Minnesota Sports Forum

thedoper wrote:I think on the rebounding teams will start game-planning for it. Our lack of rebounding isnt going to get any better when every team starts to realize they can crash the boards with reckless abandon.

FNG wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Lip has cats? I thought Monster was the feline connoisseur of the board. Remember, Mrs Lip needs a pretzel during the first quarter and nachos during the 2nd half.

You're not dealing with an amateur here, Cool, but thanks for the reminder :) .

Yeah two takes I agree with...DLo going off tonight, and Finch staying with the same lineup.

Cam mentioned in the previous GDT that DLo didn't seem to be looking for his shot, and I didn't disagree. It's a slippery slope though, because our halfcourt offense seems to stall when DLo is too ball dominant. I think Finch has the answer though, and that is to give PatBev and JMac more minutes to let DLo play off ball at the 2 more...I've been advocating for that since the trade, but Rubio's poor start last season made the Rubio/Dlo pairing ineffective and colored Ryan's mind. I thought by the end of the season DLo was looking much better off ball when paired with Rubio or JMac. Playing the 2 combined with focusing on a 2-man game with KAT when he's playing PG will give DLo a lot more open looks I think.

I hear Q's stat about team defensive rebounding not improving with Vando, and that's a little disappointing. For their careers, Vando is a far superior defensive rebounder to Josh, with a DRB% of 24.5 compared to Josh's 7.6%. It's difficult for me to reconcile the team's poor rebounding stats with Vando on the court and his individual record...I'm scratching my head at that one. Regardless, I would start Josh tonight. I think KAT has to be embarrassed about the rebounding differential at center last game, and I think he closes the gap tonight. That will make a big difference.

FNG wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:While in theory you'd think inserting Vando into the starting lineup would help with defensive rebounding, in practice that has not been the case. Both all of last season and for two games this season, our Defensive rebound % is actually worse when Vando is on the court versus off of it. Now that could be for all sorts of different reasons, but the reality is that Vando's individual rebounding prowess has not translated to better team defensive rebounding. Offensive rebounding is a different story.

I was thinking something similar Q. I'll add a couple more thoughts.

1. Vanderbilt isn't being used like a typical PF. Often he has been chasing around guys on the perimeter. In the last game he spent a fair amount of time guarding ingrahm. It's different when you are Playing D all over the court and then going for rebounds.

2. Jonas was a massive reason the Wolves were out rebounded. Meanwhile Alexander Walker had 14 rebounds. Nobody on the wolves had more than Edwards 9 and Towns only had 4. Obviously some of that is a bit fluky as Towns is a good rebounder. In some ways there were a lot of fluky rebounding stats in this game. Hopefully the Wolves get on the boards more in game 2.

3. The Wolves didn't get out rebounded because they weren't playing hard.

4. It's possible the way the Wolves play on defense may leave them vulnerable at times in securing the defensive rebound. This will be worth monitoring as time goes on. Of course IF...they are able to actually continue to be a worthwhile defensive team and give up some ground on the boards...I'll take it.

5. It's not new but with the league taking so many 3's (78 between the Pels and Wolves) there are going to be some rebounds going all over the place.

6. If you put Vanderbilt in to start then that makes the bench lack length.

Very good points, monster. I especially focus on #4. Finch has encouraged KAT to play less drop defense and to attack, and he has responded. But naturally that aggressiveness will leave him in a worse defensive rebounding position at times, and an elite rebounder like Jonas will take advantage of that. The jury's out, but right now I think I'll take the tradeoff.