Minnesota Sports Forum

Q12543 wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

But the bottom of the roster guys are Ed Davis and Jake Layman. What more could we possibly learn about them? And all the other guys that were crowded out of the rotation at the beginning of the season have now had plenty of reps at some point in the season, i.e. Vando, Nowell, JMac, etc.

I feel like Rosas and Co. should have a very good feel for their roster and collective capabilities at this point.

I guess I'm mostly worried about KAT. I know freak accidents can happen at any time. But wouldn't it just be perfect cursed Timberwolf luck to have him blow out his knee in a meaningless end of season game?

I agree with most of what you wrote. But I wouldn't mind seeing more minutes to Naz Reid and less to KAT for these last games. I like the improvement Reid has made from year 1 to 2. We know what KAT can do. Why not let Reid play out against other teams starters to see how he holds up? Reid has only had 15 starts this year and only 13 games with over 25 minutes. I'd like to see him play more and this would seem like a perfect opportunity.

Also, Rosas went in hard for Hernagomez. I saw he was hurt last night. But would like to see him play big minutes these last few games. He hasn't played a ton. Those are two examples.

Fair point on injury risk.

As far as I can tell, KAT, Ant, and DLO aren't going anywhere this offseason. So if you assume that these are your three key pillars of the roster heading into the '21-22 season and you look at the paltry number of games all three have played together this season, I believe it is of utmost importance for them to get lots of minutes together now to build chemistry. Think of it as an investment now that hopefully pays off next season.

And by the way, if you happen to be winning more than you lose with these three playing lots of minutes, that becomes a virtuous cycle that hopefully continues into next season.

These considerations outweigh the injury risks IMO.

Thing that makes it exciting is lineups of Ant, Dlo and Kat in them they have a net rating of +5.1 (80th percentile) and a 99th percentile offense. Those 3 without Rubio have a net rating of +7 (88th percentile).

The starting lineup of Dlo/ant/okogie/Mcdaniels/Kat have a net rating of +8.5 and that lineup has a defensive percentile of 71th. Could be fools gold but it's really encouraging numbers

Q12543 wrote:

Fair point on injury risk.

As far as I can tell, KAT, Ant, and DLO aren't going anywhere this offseason. So if you assume that these are your three key pillars of the roster heading into the '21-22 season and you look at the paltry number of games all three have played together this season, I believe it is of utmost importance for them to get lots of minutes together now to build chemistry. Think of it as an investment now that hopefully pays off next season.

And by the way, if you happen to be winning more than you lose with these three playing lots of minutes, that becomes a virtuous cycle that hopefully continues into next season.

These considerations outweigh the injury risks IMO.

You (and others) are also making fair points and I'm not firmly landing against winning games. I would be curious what the data says about that. Does winning carry over? The only season I can recall where the Wolves didn't try to tank, was the year Sam took over for Flip. They were 22-48 on March 21. Sam was trying to save his job. They went 7-5 to close the year to end with 29 wins. Their core was: Towns, Wiggins, Rubio, Dieng and LaVine. The next year (with Thibs instead of Mitchell) they won 31 games using the exact same core.

On the flip side (and to you and other's point), it didn't really matter for lotto/draft picking anyhow. They still had an opportunity to draft a good player (and of course picked wrong).

Carlos Danger wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

Fair point on injury risk.

As far as I can tell, KAT, Ant, and DLO aren't going anywhere this offseason. So if you assume that these are your three key pillars of the roster heading into the '21-22 season and you look at the paltry number of games all three have played together this season, I believe it is of utmost importance for them to get lots of minutes together now to build chemistry. Think of it as an investment now that hopefully pays off next season.

And by the way, if you happen to be winning more than you lose with these three playing lots of minutes, that becomes a virtuous cycle that hopefully continues into next season.

These considerations outweigh the injury risks IMO.

You (and others) are also making fair points and I'm not firmly landing against winning games. I would be curious what the data says about that. Does winning carry over? The only season I can recall where the Wolves didn't try to tank, was the year Sam took over for Flip. They were 22-48 on March 21. Sam was trying to save his job. They went 7-5 to close the year to end with 29 wins. Their core was: Towns, Wiggins, Rubio, Dieng and LaVine. The next year (with Thibs instead of Mitchell) they won 31 games using the exact same core.

On the flip side (and to you and other's point), it didn't really matter for lotto/draft picking anyhow. They still had an opportunity to draft a good player (and of course picked wrong).

Here is my data: 30 years of (mostly) terrible Wolves basketball. The least winning professional sports franchise in modern U.S. history. A team that at one point had three consecutive #1 picks to potentially build around (Bennett, Wiggins, and KAT) and still couldn't even eek out more than 31 wins before having to make a big trade to bring in a vet that knew how to win games.

The data has clearly proven to me that tanking and losing isn't a good strategy to building an enduring winner. So why not try winning!? At least you can give your fans some immediate enjoyment. No one ever talks about the intrinsic satisfaction of simply getting a win - regardless of the longer-term implications. Isn't there any value in just winning a game? Heck, I even feel better after winning a pre-season game or a summer league game. Don't you think the players feel the same way? That must have some effect.

Q12543 wrote:

Here is my data: 30 years of (mostly) terrible Wolves basketball. The least winning professional sports franchise in modern U.S. history. A team that at one point had three consecutive #1 picks to potentially build around (Bennett, Wiggins, and KAT) and still couldn't even eek out more than 31 wins before having to make a big trade to bring in a vet that knew how to win games.

The data has clearly proven to me that tanking and losing isn't a good strategy to building an enduring winner. So why not try winning!? At least you can give your fans some immediate enjoyment. No one ever talks about the intrinsic satisfaction of simply getting a win - regardless of the longer-term implications. Isn't there any value in just winning a game? Heck, I even feel better after winning a pre-season game or a summer league game. Don't you think the players feel the same way? That must have some effect.

But if you are considering KAT and Edwards as your core going forward....both of those guys were acquired via the tank - right?

Carlos Danger wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

Here is my data: 30 years of (mostly) terrible Wolves basketball. The least winning professional sports franchise in modern U.S. history. A team that at one point had three consecutive #1 picks to potentially build around (Bennett, Wiggins, and KAT) and still couldn't even eek out more than 31 wins before having to make a big trade to bring in a vet that knew how to win games.

The data has clearly proven to me that tanking and losing isn't a good strategy to building an enduring winner. So why not try winning!? At least you can give your fans some immediate enjoyment. No one ever talks about the intrinsic satisfaction of simply getting a win - regardless of the longer-term implications. Isn't there any value in just winning a game? Heck, I even feel better after winning a pre-season game or a summer league game. Don't you think the players feel the same way? That must have some effect.

But if you are considering KAT and Edwards as your core going forward....both of those guys were acquired via the tank - right?

Just because KAT and Edwards were acquired due to piling up the losses doesn't mean we should just keep doing it. This team has an acceptable baseline of talent at this point IMO and now they need to learn how to play smarter, defend better, and close out games. That only happens when players give a shit and try their hardest to win games. Otherwise it's just folks going through the motions because the coaching staff gives them a wink and nod or sits all their best players with "injuries". Not only is that bad for building team chemistry and culture, I actually think it's unethical. That's why I have always been enormously pissed when this team purposely tanks.

Q12543 wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

Fair point on injury risk.

As far as I can tell, KAT, Ant, and DLO aren't going anywhere this offseason. So if you assume that these are your three key pillars of the roster heading into the '21-22 season and you look at the paltry number of games all three have played together this season, I believe it is of utmost importance for them to get lots of minutes together now to build chemistry. Think of it as an investment now that hopefully pays off next season.

And by the way, if you happen to be winning more than you lose with these three playing lots of minutes, that becomes a virtuous cycle that hopefully continues into next season.

These considerations outweigh the injury risks IMO.

You (and others) are also making fair points and I'm not firmly landing against winning games. I would be curious what the data says about that. Does winning carry over? The only season I can recall where the Wolves didn't try to tank, was the year Sam took over for Flip. They were 22-48 on March 21. Sam was trying to save his job. They went 7-5 to close the year to end with 29 wins. Their core was: Towns, Wiggins, Rubio, Dieng and LaVine. The next year (with Thibs instead of Mitchell) they won 31 games using the exact same core.

On the flip side (and to you and other's point), it didn't really matter for lotto/draft picking anyhow. They still had an opportunity to draft a good player (and of course picked wrong).

Here is my data: 30 years of (mostly) terrible Wolves basketball. The least winning professional sports franchise in modern U.S. history. A team that at one point had three consecutive #1 picks to potentially build around (Bennett, Wiggins, and KAT) and still couldn't even eek out more than 31 wins before having to make a big trade to bring in a vet that knew how to win games.

The data has clearly proven to me that tanking and losing isn't a good strategy to building an enduring winner. So why not try winning!? At least you can give your fans some immediate enjoyment. No one ever talks about the intrinsic satisfaction of simply getting a win - regardless of the longer-term implications. Isn't there any value in just winning a game? Heck, I even feel better after winning a pre-season game or a summer league game. Don't you think the players feel the same way? That must have some effect.

You tell em Q!!!!

It doesn't surprise me that people advocate for more losing on this board. I mean for God's sake people wanted to lose to the Nuggets a few years back, not make the playoffs, just so the Wolves could blow another draft pick. You get what you deserve, and if the fans are gonna demand (or hell, even WANT) wins. Then who will?