Insider Wolves Article

[Lipoli390]

This next season will be the final test of whether Wiggins has it in him to attack the boards and react to loose balls. If Thibs can't bring it out of him then no one can. But fortunately, the rest of the players in the starting lineup that I have in mind all have that motor Wiggins doesn't have. KAT clearly has it in spades. Gorgui has it and his rebounding will continue to improve as he gets stronger and smarter. Ricky has it, which is why he's one of the best rebounding PGs in the League. Zach has it and, together with his athleticism, I expect his rebounding to be another area of improvement for him.

Yes, a Deng/Wiggins rebounding combo would be better than a Wiggins/Zach combo IF Wiggins doesn't improve his rebounding. But keep in mind, the difference between Wiggins and Deng is 2 boards per game (Wiggins career avg. is 4.1; Deng's is 6.2). So the difference is not enormous and it's not a huge stretch to expect a 21 year old with Wiggins' physical gifts to improve that much just be getting physically stronger as we know he will, especially with him and his head coach focusing on it. Also keep in mind that while potentially gaining 2 or 3 rebounds per game with the Deng/Wiggins duo, we'd loose a lot of 3-point shooting AND we loose having a second ball-handler on the court with Ricky. Teams don't contend for championships without at least two really good ball-handlers on the court in their starting lineups.

Long -- I'm not sure who here has predicted that Zach WILL become an all-star. I know I haven't. So I don't think homerism has anything to do with this debate about Zach as our starting SG. In fact, I've been clear that his numbers last year as a non-allstar, especially post all-start break, support having him as our starting SG. Most NBA teams don't have an allstar SG. I think some of us have said Zach has that POTENTIAL to be an all-star. No one can credibly argue otherwise. But it's not the predicate for the argument that he should be our starting SG.

This board in general sees Zach very differently from the pundits in the insider article, and that is most likely explained by one of two things...the Zach supporters are right and the more objective pundits are wrong, or homerism on the part of the Zachites. I think it's more of the latter.

Yeah, I don't think anyone said Zach WILL be an all-star, but I was playing off of your post earlier in this thread where you said Zach certainly wasn't an all-star yet...because we all know what that word "yet" means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYwMZs6eSqo

Long -- You are really distorting my view and the prevailing view of those on this board who think Zach should be our starting SG. I have not concluded or stated that Zach WILL be an allstar and I don't believe anyone else on this Board has. More importantly, I was crystal clear that my view of him as a starter was NOT premised on him being or becoming an allstar. I made it clear that he should start based on his production last season, especially after the all-start break, along with his ball handling, our need for 3-point shooting in the starting lineup and Zach's chemistry with the other young starters. I mentioned that Zach's stats last season compared favorably to a number of other starting SGs around the League. I think he has a chance to become an all-star, but that clearly wasn't the premise for my view that he should be our starting SG next season.

Paying a lot of money to sign a 31 year old to be part of a starting lineup that would then have no secondary ball handler and that would be markedly worse from behind the arc than it would with Zach seems like a bad idea.

That's not homerism. That's a legitimate supportable point of view.

[Monster]

I doubt a lot of these national media guys watch a whole lot of the Timberwolves, if we're being completely honest. Therefore, I take what they say with a grain of salt. And I've brought this up multiple times before, but the thought of LaVine as a PG (disaster) is likely still an image in people's minds when they talk about him. If you objectively look at LaVine the SG, he's a completely different player, one with upper echelon type 3P shooting and overall efficiency as a scorer (17+ PPG last year as a starter). Factor in his off the charts athleticism and speed, decent handle and proven improvement in both his game and his body (10 lbs of muscle added last off-season), and it's absolutely fair to say that he has All-Star potential.

Well said.

Also I'll say it...I'm VERY high on Lavine. He has a long way to go he isn't there yet but the progress he showed last year was actually sort of eye popping. It actually bugs the hell out of me when fans or these experts bring up dunking first like that's actually a part of his game. It's not really. The guy has absolutely legit skills. He has legit potential to be one of the premier scoring guards in the entire league. being an all-star is pretty tough really but man I think Lavine can be a Really really good player. I think a lot of posters here see that too. Plus the guys is actually a really likeable dude. To me he is basically untouchable when it comes to making deals.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

This next season will be the final test of whether Wiggins has it in him to attack the boards and react to loose balls. If Thibs can't bring it out of him then no one can. But fortunately, the rest of the players in the starting lineup that I have in mind all have that motor Wiggins doesn't have. KAT clearly has it in spades. Gorgui has it and his rebounding will continue to improve as he gets stronger and smarter. Ricky has it, which is why he's one of the best rebounding PGs in the League. Zach has it and, together with his athleticism, I expect his rebounding to be another area of improvement for him.

Yes, a Deng/Wiggins rebounding combo would be better than a Wiggins/Zach combo IF Wiggins doesn't improve his rebounding. But keep in mind, the difference between Wiggins and Deng is 2 boards per game (Wiggins career avg. is 4.1; Deng's is 6.2). So the difference is not enormous and it's not a huge stretch to expect a 21 year old with Wiggins' physical gifts to improve that much just be getting physically stronger as we know he will, especially with him and his head coach focusing on it. Also keep in mind that while potentially gaining 2 or 3 rebounds per game with the Deng/Wiggins duo, we'd loose a lot of 3-point shooting AND we loose having a second ball-handler on the court with Ricky. Teams don't contend for championships without at least two really good ball-handlers on the court in their starting lineups.

Long -- I'm not sure who here has predicted that Zach WILL become an all-star. I know I haven't. So I don't think homerism has anything to do with this debate about Zach as our starting SG. In fact, I've been clear that his numbers last year as a non-allstar, especially post all-start break, support having him as our starting SG. Most NBA teams don't have an allstar SG. I think some of us have said Zach has that POTENTIAL to be an all-star. No one can credibly argue otherwise. But it's not the predicate for the argument that he should be our starting SG.

This board in general sees Zach very differently from the pundits in the insider article, and that is most likely explained by one of two things...the Zach supporters are right and the more objective pundits are wrong, or homerism on the part of the Zachites. I think it's more of the latter.

Yeah, I don't think anyone said Zach WILL be an all-star, but I was playing off of your post earlier in this thread where you said Zach certainly wasn't an all-star yet...because we all know what that word "yet" means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYwMZs6eSqo

Long -- You are really distorting my view and the prevailing view of those on this board who think Zach should be our starting SG. I have not concluded or stated that Zach WILL be an allstar and I don't believe anyone else on this Board has. More importantly, I was crystal clear that my view of him as a starter was NOT premised on him being or becoming an allstar. I made it clear that he should start based on his production last season, especially after the all-start break, along with his ball handling, our need for 3-point shooting in the starting lineup and Zach's chemistry with the other young starters. I mentioned that Zach's stats last season compared favorably to a number of other starting SGs around the League. I think he has a chance to become an all-star, but that clearly wasn't the premise for my view that he should be our starting SG next season.

Paying a lot of money to sign a 31 year old to be part of a starting lineup that would then have no secondary ball handler and that would be markedly worse from behind the arc than it would with Zach seems like a bad idea.

That's not homerism. That's a legitimate supportable point of view.

Perhaps I have distorted the views of those here who think Zach should be our starting 2. But when so many guys who follow the NBA for a living have the same opinion about Zach's best role on this team, it does ring of homerism to dismiss their opinion by saying they don't know Zach as well as we do...on the contrary, I would argue they are able to maintain a much more objective view than those of us who are so emotionally invested in this team

I am also high on Zach and think he has a great future as either a starting SG or a valuable 6th man...and that's a terrific outcome for a 13th pick. But most of the positive comments about him speak of his offensive contributions. I too enjoyed watching the offensive explosiveness of the late season 2016 Wolves, but I also had to shield my eyes often watching their poor defense. The Wolves started an excellent defensive team at the start of the season and put up impressive defensive numbers, but went with a more offensive lineup late in the year...resulting in dropping to the bottom of the league in defense. Was Sam Mitchell an excellent defensive coach at the start of the season, and simply forgot how to coach defense in March and April? Of course not. While a coach can make some impact on a team's defense, a starting lineup that includes Tay and KG (or Butler, Noah and Deng for that matter) is going to excel at defense regardless of the coach, while a team that starts Wig and Zach at the wings is not likely to be very good defensively...at least not until they mature.

Personally I'm not keen on watching a starting lineup that struggles defensively and on the boards for another season. Zach is an offensively potent SG who deserved to start on a 29-win team, and I think Thibs can lead a starting lineup of KAT/G/Wig/Zach/Ricky to 45 wins this year. But I'm greedy and want more this season, and much more in 2-3 years. That's why I line up with Thorpe (I seem to often line up with him) who sees Zach as a 6th man, and thinks adding a solid vet can bring this team to 55 wins...that's what I want. Thorpe doesn't mention Deng as the vet, but it certainly seems to fit with his narrative (as would Batum, but Batum will be looking for a max contract). A defensively stifling starting lineup combined with a potent scorer like Zach off the bench is the formula this teams need to challenge for a top 4 seed this season.

[Carlos Danger]

I understand why many people write about player A, B or C and how they have to cover their eyes on the defensive end. While many of those observations are probably accurate up to this point - for me, I'm willing to give everyone a clean slate coming into this year. That's because the players often discussed (Wiggins, Bazz, LaVine, Dieng, Tyus) are all still inexperienced players playing on terrible teams. Yes, they share the blame for those terrible teams. But I've stated many, many times that I believe the root of the defensive problems has been the system and lack of cohesion. I'm not saying all those guys will suddenly become lock down defenders under Thibbs. But I certainly believe all of those guys can be functioning players on a decent defense. IMO, the coach can help a lot by putting out the right pairings and match ups in addition to drilling his players on how to function as a unit. I honestly believe we'll be a middle of the pack defense or better this year with many of the same players as this past season. And I would not be shocked if some of the guys we are currently viewing as poor defenders will be viewed much differently a year from now.

[Monster]

Sam isn't a defensive coach. Effort and get guys to play hard together? Yes but he isn't a defensive coach.

I'm not buying Zach is eye shielding bad at defense. He made some really legit progress in that area this year. Granted he was coming from a pretty low point last year where not only was he a clueless lost puppy but he was playing with a d-league piece meal roster at times under a coach not known for defense. (Notice a pattern here?) His team defensive improvement was maybe the most shocking development of the year for him. I wasn't sure he would show some of those help instincts so quickly possibly ever. He showed a bit of a knack for coming over and digging for the ball and that carried over to transition defense where he had plenty of times where he thwarted possessions. He hasn't arrived but I saw enough to give the guy a shot at that end as a starter.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

I agree that Sam doesn't have the defensive reputation Thibs has, but it's unclear how much of their reputations have to do with the players they were given to coach. As I mentioned above, when KG was healthy and Tay Prince was in the starting lineup, the Wolves' starting 5 ranked near the top of the NBA...so often they held opponents to less than 20 1st quarter points. Does that mean Sam was a great defensive coach at the start of the year, or do great defensive players create defensive reputations for coaches? I really don't know, but my sense is it's 80% players and 20% coaching.

Similarly, I would be more confident concluding Thibs is an elite NBA defensive coach if he had ever had great results with a group of defensively challenged players. We don't know, because his teams have always had players like Noah, Deng, Butler, KG, Rondo, etc. My best guess is that Thibs isn't going to want to start games with the same lineup that ranked near the bottom of the NBA defensively at the end of last year...just not his philosophy.

Long term, I think KAT, Wig, Gorgui and Zach have the potential to be very good NBA defenders, perhaps even elite defenders. They are all extraordinary athletes and hard workers (even Wig, I think), and all three came into the NBA with the reputation of being excellent college defenders. But the difficulty of learning the NBA game, especially defensively, is highlighted when you compare the defensive stats of the starting lineup in game 1 to the starting lineup in game 82...same coach and system, totally different results. Thibs has a great defensive reputation, and I think Zach and Wig will develop nicely under his tutelage. But it's not going to happen overnight, and that's why Thorpe et al (and some of us) advocate for signing a solid defensive vet who can allow Thibs to play Wig at a position where his rebounding doesn't hurt us, and allows Zach to develop at a more reasonable pace while providing a big spark off the bench.

We'll have to see what happens, but I for one will be really surprised (and disappointed) if Thibs' starting lineup on opening night is the same one Sam started in Game 82. We are now by most accounts an attractive free agent destination, and my expectations for this season are very high if we bring in the right guy.

[BizarroJerry [enjin:6592520]]

I agree that Sam doesn't have the defensive reputation Thibs has, but it's unclear how much of their reputations have to do with the players they were given to coach. As I mentioned above, when KG was healthy and Tay Prince was in the starting lineup, the Wolves' starting 5 ranked near the top of the NBA...so often they held opponents to less than 20 1st quarter points. Does that mean Sam was a great defensive coach at the start of the year, or do great defensive players create defensive reputations for coaches? I really don't know, but my sense is it's 80% players and 20% coaching.

Similarly, I would be more confident concluding Thibs is an elite NBA defensive coach if he had ever had great results with a group of defensively challenged players. We don't know, because his teams have always had players like Noah, Deng, Butler, KG, Rondo, etc. My best guess is that Thibs isn't going to want to start games with the same lineup that ranked near the bottom of the NBA defensively at the end of last year...just not his philosophy.

Long term, I think KAT, Wig, Gorgui and Zach have the potential to be very good NBA defenders, perhaps even elite defenders. They are all extraordinary athletes and hard workers (even Wig, I think), and all three came into the NBA with the reputation of being excellent college defenders. But the difficulty of learning the NBA game, especially defensively, is highlighted when you compare the defensive stats of the starting lineup in game 1 to the starting lineup in game 82...same coach and system, totally different results. Thibs has a great defensive reputation, and I think Zach and Wig will develop nicely under his tutelage. But it's not going to happen overnight, and that's why Thorpe et al (and some of us) advocate for signing a solid defensive vet who can allow Thibs to play Wig at a position where his rebounding doesn't hurt us, and allows Zach to develop at a more reasonable pace while providing a big spark off the bench.

We'll have to see what happens, but I for one will be really surprised (and disappointed) if Thibs' starting lineup on opening night is the same one Sam started in Game 82. We are now by most accounts an attractive free agent destination, and my expectations for this season are very high if we bring in the right guy.

LST, why would we want to change this lineup? It was winning and Thibs should recognize that even if they were poor defensively.

[Monster]

As Q has laid out time and time again defense in the NBA can be improved quickly with coaching.

What about all the poor defensive players Thibs had to his during his stint in Chicago? I'd be curious to see someone go through and look at Thibs time in Chicago and point out the times where he clearly played a lesser player only because the other guy was a poor defender. It seems to me he played slot of offensive minded guys plenty. In other words he possibly played his best players which goes against the narrative that Thibs only plays his guys etc. Does he also not get credit for making a guy like Butler a top defender?

It's weird that you both say (or that's the way I read it) Thibs is a defensive coach that won't play a poor defender but eh defensive coaching is only oh maybe 20% of the defensive equation. I guess we shoulda just hired D'Antoni and tried out score everyone. Lol just kidding I know you value defense.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Good teams don't always have 5 good defenders in their starting lineup. Look at the Cavs. They have two sub par defenders in their starting lineup and get away with it because good teams have a balance of offense and defense. They don't overload one without the other and still be good. With Ricky and Wiggins at the 1 and 3, having an offensively potent 2 is a good fit next to them. Especially next to Ricky who barely scores 10 PPG's as a primary ball handler. I would argue we need Zach's offense to have any semblance of balance on this team. His 3pt shooting and secondary ball handling are huge benefits to the starting lineup. People talk about the defensive potency of the Prince, KG lineup, but that lineup was absolute garbage on offense which is why Sam had to go away from it in the first place. They couldn't score enough to win games consistently.

There's never been an NBA team of 5 shut down defenders so why are we pushing so hard to do that? We need to find an offensive and defensive balance and Thibs' team defensive concepts should make us a much better defensive team with the talent we already have. Are we going to be the best defensive team in the league? No, but we were a top 5 offensive team in the league after the all-star break so we just need an acceptable defense to win more than we lose. And frankly the real place we need defenders is off the bench and Zach certainly doesn't fix that hole. If you want to move Zach to the bench that's fine, but that means Bazz has to go because they cannot play together. There's no point overloading the first unit with defenders if the second unit is just going to get torched which will happen until the end of time if Zach and Bazz are your bench wings.

A Ricky, Wiggins, Deng starting lineup is very potent defensively, but it will not be good enough offensively to win a significant amount of games. The 3 of them can't shoot well enough from 3 to be a good offensive lineup. You'd just end up like the Grizzlies. Good, but not good enough because you lack true balance as a team.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

I agree that Sam doesn't have the defensive reputation Thibs has, but it's unclear how much of their reputations have to do with the players they were given to coach. As I mentioned above, when KG was healthy and Tay Prince was in the starting lineup, the Wolves' starting 5 ranked near the top of the NBA...so often they held opponents to less than 20 1st quarter points. Does that mean Sam was a great defensive coach at the start of the year, or do great defensive players create defensive reputations for coaches? I really don't know, but my sense is it's 80% players and 20% coaching.

Similarly, I would be more confident concluding Thibs is an elite NBA defensive coach if he had ever had great results with a group of defensively challenged players. We don't know, because his teams have always had players like Noah, Deng, Butler, KG, Rondo, etc. My best guess is that Thibs isn't going to want to start games with the same lineup that ranked near the bottom of the NBA defensively at the end of last year...just not his philosophy.

Long term, I think KAT, Wig, Gorgui and Zach have the potential to be very good NBA defenders, perhaps even elite defenders. They are all extraordinary athletes and hard workers (even Wig, I think), and all three came into the NBA with the reputation of being excellent college defenders. But the difficulty of learning the NBA game, especially defensively, is highlighted when you compare the defensive stats of the starting lineup in game 1 to the starting lineup in game 82...same coach and system, totally different results. Thibs has a great defensive reputation, and I think Zach and Wig will develop nicely under his tutelage. But it's not going to happen overnight, and that's why Thorpe et al (and some of us) advocate for signing a solid defensive vet who can allow Thibs to play Wig at a position where his rebounding doesn't hurt us, and allows Zach to develop at a more reasonable pace while providing a big spark off the bench.

We'll have to see what happens, but I for one will be really surprised (and disappointed) if Thibs' starting lineup on opening night is the same one Sam started in Game 82. We are now by most accounts an attractive free agent destination, and my expectations for this season are very high if we bring in the right guy.

LST, why would we want to change this lineup? It was winning and Thibs should recognize that even if they were poor defensively.

I guess it depends on your definition of "winning", Jerry. They did win 29 games last year, almost doubling their win total of the previous year, and they did play .500 ball over the last 1/4 of the year. And as I said above, I think they would be likely to improve to 45 wins this year without changing the lineup. But I want more than that, and I'm guessing Thibs will too, and the presence of a defensive veteran SF like Deng or Batum at SF is what we need to get to 55 wins. I agree with the pundits above who all say that last year's starting lineup won't be the lineup that takes us to the playoffs. Some of them say Gorgui should be a backup, but I side wit the majority who see Zach being best utilized as a 6th man. I think a starting lineup of KAT/(whoever Thibs chooses among KG, Belly and Gorgui)/Deng/Wig/Ricky is a superb defensive unit that can also score, and Zach as 6th man makes our bench so much more potent.

Why do I want to change the starting lineup? Because I'm greedy, and I know Deng/Wig at the wings win a lot more games than Wig/Zach.