Minnesota Sports Forum

lipoli390 wrote:I've discussed how impressive the Pacers, Sixers and Jazz have been this season. I should add the Spurs to that list, considering how they've secured themselves a likely 6th seed or higher playing the entire season without their best player, Kawhi Leonard.

Another team worthy of praise recently is Milwaukee. The Bucks have struggled, gone through a head coaching change and arguably underachieve much of the season. But they are 7-3 over the last 10 games and have really been playing well. Especially impressive is that 3 of their 7 wins in this stretch have come without Giannis on the court. That's a team showing some mental toughness and taking charge of their own destiny. Tonight's win over the Magic included 22 points and 8 rebounds from Bazz in only 24 minutes. It's his second 20+ point game in this 10-game stretch -- both games won by the Bucks. There have been a number of games where Bazz has hardly gotten any minutes, reminiscent of his time with the Wolves this season. Yet, apparently he's not such a locker room cancer the Bucks' front office can't find a place for him on their roster. And he's not such a lost cause that he can't give his team a big lift and help them win games both as a scorer and wing rebounder.

Now, before anyone gets their undees in a bundle, note that letting Bazz go is WAY down on my list of concerns about the Wolves. But often it's the little things that can make a difference in one or two games and decide a team's fate at the end of a season. This season, the Wolves fate will literally come down to one game -- you pick the game during the season. Would Bazz have come though for the Wolves helped us beat the Nuggets last week or the Grizzlies two weeks ago? Who knows. Honestly, Bazz may have lost a game or two for the Wolves earlier this season.

Looking back on the season, there are plenty of games the Wolves should not have lost. Of all of them, the home loss to the Suns stands out for me. I should watch the replay of that one after the season to do a thorough post-mortum. Seeing that the Thunder trounced the Heat in Miami tonight, I also think back to the Heat throttling us on our home court earlier this year. Then there's the earlier loss to Memphis and the road looses to Orlando, Atlanta and New Jersey among others. Of course, there were the home losses to the Sixers without Covington and to the Wizards without Wall. I know I'm repeating myself. But embedded in those losses are a litany of "little things" that reflect on the players, coaches and front office staff. Regarding the Wolves front office, not having a true two-way wing or at least a bona fide 3-point ace as part of our bench could have been a decisive factor in some of those bad losses. Bazz was never the answer to either of those issues; I get that. But my problem is that we have a PBO who never addressed them. And that's going to come back and bite us now no matter what happens in Wednesday night's game against the Nuggets. And it might affect us in the Nuggets game.

Would I rather have Bazz than a vacant roster spot down the stretch? Yes, because I like the thought of someone on the bench who can put up 20+ points and 8 boards in 24 minutes on any given night and help his team win as he's done twice now for the Bucks down the stretch. But more fundamentally, we shouldn't have a vacant roster spot and letting Bazz go shouldn't matter.

lipoli390 wrote:I've discussed how impressive the Pacers, Sixers and Jazz have been this season. I should add the Spurs to that list, considering how they've secured themselves a likely 6th seed or higher playing the entire season without their best player, Kawhi Leonard.

Another team worthy of praise recently is Milwaukee. The Bucks have struggled, gone through a head coaching change and arguably underachieve much of the season. But they are 7-3 over the last 10 games and have really been playing well. Especially impressive is that 3 of their 7 wins in this stretch have come without Giannis on the court. That's a team showing some mental toughness and taking charge of their own destiny. Tonight's win over the Magic included 22 points and 8 rebounds from Bazz in only 24 minutes. It's his second 20+ point game in this 10-game stretch -- both games won by the Bucks. There have been a number of games where Bazz has hardly gotten any minutes, reminiscent of his time with the Wolves this season. Yet, apparently he's not such a locker room cancer the Bucks' front office can't find a place for him on their roster. And he's not such a lost cause that he can't give his team a big lift and help them win games both as a scorer and wing rebounder.

Q12543 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:I've discussed how impressive the Pacers, Sixers and Jazz have been this season. I should add the Spurs to that list, considering how they've secured themselves a likely 6th seed or higher playing the entire season without their best player, Kawhi Leonard.

Another team worthy of praise recently is Milwaukee. The Bucks have struggled, gone through a head coaching change and arguably underachieve much of the season. But they are 7-3 over the last 10 games and have really been playing well. Especially impressive is that 3 of their 7 wins in this stretch have come without Giannis on the court. That's a team showing some mental toughness and taking charge of their own destiny. Tonight's win over the Magic included 22 points and 8 rebounds from Bazz in only 24 minutes. It's his second 20+ point game in this 10-game stretch -- both games won by the Bucks. There have been a number of games where Bazz has hardly gotten any minutes, reminiscent of his time with the Wolves this season. Yet, apparently he's not such a locker room cancer the Bucks' front office can't find a place for him on their roster. And he's not such a lost cause that he can't give his team a big lift and help them win games both as a scorer and wing rebounder.

Now, before anyone gets their undees in a bundle, note that letting Bazz go is WAY down on my list of concerns about the Wolves. But often it's the little things that can make a difference in one or two games and decide a team's fate at the end of a season. This season, the Wolves fate will literally come down to one game -- you pick the game during the season. Would Bazz have come though for the Wolves helped us beat the Nuggets last week or the Grizzlies two weeks ago? Who knows. Honestly, Bazz may have lost a game or two for the Wolves earlier this season.

Looking back on the season, there are plenty of games the Wolves should not have lost. Of all of them, the home loss to the Suns stands out for me. I should watch the replay of that one after the season to do a thorough post-mortum. Seeing that the Thunder trounced the Heat in Miami tonight, I also think back to the Heat throttling us on our home court earlier this year. Then there's the earlier loss to Memphis and the road looses to Orlando, Atlanta and New Jersey among others. Of course, there were the home losses to the Sixers without Covington and to the Wizards without Wall. I know I'm repeating myself. But embedded in those losses are a litany of "little things" that reflect on the players, coaches and front office staff. Regarding the Wolves front office, not having a true two-way wing or at least a bona fide 3-point ace as part of our bench could have been a decisive factor in some of those bad losses. Bazz was never the answer to either of those issues; I get that. But my problem is that we have a PBO who never addressed them. And that's going to come back and bite us now no matter what happens in Wednesday night's game against the Nuggets. And it might affect us in the Nuggets game.

Would I rather have Bazz than a vacant roster spot down the stretch? Yes, because I like the thought of someone on the bench who can put up 20+ points and 8 boards in 24 minutes on any given night and help his team win as he's done twice now for the Bucks down the stretch. But more fundamentally, we shouldn't have a vacant roster spot and letting Bazz go shouldn't matter.

I think that's the money line, Lip. Relying on Jamal Crawford to pretty much lead that second unit has been an unmitigated disaster. He has helped win us a couple games, but he has contributed to us losing countless others. Thibs' total lack of creativity and diligence to go find or unearth a bench wing that could hit 3's and play even average defense would have made a big difference.

longstrangetrip wrote:I watched some of the Bulls game last night, and I remain as unimpressed about Markkanen as ever. He benefited from two things last night...a horrible Bulls team that guarantees him minutes and shots, and a Raptors defense that just didn't care after they got up 20 (almost all of his points came after the game was out of hand). His defense and ballhandling were terrible...3 turnovers, but he could have had more. And I'm still going with my pre-draft take that he is not a very good 3-point shooter, even though that is the one thing he was known for in college. He padded his 3-point stats early in the season (17 for 25 against Bakersfield, Sacred Heart and Northern Colorado), but was not good at all the last 15 games of the season against better competition...only 15 for 56, or 26.8%. He made 2 out of 6 yesterday, but most of them were wide open looks against a disinterested defense. I'm predicting he doesn't make 33% of his shots this season. I still think we were lucky to get Patton rather than him.

BloopOracle wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:I watched some of the Bulls game last night, and I remain as unimpressed about Markkanen as ever. He benefited from two things last night...a horrible Bulls team that guarantees him minutes and shots, and a Raptors defense that just didn't care after they got up 20 (almost all of his points came after the game was out of hand). His defense and ballhandling were terrible...3 turnovers, but he could have had more. And I'm still going with my pre-draft take that he is not a very good 3-point shooter, even though that is the one thing he was known for in college. He padded his 3-point stats early in the season (17 for 25 against Bakersfield, Sacred Heart and Northern Colorado), but was not good at all the last 15 games of the season against better competition...only 15 for 56, or 26.8%. He made 2 out of 6 yesterday, but most of them were wide open looks against a disinterested defense. I'm predicting he doesn't make 33% of his shots this season. I still think we were lucky to get Patton rather than him.

Lauri was the fastest to 100 3's in NBA history and in the end broke the Bulls 3 point rookie record even with multiple rest games to help their tank, he was also the first Bulls rookie in 18 years to have 1000 points and 500 rebounds. I would also like to say I was killed by the majority of this board for saying he would be a great offensive player.

khans2k5 wrote:

BloopOracle wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:I watched some of the Bulls game last night, and I remain as unimpressed about Markkanen as ever. He benefited from two things last night...a horrible Bulls team that guarantees him minutes and shots, and a Raptors defense that just didn't care after they got up 20 (almost all of his points came after the game was out of hand). His defense and ballhandling were terrible...3 turnovers, but he could have had more. And I'm still going with my pre-draft take that he is not a very good 3-point shooter, even though that is the one thing he was known for in college. He padded his 3-point stats early in the season (17 for 25 against Bakersfield, Sacred Heart and Northern Colorado), but was not good at all the last 15 games of the season against better competition...only 15 for 56, or 26.8%. He made 2 out of 6 yesterday, but most of them were wide open looks against a disinterested defense. I'm predicting he doesn't make 33% of his shots this season. I still think we were lucky to get Patton rather than him.

Lauri was the fastest to 100 3's in NBA history and in the end broke the Bulls 3 point rookie record even with multiple rest games to help their tank, he was also the first Bulls rookie in 18 years to have 1000 points and 500 rebounds. I would also like to say I was killed by the majority of this board for saying he would be a great offensive player.

He shot an average 36% from 3 (meaning he got the 100 3's due to sheer volume more than efficiency) and played on the 6th worst team in the NBA. Is he a disaster offensively? No, but 15 points on 43/36/84 is not a great offensive player especially on a terrible team that lacked offensive options for most of the season.

BloopOracle wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

BloopOracle wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:I watched some of the Bulls game last night, and I remain as unimpressed about Markkanen as ever. He benefited from two things last night...a horrible Bulls team that guarantees him minutes and shots, and a Raptors defense that just didn't care after they got up 20 (almost all of his points came after the game was out of hand). His defense and ballhandling were terrible...3 turnovers, but he could have had more. And I'm still going with my pre-draft take that he is not a very good 3-point shooter, even though that is the one thing he was known for in college. He padded his 3-point stats early in the season (17 for 25 against Bakersfield, Sacred Heart and Northern Colorado), but was not good at all the last 15 games of the season against better competition...only 15 for 56, or 26.8%. He made 2 out of 6 yesterday, but most of them were wide open looks against a disinterested defense. I'm predicting he doesn't make 33% of his shots this season. I still think we were lucky to get Patton rather than him.

Lauri was the fastest to 100 3's in NBA history and in the end broke the Bulls 3 point rookie record even with multiple rest games to help their tank, he was also the first Bulls rookie in 18 years to have 1000 points and 500 rebounds. I would also like to say I was killed by the majority of this board for saying he would be a great offensive player.

He shot an average 36% from 3 (meaning he got the 100 3's due to sheer volume more than efficiency) and played on the 6th worst team in the NBA. Is he a disaster offensively? No, but 15 points on 43/36/84 is not a great offensive player especially on a terrible team that lacked offensive options for most of the season.

Interesting, so why didn't all of these other rookies on bad teams over the years put up the numbers he did? I'm also having trouble understanding why you're trying to use his rookie averages against my prediction that he will be a great offensive player, it's been a single season lol he has plenty of time to grow his game.

khans2k5 wrote:

BloopOracle wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

BloopOracle wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:I watched some of the Bulls game last night, and I remain as unimpressed about Markkanen as ever. He benefited from two things last night...a horrible Bulls team that guarantees him minutes and shots, and a Raptors defense that just didn't care after they got up 20 (almost all of his points came after the game was out of hand). His defense and ballhandling were terrible...3 turnovers, but he could have had more. And I'm still going with my pre-draft take that he is not a very good 3-point shooter, even though that is the one thing he was known for in college. He padded his 3-point stats early in the season (17 for 25 against Bakersfield, Sacred Heart and Northern Colorado), but was not good at all the last 15 games of the season against better competition...only 15 for 56, or 26.8%. He made 2 out of 6 yesterday, but most of them were wide open looks against a disinterested defense. I'm predicting he doesn't make 33% of his shots this season. I still think we were lucky to get Patton rather than him.

Lauri was the fastest to 100 3's in NBA history and in the end broke the Bulls 3 point rookie record even with multiple rest games to help their tank, he was also the first Bulls rookie in 18 years to have 1000 points and 500 rebounds. I would also like to say I was killed by the majority of this board for saying he would be a great offensive player.

He shot an average 36% from 3 (meaning he got the 100 3's due to sheer volume more than efficiency) and played on the 6th worst team in the NBA. Is he a disaster offensively? No, but 15 points on 43/36/84 is not a great offensive player especially on a terrible team that lacked offensive options for most of the season.

Interesting, so why didn't all of these other rookies on bad teams over the years put up the numbers he did? I'm also having trouble understanding why you're trying to use his rookie averages against my prediction that he will be a great offensive player, it's been a single season lol he has plenty of time to grow his game.

Because most rookies aren't given free reign to jack up 6-7 3's a game like he was? The top 3 rookies this year shot over 400 3's. He was 3rd at 434 and his competition had 10 whole games on him. Last year the highest was Buddy at 379 and then Murray at 344. The year before was D'Angelo at 370 and then a huge drop to Booker at 289. The year before that was even less with Mirotic at 313 as the number 1 volume guy. This is the very picture of putting up stats because of opportunity more than a credit to skill. Donovan Mitchell put up 550 three's this year because they had few other offensive options to go to. Volume is a result of opportunity and it doesn't signify quality as you suggest. It's just a different league that involves more and more chucking every year. He doesn't deserve extra credit just because he chucked up the most 3's early in the year.

I'm using his rookie numbers as a data point to point out that he's not really close to being a great offensive player and that the "quality" you are seeing was there was more due to opportunity than actually being good. You seem to suggest that his rookie accolades put him on this path to greatness by complaining you got killed for saying he would be a great offensive player. Well nothing about those accolades really have anything to do with quality of play. They're just counting stats so I'm having trouble understanding why you think they make your prediction any more valid at this point in time than when it was first made.

BloopOracle wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:Because most rookies aren't given free reign to jack up 6-7 3's a game like he was? The top 3 rookies this year shot over 400 3's. He was 3rd at 434 and his competition had 10 whole games on him. Last year the highest was Buddy at 379 and then Murray at 344. The year before was D'Angelo at 370 and then a huge drop to Booker at 289. The year before that was even less with Mirotic at 313 as the number 1 volume guy. This is the very picture of putting up stats because of opportunity more than a credit to skill. Donovan Mitchell put up 550 three's this year because they had few other offensive options to go to. Volume is a result of opportunity and it doesn't signify quality as you suggest. It's just a different league that involves more and more chucking every year. He doesn't deserve extra credit just because he chucked up the most 3's early in the year.

I'm using his rookie numbers as a data point to point out that he's not really close to being a great offensive player and that the "quality" you are seeing was there was more due to opportunity than actually being good. You seem to suggest that his rookie accolades put him on this path to greatness by complaining you got killed for saying he would be a great offensive player. Well nothing about those accolades really have anything to do with quality of play. They're just counting stats so I'm having trouble understanding why you think they make your prediction any more valid at this point in time than when it was first made.

Yes I am suggesting that his rookie season is putting him on the path to Greatness that's what setting the rookie three-point Bulls record and putting up stats that only LeBron and Dario saric have done is. It's very telling that your argument is based around the fact that he put up good stats on a bad team, besides exceptions like Ben Simmons and Donovan Mitchell, that is what you're going to get 99% of the time unless you're one of those Debbie downers that tears down every promising rookie due to the fact that he wasn't playing on winning team? What exactly did you think would happen? In all honesty you if don't think putting up numbers only LeBron and one other player have doesnt put a rookie on the path to being a great offensive player than you may want to try a different sport to follow.