Minnesota Sports Forum

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:It's been said already, and I'll say it when I see this Fizdale/Thibodeau topic arise, but the comparison between Memphis and Minnesota is invalid and the primary reason is veteran production/leadership. We do not have Marc Gasol, Tony Allen, and Zach Randolph. They simply aren't mentors from the sideline. They're on the floor impacting the game with their play first, and with their knowledge/experience second. Those three and Conley (injured) are the cogs of that Grit & Grind machine that churns out playoff berths year after year. The pieces around those guys, however unimpressive they are, are for the most part interchangeable and the reason is because the veterans make weaker players play better on the floor.

Well, would you agree that the 09-10 Thunder is a good comparison then? They were arguably younger than this year's Wolves with 4 of their top 5 players in minutes played still in their first three years and the 5th (Sefolosha) only in his 4th year. There were no vets on that team better than the vets the Wolves have, but a positive young coach led that younger team to 50 wins! That's why every poster on this board predicted the Wolves would win more than 40 games this year...because we recognized that future stars often make a big leap forward in their 2nd and 3rd years. The Wolves are currently on a pace to win 22 games, and that is a complete travesty given the talent level Thibs has to work with.

One large difference you fail to point out ... Scott brooks was the head coach there for two consecutive years and an assistant there for one year beforf taking the reigns.

Our wolves have had no consistency over the last 3 years (hell go back 10 years). Id argue constant change is what is holding us back. 3 different systems in 3 different years. Let's see how we look after 3 years in one system.

TheFuture wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:It's been said already, and I'll say it when I see this Fizdale/Thibodeau topic arise, but the comparison between Memphis and Minnesota is invalid and the primary reason is veteran production/leadership. We do not have Marc Gasol, Tony Allen, and Zach Randolph. They simply aren't mentors from the sideline. They're on the floor impacting the game with their play first, and with their knowledge/experience second. Those three and Conley (injured) are the cogs of that Grit & Grind machine that churns out playoff berths year after year. The pieces around those guys, however unimpressive they are, are for the most part interchangeable and the reason is because the veterans make weaker players play better on the floor.

Well, would you agree that the 09-10 Thunder is a good comparison then? They were arguably younger than this year's Wolves with 4 of their top 5 players in minutes played still in their first three years and the 5th (Sefolosha) only in his 4th year. There were no vets on that team better than the vets the Wolves have, but a positive young coach led that younger team to 50 wins! That's why every poster on this board predicted the Wolves would win more than 40 games this year...because we recognized that future stars often make a big leap forward in their 2nd and 3rd years. The Wolves are currently on a pace to win 22 games, and that is a complete travesty given the talent level Thibs has to work with.

One large difference you fail to point out ... Scott brooks was the head coach there for two consecutive years and an assistant there for one year beforf taking the reigns.

Our wolves have had no consistency over the last 3 years (hell go back 10 years). Id argue constant change is what is holding us back. 3 different systems in 3 different years. Let's see how we look after 3 years in one system.

Yep and part of that consistency was with a few players as well. What really made that team break out as much as anything was it jumped to a top 10 defensive team that year. They were the talk of the NBA players who really followed the game loved watching that team. I had a good friend of mine that I play ball with who is a Lakers fan said he would probably cheer for OKC of his Lakers in the playoffs because he loved how that team played. There were some vet guys on that team (not going though the whole roster) that aren't wow players but helped led by Nick Collision. I remeber Jeff Green playing really well every time I watched him that year. He had a pretty good stretch of his career when he was pretty effective all around.

The Wolves I think have the talent but there are other talented teams it may take a bit to have it really come together. The only players on this team that have been on the roster 3 entire seasons or more are Rubio Dieng and Bazz. Payne hasn't even been on the roster for 2 years yet right? I think that's something people forget about.

monsterpile wrote:

TheFuture wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:It's been said already, and I'll say it when I see this Fizdale/Thibodeau topic arise, but the comparison between Memphis and Minnesota is invalid and the primary reason is veteran production/leadership. We do not have Marc Gasol, Tony Allen, and Zach Randolph. They simply aren't mentors from the sideline. They're on the floor impacting the game with their play first, and with their knowledge/experience second. Those three and Conley (injured) are the cogs of that Grit & Grind machine that churns out playoff berths year after year. The pieces around those guys, however unimpressive they are, are for the most part interchangeable and the reason is because the veterans make weaker players play better on the floor.

Well, would you agree that the 09-10 Thunder is a good comparison then? They were arguably younger than this year's Wolves with 4 of their top 5 players in minutes played still in their first three years and the 5th (Sefolosha) only in his 4th year. There were no vets on that team better than the vets the Wolves have, but a positive young coach led that younger team to 50 wins! That's why every poster on this board predicted the Wolves would win more than 40 games this year...because we recognized that future stars often make a big leap forward in their 2nd and 3rd years. The Wolves are currently on a pace to win 22 games, and that is a complete travesty given the talent level Thibs has to work with.

One large difference you fail to point out ... Scott brooks was the head coach there for two consecutive years and an assistant there for one year beforf taking the reigns.

Our wolves have had no consistency over the last 3 years (hell go back 10 years). Id argue constant change is what is holding us back. 3 different systems in 3 different years. Let's see how we look after 3 years in one system.

Yep and part of that consistency was with a few players as well. What really made that team break out as much as anything was it jumped to a top 10 defensive team that year. They were the talk of the NBA players who really followed the game loved watching that team. I had a good friend of mine that I play ball with who is a Lakers fan said he would probably cheer for OKC of his Lakers in the playoffs because he loved how that team played. There were some vet guys on that team (not going though the whole roster) that aren't wow players but helped led by Nick Collision. I remeber Jeff Green playing really well every time I watched him that year. He had a pretty good stretch of his career when he was pretty effective all around.

The Wolves I think have the talent but there are other talented teams it may take a bit to have it really come together. The only players on this team that have been on the roster 3 entire seasons or more are Rubio Dieng and Bazz. Payne hasn't even been on the roster for 2 years yet right? I think that's something people forget about.

I don't know the answer to this but has there ever been a team in nba history that had made that big of a wins jump without acquiring a player in the offseason off the top of my head I can't think of any.

Not saying the wolves didn't have the talent to make the jump but I think the thunder are something the nba has never seen. Hope someone makes me look dumb and comes up with a team

longstrangetrip wrote:
I really hope Boston is not a good comparison, mikkeman. First of all, I throw out Pierce, because we know that rookies seldom help out much (cough, cough...Dunn). Further, if KAT/Wig/Zach only turn out to be Antoine Walker and Ron Mercer, I think most of us here would be quite disappointed.

They didn't keep track on ortg and drtg for each player yet back then but I would argue that Pierce was certainly net positive even as a rookie. He had highest PER, 2nd highest TS% and had clearly best other advanced stats as well (WS, BPM and VORP) in that Boston team. I certainly hope that our Wolves team won't follow the path of that Boston team. But I still think that it is more probable than similar improvement that Oklahoma did. There has been much more examples about young teams struggling to improve in wins than them suddenly doubling their previous season win total.

Still little more about that OKC squad. Even tough the top three scorers were same young threesome Durant, Westbrook and Green that OKC team did have some important new pieces as well. Harden and Ibaka were not in team previous year and both were those rare rookies that were able to contribute right away. Harden even had positive on/off numbers in his rookie season. Both had much more impact than any of Wolves new comers this season.

I think that most likely outcome is something between what happened for OKC and Boston. Maybe something similar than late 80s Cleveland team with threesome of Daugherty, Price and Harper (they did improve from 31 wins to 42) or Portland team with Roy and Aldridge (improved from 32 wins to 41).

Since life as Wolves fan has been so miserable, I would be happy even if Wolves with Towns would win even as many championships than Dallas with Kidd or Boston with Pierce.:)

Mikkeman wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:
I really hope Boston is not a good comparison, mikkeman. First of all, I throw out Pierce, because we know that rookies seldom help out much (cough, cough...Dunn). Further, if KAT/Wig/Zach only turn out to be Antoine Walker and Ron Mercer, I think most of us here would be quite disappointed.

They didn't keep track on ortg and drtg for each player yet back then but I would argue that Pierce was certainly net positive even as a rookie. He had highest PER, 2nd highest TS% and had clearly best other advanced stats as well (WS, BPM and VORP) in that Boston team. I certainly hope that our Wolves team won't follow the path of that Boston team. But I still think that it is more probable than similar improvement that Oklahoma did. There has been much more examples about young teams struggling to improve in wins than them suddenly doubling their previous season win total.

Still little more about that OKC squad. Even tough the top three scorers were same young threesome Durant, Westbrook and Green that OKC team did have some important new pieces as well. Harden and Ibaka were not in team previous year and both were those rare rookies that were able to contribute right away. Harden even had positive on/off numbers in his rookie season. Both had much more impact than any of Wolves new comers this season.

I think that most likely outcome is something between what happened for OKC and Boston. Maybe something similar than late 80s Cleveland team with threesome of Daugherty, Price and Harper (they did improve from 31 wins to 42) or Portland team with Roy and Aldridge (improved from 32 wins to 41).

Since life as Wolves fan has been so miserable, I would be happy even if Wolves with Tonws would win even as many championships than Dallas with Kidd or Boston with Pierce.:)

From those late 90's Celtics team...who will be our Bruce Bowen? Let's not let that guy get away. :) The year following year Boston sucked he played half as many games and fewer minutes when he did play.

Also I'll eat my T-Wolves hat if any of the young 3 becomes the next Ron Mercer. I still remember a lot of chatter back in the day on the ESPN boards when he was a FA and a few of us were interested. Instead McHale signed his former teammate Billups for cheap said he was gonna play SG. He was actually somewhat effective there and then the next year got the opportunity to play PG...and the rest is history. 5 years after Billups signed with the Wolves as a FA Mercer was out of the league.

monsterpile wrote:
From those late 90's Celtics team...who will be our Bruce Bowen? Let's not let that guy get away. :) The year following year Boston sucked he played half as many games and fewer minutes when he did play.

Also I'll eat my T-Wolves hat if any of the young 3 becomes the next Ron Mercer. I still remember a lot of chatter back in the day on the ESPN boards when he was a FA and a few of us were interested. Instead McHale signed his former teammate Billups for cheap said he was gonna play SG. He was actually somewhat effective there and then the next year got the opportunity to play PG...and the rest is history. 5 years after Billups signed with the Wolves as a FA Mercer was out of the league.

Yes, now when Lavine has improved already so much that he is much better than Mercer ever was, it is pretty safe bet that all of our youngsters are going to be much better than him. Still if you look just Mercer's rookie season, he was quite promising. He wasn't efficient scorer but quite a few rookies are. Mercer is just a model example about player that didn't improve at all from the level he was playing as a rookie. He just remained inefficient volume scorer without any other skills to impact game.

Mikkeman wrote:

monsterpile wrote:
From those late 90's Celtics team...who will be our Bruce Bowen? Let's not let that guy get away. :) The year following year Boston sucked he played half as many games and fewer minutes when he did play.

Also I'll eat my T-Wolves hat if any of the young 3 becomes the next Ron Mercer. I still remember a lot of chatter back in the day on the ESPN boards when he was a FA and a few of us were interested. Instead McHale signed his former teammate Billups for cheap said he was gonna play SG. He was actually somewhat effective there and then the next year got the opportunity to play PG...and the rest is history. 5 years after Billups signed with the Wolves as a FA Mercer was out of the league.

Yes, now when Lavine has improved already so much that he is much better than Mercer ever was, it is pretty safe bet that all of our youngsters are going to be much better than him. Still if you look just Mercer's rookie season, he was quite promising. He wasn't efficient scorer but quite a few rookies are. Mercer is just a model example about player that didn't improve at all from the level he was playing as a rookie. He just remained inefficient volume scorer without any other skills to impact game.

Yup, guys like Mercer are a cautionary tale. How much has Derrick Williams and Wes Johnson improved since their rookie years? Certainly not as much as people had hoped!

We should never assume young players automatically improve. Many don't.