Hollinger's pre-season Wolves analysis

[Jester1534]

Can somebody tell me what happened the last time D'Angelo Russell stayed healthy for a season? I must have missed it. :)

Say what you want about the guy, and the health concerns are annoyingly real, but if he plays 70-plus games this team is going to be over .500 for the year. I hope we can revisit some of these things after the year is over and be a happy message board for once.

I so wanted this to be 2017 like Buxton but it was 18 when he played 81 games and his team made the playoffs.

Similarities??? cough cough lol if Buxton and DLO stay healthy there perennial wild card teams

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

FNG, I completely disagree that DLO playing like he has the last X seasons will be the key determinant of our success. The reality is we may be at a tipping point of talent that finally gets us to .500 ball, IF we can stay healthy and IF the defense improves from really bad to just kinda bad. We need DLO to be a solid cog in the overall machine, not THE main cog.

We already have reasonably good data from last year that when we have a critical mass of our guys healthy, we are a competitive, .500-ish team (and don't forget we started 2-0 with KAT and DLO - it wasn't just the last 25 games).

Now I guessed 34 wins because I'm skeptical about staying healthy. But I absolutely see a path to 40-44 wins if the injury gremlins stay away.

[FNG]

FNG, I completely disagree that DLO playing like he has the last X seasons will be the key determinant of our success. The reality is we may be at a tipping point of talent that finally gets us to .500 ball, IF we can stay healthy and IF the defense improves from really bad to just kinda bad. We need DLO to be a solid cog in the overall machine, not THE main cog.

We already have reasonably good data from last year that when we have a critical mass of our guys healthy, we are a competitive, .500-ish team (and don't forget we started 2-0 with KAT and DLO - it wasn't just the last 25 games).

Now I guessed 34 wins because I'm skeptical about staying healthy. But I absolutely see a path to 40-44 wins if the injury gremlins stay away.

Yeah, you're far more optimistic about this Rosas-created roster than I am, Q. I just don't put that much stock in our Wolves-specialty late year runs, and I don't see us getting to 40 even with good health. The problem is, I find it almost impossible to build a competitive roster if one of your max guys is performing at such a low level. Monday night DLO was what I need to see for me to feel optimistic about this roster, even if we are healthy, and that's why I have him as far and away my key to (even low level) success this season. I took a look at the performance of every max salary player last season (I'm using a blend of VORP and Net Rating per 100 possessions to determine this), and I could honestly only come up with John Wall as a max guy who contributed less than DLO...and Houston won 17 games. Of course Klay Thompson didn't contribute anything and some may argue DLO had a better year than Andrew Wiggins (I give Wig a narrow victory based on my criteria), but Golden State only won 39 games despite being led by the marvelous Steph Curry. Every other max player looks far better than DLO using the two metrics I'm using, and almost every team with one of these high-performing max players made the playoffs...having your max players earning their salary seems to be the most important criteria for making the playoffs. And DLO just hasn't cut it during his career.

But I actually don't know that we're saying much that is different here, Q. You're saying we can approach .500 ball IF the defense improves from really bad to just kinda bad, and I don't necessarily disagree. I just found DLO's defense last year so offensive (pardon the mixed metaphor) that I think the only way we become "kinda bad" on defense is if DLO takes a quantum leap on that side of the court and looks more like he did Monday night. And that's why I have him as my main key to any success this year.

But maybe I'm wrong about prospects for our D. Do you think we can get to "kinda bad" if DLO doesn't improve a lot and continues to give up so many wide open 3-point shots due to either lethargy or lack of understanding of proper rotation and team defense?

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Yes, I think the defense can improve even if DLO doesn't much. He's one guy playing the position that probably has the least impact on a defense. Wings and bigs are far more important. There are plenty of examples of teams playing with sub-par defenders that defended at a solid level as a team.

Now am I somewhat skeptical myself of defensive improvement? Yes, but that's at a team level. I don't put it all on DLO. The Wolves have proven to be perfectly capable of being horrible defensively without DLO.

[Lipoli390]

1. How was Hollinger dismissive when mentioning the team's record at the end of the season? He simply said they weren't tanking. That's a good thing! And he never brought up the quality/intent of the team's opponents. In fact, he mentions that the late-season stretch helped quell criticism over the Finch hiring... implying that the team was improving. I don't think he deserves criticism for any of that.

2. There were, as Lip noted, two or three instances where a word seemed to be missing. That's as much on the writer as the editor. But a bad look for such a prominent publication nonetheless.

3. Anthony Edwards was indeed sluggish defensively last season. And by his analysis, it seems clear that the team's three stars are Towns, Edwards and Russell. Heck, we used to post gifs last season to laugh at just how "sluggish/lazy/indifferent" all three were on defense last season. So I think he's mostly accurate in that assessment.

4. Yes. We're still relying on an up-to-now underwhelming D. Russell to either make/break this season. Unless he changed drastically overnight... along with others defensively... I think Hollinger is pretty damn close with his 36-win prediction.




[Note: Wait... how many wins did I predict again?]

I just don't think it's accurate to characterize Edwards as sometimes sluggish. He could be dumb or inattentive, but not sluggish.

[AbeVigodaLive]

1. How was Hollinger dismissive when mentioning the team's record at the end of the season? He simply said they weren't tanking. That's a good thing! And he never brought up the quality/intent of the team's opponents. In fact, he mentions that the late-season stretch helped quell criticism over the Finch hiring... implying that the team was improving. I don't think he deserves criticism for any of that.

2. There were, as Lip noted, two or three instances where a word seemed to be missing. That's as much on the writer as the editor. But a bad look for such a prominent publication nonetheless.

3. Anthony Edwards was indeed sluggish defensively last season. And by his analysis, it seems clear that the team's three stars are Towns, Edwards and Russell. Heck, we used to post gifs last season to laugh at just how "sluggish/lazy/indifferent" all three were on defense last season. So I think he's mostly accurate in that assessment.

4. Yes. We're still relying on an up-to-now underwhelming D. Russell to either make/break this season. Unless he changed drastically overnight... along with others defensively... I think Hollinger is pretty damn close with his 36-win prediction.




[Note: Wait... how many wins did I predict again?]

I just don't think it's accurate to characterize Edwards as sometimes sluggish. He could be dumb or inattentive, but not sluggish.

Semantics.

"Slow to respond, lacking energy and alertness"

We discussed those things about edwards on defense last season

[Lipoli390]

1. How was Hollinger dismissive when mentioning the team's record at the end of the season? He simply said they weren't tanking. That's a good thing! And he never brought up the quality/intent of the team's opponents. In fact, he mentions that the late-season stretch helped quell criticism over the Finch hiring... implying that the team was improving. I don't think he deserves criticism for any of that.

2. There were, as Lip noted, two or three instances where a word seemed to be missing. That's as much on the writer as the editor. But a bad look for such a prominent publication nonetheless.

3. Anthony Edwards was indeed sluggish defensively last season. And by his analysis, it seems clear that the team's three stars are Towns, Edwards and Russell. Heck, we used to post gifs last season to laugh at just how "sluggish/lazy/indifferent" all three were on defense last season. So I think he's mostly accurate in that assessment.

4. Yes. We're still relying on an up-to-now underwhelming D. Russell to either make/break this season. Unless he changed drastically overnight... along with others defensively... I think Hollinger is pretty damn close with his 36-win prediction.




[Note: Wait... how many wins did I predict again?]

I just don't think it's accurate to characterize Edwards as sometimes sluggish. He could be dumb or inattentive, but not sluggish.

Semantics.

"Slow to respond, lacking energy and alertness"

We discussed those things about edwards on defense last season

It's not semantics. I don't see Edwards as lacking energy. I don't see him dogging it or not running the court - at least no more than the vast majority of players, all of whom sometimes don't hustle down the court or react alertly. So you and I have different perceptions, not a difference in semantics.

[AbeVigodaLive]

1. How was Hollinger dismissive when mentioning the team's record at the end of the season? He simply said they weren't tanking. That's a good thing! And he never brought up the quality/intent of the team's opponents. In fact, he mentions that the late-season stretch helped quell criticism over the Finch hiring... implying that the team was improving. I don't think he deserves criticism for any of that.

2. There were, as Lip noted, two or three instances where a word seemed to be missing. That's as much on the writer as the editor. But a bad look for such a prominent publication nonetheless.

3. Anthony Edwards was indeed sluggish defensively last season. And by his analysis, it seems clear that the team's three stars are Towns, Edwards and Russell. Heck, we used to post gifs last season to laugh at just how "sluggish/lazy/indifferent" all three were on defense last season. So I think he's mostly accurate in that assessment.

4. Yes. We're still relying on an up-to-now underwhelming D. Russell to either make/break this season. Unless he changed drastically overnight... along with others defensively... I think Hollinger is pretty damn close with his 36-win prediction.




[Note: Wait... how many wins did I predict again?]

I just don't think it's accurate to characterize Edwards as sometimes sluggish. He could be dumb or inattentive, but not sluggish.

Semantics.

"Slow to respond, lacking energy and alertness"

We discussed those things about edwards on defense last season

It's not semantics. I don't see Edwards as lacking energy. I don't see him dogging it or not running the court - at least no more than the vast majority of players, all of whom sometimes don't hustle down the court or react alertly. So you and I have different perceptions, not a difference in semantics.

I posted several vids/gifs of Edwards, Russell and Towns being lackadaisical on defense last season. So I simply don't know how we're refuting it now. The Wolves had statistically the 7th worst defense in NBA history... and it wasn't all because of scheme, injuries and inattention to detail.

[FNG]

I'm not going to weigh in on the semantics discussion, other than to add this. At various times employers have described me as dumb, inattentive or sluggish, and I think we can all agree none of these are complimentary.

[Lipoli390]

I'm not going to weigh in on the semantics discussion, other than to add this. At various times employers have described me as dumb, inattentive or sluggish, and I think we can all agree none of these are complimentary.

FNG - I don't know, FNG. Maybe they meant dumb, inattentive or sluggish in a good way. I should tell you that I have some video of you being sluggish. :) But you're in good company. Most of the greatest NBA players in history have had multiple sluggish moments on the court and some of those moments were captured on film. Also, at least 90% our elected officials in Washington -- those in charge of governing the most powerful nation on earth - are dumb, inattentive AND sluggish. As for me, I'm only dumb when I'm not thinking, inattentive when I'm not paying attention and sluggish when I'm tired.