D-Loser wrote:I agree that jmac probably isn't good enough to be a long term starter, but he does seem to be a better fit with our starters for the short term, so I think we should make this switch here pretty soon. Who knows, maybe he'll even surprise and be a long term starter. I also agree that not drafting a PG in the first round was really really bad. I tried to be optimistic on TC for about a week when we were looking good in the preseason, but this guy has his head so far up his rear end.
What PG in the draft did you want them to draft.
Players they could of draftees
Ty Ty Washington: 0 GP
Jaden Hardy: 2 GP
Chandler: shooting 28% not in rotation
Ryan Rollins: 4 GP not in rotation
JD Davison: 0 GP
Just a silly thing to criticize TC on. No person after Moore (who could be good) is in a nba rotation. No person after Moore (who could be good) is in a nba rotation.
Also what FA PG did you want the wolves to get. The wolves had the MLE. Tyus went for more than that. Who did you want instead. Sexton went for more. I guess Rubio was in the price range but he is still out for months.
They could of traded for Murray that is it. Just a silly and unfair take to say TC was dumb for not addressing the PG position
Kek, you left out Andrew Nembhard, who I was quite high on and he's now starting and doing well for Indiana. I liked him better than Moore.
Trading for Murray made a lot of sense too and I advocated for it and he would have been a much better fit, it would allow Wolves to dump DLO and get an up and coming two way star on a nice contract. Getting a rim protector is a lot easier than finding a two way point guard like Murray. Adding Murray and someone like Hartenstein and grooming Kessler made so much more sense than giving up so much future for an aging center who is a questionable fit here on a much bigger contract and not addressing the point guard situation.
I debated internally about participating in this thread, but there needs to be resistance even if I'm on an island here. Jordan McLaughlin is a lovable player on this roster, and he's proven to be a fine change-of-pace distributor off the bench, but anything more than that is incredibly dicey. There are a number of problems with trying to force him into a starting role no matter who he'd be replacing.
1. McLaughlin is still very inexperienced and unproven at the NBA level -- despite being in his fourth season -- having never played more than 938 minutes (51 games) in any season. For reference, Patrick Beverley played 1,476 minutes (58 games) last year. This board may disagree, but McLaughlin's far from a sure thing and closer to an unknown over the course of an entire season. To this point, he hasn't actually proven that he can be a productive rotation player over a full year let alone a starter. Minnesota needs to keep him in his current role where he's having relative success against other teams' reserves and allow him that opportunity.
2. The argument for starting McLaughlin would presumably be centered around his ability to get the ball up the floor quickly, especially in transition. The main problem with that, aside from fastbreak buckets being less reliable in postseason play, is that the starting lineup as a whole just isn't built to play quickly and get up the floor. Neither Karl-Anthony Towns nor Rudy Gobert -- 6'11 and 7'1, respectively -- are swift up and down the court. Theoretically, Anthony Edwards could thrive in transition given his athleticism, but he's just as guilty as anyone in slowing the ball down and/or playing with inconsistent effort. Simply, the core or blueprint of this team was constructed to execute/rely on halfcourt basketball. That is not where McLaughlin thrives.
3. Typically, if you want to play fast(er), which again would be the biggest reason for starting McLaughlin, then you normally see smaller lineups overall. That idea went out the window once Gobert was acquired. Comparatively, McLaughlin and the second unit do play fast(er), but also because they're smaller. Jaylen Nowell, Taurean Prince, Naz Reid, and McLaughlin get out and run. They push the pace as well as any lineup in the NBA, and they're the reason why Minnesota currently ranks second (!) in pace behind only the Golden State Warriors.
Does that tempo stay high if McLaughlin's playing next to slower-paced players? Very small sample size, but the four-man lineup combination of McLaughlin-Edwards-Towns-Gobert has a pace of 105.56 in 15 minutes so far this season -- faster than Russell-Edwards-Towns-Gobert at 100.85 in 175 minutes, but not quite what we've seen from McLaughlin-Nowell-Prince-Reid (McLaughlin's most-played combination) at 110.83 in 37 minutes. And for the record, that Edwards-Towns-Gobert combination plays slow whether it's Russell, McLaughlin, Nowell, or any other guard sharing the floor with them. They're natural plodders, collectively. Again, they're built to excel in the halfcourt.
4. We do have accessible data that illustrates Minnesota is much better with their current starting point guard than McLaughlin. Now, to be transparent, that's taking into consideration the larger volume of data from last season than the minuscule 12-game sample size that we have thus far, but the point remains. Russell was objectively better across the board (VORP, BPM, On/Off, NetRating, RPM, RAPTOR, etc.) against better competition with practically the same core elements we have now (Towns, Edwards, McDaniels, Nowell, etc.). That's not exactly saying much considering the many differences between the two, but it's apparently being discounted for some reason. Russell is still much better than McLaughlin -- both individually and from a team-standpoint.
We would be hyperreactive, and frankly irresponsible, to allow the six (?) clunkers so far from Russell to change that view. We can certainly acknowledge that this team needs Russell to play much better than he has while also acknowledging that he's still their best option at this point. The good thing is that there's still 70 games left to play and Russell has shown throughout his career that he can overcome a rough/bad start to his season, as he did last year. I would suggest patience and holding steady here no matter how frustrating it may be.
Camden wrote:I debated internally about participating in this thread, but there needs to be resistance even if I'm on an island here. Jordan McLaughlin is a lovable player on this roster, and he's proven to be a fine change-of-pace distributor off the bench, but anything more than that is incredibly dicey. There are a number of problems with trying to force him into a starting role no matter who he'd be replacing.
1. McLaughlin is still very inexperienced and unproven at the NBA level -- despite being in his fourth season -- having never played more than 938 minutes (51 games) in any season. For reference, Patrick Beverley played 1,476 minutes (58 games) last year. This board may disagree, but McLaughlin's far from a sure thing and closer to an unknown over the course of an entire season. To this point, he hasn't actually proven that he can be a productive rotation player over a full year let alone a starter. Minnesota needs to keep him in his current role where he's having relative success against other teams' reserves and allow him that opportunity.
2. The argument for starting McLaughlin would presumably be centered around his ability to get the ball up the floor quickly, especially in transition. The main problem with that, aside from fastbreak buckets being less reliable in postseason play, is that the starting lineup as a whole just isn't built to play quickly and get up the floor. Neither Karl-Anthony Towns nor Rudy Gobert -- 6'11 and 7'1, respectively -- are swift up and down the court. Theoretically, Anthony Edwards could thrive in transition given his athleticism, but he's just as guilty as anyone in slowing the ball down and/or playing with inconsistent effort. Simply, the core or blueprint of this team was constructed to execute/rely on halfcourt basketball. That is not where McLaughlin thrives.
3. Typically, if you want to play fast(er), which again would be the biggest reason for starting McLaughlin, then you normally see smaller lineups overall. That idea went out the window once Gobert was acquired. Comparatively, McLaughlin and the second unit do play fast(er), but also because they're smaller. Jaylen Nowell, Taurean Prince, Naz Reid, and McLaughlin get out and run. They push the pace as well as any lineup in the NBA, and they're the reason why Minnesota currently ranks second (!) in pace behind only the Golden State Warriors.
Does that tempo stay high if McLaughlin's playing next to slower-paced players? Very small sample size, but the four-man lineup combination of McLaughlin-Edwards-Towns-Gobert has a pace of 105.56 in 15 minutes so far this season -- faster than Russell-Edwards-Towns-Gobert at 100.85 in 175 minutes, but not quite what we've seen from McLaughlin-Nowell-Prince-Reid (McLaughlin's most-played combination) at 110.83 in 37 minutes. And for the record, that Edwards-Towns-Gobert combination plays slow whether it's Russell, McLaughlin, Nowell, or any other guard sharing the floor with them. They're natural plodders, collectively. Again, they're built to excel in the halfcourt.
4. We do have accessible data that illustrates Minnesota is much better with their current starting point guard than McLaughlin. Now, to be transparent, that's taking into consideration the larger volume of data from last season than the minuscule 12-game sample size that we have thus far, but the point remains. Russell was objectively better across the board (VORP, BPM, On/Off, NetRating, RPM, RAPTOR, etc.) against better competition with practically the same core elements we have now (Towns, Edwards, McDaniels, Nowell, etc.). That's not exactly saying much considering the many differences between the two, but it's apparently being discounted for some reason. Russell is still much better than McLaughlin -- both individually and from a team-standpoint.
We would be hyperreactive, and frankly irresponsible, to allow the six (?) clunkers so far from Russell to change that view. We can certainly acknowledge that this team needs Russell to play much better than he has while also acknowledging that he's still their best option at this point. The good thing is that there's still 70 games left to play and Russell has shown throughout his career that he can overcome a rough/bad start to his season, as he did last year. I would suggest patience and holding steady here no matter how frustrating it may be.
The problem is our FO leadership down to KAT. Ends there.
Cam - Always appreciate your thoughtful, informed counterpoints, including the one you posted in this thread. Posts like yours, FNG's, Cool's and others were exactly what I was hoping to elicit when I started this thread.
You make a particularly good point questioning the value of JMac's ability to bring the ball up more quickly given that two of the five starters, KAT and Gobert, aren't fast up and down the court. However, I see JMac's main contribution as the quickened pace and ball movement he facilitates in the half court. I think that argument still holds even though you make a good point, backed statistically, about the negative impact other starters, including KAT, Gobert and Ant, have on the pace.
I want to be clear about two things. First, in no way do I put the blame for the Wolves horrible start entirely on DLO. If I were to single out any player in particular, I'd be just as inclined to identify Ant's play as the main problem. And clearly this team hasn't adapted yet to the very different dynamic resulting from the Gobert trade. Ultimately, Ant and McDaniels have to improve a lot if this team is going to live up to the expectations that came along with the Gobert trade. And of course, as you've acknowledged, DLO's play has to improve a ton as well.
The only two players who have delivered up to expectations so far are KAT and Gobert, although KAT is still adjusting to his new role with Gobert at the five. Prince and SLO MO have been bright spots. And I like what we've seen from JMac so far this season, which carries over from what he provided late last season. Beyond those five, the rest of the roster (and head coach) have been disappointments.
So what can Finch do right now? I'm not sure. I can't see replacing Gobert, KAT or Ant in the starting lineup because I don't see anyone playing better at their respective positions who could replace them. That leaves DLO and McDaniels. I think we'd be better with JMac over DLO based on how they're playing right now, and possibly better with Prince over McDaniels based on how those guys are playing. On the other hand, there are potential longer-term downsides to replacing either of those two in the starting lineup -- stifling Jaden's development, diminishing DLO's market value, etc.
Bottom line is that this team has to play MUCH better to avoid the horrific lottery finish they're headed towards right now. It's still nearly and not time for panic or hopelessness. But the clock is ticking and there is as yet no sign that this team is prepared to get its act together and live up last year's success much less the expectations that came with the Gobert trade.
I think most of us here would agree that the Wolves play a much more pleasing style of basketball when JMac is running the point...both offensively with players cutting and the ball moving much better, as well as defensively. We also would probably agree that JMac is statistically much better than Russell this year...with an admittedly small sample size with just 15% of the season completed. As we debate who might be the better option at PG for the Wolves, I thought it might be helpful to compare their career stats...not just this season.
DLo is obviously the better scorer, with an average of 21.5 points per 36 compared to 10.5 for JMac. But is scoring what this starting lineup needs? Or are JMac's better stats in other areas a better fit with our starters? Here are JMac's facilitating stats per 36 compared to Russell's:
So, JMac gets more assists, while turning the ball over half as much:
What about other effectiveness stats?
Net rating on BasketballReference: JMac +4 (O117, D113), DLo -11 (O104, D113)
WS/48: JMac .101, DLo .54
Career on/off: JMac +14.9, DLo -25.4
Both were very good shooters in college, but have struggled in the pros. Neither has a very good TS%, with JMac slightly better at 53.4 compared to DLo's 53.1. Obviously we need both of them to be more efficient scorers. DLo is a slightly better rebounder, but JMac seems to have made strides in that area this season.
Some might argue that JMac has had better stats because he has been limited to 17 MPG, and that perhaps he would not thrive if given more minutes. But that was the same argument some made about Tyus Jones...that he was a born backup and wouldn't be successful with more minutes. But he blew that hypothesis away last season in the 20 or so games that he started. My observation is that NBA players generally get better, not worse, when given more minutes.
DLo is clearly the better scorer, but I don't think that is the element we need most from our starting point guard. ..we need a reliable game manager willing to move the ball and with a solid A:TO ratio, and that guy is JMac. Finchie has a vision for this team, and it involves ball movement and tight perimeter defense. I think it's pretty clear which of these two PG's is better equipped to execute on Finchie's vision.
Camden wrote:I debated internally about participating in this thread, but there needs to be resistance even if I'm on an island here. Jordan McLaughlin is a lovable player on this roster, and he's proven to be a fine change-of-pace distributor off the bench, but anything more than that is incredibly dicey. There are a number of problems with trying to force him into a starting role no matter who he'd be replacing.
1. McLaughlin is still very inexperienced and unproven at the NBA level -- despite being in his fourth season -- having never played more than 938 minutes (51 games) in any season. For reference, Patrick Beverley played 1,476 minutes (58 games) last year. This board may disagree, but McLaughlin's far from a sure thing and closer to an unknown over the course of an entire season. To this point, he hasn't actually proven that he can be a productive rotation player over a full year let alone a starter. Minnesota needs to keep him in his current role where he's having relative success against other teams' reserves and allow him that opportunity.
2. The argument for starting McLaughlin would presumably be centered around his ability to get the ball up the floor quickly, especially in transition. The main problem with that, aside from fastbreak buckets being less reliable in postseason play, is that the starting lineup as a whole just isn't built to play quickly and get up the floor. Neither Karl-Anthony Towns nor Rudy Gobert -- 6'11 and 7'1, respectively -- are swift up and down the court. Theoretically, Anthony Edwards could thrive in transition given his athleticism, but he's just as guilty as anyone in slowing the ball down and/or playing with inconsistent effort. Simply, the core or blueprint of this team was constructed to execute/rely on halfcourt basketball. That is not where McLaughlin thrives.
3. Typically, if you want to play fast(er), which again would be the biggest reason for starting McLaughlin, then you normally see smaller lineups overall. That idea went out the window once Gobert was acquired. Comparatively, McLaughlin and the second unit do play fast(er), but also because they're smaller. Jaylen Nowell, Taurean Prince, Naz Reid, and McLaughlin get out and run. They push the pace as well as any lineup in the NBA, and they're the reason why Minnesota currently ranks second (!) in pace behind only the Golden State Warriors.
Does that tempo stay high if McLaughlin's playing next to slower-paced players? Very small sample size, but the four-man lineup combination of McLaughlin-Edwards-Towns-Gobert has a pace of 105.56 in 15 minutes so far this season -- faster than Russell-Edwards-Towns-Gobert at 100.85 in 175 minutes, but not quite what we've seen from McLaughlin-Nowell-Prince-Reid (McLaughlin's most-played combination) at 110.83 in 37 minutes. And for the record, that Edwards-Towns-Gobert combination plays slow whether it's Russell, McLaughlin, Nowell, or any other guard sharing the floor with them. They're natural plodders, collectively. Again, they're built to excel in the halfcourt.
4. We do have accessible data that illustrates Minnesota is much better with their current starting point guard than McLaughlin. Now, to be transparent, that's taking into consideration the larger volume of data from last season than the minuscule 12-game sample size that we have thus far, but the point remains. Russell was objectively better across the board (VORP, BPM, On/Off, NetRating, RPM, RAPTOR, etc.) against better competition with practically the same core elements we have now (Towns, Edwards, McDaniels, Nowell, etc.). That's not exactly saying much considering the many differences between the two, but it's apparently being discounted for some reason. Russell is still much better than McLaughlin -- both individually and from a team-standpoint.
We would be hyperreactive, and frankly irresponsible, to allow the six (?) clunkers so far from Russell to change that view. We can certainly acknowledge that this team needs Russell to play much better than he has while also acknowledging that he's still their best option at this point. The good thing is that there's still 70 games left to play and Russell has shown throughout his career that he can overcome a rough/bad start to his season, as he did last year. I would suggest patience and holding steady here no matter how frustrating it may be.
Your take on an high tempo based offense being where McLaughlin would play best is a fair point. However there is no way I can watch DLO and think this guy wouldn't be best as instant offense off the bench, no matter what team in the NBA he is on. You can toss out any stat you want, this guy just isn't a positive unless he's out scoring the PG on the other team.
Hyperreactive, irresponsible to put him in what is likely his best role....you can have your own opinion as a DLO Stan but I disagree.
D-Loser wrote:I agree that jmac probably isn't good enough to be a long term starter, but he does seem to be a better fit with our starters for the short term, so I think we should make this switch here pretty soon. Who knows, maybe he'll even surprise and be a long term starter. I also agree that not drafting a PG in the first round was really really bad. I tried to be optimistic on TC for about a week when we were looking good in the preseason, but this guy has his head so far up his rear end.
What PG in the draft did you want them to draft.
Players they could of draftees
Ty Ty Washington: 0 GP
Jaden Hardy: 2 GP
Chandler: shooting 28% not in rotation
Ryan Rollins: 4 GP not in rotation
JD Davison: 0 GP
Just a silly thing to criticize TC on. No person after Moore (who could be good) is in a nba rotation. No person after Moore (who could be good) is in a nba rotation.
Also what FA PG did you want the wolves to get. The wolves had the MLE. Tyus went for more than that. Who did you want instead. Sexton went for more. I guess Rubio was in the price range but he is still out for months.
They could of traded for Murray that is it. Just a silly and unfair take to say TC was dumb for not addressing the PG position
Kek, you left out Andrew Nembhard, who I was quite high on and he's now starting and doing well for Indiana. I liked him better than Moore.
Trading for Murray made a lot of sense too and I advocated for it and he would have been a much better fit, it would allow Wolves to dump DLO and get an up and coming two way star on a nice contract. Getting a rim protector is a lot easier than finding a two way point guard like Murray. Adding Murray and someone like Hartenstein and grooming Kessler made so much more sense than giving up so much future for an aging center who is a questionable fit here on a much bigger contract and not addressing the point guard situation.
My bad in the Nembhard thing. Legit just went to basketball reference and clicked every player picked after Moore and Nembhard was listed as a SG. I personally don't know much about him
I don't know whether to put this post in the Finch thread or this one, because I don't know whom to blame, but there was a bizarre moment in the second quarter of the Suns game. The Wolves had closed within 8 points and DLo was waiting at the scorer's table to check in...he thought for Nowell who was at the free throw line. But Finchie was actually subbing him in for Prince, who was already on the bench. So the Wolves defended the Suns with only 4 players, and of course the Suns got an uncontested 3! How can that happen??? Did Finchie not make it clear whom Russell was going in for, or was Russell not paying attention? Either way, I can't decide whether to laugh or cry about it.
Now, a cynic might say that our perimeter defense on that possession was no worse with just 4 out there and DLo waiting to check in...
