CoolBreeze44 wrote:Why don't the Wolves run like these Bucks do?
The Bucks are 20th in pace and the Wolves are 22nd in pace. The Bucks get .4 more possessions per game. No difference
I think the Bucks have played with more pace after changing head coaches and have increased their pace over time. So the 20th rank might be a bit misleading when evaluating how they're playing today. But in any event, I'm more concerned about the Wolves ranking 22 than about the pace of the Bucks. I think the crux of Cool's point is the pace at which the Wolves play. I don't think the issue is how fast the Bucks play. It just so happens the Bucks are playing with great pace today and it's working for them.
If the Bucks can't beat the depleted Celtics that's honestly kinda embarrassing even though the Celtics are a well coached team with some talent still. The Bucks coaching and way they play is far from anything to model. If you aren't sure ask any Bucks fan.
One last time. And I think you get this, Monster. The issue isn't how well or fast the Bucks play. They're certainly not my model for how to play - although I admire the organization for drafting Giannis and Brogdon. The Wolves should not be in the bottom half of the League in pace of play in my view. That's it, end of story. The fact that Cool chose the wrong team to illustrate his concern about the Wolves slow pace is really beside the point.
Are you sure it is better though. I just went through every game. The League average in pace according to Basketball Reference is 97.3.
The Wolves record is 35-22 When playing slower than league average so a winning % of 61.4%. The Wolves are 12-13 when they play faster than league average for a winning % of 48%.
Are you sure we should be playing faster because when we are playing faster than league average we are a below 500 team and when we play with a below average league pace it would translate to the 6th best record overall in the NBA 3rd best in the West.
Like I am cooling on Thibs don't get me wrong but when its just been a Thibs bashing these last couple days and people are stating things that they want Thibs to do but the numbers suggest that we are worse when we do it makes no sense to me.
Hard to know for sure, Geek. I don't think this team is coached to play at a faster pace, so I'm not surprised that we have less success when we do. Teams play they way they practice and, in fact, they should play th way they practice. But we'd have to break things down far more to really understand. I just know that we overdribble and take far to many contested shots late in the shot clock. I believe there's a stat showing that the Wolves have taken more contested jumpers than just about any other team in the League. I'm actually more concerned about our poor spacing and lack of movement than pace of play, but I'm concerned about all those things. And I'm even more concerned about our defense, which is definitely more of a problem than our offense. But I think it's both and I do think pace is part of the problem.
I think our offense is not pretty but it is very good until the last 5 minutes. The Wolves have played in 42 clutch situation games (5pts or less with 5 min to go) The Wolves are 22-20. We move from the 4th best offense in the NBA to the 11th. We also have the 27th best defense in clutch situations. The thing where I agree with you is our offense becomes to stagnet late in games. We move from 55.3% of our pts coming off assists to 48% of our pts of assists in clutch situations (18th in the NBA for reference). The thing that is a killer is our Pace number just shits the bed in clutch situation. We are dead last in Pace in clutch situations almost 2 whole possessions less than the 29th ranked team. A whole 5 possessions less from our normal number per 100 possessions. That is the big problem in clutch situations we move away from what has worked all game and we rely on Butler and Teague to bail us out.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:Why don't the Wolves run like these Bucks do?
The Bucks are 20th in pace and the Wolves are 22nd in pace. The Bucks get .4 more possessions per game. No difference
I think the Bucks have played with more pace after changing head coaches and have increased their pace over time. So the 20th rank might be a bit misleading when evaluating how they're playing today. But in any event, I'm more concerned about the Wolves ranking 22 than about the pace of the Bucks. I think the crux of Cool's point is the pace at which the Wolves play. I don't think the issue is how fast the Bucks play. It just so happens the Bucks are playing with great pace today and it's working for them.
If the Bucks can't beat the depleted Celtics that's honestly kinda embarrassing even though the Celtics are a well coached team with some talent still. The Bucks coaching and way they play is far from anything to model. If you aren't sure ask any Bucks fan.
One last time. And I think you get this, Monster. The issue isn't how well or fast the Bucks play. They're certainly not my model for how to play - although I admire the organization for drafting Giannis and Brogdon. The Wolves should not be in the bottom half of the League in pace of play in my view. That's it, end of story. The fact that Cool chose the wrong team to illustrate his concern about the Wolves slow pace is really beside the point.
Are you sure it is better though. I just went through every game. The League average in pace according to Basketball Reference is 97.3.
The Wolves record is 35-22 When playing slower than league average so a winning % of 61.4%. The Wolves are 12-13 when they play faster than league average for a winning % of 48%.
Are you sure we should be playing faster because when we are playing faster than league average we are a below 500 team and when we play with a below average league pace it would translate to the 6th best record overall in the NBA 3rd best in the West.
Like I am cooling on Thibs don't get me wrong but when its just been a Thibs bashing these last couple days and people are stating things that they want Thibs to do but the numbers suggest that we are worse when we do it makes no sense to me.
Hard to know for sure, Geek. I don't think this team is coached to play at a faster pace, so I'm not surprised that we have less success when we do. Teams play they way they practice and, in fact, they should play th way they practice. But we'd have to break things down far more to really understand. I just know that we overdribble and take far to many contested shots late in the shot clock. I believe there's a stat showing that the Wolves have taken more contested jumpers than just about any other team in the League. I'm actually more concerned about our poor spacing and lack of movement than pace of play, but I'm concerned about all those things. And I'm even more concerned about our defense, which is definitely more of a problem than our offense. But I think it's both and I do think pace is part of the problem.
I think our offense is not pretty but it is very good until the last 5 minutes. The Wolves have played in 42 clutch situation games (5pts or less with 5 min to go) The Wolves are 22-20. We move from the 4th best offense in the NBA to the 11th. We also have the 27th best defense in clutch situations. The thing where I agree with you is our offense becomes to stagnet late in games. We move from 55.3% of our pts coming off assists to 48% of our pts of assists in clutch situations (18th in the NBA for reference). The thing that is a killer is our Pace number just shits the bed in clutch situation. We are dead last in Pace in clutch situations almost 2 whole possessions less than the 29th ranked team. A whole 5 possessions less from our normal number per 100 possessions. That is the big problem in clutch situations we move away from what has worked all game and we rely on Butler and Teague to bail us out.
Still watching the Celtics-Bucks game. It's a good one. I wonder what the Celtics will do with Hayward if he comes back healthy next season. I can't see him knocking Tatum and Brown out of the starting lineup. But $30 million a year is a lot for a bench player. Will they try to move him? My thought is they'll keep him. While expensive, they don't need to worry about his salary given the relatively low rookie-scale contracts of Tatum and Brown. Hayward enhances the team's depth at the wing positions. He has 3 years left on his contract, at which point the Celtics will have to worry about extending Brown.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:Why don't the Wolves run like these Bucks do?
The Bucks are 20th in pace and the Wolves are 22nd in pace. The Bucks get .4 more possessions per game. No difference
The Bucks are 6th in fast break points per game and the Wolves are 25th. Is that a difference? What's more important, points or pace?
That's the key, Cool. Anyone who has watched the Wolves these past two seasons knows we play a slow, methodical half-court iso style of offense without a lot of movement off the ball, and relatively poor spacing with too many long twos and too few threes. The half-court iso becomes far worse and incredibly frustrating late in close games. But none of these should be a surprise for a Thibs-coached team.
I don't think we can try to be a running team given the minutes guys play. Even if Thibs brings in depth that's not gonna drop everyone down a bunch. They're still gonna play big minutes. We're a very good grind it out offense. We just need the defense to match.
lipoli390 wrote:Still watching the Celtics-Bucks game. It's a good one. I wonder what the Celtics will do with Hayward if he comes back healthy next season. I can't see him knocking Tatum and Brown out of the starting lineup. But $30 million a year is a lot for a bench player. Will they try to move him? My thought is they'll keep him. While expensive, they don't need to worry about his salary given the relatively low rookie-scale contracts of Tatum and Brown. Hayward enhances the team's depth at the wing positions. He has 3 years left on his contract, at which point the Celtics will have to worry about extending Brown.
It could be as simple as them just playing Hayward as their PF. I could see one of their lengthy wings start on the bench while they play a guy like Baynes as the starting center for a few minutes but the other guy basically plays 30 or more minutes. It's gonna be a good problem for them to have and the spacing...yikes.
Meanwhile Terry Rozier has been pretty good this year and that was before his heroics today. He is pretty similar to Marcus Smart in he does a lot of stuff only he can hit a shot. I can't remember if it was last summer of the summer before GMs predicted him to be a guy to have a breakout season. I liked him coming out of college but it looked like for a while he was just a guy. He looks like a lot more than that this year and a reason the Celtics haven't folded with all these injuries.
