Minnesota Sports Forum

Abe's Late Night DVR Review:

- Towns had the fewest rebounds (3) among the starters... yet the Wolves who were woefully overmatched vs. the Pelicans still won the rebounding battle. I still think it's this team's biggest problem though.

- Russell is 3rd on the team in scoring (18.0)... the drop off to the next guy, Beverley, is huge (8.0 ppg). For shot attempts, Russell is 3rd (69) and Beasley is 4th (27). From the talk of the players and the activity on the court, this team is entirely centered around those three on offense.

- That's going to end poorly for the Wolves and Malik Beasley relationship.

- As noted throughout this thread, Vanderbilt and McDaniels did a lot of cool things. But Vanderbilt might look like more of a legit option on offense right now. Yikes. McDaniels looks lost on offense.

- And damn you, Q. You were an early backer of Vanderbilt. I was a detractor. His motor makes him a fun watch though and turning me into a convert. Glad the team has him even if I still think having him as a starter is a bit of an overmatch.

- Was a reason given for the Okogie DNP? Maybe it just comes down to Finch realizing he can't play three non-offensive players in a game and the team needed Vanderbilt's size in this one more than Okogie's perimeter defense.

- I find it amusing when Thanassis Antetokounmpo gets in the game, almost always in relief of his brother. He looks like Giannis, just smaller. And moves like him. But he's like 35% of the real deal. Maybe. He reminds me of the dopplegangers in the movie, "Us."

- As a Celtics fan/follower, I wanted to rip on Semi Ojeleye going 0-5. I can't remember that guy ever making a shot. EVER. Then, I looked up his stats... he's a career 34.5% three point shooter. That's not great, but better than a lot of Wolves players over the past 4+ years.

- Speaking of three pointers, the Wolves are 3rd in the league at 42.8 attempts. Maybe I'm getting used to the new NBA, but it hasn't seem like a ridiculous amount while watching the games. (32.7% is pretty rough though)

- We don't read a lot about the coaching in these threads anymore after a few-year run where Thibs and Saunders were constant subjects in them. That's awesome. As a guy who still believes great players trump great coaching, I still acknowledge that solid coaching is a heckuva lot better than bad coaching. Finch seems superior to Saunders in every way and I think we see it more than how they run sets or matchups or substitutions. I think it's clear that he carries an entirely different type of gravitas than Saunders which leads to players actually doing what they're told to do more. Kind of nice!

- Milwaukee missed A LOT of wide open three pointers, especially in that 4th quarter during their run. If Holiday, DeVincenzio or Lopez were the ones taking them, would things have turned out differently? Meh. Who cares... a win is a win.

- Nice job Timberwolves.

Good stuff Abe! Yeah, Vando gave us a real lift last night. I'm not really sure either if he's the long-term answer at starting PF, but I do think he is a legit NBA rotational player that fits perfectly with the defensive scheme Finch implemented.

The 3's is going to be something we give up with this defense since we have guys coming off the corners to cover the roller. One thing I have noticed though is some better rotations and close-outs. Guys are hustling. Edwards used perfect technique on a couple of 3-pt close outs where he shortened his stride and made nice contests without either flying by or fouling. That's the little, technical details that are so important to an NBA defense and I was happy to see that from such a young player.

Q12543 wrote:Good stuff Abe! Yeah, Vando gave us a real lift last night. I'm not really sure either if he's the long-term answer at starting PF, but I do think he is a legit NBA rotational player that fits perfectly with the defensive scheme Finch implemented.

The 3's is going to be something we give up with this defense since we have guys coming off the corners to cover the roller. One thing I have noticed though is some better rotations and close-outs. Guys are hustling. Edwards used perfect technique on a couple of 3-pt close outs where he shortened his stride and made nice contests without either flying by or fouling. That's the little, technical details that are so important to an NBA defense and I was happy to see that from such a young player.

The Ringer had some video about Portland yesterday and it seemed like they're doing something similar on defense. They showed clips of how it's not really working yet for them though and leading to a ton of open looks. It was mostly blamed on Nurkic being slower than ever. The Wolves as constructed seem to have better personnel to run it? I'm sure there will be ugly nights. But as long as the effort remains improved, the defense HAS to be better than what we've seen in recent years.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Good stuff Abe! Yeah, Vando gave us a real lift last night. I'm not really sure either if he's the long-term answer at starting PF, but I do think he is a legit NBA rotational player that fits perfectly with the defensive scheme Finch implemented.

The 3's is going to be something we give up with this defense since we have guys coming off the corners to cover the roller. One thing I have noticed though is some better rotations and close-outs. Guys are hustling. Edwards used perfect technique on a couple of 3-pt close outs where he shortened his stride and made nice contests without either flying by or fouling. That's the little, technical details that are so important to an NBA defense and I was happy to see that from such a young player.

The Ringer had some video about Portland yesterday and it seemed like they're doing something similar on defense. They showed clips of how it's not really working yet for them though and leading to a ton of open looks. It was mostly blamed on Nurkic being slower than ever. The Wolves as constructed seem to have better personnel to run it? I'm sure there will be ugly nights. But as long as the effort remains improved, the defense HAS to be better than what we've seen in recent years.

Makes sense. Not the best defense if you have a somewhat slow-footed giant in the middle. Although it seems to work pretty well for Denver and they have Jokic. Drop coverage seems like a more sustainable, playoff-tested type defense, but the Wolves had to shake things up and this indeed works when you have a bunch of skinny, rangy, fleet-of-foot type guys.

I can't imagine a more fun game than this one...we get to watch the remarkable Giannis, and still come away with a win against the champs on their home court. Terrific night! 3-1, and I'm calling this a signature win despite the Bucks having 2 starters out.

Vando and Jaden were exceptional tonight, as were DLo and Chris Finch. My thoughts:

DLo- this is the DLo we need to see every night. Jon K tweeted yesterday that Russell had only played one good quarter out of the first 12 of the season...not very good. DLo must have read that because he came out smoking and set the tone on offense (I thought his defense was pretty good too). I've been saying all year that DLo playing better than he has to date in his career was my best hope for a good season, and he showed me something tonight. That's exactly what we need from our max player. Well, we could use some improved 3-point shooting...under 30% through the first 4 games is not good enough, but I'm confident that number will drift up closer to his career 35%.

I continue to marvel at Chris Finch. We may have won the Houston game because he started JO who set the defensive tone for the game. And we may have won tonight because he started Vando and gave him 30 minutes. I see some here have anointed Vando as the de facto starter at PF, but I think Finch will continue to rotate the starter based on the situation...he's brilliant at that. Vando was terrific tonight though. I love that there is no offensive rebound that he doesn't think is out of play...he had 6 of them, but may have kept another 5 balls in play so someone else could corral it. This works only if his teammates get back on defense, and I thought DLo, Jaden and PatBev consistently did tonight. And I liked that Vando's bad hands were hidden tonight- 10 efficient points and only one turnover.

I agree with others here that Jaden seems lost on offense, but unlike the PF rotation, I want him in the lineup at SF every night. He's simply a gamechanger on defense and we need him out there. But I want him to be confident in rotating into the corner on offense...he can make that shot, and his teammates will find him.

I'm scratching my head at KAT despite a very efficient 25 points. I noticed the zen approach out there and actually liked it, although I don't know that it comes from a good place...more of a fuck you I'm afraid. I wonder if he even noticed that he only had one foul tonight, and whether he's smart and mature enough to recognize you need to seduce the referees rather than attack them. We need him in the game. Right now, he's the only reliable 3-point shooter on the team, and that's sad.

There still seem to be some posters here who don't understand the +/- stat. Yeah, it's dirty like many stats, but trends over time are indisputable. Cam, I mean no disrespect, but I think your unwavering support for a certain PG who has had terrible on/off and +/- numbers during his career is the reason for your disdain for this often valuable stat...it's never been kind to DLo, just like shooting percentage has never been kind to Rubio. Yes, it can be useless in a small sample size, and that's why most of the proponents of the stat don't put much credence into a 1-game (or even half a game) +/- stat. But sometimes it tells you a lot about the game. Vando was one of our MVP's tonight but was a team-worst -9, and some will use that disconnect to malign the +/- stat. But others will notice that most (all?) of Vando's minutes came with Giannis on the court...Finch needed him out there. And it's not a surprise that Giannis was a mirror image +9. Vando was one of our MVPs, but Giannis is a much more effective player than him...those two statements can be true at the same time.

But now we're 3-1 and off to Denver where their best player might not be 100%. This could get interesting...

Wrong again, FNG. My disdain for the notorious plus-minus statistic dates back long before this particular site even existed -- and also long before D'Angelo Russell was even in the league. People on the ESPN forum (where most of us are from) used to cite plus-minus in a way that made Ricky Rubio appear to be a better player than he was while also making Kevin Love appear less-great than he was. It was then that I really grew my dislike of that stat and ones that are similar in construction. Again, they have some value when used with other metrics, but on their own I find them to be nonsensical. And then we move on to players like Kevin Martin, Zach LaVine, and Thaddeus Young (occasionally) who got criticized time and time again primarily because of the almighty plus-minus stat despite the clear positives they brought with their games.

We can agree to disagree on the topic, but that's the history behind it as it pertains to me. It has nothing to do with D-Lo. He's just the player in particular who currently gets most-abused on this board by the misuse of that stat.

Camden wrote:Wrong again, FNG. My disdain for the notorious plus-minus statistic dates back long before this particular site even existed -- and also long before D'Angelo Russell was even in the league. People on the ESPN forum (where most of us are from) used to cite plus-minus in a way that made Ricky Rubio appear to be a better player than he was while also making Kevin Love appear less-great than he was. It was then that I really grew my dislike of that stat and ones that are similar in construction. Again, they have some value when used with other metrics, but on their own I find them to be nonsensical. And then we move on to players like Kevin Martin, Zach LaVine, and Thaddeus Young (occasionally) who got criticized time and time again primarily because of the almighty plus-minus stat despite the clear positives they brought with their games.

We can agree to disagree on the topic, but that's the history behind it as it pertains to me. It has nothing to do with D-Lo. He's just the player in particular who currently gets most-abused on this board by the misuse of that stat.

I can attest to the Rubio >>> Kevin Love dynamic on this forum... even after 8/3/8/31% fg nights vs. 32/14/4/47% nights.

And my (oft-repeated) biggest quibble about the +/- stat is that it would show that Demarr Derozan's teams are better off when he doesn't play for almost his entire career. Yet, multiple coaches in multiple places keep giving him the most minutes on the team... often while winning 45 - 59 games.

Top 3 + - so far this year 1. Derrick Rose 2.PJ Tucker 3.Kyle Lowry

KAT is 4th and Keata Bates-Diop is in the top 10. I dont know what that tells me. But usually if the parts are noisy the aggregate should have some issues too.

Brooks Lopez was a career negative + - player until he played with the Bucks. The best thing for plus minus is winning and playing with bonafide winners. To make it an assessment tool of intangibles, and especially a game by game tool, doesnt account for how noisy of a metric it is.

Camden wrote:Wrong again, FNG. My disdain for the notorious plus-minus statistic dates back long before this particular site even existed -- and also long before D'Angelo Russell was even in the league. People on the ESPN forum (where most of us are from) used to cite plus-minus in a way that made Ricky Rubio appear to be a better player than he was while also making Kevin Love appear less-great than he was. It was then that I really grew my dislike of that stat and ones that are similar in construction. Again, they have some value when used with other metrics, but on their own I find them to be nonsensical. And then we move on to players like Kevin Martin, Zach LaVine, and Thaddeus Young (occasionally) who got criticized time and time again primarily because of the almighty plus-minus stat despite the clear positives they brought with their games.

We can agree to disagree on the topic, but that's the history behind it as it pertains to me. It has nothing to do with D-Lo. He's just the player in particular who currently gets most-abused on this board by the misuse of that stat.

I'll take your word for that, Cam, because I don't know anything about the ESPN site...I was (sadly) a rubechat observer (not poster) before wandering over here, and that was painful...I don't miss it. But it sounds like the +/- discussion pre-dates the arrival of DLo.

But I'm still curious about how you statistically evaluate DLo to conclude he is a positive player, or frankly even worth a $12-15 million salary. A few of us here have pointed to several measures (net rating, TS%, on/off, +/-) where DLo (and frankly Wig) are outliers among max players as they both rank in the bottom half of the league by these measures. DLo is the starting PG on my favorite team and both likable and fun to watch at times, so I really want to be confident in his ability to be part of a playoff rotation, but his negative stats seems indisputable to me...and being in his 7th year, it's certainly not a small sample size and the numbers are quite consistently mediocre to bad. But frankly the positive factor I hear you bring up most is his one All-Star appearance. Many of us need a lot more than that to believe in him, so convince us...the mic is yours.

Camden wrote:Wrong again, FNG. My disdain for the notorious plus-minus statistic dates back long before this particular site even existed -- and also long before D'Angelo Russell was even in the league. People on the ESPN forum (where most of us are from) used to cite plus-minus in a way that made Ricky Rubio appear to be a better player than he was while also making Kevin Love appear less-great than he was. It was then that I really grew my dislike of that stat and ones that are similar in construction. Again, they have some value when used with other metrics, but on their own I find them to be nonsensical. And then we move on to players like Kevin Martin, Zach LaVine, and Thaddeus Young (occasionally) who got criticized time and time again primarily because of the almighty plus-minus stat despite the clear positives they brought with their games.

We can agree to disagree on the topic, but that's the history behind it as it pertains to me. It has nothing to do with D-Lo. He's just the player in particular who currently gets most-abused on this board by the misuse of that stat.

Let's look at those two, Rubio and Love. Love was an absolute turnstile on defense. If a guy got into the paint it was an easy layup. Sure he got some rebounds, but his lack of interior defense was glaringly obvious. The guy was terrible.

Let's look at DLO, for much of his career he also has been a turnstile on defense. Offensively he has tended to not make others better, been inefficient with the lack of drawing fouls and just a mediocre shooter with his jack up ISO style.

In both cases I think the plus minus has been doing a good job in showing us how poor players are at playing winning basketball. Being a turnstile on defense will surely be one of them.

The plus minus isn't the end all be all stat, but is another tool in the shed we should use over a long term when evaluating players.