AFP/Getty Images/Gregory Shamus
Yeah, I know I still owe the second part of the Wolves season recap. But I confess that this steady diet of *quality* NBA basketball has made a return to Wolves-think fairly depressing. I will get to it in the next few days. Meanwhile, here are some thoughts on the playoffs thus far...
Celtics and Pistons both in a dogfight
Kevin Garnett and Flip Saunders are back in the pressure-cooker. Both have had very successful careers that are at least slightly besmirched by their (thus far) inability to elevate their game when it matters most. I find it interesting and inevitable that the KG backlash is occurring on the heels of the two losses in Atlanta. First of all, it wasn't his man torching the club from outside all game--why Doc Rivers chose to ride with Ray Allen on Joe Johnson instead of throwing James Posey or Tony Allen on JJ, or even Rondo, with Allen switching to Bibby, is, ah perplexing. Or incompetent. I could also mention that Garnett had a whopping six steals and a team-best plus +7 in 41:59, meaning the Celts were minus -12 in the 6:01 he wasn't on the floor.
But KG was around for the entire fourth quarter collapse. And in addition to Joe Johnson's 20 points in the period, Josh Smith had 12 points and 5 rebounds (versus KG's 5 and 2), which included 8-8 FT. Going against Smith and Al Horford, both of whom he can finesse and muscle in the low block, Garnett should have stopped deferring to a dinged up Pierce and a defensively-bewildered Allen and started to go for his. Because with Cleveland, either Detroit or Orlando, and the Western champ on the horizon, it is not going to get any easier. I know this is not in KG's natural make-up. But as one who named him the year's MVP and steadfastly defended him ever since Magic Johnson and Charles Barkley unfairly called him out in the playoffs five or six years ago, he needs to see that giving himself and his team the crunchtime dimension of him in the low block is crucial to the Celts success further down the road. No time like the present to sift it in.
But KG has it easy compared to Flip Saunders. Always a player's coach (meaning he doesn't challenge anybody and relies on self-policing) and a stickler for midrange jumpers, Flip simply doesn't have the tools most vital for guiding a team through the gauntlet of playoff hoops--the capacity to trigger that extra gear the players themselves didn't even know they had, and the ability to win games at the free throw line. The Celtics' losses are fairly easy to explain--they were way too overconfident in Game 3 and then got bushwacked by a white-hot outside shooter in Game 4. But the Pistons' performance has been horrible thus far--raise your hand if you think Philly won Games 1 and 3 more than Detroit lost them. What happened to Chauncey Billups? Seriously, Andre Miller is exactly the kind of matchup he should be dominating--Miller is if anything a poor man's Billups--and yet Miller is the one coming up large. And isn't it time to start running more plays for Tayshaun Prince, who remains a 4th option on this club after Rip, 'Sheed, and Billups, all of whom seem to be both overconfident and lacking synergy while Prince keeps bailing them out with jumpers on the baseline.
I think the Celts and Pistons will both ultimately prevail. But the second round in the East has suddenly gotten a lot more interesting.
Magic and Lakers first to advance
The only great surprise here is that George Karl is apparently coming back for another year in Denver. Okay, if Karl's not responsible for what may be the biggest waste of pure talent on an NBA franchise, who is? How can any self-respecting coach sit and watch an entire season of opponents consistently getting into the paint--off the dribble, feeding the post, interior passes, transition, you name it--and not take drastic steps to curtail it? All year long, the Nugs frittered away 15 point leads and made 15 point comebacks on games they lost by 5-10 points. They are a bunch of lazy underachievers who have a pile of individual accolades and absolutely no desire to play as a team. Whether Karl is the instigator or merely the enabler of that culture, he's got to go.
What won the series for the Lakers was ball movement, which ranks with team defense and superstar wattage as the requisite X factors for a championship ballclub. In Kobe, Gasol and Odom, LA has the perfect front line for the new hand-checking rules, a trio that can all tussle in the paint and extend their games out 17 feet (for Kobe of course it is beyond the 3-pt arc). Each has the combination of height and quickness to be a nightmare matchup one-on-one, so if all decide to sling the rock to the open man, it is difficult to imagine how they are stopped. Then again, they just got through with four games with the Nugs, who can make anyone look good on offense.
In the underground series that nobody watched, the Magic dispatched the Raps in 5, which makes perfect sense when you consider that there is nobody on Toronto's roster who can match up with Dwight Howard. And yes, it really is that simple.
Spurs and Jazz on the verge
I make no bones about rooting hard for the Houston Rockets in their series with the Jazz. I've always regarded Yao as the most overrated NBA player this side of Vince Carter, and so when Houston keep ratcheting up their 22-game winning streak after Yao went down, I egotistically felt validated and started paying attention to what they were doing. And I fell in love with the way rooks Luis Scola and Carl Landry muck it up in the paint at both ends of the court, and noticed the parallels between Tracy McGrady and Kevin Garnett--their mixture of breathtaking talent and self-effacing teamwork. And Shane Battier needs to be on the USA Olympic Team, as he combines the best of the European style (smart in the half court, good from beyond the arc, passes well without a lot of fanfare) with the American grit of tenacious D. I knew in my head Houston would probably not fare well versus the Jazz, especially with Rafer Alston on the shelf for the first two games at home, but my heart went with Houston as I picked them in 7.
My head was right but my heart is satiated. Houston has played inspiring ball thus far, with Landry recovering from a slow start to deliver a key block to win Game 3 on the road, this after Carlos Boozer knocked out his tooth with a forearm that the refs didn't even whistle. Battier has been marvelous and McGrady is a wonderfully tortured soul, sloe-eyed and pretending implacability as the emotions race across his face. It's just that the Jazz have the matchup that matters, in this case at the point position. Deron Williams gives the impression that he can abuse Alston off the dribble whenever he feels like it. In Game 4, Rick Carlisle said as much before D-Will turned him into a prophet with a pair of almost-casual crunchtime drives to the hoop. Alston simply doesn't have the bulk to deter Williams, so no matter how much Scola and Landry and Mutombo negate Boozer--which they have, far more than Yao could ever dream--Utah can get to the rack.
It's been said many times, but having Kyle Korver along with Okur to stretch the defense makes it absolutely imperative that the opposing point at least throw Williams off stride a bit. If and when the Jazz get by Houston (and I can't emotionally throw the Rockets under the bus yet), it will be interesting to see how Derek Fisher fares, not to mention Jordan Farmar. The Jazz need a monster series from their point guard to counteract LA's advantage almost everywhere else, but they just might get it.
Meanwhile, as someone who grew up in Boston and spent his boyhood watching the Celts rack up 11 rings in 13 years (yeah, I'm that old, and yeah it was as much fun as it sounds--why do you think I write about hoops?), I've got to say that with each passing year, the Spurs give me more and more vintage Celtic flashbacks. They aren't exact matches, of course, but it is hard not to notice the similarities between Bill Russell and Tim Duncan, or John Havilcek and Manu Ginobili. You never hear Tony Parker get mentioned as one of the game's great point guards, yet there is he, dismantling opponents in the playoffs--ditto Sam and KC Jones, back in the day. As for the coaches, well, Red Auerbach and Gregg Popovich both have an asshole streak that gets transferred into a virtue on the sideline. In Game 3 against the Suns, Oberto didn't rotate over to stop a layup, allowing Phoenix to pull to 27-14, down 13 instead of 15, late in the first quarter. Pops immediately called a timeout and chewed Oberto up and down.
Think about that for a moment. Or think about Duncan, Ginobili and Parker in crunch time--or, hell, Robert Horry. You think the Suns have three more wins in them to take the Spurs four in a row?
A eulogy for Phoenix, but not for Dallas
I feel badly for Steve Nash, one of the classiest players in recent times, and an amazing competitor who more than anybody has had to sublimate his game since the Shaq trade. I go with the conventional wisdom that the Shaq deal both doomed the Suns to an earlier exit than they otherwise might have achieved with the Matrix, and was still a worthwhile gamble for Steve Kerr to have attempted, given that it also marginally increased their chances of winning it all for a roster that is running out of time. So, kudos to Kerr for having the stones to make the swap, but let's remember that the flameout of the Suns was utterly predictible. All these jackasses who claimed the Suns would beat the Spurs are now blaming Mike D'Antoni, as if this particular coach has ever played any other way but to exploit opponents who had guys like Shaq on the floor. Do people really want to blame D'Antoni for the way the Spurs have destroyed Phoenix on the pick and roll during this series? I seem to recall a pretty good coach, name of Phil Jackson, who couldn't get Shaq to play the pick and roll either. It requires a lot of stop and go, plant and pivot, and that is something a man of Shaq's size had difficulty with before he was old and had to work hard to stay in shape.
But back to Nash: Does anybody else miss the freelancing Nash who flew down the floor, dribbling like a dervish, deciding which hand he was going to use for a delicious bounce pass to a fellow-flying teammate for a showtime slam? Does anybody else miss the frenetic pace that discombobulated opponents and gave the advantage to the selfless passer and deadly long-range shooter who would stick the trey if you sped to guard the hoop and shimmied his way into the paint if you stopped at the arc, secure in the knowledge at least two teammates, and maybe three, were perched at various points outside the arc to take advantage of the driive and kick? The presence of Shaq, and the emergence of Amare Stoudamire's terrifying midrange game, has pretty much taken the magic out of Nash's hands, making it extremely difficult for him to build up the rhythms and patterns that bedevil those guarding him. Now when the Suns need Nash to come up with something miraculous, it is totally outside their normal flow of play, and that flow was always Nash's (and D'Antoni's) secret weapon. Too bad. Don't rip Nash or D'Antoni for this debacle; hey, don't even rip Kerr or Shaq, who have done all they can to turn flax into gold this season down in the desert. But it just ain't gonna happen.
There is no way I am going to wax rhapsodically in a similar fashion about the way the Mavericks have destroyed their team. The Jason Kidd trade was stupidity incarnate. Consider that the only "defense" people had of the deal when it was made--smart people anyway, who knew they had to acknowledge Kidd wasn't what he used to be--was to argue that Kidd really hadn't lost two or three steps on defense, he just became unmotivated in New Jersey. Ah, I see, he's not old, just a malingerer.
No, he's old. As I've said a few times already on this site, he's not worth Diop and Harris straight up, without the two draft picks. In fact Dallas is old, and unless Stackhouse and Terry shoot lights out beside Dirk in the next few games, they are going down hard, soon to be dismantled. Too bad for Avery Johnson, who did a marvelous job hatching a Maginot Line defense in place of the unsuccessful traps in an effort to stop Chris Paul. And it has worked the past two games. The problem is that Erick Dampier can't carry Tyson Chandler's jockstrap, putting pressure on Dirk to rebound as well as score and distribute. That and the fact that Stackhouse and Josh Howard are wilting under pressure, giving the lie to all those citations about the Mavs' playoff experience--Dallas is experienced like Hillary Clinton is experienced.
Even if I wasn't in contempt of the Kidd trade, it would be hard to root against the Hornets. Tyson Chandler is the second-best center in the NBA behind Dwight Howard; better than Yao, certainly, and everything that Marcus Camby is supposed to be. He allows Chris Paul to gamble on defense (or take a play or two off) out on the perimeter, is able to rotate over when the iffy MoPete and Peja lose their man, and has tremendous, almost telepathic, communication with David West when protecting the paint. Then you've got heroes coming off the bench--Pargo for 30? The rook Wright in Game 4? Even Peja isn't choking. So, while I'll shed a virtual tear for the exit of Nash and (the soon to be scapegoated?) D'Antoni, I'll cheer the demise of Dallas (despite my affection for Mark Cuban).
I'm not a fan of Yao Ming bashing and I don't understand it. 22/11. 85% FT shooter. Can hit a 15 foot shot. Blocks 2/game. Good-to-Great passer. Knowledgeable. Seven Foot Six Tree Trunk. I don't get what's not to like?
I get what you might be saying though: For how little he's done in the playoffs, and how much he's talked about, he's overrated. Or something to that affect. Although, being the number one overall pick from China makes him a special circumstance, I'd say. Or maybe you're saying, he could do more? And if that's the case, then we gotta say KG's overrated, and I ain't livin' in that world Mon Freur.
But, basically, the Yao Ming bashing - and it ain't just here, I'm thinking of other blogs and sh*t also - baffles me.
Fair enough. I concede that one reason I don't like Yao is because I like being contrary; that he is so hyped because he happens to come from the world's most populous country at the time a very marketing savvy commish understood the long-term possibilities of exploiting that confluence.
But in purely basketball terms, Yao is inch-for-inch one of the worst defenders in the league. By that I mean unless his opponent is likewise big (albeit smaller, naturally) and slow and without a lot of savvy, he is not going to shut that guy down. His help defense is likewise lacking for someone so tall. Did you catch the Utah series last year?
One more thing: Having Yao, like having Shaq, means you play a certain way whether you like it or not. Houston is a lot more fun to watch--and I would argue equally if not more competitive--with a rotation of Scola and Mutombo and Landry and Hayes filling the front line and Battier and T-Mac tall swingmen. You put Deron Williams or Paul or perhaps even Parker at the point for that team and I think they win a ring. With Yao, and that same group, including a super point, they still don't.
The stats are great. The won-loss mark, especially in the postseason, when a 7-6 guy should enjoy even more of an advantage, isn't.
Good, valid points. You do have to play a certain way with Yao, and his defense is definitely lacking - although I think he's a capable help defender. And if they had Rondo - let alone the guys you named - instead of Alston (who I want to like, but he always seems to make the worst decision at a critical time; Skip to My Lou) they could do damage even without Yao.
But I'd contest that Yao's never been utilized right. He could get 25/12/6asst/game. The Adelman system should be great for him, and was before the injury. They're going to be Very Tough next year, and I'd reckon Yao will be the big reason for that.
By the way, you realized you said that these Rockets plus a healthy Yao plus a Deron/Paul/Parker point couldn't win a ring? Come on. That's maaaaaaaaaaddddddddnessssss, Diane. Pure Maaaaadness. Seen Network recently? God that's a good movie. Hey, nice tagline for TWolves fans; "I'm Mad as Hellllllllllllllllll, and I'm not Gonnna Take It Anymore!" Of course, that's a good tagline for anybody in this sordid place we call America. Ah, but I digress.
Let's dream a little bit. Let's say the Suns fire D'Antoni. Let's say Colangelo hires him up in Toronto, kicking Sam Mitchell to the curb. Any chance he could get a membership in the 7th Avenue Country Club? Sam's got the connection here, and his kind of toughness seems to inspire a team, as opposed to Wittman's. And he's actually had winning records.
Let's not dream. Avery Johnson is on the market. Reports are that D'Antoni will resign in the next few days. I am not positive I replace Wittman before another season goes by, but I am sure that if I have a choice between AJ and D'Antoni for this team, as much as I like D'Antoni, I choose AJ.
And yes, if the shenanigans make it so D'Antoni goes to Toronto, I like Mitchell most of all, and would sacrifice Wittman for him. Sam Mitchell and Al Jefferson seems like an ideal match.
I'm curious why you'd prefer Sam over AJ. I like both of them, but it seems like AJ would have some ideas about using Jefferson that would be similar to how Duncan is used in San Antonio, while Mitchell is used to playing and coaching a different kind of 4 (KG, Chris Bosh). As for D'Antoni, I wouldn't be surprised to see him wind up in Dallas.
On a side note, what surprises me is how rarely teams look to Phil Jackson's assistants for their head jobs. His teams run a good offense and have usually been solid defensively. Jim Cleamons lasted a bit over a season in Dallas, and I think he's been the only one. I think the triangle offense is pretty good and wouldn't mind seeing someone from that group (like maybe Brian Shaw) try to implement it here.
Great post. I prefer Sam because he's a known quantity with a lot of history here--meaning that Glen Taylor will be more comfortable and give him a longer rope and the casual fans will perk up a bit--and yet he doesn't brook any bullshit from anyone, either up or down from his spot in the hierarchy. I also know Sam to be very hard-nosed and blue-collar, and I think Jefferson would run through a brick wall for him--or commit himself to defense. Nothing at all against AJ, by the way, who was absurdly scapegoated in Dallas because Jason Kidd couldn't turn back the clock 6 years.
As for the Jackson assistants, the impression I always got was that Tex Winter invented the triangle and Jackson handled the head-shrinking (and expanding); the rest of the crew pretty much followed those leads. But yeah, if Shaw really knows and understands the triangle via his time both playing and coaching with Jackson, he'd be worth a look. It seemed like the Wolves ran a modified triangle (albeit with more screens) some of the time last year, and in Jefferson/Gomes/Foye/McCants have the right tools for it aside from a great decision-maker (Gomes excepted).
Those are justifiable points on Mitchell. I'm one of those people who agrees with the idea that people who have been a part of championship-level teams know how to get there better than those who haven't. However, that's not necessarily true; the Wolves have had several people affiliated with championships on their coaching staff since the days of Jimmy Rodgers and Jack McCloskey.
I also think you understand the Jackson-Winter dynamic pretty well. In his 3 coaching books, Jackson always discusses Winter as an invaluable asset to his staff. Not having him actually on the staff might or might not be a significant problem. It would be important to have the rest of the assistants on board with that offense as the plan, and it seems like there are enough assistants around who have played for Jackson. It's been a great offense for maximizing the talents of the stars and role players, one that would lessen the need for a great PG.
Absolutely loving these playoffs. So much more storylines than last year. So much teams seem to have decided this is the year they either take it all or lose it all. Some with more intelligent moves than others as you site.
As much as you think Yao is overrated I think Harris is underrated. Especially because he fit into that Dallas system very good (some kind of run and gun but more balanced with decent defense). Off course it's easy to talk with hindsight.
Anyway, take your time for that 2nd part, there's no more T-wolves stuff to read until 20th may and after that the draft .. So rather have it in healthy doses ^^
I think the Atlanta-Boston and Philly-Detroit series are showing how important athleticism becomes in the playoffs. Atlanta has a huge edge in that category, and being fueled by the home crowd has carried them back into this series. I know a lot of posters on this board are more enamored with college productivity than rawer athleticism, but think about a guy like Josh Smith, who has been dominant despite a limited offensive game. Every team needs players like that, and I think it's an element that's not there with the current Wolves roster and that will need to be there if they want to be a championship contender.
Did anyone else notice that the two big trades of the year lost in then first round? And that (except for a dysfunctional, lazy Denver team) they played worse than any other teams in the playoffs? Additionally, they also seemed to be the two favorite teams to predict to win an upset. I think it would be nice if basketball writers would learn from this and start looking at current performance, rather than simply checking for marquee names and remembering past glories (which better writers like Britt and John Hollinger do). If you look at the ESPN roundtable of the losses, it's pretty funny to see pundits realizing what detractors of the trades had said all along: "Phoenix is old and can't really make any more moves!" "Dallas completely mortgaged their future on an over-the-hill player!"
In less soapboxy discussion, am I the only person who sees New Orleans crushing San Antonio in the second round? I think New Orleans looked better in the first round, and while the series should, in theory, go the distance, if you look at their regular season matchups (2-2) the closest game was a 9 pointer, with a legitimate blowout win by both teams. Based on that, this could be a boring series to watch.
Yes, I think you are the only person who sees NO crushing SA. Who's stopping Tim Duncan? Are you going to shift Chandler to him and leave West guarding Oberto? Chris Paul is absolutely the best PG in the NBA at the moment, but Parker has the ability (and speed) to wear him down on defense. The PG matchup should be awesome btw. Then Ginoblli...how does NO guard him? They don't really have a perimeter stopper.
The regular season numbers don't tell half the story. Everybody knows that SA has at least another gear that they save for May.
I am still rooting for KG and Boston, although I really like ATL and some of their young players. Smith is a stud, and I still wish the Wolves had pulled off the three way with PHX and ATL. Al Horford is a future All-Star and already a team leader in his rookie year. The guy is a flat-out winner. Oh well...what could have been.
You're completely overlooking the lakers trade here. That was the first big trade if I remember right and however you look at it (from what I saw it indeed seemed very easy for them to get points in the paint against uninterested Denver defence) they did start off very good.
Phoenix and Dallas were in another position. Especially Phoenix was feeling they had to change *something* because it wasn't working. Both Matrix and Stoudamire were malcontent because they couldn't stand each other, Nash is (getting) old and they just kept losing to the Spurs, they just had to try *something*, give it one final shot, right now, all or nothing. They had no other option. It didn't turn out but at least they gave it their all.
Dallas felt the same in lesser extent: I feel they got a little impatient. But get this: they were so close to the 2006 championship that they felt like .. ok, let's do it next year, then they completely dominate the regular season, feeling confident but then .. wham .. exit in the first round... heartbreaking.
The NEXT season morale is already lower because twice they've felt they couldhave/shoulhave/wouldhave won the championship and THEN you see the Lakers suddenly becoming a force again with a little present from the Grizzlies. Just like that, one trade, one moment.
Under these conditions I think it's understandable they paniced a bit and wanted to do *something* to take a chance on Kidd.
With so much strong teams this year, they probably shouldn't have and just waited another year. Let the old teams get a year older and profit from the extra year of majurity on your young guys. But it's understandable I think they paniced.
Agreed on the first paragraph. As for the second, New Orleans definitely matches up better than Phoenix did, but I think SA's experience at least makes it a 6-gamer. It depends on how well SA can defend against Paul's passing and how well the Hornets can guard SA on post-ups (which they didn't have to worry about with Dallas). Chandler and West need to stay out of foul trouble guarding Duncan. Plus, I'm guessing Popovich will outcoach Byron Scott.
The NO-SA series will be interesting, but in the end, I believe that the Spurs size, depth, and experience in the paint is a huge advantage on both offense and defense. Tyson Chandler is tall and active, but in reality he's light in the pants at 235 for a 7'1" center. West is like Lamar Odom, almost a "tweener as a 6'9" PF. And the Hornets don't have much on the bench. Spurs bring heft with Duncan and Oberto, plus Thomas and Horry, even Bonner.
I figure Bowen sticks to Stojakovich and virtually neutralizes his game, which is deadly, but thrives on being left open. I have been impressed by Peja's willingness to go inside and rebound for the Hornets, which I didn't recall as being a big part of his game all those years in Sacramento, but again, he only seems to be effective if left alone. Bowen sticks like glue, all day long.
So I predict the series will turn on how the Spurs defend the backcourt. Parker looks like a good match in size and quickness for Chris Paul, but defense is not Tony's strongest suit. If that matchup is not viable for the Spurs, then all of the options for both teams becomes quite the coaching chess match. I think that NO has the deeper athleticism here, SA more experience.
Speaking of trades and acquisitions, how about this one:
Kurt Thomas > Shaq
It's not that the Shaq deal was a bad one, it's just that it didn't provide relative value compared to what the Spurs did on the cheap. If you're a bonafide 50 win team, you don't need to add a superstar to take it up a notch. If you have a weakness at a position or two, you're much better off rolling with the Kyle Korvers and Kurt Thomases of the world than you are with the Kidds and Shaqs. That's the lesson to be learned here. The Spurs do it each and every single year and it seems like no one else catches on. The only other team that seems to have gotten the message is NOLA, who has filled out their roster nicely with functional players who fit specific needs.
As for the whole NOLA vs. Spurs debate, I think it's the Spurs in 5. While TP might not put up big assist stats like CP3, he's a much more valuable tool in postseason play: a de facto post player who scores in the lane. The Spurs have 3 guys who can score in the paint, draw fouls and collapse defenses away from their rapidly aging squad of 3 point bombardiers. With a relatively thin lineup and an already questionable free throw shooting outfit, NOLA is going to run into the cold hard reality of seeing what a -10 FTA disparity can really do to a squad. In their only loss to Dallas, NOLA was massively outgunned at the line. NOLA typically makes up for this deficiency by not fouling a whole lot (thus ending up with a positive FTA differential), but they'll be hard pressed to keep San Antonio off the line in playoff ball with Parker, Manu, and Duncan pounding the lane.
Two things. First, the Thomas trade has an interesting backstory. Orlando gave Seattle a better offer with a higher first-round pick (and they could've done it with all expiring contracts), but Seattle took the Spurs' offer, which is interesting considering the Sonics' GM's connection to SA. As Bill Simmons said, "Um, how is that not collusion?"
As for the SA-NO series, I don't see the Spurs being able to stop the Hornets the way they did the Suns or bouncing them in 5. The Hornets are going to be able to stop the PnR much better than the Suns could because of the difference between CP3 and Nash and Chandler/West and Shaq/Stoudemire defensively, and the Hornets offense is much more capable of getting easy baskets than the Suns are. If they shut down Parker's ability to create his own shot, they've pretty much neutralized him, because he's not good on D or at distributing for others. They also have the wild card in Bonzi Wells, who lit up SA two years ago when Sacramento took them to 7. I'm not saying they'll win, but, barring injury, it will be close.
Good points. Don't forget about the Brent Barry aspect of the Thomas trade. That trade was dirtier than the J Kidd deal. The only difference is that Barry was smart enough to keep his trap shut. Here are some of the better transactions from the Association this year:
1- Major market team trades high 1st round draft picks + expiring contracts + the assistant coach of another team for an All Star center on a team looking to dump payroll.
2- Former NBA finalist includes stay at home dad in a trade for an All Star (albeit washed up) point guard.
3- GM with ties to the team he trades with takes a lesser offer and a 3 point specialist that magically is sent back to the team he used to work for.
Despite all of this nonsense, a mid-market team with one of the league's worst records can't move the contract of a useless malcontent who makes more than 9 mil/year for something useful like a late 1st rounder or even a 2nd rounder.
Oh well, I'll forget about the nonsense when I'm watching Marvin Williams and Kendrick Perkins play tonight in Boston a game after coming off the bench in Atlanta. I'll be wearing my Amare Stoudamire jersey.
The NBA: Where absurdity happens.
I've only seen a few of the games so far, but I have a few Wolves-related comments involving some of the action:
1) Tony Parker's performance in Game 3 should be Sebastian Telfair's off-season study material. Telfair has a lot of the same skills that Parker has, aside from shooting accuracy, but Tony shows how lightening quick feet can get a point guard relatively easy jumpers if you know how to use them and use screen & rolls. Granted, Phoenix is probably the worst team in the NBA at defending that set, but I still think Telfair could become a Parker-like performer if he played with a bit more confidence and shot better from 15-18 feet.
2) As great as the West Playoffs are, I see four teams that could be overtaken by a much-improved Wolves squad in the following two years. These are, starting with the most likely:
Denver
Phoenix
Houston
Dallas.
Denver is a mess, and Portland can already consider that spot theirs. Phoenix will watch their age quickly catch up to them, and Amare-Leandro aren't good enough all-around players to carry a team. Houston is solid, but McGrady has enough injuries in his past to make it reasonable to predict another big one in the coming years, and Dallas has age and disfunction in their supporting roles. However, Dirk and Howard will be good for a while.
Even if these four teams drop off, however, we'll still need some luck in this lottery, and luck in the Clippers continuing to battle Elton Brand injuries, and Golden State making a poor F.O. decision involving either Baron Davis or Monta Ellis.
My main point is just that some of these teams that seem uncatchable look pretty vulnerable with their age and respective problems.
If the Wolvews manage a bit of lottery luck and somehow land Beasley, I do agree that they can catch the four teams you mentioned next year. If not, well, they'll get them in another year or two. As for San Antonio, the Wolves catch them in Duncan's last year and that might not be too long either.
I'm not sure about the Parker Telfair comparison. Doesn't Parker have a few inches on him? They are both quick and an outside shot is extremely important to the player Parker is. Lightening quick feet mean very little when your opposing player can play several feet off you and dare you to shoot. But, I still like Telfair and want him sharing PG minutes with Foye next year (unless we get Rose).
I am one of the few people that was actually reassured by McHales prediction of a .500 team next year. I do believe the WOlves can achieve that level of play or very close to it and this is a standard Wittman should be held to regardless of their lottery pick. They desparately need a center to share minutes with Richards keeping Jefferson at the 4-spot and sliding Gomes to the 3. Brewer should get a lot of minutes at the 2 next to Foye or Telfair and McCants can be the 6 man off the bench with Jaric backing up three other positions. Depending on who the Center is, the prediction of .500 does not seem that far-fetched for me and I would have been dissappointed to hear McHale say instead "We got a lot of holes and a long way to go before we can compete in this league."
Next year the Wolves will finish ahead of Seattle, Memphis, Clippers, Sacremento, and Denver. If they don't surpass, they will be clipping at the heels of Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Portland and Golden State. San Antonio will be in their sights the following year.
And Boston? Al Jefferson and company take both games next year and Big Al can still say that he and KG still have one thing in common.
But, I agree that it wouldn't hurt for Telfair to watch Parker for inspiration and I think Foye should keeps his eyes on Williams (if not CP as well). The point guard spot will need a marked improvement in production next year as well for the Wolves to be successful. But, in Foye and Telfair, I think they have the talent and also different abilities making each one valuable. What I don't want is the S&P suggestion of a death match between Foye and McCants. McCants should be the 6th man playing shooting guard off the bench. Foye should be the point guard. I think Foye's success has to come as a PG, but he needs some steady improvement in the defensive aspect of his game as well as decision making. If we get Rose, well, then let the death match begin and sign Telfair to back up Rose.
Yeah--I agree that Telfair and Parker have significant differences--(although the size difference is only 6' to 6'2")--but I was mostly meaning that Parker's Game 3 domination was a model for Bassy to work toward. Not that he'd score that much, but just the way Parker was using his major quickness advantage to create opportunities. Parker isn't as "strong" with the ball as Deron Williams or Chris Paul, but he's done well with a light body that flies around. Plus, Parker's shooting range doesn't extend out very far, which is reason to believe Telfair could succeed if he could just get the 18-footer down.
I agree with Parker's game being a model for Bassy; specifically, his choice to give up on the 3 ball a few years into his career. Parker took something like 17 threes the entire year. He's not that great of a ball distributor but he can run the pick and roll and get into the lane and finish with both hands. He doesn't even need the 18 footer, as Parker's game is completely centered on running the pnr and getting into the lane.
When I look at the wolves squad, I think it's more likely that those teams come down to rather than the wolves overtaking them. Even McHale's bold prediction to excite the masses was only flirting with .500. I think instead of just flirting with it by saying: "...we'll still need some luck in this lottery", you should call a duck a duck and say: "If we don't land Beasley or Rose we are completely clucked. We need a ton of improvement to get to mediocrity. Even if all 4 of those teams become, for a year, the teams vying for the #1 pick, it seems like our team will be passed as they fall to the earth, and passed again as they rise. When Al Jefferson's contract comes up again, I don't have more than a 28% hope that we won't be going through the same tour of departure that we had with KG last year.
You could be right, although I think it's reasonable to believe that a team as young as ours will at least improve to mediocrity (.500 ball) within the next two years.
My main point was just pertaining to the current teams occupying Western playoff spots. At first glance, it looks like it'll take years and years for teams on the outside looking in to bump them, but I think there's plenty of hope that it'll get shuffled up pretty soon. With that said, there's no evidence of LA, Utah, New Orleans or San Antonio slipping out of the Top-8 in the next 3 or 4 years. So, it's 11 teams fighting for 4 spots.
That makes sense. If more than half the teams make the playoffs, .500 gets you in if the West has a more ordinary ratio of competitive teams in the future.
Unfortunately, I don't see anything beyond there. With contract buyouts, and allowing expiring contracts to expire untraded, I believe the FO is in penny pinching mode. Assuming they can see the same division I see, won't they recognize that NO is young and already a top team, and that portland beats us easily at every position except PF. Doesn't that put us 4-10 years outside of a team that can every be top tier?
What is reasonable front office behavior? Although I remember the Cavs of the Mark Price years, I don't know if that's a goal McHale would aspire to. If their stated goal is winning a championship, and if that's perceived as impossible, what their behavior will be over the next 4 years?
Unfortunately, like most Wolves-related topics, it'll come down to the lottery this May. I think Rose has MVP-potential and will make any collection of players, including ours, look significantly better almost immediately. I think Beasley has perennial All-Star potential, and if he can play the 3 next to Al's 4, would make a beast of a front line. Anything else is probably a big step down and we'll have to hope Foye comes back looking like a new player after a full rehab.
Just to play devil's advocate, when was the last time a team had 2 young players together for the first year with a record nearly as bad (or as bad) as the Wolves and how long did it take for them to get to .500?
In the past, teams with Minny's winning percentage have a 73% chance of improving the next season. When they do, the expected change in winning percentage is about 9%. For the Wolves, this equals about .350 ball next season, or about 28-29 wins.
The probability of a .350 team improving one season to the next is about 58% and when they do, the expected change in winning percentage is about 3-6%. In other words, if things play in the Wolves' favor, by historical NBA averages, they will be around a .400 club in 2 years if things go right.
It's going to take some luck and some deft personnel moves for the Wolves to get to .500. McHale's talk about getting there next year is nothing but the set up for Witt being kicked out of the country club.
Love the stats, SnP, and I also love the comedy of Witt being kicked out of the country club. Does it seem disingenuous that the coach considers a major talent upgrade necessary while the GM says it's only a matter of seasoning. Obviously, they both want to stay working, so it's a necessary opinion, exactly the same as when we apply art to our own resume'. It may not be conscious, but we always adjust expectations to a level where we exceeded them.
It will be interesting to see how the next seasons play out. I wonder what the numbers would look like without exceptional offseasons. The teams that excelled (like Boston's free agent haul, or the drafting of Bird, David Robinson or LeBron James) pushed so far above that it seems they would have weighted the averages high. I will certainly have a great deal more optimism if we select Rose, but I'm not exactly sure (that is, I don't have a number for it) how down I will be if we get the lower pick.
If we don't land Rose, (or maybe Beasley) I don't think we'll get up to .500 next year. However, with whatever lotto pick we do get, plus 80 games of Foye, and improvement from Brewer, I think we should show substantial improvement. Whether that means 28 wins, and a lot more competitive losses, who knows. I'm pretty optimistic, however, that we'll be around .500 in two years regardless. .500 is nothing to get excited about, and not unrealistic for a team with veteran Al Jefferson and capable surrounding players. That's what we should have by that point.
If we do land Rose, I think he's so explosive and NBA-ready as an impact play-maker that Jefferson would get a couple extra dunks a game, upping his average to 25 or 26 ppg, and Foye and McCants would shoot more open 3's at their 40% clip. Also, Brewer might get more transition opportunities since Rose pushes the ball so well. All of this would add up to a lot more wins and .500 would be a realistic goal. I'd love Beasley also, but I think his position is less well-defined, and it will take him a few more years to contribute to a winning team, sort of like Durant.
We had more on 42-40 over at Hoopus here:
http://www.canishoopus.com/2008/4/22/415823/42-40
"Needless to say, there aren't too many teams in the history of the league to sport such numbers right before a massive turnaround. The closest example I could find is the 97-98 Spurs…or, as the event is otherwise known as, When Duncan Came to Town. Barring the introduction of a historic, game changing rookie, there is nothing in the Wolves stats, roster or schedule to suggest that they are in any way, shape, or form capable of running off an additional 20 wins in the 2008-09 season. Unfortunately, as I have been saying for some time, the sudden appearance of Basketball Jesus appears to be a large part of the Blueprint. And then something magical happened...
Just to give you an idea of how rare a 20 game turnaround is, the 2003-04 Nuggets won 26 more games than the previous season, ending up with a 43-39 record. The reason why? They added Andre Miller, Carmelo Anthony, and Marcus Camby. This is the 8th greatest single-season turnaround in NBA history. (Jason Kidd and the Nets had an equal turnaround in the 2000-01 season.) The 72 win Bulls are also on this list, improving by 25 games from the year before.
In short, not only would the Wolves have to buck historical trends along with beating younger and better teams within their own conference, but they would have to put together a historically significant turnaround in order to make McHale’s wild prediction a reality."
...unless one of these draft picks is a historically good player, they're not going to get to .500. Look what it took for the Nuggs to get there and the conference is much better than it was way back when.
All of those reasons mentioned make me believe that McHale actually does not believe what he is saying. If anyone remembers him as a commentator, he was quite honest in his analysis of the wolves abilities. Were he not paid by the team, in part to get people in the seats, I doubt he would skip over the lack of a center or PG in his judgments of future success. Unfortunately, he needs to, because Taylor won't spend the money for a free agent or a draft pick. Why would he when the unapproachable goal is a .500 team? If we're reasonable, I don't think we have any choice but to chock it up as a lie.
However, I will give myself over to draft hope, and even expand my happiness (by necessity) to Bayless or Gallinari. Of course, that means no center is coming to us, but we weren't going to get one in the Basketball Jesus scenario, either. It's a very conscious decision to be excited about scoring in small ball. But without a center, there is no way we win 40 games.
Watching KG in the 3rd quarter of game 4, I got the feeling that he was looking gassed, not playing with nearly the energy and snap we saw revitalized when he moved to Boston. He looked much like his last season or two in Minnesota. I watched in near disbelief when he had the ball deep in the paint with a bit of room to operate and kicked it out to the corner for a long jumper (that missed). I said right then that if his teammates didn't kick it up a notch, that the Celts would lose. I hate being a prophet sometimes. I dunno, were his knees bothering him again?
For the Pistons, it looks to me like they are playing Rasheed's brand of ball, i.e. being rather lackadaisical and believing that their talent will eventually overcome their opponent. Where is the high-octane and who gapped the spark plug anyways? If Flip can't ever seem to get them going, who would they respond to? But has there ever been a championship team that later repeated under a new coach?
And good golly yes, Jason Kidd has been exposed as no longer able to consistently deliver the goods. Dirk's improvements last year in being willing to make forays into the paint seems to have slipped and he's beginning to look timid again. Bye bye, Dallas. No tears here either.
The Ray Allen match up on JJ is just plain lousy coaching. Ray has bad ankles and feet to begin with, plus putting him on Bibby would save some of his energy for offense. Ray has been doing it all: spot-ups, drives, step-backs. And he is arguably the best spot-up shooter in the league.
The doubles on KG seemed to throw his patented fade-away jumper off last night. But he always prevails and overcomes whatever the defense throws at him.
The Hawks have the edge in transition. The Celtics are better in the half court offense. Much of the series will depend on which team controls tempo.