Note: I know I said I'd have a Wolves recap for you Monday, but with all the playoff ball consuming my time (not to mention other writing projects--my editors know what they are) I now realize I'm never going to get this done unless I break it into parts.
So, here's Part 1, which deals with what I wanted to hear from Kevin McHale at his season-ending press conference last week. (Please bear with the changes in typeface that may crop up because I cut and pasted some of the press conference transcription.) At least one other part will be an evaluation of each player on the roster: Both how I regard him and how I believe the Wolves' front office regards him. Anyway, thanks for your patience. I'm also willing to kick around the playoffs, if anybody is interested, and will probably in the next couple of days set up an open thread with a bevy of impressions to get things rolling and see what happens.
When Timberwolves personnel veep Kevin McHale did his by-now traditional meeting with the media the day after the 2007-08 season to discuss the State of the Ballclub, his mood was decidedly more upbeat and the number of reporters he was addressing was much smaller than in recent years past. Part of the reason (for both) was that there was no buzz McHale was going to step down. The other part (again, for both) was that the bar of expectations had been set so low, especially for the immediate past and future of this ballclub.
McHale sought to change that some with his dramatic proclamation that, barring significant injuries, the 2008-09 Wolves should improve by some 20 games, flirting with .500, if not a bottom-rung playoff spot in the ultra-competitive Western Conference. And how was this going to occur? Essentially by standing pat and letting the existing personnel get more familiar with each other.
McHale said this two or three different ways, but just to be clear, I asked him, "Beyond the seasoning of existing personnel, what does this team need?" This is what he said:
"It needs to come together and play. Everybody says 'We’ve got to go and get somebody from the outside,' [but] those guys have got to go in there and grow together as a team, establish themselves a little bit—Al has established himself—kind of, underneath that how are we going to play, our style of play, becomes more dedicated defensively in getting back; our transition defense needs a big step up. Defensively we have got to get tougher. So most of the growth I see is internally. Now in the draft we’ll get a good player in the draft, but with way it is set up we’ll get a 19, 20, 21 year old kid; if you are hanging your hopes on that coming into a man’s league….I would say that, overall, I would just say basically a little more shooting around Al, because he is going to get double-teamed and you have got to have court-spacers. But I thought Foye, when you had Foye and used Foye to enter the ball on the strong side and when you left him he made shots; that is a big part of it. Because I think Bassy was out trying [to distribute], not shooting a lot. Again I think shooting. But to me the biggest jump we are going to make is that group in there staying together and being confident."
Asked point blank what *besides* seasoning is needed, McHale repeatedly invoked seasoning.
There are two fundamental problems with this. Minnesota does not have a legitimate NBA center on its current roster capable of starting for a playoff contender. The other fundamental problem is that the Wolves have a glut of swingmen. You could argue--I do argue--that unless Randy Foye dramatically improves his court vision and attitude and Corey Brewer dramatic improves his strength and sinew, the team's last three top draft picks are all best suited to play the off-guard position. And yet McHale specifically cites the two aspects of the game in which off-guards are thought to be most adept--transition defense and outside shooting--as the two largest areas where this ballclub needs to improve.
I understand where McHale is coming from. He's not going to say this team needs a hardy, defensive oriented big man, because unless he's going to reach for a player based on position more than talent in the draft, or overpay in free agency, there doesn't look to be any way to address that weakness. By contrast, talking about the need for shooting and transition defense sets the to-do agenda for his swingman glut heading into next season. I'd have more sympathy for his hands being tied if he wasn't the one spooling out the rope.
But make no mistake: Minnesota will never be a viable playoff contender without a staunch big men to take the defensive pressure off the team's two best players, Al Jefferson and Ryan Gomes. A steady diet of postseason games has reminded me what it takes to be an elite NBA team: A bonafide superstar, a demi-star, knowledgeable role players, and capable team defense. It is possible--not quite probable--that Jefferson is a budding superstar. Gomes is certainly a knowledgeable role player who can find a niche on most any ballclub. But put them on the court together at center and power forward and you cannot defend in a playoff-worthy manner.
The numbers at 82games.com show that the Wolves allow a whopping 12.1 points per 48 minutes more when Jefferson is on the court (116 points per 48) than when he is off it (103.9 points per game). One reason for this is because opposing centers have an eFG% (which factors in three-pointers, not generally applicable to centers and power forwards) of 56.3%. By contrast, the power forwards Jefferson guarded had an eFG% of 40.3%. Unfortunately, the sample size for Jefferson at the 4 is woefully small, so we don't know if that excellent D on eFG% would hold up; but we do know his inept defense in the pivot, where he played exponentially more minutes, overwhelms that performance. And we know that even a scorer as gifted as Big Al isn't going to lead his team to many victories if that team is ceding 116 points per game.
On to Ryan Gomes. Whereas Jefferson had a huge disparity between his minutes at center and those at power forward, Gomes, because he went to small forward not only when a center was slotted in beside Jefferson, but when Craig Smith or Antoine Walker entered the game, is shown to have played 26% of his team's minutes at small forward and 34% of the Wolves' time at power forward (meaning he was on the court approximately 60% of the time). Thus, his stats between the two positions are a little more reliable in comparison to each other. And again according to 82games.com, Gomes yielded an eFG% of 48.6% to the small forwards he guarded versus 54.7% to the power forwards he guarded. (His own eFG% was better at power forward--49.7% versus 48.5% at the 3--but not enough to overcome the disparity of his less effective D in the low block.)
Fortunately, McHale understands this. When I asked him at last week's press conference: "Are you comfortable, long term with Jefferson at center and Gomes at the 4?" here is what he said.
"Well I don’t think, I think that Al is a 4-5, not a 5-4, and that Ryan is a power 3-4. Ryan gets more shots at the 4 because he can move around and all those big guys have that paint fixation. But he rebounds better at the 3, posts up better at the 3. They give you flexibility and that is a good thing. Do I want to see that 4-5 combination for 48 minutes? No. I would like to have another big guy for when Al plays the 4. Al has got to get better defensively. Randy Foye has got to get better defensively, Rashad McCants has got to get better defensively, Ryan Gomes, all those guys have to get better defensively. I like the versatility that they give you and again that is why I like bigger players that can do different things. To me Gomes may have scored more at that 4 spot, but to me he punished teams more when he was offensively rebounding and going into the post at the 3. I like that style of play. But he can play both."
When I pointed out that the vast bulk of minutes wound up with Al playing center and Gomes playing power forward, McHale acknowledged: "For 25-30 games, yeah. And I thought we fell into that. They are both two-position players which are really good to have. [But] you don’t like Ryan Gomes, who works really hard, against Rasheed Wallace. What you really like him playing 4 is against Luis Scola who is sitting in the paint. But what I like is you can make one substitution and go huge or one substitution and go small."
Compounding the problem is the fact that the Wolves play horrible perimeter defense, and have for as long as I can remember. It wasn't quite as deadly when Kevin Garnett was the superstar in residence, and totally committed to the defensive end. (KG's willpower slipped the last two seasons he was in Minnesota. I thought it was age until I saw him this season in Boston, reborn as a panther capable of hounding anyone from the three point arc to the low block.)
The third and final question I asked McHale was: "For some reason perimeter defense has been a chronic defect of this franchise. Why has that happened?" His reply was: "It bothers me too. It bothered me for twelve years. For me it goes back to 7th grade basketball: If you can’t keep your man in front of you, I’m going to take you out. Don’t let him cut in front of you and keep your rear end between him and the rim. That’s as tricky as I like to make it and sometimes I think we scheme up so much we got so many schemes going on that we lose sight of that. We have got to get better at that, at containing the ball. The good teams in our league defensively contain the ball. They may have holes in other areas but they contain the ball…That is a definite, huge area of concern that we have got to work on."
To me, that in a nutshell is why the Wolves only won 22 games this season: They played an undersized lineup where the center and power forward couldn;t effectively defend their counterpart, and they allowed perimeter players to penetrate into the paint almost at will.
Well, there goes the theory that whoever emerges from the East will have a relatively easy time of it versus the Western Conference champion and thus be less beat up and more rested to easily emerge as NBA champions in a short championship series.
Flip and KG having some troubles in the first round. If either or both are upset and go home what will people think of them? Of course, nothing has happened yet and a first round scare might be just what Boston or Detroit needs to get motivated for the rest of the Playoffs, but then again...
In the last few days, I've seen three different hoops sites say that the Spurs are interested in Gomes... has anyone else heard this?
I'll opine that it is our misfortune (as fans) that the only people who seriously disagree with Britt's analysis apparently happen to occupy the decision making positions in the Front Office of the Timberwolves organization.
I've listened to the full audio commentary on timberwolves.com
The questions weren't always audiable but they sorta wrote them down so it was possible to follow.
I think McHale's belief that we need the core together and just give them some time to grow together is a good thing.
Would hate to see this get screwed up because of 1 or 2 botched up trades. If you look at how much the team improved during the year, especially if you know almost all minutes in those good games were played by our youngsters.
I also agree it's a pluss to have that flexibility with 2 guys that can play 2 positons each.
If you look at it like a chess game, it gives the coach some extra pieces he can use to try different strategies.
As you point out, the problem is that it's going to be hard to get a big guy that complements Jefferson.
That's going to be interesting to see in the off season if that is going to see
Great questions, at least we now know how McHale sees things
Reading McHale's comments, doesn't it seem like he would do better as a coach than as a GM? I say that because it really does seem like he has an above-average to perhaps even superb understanding of the fundamentals of the game in contrast to the fact that his GM moves have definitely been questionable. I know he had a short stint as the coah a couple of years ago. What do you guys think? Would he make a good coach? I can't remember how well he did back in the day, so perhaps I'm just on crack in even suggesting this idea...
I don't agree with the notion that having guys who are capable of playing more than one position makes up for the fact that they can't play any one position at a highly above average level. From Marko to Foye, Mchale's love affair with position flexibility has done nothing to strengthen the team no matter how much he talks it up.
As far as I'm concerned position flexibility is an attribute to seek out when filling out the back end of a rotation and that's about it. It's nice to have a Gomes as your 8th man because he can come in at either forward spot depending on the bench match ups. But it's far-fetched to suggest a team can build a successful starting line-up around players who don't naturally fit the position they spend the most time at.
Looking at the top 10 teams in the Western Conference, for the most part they're all built around guys who are either prototypes of their positions, bigger than most guys they line up against or possess an elite skill level. The Wolves don't have guys with any of those attributes.
I'm trying to determine if McHale is setting up Wittman for fall next year. Despite the whole "all part of the country club" angle played so heavily in the local media, they would seem to differ on a number of issues.
* McHale wants to play big and focus on D. Witt seems to prefer small ball (based on his actions) and has probably shown more promise on O schemes than D schemes (IMO).
* McHale thinks the team just needs growth from within plus some outside shooting. Wittman thinks they need more talent period.
* McHale (I would assume) thinks that Foye is enough of a PG and that the SG/PG distinction is not really that important. Wittman wants a traditional pass-first PG and sees Foye as a combo guard (ugh - Flip Murray?).
* McHale thinks the team is closer than people realize and will be 20 games better barring injury. Wittman thinks the team needs a talent infusion and is much less optimistic in how much they'll be improved next year.
* McHale wants guys to get to the line and get fouled. Witt says the same thing, yet it never happens. Is that on the players, or does Witt not really run an O that leads to FTAs?
* McHale likes players that can play multiple positions. Witt says he does too, but then laments the fact that Brewer is not heavy enough to guard a lot of 3s, Gomes not tall enough to guard 4s, etc.
This smells a little like Casey's last year. We'll hear in the fall how McHale expects big things, lots more wins, maybe flirting with the playoffs, although he really doesn't know. Ditto for Glen. Then if the Wolves procede down a 30 win path, does Witt get the axe?
I listened to the entire McHale presser, and it did not leave me feeling confident. Here are the issues that spring to mind:
* As Britt mentioned, McHale's recipe for improvement is internal growth. By contrast, Witt (and the rest of the league) said more talent is required.
* McHale likes to play big, but never manages to find a 2nd good big man. KG never had a decent front court partner, and so far Al doesn't either. When the rubber meets the road, McHale drafts/signs small. To compound the problem, Witt seems to prefer playing small.
* McHale seems to have absolutely no long term plan. At least from the interview, it sounds as though every decision will be based on events almost completely out of their control. They'll just roll with it an make a snap decision at the last minute. Like the bogus garbage about "We had no idea which young guys would work and which wouldn't". Everyone and their mother knew Green was terrible, Gomes was OK, Al was great on O and weak on D, etc. The only surprise was Bassy finally showing some signs of being a solid backup PG.
* McHale likes guys with positional flexibility. But he wants the team to defend better. Well, which is it? Because I would think having a 7 foot C, 6'10" PF, 6'8" SF, and 6'6" SG would really help. Guys like Gomes give up size, athleticism, and weight almost every night on defense. Ditto Brewer at the 3, Rashad at the 2. I really dislike the fact the our team is the Minnesota Tweeners.
Not disagreeing with the rest but the fact that McHale always goes for small players I think isn't true. At least not in recent years.
He traded Jaric for Cassell and specifically said it was the size of Jaric he liked. Ok, I'm not defending that trade BUT it does show he was going for size.
Last year he also selected Corey Brewer and also hinted to wanting to get him saying he wanted more size, not necesarily meaning a big man, but someone big for this position. 6-9 for a SG-SF is defenitly nice.
In 2006, it's argueably. If he really saw him as a PG, the size again was ok again. Gay and Roy might have been better but that's been discussed a lot before. Patrick o Bryant and Sene were the 2 picks after those 3 and there was Adam Morrison before them ... we could have done worse.
In both 2006 and 2007 they chose to go small, I would also have loved to get a bigger guy there. Last year Aaron Gray was still on the board. On the other hand, a polished big man in the 2nd round is as rare as [insert very rare thing here]
I defenitly believe with the addition of one big center, everyone could move to their natural position and there would be no more talk of "Mchale always picking small"
"McHale seems to have absolutely no long term plan. At least from the interview, it sounds as though every decision will be based on events almost completely out of their control."
...I think that's spot on. The biggest part of the Wolves' Let's Build It Blueprint is "And then Something Magical Happened!!!" Unless Basketball Jesus comes to the Twin Cities, we'll have another 2-3 years of multiple draft picks that will reload McHale's stable of ever-developing-but-not-quite-there 20 year olds who just need to season in the stew a bit more before the club becomes competitive and wins 50% of their games. How many more corners will he need to turn before he finds his magical pony? Here's hoping for some luck in the draft. If there is a year where it will happen, this is it.
The funny thing for me is that if they do get lucky in the draft, the public affairs take from the front office will be that the luck will have been by design and that should a player like Rose or Beasley be a transformative player that will take them to 42-40 next year, it will have been by the brains of McHale rather than a collection of benevolent ping-pong balls.
I agree that McHale's passive approach is frustrating, but really, isn't lottery luck basically the formula for success in this league? Would you prefer that McHale pretended that he was holding a lot of good cards?
The alternative is to package our young players and picks for some vets. Maybe we can trade our Celtics back to Boston for KG, then trade the pick and some filler for Ray Allen? Hey it worked for Boston.
But, McHale doesn't have the brains or balls to pull something like that off. It would require a "greater fool" among his GM counterparts, which doesn't exist.
Reality is we have to hope for a good pick...the luck of the draw and an uncharacteristically good selection with said pick.
I agree that there is a good deal of luck involved in making a good NBA team. It usually centers around finding yourself a star and then filling out the roster with talent that can make that player get the most out of his abilities. Typically, this involves having 1 other player who can score a bit, one guy who can manage the game, a nice defender, and a couple of other role players. This year's Lakers are a good example. The Wolves had a star. They may have another one now. The problem beyond that is that they haven't been able to fill in the gaps as well as other teams in the league and they appear to be flying by the seat of their pants with no clear direction. What style of ball do they play? What style of ball will they play? What kind of tempo fits the personnel? Is Big Al the star or is he destined to be a 2nd option type of player a'la Pau Gasol?
I think you state it right in your last paragraph. The FO has shown so little ability to make things happen around their star player that they have to hope for a 2nd miracle.
Another point.... You are not the first person to cite the Lakers transformation on this site. While I don't think you are comparing our situation to the Lakers, more that a few people seem to point to the Lakers as an example of what aggressive personnel decisions can produce.
The Lakers have one of the top 2 one on one scorers in the league, one of the top coaches, and are situated in one of the most desirable free agent locations in the country. Even with all of these things going for them, the Lakers had to trade Shaq, make a great pick (and wait a while) in Bynum, and pull off a once in a lifetime level fleecing to get Gasol in order to return to greatness.
A repeatable blueprint? Not likely
For these Wolves? Absolutely not.
Just to be clear: that's not what I was saying. I'm just saying the Lakers are perhaps the premier generic example of how a successful NBA team is built...partly on the luck of having a superstar.
Yeah, I realize that...but it is much easier said than done. The rebuilding of the Lakers has as much or more to do with the fact that they play in LA than great GM work. If this team played in Charlotte (or Mpls) they never would have been graced with the likes of Shaq, Kobe, or Phil.
Not to take anything away from the success, but I don't think it is a process that can be replicated away from the glamour markets.
At any rate, I think we all agree that it starts with a superstar. And, as I already said...I think we still need to find ours.
Duncan, Manu, and Pop.
I used to live in San Antonio and believe me...it's not as glamorous as the Twin Cities ;) That river walk thing...it's a glorified sewer.
Didn't Charlotte draft Kobe?
Aside from the kidding, I hear what you're saying and I agree about it all starting with a superstar. Detroit is really the only team that didn't go that route in the past...wow, 2 decades.
Yeah, I realize that...but it is much easier said than done. The rebuilding of the Lakers has as much or more to do with the fact that they play in LA than great GM work. If this team played in Charlotte (or Mpls) they never would have been graced with the likes of Shaq, Kobe, or Phil.
Not to take anything away from the success, but I don't think it is a process that can be replicated away from the glamour markets.
At any rate, I think we all agree that it starts with a superstar. And, as I already said...I think we still need to find ours.
Personally, I don't believe Al Jefferson is the type of transformational star player that a team can build around. He does two things (low post scoring and offensive rebounding) really well, but I think we need to admit that he is below average at most other facets of the game. I would say that he is a bona fide 2nd option...which is great, but not enough.
Put it another way...Al Jefferson and the right group of role players (which we obviously don't have yet) is not going to take us to the promise land.
We need to find "that" guy, and the draft is probably our only real option. Until we find "that" guy, the style/tempo/personnel question is kind of a moot point. We need to address the talent deficit first.
Personally, I don't believe Al Jefferson is the type of transformational star player that a team can build around. He does two things (low post scoring and offensive rebounding) really well, but I think we need to admit that he is below average at most other facets of the game. I would say that he is a bona fide 2nd option...which is great, but not enough.
Put it another way...Al Jefferson and the right group of role players (which we obviously don't have yet) is not going to take us to the promise land.
We need to find "that" guy, and the draft is probably our only real option. Until we find "that" guy, the style/tempo/personnel question is kind of a moot point. We need to address the talent deficit first.
If we get lucky in the draft--it was partly by design, at least in that we knew or should have known that swapping KG for Gomes and Jeff would drop the win total right away and put us in better position for the highest picks. Not the best model for success, but dropping to the bottom has worked well for some (San Antonio, Cleveland) but not others (Milwaukee).
I think alot depends on when you drop to the bottom. This year seemed perfect with three blue chippers (Beasley, Rose, and Mayo) and only one team (Seattle) more committed than us to getting the worst record in the league. Unfortunately, with the exposure of both Miami's "Hunger"-esque sudden aging and Mayo's emergence as strictly a one way tweener made this a two man race with us in third. Because I see little difference between 3 and 7, we must be taking the Milwaukee route.
Britt-
Once we get a real center, won't there be a battle between Gomes and Brewer for the small forward slot? Gomes is more polished right now, but Brewer might be the better perimeter player in a year or two, given his significant edge in athleticism, and seemingly equal level of court awareness. Some fans might laugh off this suggestion, but crazier things have happened than a young player improving his jumper and putting on some muscle.
Andy G--
It's funny, with all the talk about swingmen and positional flexibility, the player I am most comfortable "swinging" with is Brewer--giving him the best defensive matchups at either the 2 or the 3. This would send a signal to McCants (and hopefully Foye, bumped over to the 2 by a better point guard) that defense matters in terms of minutes. Otherwise, I agree that you can go small with Gomes and Jefferson at certain stages of every game, and Brewer can get his small forward minutes in then too. Put simply, I understand and even agree with what you are saying, I just don't see it as a problem. If Gomes and/or Brewer *earn* 35-40 minutes on a playoff contender, let the other chips fall where they may.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that defense is a more pressing problem than the team's offense. They are equally inept at both facets of the game; ranking 27th in the league in both efficiency categories while being about 5 points off of the league median in both areas.
The stat that caught my eye the most this year is thier points for/against in March. With Foye in the lineup (and with a solid backup with Bassy) the Wolves managed about a -3 point differential for the month (which was their best month by a significant margin). They managed this by being respectable (not great) on defense while increasing their offensive efficiency by a significant margin. In April, they scored more but gave up over 110 points/game and...well, they sucked. I guess my point here seems kind of counter intuitive: the Wolves have a better chance of winning when they mitigate their bad d with a more efficient offense. With their current roster, they're never going to be a team that performs well with the score in the 90s. Shaddy, Foye, and Jefferson are too offensively slanted to think that a 1/5th addition of a defensive center could outweigh the 3/5ths tug on pace that these offensive-minded players bring to the table. The current personnel on this team have showed that they can run a pace that will net them over 100 ppg on offense as well as keeping it below 105 ppg on defense. Getting to the line more, increasing FG%, and a few more OREB/game can help bridge that gap and can be done so by the addition of a single player more so than a young, untested defensive-minded center can make the bridge between 92 and 98 ppg (another gap they had during the course of the season). I just don't know if they're good enough on the offensive end to take a hit at yet another position. If they're going to run out Brewer, Gomes, and an anonymous defensive center out with Jefferson and Foye/Shaddy, that may be 1 too many positions without the threat of scoring.
Oh well, who am I kidding? They need help equally across the board. They're near the bottom in both offensive and defensive efficiency categories and they need good players, period.
S+P--
Check the opponents on the March schedule again. It will explain a lot about that tiny -.3 point differential.
The stat that caught my eye was the huge increase in Foye's offensive prowess...and the corresponding huge rise in points surrendered.
Britt:
Are you trying to imply that playing only 5 games against teams with .500 or above records may have helped them lower their point differential? :) I debated whether or not to make note of that in my recap over at Hoopus. I decided against it because they actually started beating some of the teams that they lost to earlier in the year (Memphis, New York, etc). That has to count for *some* improvement.
I also noticed the Foye bump. I'm calling it the Foye Effect. The second he started starting, the team starting scoring over 100/game and giving up about 108. In April they were giving up over 110/contest.
I don't remember Foye being this bad on defense. He's hardly even functional on that end of the court. I like the 40% from range and his 15-18 ppg that he dropped near the end of the year, but he was reason numero uno why their defense fell off the cliff in March and April. Foye vs. Bassy really is an interesting study in individual vs. team defense. They both have similar on/off numbers for points allowed, yet when Foye was running things the team gave up a ton more points...even when Big Al was supposedly playing better on the inside. I really don't know what to make of it.
All in all, my big take on the season is that there was some individual improvement but team progress did not take place. They ended up a worse defensive squad than they were in the beginning, they didn't develop an offensive scheme/pecking order, and they allowed their opponents the same stat line in April as they did in November. Also, you can look at nearly each and every single game they lost and say that it was because of small ball, poor perimeter shooting, and a huge free throw disparity. Wash, rinse, repeat.
May I ask where you get your data?
I'd like to do some quick analysis but never find any alternatives to going to NBA.com and actually entering data into a spreadsheet. If this is necessary, then I'm too lazy.
But, in an effort to be a Foye apologist, it seems like there *may* be a few things that contribute to the Foye Effect.
1. Randy sucks at team defense and guarding his own man (plausible and likely)
2. The team faced better/worse/different competition in March and April than before
3. Regardless of Foye's presence in the lineup the team would have played worse defense because it's the end of the year, guys are playing for contracts, they are tired of Wittman and so why give the extra effort (especially on team defense)?
The fundamental problem of causal inference is that in order to find the true Foye Effect we need to know how many points the Twolves would have allowed without Foye in the lineup in March and April.
Unfortunately, we don't actually get to observe this counterfactual non-Foye March/April Twolves team, so we have to *guess* and how many points they would have surrendered.
A good guess could be to compare the Foye March/April Twolves to the non-Foye November/December Twolves in terms of points allowed.
Of course, many things are different between these two teams and it's unlikely that the November/December Twolves truly represent the performance of our imaginary March/April non-Foye Twolves.
There are differences in opponents, differences in motivations, improvement of players (on the wolves and opposing teams) throughout the year, etc.
We could conceivably *control* for a few of this differences using regression analysis, but regression analysis is an incredibly blunt tool.
Finally my point:
It may be that only 30% of the Foye Effect is actually Randy's fault. Of course, it could be that the true Foye Effect is actually 150% the size of the measured Foye Effect and the man actually destroys team defense rather than simply hurting it.
and...where do you get your data?
Thanks!
Nate (nice name btw):
Basketball Reference and Doug's Stats are the two best places to grab raw data.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/
http://www.dougstats.com/
Basketball Reference is probably the easiest to work with. Here's what you do:
1- Go to the site and pull up the team you want.
2- Pick which set of stats you want: totals, per game, per 36, etc.
3- Select "Convert to PRE"
4- Save the data into txt. format.
5- Open up an Excel spread sheet.
6- Select Data < Import External Data < Import Data
7- Follow the instructions given by Excel.
Or, you can wait a day or two and we'll have them posted at Canis Hoopus available for download.
As for the Foye Effect, I think the key to figuring out how much it affects the team (if at all) is to look at similar 5 man rotations with Bassy vs. 5 man rotations with Foye and then compare them to team efficiencies during the same period. How many points/100 possessions are they getting/giving up with similar lineups. It would be too small of a sample size to match up opponents, but this would be a good place to start. The most troubling thing about Foye's d is that while he and Bassy have similar individual on/off numbers, when Bassy started, the team gave up a lot fewer points. I agree that you can't quantify things like effort and back-to-back fatigue or bad food in the hotel, etc, but measuring these 2 things per 100 possessions is probably the best way to figure out how well each player does on d and how big the Foye Effect is.
Nate (nice name btw):
Basketball Reference and Doug's Stats are the two best places to grab raw data.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/
http://www.dougstats.com/
Basketball Reference is probably the easiest to work with. Here's what you do:
1- Go to the site and pull up the team you want.
2- Pick which set of stats you want: totals, per game, per 36, etc.
3- Select "Convert to PRE"
4- Save the data into txt. format.
5- Open up an Excel spread sheet.
6- Select Data < Import External Data < Import Data
7- Follow the instructions given by Excel.
Or, you can wait a day or two and we'll have them posted at Canis Hoopus available for download.
As for the Foye Effect, I think the key to figuring out how much it affects the team (if at all) is to look at similar 5 man rotations with Bassy vs. 5 man rotations with Foye and then compare them to team efficiencies during the same period. How many points/100 possessions are they getting/giving up with similar lineups. It would be too small of a sample size to match up opponents, but this would be a good place to start. The most troubling thing about Foye's d is that while he and Bassy have similar individual on/off numbers, when Bassy started, the team gave up a lot fewer points. I agree that you can't quantify things like effort and back-to-back fatigue or bad food in the hotel, etc, but measuring these 2 things per 100 possessions is probably the best way to figure out how well each player does on d and how big the Foye Effect is.
-Nate
The "Foye Effect" might just as well be described negatively as "The Bassy Effect." KG on winning the Defensive Player of the Year award said he talks on defence. This is another way of saying that defense is a team concept and there needs to be communication between players. I've never sat courtside and I can't hear what is going on down on the floor. But, is it possible that Bassy communicated with other players better on the defensive end and let people know their assignments, calling out pick and rolls and switches and such.
The other players also worked with Bassy from training camp on and sticking Foye in may have disrupted the whole team chemistry on the defensive end. Foye being the superior offensive player to Bassy made the loss of chemistry on the offensive end less important. Is there a Brewer effect? What happened to team defense once Snyder arrived and took minutes from Brewer and to a lesser extent Jaric. I always thought that defensively, the Wolves were very good with Bassy, Brewer and Jaric on the floor at the same time.
Andy b:
You can compare the Bassy, Brewer, Jaric lineups here:
http://www.82games.com/0708/0708MIN2.HTM
I called it the Foye effect because of the pretty striking rise in points and points given up starting in the beginning of March. His arrival at point and Bassy's departure were the 2 biggest lineup changes during that period. I'm sure there's other factors involved and I'm pretty sure that you could even quantify a few, but Foye gets the name because the team suddenly started scoring over 100 ppg (compared to 92-94) as well as giving up more than they had all year.
My opinion from just watching the games is that Bassy is the much better team defender in terms of being able to contain the ball and keep his man in front of him and/or handling switches/rotations. Foye seems to be the type of defender who is less interested in keeping his rear between his man and the rim and instead relies on his quickness and size to try to corral his man with no real regard to the other players on the court. Bassy was decent at working his man into a double team or forcing him to a particular side of the court. Foye just seemed to be thinking of d in a pure sense of 1-on-1.
S&P,
I work with and interpret numbers all day. I enjoy watching basketball and I love reading insights into the game by people who can sift through stats and present another story to the game, player, team or season. I think you are one of the best at this site. Unfortunately, I have no appetite to comb through statistics and look at the numbers myself after doing cost analysis of companies all day long.
So, I defer to you and others to do the dirty work. ;) When Snyder first arrived he matched up well on defense against a few players for the first couple of games according to Britt. Then Britt pointed out that his defense slipped as his offense started to get better. Did this add to the Foye effect (I actually like the term Foye Effect even better than 4rth quarter Foye).
I think you have said this before, but don't you also agree that Foye should not get his minutes at shooting guard when we already have an offensive minded undersized shooting guard on the roster. In other words, do you agree with me that unless we get Rose, Foye should get most minutes at the point guard spot next year and be sent to the bench when his defense becomes attrocious or he is not distributing the ball well in favor of Bassy? And, do you think this (competition from Bassy) could motivate Foye to be a better point guard? This keeps McCants in the 6th man role and Brewer in the starting lineup at the SG spot.
I too deal with numbers all day long and a good deal of that is while I'm on hold with customers or in on-line sessions with LOTS of dead air/down time. The Wolves stuff keeps me sane and I'm sure I'll find time here sooner or later to go through those stats. :)
I'd hope that Foye is motivated to be a better point guard simply by way of him being #2 on the squad to Big Al. If the team does happen to land Rose, it will be interesting to see what happens. If they keep everybody, I personally would start Rose/Shaddy and let Foye be the guy who can back up both positions. However, I'm of the opinion that the Shaddy/Foye death match needs to happen ASAP. My best guess for the FO's immediate plans is that Brewer will eventually get time at the 2 and they will draft a 3 with the top pick and a big with one of the 2nd rounders (if they can't move up). I think you're spot-on with that and I completely agree.
When Foye come out of college he wasn't regarded as a bad defensive player. That part of his game was actually regarded pretty high (though they did play the 3 guard game?).
I also didn't see the bad defense last year or in the Summer League. I did see him play bad in the Europe Live Tour .. when he already had the injury but was playing through it.
That leaves me with few options to what happened.
1.) He's still suffering from the effects of the injury, be it not being back at 100% of his footspeed or being out of rythm (Mchale said something like "this is his december" because he started that much later). We'll have proof if this true or not next year.
2.) Since it's chronic, maybe we need a good assistant coach that can teach good perimeter defense
3.) Foye's having trouble guarding the faster point guards. If this is the problem we should start using him as a 6th man combo guard. While I still think he'd be best used as a 6th man, I don't think he's too slow to guard point guards since he did fine last year and in the summer league.
Any thoughts? Other possibilities? Motivation?
Britt -
You've adequately addressed the demand side of the analysis, but there is also the supply side. Put bluntly, there are precious few alternatives available for acquiring a center. You can get a project out of the draft but there are no free agent centers available to the best of my knowledge.
Relying on improved parameter shooting to free Al up to single coverage is what we experienced all season. The problem remains that there are no consistently reliable outside shooters. When the clank-fest resumes, the notion backfires and everyone caves on Al inviting shooters to take outside shots.
Dasagna Diop is an unrestricted free agent and a defensive, shot blocking center. He might me had for the MLE and he's still only in his mid-20s.
But the good teams -- the San Antonio Spurs, the Lakers, the Pistons -- at least find the best center under the circumstances. Sometimes its Rasho or Chris Mihm or other times its Bynum or Wallace.
We don't even have the option of inserting Loren Woods into the lineup.
In the NBA, great organizations -- owner, GM, and coach -- make the difference. When you rely on 5-8 players for a whole season, all of whom have guaranteed contracts, the selection of the players is much more important than Flip Saunder's offensive sets, Dwayne Casey's defensive prowess.
I'm just thankful for the intelligent banter, otherwise I'm sure I would rue the days of debating a team full of McHale's players.
CA--
That's right, and well put: the demand side is mostly what this part dealt with. Hopefully in the individual player evaluations, we can explore what the existing personnel may or may not be able to supply to help meet those demands.
Britt,
McHale's answers to your questions give me encouragement. Obviously he sees many of the same issues that you have been pointing out in your column. His comments on defense are particularly pointed toward individual players. The question is, can Wittman motivate these guys to play defense next year?
Also, do the bloggers really think McHale is going to throw his team under the bus? Please. I agree with the "seasoning" part of his comments. As a few bloggers point out, if these players don't improve next year, Wittman is likely to take the fall. As he should. It would be interesting to see what Larry Brown could do with this group.
Why does Donald Rumsfeld's "you go to war with the army you have, not that you want to have" comment come to mind when McHale talks about the state of this team, especially in relation to Witt and personnel?
I'm sure the Rumsfeld "State of the Twolves" press conference would be a blast.
Select quotes:
Don, can we expect more wins from the team next year?
"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started."
"I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligent work."
"I don't do predictions."
Don, where will this team look for draft prospects?
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Don, I didn't note much improvement in the team's performance this year. What is the reason for the lack of improvement?
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."
Don, could you give us some details of the Wolves rebuilding plans?
"I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty."
Don, you statements aren't really answering our questions?
"Now, settle down, settle down. Hell, I'm an old man, it's early in the morning and I'm gathering my thoughts here."
If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."
This ends the press conference.
see
http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/quotethis/a/rumsfeldquotes.htm
That's hilarious. I may have to steal your idea over at Canis Hoopus for a contest: Pick the McHale quote!!! I'll put up a bunch of Rummyisms and 1 or 2 McHale quotes. Readers get to guess which ones are the real Iron Ranger sayings.
Reading McHale's comments, doesn't it seem like he would do better as a coach than as a GM? I say that because it really does seem like he has an above-average to perhaps even superb understanding of the fundamentals of the game in contrast to the fact that his GM moves have definitely been questionable. I know he had a short stint as the coah a couple of years ago. What do you guys think? Would he make a good coach? I can't remember how well he did back in the day, so perhaps I'm just on crack in even suggesting this idea...
after listening to the press conference, the gomes and jefferson position preferences, and all the 'seasoning' comments, i felt like mchale had a better grasp on the existing personnel and their attitudes than i anticipated.
he knows shaddy and foye can play better d. he knows brewer can build bulk and confidence. he knows al is a beast who needs help down low. he knows we need a stud/perimeter shooter.
mchale mentioned young guys competing with each other too much or overcompeting or something -- but if competition between the glut of tweener guards will make 'em shape up and play d or sit them down and ship them out. isn't foye, shaddy, brewer, bassy, and/or snyder pushing each other for minutes what mchale means by seasoning?
it would be great if 'play d or sit and watch someone who will' was the way wittman ran the show, but past personnel passes (pretty ricky avis) don't exactly instill the faith i'd like to have in "the disciplinarian" wittman.
hope for rose. prepare for mayo or lopez.
My problem with McHale is that although he seems to have a fairly clear idea of the teams personnel and weaknesses, it seems his plan ends with win 20 more games and flirt with .500. Although I would be happy to see the improvement, there's nothing that would take us beyond what is sub-mediocrity in the west. Woo-hoo, stand pat... and maybe pick up another tweener in the draft.
McHale did get the team to play fairly well when he was the interim coach for a few months. He'd probably be a better coach than he is a GM. To be a good GM you need to know basketball AND how to deal with agents, players, salary cap, scouting, the draft, etc.
This is why most, but not all, former player GMs are awful.
Good thoughts, Nate. There are certainly a lot of examples of former players who make lousy GM's...