Minnesota Sports Forum

kekgeek1 wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:The injury/availability situation of our opponents lately is almost comedic at this point and it reinforces the narrative from last year that our 46 wins was largely illusory as a measuring stick of our true talent level as a team.

But to Abe's point, I don't care!!! We just need to win games dammit and continue changing the culture of this franchise.

It also buys us time for Finch and the players to get their shit together on offense with Rudy in the lineup (and on defense for that matter). It seems like there are signs of improvement, but we need to see sustained improvement. Long ways to go still....

Currently 24 of the 30 NBA teams is missing a starting player due to injury or Covid. So the Wolves only have an opportunity to play a legitimet team with no lucky win 17.2% of the time at this moment. I know some on this board feel like these wins are super lukcy but personally I think this is just the standard of todays NBA. Like currently today the wolves could only play 5 NBA teams who would be at full strength in their starting lineup. Wolves training staff and players deserve credit that Ant, Mcdaniels, Kat (besides 1 year) and Gobert are generally players who are avalible to play every night. Now obviously there is some luck into that. But when there is only a 17% chance of even getting the opportunity to play a team at full strength that is no longer luck that is the norm and everyone on this board should understand this is the new standard of the NBA. Hope that the Wolves keep generally healthy and continue racking up these "lucky" wins

Good stuff here Kek. I think the "luck" then is more on the flip-side, meaning our relative lack of major injury issues dating back to last season. Based on your numbers, we have been unusually healthy at the top of our roster. That's a combination of things within control of the franchise in player personnel decisions and training staff and, yes, there is some luck involved. I'll take it!

Yeah, it's an interesting stat, but if there's an 83% chance of missing a starter on a given night, it demonstrates just how fortunate we've been this year with injuries, because there have been very few missed games for us. And missing one starter is one thing, but tonight will be the 4th consecutive game playing a team missing at least 2 starters...and sometimes more! I think that's why Q referred to it as comedic...we're defying the odds for the second consecutive season. Yes, take care or business by all means...that's the first order of business. But show me you can beat a healthy team. That's why I'm much more interested in the Indy game this week than tonight's.

Look, I was one of the biggest bobos on the board in celebrating the gobert deal. But never in my wildest dreams did I consider we would be a .500 team 20% into the season with the favorable schedule. I'm still on the bandwagon, but I'm at least thinking about admitting I was wrong and moving over to the Lip, DLoser and Tactical Unit side. But beat Indy, and I'll come back strong!

FNG wrote:Yeah, it's an interesting stat, but if there's an 83% chance of missing a starter on a given night, it demonstrates just how fortunate we've been this year with injuries, because there have been very few missed games for us. And missing one starter is one thing, but tonight will be the 4th consecutive game playing a team missing at least 2 starters...and sometimes more! I think that's why Q referred to it as comedic...we're defying the odds for the second consecutive season. Yes, take care or business by all means...that's the first order of business. But show me you can beat a healthy team. That's why I'm much more interested in the Indy game this week than tonight's.

Look, I was one of the biggest bobos on the board in celebrating the gobert deal. But never in my wildest dreams did I consider we would be a .500 team 20% into the season with the favorable schedule. I'm still on the bandwagon, but I'm at least thinking about admitting I was wrong and moving over to the Lip, DLoser and Tactical Unit side. But beat Indy, and I'll come back strong!

Another way to look at things...

The Wolves are 3 games out of first place in the WC a spot held by the expected juggernaut Utah Jazz. =)

monsterpile wrote:

FNG wrote:Yeah, it's an interesting stat, but if there's an 83% chance of missing a starter on a given night, it demonstrates just how fortunate we've been this year with injuries, because there have been very few missed games for us. And missing one starter is one thing, but tonight will be the 4th consecutive game playing a team missing at least 2 starters...and sometimes more! I think that's why Q referred to it as comedic...we're defying the odds for the second consecutive season. Yes, take care or business by all means...that's the first order of business. But show me you can beat a healthy team. That's why I'm much more interested in the Indy game this week than tonight's.

Look, I was one of the biggest bobos on the board in celebrating the gobert deal. But never in my wildest dreams did I consider we would be a .500 team 20% into the season with the favorable schedule. I'm still on the bandwagon, but I'm at least thinking about admitting I was wrong and moving over to the Lip, DLoser and Tactical Unit side. But beat Indy, and I'll come back strong!

Another way to look at things...

The Wolves are 3 games out of first place in the WC a spot held by the expected juggernaut Utah Jazz. =)

Right, I think the point being is that at 8-8, we really don't have much of a hole to dig out of as it relates to playoff seeding. Of course if we're .500 or worse after 50 games, then it becomes a real problem.

I know this is the zillionth time I've said it, but remember that the Celtics were 23-24 at one point last season before they turned it around and made a run to the Finals. Granted, that's a bit of an extreme example, but as Kek has pointed out, a ton of shifting happens between 15-20 games into the season and 82 games. With a healthy squad, we need to seize the moment and gain some ground!

All good points and I appreciate the positive outlook. But then I look at my 53 win prediction. In order to get there, the wolves have to go 45-21 the rest of the season. Impossible? Not necessarily. But having to win at that rate with very few thunder and spurs games left on the schedule is a daunting task. Miles to go before we sleep (although a critic might say our backcourt is already sleeping), but if I were allowed a do-over, I'd be saying 46 rather than 53 now. Not giving up, but certainly disappointed at our first 1/5 of the season.

FNG wrote:All good points and I appreciate the positive outlook. But then I look at my 53 win prediction. In order to get there, the wolves have to go 45-21 the rest of the season. Impossible? Not necessarily. But having to win at that rate with very few thunder and spurs games left on the schedule is a daunting task. Miles to go before we sleep (although a critic might say our backcourt is already sleeping), but if I were allowed a do-over, I'd be saying 46 rather than 53 now. Not giving up, but certainly disappointed at our first 1/5 of the season.

No doubt, it's been a disappointment and might remain so. It feels like this team is fragile enough that another losing streak (say 6 out of 7 or 8 out of 10) could break their will. At that point, Finch's job is on the line. Part of the value of these wins against weakened teams is simply to build up confidence and morale. This team doesn't have thick enough skin to dig out of a big hole in my opinion.

The other thing about the 53-win prediction (or 52 or 54 for that matter) is that in this year's Western Conference, that may get you the #1 seed! Lots of really good teams right now in the West, but no one looks like a juggernaut yet.

I argued last season and throughout the offseason that Minnesota's "good fortune" or "injury luck" was overblown (usually by the same personalities) and basically used as a way to diminish the team's accomplishments. Overblown not because they didn't have some sort of advantage by facing injured opponents, but because it was largely explainable and part of the roster's DNA. Simply, there are less miles -- less wear and tear -- on younger bodies than older bodies. While some injuries are absolutely the result of freak accidents, many of them are the result of overuse and abuse over time as well as insufficient rest/rehabilitation game after game. Older players notoriously require more rest and recovery in that regard. With that said, it's not unusual for the younger teams in the league to also rank near the bottom in games lost to injury. It's typically not the concern for them.

The Timberwolves entered last season with the fourth-youngest roster in the league and the ninth-youngest roster this season. Four rotation players are 23-years old or younger with two of them being in the starting lineup. The two oldest players on this roster are only 30-years old. Perhaps most importantly, Minnesota's best players -- Karl-Anthony Towns and Rudy Gobert -- are historically durable/available and Anthony Edwards is trending that way as well having played in 72 games in back-to-back years.

So, some will call it luck. I lean toward attributing it to a youthful roster that also employs proven durable star players at the top. Not many teams in the league are fortunate enough to be assembled that way currently, and you're seeing that unfold.

Lastly, the Timberwolves have been picked apart over the last decade or so when they were dealing with injured veteran rosters. Now that they're on the other side of the coin and able to take advantage of it we're supposed to feel some type of way about it? Absolutely not.

Detroit just beat Denver on the road with a bunch of scrubs while shooting 28% from 3. NBA can just be wacky. They can trade us Jokic and we can play 3 centers.

thedoper wrote:Detroit just beat Denver on the road with a bunch of scrubs while shooting 28% from 3. NBA can just be wacky. They can trade us Jokic and we can play 3 centers.

Did they boo??

Sorry I'm getting passive aggressive