Wes Johnson...Michael Beasley... Derrick Williams... Anthony Randolph...

8' 10".....           8' 11".....                9' 0".....                  9' 1"....

7' 1".....             7' 0.25".....             7' 1.5".....               7' 3".....

37".....               35".....                    34.5".....                35".....

Four guys with 7' wingspans, with nearly 3' vertical leaps, and only one basketball.

Welcome to your new Minnesota Timberwolves.

[author's note - this is a long post, with some videos. I highly recommend you watch them, as they illustrate what it is, I think, the FO sees in this group and what they hope these guys will play like next year.]

Continue reading this post »

We all know a lot has been made about Ponder going too high. Personally I really like the pick, as if you watched some of the Gruden videos on four letter interviewing the QB prospects you'll notice just how mental much of the NFL passing game is. Yes, guys need the athleticism and arm strength to simply put the ball into the very narrow window NFL defenses give you, but I am astounded at how much goes into just getting to the point where that passing window exists: reads, adjustments, audibles, understanding player tendencies, calling the plays, etc etc. 

I really haven't paid attention as to how much heat (or not) the Titans are getting for drafting Locker, but selecting an accurate, intelligent QB who scouts agree is probably the most NFL ready at reading defenses of all the prospects is hardly a bad thing, especially when you have a Percy Harvin, an Adrian Peterson, and a Visanthe Shiancoe on the roster. Our situation, which is incredibly important when trying to analyze Ponder's value as the 12th overall pick, elevates a guy like Ponder over some other prospects. In a perfect world we could've gotten Ponder in the second round, but this world ain't perfect. TJax had wonderful measurables - arm strength, athleticism, zip. What he didn't ever seem to have was a feel for the game, a feel for timing, or an understanding of how defenses were trying to play him. At this point in my Vikings fandom I am more than happy to trade some athleticism and arm strength for a player who simply recognizes and capitalizes on what defenses give him.

It takes me back to watching Favre play the Vikes in the late 90's and early 00's, thinking about QB's who take what defenses give them that is. Favre was a gunslinger and had all the arm strength and all that, and yes I get that this also illustrates the upside knock on Ponder (that he'll never have a career like Favre's because his lack of arm strength prevents him from doing Favreian things), but one of the things Favre back then did that absolutely killed us late in games was simply moving the chains. He had a great ability to sniff out where his open guy was who could keep the drive alive. Drove me absolutely nuts as a Vikings fan, but I respected that ability as a hallmark of a quality QB, an upper echelon QB. I read somewhere that of Ponder's 45 passes on 3rd down last year, 41 resulted in 1st downs.

Lastly, I think it's interesting how the most recent memory of a player can significantly impact their draft position and perception. It's much more apparent in basketball where an NCAA tournament star goes way higher than he should because he caught lightning in a bottle for a couple weeks despite the rest of his career. As for Ponder, he was very highly thought of after his junior year - in fact, as you'll see below, he looked for all the world like a guy who should go right around #12 in the draft (give or take a few picks). Same with Locker. What a difference a year makes, right?

Granted, shoulder and forearm injuries are significant details not to be overlooked. Maybe it will always limit Ponder's career and ability, but maybe not. I would remind people that Adrian Peterson is all the example we need of how a player's college injuries can (or cannot) impact a player's NFL career.

In summary, for better or worse Ponder is our guy. I think it's as solid a choice as we could've gotten, and I think he has a great chance to be good NFL game caller and manager. Maybe never a Pro Bowler, but the kind of guy who could combine with a great running back and defense to do some damage in the playoffs.

Where Ponder ranked last year:

With ten months to go, we have our first 2011 NFL Draft related post!

H/T to Draft Insider

Although the Jaguars are affiliated with BLESTO, the release of National's grades is something that is worth a look at. According to National, the Top 10 draft eligible seniors are

1) Prince Amukamara/CB/Nebraska/7.3

2) Adrian Clayborn/DE/Iowa/7.3

3) Mark Herzlich/OLB/Boston College/7.2

4) Allen Bailey/DL/Miami-Fl/6.9:

5) Von Miller/OLB/Texas A&M/6.9

6) Greg Romeus/DE/Pittbugh/6.8

7) Marvin Austin/DT/North Carolina/6.7

8 ) Christian Ponder/QB/Florida State/6.7

9) Jake Locker/QB/Washington/6.7

10) Stephen Paea/DT/Oregon State/6.5

The ranking of Ponder as the #1 QB is definitely an eye opener. Even though the service doesn't rank any juniors or sophomores, there by rendering Ryan Mallett and Andrew Luck ineligible, I still would have thought he would've been in the teens at best.

The numbers on the right indicate the grade each player received from national. Anything above a 6.5 would be considered "Very Good" to "Can't Miss". The player who had my jaw drop the most is Boston College LB Mark Herzlich. Herzlich missed all of 2009 due to bone cancer. While he was considered the top LB in college football prior to being diagnosed with the disease, how is he going to fair after all of that time away from the game?

According to Draft Insider, Ponder may have overtaken Locker based on the strength of a very strong preseason Wonderlic score. While it has nothing to do with arm strength, if say, Ponder scored in the high 30's while Locker was in the low teens, it will have scouts wondering on Locker's ability to absorb a NFL playbook.

In addition, this position should put to rest any concerns about Ponder's arm after season ending shoulder surgery. There were concern's that Ponder could end up with being Chad Pennington 2.0, but he wouldn't have that kind of grade if that were the case.

Given how much we pined for Evan Turner for much of last year, it's been interesting to watch what's been going on in Philly this year, especially within the context of our own all to familiar 'what were they thinking drafting 8 PGs?!' meme.

To say that Turner has struggled this year is an understatement:

Christmas could not have been a very happy occasion at Evan Turner's household. His team, the Philadelphia 76ers, was well below .500 in the Eastern Conference. In the Sixers' last outing before the holiday, Turner had sat on the bench for the entire game, watching his team lose to the Boston Celtics. It was his second DNP of the season, the other having come three games earlier against the Los Angeles Lakers.

...

"This is rock bottom,'' he said. "It can't be any worse, in my mind. I've just got to keep working. I feel like it can't get any worse. The only way it can go is up."

...

Heading into Wednesday night's game in Phoenix, Turner was shooting 38.4 percent from the field and 14.3 percent from 3-point territory (albeit, on 14 attempts) while averaging a mere 6.3 points a game, 11th among NBA rookies. As a result, the Sixers have chosen to go with the likes of Andres Nocioni, Lou Williams and Jodie Meeks, a 2009 second-rounder, ahead of Turner in the rotation.

"He hasn't made enough shots for us for him to play," Sixers president Rod Thorn said.

...

The Sixers are still trying to discover what they have in Turner. He seems to be more comfortable and confident when he has control of the ball and there is playmaking ability in his game (he averaged six assists a game his last season in college), But Jrue Holiday and Williams appear to have nailed down the point guard slots, making Turner confront the unthinkable: After almost 30 games, where does he belong?

Do y'all find that as interesting as I do? Arguably the most sure-fire prospect in last year's draft has ended up struggling perhaps more than any other upper level prospect to fit in with the NBA. Turner was the kind of player you drafted, gave him the keys, and enjoyed the competent night in, night out production and leadership that he was supposed to offer. However, Philadelphia might have done well to have taken a page from the David Kahn school of drafting and roster management and considered the effect of doubling up existing skillsets.

To be fair, Rubio and Jonny Flynn are nothing alike as point guards. Where one excels because of his amazing court vision, passing ability, and innate feel for the game, the other relies on sheer athleticism, a quick first step, and determination (along with a developing outside shot) to get things done. However, when we compare Flynn to guys like Ramon Sessions, Bassy, or even Sundiata Gaines, it becomes a valid criticism to begin to wonder - why are we getting so many guys who play very similar games to each other?

Of course, current and recent Wolves history is replete with much better examples of this question, most notably Love and Big Al, but also Martell, Wes, and Beasley in addition to our plethora of points. The source of 328,720 hits for Bill Simmons over the past 18 months, reflecting on our seemingly ardent quest for roster redundancy could have perhaps served the 76ers well when they were choosing between Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, Wes Johnson, and DMC.

As has been discussed already, Iggy provides many of the same skills as Evan Turner - scoring (often through drives to the hoop and FTs), rebounding, passing, defense, leadership. Both guys seem to do better when they're very involved in an offense, and perhaps more to the point neither has really shown the prior ability to be highly effective playing off the ball for significant periods of time. In short, in drafting Turner the Sixers knowlingly doubled up what they already had in Iggy, albeit at 4 years young and tens of millions of dollars cheaper.

Part of me really wants to point out that the Sixers made the very same mistake we are so often accused of making (cornering the market on a certain type of player), but that belies something I find far more interesting and intriguing - why, if the Sixers knew they had two players who would essentially play identical roles, would they go ahead and draft Turner when Favors, Wes, or DMC represented a far better fit for their team? Did they gamble that someone (us?) would cave at the last minute and take Brand off their hands in order to swap picks? Did they have a plan lined up for moving Iggy at some point in future? Or did they really believe that one of those two guys would develop into something neither has ever shown excellence in in the past (playing as an effective off the ball perimeter player)?

The subtext to all of this for Philadelphia, such that I know about them, was written last year and is again being played out this year: Jrue Holiday and Lou Williams are their ball handlers of the future, that there were questions as far back as last year as to whether a player like Iggy or Turner was the best fit for Philadelphia (because Jrue is best with the ball in his hands), and that a highly productive big man rotation was (and still is) a huge necessity. Looking at the draft, Favors would've been a fantastic choice. So would DMC. And yup, even Wes would look perfect as a scoring compliment for Jrue and Iggy. And yet they still drafted Turner. I just find that so interesting.

Reading between the lines it seems to me that Philadelphia can't decide on who it wants to be - who it's going to build around. A team centered on Jrue, Iggy, and Favors (or Wes or DMC) would look pretty good, especially considering that Iggy is only 26 despite his pricetag. I guess it's not perfect, as both Iggy and Jrue still need the ball to be most effective, but it seems to make sense more than it doesn't. Every player is in a role that suits them, all of their skills mesh. However, the choice now is between Turner, Jrue, Iggy, and who knows who else. All these guys need the ball most effective. Who's in charge of initiating things? And what in the hell does this have to do with the Wolves?

Well...perhaps we got lucky that we didn't have the chance to draft Turner. I still have high hopes that Turner will become a great player, but missing out on him prevented us from facing the same choices Philly is facing right now: Rubio or Turner - who's the leader/play maker of your team? Sticking with Rubio enables us to stick with the current roster. Adding Turner would've made us consider what to do with Rubio, as arguably Jonny Flynn might hold more value as a scoring point guard with three point range playing next to Turner than a poor shooting Rubio who, ahem, also needs the ball to be effective.

Of course, I'm a big proponent of adding Iggy to this team, so I suppose I should question my own argument about Philly that I've just made...

I guess in my mind the big difference is Rubio and the passing of our bigs. Love, Darko, and Pek average 4.6 assists per game, whereas Brand, Hawes, and Speights average 3.3. If we consider Beasley our third big instead of Pek (Beasley's played 29% of our PF minutes this year) that number jumps to 6.1 assist per game from our bigs. Where this is important, again in my mind, is the distribution of either who those assists go to or, more generally, where the scoring is coming from on the team.

Philly's assist leaders (and assist rate leaders) are Jrue, Iggy, and Lou - who also happen to be 3 of their top 4 scorers (only behind Brand, with all of them scoring within less than four ppg of each other). Furthermore, those three players are all in the top four in FGA per game for Philly, and herein lies part of the issue in drafting Turner - you've added yet another player who's most effective with the ball in his hands and yet are asking him to play like a guy who's great at spot up shots. Why? Because you've already got three guys who are very effective with the ball in their hands - all three have a usage rating of 19% or more, with Lou leading the team and Jrue ranking fourth at 21.9.

In contrast, in both assist rate and assists per game, the Wolves have a much more traditional split - our ballhandlers (Luke, Bassy, and Jonny) set up our leading scorers (Love, Beasley, and Martell - our top three in FGA per game as well. For context, Ridnour is the highest ranking point in FGA per game, placing fifth on team). In turn, then, our points' scoring is set up by the passing ability of our bigs. This team really is constructed around a passing point - the highest usage rate of our three points is Bassy at 18%, good for 9th best on the team. Beasley, Love, Darko, Pek, and Brewer have the highest usage rates on the team, and one can imagine that Wes is slated to eventually take Brewer's shots. 

Have to admit, adding Rubio to a team set up this way makes sense. Good off the ball scorers, solid interior scoring options (with great kick out passing). Seems like a plan to me.

Adding Iggy or Turner to this mix? Honestly, it might work. I guess I've sort of convinced myself that on the Wolves' roster there still might be enough touches to go around, even with Rubio in the mix, for either Turner or Iggy to find effectiveness on this team. Having said that, a shooter/scorer like Wes or Mayo seems like a far better fit, given that we don't appear to lack to passing and ball handling ability with Rubio and our bigs already in the fold. For Philly, though, the question is what to do with all those ball handlers? They have neither the off the ball or interior scorers to afford the luxury of both Turner and Iggy. The core of that team is, in many ways, utterly redundant with itself. Outside of Brand's renaissance they have poor, poor interior scoring and passing options, and lack high level outside off the ball scoring options.

It's too bad that Turner's struggling, and it will be interesting to watch what happens with Iggy. Philly could be a good team, IMO, if it chooses to build around Jrue, Lou, and Turner. Jettison the pieces that aren't working, get some better off the ball scorers and better interior finishers/passers. Keeping Turner and Iggy is not going to work, though. A shoe has to fall in choosing between Jrue, Lou, Iggy, and Turner.

asdfs

I'm posting this as a Fanpost simply so it doesn't get lost in Fanshot purgatory as I think it's incredibly important for context regarding this team. Tom Ziller has written an excellent post, snippets of which are reposted here, on the correlation between age and winning in the NBA this year (and, one would assume, in seasons past as well). There are some interesting observations to make or consider out of this. Perhaps I'll just leave you with these two teasers:

Continue reading this post »

Kevin Wesley Love is playing absolutely amazing basketball right now.

In fact, he may be playing himself into being untradeable. Since 2005, here's a list of players in their first three years who are similar producers to what Love is doing this season. Not bad company, eh? Love's WS/48 this season already ranks 11th on that list, his current PER 6th. Like I said, dude's playing amazing basketball right now.

In terms of Wins Produced, Love is currently leading the entire league with 9.2. He's on pace to produce over 27 wins this season...by himself.

This year Love is tied for 11th in the NBA for WS/48 and is 7th in PER.

Soooooo.....seeing as how Love isn't a cornerstone type player because he's not a number 1 scoring option nor a defensive whiz, I got to wondering - what would a team built around Love look like? What would it need to look like? My thoughts after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

From the always enjoyable Bleacher Report - an analysis of Kevin Love.

The opening salvo:

During the recent contest in Los Angeles between the Lakers and Clippers, commentator Ralph Lawler digressed from the action at hand to discuss Kevin Love, animatedly claiming that the Minnesota Timberwolves power forward was a superstar.

Not an emergent superstar or a potential superstar, mind you, but a straight-up, flat-out, current superstar.

Boy, do they throw around that term these days.

OK. First time I've really heard of anyone calling him a superstar. I mean, I know that we've been talking about him potentially developing into one at some point, but whatevs. Dude's been good, right? Wrong.

[Editor's note - what I love most about Bleacher Report analyses is coming up, so watch for it. It's the use of 'advanced' looking stats (or rather advanced stats talking points) without actually using the correct stats to back up the claim, or even better in failing to recognize the value of certain contributions - for example, Love's absurd offensive rebound rate as an aspect of his overall rebounding effectiveness, or even better his absurd defensive rebound rate as an important contribution to his defensive game (not that it's a great, but come on. Comparing Love with Amare? Read on).]

Continue reading this post »

I'm a big believer in scoring differential. Over time there is no better predictor of future wins (or losses) than scoring differential. The problem with using it to understand a team in real time is that its predictive effectiveness is hugely dependent on sample size, so a 50 game sample is far more revealing than a five game sample.

So with the small sample size caveat out there, I thought I'd look at the Wolves' scoring differential in 15 game chunks over the past 2.2 seasons (this year, last year, and Witt's final year) and see what I find. I settled on the 15 game chunk for very selfish and manipulative reasons - it coincides this season with our game against LA in LA, a game which I believe represents a turning point for our team. Our first, what, seven games we were absolutely atrocious: 97.29 points for and 114.43 points against, for an astounding -17.14 scoring differential. Since then we are averaging 104.67 points for and 107.07 against, for a significantly improved -2.4 scoring differential. Amazing, right? So I got to wondering - how does this compare to previous seasons? Just how good (compared to ourselves) have the last 15 games been?

Continue reading this post »

Sorry for yet another post - I know I've put up a bunch of stuff over the last 24 hours. I'm not trying to bore you all or needlessly take up your time, it's just that there's a number of things going on with this team that need (IMO) discussing and I've never been hesitant to go ahead and put it out there. I promise, this will be the last post for today!

OK, now that that's out of the way, I have an argument for how to understand this team that I'd like to make for you, an argument that I believe changes the way this team should be viewed and why the FO/coaching staff make certain moves/directions and pass on other moves/directions. Argument after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

There's been a lot of trade chatter lately, given Darko's absence last night, Tolliver's injury, as well as Pek, Webster, and Flynn being out lately. Furthermore, there's the Iggy option (which I admit I have helped resurrect lately), but there are other trade options as well.

What I am interested in finding out, via group think, is what you all feel are assets we would be willing to part with and assets we would not be willing to part with. Now, I understand there are some rather polarizing potential assets out there (Love, Rubio), as well as other choices that are dependent on trades (just pulling an example out of the air to illustrate the point, giving up Love in order to get Josh Smith or equivalent). So please, voice your opinions on those as well, but I also really want to know your take on guys like Ellington, Brewer, Jonny, and Pek (just to name a few).

Below the jump is one potential outline of our assets.

Continue reading this post »

Have y'all seen this? Pretty interesting tool from Hoopism. The only downside for us is that the data is all from last year, so it's kind of hard to draw much from it because we have so few guys from last year back. However, I did think it was cool to play with and have reposted some pics of various players here for your enjoyment.

But first, what 'Gold Standard' PGs look like:

via www.hoopism.com

As you can see, these guys are all good...really good in fact. But more useful is what we can glean from these guys, and perhaps it can serve as something useful for understanding our young guys, and that is this: there are two primary patterns here, going to the 'go-to' guy and going to your 'big three.' 

Now these two concepts overlap somewhat, but I find it amazing that these upper echelon points essentially live off of passing the ball to primarily three players, and usually with one of those three players being clearly dominant (in terms of number of assists received). Clearly Deron and Nash are better at dishing to a number of guys while favoring one in particular, whereas Westbrook and Kidd highlight the 'Big Three' approach with everyone else sprinkled in like parsley.

The question I'm asking, then, is it the chicken or the egg? Do you need scorers to pass to first, or the guy who can make those passes to the scorers? Our boys below the jump.

Continue reading this post »

Thought this was interesting. Essentially the rumors that Iggy is being shopped are starting up in Philly. This one points to Cleveland, with picks being sent back in return. Sounds like Philly potentially would be happy to accept cap relief as part of the 'return' for Iggy. One of the concerns that the poster makes is that there isn't much of a market for Iggy, and no logical fits for him.

To which I say - uncle! Say what you will about Martell, about Wes, or even Beasley and Love, you can never have too much talent and we would be seriously, seriously remiss if we passed on a chance of getting Iggy at such a low price.

At it's simplest, consider this basic trade (courtesy of Al Jefferson):

Wayne Ellington (Pennsylvania native) for Iggy. It works salary wise, and gives Philly a nice role player at the guard spot who can drain threes. (If necessary you could also add Brewer into the mix, but the point is that we can accept Iggy's salary straight up, just like Cleveland can). Adding to the deal would be some of the draft picks we have owed to us (including, potentially, our own future first in 3-4 years, whenever enough time has passed after the Clippers pick...OR our own first as soon as next year or the year after assuming we know we have one of the other first coming in.) Point is, we have a ton of future first coming up, can offer some decent players in return for Iggy (Wayne is useful and cheap, and Corey, if they're interested, is really only a one year rental at worst). IF this is the relative going rate for a guy like Iggy, then we need to be in the conversation.

So, the big question is whether or not Iggy is worth it. When teams like OKC are using their cap space to lock up Collison and Washington is using theirs to lock up McGee and Blatche, it kind of suggests that there's not much out there this year (aka SnP's worst fears about this trading season coming true). Honestly, I think Iggy might represent the cream of the trading crop this winter. Maybe Houston blows things up, I don't know, just doesn't seem like there's going to be much out there to trade for.

Does Iggy fit? Yes and no. Defensively I think is where his biggest value comes from. You take him and immediately pencil him in as the starting SG. He can handle the ball some, play outstanding defense, and create his own shot if necessary. He's not perfect for us, but at this point (and at this price - this is very important to trading for Iggy - which I'm saying is a player like Wayne, cap relief, and either our pick - a high one - or two low future firsts) I think we need to get upper echelon talent anyway possible. Key to this working would be getting Iggy to buy into Beasley and Love as the keys to the future here (or, put differently, to get Iggy to buy into the idea that he doesn't have to do it all, just play stellar defense and provide enough offense and ball handling to keep things open for Beasley and Love). Obviously this would move Wes and Martell to the bench, but is that so bad?

Staring lineup:

Jonny/Ricky, Iggy, Beasley, Love, Darko

Bench:

Jonny/Luke, Martell, Wes, Tolliver, Pek

Put together for a few years and watch the W's roll in!

Just thought I'd post this after the Kings loss to the Lakers. In two games versus the Lakers (numbers are two game combined total):

DMC - 47 minutes, 20 points (.426 ppm), 12 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 block, 3 TOs, 10 fouls

Darko - 75 minutes, 33 points (.440 ppm), 23 rebounds, 7 assists, 8 blocks, 5 TOs, 6 fouls

For the season:

DMC - 23.5 mpg, 10.8 ppg, 6.7 rebs, 1.1 asts, .5 blks, 2.4 TOs, 4.3 PFs, .001 WS/48

Darko - 27.4 mpg, 8.9 ppg, 6.3 rebs, 2.3 asts, 2.8 blks, 2.3 TOs, 3.5 PFs, -.011 WS/48

So, well, ya. I didn't really have more intent behind this other than to simply check in on how these guys compare. A big choice for the Wolves going forward was, IMO, essentially choosing Darko as a prospect over DMC, and thus far I think these guys are (to quote Denny Green) proving to be exactly who we thought they'd be. DMC is a stone cold scorer who can get to the line (2.3 more FTAs a game in less time than Darko). However the dude's also a fouling machine. He's a better rebounder, but a significantly worse passer (7.8 AST% to Darko's 13.2 AST%). Both players actually turn the ball over at close to the same rate (only 1.2 points apart).

Essentially the choice the TWolves made was philosophical (or a basketball values one), in that they chose a passing, defensive big man with offensive potential over an already good (and potentially great) offensive big man with solid rebounding potential but with average peripheral potential (not that he couldn't be a great passer or defender, but the limitation doesn't come from DMC's skillset but rather his mindset. So far it doesn't appear he's aspiring to become the next Alonzo Mourning. He's looking more like the next Z-Bo, who it should be noted, has been a really good/great player in the league). While Darko's current 18.1 block% seems really high (unsustainably?), it's actually not that far off from his career block% of 15.5. DMC is currently sitting at a 1.7 block%. Combined with the AST% differences, and I think the basketball values choice is pretty self evident.

On the one hand you have a player who may never average double digits in scoring and rebounding, but can give you some solid to great interior defense, 2-3 blocked shots a game, and 2-3 assists and other solid ball movement from the center position. On the other hand you have a player who can put up a solid 20-10 every night while commanding a large percentage of touches (and as a solid mismatch against the other team every night), but with less defense (at least in terms of blocks) and less passing. It's kind of like Bogut-lite and Super Al Jefferson. So far the impact of either player seems about the same - very similar WS/48 numbers (with Darko's really improving a lot after his horrendous start) and similar PERs (11.9 for DMC to Darko's 11.6).

In all honesty, I'm kind of underwhelmed by this comparison. I really thought both players would have impacted their team more (because, well, DMC is DMC, right? He's yeast to the bread baking NBA to Darko's manna. Speaking of Darko, after his great play of late, where's the proof in the pudding? Dude's still not really impacting games as much as I thought). Both of these guys are simply a piece of the puzzle for their teams and not THE piece, and given that I'm OK with not spending a number 4 pick on DMC.

Lastly, we already have a pretty comparable player (at least production-wise, small sample size noted) to DMC already on the roster. Per36:

DMC (400 minutes) - 16.5 pts (6.8 FTA), 10.3 rebs (3.9 off), 1.6 asts, .8 blks, 3.6 TOs, 6.6 PFs, .001 WS/48, 11.9 PER

Pek (134 minutes) - 14.8 pts (4.6 FTA), 8.9 rebs (4.8 off), .8 asts, .5 blks, 3.5 TOs, 8.3 PFs, .003 WS/48, 9.1 PER

I didn't get to watch the game tonight (I was working), and I haven't read any reviews yet (so I don't know what happened), but I did catch some score updates on my phone and thus was planted the seed of this rant:

Finish the damn game! Score the effing ball! You have a team down by ten points (or whatever) - freakin' stomp on their throats and when they try to get up introduce your heel to their face (OK, not literally, but...analogously?..whatever - you know what I'm getting at). 

Seriously, how difficult is this? Do I need to direct this at Papa Kurt? OK then, simplify the damn game! Give to Beasley, tell him he cannot shoot but can only drive or pass, and let the triangle go. This is getting ridiculous. 

Players - I'm looking at you Be-Easy, Senor Amor, and the Dark One - get pissed already! Get vindictive! Kick a team while it's down and then go kick their dog just for good measure! At this point there are no excuses for these kind of collapses. You got up by that amount, didn't you? Win the damn game. Seriously, how difficult is that? What aren't you getting when it matters? Nothing, apparently.

To me, this is all mental. You don't believe you can win. You don't believe you will win. When the inevitable mini-run comes that starts to pull the other team back, you take it as proof that everything up to this point was too good to be true. You then let that mini-run become a mega-run, to which I say (and this is a site with good decorum, so I'll euphamize and say) 'screw that!'  Seriously, guys: get angry. Get motivated. Get whatever it is you need to get in order to wrap your mind around the idea that you deserve to win, no matter the opponent. If you can get up by ten points, then it ain't no fluke and finish the damn game. 

From the excellent A Wolf Among Wolves:

Michael Beasley has been hot the past few games and his sweet spots are obviously around the elbows. I noticed that you…

“He’s gotta get another sweet spot.

(silence)

He’s a good player. They’ve gotta teach him how to play ball. He could be such a good player, but he’s doing just one thing. He’s so athletic, he could make you work a lot of the time, but he’s just playing one way. He’s going all the way to the hole or he’s going to shoot. He’s not getting no assists. It’s not his fault, he’s a young player. Somebody should tell him. This is his first year really doing him. He’s been playing under Dwyane Wade and in the shadow of Wade. But he should be having more assists and more rebounds. He should be playing more defense. With more defense, his numbers are gonna go down, but that’s a sacrifice. He could be a winner, but somebody’s gotta teach him how to win though. Right now he’s just shining. That’s not enough.

The game should be harder to play against his team. He can shoot, he can get to the hole and he can pass, but he’s just standing up there and not making the pass. He’s gotta make his teammates better. He should watch LeBron. He’s actually a better shooter than LeBron. He’s a better shooter, right? But the smarts are not there. He needs to watch LeBron.

But I’m the last person who should be talking though, cause I gotta guard him.”

Continue reading this post »

Over the past six games, Kevin Love and Michael Beasley have been the best thing this franchise has seen since KG, Cassell, and Spree first stepped out on the court together. That got me thinking - just how good are these guys doing/producing this year, relative to the rest of their peers?

First, I'm sorting all of this by points, as let's be honest - it's the standard shorthand measure for evaluating players.

Second, there's no advanced stats here, no PER (although I did include WS just for, I don't know, just because), no nothing beyond basic box score averages throughout the season so far.

So, after the jump, behold the top ten duos in the NBA and how our boys compare!

Continue reading this post »

...but rather, "Welcome to the realities of building a championship roster in the NBA."

And what exactly am I talking about (hat tip to TrueHoop for originally posting this)?

This was one of those nights when the Rockets were reminded of their plight. Isn’t Derrick Rose something?

He’s the kind of player Rockets general manager Daryl Morey has spent the last 18 months trying to acquire, and until he gets someone a lot like him, this franchise is going to be stuck in a bad place.

The Rockets aren’t terrible despite a 3-7 record. Terrible they could live with. They could at least see better days ahead.

They’re not very good, either. If they’ve got every player in uniform and playing at a high level, they might win 45 games, might even make the playoffs. But that would be about it.

Daryl Morey. Rockets. 18 months spent trying to get an A1 talent. Not a bad team, but not a great one either. A franchise that, without that A1 guy, "is going to be stuck in a bad place."

At first when I read this I was going to write about how even the great Daryl Morey couldn't even work his magic to get the new cornerstone for the Rockets, that for all his smarts and greatness and advanced stats madness the Rockets have gone from 55 wins, to 53 wins, to 42 wins, to now standing at 3-7 and looking (as the article points out) like a team that will max out at 45 wins this year. How, in the context of this quote, is what Kahn has done with our team that much different in terms of net results as what Morey has accomplished (that is, the Wolves - all things staying the same - look like a probable 40ish win team as they grow and mature together)?

But I think to try and argue that Morey isn't that good (well, at least the results are lacking given the expectation level surrounding this guy), or that Kahn is even better because his results mimic Morey's, is to miss the greater point. Point blank: finding that A1 guy in the NBA is hard. It requires a lot of luck. And it's extremely hard to pry one of those guys away from another organization once they have him. In other words, you can be Daryl Morey, arguably one of the best GMs out there today, and suffer from the exact same long term problem that David Kahn, who many argue is one of the worst GMs out there today, has: where do you get that A1 guy?

It's fair to question whether or not Kahn has made the right choices at the top of the draft. Stephen Curry is certainly looking like a player. DMC has shown flashes of great talent. So far this draft, though, two rookies are looking head and shoulders above everyone else as A1 guys (and one of them isn't technically from this draft) - John Wall and Blake Griffin. But therein lies the crux of the issue - does it really matter who your GM is if you're not selecting in the top 2 or 3 picks of the draft? To me, at least, it is no genius to select KD #2, or Griffin or Wall #1 overall. And it is no crime to select Oden #1 overall, or Beasley #2.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Sam Presti versus Chris Wallace. Who's the better GM? Both took over in 2007, but one is universally regarded as a genius and the other is frequently thought of as a dolt. Yet, if we compare records, what do we see?

Wallace - 22 wins, 24, 40, 4-8 this year.

Presti - 20 wins, 23, 50, 6-4 this year.

Well, you say, OKC is clearly the higher upside team. And it's true, but I how much of that is due to these guys? In my mind Presti deserves a lot of credit for Westbrook and Ibaka, but KD was the Pekovic pick of that draft. What about picking Green fourth and Harden third? Wallace, on the other hand, has been rightfully questioned about choosing Conley and Thabeet so high in the draft, as well as trading away Pau. But name the next best player in the Conley draft he could've/should've taken? Answer: Jonny Flynn (as in, there were about 10 guys he could've taken, all with certain positives and all with questions about how well they'd do. For every Noah that turned out there was a Jeff Green that hasn't.)

The point to me, and I'm not sure I've made it very clearly because it's so easy to nitpick the details and argue one way or another about absolutely everything, but the point to me is that Wallace has done a damn good job in Memphis, in my mind arguably as good a job as Presti has done short of one thing - Kevin Durant. It may not look pretty, it may not be sexy or seemingly astute, but Memphis is an extremely difficult place to have success and Wallace is doing it. I'm not saying Presti isn't good, either, and I'm not meaning to sidetrack this post over to Wallace and Presti. Rather, I think it bears reminding and repeating again how difficult it is to find those A1 guys (see: Morey, Daryl at the beginning of this post), and how frequently the opportunity to get those guys is complete and random luck and not GMing prowess at all.

Of the players who've posted 14 WS or more in a season and have shown to be A1 guys, consider:

Lebron James - #1 overall pick

KG - 5th pick (and McHale and Flip deserve credit for this one)

Chris Paul - fourth overall pick (no brainer at fourth)

Tim Duncan - clear #1 pick

Dirk Nowitzki - 9th pick (Mavs deserve mad props for this one)

Kobe - 13th pick (as only the second HSer since KG, and also threatening to everyone where he would and would not go)

Shaq - #1 overall

Dwayne Wade - fifth overall (and clearly a no-brainer at number five)

I guess you can say that of course other teams had to mess up on their picks ahead of some of those later picks, but again I would point out how lucky those teams who picked KG, Paul, and Wade were that those guys simply fell to them. To me, Dirk is the real find at number 9, and I don't know about Kobe. I think everyone knew he should've gone much higher than he did. Him being a high schooler and wanting to play for LA caused him to drop.

This post is a reposting of a comment I made here. It is my response to the following quote from NorthDakotaTwinsFan. Enjoy!

Continue reading this post »

This is ridiculous. Thank you Bleacher Report.

Essentially the author argues that Love's 30-30 night deserves an asterisk because D'Antoni used stupid rotations and Love weighs more than other guys...or something. Full article after the break. I thought I'd post this because this is ridiculous. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something that really rubs me the wrong way about denigrating Love's performance. Ya, does he 'sell out' to collect boards? Sure, but what outstanding rebounder doesn't? And does he collect his own misses sometimes? Sure, but does that make his performance any worse? How is it that this is a fault for Love but something every other player doesn't get called out for when they don't do it?

Continue reading this post »

I just rediscovered NBA.com's +/- stat thing. It has some interesting results, or maybe not that interesting.

For example, our best duo's are:

Beasley and Tolliver, +17 in 37 minutes

Love and Wes, +10 in 43 minutes

Love and Tolliver, +9 in 11 minutes

Wes and Beasley, +9 in 18 minutes

If you look at three player combos:

Beasley, Love, and Wes are +14 in 8 minutes

Beasley, Tolliver, and Luke are +13 in 30 minutes

Beasley, Love, and Tolliver are +11 in 10 minutes.

Are we starting to see a trend here? These four guys are consistently represented at the top of the +/- combos. What I find fascinating (and am probably reading too much into it) is how the top duo's play off each other, specifically Love and Tolliver and then Beasley and Wes.

With Love and Tolliver, you're pairing an energy guy who can take whichever big matchup is Love's weakness defensively with a tenacious rebounder. Furthermore, both guys are pretty good shooters and Tolliver's inside game might open things up for Kevin outside, or vice versa.

With Beasley and Wes you've again got Wes taking the tougher defensive matchup, and you're combining a great outside threat and perimeter rebounder with a guy who's (hopefully) driving to the rim a lot.

What really blows my mind about all this is that individually, Tolliver (+4) and Wes (+2) lead the team (combining with Bassy at +2) as the only positive guys in plus/minus on the team. Individually Love (-21) and Beasley (-20) rank pretty low on the squad (only better than Ridnour, Darko, and Wayne). I'm not really sure what's going on here. Is part of it because Tolliver and Wes (specifically) are playing against scrubs usually? I'm not sure.

My only suspicion at this point is that there are two primary components holding this team back right now - PG play and C play. Sebastian Pruiti at NBA playbook made the comment that historically triangle PGs are best with low usage rates. Currently Frodo's sporting a 17.5 usage rate and Bassy's sporting a 22.3 usage rate (good for 4th highest on the team). In contrast for all of Tolliver's great +/- he's actually last on the team in usage (12.9), whereas Love, Beasley, and Wes are the top three (all above 24.5). Among Wolves playing 10 or minutes a game, Tolliver's Ortg of 121 is 10 points per 100 possessions higher than the next best (Kevin Love).

Again, not really sure what to make of all of this other than the sense that we need to see more of Beasley, Love, Wes, and Tolliver out there playing together, with a greater focus on our points helping to set them up for shots and on our bigs to provide great defense, rebounding, or whatever else is necessary. I think if our PGs focus on playing a higher efficiency offensive game we will be more competitive, and I think once our bigs turn the corner we will become significantly better very quickly. If there is a story through four games this year it is how amazingly ineffective Darko and Pek have been. With the way's he's playing right now, Tolliver should be our starting center.