Minnesota Sports Forum

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 10:30 am

Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 10:30 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 12:50 pm So I think there are plenty of valid arguments to make to say that Ant could be a top 5 player next year, however, in the spirit of the thread I think we still need ask what can this team do to win a championship if we assume that he isn't that.

Small digression here, but the objective evidence is that Ant is not a top 5 player. Coming into the season, there were those who would have said he was, but there is simply no arguing that Wemby has knocked him down to at least the 6th best player -I would personally regard him lower than that. Outside of subjective rankings, he misses the mark in impact metrics (net rating, vorp, rapm, +/-, epm), he still hasn't made an all NBA 1st team and probably wouldn't have this year if he could have, and has never finished top 5 in MVP votes. The most favorable metric for Edwards is Darko's DPM, which is imo the best catch all metric and the most predictive; this stat tells a confusing story as well. In April at the end of the RS, Ant had an elite 4.9 DPM which iirc was good for 4th or 5th in the league- by post season's end he has dropped all the way to 3.6, a good number, but not exactly a something you see from a championship number 1. Funny enough, all three of Kat, Brunsen and OG finished with a 3.6 DPM --- pretty rare to see 3 guys from the same team finish that high. Anyway all of that to say, at best, Ant is measurably, just outside the top 5 of the league.

So how does this team maneuver a good but not elite roster to well.... An elite one?

Do the Knicks have an “elite roster”? They obviously have a championship roster. Ant’s not a top 5 player, but I’d say he’s an elite player. Any top 15 player in the NBA is elite and Ant is probably top 10. So we have an elite player, Edwards, who is top 10 and might move up to top 5. And we have some very good players in Jaden, Naz and Ayo assuming we retain him. We have a borderline all-star in Randle and a top three defensive player in Rudy. The question in my mind isn’t how we move to an “elite roster.” The question is how we create a “championship” roster around a pretty rare elite player named Anthony Edwards. I don’t know exactly how we do that but that’s the challenge for Tim Connelly. I think he has enough to work with if he’s shrewd and strategic. As we’ve discussed in other threads, the answer clearly isn’t trading valuable assets for an aging former star. Just consider how the Suns and Rockets faired when they traded for Durant. But I think there are some moves TC can make that would make the Wolves a significantly better team. I don’t know what those moves are, but I’m convinced those opportunities are there for TC to find and act on.

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 10:30 am

Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 10:30 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 12:50 pm So I think there are plenty of valid arguments to make to say that Ant could be a top 5 player next year, however, in the spirit of the thread I think we still need ask what can this team do to win a championship if we assume that he isn't that.

Small digression here, but the objective evidence is that Ant is not a top 5 player. Coming into the season, there were those who would have said he was, but there is simply no arguing that Wemby has knocked him down to at least the 6th best player -I would personally regard him lower than that. Outside of subjective rankings, he misses the mark in impact metrics (net rating, vorp, rapm, +/-, epm), he still hasn't made an all NBA 1st team and probably wouldn't have this year if he could have, and has never finished top 5 in MVP votes. The most favorable metric for Edwards is Darko's DPM, which is imo the best catch all metric and the most predictive; this stat tells a confusing story as well. In April at the end of the RS, Ant had an elite 4.9 DPM which iirc was good for 4th or 5th in the league- by post season's end he has dropped all the way to 3.6, a good number, but not exactly a something you see from a championship number 1. Funny enough, all three of Kat, Brunsen and OG finished with a 3.6 DPM --- pretty rare to see 3 guys from the same team finish that high. Anyway all of that to say, at best, Ant is measurably, just outside the top 5 of the league.

So how does this team maneuver a good but not elite roster to well.... An elite one?

Do the Knicks have an “elite roster”? They obviously have a championship roster. Ant’s not a top 5 player, but I’d say he’s an elite player. Any top 15 player in the NBA is elite and Ant is probably top 10. So we have an elite player, Edwards, who is top 10 and might move up to top 5. And we have some very good players in Jaden, Naz and Ayo assuming we retain him. We have a borderline all-star in Randle and a top three defensive player in Rudy. The question in my mind isn’t how we move to an “elite roster.” The question is how we create a “championship” roster around a pretty rare elite player named Anthony Edwards. I don’t know exactly how we do that but that’s the challenge for Tim Connelly. I think he has enough to work with if he’s shrewd and strategic. As we’ve discussed in other threads, the answer clearly isn’t trading valuable assets for an aging former star. Just consider how the Suns and Rockets faired when they traded for Durant. But I think there are some moves TC can make that would make the Wolves a significantly better team. I don’t know what those moves are, but I’m convinced those opportunities are there for TC to find and act on.

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 10:30 am

Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 10:30 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 12:50 pm So I think there are plenty of valid arguments to make to say that Ant could be a top 5 player next year, however, in the spirit of the thread I think we still need ask what can this team do to win a championship if we assume that he isn't that.

Small digression here, but the objective evidence is that Ant is not a top 5 player. Coming into the season, there were those who would have said he was, but there is simply no arguing that Wemby has knocked him down to at least the 6th best player -I would personally regard him lower than that. Outside of subjective rankings, he misses the mark in impact metrics (net rating, vorp, rapm, +/-, epm), he still hasn't made an all NBA 1st team and probably wouldn't have this year if he could have, and has never finished top 5 in MVP votes. The most favorable metric for Edwards is Darko's DPM, which is imo the best catch all metric and the most predictive; this stat tells a confusing story as well. In April at the end of the RS, Ant had an elite 4.9 DPM which iirc was good for 4th or 5th in the league- by post season's end he has dropped all the way to 3.6, a good number, but not exactly a something you see from a championship number 1. Funny enough, all three of Kat, Brunsen and OG finished with a 3.6 DPM --- pretty rare to see 3 guys from the same team finish that high. Anyway all of that to say, at best, Ant is measurably, just outside the top 5 of the league.

So how does this team maneuver a good but not elite roster to well.... An elite one?

Do the Knicks have an “elite roster”? They obviously have a championship roster. Ant’s not a top 5 player, but I’d say he’s an elite player. Any top 15 player in the NBA is elite and Ant is probably top 10. So we have an elite player, Edwards, who is top 10 and might move up to top 5. And we have some very good players in Jaden, Naz and Ayo assuming we retain him. We have a borderline all-star in Randle and a top three defensive player in Rudy. The question in my mind isn’t how we move to an “elite roster.” The question is how we create a “championship” roster around a pretty rare elite player named Anthony Edwards. I don’t know exactly how we do that but that’s the challenge for Tim Connelly. I think he has enough to work with if he’s shrewd and strategic. As we’ve discussed in other threads, the answer clearly isn’t trading valuable assets for an aging former star. Just consider how the Suns and Rockets faired when they traded for Durant. But I think there are some moves TC can make that would make the Wolves a significantly better team. I don’t know what those moves are, but I’m convinced those opportunities are there for TC to find and act on.

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 3:24 pm

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 10:30 am

Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 10:30 pm

Do the Knicks have an “elite roster”? They obviously have a championship roster. Ant’s not a top 5 player, but I’d say he’s an elite player. Any top 15 player in the NBA is elite and Ant is probably top 10. So we have an elite player, Edwards, who is top 10 and might move up to top 5. And we have some very good players in Jaden, Naz and Ayo assuming we retain him. We have a borderline all-star in Randle and a top three defensive player in Rudy. The question in my mind isn’t how we move to an “elite roster.” The question is how we create a “championship” roster around a pretty rare elite player named Anthony Edwards. I don’t know exactly how we do that but that’s the challenge for Tim Connelly. I think he has enough to work with if he’s shrewd and strategic. As we’ve discussed in other threads, the answer clearly isn’t trading valuable assets for an aging former star. Just consider how the Suns and Rockets faired when they traded for Durant. But I think there are some moves TC can make that would make the Wolves a significantly better team. I don’t know what those moves are, but I’m convinced those opportunities are there for TC to find and act on.

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

I agree with your conclusion....I think. I've longed bemoaned the wolves imbalanced roster and to be honest it would be one of the main reason I would want to trade Rudy, although I'm not sure I actually do. However, it is absolutely the reason they need a reset.

That said, I need to pick at something you've said:

"an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player"

And

"They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings."

I agree with your first point, but... Do you think Brunsen is a more competent defender than Ant? If you're willing to say the 2nd statement regarding Brunsen, does that not apply exactly to Ant? Ant is as good or better on both sides of the ball, that's inarguable.

The only reason I even care to pick this bone is because of how it relates to building the team. The Knicks just showed us that you can survive a Brunsen (or Ant) level defender. I desperately want to see Ant become the two monster he can be, but I'm not counting on it and to be honest it isn't absolutely necessary --- as you suggest it is. In all actuality, I would say the best way to get Ant to his best defensive impact while maintaining his offensive brilliance is to insulate him on that end as much as possible and allow him the freedom to be a playmaker on defense.

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 3:24 pm

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 10:30 am

Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 10:30 pm

Do the Knicks have an “elite roster”? They obviously have a championship roster. Ant’s not a top 5 player, but I’d say he’s an elite player. Any top 15 player in the NBA is elite and Ant is probably top 10. So we have an elite player, Edwards, who is top 10 and might move up to top 5. And we have some very good players in Jaden, Naz and Ayo assuming we retain him. We have a borderline all-star in Randle and a top three defensive player in Rudy. The question in my mind isn’t how we move to an “elite roster.” The question is how we create a “championship” roster around a pretty rare elite player named Anthony Edwards. I don’t know exactly how we do that but that’s the challenge for Tim Connelly. I think he has enough to work with if he’s shrewd and strategic. As we’ve discussed in other threads, the answer clearly isn’t trading valuable assets for an aging former star. Just consider how the Suns and Rockets faired when they traded for Durant. But I think there are some moves TC can make that would make the Wolves a significantly better team. I don’t know what those moves are, but I’m convinced those opportunities are there for TC to find and act on.

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

I agree with your conclusion....I think. I've longed bemoaned the wolves imbalanced roster and to be honest it would be one of the main reason I would want to trade Rudy, although I'm not sure I actually do. However, it is absolutely the reason they need a reset.

That said, I need to pick at something you've said:

"an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player"

And

"They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings."

I agree with your first point, but... Do you think Brunsen is a more competent defender than Ant? If you're willing to say the 2nd statement regarding Brunsen, does that not apply exactly to Ant? Ant is as good or better on both sides of the ball, that's inarguable.

The only reason I even care to pick this bone is because of how it relates to building the team. The Knicks just showed us that you can survive a Brunsen (or Ant) level defender. I desperately want to see Ant become the two monster he can be, but I'm not counting on it and to be honest it isn't absolutely necessary --- as you suggest it is. In all actuality, I would say the best way to get Ant to his best defensive impact while maintaining his offensive brilliance is to insulate him on that end as much as possible and allow him the freedom to be a playmaker on defense.

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 4:14 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 3:24 pm

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 10:30 am

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

I agree with your conclusion....I think. I've longed bemoaned the wolves imbalanced roster and to be honest it would be one of the main reason I would want to trade Rudy, although I'm not sure I actually do. However, it is absolutely the reason they need a reset.

That said, I need to pick at something you've said:

"an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player"

And

"They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings."

I agree with your first point, but... Do you think Brunsen is a more competent defender than Ant? If you're willing to say the 2nd statement regarding Brunsen, does that not apply exactly to Ant? Ant is as good or better on both sides of the ball, that's inarguable.

The only reason I even care to pick this bone is because of how it relates to building the team. The Knicks just showed us that you can survive a Brunsen (or Ant) level defender. I desperately want to see Ant become the two monster he can be, but I'm not counting on it and to be honest it isn't absolutely necessary --- as you suggest it is. In all actuality, I would say the best way to get Ant to his best defensive impact while maintaining his offensive brilliance is to insulate him on that end as much as possible and allow him the freedom to be a playmaker on defense.

Your question about Ant's and Brunson's relative defensive abilities is a fair one, Aussie, and their strengths and weaknesses are actually quite different. Ant has the physical attributes and athleticism to be a very good on-ball defender (and Brunson doesn't), but his on-ball effort is just not consistent. But I give the nod to Brunson for two reasons: as Abe has pointed out, he is tough and elite at drawing charges (similar to our guy Shannon). And second, he is a very smart off ball defender (similar to Conley in my opinion), and that makes up for his relatively weaker on-ball defense. There's no question in my mind though that Ant's defensive ceiling is much higher than Brunson's.

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 4:14 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 3:24 pm

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 10:30 am

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

I agree with your conclusion....I think. I've longed bemoaned the wolves imbalanced roster and to be honest it would be one of the main reason I would want to trade Rudy, although I'm not sure I actually do. However, it is absolutely the reason they need a reset.

That said, I need to pick at something you've said:

"an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player"

And

"They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings."

I agree with your first point, but... Do you think Brunsen is a more competent defender than Ant? If you're willing to say the 2nd statement regarding Brunsen, does that not apply exactly to Ant? Ant is as good or better on both sides of the ball, that's inarguable.

The only reason I even care to pick this bone is because of how it relates to building the team. The Knicks just showed us that you can survive a Brunsen (or Ant) level defender. I desperately want to see Ant become the two monster he can be, but I'm not counting on it and to be honest it isn't absolutely necessary --- as you suggest it is. In all actuality, I would say the best way to get Ant to his best defensive impact while maintaining his offensive brilliance is to insulate him on that end as much as possible and allow him the freedom to be a playmaker on defense.

Your question about Ant's and Brunson's relative defensive abilities is a fair one, Aussie, and their strengths and weaknesses are actually quite different. Ant has the physical attributes and athleticism to be a very good on-ball defender (and Brunson doesn't), but his on-ball effort is just not consistent. But I give the nod to Brunson for two reasons: as Abe has pointed out, he is tough and elite at drawing charges (similar to our guy Shannon). And second, he is a very smart off ball defender (similar to Conley in my opinion), and that makes up for his relatively weaker on-ball defense. There's no question in my mind though that Ant's defensive ceiling is much higher than Brunson's.

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 6:47 pm

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 4:14 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 3:24 pm
I agree with your conclusion....I think. I've longed bemoaned the wolves imbalanced roster and to be honest it would be one of the main reason I would want to trade Rudy, although I'm not sure I actually do. However, it is absolutely the reason they need a reset.

That said, I need to pick at something you've said:

"an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player"

And

"They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings."

I agree with your first point, but... Do you think Brunsen is a more competent defender than Ant? If you're willing to say the 2nd statement regarding Brunsen, does that not apply exactly to Ant? Ant is as good or better on both sides of the ball, that's inarguable.

The only reason I even care to pick this bone is because of how it relates to building the team. The Knicks just showed us that you can survive a Brunsen (or Ant) level defender. I desperately want to see Ant become the two monster he can be, but I'm not counting on it and to be honest it isn't absolutely necessary --- as you suggest it is. In all actuality, I would say the best way to get Ant to his best defensive impact while maintaining his offensive brilliance is to insulate him on that end as much as possible and allow him the freedom to be a playmaker on defense.

Your question about Ant's and Brunson's relative defensive abilities is a fair one, Aussie, and their strengths and weaknesses are actually quite different. Ant has the physical attributes and athleticism to be a very good on-ball defender (and Brunson doesn't), but his on-ball effort is just not consistent. But I give the nod to Brunson for two reasons: as Abe has pointed out, he is tough and elite at drawing charges (similar to our guy Shannon). And second, he is a very smart off ball defender (similar to Conley in my opinion), and that makes up for his relatively weaker on-ball defense. There's no question in my mind though that Ant's defensive ceiling is much higher than Brunson's.

I'm sorry but this is parody.

EPM- Brunsen: -1.6; Ant: -0.5
DDPM- Brunsen: -1.5; Ant: -0.13
D on/off- Brunsen: -7.3; Ant- 5.5
Net points per100- Brunsen: -1; Ant: +0.3

And then of course there is observable reality.... There is no world where Brunsen could body up Jaren Jackson Jr and shut his water off, none.

Ant's defensive numbers are honestly depressing and obviously well below what he's capable of, but even at his worst he's a better defender, in a very obvious and objective way.

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 7:22 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 6:47 pm

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 4:14 pm

Your question about Ant's and Brunson's relative defensive abilities is a fair one, Aussie, and their strengths and weaknesses are actually quite different. Ant has the physical attributes and athleticism to be a very good on-ball defender (and Brunson doesn't), but his on-ball effort is just not consistent. But I give the nod to Brunson for two reasons: as Abe has pointed out, he is tough and elite at drawing charges (similar to our guy Shannon). And second, he is a very smart off ball defender (similar to Conley in my opinion), and that makes up for his relatively weaker on-ball defense. There's no question in my mind though that Ant's defensive ceiling is much higher than Brunson's.

I'm sorry but this is parody.

EPM- Brunsen: -1.6; Ant: -0.5
DDPM- Brunsen: -1.5; Ant: -0.13
D on/off- Brunsen: -7.3; Ant- 5.5
Net points per100- Brunsen: -1; Ant: +0.3

And then of course there is observable reality.... There is no world where Brunsen could body up Jaren Jackson Jr and shut his water off, none.

Ant's defensive numbers are honestly depressing and obviously well below what he's capable of, but even at his worst he's a better defender, in a very obvious and objective way.

Yeah, that makes sense. WildWolf is our man on the ground in NY, and he would have to tell us if Brunson gets pilloried as much for his poor defense by the local media as much as Ant does...maybe he does. In any event despite playing different positions, I see many similarities in the two of them in terms of their impact on their teams. Both rank out of the top 10 in the Association in most analytical stats despite each being the clear face of their franchises and terrific offensive players, and it's mostly because of their defensive struggles. Opponents score 5.7 points more per 100 when Ant is on the floor compared to off, and 5.3 points more for Brunson...both the worst marks on their respective teams. But on the flip side the Wolves score 5.8 more points per 100 when Ant is on the floor and 6.6 more for Brunson...both either the best or close to the best on their respective teams. Mirror images of each other! And both have the ability to carry a team at crunch time like Brunson did in game 5 and Ant did several times in the first half of the season. But again, I think most would agree that Ant has more upside in his defense...we just need to see it more frequently.