CoolBreeze44 wrote:This ought to make Q smile. There is an insider article out that forecasts the win totals for each team. I'd post the full article but it just isn't cooperating. But here is the blurb on the Wolves.
Minnesota Timberwolves
Proj. wins: 37.1
Last season: 29-53
Player spotlight: Karl-Anthony Towns
John Calipari accelerated Towns' development during his one season at Kentucky by forcing him inside. Towns retains the soft touch from the perimeter that made him such a promising prep prospect. He shot a below-average 34.1 percent from 3-point range, but his 50.6 percent accuracy on 2-pointers beyond 16 feet ranked second among players with at least 100 attempts, per Basketball-Reference.com. Thanks to Calipari's forcing him inside, Towns is also dangerous in the post using hooks with either hand and a fadeaway jump shot. His 231 points on post-ups ranked in the league's top 20, per Synergy Sports tracking on NBA.com/Stats. And when Towns draws fouls, he's an excellent free throw shooter for a big man (81.1 percent), boosting his strong .590 true shooting percentage.
They have us 11th in the West behind the likes of Sacramento. Maybe Q is writing for ESPN now?
ESPN also has the Vikings at #5 in their power rankings. They actually dropped them a spot after beating the Giants to go 4-0. So I guess it doesn't surprise me that they have a more pessimistic take (relative to others) on a Minnesota team.
I'm probably not quite this conservative, as it does feel like we should at least win 10 more games than we did last season. The 50+ win or bust crowd I think are stretching it.
Take it for what it's worth, but these RealGM radio guys don't sound very confident that we'll win more than 41 games.
When outsiders continually peg us to win 10 or more fewer games than we fans are predicting, it should at least give us pause. I'll still be happy if we hit the low 40s, show improvement by the end of the year, and threaten a good team in the playoffs.
Take it for what it's worth, but these RealGM radio guys don't sound very confident that we'll win more than 41 games.
I listened to their full segment on the Wolves and that's not quite how I heard it. I think they were basically saying stay away from actually putting real money on the Vegas over or the under. They both said if they were forced to lay a bet, they'd take the over. But yeah, neither of them were going all in and saying this is a 50+ win team, but both thought it was realistic to think they could be over .500.
Oh, and they also made the dreaded Rudy Gay comparison with Wiggins. I've heard that a couple times now. This is a big year for Wiggins to prove that he can be more than a scorer.
I think when some of us "realist" give our predictions the optimists hedge their bets in the chance that they might look smarter. But so far from year to year they have come up empty. Whether it be wins or Ricky improving from year to year. When your wrong you can blame it on injuries or Olympics or just blind love for the team or player. And a guy like myself is pigeonholed in to just disliking a guy. When in fact it's just other fans holding out high hopes on players that were never gonna be the difference makers they wanted them to be.
Take it for what it's worth, but these RealGM radio guys don't sound very confident that we'll win more than 41 games.
I listened to their full segment on the Wolves and that's not quite how I heard it. I think they were basically saying stay away from actually putting real money on the Vegas over or the under. They both said if they were forced to lay a bet, they'd take the over. But yeah, neither of them were going all in and saying this is a 50+ win team, but both thought it was realistic to think they could be over .500.
Oh, and they also made the dreaded Rudy Gay comparison with Wiggins. I've heard that a couple times now. This is a big year for Wiggins to prove that he can be more than a scorer.
I get where they are getting the comparison of Gay to Wiggins in that they both score and only give you so much else but I think there is a difference in them (never really been a Rudy Gay fan) and I am not worried about Wiggins being a Rudy Gay player. Why?
For all his physical gifts and actual skills Gay is essentially is an underachiever. When I watch the guy I don't really see him lacking a skill he needs to be one of the best at his position. He can shoot, handle the ball, rebound, he can play defense, the list goes on and on. Sure he isn't a great outside shooter (the shot looks good though) but does he attack the rim? Not really. It's almost bizarre how he isn't a much better player. I think it's a mental thing.
Now Wiggins also underwhelms in some ways because he has some physical abilities that make you think he should be a terrific defender and rebounder but offensively the guy maximizes what he has pretty effectively. He gets to the basket and gets to the line. He has an advanced post game for his age and experience. He can score and he isn't a good long range shooter and his ball handling isn't all that fantastic. So for his age and a couple really important skills that are lacking he is in some ways overachieving on that end. I think he plays with more drive than Gay has but that's a bit subjective and I watch Wiggins every game and I certainly didn't do that with Gay when he was younger. I've seen enough to know Gay isn't a guy that can win you games night in night out. Of course stylistically Derozen makes more sense as a comp but I get the comp to Gay though. I think this year Wiggins will make comparing him to what Gay has ultimately proved to be as an NBA player (even though he had some nice seasons especially early in his career) look foolish. We will see. Jon K was saying in the last podcast that it seems so far Wiggins and Thins have been clicking with Wiggins leading some drills and being more vocal. Jon said the Thibs and Wiggins dynamic was really the concerning one and if those guys stay on the same page it's likely Thibs will be pushing the right buttons and Wiggins becomes a monster player. Man there are so many interesting story lines to this team and this year it feels like it into JUST blind homer fluff. :)
PorkChop wrote:I think when some of us "realist" give our predictions the optimists hedge their bets in the chance that they might look smarter. But so far from year to year they have come up empty. Whether it be wins or Ricky improving from year to year. When your wrong you can blame it on injuries or Olympics or just blind love for the team or player. And a guy like myself is pigeonholed in to just disliking a guy. When in fact it's just other fans holding out high hopes on players that were never gonna be the difference makers they wanted them to be.
Pork - I'm not sure who you're including in the "realist" bucket other than yourself. I've typically been very conservative in my predictions. I believe I predicted 23 wins last season. I'm predicting 45 wins this season. I think that's a realistic conservative prediction. I could see this team winning 50 games. The talent and coaching are there for that sort of success. I can also see this team struggling early, suffering some injuries and winning only 40 games. I don't see us winning less than 40 unless we're really hit with some terrible injuries.
PorkChop wrote:I think when some of us "realist" give our predictions the optimists hedge their bets in the chance that they might look smarter. But so far from year to year they have come up empty. Whether it be wins or Ricky improving from year to year. When your wrong you can blame it on injuries or Olympics or just blind love for the team or player. And a guy like myself is pigeonholed in to just disliking a guy. When in fact it's just other fans holding out high hopes on players that were never gonna be the difference makers they wanted them to be.
You seem to be interchanging predictions of team success with player success, and as usual, it mostly comes down to your dislike of Rubio.
I've been a huge Rubio fan from the very beginning AND been one of the more conservative "realists" when it comes to team success. On the other hand I've seen others that are a bit skeptical about Rubio still be very bullish on team success. The narrative you are trying to spin here doesn't really hold up under scrutiny.
