khans2k5 wrote:I just wish something would change with this team. Bench some people. Trade some people. Try something different. Stop banging your head against a damn wall and change something.
In defense of Thibs, we often complain about coaches that churn things too much, use hockey shift substitution patters, and go 10 or 12 deep. Thibs has had probably the most consistent rotation in the NBA this year. Our starting 5 have played well over 100 minutes more together this season than any other team in the league because they have been so healthy. Other than the brief Jordan Hill and Tyus Jones experiments, he's been amazingly consistent with the bench rotation too. One could argue such continuity would eventually lead to better chemistry, no?
Alas, nothing is getting better......
This is a good point Q he has stuck with these guys. Will it pay off? We will see. Like Jim Pete said during this game 4 coaches in 4 years doesn't breed continuity.
There really isn't anything to add except this team won't be good till it plays defense which was part of why they did well in that 3rd quarter. I don't really know what it's going to take but that's it for me. I'm putting a majority of it on the players. Do I feel like the will figure it out? Yeah. Will it be this year? Eh...um...I don't feel exactly hopeful there.
Nice to see Rush hit his shots. It would be nice to have him as an option at times. Thibs has kept the rotation pretty shot and playing young players but at times maybe putting Rush out there would help.
Each of our core three have had horrific shooting performances in the last week and in each case it cost us the game. Last night it was Zach. Wiggins did everything he could from a scoring standpoint to win the game for us. But I agree with Thibs' comment that these guys have to do other things to help the team, especially when they're not scoring. I think he was talking about all our players, but particularly Zach and KAT last night.
lipoli390 wrote:Each of our core three have had horrific shooting performances in the last week and in each case it cost us the game. Last night it was Zach. Wiggins did everything he could from a scoring standpoint to win the game for us. But I agree with Thibs' comment that these guys have to do other things to help the team, especially when they're not scoring. I think he was talking about all our players, but particularly Zach and KAT last night.
I always felt that was the point of having a big three, even if one had a terrible game you could still win so long as the bench keeps pace with the other teams bench.
lipoli390 wrote:Each of our core three have had horrific shooting performances in the last week and in each case it cost us the game. Last night it was Zach. Wiggins did everything he could from a scoring standpoint to win the game for us. But I agree with Thibs' comment that these guys have to do other things to help the team, especially when they're not scoring. I think he was talking about all our players, but particularly Zach and KAT last night.
I always felt that was the point of having a big three, even if one had a terrible game you could still win so long as the bench keeps pace with the other teams bench.
Why is the measuring stick for a bench always points scored? Isn't points prevented just as important? That's why I maintain that our bench has been adequate. Not good. Not horrible. But adequate. They are far better defensively versus their peers than our starters are against opposing team starters.
By the same token, we need to stop defining whether our big three had good games or not based on just points scored. Thibs made this point last night on Wiggins. He singled him out for poor defensive effort and technique despite the fact Wiggins single handedly kept us in the game. Now one could argue whether last night was the appropriate time to do this, but I think Thibs' point is that if these guys are going to play to their potential, it requires giving effort on both sides of the ball.
lipoli390 wrote:Each of our core three have had horrific shooting performances in the last week and in each case it cost us the game. Last night it was Zach. Wiggins did everything he could from a scoring standpoint to win the game for us. But I agree with Thibs' comment that these guys have to do other things to help the team, especially when they're not scoring. I think he was talking about all our players, but particularly Zach and KAT last night.
I always felt that was the point of having a big three, even if one had a terrible game you could still win so long as the bench keeps pace with the other teams bench.
Why is the measuring stick for a bench always points scored? Isn't points prevented just as important? That's why I maintain that our bench has been adequate. Not good. Not horrible. But adequate. They are far better defensively versus their peers than our starters are against opposing team starters.
By the same token, we need to stop defining whether our big three had good games or not based on just points scored. Thibs made this point last night on Wiggins. He singled him out for poor defensive effort and technique despite the fact Wiggins single handedly kept us in the game. Now one could argue whether last night was the appropriate time to do this, but I think Thibs' point is that if these guys are going to play to their potential, it requires giving effort on both sides of the ball.
Exactly, Q. Our bench is clearly offensively challenged, but they are scrappy and smart enough defensively to keep us in games generally while our stars get some (limited) rest. And even though there are countless moves Thibs has made this year that are enormously puzzling to me, one thing he consistently does that I like is leaving Zach in with the second unit to provide some scoring. Unfortunately Thibs hasn't found a way to limit Zach's overall minutes though (doesn't he still lead the league?), and I think that is a big factor in Zach's poor play at the end of games. If Thibs trusted Rush a little more, perhaps Rush could provide some second unit scoring to allow Zach to be more effective at crunch time.
lipoli390 wrote:Each of our core three have had horrific shooting performances in the last week and in each case it cost us the game. Last night it was Zach. Wiggins did everything he could from a scoring standpoint to win the game for us. But I agree with Thibs' comment that these guys have to do other things to help the team, especially when they're not scoring. I think he was talking about all our players, but particularly Zach and KAT last night.
I always felt that was the point of having a big three, even if one had a terrible game you could still win so long as the bench keeps pace with the other teams bench.
Why is the measuring stick for a bench always points scored? Isn't points prevented just as important? That's why I maintain that our bench has been adequate. Not good. Not horrible. But adequate. They are far better defensively versus their peers than our starters are against opposing team starters.
By the same token, we need to stop defining whether our big three had good games or not based on just points scored. Thibs made this point last night on Wiggins. He singled him out for poor defensive effort and technique despite the fact Wiggins single handedly kept us in the game. Now one could argue whether last night was the appropriate time to do this, but I think Thibs' point is that if these guys are going to play to their potential, it requires giving effort on both sides of the ball.
Exactly, Q. Our bench is clearly offensively challenged, but they are scrappy and smart enough defensively to keep us in games generally while our stars get some (limited) rest. And even though there are countless moves Thibs has made this year that are enormously puzzling to me, one thing he consistently does that I like is leaving Zach in with the second unit to provide some scoring. Unfortunately Thibs hasn't found a way to limit Zach's overall minutes though (doesn't he still lead the league?), and I think that is a big factor in Zach's poor play at the end of games. If Thibs trusted Rush a little more, perhaps Rush could provide some second unit scoring to allow Zach to be more effective at crunch time.
Ditto to both LST and Q.
If I were Thibs I'd consider starting our bench tonight, partially as a message to the starters regarding their continuing lack of consistent defensive intensity. I'd start Dunn, Rush, Bazz, Payne and Cole. Those are five guys who play hard all the time and never jog back on defense. I'd like our starters to sit together and watch the effort for a while.
I agree to a large extent about the bench being better than it gets credit for. The one glaring weakness is that it lakes a combo guard that can score or plaale a bit for others. That's why Lavine has been basically filling that role. There is no Even JJ bares level guy much less a Lou Williams Jamal Crawford type. Those guys are handy to have to get you a few baskets during those lulls in scoring. They can also be maddening too and hurt your flow. Bazz is a guy you would expect to give you some points most nights and he has trended positively recently. Dunn was a guy you figured would toss in a few points but hasn't much. I could see Tyus being a guy that could end up helping the cause at some point as a threat to do a lot of stuff offensively but maybe not overwhelming in any category but yeah. To me though the bench isn't THE PROBLEM it's the defense and effort especially the starters as a whole. Has the bench let the team down? Sure but that happens. That's why bench guys are bench guys. Good teams have more solid and high level performances out of those guys. The Wolves aren't there yet.
lipoli390 wrote:Each of our core three have had horrific shooting performances in the last week and in each case it cost us the game. Last night it was Zach. Wiggins did everything he could from a scoring standpoint to win the game for us. But I agree with Thibs' comment that these guys have to do other things to help the team, especially when they're not scoring. I think he was talking about all our players, but particularly Zach and KAT last night.
I always felt that was the point of having a big three, even if one had a terrible game you could still win so long as the bench keeps pace with the other teams bench.
Why is the measuring stick for a bench always points scored? Isn't points prevented just as important? That's why I maintain that our bench has been adequate. Not good. Not horrible. But adequate. They are far better defensively versus their peers than our starters are against opposing team starters.
By the same token, we need to stop defining whether our big three had good games or not based on just points scored. Thibs made this point last night on Wiggins. He singled him out for poor defensive effort and technique despite the fact Wiggins single handedly kept us in the game. Now one could argue whether last night was the appropriate time to do this, but I think Thibs' point is that if these guys are going to play to their potential, it requires giving effort on both sides of the ball.
Exactly, Q. Our bench is clearly offensively challenged, but they are scrappy and smart enough defensively to keep us in games generally while our stars get some (limited) rest. And even though there are countless moves Thibs has made this year that are enormously puzzling to me, one thing he consistently does that I like is leaving Zach in with the second unit to provide some scoring. Unfortunately Thibs hasn't found a way to limit Zach's overall minutes though (doesn't he still lead the league?), and I think that is a big factor in Zach's poor play at the end of games. If Thibs trusted Rush a little more, perhaps Rush could provide some second unit scoring to allow Zach to be more effective at crunch time.
Ditto to both LST and Q.
If I were Thibs I'd consider starting our bench tonight, partially as a message to the starters regarding their continuing lack of consistent defensive intensity. I'd start Dunn, Rush, Bazz, Payne and Cole. Those are five guys who play hard all the time and never jog back on defense. I'd like our starters to sit together and watch the effort for a while.
I never said the measuring stick was points scored or even offensive efficiency. I was just saying that if the bench can be counted on to consistently match the opponent's bench then the starters, and more specifically the "Big Three" don't all have to have good to great games to win.
