Around the NBA (non-Wolves talk)

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

I agree with the consensus here that there is no shame in getting blown out by the rockets...everyone here knew that was going to happen. But the way in which we lost was what has many of us unhappy here. Yes, Houston also beat the Rubio-less Jazz by double digits in Game 1, but yesterday also highlighted a huge difference between Quinn and Thibs' defensive strategies. Quinn has his defenders attack the perimeter in an attempt to limit the number of the most efficient shot in basketball...the 3-pointer. Thibs on the other hand does the opposite...as a very well-researched article posted here a month ago pointed out, Thibs designs his defense around stopping the long 2...the least efficient shot in basketball. It's a small sample size, but this difference is demonstrated dramatically in the Houston offense against the Jazz compared to the Wolves. The Rockets took 32 3's yesterday against the Jazz, or 39% of their shots. In five games against the Wolves, the Rockets averaged 43.4 3's per game, or 49.5% of their shots. This is an incredibly significant difference, and further evidence of what we already know about Thibs' defensive philosophy. In addition, although I don't have the stats, the Wolves also gave up a very high amount of layups in their series. With so many threes and layups, there isn't much room left for long 2's.

I guess we should celebrate Thibs because he achieved his defensive goal of stopping the long 2.

The Jazz have Gobert at the rim. We don't. That's why Quinn has guys just running at 3pt shooters because having the player drive into Gobert at the basket plays to their defensive strength. It's just not comparable. We don't have the defensive piece they do that makes their whole defense work.

[Monster]

I agree with the consensus here that there is no shame in getting blown out by the rockets...everyone here knew that was going to happen. But the way in which we lost was what has many of us unhappy here. Yes, Houston also beat the Rubio-less Jazz by double digits in Game 1, but yesterday also highlighted a huge difference between Quinn and Thibs' defensive strategies. Quinn has his defenders attack the perimeter in an attempt to limit the number of the most efficient shot in basketball...the 3-pointer. Thibs on the other hand does the opposite...as a very well-researched article posted here a month ago pointed out, Thibs designs his defense around stopping the long 2...the least efficient shot in basketball. It's a small sample size, but this difference is demonstrated dramatically in the Houston offense against the Jazz compared to the Wolves. The Rockets took 32 3's yesterday against the Jazz, or 39% of their shots. In five games against the Wolves, the Rockets averaged 43.4 3's per game, or 49.5% of their shots. This is an incredibly significant difference, and further evidence of what we already know about Thibs' defensive philosophy. In addition, although I don't have the stats, the Wolves also gave up a very high amount of layups in their series. With so many threes and layups, there isn't much room left for long 2's.

I guess we should celebrate Thibs because he achieved his defensive goal of stopping the long 2.

The Jazz have Gobert at the rim. We don't. That's why Quinn has guys just running at 3pt shooters because having the player drive into Gobert at the basket plays to their defensive strength. It's just not comparable. We don't have the defensive piece they do that makes their whole defense work.

LST has some interesting numbers of what shots the Wolves forced but it seemed like considering what the narrative was going into the series the Wolves overachieved on that end. It will be interesting to see how the better defensive team in Utah does against them in comparison.

[Monster]

Boston wins tonight and looking at the box scores their big 3 of Horford Tatum and Rozier were huge tonight. I'm cheering for that team to just keep winning. It's just amazing what they are able to do with guys out.

[Lipoli390]

Can't say enough about the Celtics. They lose their prize free agent acquisition in their first game. They lose Kyrie Irving for over 20 games and the playoffs. They lose Marcus Smart down the stretch and for the first few games in their first round series. Yet they won 55 regular season games and their first round matchup against a talented Bucks team. Then they lose Jaylen Brown before going up against a really good Sixers team tonight. Yet the Celtics won with a good, not great, Horford, the rookie Tatum and a former mid-first round pick Rozier. They had to overcome a horrible shooting night by Marcus Smart in the process. Credit the Celtics front office for building a very talented and resilient roster. And credit them for hiring a tremendous head coach. You don't become a great NBA team without a great front office consistently making great decisions.

[Monster]

Can't say enough about the Celtics. They lose their prize free agent acquisition in their first game. They lose Kyrie Irving for over 20 games and the playoffs. They lose Marcus Smart down the stretch and for the first few games in their first round series. Yet they won 55 regular season games and their first round matchup against a talented Bucks team. Then they lose Jaylen Brown before going up against a really good Sixers team tonight. Yet the Celtics won with a good, not great, Horford, the rookie Tatum and a former mid-first round pick Rozier. They had to overcome a horrible shooting night by Marcus Smart in the process. Credit the Celtics front office for building a very talented and resilient roster. And credit them for hiring a tremendous head coach. You don't become a great NBA team without a great front office consistently making great decisions.

I agree with your post one thing I will say is Boston doesn't really need to overcome a bad shooting night from Marcus Smart because he will make like 34 other winning plays that makes him valuable. Honestly if he hits shots it's just a bonus especially when other guys on the floor can hit outside shots. He puts pressure on defenses because he is a threat to get to the basket or post a guy up. I actually wish we could get him on the wolves but we badly need shooting and he wouldn't help there.

[Lipoli390]

Can't say enough about the Celtics. They lose their prize free agent acquisition in their first game. They lose Kyrie Irving for over 20 games and the playoffs. They lose Marcus Smart down the stretch and for the first few games in their first round series. Yet they won 55 regular season games and their first round matchup against a talented Bucks team. Then they lose Jaylen Brown before going up against a really good Sixers team tonight. Yet the Celtics won with a good, not great, Horford, the rookie Tatum and a former mid-first round pick Rozier. They had to overcome a horrible shooting night by Marcus Smart in the process. Credit the Celtics front office for building a very talented and resilient roster. And credit them for hiring a tremendous head coach. You don't become a great NBA team without a great front office consistently making great decisions.

I agree with your post one thing I will say is Boston doesn't really need to overcome a bad shooting night from Marcus Smart because he will make like 34 other winning plays that makes him valuable. Honestly if he hits shots it's just a bonus especially when other guys on the floor can hit outside shots. He puts pressure on defenses because he is a threat to get to the basket or post a guy up. I actually wish we could get him on the wolves but we badly need shooting and he wouldn't help there.

Great point about Marcus and all the things, other than scoring, he does to help his team win. I wish we had someone like him on the Wolves. I think Kris Dunn will eventually be a Marcus Smart type player, but maybe a better playmaker and scorer.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Celtics backcourt crazy shooting percentages:

- Rozier shot a career high 39.5% this season. Shot 36.7% last year. And 27.4% as a rookie.
- Smart shot a career high 36.7% this season. Shot 35.9% last year and only 34.8% the year before that.
- Their backup, Shane Larkin, shot 38.4% this season.

Those are not three point percentages. Those are the overall shooting percentages. What's going on in Boston is pretty remarkable. But it shows how having a clear system/identity and having guys buy into that system can pay off.

We can argue about Thibs coaching an antiquated style. Or about specific players. And we'd all be mostly right. But I think it goes beyond just this coach. An identity can come from anywhere within an organization... and works best when it's seamless from top to bottom.

- Houston's comes from the front office. They're daring. They're boundary pushing. They've been gaming the system for years... and guess what... we're seeing Harden and Paul do that on the court now. D'Antoni fits right in with this type of philosophy.
- GSW's comes from the coach? Is it just a coincidence that Curry + Thompson + Green was unleashed as this ball-moving beast when Kerr entered the picture? And the players deserve credit for playing that style.
- CLE's comes from its best player, James. But that's about where it ends. He's just that good that an entire franchise rotates around his personal orbit. He shows that even incompetence can be overcome with one transcendent player.
- Boston and SA and Miami are other examples where a clear identity permeates the entire organization.

The Wolves need to figure out what they are. And that starts at the top (Taylor) and goes down to the court. Maybe there's an internal battle behind the scenes right now as they're trying to sort it out. But thus far, this is what I see...

- The ownership isn't good enough to lead by example.
- The coach isn't good enough to lead by example.
- The players aren't good enough to lead by example.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Good stuff Abe. Now go look at Rozier's 3-point percentages from past seasons. WTF!? How is it that we NEVER grow shooters on our team. Rozier goes from 33% college 3-pt shooter, 22% as an NBA rookie, and 32% last season. Now he's a freakin' sniper.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

I think with Thibs in charge, the identity would be more of a working-class, tough, physical squad that can really defend. We have exactly two players on the roster that exemplify that motif.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I think with Thibs in charge, the identity would be more of a working-class, tough, physical squad that can really defend. We have exactly two players on the roster that exemplify that motif.

And that identity comes from a previous Thibs-led organization?
Sadly... this is what I see as the Wolves current "identity"... paper contenders. Consider:

- KAT says all the right things. And he looks like a star on the court at times. But something is missing. His comments don't always match up with on-court play. He still doesn't do the little things that seem to matter... defense, picks, et al. But he says he's gonna work on them, so I'm sure it'll be fine.
- Thibs says all the right things. He has a track record of success playing a certain style. But something is missing. Sure, his style is antiquated for 2015... but he's still a top coach in the league.
- Wiggins says all the right things... and makes the right promises. But something is missing. He hasn't made the "leap" that young max guys are expected to make. Some might even point to areas of regression. But he does look really athletic and smooth and stuff.
- Butler says all the right things. And his effort is off the charts at times. But something may be missing. His hero ball antics reached near-historic levels of inefficiency. But he will continue to harp on everybody else to work as hard and be as good as he is, so I'm sure the message will stick this time.

To be fair... Wiggins and KAT are still young, if not experienced NBA players. And Thibs is only entering Year 3 as the GM and Coach... and Butler is entering Year 2.

Developing an organization identity takes time to develop sometimes. So there's hope there. But I wouldn't insult anybody if they were wondering if the Wolves identity was one of fraudulence or antiquated blowhardness.