AP Photo by Paul Battaglia
Game #73, Home Game #38: Detroit 94, Minnesota 90
Season Record: 19-54
1. A Rough Night For Foye
There is more than one goat in a game where the Wolves blew a 21-point lead and wilted down the stretch against a Detroit Pistons team resting arguably their top three starters--Chauncey Billups, Rasheed Wallace and Rip Hamilton. But in a contest that was obviously Minnesota's for the taking, point guard Randy Foye was especially noticeable in his inability to deliver at either end of the court.
It certainly didn't begin that way. In the first quarter it seemed apparent that the Wolves were keyed up to win their 5th straight home game and that the Pistons were mailing it in. Especially impressive was the chemistry between Foye and Al Jefferson, starting 70 seconds into the game when Foye fed Jefferson for a slam dunk. It happened again at the 7:21 mark, and a third time--this one finishing with a Jefferson jump hook--at 1:09 to play. The period finished with Jefferson going 4-4 FG, three of them on dimes dropped by Foye. Couple with an aggressive 5-5 FG by notorious clanker Corey Brewer, the Wolves had raced to a 30-18 lead via 9 assists and a 14-6 rebounding edge.
The pattern continued with both benches on the floor during the first half of the second quarter, Minnesota pushing the lead to 43-22 with 6:50 to play before the break. A Flip Saunders team had just 4 assists in the first 17:10 and Wolves were heading for a blowout.
Then coach Randy Wittman subbed back in his starters (Jaric, who had entered at 11:43, was already in the game. Brewer came back at 6:16; Jefferson and Foye together at 5:30; and Gomes at 4:35. Yet the Wolves didn't score a single field goal in the period after Chris Richard's put-back dunk with 5:38 to play. "Up to that point, we were moving the ball and making the extra pass," Wittman said, and indeed the team's assist/turnover ratio at the time was 13/4. Added Wittman, "I think we gave this game away in the last six minutes of the second quarter."
Pistons' coach Saunders agreed, and even pointed to the specific moment. "I've always said one play can change a game and for us no question it was when they missed those four free throws in a row [two by Jaric and two by Jefferson] and we went down and scored and cut the lead to nine." That was during a 16-2 Pistons run that had them back in the game, down just 5, 49-44, at the half.
Coming out for the second half, Minnesota went back to their bread and butter--Jefferson in the low block. After getting one measly FG attempt in the second period, Big Al scored 7 of the team's first 10 points in just the opening 2:25 of the third to bump the lead back up to 59-51. At that point Jefferson had 19 very efficient points on 7-8 from the field and there was still more than 21 minutes to left play. But Saunders found a pair of matchups he liked--Tayshaun Prince posting up either Corey Brewer (for 6:43) or Kirk Snyder (for 5:17) and rookie backup point guard Rodney Stuckey (playing for Billups) taking Foye off the dribble. Together, Prince and Stuckey combined for 19 of the Pistons' 21 points in the third to keep the Wolves' lead contained at 7, 72-65, heading into the final period.
But with Jefferson on the pine, the Wolves endured another scoring drought in the first three minutes, enabling the Pistons to tie the game once more. Jason Maxiell in particular was owning the boards, and a cold Rashad McCants kept clanking jumpers. But then Craig Smith executed a nifty pass in the corner to set up Jaric for a trey (The Rhino's 4th assist) and McCants finally stopped shooting and started dishing, finding Richard for another slam and then, after Gomes and Jefferson returned to action at 5:46, Shaddy fed Big Al for a layup 17 seconds later as Pistons big Amir Johnson committed the foul. Wittman chose that time to sub in Foye for McCants. I asked three journalists around me who they'd rather have in the game right then, Foye or McCants. Everyone (including me) said McCants--it just wasn't Foye's night. Jefferson converted the free throw to make it 83-80 with 5:29 to go. And then Foye pissed away the game.
Yes, Foye nailed a trey to flip a two point deficit into a one point lead with 2:33 to go. Yes, Foye hit a back-arching floater driving across the lane to make cut a three-point deficit down to one with just 31.6 seconds left to play. And yes, Foye's line doesn't look that shabby at all: 18 points (on 6-14 FG), 5 rebounds and 4 assists versus just two turnovers.
But Foye couldn't stay with Stuckey on D, as the rook drew four fouls on Foye in the final 4:29; none of them the sort of strategic grab meant to pray for missed FTs to cut a lead. In fact all of them occurred with the teams within two points of each other. Stuckey was 7-8 FT as a result, and also stuck 14-foot jumper to break an 88-88 tie in the final minute. Asked why Foye couldn't stay with Stuckey, Wittman at first pretended he didn't understand the question (or maybe he was just fatigued). When I clarified--was it bad foot speed, overplaying the dribble, inexperience?--the coach replied, "By labelling it that, you are just making excuses. You [meaning Foye] have got to defend."
At the other end of the court, Foye's inability or disinclination to get the ball to Jefferson was driving Big Al crazy--his last field goal attempt occurred with 4:45 to play. With little more than a minute to go in a tie game, Jefferson was literally jumping up and down demanding the ball in the half court. This display of pique was most unwise because it practically obligated Foye to force-feed the rock--something the Pistons well knew, and stole the entry pass Foye attempted on the left block. (Pin that Foye turnover on Jefferson. Pin the half-dozen times Jefferson, who finished 9-12 FG, didn't get the ball when he should have in the 4th quarter, on Foye.)
After the steal, Stuckey came down and canned that pull-up jumper over Foye. Wittman called a timeout and subbed in McCants for Brewer to spead the floor a little bit, as the Wolves were down 2 with 45 seconds to play. Out of the timeout, with 15 seconds still on the shot clock, Foye attempted and missed a difficult fadeway over a charging Maxiell. Asked if he'd gotten the shot he wanted on the play, Wittman didn't play dumb. "No," he said flatly. "There was a switch and we didn't take advantage of it. Maxiell [Jefferson's man] switched out and we didn't take advantage of the mismatch." As the Wolves walked off the floor, there was steam coming out of Jefferson's ears as he pursed his lips and shook his head. Foye finished at minus -14, five points to the bad of Brewer's second-worst minus -11.
In the first and third periods, Jefferson was 8-9 FG, Foye was 4-7 FG with 4 assists, and Wolves outscored the Pistons by 14. In the second and fourth quarters, Jefferson was 1-3 FG, Foye was 2-7 FG with zero assists, and the Pistons outscored the Wolves by 18.
2. Blistered By the Bench
Their bench kicked our rear end," Wittman announced after the game--no mean feat, given that three typical Piston benchwarmers were starting in place of Billups, 'Sheed and Hamilton. McCants and Craig Smith--two Wolves with eFG% that are among the highest on the team--combined for 3-19 FG and 0-4 from beyond the arc. Overall, Detroit's subs outscored Minnesota's 40-17, led by Walter Hermann, who dominated the Brewer/Snyder tandem and occasionally Jaric for 11 points.
3. Kudos
In tonight's press kit, Wolves stat guru Paul Swanson put together individual totals for the players both in the past 12 games (not counting tonight's loss) when Minnesota went 7-5, and in the previous 5 contests, all of them losses. The biggest difference in the 7-5 and 0-5 playing rotations is that Marko Jaric get the minutes normally allotted to the injured Sebastian Telfair. And whereas Bassy's assist to turnover was an impressive 6.0/1.6 during that 5-game losing streak, Jaric's marks over the last dozen are 5.0/1.1, and he shot 50% (versus Telfair's 40.5% in the previous five) besides.
Kirk Snyder likewise is shooting well--50.6%--over the past dozen, is getting to the free throw line through aggressive penetration, and is defending as well as Corey Brewer. Bottom line, if no one knew who was the heavily-invested first-round pick and who was the recently-acquired player from whom not much was expected, people would be as likely to name Snyder as the keeper right now as they would Brewer. No bias there (I actually like Brewer, as most folks are aware), just fact. Tonight Snyder tied Jaric with a team-best plus +9, while, despite his hot early shooting, Brewer finished at minus -11.
Ryan Gomes was among those who had a tough night shooting (3-10 FG), but in classic Gomes fashion did enough little things right to register a plus +2. Before tonight, Gomes had converted half his field goal attempts and was averaging 17.8 ppg over the last dozen. His improvement and the development of Foye in the backcourt have enabled the Wolves to shoot a surprising 49% as a team since the all star break.
A lot of negativity around here. I guess it's understandable considering we were playing the B-squad of the Pistons, but I also think that the wolves did what a bad team does--it lost focus. I think more than any one player's actions, that lends itself to the conclusion of bad coaching.
I, for one, would much rather have Foye in at crunch time than McCants. I too would be as frustrated as big Al if I wasn't getting the ball, but it seems like Foye is really getting singled out. Shaddy hasn't had much crunch time success this year.
I think McCants is an even worse defender than Foye. After 3 years, shaddy still hasn't figured out that you can't jab your hand in to try to poke the ball away from guards in the NBA. I think he could have easily picked up 4 fouls on Stuckey as fast as Foye.
Twice late in the game McCants played showoff streetball to the direct detriment of his team.
The first instance was a fast break initiated, I believe, by a McCants steal in the Pistons backcourt. Rashad dashed towards the hoop and a Piston defender caught up at about the free throw line. McCants should have continued his drive to earn a contested bucket, a three point play or a couple of free throws. Instead he tried a fancy behind the back dribble move that earned him a travelling call. Possession Detroit.
Moments later, McCants had the ball on the right side near the three point line in a stationary position. Instead of moving the ball to a teammate or pushing himself towards the paint, he chose to attempt a few crossover moves. On his third back and forth, his defender deflected the ball causing another avoidable turnover at a key juncture of the game.
I'm growing tired of Rashad's "look at me" style of play.
I'm with you AK. McCants is very talented and yet very immature. I will say lately he's had more good days than bad. Hopefully he grows up a little more. The guy only has one more year on his contract and I don't think they'll sign him to a long-term extension this summer.
I think the front office has to figure out what type of guards they want as the draft and free agency approaches. I mean, would they be tempted to draft Jared Bayless if they were slotted, say fifth? McHale comes from the Dennis Johnson and Danny Ainge mold of versatile guards... and Wittman comes from the Flip Saunders, point guard heavy offense - way of thinking (remember Bobby Jackson, although a good NBA player overall, never fit into Flip’s offense).
You can really tell with the guards they have on our team that they’re different philosophies in play:
McCants - Offensive minded
Brewer - Defensive minded
Jaric - Jack of all trades, master of none
Foye - Combo guard
Telfair - Pure point guard
Snyder - Athletic and rugged
I disagree on who should've been in McCants or Foye last night.
McCants' frustrated outburst after missing the and-1 in the first half was a big indication. He chucked his headband and huffed around a lot, and you could tell that Rashad had gotten into his own head again. It was funny to see the look of alarm fly across Glenn Taylor's face courtside as Rashad started to boil over.
McCants has taken strides lately, but last night wasn't his night. The blocks and steals were nice, but by the end of the game, the Wolves needed points, and McCants was 1-9 shooting. Foye wasn't much better, but at least got a few to go down.
The saddest part about this game was that the Wolves obviously aren't tanking -- and they had to face the sad truth that we couldn't even beat the Piston's bench. The silver lining is only in the ping pong balls.
Britt-
Do you have a clear-cut preference for Foye's best position? Seems like it's pretty split among your readers. I'm in the camp that thinks his good catch & shoot ability, and lack of court vision make for a better two-guard. After seeing a fair sample size of healthy Foye at the point, I'm wondering if you've developed a clear idea for his most natural spot.
Andy G--
It's an excellent question because it has helped me understand a little better why I run hot and cold on Foye. The more I see him the more I think he is a natural combo (or, if you want to look at it perjoratively, a natural 'tweener). His dribbling, distribution, court vision and leadership are all better than your classic two-guard but, with the exception of leadership, not up to the caliber of a classic point. His size and ability to score both inside and out while getting his own shot are better than your classic point, but not up to the caliber of your classic two-guard.
I'd say in a perfect world, Foye is better suited to off-guard as a poor man's Dwyane Wade or Brandon Roy. On this team, unless Minnesota drafts a stud point guard, he is better suited to play the point. But I think the more salient consideration--one dramatized last night--is whether he can effectively defend anybody at either position.
I think in his first five to ten games back, when he struggled almost every game, too much of the excuse was playing out of position, and not enough was just on fatigue/recovery time. On the flip-side, I think the hot stretch where he was playing point and leading us to wins (over bad teams) had more to do with getting back into shape, versus playing his most natural position of point.
I agree that his best position has to be placed in the context of the team. My worry with him as the point on this team is that we don't have a marquee swingman that can carry the offensive load like traditional powers that didn't have a playmaker point (Jordan's Bulls, Shaq & Kobe's Lakers). So much gets made of the Chauncey "combo guard" comparison, but that isn't a very common model of success, and it's probably a difficult one to copy, since Detroit found a rare level of offensive chemistry between four unique players, in Billups/Hamilton/Prince/Wallace. I'd feel more comfortable with a pass-first point guard, if an opportunity arises to get a good one.
Good point on the d-issues. That's really frustrating to read (I missed last night's game). Of all things, I didn't expect Foye to be a major liability on that end of the floor. Hopefully it'll improve quickly.
Although Stuckey abused Foye during much of last night's game and looked like a player every bit of Foye's caliber, Foye forced him into a number of very difficult shots - especially toward the end - that he made. Foye didn't look like Bruce Bowen on defense, but he didn't look like he didn't belong on the floor, either.
The thing that struck me about Stuckey was his athleticism. His lateral quickness, jumping, and penetrating ability were head and shoulders above Foye's. Before the season I conjectured that Stuckey actually deserves a "(very) poor man's Dwayne Wade" comparison because of his athleticism (which isn't as good as Wade's but is very good nonetheless) and his abandon with the ball, which was on display last night. I think he was a steal for the Pistons. I think he'll be at least a league average combo guard for Detroit in a few years when Hamilton or Billups leaves/gets traded/retires.
Britt's assessment of Foye's "natural position" is spot on. I don't know whether he can excel at any position. As one poster mentioned a few days ago on the KFAN board, Foye appears to be an average or slightly above average player, nothing more, nothing less. He could help a good team, but he is far from a player to build around. He can't take a game over, his shooting is streaky, and he forces many of his "fourth quarter Foye" moments, usually at Jefferson's expense. I agree with most who think that Rose would be the best player to meet our needs, but I think Mayo is a close second because he would bring real, elite level talent to our backcourt, the kind of talent that could allow him to take over games on a consistent basis, which is something that none of our current guards have, unfortunately. I haven't seen any mention of this, but I think that a Bassy-Mayo backcourt could end up being very potent because their strengths, passing and scoring, actually complement each other's. When we run out Foye and Jaric, two combos/tweeners, our offensive flow is generally poor and our sets look unbalanced and disorganized.
Yeah, I don't mean to completely dismiss the idea that Bassy could be the long-term PG solution. I wish his shot would improve, but you're right that he might look a lot more effective with an all-around stud scorer like O.J. Mayo next to him in the backcourt, and Big Al getting 22 and 12 down low.
One thing about a Bassy/(2-guard not named Foye) backcourt is that you'd have both Foye and McCants coming off the bench, and I'd guess the odds of them both accepting that role are not good. I don't know what either of their trade value is, but maybe McHale could ride the momentum from the Ricky-Blount for 1st Rounder deal and make it happen. Hard to say.
You nail it. Very few successful NBA teams have starters who can be accurately described as "combo-guards" and don't fit one spot better than the other. Roy and Wade are shooting guards who are capable of running the point. Billups is a point guard who has some shooting guard skills that are complimented by two excellent wing players with above average size. Foye appears to be in no man's land in that he doesn't have everything it takes for either position.
As a two, size is the problem because a half court oriented team will have a hard time getting away with a 6' 4 shooting guard. Wade is an exception because his whole game is based around quickness and getting to the free throw line. Running teams can use guys like Monta Ellis because they shoot three seconds into the shot clock on most possessions.
So Foye either develops into a point guard or won't work out with the Wolves as long as Jefferson is the centerpiece of the roster.
Just to add about Roy and Wade, they've played their best ball alongside Steve Blake and Jason Williams--two of the most "pure" PG's you'll find. I agree that those players are shooting guards, and any "combo" is only a compliment to their versatility, and not a description of how they play throughout most of the game.
Mike Bibby may actually be more of a "combo" guard than D-Wade, in terms of the way he played in Sacramento. However, like Billups, his best years came in a unique system with an extremely rare level of offensive team chemistry on display. If the Wolves hire Rick Adelman and Pete Carrill to run the offense, maybe it could work.
Britt-
You don't think it's at all specious to cite a comparison of PG hooting percentages over a set period to identify the main reason for a team's success or failure?
Let's unpack this:
I've taken the 5 games over the past 12 that the Wolves actually won and compared them to the 5 consecutive losses preceding Bassy's injury. In the 5 recent wins, Marko shot 13/33. In the five game losing streak, Bassy shot 15/37. I didn't factor in the losses over the last 12 games because a) they were losses and b) if we're comparing stats we need comparable sample sizes.
Bassy's shooting percentage in the losses was better than Marko's in the wins. So how exactly has Marko's 50% shooting over a 5-7 stretch factored into the team's success when he shot 39% in the five games they actually won?
It is true that Marko has had a better A/TO over this stretch. But if we're using PG A/TO as the PG's measuring stick and as a main factor in a team's success, then, by all means, Bassy could be starting for most teams in the league and the Wolves would be gearing up for a deep playoff run right now.
SFJ--
I know how much you like and support Telfair, and applaud your diligence. I meant no rip or "gotcha" factor vis a vis Bassy and was more intent on praising the recent play of Jaric. If you look, you'll notice the title of the point is "Kudos." I was trying to highlight that an increase in Jaric's minutes have coincided with better play by the Wolves. The eye-opening stat to me, and the one I emphasized, was how closely Jaric's A/TO ratio was compared to Telfair's. This is signficant because A/TO is Telfair's abiding strength and if Jaric comes close to it, the Wolves get a better, more versatile defender (agree?) and a slightly better shooter (agree?) in the bargain.
I think you mischaracterize my words when you say that PG shooting percentages were identified as "the main reason for the team's success or failure." You'll notice in the post that I include it as something of a secondary point, after specifically noting the A/TO.
Or maybe I just wasn't clear enough, and this explanation draws it out a bit more. It was three in the morning and I was wrapping things up.
I guess I misread a bit. Perhaps it's because my antennae is finely tuned to assertions that the Wolves are a better team without Bassy in the lineup. I don't think it's the case. But I agree that Jaric is a better defender and shooter, but I think Bassy is better at controlling the game with his handle. He has also come a long way with recognition (i.e spotting mismatches) and setting up buckets even when he doesn't get an assist.
Foye is by far the best scoring threat. He can get his assists but lacks a feel for the ebb and flow of a game. And as you've illustrated, it seems like he hasn't totally accepted the fact that Big Al is the alpha dog. He can go to himself and other guys, but not on five or six consecutive trips in the 4th quarter. He can drop 18 points pretty consistently, but against halfway decent teams, those points come at the cost of making the rest of the offense click.
Also, Foye, right now is the worst of the three defensively. Most of the time, Bassy can stay in front of his guy, his issue is contesting jumpers.
All in all, I think the Wolves PG situation is far from settled. Each brings strengths and weaknesses. Nevertheless, if Rose does not fall to the Wolves, I don't think an undersized rookie PG (not even a pure point), will be any more likely to be the answer than what they already have. Maybe the best thing to do is bring back Bassy for another year at his qualifying offer with a team option for 09-10 and see if more clarity develops over the course of the next season. Maybe Bassy develops his floater or maybe Foye learns to be a PG. Jaric will continue to be a stopgap.
I'm new to reading this excellent blog. Could someone explain what Britt means when he says that "Brewer finished at minus -11" and that Gomes was +2? He uses the +/- a lot for evalution and I was just wondering what he means.
Thanks!
Steve:
Check out Knickerblogger's "A Layman's Guide for Advanced NBA Stats":
http://www.knickerblogger.net/index.php/2007/10/29/a-laymans-guide-to-ad...
+/- is a stat that attempts to weigh the overall value of any given player. It is borrowed from hockey and it can be boiled down to the following example:
a- player x's team scored 5 more points than their opponent when player x was on the floor; therefore, player x's +/- is a +5
b- player y's team scored 5 points less than their opponent when player y was on fhe floor; therefore, player y's +/- is a -5
It's a good stat to balance out individual play within a team context. Basketball is a hard sport to properly express the cliched "little things" in stats and +/- stats are a good starting point to assess value for players who hustle, play good team d, don't turn the ball over, protect the lane, etc.
Go check out Knickerblogger's page. It's really a good primer for advanced stats. If you want more, Google Dean Oliver, John Hollinger, and "apbr". Oliver has a good book called "Basketball on Paper." It's as close to Bill James as basketball stats get. It also focuses on the relative value of individual play within a cooperative setting...which is what +/- stats attempt to do.
S n' P,
Thanks much for the reply. I'll check out the link.
Mr Robson:
Have you ever asked Wittman what style of offense he runs? I've never brought it up before because it seems kind of silly for non-professionals to be griping about the type and style of offense run by a professional organization, but I've been of the opinion for a couple of months now that the Wolves are running a system that isn't fit to their personnel.
Why do I say this? 65% of the Wolves' shots are jumpers. Since the Wolves are one of the most infrequent and ineffective 3 point shooting clubs in the league, this means a lot of mid-range jumpers...which are, contrary to old school nostalgia, the most overrated way of scoring in all of basketballdom. Combine this with a scheme built around an undersized post player, an average pace, a guard/wing-filled roster, and an overall inability to get/make free throws, the Wolves are balling their way through life with a small-ball roster and a big-ball playbook.
I understand that a good deal of the way they operate has to do with Big Al being their only legit NBA starter. You have to run something that fits your best player; I get that. I also get that they are good rebounders and this may tempt them into a slower pace with more emphasis on the post game (which itself begs the question of how a poor shooting team who gives up a lot of shots to its opponents can be excited about rebounding.) However, with players like Foye, Shaddy, Brewer and Snyder, you have players that should be placed in situations where they can get to the rim. More spacing, less picks, less mid-range jumpers, and in the case of Foye or McCants, 3s or the lane and nothing else. I know Bassy's weak shot/finishing ability kept them from it before, but the way things stand now (and depending on who they get in the draft), they are moving in the direction of having a team that is even more geared towards something like a pro version of the Dribble Drive Motion offense run by Memphis (other pro teams have adopted parts of the system).
I guess the better question to Witt would be this: Is this the offense the front office is going to build the personnel around? I think an honest answer to this question would go a long way to helping you answer your questions about the Wolves' intentions for small-ball. It could also go a long way for those of us who would like to know which direction the team is going to go in the draft. Outside of Rose and Beasley, the options are center or play-making forward.
Above and beyond the question about small-ball, I would just be curious to know how Witt classifies his own offense. Surely he has a system and a group of mentors that could place his approach/scheme into some sort of recognizable language. I've never known a decent coach who couldn't name his own system. 'What are you running?' is a question that gets asked from 5th grade AAU through college and up to the pros. Look around in the NBA and you'll see that the best teams and coaches have systems that the team is built for. There is no flying by the seat of your pants at this level. You don't change things year in and year out. It would be very interesting to see how Witt would answer the question about his offense.
I second this concern. I watch Brewer and see a young man who needs to operate in space and on the run. Ask him to stand still, then move into a set series of offensive movements and he's simply overmatched. But let him run and you would very likely see something very impressive develop in a few years.
On the other end, you've got a bull in Al Jefferson who is at his best when the court is set. He is made for typical NBA outside-inside-outside ball.
What do these two men have to do with each other within the designing of a team? And the other players can be similarly assessed.
I sometimes think back on the old Clifford Ray-Charles Smith warriors. Al Attles had a "human wave" approach to the game, where he'd sub in Charles Dudley and an entire crew of runners and leapers and try to run the other team off the court. There was much less of this soul-deadening move-countermove approach to situational subbing with individual players.
I'm not suggesting this. I'm just saying that we've got some runners and leapers -- McCants, Brewer, Telfair. And we've got some pounders or slow-footers like Al, Craig Smith, Jaric, and, I'm afraid, Foye.
Then you've got some tweeners like Gomes and Snyder who perhaps can play a bit of both ways.
Where I'm going here is to say that static assessments of players based on height and position is only one parameter. Dynamic assessment of players who play in motion and space versus those who play in position and traffic is also a viable option.
On a separate note, it is becoming clear that Foye's weaknesses are in terms of physical capabilities vis a viz his positions, while McCant's weaknesses are mental. Even as a sixth man McCants seems intent upon stopping the flow while he pounds the ball around looking for his shot. If I had to play with him, I'd puke. If I had to play with Foye, I'd cry.
Good to see a discussion on this, as I've wondered about it several times. Based on who he's coached under/played for, I think Wittman is borrowing concepts from Flip and Bobby Knight.
Maybe this is part of the problem. There are times when it seems like they're running a Knight-style structured motion and times where it seems like the old KG/Terrell Brandon offense (dump it in to the post and either go to the basket or reverse the ball for an open jumper). They don't seem to fit together.
As for the personnel argument, there are two main things that I think connect to this. First, if a team has a style of play and has talented players, those players will be able to play in multiple systems. They'll end up emphasizing different skills in different systems, but they'll still be productive. For example, a player like Sam Cassell played differently in Milwaukee when he was surrounded by Ray Allen and Glenn Robinson than he did when he was with KG and Spree, but he was still productive. I think the #8-10 guys in a rotation are the ones who are more likely to see dramatic differences in their production based on a specific style.
Second, a team still needs to be concerned about style of play when they are choosing players. For example, Phil Jackson-coached teams have made decisions based on how the players would fit into the triangle offense. It makes it easier for a team to be consistently good if they pick players based on their fit in the system.
With the Wolves, if I had to guess what their goals are, it seems like they want to be an inside-out team that focuses on getting points in the paint. If they can't get the shot inside, the goal is ball reversal to get the open shot. On defense, I would think that the goal is to limit points in the paint, crash the boards, and try to fast break off of playing the passing lanes and rebounding misses.
This would seem to require good ballhandlers and passers, players who move well without the ball, players who can finish inside and draw fouls, players who can make open jump shots and free throws, rebounders, shot-blockers/alterers, good man and help defenders, and players with good defensive instincts.
With these things in mind, it seems like certain players are needed on this team: a consistent outside shooter who can do other productive things, a perimeter player who can get in the paint, draw fouls, and hit open teammates, better defenders at any position, and an interior player who can challenge and block shots as well as rebound.
Even with that said, I'm not sure whether the system isn't structured enough or the players aren't sticking to it enough. That seems like the bigger question.
After enduring the last half of the game against the Pistons, once again it is clear what a lousy coach Wittman is. The team's offense seems to consist of either getting the ball into Big Al (a great option) or dribbling it around the perimeter. Throughout the second half I did not once see them run any type of play that might get Foye a shot behind a screen (he had to create his shot on the move though occasionally the ball would come cross-court to him when he was wide open) or anyone else for that matter. I fail to see any consistent plays being run, save for low screens for Big Al as he cuts across the lane to the left block to catch the ball, often in a double team. Maybe he has better plays in his playbook and his players never run them; though that would also reflect on his coaching.
This team is desperate for a legitimate 2 guard, one that can hit open shots and also cut to the basket (say a Brandon Roy type.) The struggling Foye experiment, converting an undersized 2 to the point, is further proof of the bankruptcy of the Wolves' strategic thinking. I shared Big Al's frustration last night as he stood waiving his arms in the lane, wide open, while Foye hoisted a three that clanged (Big Al did snare the rebound and put it back in, prior to tearing into Foye for missing him.) Foye does not look first to pass, which your point guard has to do.
McCants' continuing misadventures with the basketball show that he is the current successor to JR Rider, a lot of talent looking for a tar court to dazzle people on. By the way, rumor has it that JR was arrested in LA this weekend for driving a stolen car through "skid row" at 2:30 a.m., and had been busted for drug possession earlier in the month.
After 19 years as a season ticket holder, I've finally lost faith that the Wolves have a clue, their recent upswing notwithstandig, or any reasonable prospect of putting together a team (as opposed to some prospects that can play well occasionally.) I will be giving up my tickets at the end of this season, to invest the money in Gopher b-ball tickets, where Tubby Smith has shown he knows how to coach. I know that there will always be tickets available for the Wolves on the street, especially now that management continues to sell my $70 tickets for $20 a game.
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, those are the Wolves I know and..er, appreciate greatly. Another U-turn instead of a corner turned.
After a good Utah game, we can't beat a half-scrub, half-regular Piston team. Jim Pete was trying to spin it that it would be a real feather in Detroit's cap to win this game given their reserve-laden rotation. I would imagine that cap would be laden with tinfoil, trying to block broadcast waves (radio, TV, High-Def, and short-wave) from reaching Flip's cranium. I know when Detroit looks back on this season, one of the bench marks they'll point to will be THIS game. Forget about Boston, Cleveland, or other Western Conference teams they've been able to beat; the insult will ring out: our bench can beat your starters! On to the playoffs!