Wolves vs Hornets GDT

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Honestly Cam no harm done with me. I just think you dont need to police the Dlo conversation as much as you think, at least not with me. Maybe everyone reads too much into your posts as having some sort of emotional attachment to them when it is all just the way you express yourself. I havent constantly scapegoated Dlo though I want him to play better and properly utilize his significant talent. I think this team could be really fun to watch with DLo on it. I do geniunely believe that Dlo thinks he's better than he is, but in that point so does 95% of the NBA.

In general, I don't think D'Angelo Russell has ever gotten a fair shake on this board and throughout the Wolves fan base. Part of that is due to the trade that brought him here being especially controversial, which I think left fans resenting him before he even arrived and unwilling to give up any ground in that stance, and part of that is his individual game being polarizing in nature.

What I struggle with is the scapegoating, acting as if D-Lo is a negative player, and the accusatory takes regarding him that I find to be false. Basketball is a very analytical game and it's unlikely that everyone will see things the exact same way. I'm well aware of that, and that's why I try to support what I'm seeing or what my stance is as well as I can with whatever data I have at my disposal thinking that maybe there will be some understanding. I have no attachment to Russell besides my thinking that he's a legitimately good starting point guard playing for the Wolves, the team I root for on a nightly basis. I'm positive that it comes across very differently, though, because of my many defenses of him. I get it, but it's also silly because I've had equally passionate takes regarding other players as well and was never labeled a "stan" or whatever.

As for last night's post-game debate with you, I didn't take anything beyond basketball. I still have just as much respect for you today as I did yesterday and the day before. I just didn't see what you particularly saw and voiced it until I think we were all tired of it, I guess. I'll debate anything into the ground as long as there's productive discourse.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Now you guys can continue to argue with Camden about D'Angelo Russell. Good gawd. I feel like the board would be better if nobody was allowed to bring up Russell to Camden and he wasn't allowed to mention his name either. Those discussion might be more unsettling than watching your favorite team get carved up by Kelly Oubre.

Abe, wouldn't it be more productive or enlightening [for the board] to actually read through the discussion and either comment towards it -- agree or disagree -- or make no comment whatsoever? What exactly does this type of passive aggressive comment do besides present me as the one in the wrong without expressing why, specifically? Surely, you could articulate one way or the other, or simply not at all.

The Russell arguments are annoying.

You passive aggressively add pro Russell comments into threads. Always. Don't know if that's what happened here. Nor do I care. It's a tired trope on the board. It's happened hundreds of times before.

You seem to have an issue with being called out for being wrong. And it shows up with Russell. It might all stem from you believing you're the smartest guy in the room, which reveals itself in condescending comments. Fortunately, Wiseman isn't a Timberwolves player. LOL.

Better?

Now, can we get back to what was obviously the overwhelming point of my post... the Wolves lost to a team where Kelly Oubre was its best player. And he's a shitty losing basketball player, which makes it a bad loss.

I call it how I personally see it with evidence to support my takes whether I'm sided with or against -- same as mostly anyone else here on this board on various matters. The only difference is that I don't partake in the echo chamber and finger-pointing regarding D'Angelo Russell, especially when the criticism is undeserved as it was last night. Annoying or not, that's the harsh truth and I'm more right than wrong by a large margin.

And thank you for admitting that you don't know what you were commenting towards. Your willful ignorance was on display by pounding the keyboard when you had no idea what the discussion even was. That's very much on brand for you. And rather than take the time to provide an insightful response on one side or the other you thought it was appropriate to mention my name as if my comments were unjustified or irrational. Weird behavior. Keep my name out of your posts or simply make an effort to join the discussion. It's not a big ask.

I was very accurate in my assessment that when you're around Russell threads go on and on and on. I don't need to read the thread to know how it's going to go... and that's my point. I don't care about Russell THAT much. Whether he goes for 30 with efficiency or 7 with laziness... we're going to see the same takes.

All for a player who's just a guy. Not anywhere near a great player. Not the worst player either. Yet he dominates too many discussions...
...when you're around. It is what it is.

I'm just glad Kelly Oubre isn't around these parts. Now there's no debate about that guy, he's probably the anti-christ.



Note: My new branded trademark:

I'm nothing if not willfully ignorant. :anxious:

[Lipoli390]

Didn't see the game, but going by the box score it looks like KAT's poor shooting was the difference. He won't have many nights shooting 1 from 11 from 3pt. On to the next one.

I just got back from Thanksgiving with relatives in Milwaukee so I haven't seen the Charlotte game yet. Looking at the box score, KAT's shooting stands out to me as it did to you. However, the box score tells a more multi-layered tale.

First, it shows that the Hornets out-rebounded the Wolves by 10. Simply equalling the Hornets on the boards would have resulted in a Wolves win in spite of KAT's horrible shooting. But there's nothing new in the Wolves getting out-rebounded. It's been pretty routine so far this season and it negates one of the main reasons the Wolves went all in to land Gobert. So far, that aspect of the Gobert trade is an abject failure.

Second, it shows the Hornet committed 9 fewer fouls than the Wolves and, as a result, had 12 more free-throw attempts. Simply narrowing that free-throw deficit by a few would have resulted in a Wolves win in spite of KAT's terrible shooting.

Finally, one again we had to hear the Wolves coaching staff call out the team for a lack of effort/energy. Way too familiar.

The point is that, in spite of the Wolves nice winning streak against inferior, depleted teams, the Wolves's problems still go much deeper than one player or another missing lots of shots. Poor rebounding, inability to defend without fouling and a lack of consistent high-end effort are constants with this teams so far this season. I see few signs yet that this team has a handle on these underlying problems. That doesn't bode well for a Wolves team that will eventually face better teams with their best players in the game and ultimately have some injuries of their own.

[Wolvesfan21]

Didn't see the game, but going by the box score it looks like KAT's poor shooting was the difference. He won't have many nights shooting 1 from 11 from 3pt. On to the next one.

I just got back from Thanksgiving with relatives in Milwaukee so I haven't seen the Charlotte game yet. Looking at the box score, KAT's shooting stands out to me as it did to you. However, the box score tells a more multi-layered tale.

First, it shows that the Hornets out-rebounded the Wolves by 10. Simply equalling the Hornets on the boards would have resulted in a Wolves win in spite of KAT's horrible shooting. But there's nothing new in the Wolves getting out-rebounded. It's been pretty routine so far this season and it negates one of the main reasons the Wolves went all in to land Gobert. So far, that aspect of the Gobert trade is an abject failure.

Second, it shows the Hornet committed 9 fewer fouls than the Wolves and, as a result, had 12 more free-throw attempts. Simply narrowing that free-throw deficit by a few would have resulted in a Wolves win in spite of KAT's terrible shooting.

Finally, one again we had to hear the Wolves coaching staff call out the team for a lack of effort/energy. Way too familiar.

The point is that, in spite of the Wolves nice winning streak against inferior, depleted teams, the Wolves's problems still go much deeper than one player or another missing lots of shots. Poor rebounding, inability to defend without fouling and a lack of consistent high-end effort are constants with this teams so far this season. I see few signs yet that this team has a handle on these underlying problems. That doesn't bode well for a Wolves team that will eventually face better teams with their best players in the game and ultimately have some injuries of their own.

Agreed that despite having Rudy, he cannot make up for the non rebounders and non effort by others. Jaden is frustrating as I know he can be better, both by not fouling as much and rebounding too. We need more boards by all our guards as well. Naz isn't very good for his position either.

We just have too little effort in hustle plays. They will continue to lose if they simply think talent will win. It won't. It never has worked and never will.

Look at the best players in history. MJ, LeBron, etc... LeBron probably isn't a great example. I've watched him take nights off defensively, but then again not when it mattered and mostly in recent years when the team has sucked ass. If you want to suck ass then play soft and weak. If you want to win you got to bring the energy and hustle. MJ however, maybe not until his last few years did he ever not give 100 percent. But even at age 38 or whatever, he probably didn't have much left in a Wizard uniform.

Then look at Wiggins, it too him many years, a switch to a different team and then even more a talking to from members of that team to get him to rebound. He's like whoa, I can get more then 4 boards a game. No shit you fucking POS. We saw when you gave a fuck and put up 40/10 twice a year. Then took the other 80 games off.

[Q-is-here]

No doubt the team misses the energy that PBev and Vando brought every night. That being said, those two are flawed players that helped make a mediocre team good last season, but probably can't help a good team become great.

[Lipoli390]

No doubt the team misses the energy that PBev and Vando brought every night. That being said, those two are flawed players that helped make a mediocre team good last season, but probably can't help a good team become great.

Q - I don't see the issue being about Vando or Pat Bev. It's about what you said in your first sentence - what they brought every night. Of course Vando and Pat Bev are flawed players. Who isn't? There's really no telling whether they can help make a good team great. Bottom line is that Vando and Beverley are gone and I don't see either one coming back. The problem for the Wolves is that they haven't come close to replacing what those two brought - whether from outside or from within. And right now, this team is not as good as the Wolves team the last two months of last season through the playoffs - even though Edwards and McDaniels are more experienced and in spite of the acquisition of Gobert. That's the troubling part.

In my view, we're way beyond a debate about whether the Gobert trade was a good one. I still think it was a bad one while many still think it was a good one. What's clear thus far is that it's not working out yet as planned. The question for the Wolves front office and coaching staff is simple -- what can they do to at least get this team back on the winning track it was on the last two months of last season and at least come close to achieving what the Gobert trade was expected by the Wolves organization to achieve. I don't have any answers, but the Wolves organization had better come up with some answers fairly soon. I wish the answer was a simple matter of shooting better because I'm sure they will. But I suspect the answer is more complicated and elusive.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

It hasn't been the prettiest or most favorable of starts for Minnesota to this point, absolutely, but I don't think it's quite fair to say that the trade isn't working or that it isn't going to work. Frankly, it's been up and down to this point. I also think it's too early to make that particular prognostication with Sunday's matchup with Golden State being just the 20-game mark, or roughly one-fourth of the regular season completed. There are still 60-plus games left to decide that and at any moment they could get hot with this group.

We also have somewhat of a significant uptrend in effectiveness among the starting lineup that points to better days ahead. Remember that this five-man unit includes two new starters and a position change for another as well as an entire scheme reconfiguration. This situation is different from the one in Cleveland where their infrastructure essentially remained the same, but simply added a more effective volume scorer to replace a less effective volume scorer in their lineup. We were right to expect a hotter start given the perceived easier schedule and high-end talent accumulation, but this mesh of personnel and style clearly needs/needed time to gel -- lineup combinations to click, chemistry to grow, etc.

Speaking of that uptrend, the starting five -- Russell, Edwards, McDaniels, Towns, and Gobert -- actually began the year being outplayed by our opponent's starters in terms of net rating. It was Minnesota's bench that was doing a lot of the heavy lifting, which actually made me more optimistic, personally, because quality depth was considered an unknown or potential weakness for this roster around the league.

First Nine Games (Starters):
ORtg: 95.1
DRtg: 106.7
NetRtg: -11.6
Mins: 133

Last Eight Games (Starters):
ORtg: 122.5
DRtg: 101.5
NetRtg: +21.0
Mins: 127

*Rudy Gobert missed games against Houston and New York

They've looked more like the team we expected them to be as of late, albeit still with some pretty glaring issues to work on. Notably, perimeter shooting, turnover differential, defensive rebounding, and second chance points stand to be improved. Chris Finch has already tweaked Minnesota's defensive scheme a bit to include a modified drop coverage versus trying to juggle the "high wall" -- or hard hedge and recover -- and drop coverage depending on personnel. That has yielded positive results in a small sample size. I also still think this team should lean more into spread pick-and-roll given the collection of ball-handlers and rim-rollers on the roster. That's another implementation that could boon positive results for this group.

In any event, my confidence in this team hasn't wavered. The top-end talent is still apparent. The pieces still theoretically compliment each other in terms of strengths and weaknesses. It's just a matter of finding what works and what doesn't, and then executing it better than their opponents. With so much of the schedule remaining, they have time to take their hits on the chin now if it means playing better later. Patience, patience, patience!

[60WinTim]

Good analysis of the Wolves current state, Cam! I have not waivered on the belief this team will figure it out. It has taken longer than any of us had hoped, but it is progressing. Towns missing the entire training camp and most of pre-season can only have been a drag on the learning process for the team.

KAT hurt a finger on his right hand during the Indiana game. I can't help but wonder if that is why he passed up so many 3-pointers early in the Charlotte game, and missed them when he did finally start taking them. He really needed to be more of a facilitator than he was. I also thought Finch should have put McDaniels back in during the third quarter fiasco, even with his 4 fouls. Oh well, shit happens. On to the next one!

[FNG]

No doubt the team misses the energy that PBev and Vando brought every night. That being said, those two are flawed players that helped make a mediocre team good last season, but probably can't help a good team become great.

Q - I don't see the issue being about Vando or Pat Bev. It's about what you said in your first sentence - what they brought every night. Of course Vando and Pat Bev are flawed players. Who isn't? There's really no telling whether they can help make a good team great. Bottom line is that Vando and Beverley are gone and I don't see either one coming back. The problem for the Wolves is that they haven't come close to replacing what those two brought - whether from outside or from within. And right now, this team is not as good as the Wolves team the last two months of last season through the playoffs - even though Edwards and McDaniels are more experienced and in spite of the acquisition of Gobert. That's the troubling part.

In my view, we're way beyond a debate about whether the Gobert trade was a good one. I still think it was a bad one while many still think it was a good one. What's clear thus far is that it's not working out yet as planned. The question for the Wolves front office and coaching staff is simple -- what can they do to at least get this team back on the winning track it was on the last two months of last season and at least come close to achieving what the Gobert trade was expected by the Wolves organization to achieve. I don't have any answers, but the Wolves organization had better come up with some answers fairly soon. I wish the answer was a simple matter of shooting better because I'm sure they will. But I suspect the answer is more complicated and elusive.

Lip says it's the loss of Vando and PatBev, and Q says it's our terrible shooting...both are factors in our poor start. But if I had to summarize why our first 19 games have been so disappointing, I would summarize it this way: the regression of our starting backcourt. Much of the optimism here before the season started was we thought that Ant was ready to take a big leap in his 3rd season, and that DLo would flourish in a contract year working with Gobert. Instead, both are statistically much worse this year than last. Yes, KAT has not yet found his 3-point shot, and we need that. But he has improved his game in other ways...he's getting others involved on offense, and his demeanor is much improved on the court. I'm not going to complain about a guy with a 62.7 TS% and 5.7 assists per game!

Our bench has been terrific too, although we do need to get Prince and JMac back. But we have not gotten anything close to what we thought we were going to get from our starting backcourt. And don't even get me started on Jaylen Nowell...what a disaster! We wanted to see improvement in these three this season, but instead they have gone the other way. If we can merely get the 2021-22 version of these three key rotation players, this team will be fine. But color me skeptical right now.

[thedoper]

Edwards stats are almost identical to his numbers last year. He hasnt taken the leap for sure but the only troubling dip is the extra turnover a game. Everything else is pretty flat. He also has the highest net rating of the starters. Our whole starting unit has underachieved and our D goes to absolute shit when Gobert sits. Isolating Ant as a key piece to our problems isnt really there from a statistical perspective.