Minnesota Sports Forum

Good stuff as always, kekgeek...you forced me to go back and crunch some numbers. I don't think you can look at only T-Wolves bench minutes played as a measuring stick...the real test is Wolves bench minutes compared to its opponents. I looked at the last 13 games (I stopped at the Chicago game, because it didn't suit my narrative :)...no, actually the Bulls went to their bench early because the game got out of hand for the Bulls so early) and the numbers are even more persuasive than I thought.

During the last 13 games, the Wolves have won 6 games and lost 7. Here are the opponents' bench minutes vs, ours in the 6 wins:

Denver: 66-77 11 differential
Dallas: 70-72 2
Sac: 91-95 4
LAC: 98-71 -27
GS: 79-85 6
Wash: 77-62 -15

So, in our 6 wins, the average bench deficit is only 3.2 minutes per game, and in 4 of those wins, Thibs actually went to his bench more than the opposing coach. In other words, in these 6 wins (including great wins over the clippers, Warriors and Wizards, Thibs used his bench in a manner very similarly to his opponent...i.e. there is no reason to think our starters would be more tired than their opponent at the end of the game.

Now, the 7 losses:

Cleveland: 70-47 23 differential
Rockets: 98-66 32
Jazz: 121-98 23
SAS 104-63 41
Bucks: 107-80 27
Heat: 125-57 68
Pels: 79-55 24

In our 7 losses, the Wolves' bench deficit is an astonishing 34 minutes per game, and in at least 3 of those games, we lost the game because of a disastrous 4th quarter or second half. Don't you think that is really compelling data? When the Wolves' starters play 34 minutes per game more than the opponent, we lose the game and often collapse at the end of the game. But when Thibs allows his starters to be as rested as the opponent, we win!

I have been harping on this all year, because the last 13 games are not an aberration...this trend has been happening all year. When Thibs trusts his bench, we play very well and often win. But when he panics and forces his starters to play too many minutes, we generally lose and often with a late game collapse. It couldn't be any more obvious, but Thibs refuses to acknowledge it...so frustrating.

I'm going to the spurs game tonight, and even though it is mow meaningless in terms of playoffs, I think it will be close. But here's my prediction. Thibs will be outcoached badly by Pop again, and we will blow another lead late in the game because our guys are tired like they often are in losses. I hope I'm wrong...I want Thibs to figure this out.

LST if you are REALLY committed to this thing why not look up how many minutes those teams usually play their bench. Heck that Utah game the Wolves played their bench a lot in fact the most of any games you listed. the difference is Utah played their bench a ton. Why? Do they have a deep bench? Do they have a guy that tends to play more than their starters? Was it partly because they started a different player because Hood was out? I'm not saying your narrative isn't supported but I don't find the numbers you have presented as difinitive enough as there is a small sample and each game has some situations that could make things look different...or maybe not but go ahead and dig if you want to. Lol

monsterpile wrote:LST if you are REALLY committed to this thing why not look up how many minutes those teams usually play their bench. Heck that Utah game the Wolves played their bench a lot in fact the most of any games you listed. the difference is Utah played their bench a ton. Why? Do they have a deep bench? Do they have a guy that tends to play more than their starters? Was it partly because they started a different player because Hood was out? I'm not saying your narrative isn't supported but I don't find the numbers you have presented as difinitive enough as there is a small sample and each game has some situations that could make things look different...or maybe not but go ahead and dig if you want to. Lol

Monster, are you trying to kill me? :)

I admit that there are game to game situations that might determine how our opponent plays their bench, but the point remains the same...when Thibs panics and plays his starters far more than the opposing coach does, bad things happen. This pattern has been consistent throughout the year, and to the annoyance of many here, I have pointed it out from time to time all season...either saying "Dammit, Thibs...play your bench" after another late game collapse, or "Attaboy, Thibs...you're finally figuring it out" after a win in which his rotations were good.

Let's see what happens tonight...I'm predicting another 30 minute differential in starters' minutes and 4th quarter disaster.

LST, whenever I read your comments on minutes, my first instinct is to think "Yeah!!!! LST is right on. It's so simple. Thibs must be really stubborn or really blinded by something." But then when I think about the details, I start to question quite a few things.

I suspect a lot of what is in your mind is a result of confirmation bias. Whenever there's supportive evidence to your theory, it really stands out in your mind. Whenever there's conflicting evidence, your mind will automatically place a lower weighting on that information. You mention that the pattern starters tiring and blowing leads has happened all year. And while that is true - we've blown a lot of double digit leads this year, my recollection of the context is quite different to it being a result of tired legs at the end of games.

My interpretation of the blown leads is more about tensing up when the pressure is on. The lack of that subjective 'learn how to win' ability.

All of this commentary is just based on my recollection rather than reviewing stats, but for the first 20 or so games of the season, the script seemed quite consistent. We'd build a big lead in the first half, then coming out of half time was when we'd collapse. Then we'd stabilise in the last quarter and tighten up falling just short in the last couple of minutes.

Again, this is pretty anecdotal, but if we look at how the season has progressed, we collapsed when the pressure was on early in the season because expectations were high. Then, when we were effectively out of the playoff race, we had a good little run. Then, when the playoff race tightened up, we dropped a few more games.

So there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that our performance has been based on the perceived pressure on us rather than fitness or fatigue. I know I can't prove any of that with numbers (how do you score the pressure on us), but it fits the narrative in my mind. Fortunately, that narrative is imminently fixable with the passage of time and experience. We'll become that grizzled veteran team over the coming years and toy with opposition teams before pulling away for a win in the closing minutes.

Overall, I actually think you're probably right. Reducing the minutes of the best players would probably help. But I think that's probably more to do with being in peak condition for the last quarter of the season rather than the last quarter of each game. When we're in genuine contender mode, that will be a lot more relevant. Hopefully the excess of minutes has more to do with Thibs running players through a learning curve rather than a stubborn adherence to out-dated beliefs.

Nice post, Shumway! :thumb: