did watch a very close game for about a quarter and a half, then a 15-0 run to start the second half.
But I get the drift. I'll start posting less, detailing only the games in which this team has a fighting chance. Because God forbid I get perturbed about wasting two hours of my life watching this squad get thrashed, and then another hour detailing it for people who wonder why I bother.
Now you're calling your readers homers? I read for the details, which you provide very well when you don't go into homer-like rants about not getting a win or 48 minutes of effort in a blow out. I don't read for the victory parades. If you had stuck, as you often do, the gorey details of the pounding, there wouldn't be this post. The point is stick to the details and don't go on extravagent extensions of the basic facts of the game.
Normally, you add facts to the simple box scores and PR releases of the game. If you see the game or simply look at the game flow here...
http://www.sportsline.com/nba/gamecenter/live/NBA_20080305_MIN@UTA
... you can see the game was over before the 3rd quarter and the comments by the players were referring not to the entire game or season or the rest of the year, but after it got way out of hand in the third. Stretching it further than that is purely opinion. For all you know, the players are trying to rationalize their loss and lack of comparable skills and talent instead of admitting they went balls out and still couldn't get close. But that would apparently suggest they didn't have a fighting chance and offend the homers. God forbid.
Okay, this cuts it.
From now on, if I don't like a comment, it goes away. If you don't like those rules, you are perfectly free to go away yourselves. I started this thing because I love to write about basketball. I have done it more often and more assiduously in the past year or two because of the quality of the feedback I receive. In recent months, a few unpleasant characters have come on board, under the mistaken impression I need their sorry asses to put on the kind of site I want to put on.
I don't.
I get paid a relative pittance to do this, and gladly accept the wage scale so I can operate things the way I like it. This is not a democracy, folks. I have too much respect for most of you to have dropped the hammer before now, hoping that things would be self-regulating. But how could they be? Compared to other blog comment sites, I've got to say that I really admire the level of discourse here, as I've stated on many occasions. Inevitably, however, there are going to occasionally be folks who come along who raise my blood pressure--let's just charitably say we don't mesh. I'll let you guys decide if I become too thin-skinned for your taste, or whether being rid of these scorpion matches is ultimately a good thing.
I really do try and see the other point of view. But sometimes it is a byzantine enterprise: As I've stated before, it can be a very vexing and time-consuming situation, and without casting blame one place or another, the plain fact is, I don't need the aggravation.
So, if somebody posts something and it goes away, you know what happened. It's a free country, and there's a ton of other basketball sites out there. I've decided to start running mine the way I used to, the way I damn well please. As always, you are all welcome to stop by. Just as obviously, you have every right to leave me here gazing at my own navel.
End of message. My next posts and/or comments will get back to basketball, where they belong.
Just wanted to let you know, and I think I speak for 98% of the people that drop by here on a regular basis, we're behind you on this one.
Its NBA basketball. Britt, like many of us here are fans. We come here to discuss NBA basketball and the Wolves. We all come with differing opinions. I think most of us appreciate Britt's opinion because he gives an honest appraisment and sometimes a scathing critique of the game, players and coaches. We all, at times, disagree with him. Most of us have also been the recipient of one of his scoldings for a not very wel-though out opinion or sometimes just a misunderstanding.
You can disagree with Britt, WLFB. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Not even Britt. But, don't go telling him how he whould write or blog about NBA and Wolves basketball. Start your own blog and see how many people stop by. He (we) have something going here that is preety good on most days. I know I like reading it for the vast amount of knowledge and insights I can get from Britt and other contributers here. You probably have some good insights as well. Just, don't insult the host. Its bad manners.
I have only posted once before, but I look forward to this blog more than any other I read. As a five or six year blogger in another venue, I would like to commend Britt and point out the very real factor of blogger fatigue. He doesn't need shit from people who are irritated about a,b, or c. All you need to do is wait up until 10:30 on Sunday and watch Dark Star's foolish and self-referential sports show to see what happens when people begin to talk about themselves rather than the sport in question. This site does not need to go down that road. Please, please, keep the discourse on track, and save your vitriol for some other place. I would not blame Britt if he said, "Forget it. I don't need to be hollered at by bulletheads. I'm going to do something that pays me real money." But, thus far he hasn't, and we're all the better for it. So, yappers go away. Thinkers speak up. And let's all keep this site the best in the blogosphere for Twolves talk.
Antoine Walker and Rashad McCants for Brad Miller.
Salaries match and Wolves get a banger / scorer at 5. Who is the other team's big defensive player going to guard now with Miller on your team? They guard Big Al - Miller get's the mismatch or vice-versa. Sacramento wants to get younger (has rookie center Hawes) and Walker comes off the books much faster than Miller allowing them to have salary cap room.
Because Minnesota isn't a big free agency destination - it might be easier to get this accomplished, veteran player through a trade (Terry Ryan understood this as the Twins GM). This in essence is your big free agent acquisition.
I like this trade from the Wolves' standpoint, but I'm not sure I see why Sacramento does it unless they're just trying to dump Miller's contract.
Has Spencer Hawes demonstrated enough to make the Kings think he's worthy of replacing Miller? Does Sacramento risk bringing Walker in when they're also nowhere near contender status? Similarly, do they risk bringing McCants in when he'd likely be playing behind Kevin Martin?
My guess is if the Kings put the word out that they're looking to unload Miller, they could probably do better than Walker+McCants.
Great takes. Ultimately I do agree that they probably can get better value - but wouldn't it have happened already if that was the case? Wouldn't the Celtics or Raptors have made such a proposal? Maybe there wasn't that much demmand for Gasol, and that's why Memphis traded Gasol to the Lakers for picks and salary cap space.
Sacto moved Bibby at the trade deadline and nearly Artest, which means to me that they might want to go younger and shave long-term contracts like Miller. Let the splashy Maloofs buy out Walker if he wants to get out of that situation, they get his salary cap room with Walker's contract and it frees them up to make a splashy free-agent signing.
McCants is a small salary with low comittment (years) on his contract as well. He's a swing guy with offensive punch, still a good commodity in this league. Remember when our best off-guard in the Flip days (besides Spree) was Wally who was out of position at both the two and three spots?
Again great points and probably reasons why Wolves fans shouldn't expect a lot of moves. But at the same time don't get upset if another team does make what appears to be a one-sided move like the Lakers did with Gasol.
Below is Yahoo! News on Spencer Hawes and hints the Kings are going through a youth movement.
Mar 2 Hawes, a 19-year-old rookie, has been surprisingly effective this season, and Kings coach Reggie Theus will try to develop his game for the remainder of the season, the Sacramento Bee reports.
Recommendation: "We've made a concerted effort to develop 'Spence' of late," Theus said, "and it's starting to pay off. His biggest improvement has been on the defensive end. He's so long, with such an incredible wingspan, that he can influence shots. He just needs to get stronger and concentrate on defense and develop a go-to move.” In February, Hawes is averaging 11.7 minutes, 5.4 points and 3.5 rebounds while shooting 50.9 percent.
Feb 27 Hawes scored a career-high 16 points off the bench on Tuesday, but the visiting Kings fell, 107-86, to the Miami Heat.
Advice: Hawes, the 10th overall pick last year, went 7-for-10 from the field in his best scoring performance since he had 10 points in a Feb. 6 loss to Seattle. Hawes, who has yet to make a start this season, is averaging 3.5 points in 48
I'll agree this is the type of move the Wolves should be trying to make. Maybe it's not as far-fetched as I'm thinking if McHale was able to unload Mark Blount's contract...
After looking over the vast wasteland of NBA centers as possible trade candidates, I'm doubtful the Wolves could do much better, that's for sure.
I don't know that I'd agree with the logic that Sacramento would have already traded Miller if they could get better, though. They may well have been waiting to see if Hawes was going to pan out first.
Great point. Maybe Miller does get moved this offseason if Hawes continues to gain management's confidence. And more than likely they can get a more legit return than salary cap relief. Then again salary cap space is very important.
Did you read Taylor's comments about free-agency in Sid's column? He said he would sign free-agents if their own free-agents (Gomes, Telfair, etc.) had left. I doubt he meant a name like Luol Deng, but that would be an unbelievable signing. Brewer at the two and Deng at the three would be awesome. Otherwise I don't know what he meant... if Telfair would leave, they would sign Chris Duhon? I don't know. I guess a lot still depends on the draft.
Here's another trade-o-matic move I'd make...
Shaddy McCants or Sea Bass for J.J. Redick. Remember Shaddy was close to getting moved to Houston for sharp-shooting Luther Head (according to PA last offseason).
I've pretty much gotten to the point that I take anything Taylor says with a grain of salt and anything printed in Sid's column with a rock of salt. :-)
Can't trade Bassy for Redick unless you re-sign Bassy first, in which case, I don't know why you'd turn around and trade him when he's the closest thing to a true PG we have, unless we get lucky enough to draft Derrick Rose.
I can't see trading Shaddy for Redick because Redick is too limited. Shaddy is easily the best pure scorer we have at guard right now. As much as I'd like to add more 3-point range, I wouldn't give up Shaddy to do it.
I could see something like Redick + Battie for Walker if Orlando wanted the cap space and to balance their roster a bit with another true SF, though. With Ratliff gone and Doleac probably not coming back, there could be a use for a veteran big man since Mad Dog appears to be a $2.5 million/yr cheerleader/community-builder.
I like that trade Snyder. Battie is out for the year I believe, but should be back next year. Could be a good utility frontcourt vet that Madsen doesn't fill, and we get the shooter that this team needs.
It's too bad management hasn't been able to make a trade that has gotten people excited. I can't remember the last time I was excited after the Wolves made a blockbuster deal. Getting Marko Jaric or Marc Jackson? Hardly.
Some simple question to Britt.
Does the Wolves front office read your column? Do you ever get the chance to share your opinions personally with Glen Taylor and/or Kevin McHale? Do they respect your opinions or do they ignore them?
I think everyone who reads this column thinks that you could do a better job than McHale.
One more question. What is the future of Holberg with the Wolves? I thought he was supposed to replaced McHale.
1. Grizz win, Grizz win, Grizz win. They tanked more than any team with that Lakers trade. If tanking is the concern, be joyful that they won and we gained a game on them for the lotto balls.
2. Brewer and McCants didn't play the Bobcat game. McCants did play the Jazz game, Brewer didn't. Both big losses. Be joyful that the Snyder review should be officially closed and Brewer and McCants should get more development time with the remaining games.
As for the Sonics loss, it was a relative improvement over the 2 previous games they had played against them and been blown out. Not to be too mien, but the lazy mien didn't miss any free throws and is shooting over 90% for the year. He also burnt Bowen when they last played and beat the Spurs. If the Sonics and Wolves could do a complete team swap right now, would you refuse?
3. I found irony in contrasting your predicted downward spiral of the Mavs/Suns with the opposite approach of the Wolves. Are you saying you'd be happier if the Wolves had used the trade deadline to acquire someone that could have won them 10 more games, still had no chance at the playoffs (they were mathematically out of the running for a 500 record, much less a playoff birth, at the all star break), and no top draft pick for next year to "build it"?
WLFB--
I say this every year about this time, but you're obviously new here and thinking you are asking an original question, so there are probably also others who need this said again.
I believe in playing hard and trying to maximize the talent you have on the roster while building for the future with your current personnel. I think that is the only way to be fair to fans who bought season tickets with the expectation that you would give them a season's worth of your best effort.
This means no Mark Madsen chucking three pointers on the final day of the season. It means no mysterious injuries to Kevin Garnett and/or Ricky Davis (or this year Al Jefferson). In my view, it means no specious buying out of players like Theo Ratliff, who could have helped this current ballclub develop some pride in defense and develop good habits, while allowing the cornerstone player Jefferson to operate at his natural position, the one I hope but no longer assume the Wolves are planning to play him at next season.
I think if you truly want to develop your kids, you work hard at doing just that. You also announce your expectations and what you are trying to see from certain players, so that fans can watch alongside the front office and thus feel that they know what they have invested in. You develop a substitution rotation and a pattern of play that you hope you can continue and expand upon in future seasons.
You try and establish some continuity. Go to the 82games.com website and look up the most frequent 5-man combinations for each team. You will notice that no 5-man lineup for Minnesota has played more than 172 minutes, a figure way way way below the frequency with which other teams' players have established familiarity with each other.
I'm not sure the team is consciously tanking right now; that's not the point here. The point is that winning games is a secondary mindset among members of the franchise right now, and people who pay good money to go watch their games deserve more of a commitment.
I think the best way to build for the future is by trying to create winning habits. I think you do that by preaching constant effort and backing it up with discipline in terms of substitution patterns. I think it means trying to find a good balance between developing your young players and getting your team in position to try and win every night you take the court. If that means you owe a draft pick that you foolishly included as part of a deal three years ago now, that you have purposefully tanked in order to hold on to two years running, well, I think sooner or later that bullet has to be bitten.
You seem to think it is smart or intelligent to half-ass it for five or six weeks on end in order to try and make something happen. I believe this is toxic behavior for a team. It is also very unreliable. You can't control the future. I notice that no one has accused Portland of trying to tank in recent years and yet the Trailblazers managed to land Brandon Roy, Lamarcus Aldridge and Greg Oden in the past two years alone, not counting all the picks they literally bought from Phoenix. All this and yet Portland fans did not have to suffer the indigity of blatant, purposeful losing. Meanwhile, the Celtics blatantly tried to tank for weeks on end last season, and if they had been successful, they would have gladly drafted Oden or Durant and stood pat. Instead, their plans went awry, they suddenly had to do something different, and viola--KG and Allen to go with Pierce.
If you want to root for Memphis to win or Minnesota to lose, for weeks on end, all so the Wolves get an extra two or three ping pong balls among hundreds bubbling around in a box four or five months from now, well, knock yourself out with your Rose vs. Beasley charts and let me know this summer whether all that lather was worth your time. Personally, I'd rather watch basketball games between two teams trying to do everything possible to beat each other. I'm funny that way--and yeah, I know, real naive.
1. Not new. Personal attempt to demean/ridicule/satisfy a superiority complex should fall under the ultimatum you gave a few blogs back about no more personal shots. Stay focused on the team. Not on what gets me off, which is definitely not college hoops and making player charts.
2. Fans are suckers and the management maximizes that in the hope of a couple big seasons that result in bandwagons for more years. The suckers will find reasons to support them win or lose (I've seen references to homers repeatedly on this blog, so the concept is understand even if the full perspective of its application is not), regardless of what you or anyone else believes. They don't buy season tickets unless they just want to guarantee a seat for star gazing, are happy to be in a building with people who drink (the upper deckers), are happy watching hoops regardless (addicts who actually get off on the circus sideshow of Madsen shooting 3s to end a season that was clearly already over, not to mention writers that can have fun with it or use it as if its a point), or are using them to promote some business end. This has been covered on this blog repeatedly. It's why they are able to act arrogantly. It's why the team still sold tickets when it was the hopeless new team in the pre-Garnett years. Fans will happily take a team with hope in place of a .500 record that borders the playoffs endlessly with no chance of ever becoming great. Besides, other than a tough Utah game, I don't see any evidence that they are not playing with their best effort nearly every night. I.e., you can accuse management of liquidating hope for this season, which was hopeless from the start so it seems pointless to do and repeat tediously yet again and again and again, but they clearly haven't told the players to stop playing.
3. The Boston/Portland comparison only proves that a team can end up having a great team whether they tank or not, provided they have a teams like the Wolves and Knicks to trade with. Fans will trade hope for a few quality games. Some naïve fans will demand wins immediately and wind up with a Knicks team, or a Cleveland team that gets manhandled by the team it traded with and a rookie center the Wolves could have drafted (taking the longer term developmental HOPE instead of the immediate obvious need even with Garnett on the roster). So we’re basically back at a talk radio endless discussion of fan preference. I’m funny in that I like what I read to have some point instead of meandering over issues that are purely opinion.
Mr. Robson-your response to WLFB was right on the mark. There is nothing I can add. I am an old guy who is a political and sports junkie. I do not read or post on blogs, except this one. It is a joy to read. Thanks for the best bb coverage in the TC area, and as good as any in the country..
Though I understand fans who pay for tickets want to see a competing team and I agree we should always compete I do think you can't forget the aspect of the "young" players.
Also, off course, it's different for me since the only tickets I can buy are the Europe Live tour ones, which are meaningless games anyway.
I think when a team that is counted out for the playoffs it's the perfect time to give their young guys, that haven't really had a chance all year to show what they got, an apportunity.
Last year Foye got extended burn and showed some great things. This year this would mean giving Richard some more minutes, which might actually in our speculation mean more winning.
All this is off course more true on a team that isn't rebuilding. I do understand that fans want value for their money and this isn't high school basketbal, you've gotta earn your playing time. On the other hand, you never know what you gonna see when you let some guys who haven't really had their chance, take it.
To be clear, I really agree that effort should be put in EVERY time (I'd even think that players who haven't had a chance might compete harder than players who've tried to make the playoffs but failed and for whom the season already feels lost). I also see no reason for extended burn for Madsen, especially not for him to throw 3pointers, that's crazy.
This discussion has probably been done many times before but hey it's my first year here and I'm very .. um .. arguative .. so sorry in advance :).
Losing on purpose is toxic. That is definitely true. While the idea of tanking might have some theoretical merit when you look at the whole situation from an outside perspective, in reality it is a huge mistake.
Anytime you lose on purpose as a professional athlete it is going against everything that you stand for and have worked for your entire life. It is like a Christian priest switching sides and working for Satan for the last few weeks of the year. Just for a few weeks he poisons people and curses them and backstabs and is a bad person. Can you imagine a person who could do that and maintain any character or principles? It boggles the mind that anyone could suggest this as a good idea.
Is it any wonder that our team can't be consistent and win games when they are trying to? This is what a culture of tanking does to an organization.
When you look at our Bball organization it all fits together. We have missed so many great picks and traded so many good players. Our front office has lied and been disingenuous so often. And then we lose games on purpose which is anathema to anything that a team of character stands for. It is no wonder that our team stands at the point that it is at, with the record that it has. And tanking is just part of the whole disfunction.
I've been out of town, and haven't seen the last three games that seem to have everyone on this board singing a different tune than last week. I noticed that our next 9 games are all against non-playoff teams, so if what we're seeing is tanking, I guess we can expect more of it. The Seattle and Memphis games should be especially ugly, as we secure our spot at the bottom of the West.
Since there is some Spurs talk on here, and also plenty of anti-tanking sentiments, the 1996-97 Spurs season is worth mentioning. A 20-62 record that season landed them the top pick and sparked one of the great dynasties in NBA History. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a single bad season surrounded by so many good ones, but if we do strike gold for the first time since 1995, there will be a lot better games to watch and more fans filling the seats. To me, and probably others on here, that sounds better than short-term solutions to better entertain the fans for two months.
Without having seen the games, it looks from the box scores like they're playing our best guys, except for Snyder over Shaddy. As a fan in tanking season, you can't get too upset to see Telfair/Foye/McCants/Jefferson each get 28+ minutes of action. That is, unless those players are throwing the games while they're out there, which is a whole new level of tanking.
Andy G--
Are you aware of what happened to the Spurs in 96-97? They didn't tank. Their best player, David Robinson, missed 76 of 82 games with a bad back. Their second or third best player, Sean Elliott, missed 43 games with a strained quad--it wasn't a fake, unless you believe he also wanted to do it again the very next year with Duncan and the Admiral on the roster, missing 46 games this time with the same injury.
Even with Robinson pretty much out all year and Elliott out for more than half of it (37 year old Dominique Wilkins was their leading scorer at less than 16 ppg), the Spurs finished with the 3rd worst record in the NBA, which means their best chance was for the third pick, who turned out to be Chauncey Billups. The second pick was Keith Van Horn. Picks #4,5, and 6 were Antonio Daniels, Tony Battie and Ron Mercer. All these players stood at least as good a chance of becoming a Spur as did Duncan when the ping pong balls were bubbling around.
So you see, the notion that the Spurs purposefully tanked in order to get Tim Duncan really is a stretch, and, even if true, involved a phenomenal amount of luck. Meanwhile, the reason the Duncan pick remains so memorable is that the Spurs have been able to surround with a pheonmenal amount of talent. The Spurs subsequently took Manu Ginobili with the 57th pick in the 1999 draft, long after Minnesota had snatched up both Wally Szczerbiak and Louis Bullock. And the Spurs took Tony Parker with the 28th pick in 2001, when the Wolves were being penalized a pick for the Joe Smith signing. Last but not least, Gregg Popovich became coach of the Spurs in 1997.
I'm aware that SA sat Robinson all year, but have also heard and read a lot of speculation that his sore back didn't warrant a 76-game leave of absence. Also, the "Duncan Draft" was one of the famous ones for having a clear-cut blue-chipper at the top of the draft. It was like LeBron's and Oden's, in terms of hype. This year's isn't quite like that, but it does look like there are two guys headed for stardom, in Beasley and Rose.
As for SA loading up Duncan with "phenomenal talent," one of the SA titles came in Duncan's second season, when his phenomenal surrounding cast was the aging Admiral, and a slew of veterans like Avery Johnson and Mario Elie. Another of his titles came in 2003, when he had the likes of rookie Ginobili, 2nd year (and 20-year old) Parker, and 37-year old Admiral. In other words, two of his four titles came when Duncan was, by far, their best player. So, that pick was a hugely important part of their dynasty, and they wouldn't have won a single title without it. In fact, taking away those lucky picks that you mentioned, and replacing them with just average front office moves, I think SA would've had plenty of seasons where TD was surrounded by better talent than Avery Johnson/Mario Elie or extremely inexperienced Parker/Ginobili. As for the other two titles, you're right that he was surrounded by quality talent.
I realize that tanking, or just being at the top of the ping-pong ball count, doesn't always produce great results, but A) I certainly think it improves your chances, and "improved chances" is all we can do at this point; and B) I don't even see major tanking going on with MN. We haven't sat Jefferson, like SA sat Robinson--and we're playing Foye--(who would be easy to sit and blame the knee flaring up)--McCants, Telfair and all other guys that may be part of the future. Without having seen the last three games, isn't it possible that they just hit a bad stretch, which tends to happen to the bottom teams in the league? I'll catch the next games, so my comments are better informed.
I replied before reading your WLFB reply. That pretty much clears up your tanking position. I'm not advocating for sitting Jefferson, or any young player, but just not in favor of playing guys like Ratliff and Walker, whose on-court presence might bolster some confidence and help win 3-5 additional games down the stretch, but not enough to outweigh the long-term effect of missing out on a top 2 or 3 pick.
While reading the latest writeup here, I was struck by a thought that both scares the bejeezus out of me and reinforces my belief that Derrick Rose is the absolute best-case scenario for this team, not Beasley.
The thought was that if any team in the league were going to boldly soldier on ahead with a stupid decision, completely disregarding common sense, statistical proof and whatever reason you can think of that proves said decision is stupid, it would be the Wolves. I'm referring, of course, to the possibility of playing Al as a full-time 5, something no one in their right mind outside of the Twolves FO seems to think is a good idea.
See, I've been clinging to the belief that if we do somehow land Beasley, it would be to play him at the 3 spot next to Al in hopes of creating an unstoppable combo of mega-talented scoring forwards. A combo we could ultimately complete with that oft-mentioned defensive center to form a well-rounded front court... because that's what makes sense, right? You maximize your strengths while covering your weaknesses and you strive to assemble a team that is as effective defensively as it is offensively, because, if history has told us anything it's that defense DOES win championships.
Yet I just can't shake this feeling that the FO thinks Jefferson's future is as a C. If this is the case and we land Beasley, we may seriously be looking at a future front court consisting of a 6'8-9 PF and a 6'9 3/4" C, neither of whom possess anything remotely resembling above-average size or defensive prowess for their position. This is just speculation, and maybe things have changed and we're just playing Al at the 5 for some other reason, but when we think about the future of the Wolves can we really put our trust in them to make the obvious moves?
This, again, is why I hope Rose falls into our lap somehow. Unlike abandoning all hope of ever stopping another team in favor of the historically unsuccessful strategy of small ball, there's just no way we could misuse a a guy like Rose. If you draft him, it's to play him at his natural position, nothing else. No experimenting with undersized lineups or moves that necessitate playing your best player out of position.. This is why I am praying to the Twolf gods, right here in the open, for the luck we need to land Rose.
Beasley vs. Rose...blah, blah, blah. No offense to you Xand. But I have been reading these same comments since November.
People...we don't have any idea where we are picking yet. What is the point of getting so emotionally invested in these two players?
Check out last trey's comments. I had the same "light-popping-on" thing where I thought the same. Let's hope we're wrong and they're not gonna do this...
Thankfully I didn't watch last night's game, but I'm wondering what Gomes was doing?
He line was awful: nearly 30 minutes of burn, 1-4 from the field with no free throws, 3 boards, 0 assists and 4 fouls.
Gomes has done little to show he's capable of being a consistent impact player in this league. Too often he appears to be sleep walking through games lately. People who think the Wolves should overpay to keep may want to rethink that. Too bad the Wolves didn't draft Thornton, at least he'd be fun to watch.
Is it just me or is watching the Wolves offense (such as it is) infuriating as hell? It makes absolute sense that option 1 is to get the ball in to Big Al in the post as early as possible, but does this have to be option 2 and 3 and 4, ad infinitum? When a team, like Utah, is very effective at denying the pass into the post, there has to be a way to respond. Instead, the Wolves continue to pass around the perimeter, looking for an entry point, until the shot clock is about to expire and then chuck up an ill advised shot.
There were times when Snyder, Foye and Telfair would drive the lane, resulting in the defense breaking down, but this didn't happen often enough. Plus, on a team with few good shooters, there just aren't enough people to kick the ball out to when the defense collapses into the lane. It also hurts that the Wolves have no one with even a smidgen of D-Will's amazing court vision.
Earlier this season I was very patient with this team and managed to get some enjoyment out of watching their games. There was quite a stretch where, even if the games resulted in losses, that it was evident that the Wolves were giving it a lot of effort and were playing pretty intelligently. It's a different story in the last couple of weeks. I cannot stand to watch these half-assed efforts any longer. I don't care how many all-you-can-eat hot dog nights this *$&#*$ team promises me.
I agree. It's not so much this team sucks, we all knew they would, it's that they're so inept offensively that they're boring and keep repeating themselves. Bad and boring is the worst combination in professional sports, with the possible exception of bad, boring and lethargic, which this team also has been.
The Knicks are pathetic, but a strong case can be made that they're so dysfunctional that they're actually more fun to follow than the Wolves (not to mention they have twice as many wins) because of the soap opera factor.
For people into good basketball writing I recommend reading Howard Beck's Knicks articles for the NY Times. He is often laugh-out-loud funny when describing the Knicks epic dysfunction. I've been addicted all season.
Oops Knicks record is nearly as bad as the Wolves.
Question: Do you think 'toine's circumstances has anything to do with the recent poorer Wolves performances?
I'm not convinced that the Pistons brought their A game to the Garden last night. The Pistons were on the tail end of a back-to-back whereas the Celtics were well rested. But the Cavs exposed the Pistons bare behinds last season. A Pistons-Celtics series would be entertaining. KG plays Sheed like a banjo. Sheed is hyperactive and inpatient to a fault. KG just puts him in the popcorn popper.
As for our humbling Wolves, if this season is an audition for the last 5 standing, I vote blow them up and start over. Even Big Al was shooting bricks.
Despite the poor audio last evening, I prefer the TV guyz over the radio guyz. The rads are just to sophomoric for me. At times last night it sounded like Billy had to insert himself in order to get his points across. He seemed much more informative and not as much the jester. He provided some helpful commentary along with Jim Pete.
If I were a betting man, I would have bet my house that the T-wolves would have lost by 15+ pts last night to the Jazz.
Jerry Solan is one of competitive people ever associated with the NBA. He was that way as a player, he is that way now as a coach.
HIs team was uncharacteristically unprepared to face the T-wolves last week. They took the T-wolves lightly, which, even against the worse of teams, is not the way to win in the NBA. Solan knows that well - and he was not going to repeat the mistake at home.
With that said - did anyone really not expect the Jazz to come out smoking last night looking for pay back?
I don't remember if it was Tom Kelly or Ron Gardenhire who once talked about the season as being "1/3rds". You were going to win a 1/3 of your games because you are suppose to win them and you are going to lose a 1/3 because you are suppose to lose them. The key is to a successful season then became how many of the middle 1/3 do you win.
Chalk up last nights game, at least from me, as one that we were expected to lose. No hand wringing here.
The Timberwolves are very lucky to have a fan who sees a 29-point loss that wasn't even *that* close, a game in which one of the starters states the obvious and concedes that the ballclub literally gave up, as simply being one of the 1/3 of the games his team wasn't going to win anyway, so no big deal.
Hey, here's an idea: Let's identify those games ahead of time, give our main players some much needed rest (last night was the tail end of a home-road back-to-back after all) and simply mail it in. No hand wringing necessary.
There's a pack of $25 lower level season ducats with your name on them, Just A Fan.
Britt,
I did not see the game last night. So my comments did not address effort, or anything factually surrounding the game. My comments center around the proposition "DId you really expect the T-wolves to win?".
When a less talented team sneaks up and beats a superior team, the odds are very strong that, if they play again in a few weeks, the superior team is going to spank the less talented squad. Especially with a fierce competitor like Jerry Solan in the opposing coaching chair.
If you are going to state that the team should compete every night, I concur completely. If you are going to say that they need to expend 100% energy in that effort, I concur too. But if you believe that every game should have equivalent expectations for victory, you and I will simply need to agree to disagree. There are times when even the most optimistic realize the chances to win are small. Which was last night in my book.
Finally, the section 104 season ticket that my company shares (thanks to the creative ticket agents) are just fine, so I don't think I will be down grading to the $25 ones. But I do appreciate your suggestion.
JaF--
I understand your pique, and apologize for the snotty tone. But the circumstance of "payback" vs. the Jazz was precisely why I led with the quotes from Bassy and Snyder: "we gave up" and "we broke down." I felt as if you purposefully ignored the lack of effort, and in doing so forgave it, when you essentially said, "What do you expect? I have no problem with it."
I daresay had you watched the game, you might have felt differently. And if you concur that the team needs to compete with 100% effort every night, well, I think I provided evidence that that didn't happen. Your choice is to care, i.e., "wring your hands" about it, or not.
Britt,
Hey, no offense taken. My comments probably were not as well written as the could have been either.
As a fan (wink wink), I expect 100% effort, 100% of the time from the team I am supporting. Anything less is just unacceptable. I did not give Snyder's comments much thought, but really should have jumped on Bassy's. Giving up is NOT allowed in any circumstances. To hear Bassy, who I think has been the surprise of the season with his performance and effort, say give up is a really indictment on a number of players (and 1 head coach).
I think I am glad I missed the game.
I will just add that after the Wolves victory over the Jazz at home I was dissappointed to learn they still had three games to play with the Jazz. I was pretty certain Sloan would be out for revenge and would not let the Wolves have much room for victory in their remaining games together. I'm not sure if it is Sloan, superior talent, or just more experience on the Jazz, but my immediate thoughts after our win were the same as jfans.
and as he says, not that that excuses the effort, but...
I'll just be happy if we ever get to a point when the Wolves get beat we anticipate the next meeting with the team that beat us so we can get revenge. Will that ever happen? When? next year?
I have to side with Britt here, the squad looked like everyone had some of Shaddy's food. May main issue isn't effort (although there's a strong argument to be made there), it's that more than half of the Wolves players simply don't belong on this team. Jaric looked like the guy you don't need to defend in a Sunday rec game, and there's not a ton he bring to a building team which isn't replicated by Brewer (and Snyder, to be honest). Walker is T-Hud 2.0 who happens to be 6'9". Richard, while a rookie, makes me pine for the Rasho days. Madsen is a punchline. There simply isn't much to get excited about besides Al and the fact that we now have our first legit backup PG since Anthony Carter.
Yee-hah.
Given all of the above I am still optimistic regarding the future. Being a 50 win team 3 or 4 years from now is much better than being a 50-win team during the next couple of seasons. Al is a future All-Star, Shaddy will go to the Clippers at some point to get our protected #1 back, Brewer will be an all-defensive second teamer, and Foye will work out as a small 2. They're a few decent picks (I know, that's assuming quite a bit given the team's history) away from having a team worth watching on a consistent basis. Until then, it will just be us die-hards and those who get shoehorned into the $25 season tix.
It will be interesting to see how Cleveland plays when their injuries heal up. With Gibson and Wally on the perimeter I'm not so sure Boston and Detroit are the odds-on favorite anymore. Eastern teams can deal with players like KG and Sheed...keep 'em in check. There's simply no answer for Mr. James.
As for Phoenix and Dallas...I'm betting the Suns miss out on the playoffs to the Nuggets. Phoenix is toast. Dallas can still play with the big boys as they showed against LA.
That being said, as a former Texan, I have to point out that you're missing the most dangerous team of all...the one with the best 4/5 combo of all time, the quickest point guard, and the 30-minute Kobe.
S&P--
When you have to claim a loss as your primary evidence for defending a team's playoff chances in the ruggest Western Conference, that should tell you something.
And if you've ever read me in the past, you know I'm a stone SA backer.
I know you're a SA fan. I just happen to be a former Hill Country boy who has to go out of his way to remind people about the defending champs ;)
You're spot on about Dallas. However, it is likely that only 1 of the 2 (Suns and Mavs) are going to fall out of playoff contention. Portland's too far back and Denver is the only one within striking range. Dallas and Phoenix are 4 and 3 games from being out of the playoffs. Portland is 7 from getting in.
PS: As you may be able to tell from my former Texas residence and my comments about the dancing geek billionaire, you may have guessed where my Lone Star b-ball loyalties lie. I'd love it if Dallas missed the playoffs.