Minnesota Sports Forum

BizarroJerry wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:

BizarroJerry wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Wowzers. Well, that was unexpected. Of course it happened in a year where the talent is pretty even and there is no obvious NBA-read star to be had.

I'm not sure where the "Ben Simmons is good on defense" narrative is coming from. I don't think he's horrible, but I don't think of him as a good defender. He will do very little to shore up that end of the court for us given the gaping holes that exist right now.

I do agree that he might be the best we can hope for with the #1 pick and he fits the profile of position-less basketball.

Simmons might make 1st team all defense this year. He is an elite defender, now he might get helped with embiid on defense but he is very good on that end

....yet he has one of the worst defensive ratings among Sixers starters and last season (a full one) his team was much better defensively when he was on the bench. That doesn't sound like a 1st team defender to me.

I get that he looks the part. But at the end of the day, a great defender actually should have a net positive impact on team defense. For whatever reason, he just isn't a difference maker on that end.

And to your point, he was playing with the likes of Embiid and Horford. Imagine him with sieves like KAT and Russell and his decent-ish defense will make even less of a difference to this team.

He certainly won't make us worse defensively, but I don't see him moving the needle much the other way.

We are going to disagree on this one Q. Stan Van Gundy said during the sixers playoff have that Ben Simmons is the best defender in the NBA (I don't believe that but he did say it), Raja Bell former NBA player, Cavs front office member and now ringer podcast member listed Simmons as a top 5 defender in the NBA. According to cleaningtheglass.com the 76ers are 3.1 pts better per 100 possessions defensively when Simmons is on the floor what is in the 79th percentile in the NBA and overall even he plays the 76ers are 108.0 pts/per 100 what is 77th percentile in the NBA. Also 4 of his top 5 lineups he is in are above average defensively which only one of those lineups are with embiid.

All that plus a good chance he will be voted to the all defensive team, its hard for me not to say he isn't an elite defender

According to the NBA.com stats, he's never had a season where the team has been better defensively with him on the court versus off (not sure why there is a disconnect with cleaningtheglass). The lineup data is shaky because 5-man lineups have very few minutes together so prone to big swings based on a couple of dominant (or horrific) stretches.

I will accept the fact some pretty credible people have lauded his defense, but it's odd to me someone who is allegedly so dominant defensively doesn't seem to matter that much on that end of the floor to his team's success. Perhaps some of the steals he doesn't get result in easy buckets because he gambles. May be his lack of outside shooting affects floor balance and teams can fast-break against his units easier. There are sometimes real subtleties to defense that are hard to see or measure.

Yeah I'm not sold on this plan either. Plus we already have a point guard and that's where his highest value is.

What part of positional versatility is lost upon you? Ben Simmons can and routinely does defend 1-5. D'Angelo Russell is capable of playing either guard position. Our goal should be to accumulate the best players we can and fill in supporting pieces around them. I just don't understand the "we already have a point guard so we don't need another great player that can handle the ball" type thinking.

Having position versatility is important but it's not what we should be looking for in Simmons. If he's gonna be part of a big 3 he needs a clear role and that's point where he's most effective. He is useless as a non shooting forward.

I'm at a loss for words. Simmons is a walking triple double threat every night with plus defense and the way you make it sound is though he'd be incapable of being that player in Minnesota just because of... the pieces around him? I don't follow. Shooting is a great skill to have. It's also not the only skill that exists. We need to remember that.

Camden wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Camden wrote:If the Wolves actually keep the pick, I'm hoping they have the gumption to take James Wiseman and bolster the interior. As I've argued in the past, he makes sense for many reasons -- specifically, his defensive potential and ability to stretch the floor vertically. They don't make guys with his physical tools all that often and in drafting him you're theoretically making Karl-Anthony Towns and D'Angelo Russell's lives easier on both ends of the court.

Cam - Taking Wiseman would definitely be a bold move. If the Wolves are set on keeping the pick, then I wouldn't complain if they picked him. His physical tools are really impressive. He could augment KAT on the offensive end and complement KAT on the defensive end. But I'm concerned about reports questioning both his motor and his basketball IQ. So I see it as more of a dice roll than I'd like, although any pick is sort of a dice roll. What are your thoughts on concerns about his motor and IQ relative to those same concerns many have raised about Ball and Edwards?

Questions concerning his motor certainly are subjective. I can only say that based on what I've seen of him that wasn't an issue, though many young players that come up through AAU are more prone to taking plays off than they used to. I'm seeing those motor concerns are specific to his days in high school where he was on a loaded team. I wouldn't be surprised if those guys checked out every once in a while as they were beating the piss out of the opposition. Anyways, I don't think it's a real concern. He competes.

As far as Wiseman's IQ and ability to learn in general, I would put this as a positive for him and not a weakness. Considering he missed out on valuable experience at Memphis he's likely behind his peers in some aspects given that he didn't get that on-court education that comes from actually playing the game, but he also is lauded for being a defensive playmaker and advanced post scorer (with room to grow) for his age. Natural ability can get you far in basketball, but I think he's more than that. And you don't usually win Gatorade Player of the Year without having some smarts. We're talking about a guy that had a 4.0 GPA and is fluent in Chinese. The light is on upstairs, if you know what I mean. Get David Vanterpool in his ear and let's see what kind of player is there.

Thanks, Cam. Those are helpful insights.

Camden0916 wrote:

BizarroJerry wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:

BizarroJerry wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Wowzers. Well, that was unexpected. Of course it happened in a year where the talent is pretty even and there is no obvious NBA-read star to be had.

I'm not sure where the "Ben Simmons is good on defense" narrative is coming from. I don't think he's horrible, but I don't think of him as a good defender. He will do very little to shore up that end of the court for us given the gaping holes that exist right now.

I do agree that he might be the best we can hope for with the #1 pick and he fits the profile of position-less basketball.

Simmons might make 1st team all defense this year. He is an elite defender, now he might get helped with embiid on defense but he is very good on that end

....yet he has one of the worst defensive ratings among Sixers starters and last season (a full one) his team was much better defensively when he was on the bench. That doesn't sound like a 1st team defender to me.

I get that he looks the part. But at the end of the day, a great defender actually should have a net positive impact on team defense. For whatever reason, he just isn't a difference maker on that end.

And to your point, he was playing with the likes of Embiid and Horford. Imagine him with sieves like KAT and Russell and his decent-ish defense will make even less of a difference to this team.

He certainly won't make us worse defensively, but I don't see him moving the needle much the other way.

We are going to disagree on this one Q. Stan Van Gundy said during the sixers playoff have that Ben Simmons is the best defender in the NBA (I don't believe that but he did say it), Raja Bell former NBA player, Cavs front office member and now ringer podcast member listed Simmons as a top 5 defender in the NBA. According to cleaningtheglass.com the 76ers are 3.1 pts better per 100 possessions defensively when Simmons is on the floor what is in the 79th percentile in the NBA and overall even he plays the 76ers are 108.0 pts/per 100 what is 77th percentile in the NBA. Also 4 of his top 5 lineups he is in are above average defensively which only one of those lineups are with embiid.

All that plus a good chance he will be voted to the all defensive team, its hard for me not to say he isn't an elite defender

According to the NBA.com stats, he's never had a season where the team has been better defensively with him on the court versus off (not sure why there is a disconnect with cleaningtheglass). The lineup data is shaky because 5-man lineups have very few minutes together so prone to big swings based on a couple of dominant (or horrific) stretches.

I will accept the fact some pretty credible people have lauded his defense, but it's odd to me someone who is allegedly so dominant defensively doesn't seem to matter that much on that end of the floor to his team's success. Perhaps some of the steals he doesn't get result in easy buckets because he gambles. May be his lack of outside shooting affects floor balance and teams can fast-break against his units easier. There are sometimes real subtleties to defense that are hard to see or measure.

Yeah I'm not sold on this plan either. Plus we already have a point guard and that's where his highest value is.

What part of positional versatility is lost upon you? Ben Simmons can and routinely does defend 1-5. D'Angelo Russell is capable of playing either guard position. Our goal should be to accumulate the best players we can and fill in supporting pieces around them. I just don't understand the "we already have a point guard so we don't need another great player that can handle the ball" type thinking.

Having position versatility is important but it's not what we should be looking for in Simmons. If he's gonna be part of a big 3 he needs a clear role and that's point where he's most effective. He is useless as a non shooting forward.

I'm at a loss for words. Simmons is a walking triple double threat every night with plus defense and the way you make it sound is though he'd be incapable of being that player in Minnesota just because of... the pieces around him? I don't follow. Shooting is a great skill to have. It's also not the only skill that exists. We need to remember that.

Oh I absolutely agree. I liked Rubio and I was looking for a Rodman type to join us. But I'm just not convinced I would give up the first pick and a Culver or Okogie for him.

If the first pick was Zion you probably wouldn't give it up (although i have real concerns about his long term viability), but the first pick is a complete crapshoot this year. It doesn't have nearly as much value as most previous years. Our pick and Culver would be a huge steal for us. Philly would never do it.

Camden0916 wrote:

BizarroJerry wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:

BizarroJerry wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Wowzers. Well, that was unexpected. Of course it happened in a year where the talent is pretty even and there is no obvious NBA-read star to be had.

I'm not sure where the "Ben Simmons is good on defense" narrative is coming from. I don't think he's horrible, but I don't think of him as a good defender. He will do very little to shore up that end of the court for us given the gaping holes that exist right now.

I do agree that he might be the best we can hope for with the #1 pick and he fits the profile of position-less basketball.

Simmons might make 1st team all defense this year. He is an elite defender, now he might get helped with embiid on defense but he is very good on that end

....yet he has one of the worst defensive ratings among Sixers starters and last season (a full one) his team was much better defensively when he was on the bench. That doesn't sound like a 1st team defender to me.

I get that he looks the part. But at the end of the day, a great defender actually should have a net positive impact on team defense. For whatever reason, he just isn't a difference maker on that end.

And to your point, he was playing with the likes of Embiid and Horford. Imagine him with sieves like KAT and Russell and his decent-ish defense will make even less of a difference to this team.

He certainly won't make us worse defensively, but I don't see him moving the needle much the other way.

We are going to disagree on this one Q. Stan Van Gundy said during the sixers playoff have that Ben Simmons is the best defender in the NBA (I don't believe that but he did say it), Raja Bell former NBA player, Cavs front office member and now ringer podcast member listed Simmons as a top 5 defender in the NBA. According to cleaningtheglass.com the 76ers are 3.1 pts better per 100 possessions defensively when Simmons is on the floor what is in the 79th percentile in the NBA and overall even he plays the 76ers are 108.0 pts/per 100 what is 77th percentile in the NBA. Also 4 of his top 5 lineups he is in are above average defensively which only one of those lineups are with embiid.

All that plus a good chance he will be voted to the all defensive team, its hard for me not to say he isn't an elite defender

According to the NBA.com stats, he's never had a season where the team has been better defensively with him on the court versus off (not sure why there is a disconnect with cleaningtheglass). The lineup data is shaky because 5-man lineups have very few minutes together so prone to big swings based on a couple of dominant (or horrific) stretches.

I will accept the fact some pretty credible people have lauded his defense, but it's odd to me someone who is allegedly so dominant defensively doesn't seem to matter that much on that end of the floor to his team's success. Perhaps some of the steals he doesn't get result in easy buckets because he gambles. May be his lack of outside shooting affects floor balance and teams can fast-break against his units easier. There are sometimes real subtleties to defense that are hard to see or measure.

Yeah I'm not sold on this plan either. Plus we already have a point guard and that's where his highest value is.

What part of positional versatility is lost upon you? Ben Simmons can and routinely does defend 1-5. D'Angelo Russell is capable of playing either guard position. Our goal should be to accumulate the best players we can and fill in supporting pieces around them. I just don't understand the "we already have a point guard so we don't need another great player that can handle the ball" type thinking.

Having position versatility is important but it's not what we should be looking for in Simmons. If he's gonna be part of a big 3 he needs a clear role and that's point where he's most effective. He is useless as a non shooting forward.

I'm at a loss for words. Simmons is a walking triple double threat every night with plus defense and the way you make it sound is though he'd be incapable of being that player in Minnesota just because of... the pieces around him? I don't follow. Shooting is a great skill to have. It's also not the only skill that exists. We need to remember that.

I'm with Cam and at a loss for words on this one as well. Position versatility is actually one of the most important aspects of basketball nowadays. It's the whole reason small ball even works and it's literally been the staple of the last several NBA champions. Having guys who can fill in multiple spots so your more restricted role players can actually play within their roles is huge. Having a Kawhi/Siakam or a Klay/Iggy/Draymond/KD (4 guys that can be interchangeable basically 1-5) last year. Having a Kawhi/George, Lebron/AD, Tatum/Brown/Hayward, Giannis/Middleton. The versatility of all those guys is why their teams are so good. They fill in the spots where they are most needed because that's not gonna be the same against every opponent. Simmons is a poor man's Giannis. He's smaller and a complete non-shooter like younger Giannis was, but he's a great finisher and can defend 1-5. Giannis is the best player in the league because he's a 7 footer that can play anywhere on the court and dominate you regardless if you are a PG or a C. Simmons is the slightly worse 6'10 version of that. Put him on a team with shooters unlike what Philly has done for him and you'll see what he can do. It took 5 out and Giannis being able to shoot 3's to unlock him as the best player in the game. We won't get Simmons shooting 3's, but 5 out should help him be a perennial All-Star and potentially All-NBA player.

I'm also with Cam in this Simmons debate. As I've already indicated, my first preference is to keep the pick or move down a few picks to get another asset or two while still getting the guy our front office considers the best pick. However, the one guy I get excited about as a possible trade acquisition in exchange for our top pick is Simmons. His versatility and fit on this team are key reasons why I'd seriously consider dealing our pick and some other assets to get him. In addition to his versatility, it's also worth noting that he's and elite playmaker with uncanny court vision and instincts. Further, he's one of the best in the League at getting to the rim and finishing - just below the level of a few others like Giannis. Assuming he's surrounded by KAT, Russell and Beasley, he'd have ample shooting around him to compensate for his flawed perimeter shooting.

The question for me isn't whether we should pursue Simmons. The only question is how much we should be willing to give up for him. I'm not sure yet in my own mind.

I have to admit, I'm against trading down unless our FO thinks they can get the best player on their board at the spot they're trading to (ala Boston/Philly on the Fultz/Tatum), because I think it's imperative they get the best player they can in this draft, whether that means trading for an established star or getting the best player in this draft. The last thing we need right now is a role player (i.e. 3&D player) to support mediocrity even if it's just throwing away a punchers chance at a foundational 3rd star. If they can get a good pick in this draft and an unprotected pick in next year's draft from a team that has the potential to be pretty bad next year, then sign me up, but I don't think it's likely.

I think this #1 pick is absolutely critical in the Wolves future...I mean this is it, we don't have a pick in next year's draft and we can't expect to grow this thing into a winner if it doesn't start soon. Because of this, everyone should be on the table (Beasley, Culver, Okogie, #1, #17, 1st in 2024) to get a guy like Simmons or Booker, and you figure the rest out later. It's easy to fill in role players and draft for a certain skill when you have the stars in place. It's not, however, easy to get 3 stars. I'd also be interested in Beal from a fit and skill standpoint, though his age (27) is 3 years older than our top players, so it shortens our window to make this work.

I'm on the early bandwagon for Wiseman. He made a clear impact in his few games at Memphis and was on his way to becoming a clear #1 overall star. This was the #1 HS recruit in the country, and his skills were translating to college basketball early in his college career. I recall when he had the injury and decided to just shut it down that talk was he was well on his way to potentially separating himself from the pack had he had a chance to continue through the season. His skill set works with what we have, it also brings us much needed rim protection and some versatility defensively from the bigs. Towns perimeter shooting allows Wiseman to fit offensively as well. I have a feeling, had Wiseman played the entire season of college basketball, this would be considered a 1 player draft, and everyone else on tier 2.

I'm starting to think this draft may have some parallels to the 2011 NBA Draft, with Wiseman being the Kyrie Irving of the draft and Thomas being the Derrick Williams of the draft.

Here's my thing with LaMelo Ball for the many that have him in their sights. I feel like I can get a similar prospect in R.J. Hampton at pick 17 if I wanted to. So, why would I burn the first overall pick on him? They're obviously different players based on measurables and skills, but both are relative unknowns who skipped the college scene to play professionally overseas. Both struggled, expectedly, with the better competition that they played. Both are high ceiling, high volatility prospects in this class. I would be outraged if the Wolves selected Hampton first overall. I would be similarly upset if they settled for Ball in that slot as well.

Camden wrote:Here's my thing with LaMelo Ball for the many that have him in their sights. I feel like I can get a similar prospect in R.J. Hampton at pick 17 if I wanted to. So, why would I burn the first overall pick on him? They're obviously different players based on measurables and skills, but both are relative unknowns who skipped the college scene to play professionally overseas. Both struggled, expectedly, with the better competition that they played. Both are high ceiling, high volatility prospects in this class. I would be outraged if the Wolves selected Hampton first overall. I would be similarly upset if they settled for Ball in that slot as well.

That's a good take, Cam. Although I consider Ball as having a higher upside than Hampton, they bring similar things to the table. And like you, I have serious misgivings about Ball. He's an absolute no-take for me unless I hear and see things that dramatically alter my perspective. I wouldn't take Edwards either, but I'd take him over Ball if that were my choice. You haven't convinced me yet to take Wiseman, but I'm rethinking whether to keep him on my stay-away list with Ball and Edwards.