Copyright 2008 NBAE (Photo by Noah Graham/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #61, Road Game #30: Minnesota 111, Sacramento 103
Game #62, Road Game #31: Minnesota 99, Los Angeles Clippers 96
Season Record: 14-48
1. The Exploits of Foye
The beat writers from the Strib and PiPress had the dominant story arc of last night's Clippers game down pat, perhaps best summed up by the Strib headline: Telfair injury positions Foye to excel. The severe ankle sprain Telfair suffered in the first half of Friday night's win over Sacramento enabled Foye to take over the spot for which he feels he is best suited. He responded with a superb game: 26 points, 6 assists, zero turnovers, and the sort of heroic 4th quarter leadership that has given him special cache--and a crucial edge in his ongoing battle with Rashad McCants for primary sidekick status alongside Al Jefferson.
While this was exactly the sort of signature Foye contribution that his boosters claim will be a fairly regular occurrence once he's fully recovered from this season's insidious knee injury, it was not his best performance of the year. That would be the "four score and 20" triumph in the first meeting with Utah, when Foye was being guarded by someone with enough height and athleticism to prevent him from taking total carte blanche on his menu of court moves. The Clips, alas, have had a procession of points fall by the wayside, beginning with Shaun Livingstone's terrible knee injury, continuing with Sam Cassell's classic 18-month warrantly expiration as a useful teammate (he's been shipped to Boston), and concluding with solid sub Brevin Knight riding the pine with a sore neck. That left it up to undersized (6-0) journeyman Dan Dickau and the even smaller (5-10) D-Leaguer Andre Barrett to try and stop Foye.
And in the first half, it looked like that would be enough. Coach Randy Wittman paired Foye with Marko Jaric in the backcourt to start the game. But when Marko had his lumbering drive blocked by center Chris Kamen and then Kamen and Cuttino Mobley caught Foye flat-footed on an easy dish at the hoop, Witt swapped in McCants for Jaric at 6:16 of the first. In those first five and a half minutes, Foye had 2 points and one assist and the Wolves were down 4. With Shaddy on the court, the Clips no longer had the luxury of throwing Dickau on either Jaric or Foye, giving Foye an advantageous matchup with Dickau (and then Barrett) at both ends, one he converted into 7 points, a second dime, and a plus +6 stretch for the Wolves over the final 6:16 of the period.
The second quarter was an offensive disaster. Telfair's pace was sorely missed, as Foye and Jaric split the minutes with almost equal ineptitude. Aside from their minutes played they had *no stat line*--no shot attempts or makes, no rebounds, assists, turnovers, steals, etc.--until Foye found Gomes open for a jumper with 1:09 to play in the half. Meanwhile, the kid from NC State, Josh Powell, did a nice job harrassing Jefferson (as he did the first time they played) into 3-6 FG after Big Al had gone 4-5 FG in the first period, Gomes hit 2-4 FG and the rest of the squad bricked 1-10 FG, and chipped in just 2 foul shots besides, for an ugly 14-point quarter. At the other end, Al Thornton laid waste to the Wolves' smallish forwards for 11 points and 5 rebounds in the period, Jaric and Foye allowed Dickau and Barrett to go 4/0 assists to turnovers, and the Clips carried a 47-39 lead into the locker room.
The third quarter felt like the team stirred a synergy last demonstrated versus Utah (although I didn't see Sacto Friday night) and the key ingredient was Foye's penetration. One of the things that made Flip Saunders such an outstanding offensive tactician was his ability to recognize and relentlessly exploit mismatches. Foye--even the Foye still rusty from injury--versus Dickau or Barrett was just such a mismatch, and whether Wittman or one of his coaches or Foye himself figured it out in the locker room at intermission, it powered the Wolves to a 34-point quarter--20 more than the second period.
Just like some missed shots are as bad as a turnover, some are as good as an assist, and so it was when Foye took it to the hole. Because he was too strong and quick for the Clip points to deter him, he inevitably drew a crowd at the hoop. His 3-6 FG line underrates his positive aggression, with only one of those misses--a wayward trey-- detrimental. On the other two, both layup attempts, Gomes followed up with his own layup and was fouled by Dickau, and Jefferson tipped in his own putback. Foye also was fouled going to the hoop--by bigs Tim Thomas and Kamen, and by Barrett at the end of the quarter--knocking down 5-6 FT for the period. And his dribble penetration freed up the double-teams on Jefferson, and enabled Gomes to play his sneaky smart game. The bottom line was 11 points apiece for Foye (who added three official assists in addition to his missed layup assists) and Gomes, and 8 for Jefferson--30 of the team's 34 for the period, producing 52 FG%. Minnesota was down five but had momentum heading into the final period.
The 4th quarter comeback was greatly abetted by Clippers' stupidity, especially coach Mike Dunleavy's perculiar notion to do away with a point guard for the final 8:15 of the game. [Update: At least one commenter believes it was in response to the Wolves' zone, which is certaintly possible.] At that point, for all their faults, Dickau was plus +9 and Barrett a mere minus -1, making the Clips up 8 at 83-75. When you put Mobley and Maggette in your backcourt without a point guard, ill-advised three-pointers reign. After shooting 49% FG, 5-13 from outside the arc, and 21-23 FT through three quarters, the Clips were a heedless 2-8 from trey territory, spurring a putrid 6-20 FG performance further undercut by just 4-4 FT for 18 points. And at the other end, the Clips big lineup compelled Wittman to go with a front line of Jefferson-Smith-Gomes, just the right combo for Smith to wheel and deal for 6 points and 4 rebounds, and for Gomes to shut down Thornton, who went 0-4 FG with just one rebound while playing the entire 12 minutes.
And that set up Foye's heroics. Inserted back into the game (after Jaric rose to the occasion with some perimeter deflections on D in the big lineup) with 3:15 to play and the Wolves up 2, Foye scored the last 6 points for his team--the first a cold-blooded jumper off a feed from Smith that seesawed the one-point margin back to Minnesota, 95-94, with 1:15 to play; and the second his patented right-lane running banker which made it 97-94 with 10 seconds to go. Here's where the Clips' stupidity reached epic heights. After chucking treys all period, Maggette chose to dribble *inside the arc* and offer up a two-pointer that brought the Clips to 97-96, but with just 2 seconds to play, as Dunleavy made a face like he was shitting BBs on the sideline. To finish the drama, Foye was fouled, canned them both, and the Wolves had their first back-to-back wins on the road this season.
2. Not in the Box Score
During his rookie season two years ago. Rashad McCants was frequently lost on defense, selfish on offense, and petulant in attitude at both ends of the court. When the Wolves went into full tank mode very late in the year, McCants showed flashes of incredible offensive talent. Last year, felled by his microfracture surgery, I developed a real affection for the way McCants had seemed to make himself over. From his willingness to participate in any and every silly Wolves promotion to his constant presence around the team even when wearing street clothes, to his open adoration of Kevin Garnett, to the way he bulked himself up, obviously dying to do *something* to keep himself in shape, Shaddy seemed much less of a punk. What's more, the nuances of his play once he did finally hit the court, especially on defense, indicated that he had a clue about how to play, and made me pull for him.
That's a windy prelude to noting that McCants had probably his finest game while scoring in single digits thus far in his NBA career. After playing with enormous discipline and tact for three periods--a time in which he'd attempted only 4 shots, and made but one, in 19:14, only to have a team-best plus +6--McCants came out with that tunnel-visioned score or (more frequently) bust mentality that makes you want to strangle him. He jacked up four shots in the first 2:43 of the final quarter, missing them all, as the Clips pushed the lead from 5 to 8.
Then something clicked back on, and the "good Shaddy" reasserted himself. He collared the rebound on an Al Thornton miss and fed Craig Smith in stride with a left-handed sweep pass for a layup. He facilitated ball movement and concentrated on getting it inside to Jefferson and Smith, and guarded Maggette closely on the wing. When the Wolves had pulled within 4 at 81-85, he fed Corey Brewer for a jumper at the foul line, a perfect set-up, then ran the floor and got a pass from Brewer off a steal from Jaric to tie the game with a transition layup. He canned another jumper to put the Wolves back in front, 93-91, with 2:03 to play.
Now that Antoine Walker is more or less history for this season, no other player can effectively spread the floor like McCants operating on the wing. The biggest beneficiary of this is Jefferson, and it is no coincidence that last night against the Clips, the Jefferson-McCants tandem were the only Timberwolves around for three terrific runs, a 12-2 spurt near the end of the first quarter and a pair of 8-0 bursts late in the third and midway through the fourth quarters. For the game, Shaddy, who was 3-11 FG and had just 7 points, finished with a team-best plus +16 in 31:06, meaning the Wolves were minus -19 in the 16:54 he sat. Compare this to Randy Foye's net zero in 39:04 worth of action. (And yes, it helped that, unlike Foye, Shaddy didn't have to play with Kirk Snyder or Jaric very often.)
Plus/minus can undeniably be a funky stat. But here's a pretty good sample size from 82games.com, which doesn't count this weekend's two victories. In the 1444 minutes that McCants was not on the court in Minnesota's first 60 games, the Wolves scored a flat 98 points per 48 minutes while yielding 111.2, for a net minus -347. In the 1440 minutes Shaddy was playing--almost exactly the same amount of time he sat--the Wolves were a titch worse on defense, giving up a flat 112 points per 48. But on offense, they averaged 105.9 points, a whopping 7.9 points per game more than when McCants wasn't a perimeter threat, for a net minus -122. That's why Shaddy's plus/minus totals, while still very much in the minus (this is a 14-48 ballclub, after all), are much better than any of the other players with significant minutes.
To put it bluntly, McCants is probably his own worst enemy, both in his bouts of ball hogging and his sporadically disagreeable personality. It is very hard to set that aside and just watch what kind of an impact he exerts on the court, but try it and discover his value. Unfortunately, it is also important to note that with his team up one in the final seconds, McCants clanked a jumper (that Craig Smith managed to wrestle away from Tim Thomas, a great play appropriately applauded by Jim Petersen), yet another time when McCants didn't nail the J when crunch time was getting particularly crunchy. So, the debate continues.
Three other things not noted by the box score alone: As he demonstrated yet again today,Ryan Gomes is most valuable on a very good team, and thus a barometer of how well the other Wolves are performing. I didn't get the specific stat, but I heard something from Hanny to the effect that the Wolves rarely if ever lose when Gomes scores more than 15 points. In any event, although it isn't the sort of thing that jumps out at you, when the Wolves play intelligently, talking on defense and share the ball on offense, Gomes shines. I can't imagine a better complementary piece for the Celtics--he'll be a better Posey in the next few years, or a Shane Battier, simply all-purpose glue, whether it is as a starter or a superb placeholder. Can the Wolves wait to improve enough to maximize that value, that ability to round out a squad?
There is also no box score citation for Al Jefferson really rolling his ankle on a baseline jumper where he came down on Powell's foot. But Jefferson's ability to will himself through the pain, and not only sink the resulting free throws but move in the lane and sink a bunny hook on the very next possession, was the kind of grit that inspires a team making a 4th quarter run. And it indeed coincided with a Wolves spurt that tied the game from eight points down in the 4th.
Last there was a play Corey Brewer made in the second quarter where he blatantly pushed Al Thornton just as Thornton had established primo position in the paint and was about the receive the feed. Two things about it: One, that there is no way Brewer can contain someone like Thornton down low, pointing out how his frailty hinders even the strongest part of his game, which is defensive tenacity. Two, the rook is incredibly smart on the court and mentally does something at least once or twice a game that really benefits the team--last night, the Clips didn't score on the ensuing in-bounds play in the half court, meaning Brewer's foul saved them two points.
There is a lot of debate about how Minnesota should have taken Thornton instead of Brewer, and Thornton's performance in the second period offers a pretty good testimonial for that viewpoint. It is pretty clear that Thornton is a superior athlete. But this is also a guy who has already had a 10-turnover game, and who frequently endures horrible shooting nights that are more 3-15 FG than 1-5 or 2-8. I think the current gap between what Thornton is delivering in the aggregate versus what Brewer contibutes is at its widest point right now. I expect it to diminish and perhaps swing in Brewer's direction, within the next 3-4 years. Right now, advantage Thornton. Later: ?
3. Miscellaneous
The release of Gerald Green by the Rockets coupled with the occasional lift Kirk Snyder has provided indicates that Kevin McHale's modest little string of positive trades continues. Still, there is a chippy side to Snyder that is worrisome. He's already been tossed out of one game, and when he picked up a silly tech in a recent home game (either Seattle or Charlotte), Wittman screamed "No more!" at him in the huddle. More to the point, unless Brewer's thigh bruise is particularly troublesome, having Snyder snatch minutes from the rook and/or McCants is not a trend this team should continue unless he's really throttling the other team's best swingman.
Telfair's injury is actually good timing. Bassy has proven what he can (and can't) do, to the point where management and the rest of the league front offices can set a market value and offer him work at the end of this year. Meanwhile, Foye gets to prove he really can be a point guard, Jaric won't pout as much, and we'll see more of the Foye/McCants tandem and its effect on how teams defend Jefferson--all good things.
For those who missed my little announcement in the comments last time, I'm back to playing god in what comments are or aren't going to remain. Folks who arrive with an outsized chip on the shoulders or who for some other reason don't mesh with what I regard as the high standard of civility and intelligence that the overwheming majority of commenters have established, will see their remarks disappear. Life's too short to countenance assholes unless absolutely necessary. I understand that not everybody will agree with me--or, more specifically, most everybody will at some point not agree with me--but to the extent we keep it respectful and about the game, everybody's life is easier and more stress-free. Especially mine. So thanks for the consideration.
I like the day dreaming aspects of the "what ifs". Though, first, Garnett would have had to approve any trade. If the Wolves PR man wants to deny the Bulls offer was ever on the table, that's up to him. But the rumor at the time was that the Wolves management gave the OK on the deal with Chicago, but it was Garnett who put the kybosh on it.
I also think that different situations help different players. Tyson Chandler has taken full opportunity of his new situation. He's not splitting time with another big (Eddy Curry). He has a special talent at point guard as well and a very different coach.
Monta Eliis is taking full of a Don Nelson no defense necessary type open court running system. He never has had to be a leading scoring option in Golden State either.
Who's to say who we would have drafted. As he points out in the article, we have made some sketchy draft choices...as recently as 2006 NBA draft. But a lot of teams choices in the draft don't pan out. I detail our faults because they are more pertinent. But a lot of teams missed out on these players too. look back to the 2003 NBA draft, we took Ndudi Ebi over Kendrick Perkins, Josh Howard, Leandro Barbosa, Jason Kapono, Luke Walton, Mo Williams, Steve Blake and Kyle Korver.
Let's look at the 2005 NBA draft, where we took Bracy Wright over Ryan Gomes a guy who we'd eventually trade for, or even Rashad McCants over Danny Granger, David Lee, Luther Head and Jarett Jack... all of whom have showed more professionalism and durability than McCants.
In 2006, yes it looks to be a mistake trading Roy for Foye. But what has Adam Morrison done? Sheldon Williams? Andrea Bargnani? Patrick O'Bryant? Mouhamad Sene? J.J. Redick?
All teams screw up in the draft... Some players need a different atmosphere to bloom in. Billups anyone? Chandler? And had Baron Davis ever made it to the playoffs before Golden State? Did Memphis make it to the playoffs more than 1 time with Gasol?
He seems to think you can transfer the atmosphere they are in now, and transplant it back in time and things/ players would pan out the same. I just don't buy it.
But- what it does come down to is that you can add up GM mishaps... and you can scrutinize their record in deals, draft, hiring of coaches etc... Because isn't the GM the common demoninator? The constant?
I won't feel offended if you erase this Briit :P I'm just rambling --taking my mandatory strikes at the management (the man)
"But the rumor at the time was that the Wolves management gave the OK on the deal with Chicago, but it was Garnett who put the kybosh on it."
Maybe I missed it, but I never heard that rumor at the time and I've followed the Wolves pretty closely. Garnett put the kybosh on the early Boston deal, thats the only time I ever heard that Garnett was involved in nixing a deal by management. Maybe, something got by me though.
A very interesting Bill Simmons column, playing "What if?" on a variety of NBA scenarios. Many of them involve the Wolves moving KG, and are especially critical of McHale for not pulling the trigger on deals with Chicago and Golden State. (For the record, Wolves PR guy Mike Cristaldi hates these kinds of columns because he claims that many of the deals supposedly on the table for KG were never offered.)
Anyway, here's the link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080310
Mr. Cristaldi's point is well taken, unfortunately "deals and rumors of deals" abound in the NBA, heck, sports in general. For example, a couple of years ago, I actually had a fairly well connected U of MN alum swear that they heard Flip Saunders say that he was coming back to coach the "U'. But all very "hush hush", you know.
"Everyone" should know that good business people should rarely, if ever, talk publicly about deals that may (or may not) have been offered. Especially in a business like the NBA where the pool of possible partners is actually pretty small and well known to each other. Personally, I never place any credence in stories like this one from Bill Simmons or anyone else (from Sid Hartman on "up").
But I just had to laugh when I read Simmons opine:
"I'm starting to think McHale might not be a very good GM."
Good morning Mr. Simmons. How does the coffee smell?
Bill Simmons has been bashing McHale for a *very* long time.
I saw that, but disagree with his take (assuming the G.S. and Chicago deals were actually out there). He sarcastically implies that McHale was an idiot to take Al Jefferson & Co. over Ellis/Biedrins/Harrington/#8 Pick and Deng//Chandler/#4 pick. Almost every NBA Champion in history has had a HOF post player, and we got a 23-year old with that type of potential. Those groups were certainly more established than the Boston group, but they would essentially lock us up in the purgatory that we're all too familiar with in MN, good enough to barely make the playoffs with no realistic shot of winning them. Part of the trade was dropping first to the bottom, getting our 4th straight lottery pick, which should be a higher one than the last three, and taking off from there to (hopefully) a place higher than Monta Ellis has Golden State going or higher than Luol Deng has Chicago going. I'm more comfortable stockpiling young assets around a 23-year old low-post scoring machine than I am essentially trading places with Chicago or Golden State, two teams that are very unlikely to challenge for a title with their current core groups. For all we know, Foye or McCants may become better than Ellis, and Brewer may become better than Deng. I don't think either case is that far-fetched. If either happens, we'll be happy that we chose to build around Big Al, and not a swing player that may never make an all-star team.
I love Simmons writing, but disagree with his KG trade analysis. Blockbuster trades boil down to the stars. Everything else is filler or guys you can find elsewhere. So for me, what it comes down to is who would you rather have, Al Jefferson, Deng, or nobody (GS). Ellis is a good player (especially for that system), but he's no star, and could barely even get off the bench during last years playoff run.
Yeah, the more I think about it, that Golden State trade would have been monumentally stupid. That group of guys plus megastar Baron Davis is a 7 or 8 seed at best right now in the West. With Foye and McCants, they'd be worse than that, and yet good enough to stay out of the high lottery. Man, that would've really pissed me off.
Simmons writes really funny columns, but his basketball insights are overrated by his cult following. He covers the whole league, though, as well as other major sports, so I can forgive some ignorance on teams like Minnesota.
AndyG - there's no doubt in my mind that sportswriter Simmons was basically filling up column inches in search of his paycheck. And I thought that my antipathy for both Simmons and, yep, McHale were obvious by my last line.
Sure, the trade for Jefferson with Boston was better than the supposed Golden State or Chicago trades. But to me, even "needing" to do a trade for KG should chafe Wolves fans' nether regions because it was the culmination of over a decade's worth of bad decisions by McHale. The Wolves actually *HAD* a definite Hall Of Fame post player and squandered his talents.
Now as to whether Al Jefferson has H.O.F. potential, it's clear that he's got a long, long, way to go:
http://www.databasebasketball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=JEFFEAL01
And it's a pretty safe bet that he won't make it playing center.
While I'm railing a bit here, let me ask a serious question: Is it Wittman or McHale that is responsible for lining Jefferson up at the "5" virtually every night?
I was only commenting on the trade scenarios mentioned in the article, not on prior mistakes by management or failures by players.
Not sure what that HOF stat is about, but I think a 23 year-old, 6'10" post player that averages 21 and 12, all while fighting through (literally) double and triple teams, has the "potential" to one day be a HOF'er. I'm not slapping any guarantee on it, since he'll need a better play-making guard, or at least better perimeter shooters to relieve the inordinate amount of attention that defenses can currently give him. Also, you're right that he'd benefit from a move to the 4-spot, but I expect management and Wittman realize that will need to happen in the future.
If Jefferson never progresses ( I think he will) and still manages to averages 21 and 12 the next 10 years, he will be in the HOF.
I think there's a few stretches in that, though I agree that Jefferson is something special, he appears to need to play PF to be a truly great player. Unfortunately, that may never happen.
Something else that might not happen is this 14 win team transforming into a solid team with these players. Just because Jefferson is 23, doesn't mean that the front office will do the logical thing of "stockpiling young assets around a 23 year old low post scoring machine". They failed for 10 years to stockpile around an even younger high post machine.
Henry Lake was talking with TT on KFAN and mentioned that Jefferson could run through his contract with the TWolves still stinking it up outside of the playoffs. Does anyone realistically think we can beat the Trailblazers in our own division during the next decade? The only thing that we have to go on is potential, but excepting for PF, their whole team has more talent today and at least as much potential for tomorrow.
I'm sorry, that's all a little negative after two wins. If the team can get back around .500, and displays at least fairly regular effort, I'm sure I'll return my sad heart to the Target center rather than only watching the games on TV.
You're right, and I share much of that pessimism, since so much of our future success depends on players who are young and unproven. I was more pointing out that replacing KG with a bunch of Golden State's core (but neither of their top two players) or Chicago's core isn't bringing us to title contention, and by starting from the ground up, with one guaranteed and major piece of the championship formula is a better decision. Jefferson seems to have his head on straight, and should improve his weaknesses to reach All-Star level starting next year.
Next year is probably make or break for Wittman, unless he has Isiah Thomas-like job security, which I doubt. Regardless of this year's draft, we've gotta hit 30-35 wins, and hopefully more than that. Even if it's this year's club plus a raw 7-footer, a healthy Foye and McCants teamed with Big Al is a good enough group to beat all the bad teams and the occasional Utah or Phoenix. After next year, we'll need to see more improvement and equally need players like Nash, Duncan, McGrady and Iverson to show their age and leave vacancies in the Western Conference Playoff picture. Obviously, Portland will take one of the opened slots, but more should free up and teams that position themselves appropriately can have their turn at contention. I think if we add the right major piece in this draft, and fill in the blanks in free agency, we can be one of those teams when the time comes.
But, I'm still skeptical about Foye as the point guard of a great team. His game seems better suited as a two, since his best qualities are shooting and scoring off of penetration. Time will tell.
Thanks Britt and fellow bloggers,
I didn't see the Kings game, and was really sick and couldn't watch the Clips. But may I make some observations and inject some opinion based on what ya'll wrote?
I feel it's too early to be comparing Thorton and Brewer. I feel you have to give a rookie a few years in the league before you can get a real feel for thier progress. At the same time, I thought it was the idea of Brewer's defense that had most of us fans excited at the beginning of the year. Were any of us expecting him to be a scoring stud in the NBA? If anything I was hoping for a good defender who could score a little.
As the huge Foye fan that I am, I am sad to have missed the game. Even though he wasn't going against top notch competition, when you have a "mouse in the house" you go at him. Seems Foye did that. I'm not saying it's ok to suck at defense, but how many point guards play "good defense"? Does that sound ignorant? But I'm trying to think of all the premier point guards, how many of them are stellar or even good defenders? Nash isn't a good defender. Deron Williams isn't a good defender. Tony Parker isn't that good. Not that he's premier talent, but Rafer Alston isn't that good of a defender either. I'm just saying, I know Foye is well behind the curve right now; and I'm not trying to excuse it, but, I also can sit with the fact he may never be that great of a defender. He'll just have to bring other things to the table.
Looks like teams are going into tank mode. Miami leads the way. Mark my words, Memphis, New York and Seattle will tank.
Can anyone clarify our draft picks for this year please? Do we get one from Boston this year? And do we for sure get Miami's 1st round next year? And do we get 1 more from Boston next year? How many 2nd rounders do we get?
Thanks, and thanks in advance.
About the picks:
Boston's comes in 2009 (unless it's in the top 3). The second one was the pick they got from us in the Wally-Ricky swap.
Miami's is top-10 protected in '09, top-6 protected in '10, and unprotected in '12.
Our only extra second-rounder comes from Miami this year because they gave it to Boston in the Antoine Walker sign and trade 3 yrs. ago and Boston gave it to us in the Wally-Ricky swap.
Here's the link: http://www.realgm.com/src_future_draftpicks.php
The Clippers game was the most fun I've had watching the Wolves in a while. It was the type of game I think we were all hoping for more of this season. I also enjoyed your trey quite a bit, Britt, keep it up!
First, it was great to see Foye show us some of what excited fans so much last year. I think the length of his absence from the court might have induced a bit of selective amnesia in many of us, specifically in regards to what he actually does well. I know I was down on him for a while because I started focusing on his weaknesses instead of remembering his strengths. A few youtube highlight films woke me from my negative stupor a bit, but nothing kicks you in the pants like watching the kid do his thing in the here and now. I hope he continues to be aggressive, yet intellectual in his decision making, especially against some slightly more stalwart defenders than Dickau and Barret.
Second, the emergence of the Randy Foye - Al Jefferson pick and roll was a beautiful thing to see. I've been hoping we would see Randy run the pick and roll when he got back, because it seems perfectly suited to his talents. At 6'3-4 he has excellent size to see over defenders and spot passing lanes, he has a great first step to turn the corner and the ability to shoot off the dribble, all of which combine to make him a threat you can't ignore coming off a pick. With Al's improving jumper and solid finishing ability while rolling to the hoop it makes him an excellent pick man. I hope it becomes a mainstay in our offense, especially because Gomes and Smith are quality pick and roll big men as well.
Great Shaddy info: I really want to like this guy and root for him and he is making that easier when he plays some defense and is offensively aggressive still being a team player. Foye is looking better off the dribble and his court sense seems to be improving, too. The biggest question for me is the future of McCants and Foye. Are they good enough to be considered building blocks or are they just role players?
Britt
I found your take on McCants interesting. You are more hopeful than I am. When R Davis left the team, I immediately put McCants in my least lavorite TWolve player spot. He hasn't given my any reason to change. I too saw positive behavior prior to and during his injury. But his shot selection, defense (dumb fouls), inconsistentcy and pouting drive me nuts. He does have one of the prettiest jump shots I have ever seen, he can at times play defense and he can at time effectively penetrate. I think the Bad McCants shows up far more often than the Good One. If his ego can handle it, I do like him in that 6th man role. Foye, during his short career has also been inconsistent, but I am more hopeful that he will mature and become a valuable player.
The Clippers game was a preview to what I see is the future of the Wolves: Dominant inside scorer in Jefferson, clutch shoot first but still run the offense point guard in Foye, excellent 6th man in McCants, defensive wiz in Brewer and first rate "glue" guy in Gomes. If these guys continue to progress, the future will be bright.
IMO it's time to start Foye at PG and bring Telfair off the bench. Not only for Foye's development, but for the good of the team. The team is +.2 with Foye at point and -10 with Telfair.
Here are some interesting Foye stats:
In the clutch (4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left,
neither team ahead by more than 5 points), Foye is averaging 26.4 points/48 minutes and shooting 62.5 percent. Only 40 percent of his shots have been assisted, meaning he's initiating the action 60 percent of the time. He also averages 6.6 assists/48 minutes during this time.
Now for some PG vs SG stats. The team scores 91.8 and gives up 91.6 when Foye is at the point. When he's as SG, they have scored 89.5 and given up 107.5.
More to suggest Foye should play a majority of his minutes at the point. Of the top 10 5-man units Foye has played, three are with Telfair at the point and 7 are with Foye at the point. The three with Telfair at point and Foye at SG combine for -52 plus/minus. The seven with Foye at the point combine for a +1 differential.
I have seen abuses of the +/- stat, but this goes too far. Comparing the +/- of a guy who has played about 20 MPG at the point over 12 games to a guy who has played the position for 32 MPG on average over 60 games is insane.
And the second comparison, while more apples-to-apples, isn't that much better considering that Foye's runs at the point have primarily been against the opponent's second units or in garbage time.
You are not the first, nor will you be the last, to call me insane.
Hopefully Foye will continue to play. Although he may be battling McCants for the alpha position along side Big Al was that not Foye and Shaddy celebrating together immediately after Foye hit his patented runner? That appears to be a good sign for the chemistry between those two.
Foye's defense appeared pretty weak again last night, but hopefully that will come around.
Here are a few stats from Yahoo Sports detailing Foye's progression post-injury.
Pre-All Star averages (8 games)
22 minutes, 34.7% FG, 34.5% 3P, 66.7 FT%, 1.8 AST, 2.1 TO, 8.5 PPG
Post-All Star averages (11 games)
34 minutes, 45.2 FG%, 46% 3P, 82.6% FT, 3.7 AST, 1.9 TO, 13.6 PPG
The differences in the pre and post all star averages are striking. what's especially striking is that most of the uptick is due to the Foye's play in March.
In 5 March games
34 minutes, 48.3 FG%, 41.2% 3P%, 83.3 FT%, 4.4 AST, 1.4 TO, 16 PPG
Only time will tell if this is
a. A brief hot streak, soon over with a return to sub 40% FG %.
b. A steady rise to a now reached plateau of production
c. A hopeful sign on continued improvement and things to come
Thornton has had a couple bad shooting nights and some turnovers. But what about Brewer's constant poor shooting? Why assume Brewer will learn to shoot but Thornton won't get better at D or cut down on his turnoevers? I like Brewer too and love how much he "understands the game" (not meant sarcastically) but he plays an offensive position and can't make his living soley on defense.
The age argument (below) boggles my mind too, like being 24 is significantly older than Brewer's 22. Don't we want to be competitive as soon as possible?
Jim--
The points are well taken, which is why I said Thornton currently has the advantage. So why do I think Brewer will improve to a greater extent than Thornton will improve?
1. Body mass. Thornton is already in NBA-ready shape. Perhaps Brewer cannot bulk up beyond 185, but I have to think someone 6-9 crunching hard on the weights with a good trainer can add muscle mass without sacrificing quickness. By contrast, I don't think there is much further upside on Thornton physique.
2. Basketball intelligence. Yes, people can improve their knowledge and understanding of the game, but for the most part, people who have gone to college for a relatively long time (as both Thornton and Brewer have) have pretty much established their baseline expertise in terms of mixing their intuitive and experiencial knowledge of the game into a natural flow. I frankly haven't seen enough of Thornton to know how "smart" he is on the court, but it is not something I hear about him very much, and registering a 10-turnover game doesn't bode well for his court awareness.
3. Intangibles. Brewer is an infectious teammate in terms of hustle and atittude. If you go to 82games.com and look at their on court/off court splits, you'll see that the Wolves play relatively better versus their opponents when Brewer is on the floor compared to when he isn't; and that the Clips generally play much worse when Thornton is on the floor as compared to when he isn't. A lot can go into this, of course, but from what I've seen of Brewer's play, he has the capacity to be a catalyst in myriad ways that aren't reflected that well by individuals stats, such as racing back to contest otherwise uncontested layups on breakaways, and helping out on defensive rotations and ball movement.
To emphasize: I'm not disagreeing that Thornton is better than Brewer now. In fact they are very similar statistically, with one glaring difference: Scoring,frequency of shooting, and accuracy of shooting. Until and unless Brewer can become even mediocre at this, and not enable double-teams on Jefferson or McCants (with whom he is playing more frequently), all the intangibles in the world won't make him a quality starter on a contending team.
You continue to make a strong case for Brewer, and I don't disagree with any of it. It will be fun to see how he develops.
The Brewer-Thornton discussion highlights an interesting draft philosophy question: Do you place more value on potential or current ability? The Wolves almost always go for potential (Brewer, Foye, Ebi, Garnett, even the guy they took over Van Exel way back when) over guys who are more ready to play.
I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but I do disagree with what they've done the last two drafts because they went with potential over current ability AND size: Brewer doesn't have an NBA forward body and Foye is undersized unless he can be a full-time point. The guys they passed up, Thornton and Roy, on the other hand, were more or less prototypical size for their positions in addition to being considered far more NBA ready.
This is slightly off topic regarding the Brewer-Thornton debate, but the one thing that's obvious about our last few drafts is that we have chosen players who did not have to be "the man" on their squads. I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, just a thing.
Rashad had/has potential, but remember he was the 4th Tar Heel taken in that draft. Foye came close to being the Man with Villanova, but let's not forget he played with a great college G in Allan Ray, NBA PG Kyle Lowry, and "where-is-he-now" Curtis Sumpter. Brewer obviously had talent around him, with 4 teammates being chosen in the same draft.
I don't think the Wolves are comparing potential to NBA-readiness - there are many attributes that go into an NBA player. Size is often a very misleading attribute - most teams have good players with skills that don't correspond to their height, otherwise we'd have to watch KG at the C instead of his natural position (SF if you must know), or Durant guarding power forwards when he can't bench 185. I agree that our team would be different and probably better if we had taken more "NBA-ready" guys like Granger, Roy, Thornton, etc., but there are also plenty of players who seem NBA-ready but never have much of an impact.
We can all agree that drafting players is not an exact science. My point in regards to size is that if your considering two players who are the same position, size can be a tie-breaking factor and in the last two drafts I think it should have been.
I disagree that it is often misleading. Foye is too short to guard most NBA 2s, Roy isn't. Brewer is skinny and gets pushed around in the paint far more than Thornton. There are the uber talented exceptions like Durant, Garnett, ect., but for the most part, effective non superstar players on good teams are the right size for the positions they most often play.
I agree that Foye's size is an issue (if he plays the 2) but don't see any reason to worry about Brewer. He's bound to get stronger, which will only make him more versatile. As it is, his lateral quickness, for a guy his height, is amazing and he can guard top-notch perimeter scorers. If he adds 20 or 30 lbs over the next 5 years, we might be looking at the next Ron Artest.
If Foye becomes a legit starting point guard than all the Roy comparisons will change. Right now he's an undersized "combo" guard who Wittman wants to play off the ball and has inspired so much confidence at the point that most people on this board (i.e. probably the only smart people in the country who closely follow the Wolves) are salivating over the idea of the team taking p.g. Rose in the draft.
When it comes right down to it, the jury is out on everybody on this team but Jefferson, at least among the future building blocks. (I guess you could say you know exactly what you have with Jaric and Madsen, etc.)
I too have slightly more confidence in Brewer being able to fill a role--defensive stopper and high energy glue guy--than Foye. But one reason for that is Foye has a harder, less natural role to try and fill. I might have confidence in McCants filling the 6th man role if I was sure he'd be comfortable being out of the starting lineup. But I'm not.
This is such a different team than the ones built through most of the 90s in Minnesota. Whether you loved them or not, you knew exactly what Brandon, Sealy, Rasho, etc, were bringing to the table--even Wally, for that matter. Here, the expectation is that Brewer, Foye, McCants, and perhaps even Gomes and Smith will improve, if not dramatically, then in ways that will exert a dramatic improvement on the ballclub. It is a situation that both generates a lot of hope and is asking for a lot to fall into place.
To play the negative, I think it is reasonable to have expected McHale to draft somebody in the past three years who we could slot beside Jefferson as a relative sure thing, and I think that is where Jim is coming from. Krush would probably argue Foye is in that category, and he may well be right. Others are wildly divergent on McCants and Brewer.
All I know is if Brewer is injured before opening day of next season, I'll know the franchise is cursed in some way.
You are right about me, Britt :) I am very high on Foye and can not see him failing to live up to his potential or draft slot.
I'd disagree on Rasho - his minutes and opportunities fluctuated wildly in the first 3 years, and he didn't start playing over 30 minutes a game until his last year. Although I think Flip was hard on him, in close games it often became KG at the 4 and Reggie Slater/LaPhonso Ellis/Dean Garrett/Joe Smith/Marc Jackson/Gary Trent at the 5. You're right, though, about TB, Sealy, Joe Smith, Peeler, Sam Mitchell, Garrett, the other random veterans who came and went; they had their limitations, but that also meant we knew their strengths.
It seems like, though, those players were consistent in the fans' eyes because Flip played the guys who followed his system and sat the ones who didn't (like he did with Wally and Rasho early in their careers). That hasn't necessarily happened this year for whatever reason, but when they get serious about winning consistently, some guys will have those roles stabilized and others will be on the bench or on another team.
I was pleasantly surprised at the Strib article today describing Shaddy's new 6th man role. Not necessarily expecting him to embrace it, but maybe if he gets enough generous public comparisons to Ben Gordon and Leandro Barbosa, he'll come around. That would check one thing off the to-do list for "Let's Build It."
Well Britt, get ready to test McHale skill in draft mode. Things are not looking good.
With Wade shut down, the Grizzles in dismal shape less Gasol, and our improved play, I think we are now battling for 3rd (worse that is) with the Knicks and the Sonics. Considering this draft is a 2 horse sure bet (Beasley and Rose), I am absolutely predicting a 1992 flash back with the T-wolves having the first "non sure thing" pick. We can't have afford another Laettner type pick.
Anyone out there lucky and available for the lottery? We need HELP!
I fully expect Brewer to become the kind of quiet, dominating, underrated force in the NBA, like he was in college one he grows in to his NBA body and confidence.
Every time the camera showed Yannick Noah in the audience I would turn to my wife and say, "Noah!? Brewer is the man on that team." I hope I am not wrong.
I agree about Brewer. Another thing he could become very good at is pushing the ball up the court. He had a nice drive off of a Jaric deflection and shovel pass to McCants for the layup. If he becomes a good enough ball-handler to do that consistently, he'd really facilitate the fast break game because of his rebounding ability and ability to get up the floor very quickly.
Nice praise of Shaddy. A lot gets made of his "scowl" and frequent frustration on and around the court, but some of that could just as well be complimented as genuinely hating to lose so many games. Think of a guy like Rasheed Wallace, whose entire career and legacy was transformed by moving from a loser to a winner. His image was a pouty headcase, and now is labeled by Charles Barkley as the smartest player in basketball. Rashad probably won't reach Sheed's level anytime soon, regardless of the team he plays on, but if we let him go, I think he could emerge as a very good player in the right system. For now, I just wish he'd log more consistent minutes, especially over Snyder.
When Golden State came to town a while back, Baron Davis made Rashad look very weak and it made me question whether he'd ever be strong enough to be a dominant scorer. However, I don't think he needs to be a ball-handling two guard like Kobe or T-Mac to be extremely valuable. In fact, his future is probably more of a spot-up shooter, preferably with a playmaking point guard. A better player for Rashad to emulate would be Michael Finley (in his young Dallas days). He mixed in spot shooting with dribble jumpers and drives, but always within the flow of the offense. I think Rashad could reach that level of play, if given enough teaching and encouragement, and playing alongside a table-setter like Finley had in Nash. Derrick Rose, perhaps. (couldn't make a post without mentioning him).
Nice comparison. Finley is defenitly the kind of player and the level that Mccants should and could make.
Great 3pointer again. Was also thinking (like commenter below) that Thornton is already older and higher up his ceiling which is why I still stand by the brewer pick.
Also agree on the Telfair injury. It'll be very interesting going on to see if Foye can keep up that kind of stat line. If he can keep that one up (6 ass with maximum 2 turnovers) we're set for the back-court. We can all see they're not perfect yet but as they mature I really think it could be a championship backcourt...
Thanks, Britt and the regulars (from a long-silent reader).
Regarding Thornton v. Brewer, I think it's worth keeping in mind that Thornton is very old for a rookie. He's 24, and turns 25 later this year. Brewer turned 22 earlier this week, which admittedly makes him pretty geriatric for a high draft pick these days as well. In comparison with Thornton in particular, though, Brewer probably has a bit more breathing room before he reaches his ceiling.
And speaking of the Jefferson-McCants tandem, have you noticed that Jefferson makes 52.8% of his shots when Shaddy is playing, and just 47% when McCants is not on the floor? He also shot extremely well when Green was on the floor with him (56.5%), although that's in a very small sample size. Here's to luring a defender away from the paint, and let's hope Shaddy continues to make strides in the right direction.
Astute as usual. Kirk Snyder does appear to have an over-aggressive edge to him. I like to think the NBA players have a certain brotherhood about them, call it mutual respect for one another, but Snyder seems to have arrived with an "I'll show them" attitude about him that if sustain would be a detriment.
Liked the good/bad Shaddy analogy. When good, he creates for team mates and himself. He strikes fear in the hearts of defenders who don't know if he will dish and/or penetrate. When bad, he is woefully predictable and turnover prone. I hope it's just maturity and he is coming of age. Britt, nice aside in terms of Shaddy's willingness to participate in some of the plastic banana promos because it paints a refreshing and under reported dimension about Shaddy.
I hope you would be amenable to providing a summer "to-do" list for our (5 or 6) Wolves team audition winners. Items you would like to see the survivors work on during the off season. Your perspective would be very interesting here.
Is it just me or does it seem many of the players on the team don't particularly get along welll with Snyder? I see a lot of bickering between him and other players on both ends of the court and particularly walking back to the huddle. While this team needs someone who will go strong to the basket, virtually every time he does Al Jefferson gives him the "whats up?!" gesture for not dishing it to him on the way.
Britt,
I have a different take Dunleavy's peculiar no point guard offense. I believe it was a direct response to a very wise defensive decision made by the T-wolves - to go to a zone defense.
Kaman and Thornton presented man to man match ups that were a nightmare for the T-wolves in quarters 1-most of 3. Brewer, Gomes, even Smith were simply too small to match up mano a mano. But someone on the T-wolves sidelines decided to switch to zone. BINGO. No more punishing inside play as the zone collapsed leaving nothing but outside shots. Yes, Maggette did drive through the zone a couple of times for layups (still not sure how he did that). But Dunleavy was forced to adjust and go to an outside game. Hence, Mobley (who also got through the zone for a lay up one time) and no point guards (who frankly could not hit the broad side of a barn) for the critical final quarter.
Those lay ups were a minor irritant in comparison to the early inside abuse. And the 3's, ah the 3's. I agree - let Mobley and Maggette shot them up until their hearts are content. Certainly in our best interest.
As much as I, Wittman's biggest critic, hate to admit it, he made a very good decision to switch to the zone which i felt was the key to the victory.
So as to say true to form, I do hope Wittman/McHale saw that a rather underwhelming front line (Kamen and Thornton does not exactly instill fear in my heart) abused our small ball line. Hopefully, at some point in the Let it Build phase, it will lead them to realize that a big, defensive 5 is mandatory for future success. (Love those Richard minutes!!)
Wow--
Now that you mention it, it makes sense, but I confess that my brain didn't even register "zone" as I watched. Dickau is a sub-40% career shooter, and they had Tim Thomas in as a big for the entire 4th quarter, obviously hoping to shoot over it. It had to be almost a 2-1-2 the way Marko was playing down near the foul line, and Shaddy still went more man-to-man than zone on many possessions (which may explain the Maggette penetration).
Now I wish I had taped the game to see how much they stuck with it. But it would also help explain Thornton's sudden disappearance.
Playing with Cuttino Mobley as your "point guard" still seems silly to me. Mobley/Maggette/Kamen/Thornton/Thomas isn't exactly a high BB-IQ lineup.
I think the board makes some good points about the zone defense, but what about he last play? I agree that we wanted the Clippers to hoist it from outside for most of the game, but with 2 secs left down 3? That seems like the time to go man and give up anything BUT a 3. Yet the clips got a wide open look for Mobley. I still wonder what we're doing at the end of games sometimes (see: Supersonics, Seattle), and I think that at this point its at least 50% coaching (particularly when we went zone on the last play). Still, when this team is focused and moving the ball, we're competitive.
But I can't tell if this is a mirage or not: 4-7 after the break isn't great, but it isn't bad when you consider our losses are all to playoff ballclubs with the exception of Charlotte (in the middle of a 5-game winning streak without Gerald Wallace, one of the all-time "good stats on a bad team" guys (Ricky Davis)) and Seattle (a game we blew). Plus, Philly is 12-3 (I assume mostly against the East, but still) in their last 15 and that win against Utah was convincing.
So you could make the case like some people on the board that Telfair, Foye, McCants, Gomes, Brewer, Jefferson and Smith could be the makings of a good young nucleus, one that is better than a lot of the other rebuilding teams out there. But i'm skeptical: I like all of them but I wonder, with the exception of Jefferson, if any of them are really good enough to become a top-3 player on elite team. Sure Gomes would be fantastic as the 4th man (think Finley on the Spurs or a poor man's Prince on the Pistons) and Brewer great as 5th man (Bruce Bowen) if your first three are Duncan, Ginobli and Parker, but if it's Jefferson, McCants and Foye? I don't think so.
Which means I think we need one more big-time player. If we can wind up with one of the top 2 picks, and grab Rose or Bradley, I'm beginning to really like this team. If you can then get an interior defender with one of your second-round picks, then I really think you might have something. But as this team is presently constituted, it's no better than a mediorcre team on most nights, even if ALL the young guys continue to grow. And you can look to this year's Bulls team to see what happens when a lot of young guys hit their ceilings and it isn't good enough.
Simply put - 2008 Draft:
1. Beasley
2. Thabeet
Thabeet makes the most sense to me with the second pick. You can't teach 7' 3". He may even drop lower when the balls don't bounce the wolves way - which is virtually gauranteed. Especially with the way that the Heat are tanking it.
The Heat epitomize what the NBA shouldn't be about, and the NBA's lottery is a scam. That makes David Stern a scam artist - right?
that high in the draft, you take the best player. Maybe you can't teach 7'3", but you can't teach what Beasley's got, either. He is going to be a star.
BTW, the "you cant' teach 7 feet" line is one of my pet peeves. It's that kind of thinking that had Sam Bowie taken ahead of Michael Jordan. You can't teach a 40 inch vertical, either.
Thabeet's numbers speak for themselves. 10 - 10 - 5 blocks / game.
We are small -
I just think that in order to compete, our beloved Wolfies must beef up. This explains why the Wolves opponents get to the free throw line so much - no interior presence or weak side help.
I'm sick of tweener gaurds...
We certainly need size, but I think it's a reach to take Thabeet at the second pick (if that was what you are suggesting). If we commit to taking him, I'd at least hope we trade down to do it. I also see that he shoots 70% on FT's. That's encouraging for a big center.