Minnesota Sports Forum

The dust hasn't quite settled on the Wolves 2017 offseason, but it's clear the main work has been done. The Butler deal has instantly put the Wolves on the map as a likely playoff team this upcoming season and expectations have risen to the point where many of us would be disappointed with just an 8th or 7th seed.

There is a lot of positivity among Wolves fans, including those who post regularly on this board. I'm relatively optimistic, but less so than many. And while I continue to try to convince myself to be positive, I'm haunted by some serious concerns about this team -- concerns that I think some wolves fans are tending to overlook because it gets in the way of the more positive narrative we'd all like to dominate our thinking. So here are my concerns:

1. Lack of 3-point shooting. Last season the Wolves were last in made 3 pointers. Through all the changes so far this summer, the Wolves have failed to upgrade the team's 3-point shooting. Tim Legler pointed out this morning that the Wolves starting line up going into next season averages 4.8 three point attempts per game. Tim went on to say that just doesn't get it done in today's NBA. We have no 3-point marksmen in our starting lineup or on our bench.

2. Absence of any two-way wings off the bench. I've harped on this for quite a while. We have one rotation wing off the bench on our roster in Crawford and he's always been a one-way offensive player, even well before he turned 37 years old.

3. Butler's durability. I like the Jimmy Butler deal, so don't get me wrong. But as I've pointed out many times, Jimmy missed around 15 games per season with various injuries before last season. The Butler durability concern is magnified by the lack of any two-way depth at either wing position.

I don't know how we can effectively address our lack of 3-point shooting and lack of wing depth at this point when we have only around $1.5 million in cap space and no cap exceptions other than the vet minimum to work with. We can sign a Dunleavy for 3-point shooting, but his role would be extremely limited. The West is loaded with teams that have multiple three point shooters in their starting lineups or at least in their core 6 or 7-man rotation.

I think your concerns are valid. This team is definitely still a work in progress. It may take another offseason before we find ourselves with the type of balanced team needed to compete in the West.

I think the 3pt shooting is just way overblown. Having multiple drive and kick guys is going to secure a healthy volume of 3's and we have a roster stacked with league average 3pt shooters. Teague, Butler, Wiggins. All guys who were primary ball handlers on their teams last year and all 3 get to the rack almost at will. That's gonna lead to more traditional 3pt looks that come as a result of dribble penetration. Everyone is over-correcting for the 3pt shot and they don't see why teams like the Warriors and Rockets can shoot that volume. They can do that because they have elite drive and kick guys and in the Warriors case they have guys who can hit 3's off the dribble which nobody else has. We didn't have any true drive and kick guys on the team last year who could also be scoring threats at the rim. We have 2 now and Wiggins may eventually learn the kick part to have 3 guys who are great at it. Sending the extra help defender to stop our guys at the rim is gonna open up plenty of open, spot up 3's which will improve our 3pt shooting over half the contested crap we shot last year. Towns and Wiggins will see significantly higher 3pt volume and likely better percentages playing next to Butler and Teague. We'll be fine. We won't be top 10, but we'll be good enough which is all that matters given how elite we'll be scoring in the paint and getting to the line.

Agree with Kahns. The other component overlooked is that we were 6th in made free throws last year. That only improves with Butler. While elite 3 point shooting teams may get 4-5 extra points via the 3, we will also hold an advantage most nights at the FT line. This can't be overlooked in the makeup of this team.

One thing I like about this team even though I hate the transitory aspect of it is that there is a lot of new pieces that will be worked in and there is basically built in flexibility to the roster to make changes. Sure 3 point shooting is an obvious need but 6-10 months from now it may be much more clear what this roster needs. There are a lot of questions about how the top players fit together and eventually what will be a good complement to them. I feel confident this team will be able to sign some worthwhile players yet and they will likely basically be 1 year deals so this team will have plenty of flexibility to add a guy here and there with some decent players filling roles.

One of the biggest question that hasn't been talked about a whole lot that Jim Peterson has brought up a number of tiles every year is that the team doesn't really have an identity. It feels like this team may actually have one this year. If so that would be a pretty big deal.

1. Three point shooting... I assume it can be seen one of two ways:

- Nobody shot more than 3.5 attempts per game last season. And none of them average better than 37% for efficiency!

- Four of the starters shoot 3+ attempts per game... and all are at or above league average efficiency! With so many options capable of hitting shots from out there... the defense can't gear up to stop any one guy!

Personally, I think it's a concern. It would be nice at least to have more three point firepower off the bench. Or a coach who's proven to be more committed to the shot. That being said... this team is far from perfect. Let's not forget it lost 51 games last season. An improvement should be expected... but there are still going to be gaping holes right now.

2. Two-way wing players. Guys are bench players for a reason. If they were a legit two-way player... they'd probably start elsewhere at a much different salary. That being said... some teams opt for more of a specialist role off the bench. And that's not a terrible idea considering the Wolves have Butler as one of the league's best two-way wings. Teague as a respectable one. Hope for Wiggins to eventually get there... along with Towns.

But yes. It's thin. And Crawford is a flawed player. But this is Year 1 for that group.

3. Two ways to look at the Butler injury history:

- He had missed at least 15 games for 3 straight seasons!

- Butler has averaged at least 37 mpg for 4 straight seasons without a serious injury. He was 6th in minutes played last season!

Considering it hasn't been a serious knee/foot/ankle injury that can reoccur... I'm cool with Butler's injury track record at this point. Not perfect... but not terrible.

It's interesting to take a close look at the Wolves' team metrics from last season. We were 14th in points per game, but not too much worse in points allowed per game at 19th. Neither metric is a prescription for being a top 5 team in the West. But what seems clear is that to be an elite NBA team you have to be really, really good on one side of the ball or the other.

I'm going to count as elite teams those that won at least 47 games last season. Using that threshold, there were 10 teams that fell into the "elite category." All of those teams were top 10 in one or the other - points allowed or points per game. 7 of those 10 teams finished in the top 10 in points per game and only 1 of those teams (Clippers) also finished top 10 in points allowed. Utah, San Antonio and Toronto were the 3 teams that finished in the top 10 in points allowed, but not points scored. Utah and the Spurs were #1 and #2 respectively in points allowed. The three teams with at least 55 wins were GS, Houston and the Spurs. GS and Houston were #1 and 2 respectively in PPG while the Spurs were #2 in points allowed and tied with the Wolves for PPG. The final 4 playoff teams (Boston, Cleveland, GS and Houston) all finished in the top 10 in PPG and none finished top 10 in points allowed.

I have two take-aways from these metrics. First, to contend for a championship, you had better be near the top on one side of the ball or the other. Second, offense tends to trump defense (but not always as the Spurs showed us) as the key to being a top team in today's NBA.

With the additions of Butler and Taj along with Thibs reputation as a defensive guru, it might appear that Thibs is seeking to build a defensive identity a la the Spurs. But replacing Ricky with Teague and adding Crawford as a main rotation bench guy doesn't support that identify. When Thibs says "you need to be strong on both sides of the ball" it resonates with me. Nevertheless, a review of these two metrics from last season suggests that the true key is to be really strong on one side or the other. And as Houston showed us last season, winning 55 games while finishing 26th in points allowed, you can be really bad on one side of the ball if you're really elite on the other.

I know it's not as simple as these two metrics might suggest. But it is interesting nonetheless.

A really interesting Wolves metric from last season was the quarter by quarter breakdown in points, points allowed and margin. Consider the following 1st half metrics:

1st Quarter: 8th in points allowed, 6th in PPG and 4th in margin
2nd Quarter: 17th in points allowed, 7th in PPG and 10th in margin

Now take a look at the 2nd half metrics:

3rd Quarter: 21st points allowed, 24th PPG, and 29th in margin
4th Quarter: 20th in points allowed, 24th in PPG and 26th in margin

Some takeaways from these data. First, it wasn't about "closing out games" as Thibs and some pundits have suggested. Yes, we were terrible in 4th quarters, but we were even slightly worse in 3rd quarters. Second, and more importantly, these metrics tell a tale of two different Wolves teams. The 2nd half team last season bore no resemblance to the 1st half team.

The question to answer -- the questions Thibs absolutely has to answer - is why. Why did the same personnel with the same coaching staff go from being a top 4 team in 1st quarter and top 10 team in the 2nd (based on point differential) to a bottom 2 team in the 3rd and bottom 4 team in the 4th?

Note that the drop off in the 2nd half was even more pronounced on the offensive side of the ball than the defensive side.

lipoli390 wrote:It's interesting to take a close look at the Wolves' team metrics from last season. We were 14th in points per game, but not too much worse in points allowed per game at 19th. Neither metric is a prescription for being a top 5 team in the West. But what seems clear is that to be an elite NBA team you have to be really, really good on one side of the ball or the other.

I'm going to count as elite teams those that won at least 47 games last season. Using that threshold, there were 10 teams that fell into the "elite category." All of those teams were top 10 in one or the other - points allowed or points per game. 7 of those 10 teams finished in the top 10 in points per game and only 1 of those teams (Clippers) also finished top 10 in points allowed. Utah, San Antonio and Toronto were the 3 teams that finished in the top 10 in points allowed, but not points scored. Utah and the Spurs were #1 and #2 respectively in points allowed. The three teams with at least 55 wins were GS, Houston and the Spurs. GS and Houston were #1 and 2 respectively in PPG while the Spurs were #2 in points allowed and tied with the Wolves for PPG. The final 4 playoff teams (Boston, Cleveland, GS and Houston) all finished in the top 10 in PPG and none finished top 10 in points allowed.

I have two take-aways from these metrics. First, to contend for a championship, you had better be near the top on one side of the ball or the other. Second, offense tends to trump defense (but not always as the Spurs showed us) as the key to being a top team in today's NBA.

With the additions of Butler and Taj along with Thibs reputation as a defensive guru, it might appear that Thibs is seeking to build a defensive identity a la the Spurs. But replacing Ricky with Teague and adding Crawford as a main rotation bench guy doesn't support that identify. When Thibs says "you need to be strong on both sides of the ball" it resonates with me. Nevertheless, a review of these two metrics from last season suggests that the true key is to be really strong on one side or the other. And as Houston showed us last season, winning 55 games while finishing 26th in points allowed, you can be really bad on one side of the ball if you're really elite on the other.

I know it's not as simple as these two metrics might suggest. But it is interesting nonetheless.

While I agree with premise... PF and PA may not be the best metric. I remember the 1991 Denver Nuggets...

I think Off and Def Efficiency ratings might be better... and prove similar results.

Which makes me think about the 2014 Wolves. That team was a Top 10 Offensive AND Defensive team until about the last week of the season -- and still finished below .500.

I'm nearly positive that's never happened before/after.



[Note: They finished 9th on Offense... and 12th on Defense... but 17th in overall record.]

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:It's interesting to take a close look at the Wolves' team metrics from last season. We were 14th in points per game, but not too much worse in points allowed per game at 19th. Neither metric is a prescription for being a top 5 team in the West. But what seems clear is that to be an elite NBA team you have to be really, really good on one side of the ball or the other.

I'm going to count as elite teams those that won at least 47 games last season. Using that threshold, there were 10 teams that fell into the "elite category." All of those teams were top 10 in one or the other - points allowed or points per game. 7 of those 10 teams finished in the top 10 in points per game and only 1 of those teams (Clippers) also finished top 10 in points allowed. Utah, San Antonio and Toronto were the 3 teams that finished in the top 10 in points allowed, but not points scored. Utah and the Spurs were #1 and #2 respectively in points allowed. The three teams with at least 55 wins were GS, Houston and the Spurs. GS and Houston were #1 and 2 respectively in PPG while the Spurs were #2 in points allowed and tied with the Wolves for PPG. The final 4 playoff teams (Boston, Cleveland, GS and Houston) all finished in the top 10 in PPG and none finished top 10 in points allowed.

I have two take-aways from these metrics. First, to contend for a championship, you had better be near the top on one side of the ball or the other. Second, offense tends to trump defense (but not always as the Spurs showed us) as the key to being a top team in today's NBA.

With the additions of Butler and Taj along with Thibs reputation as a defensive guru, it might appear that Thibs is seeking to build a defensive identity a la the Spurs. But replacing Ricky with Teague and adding Crawford as a main rotation bench guy doesn't support that identify. When Thibs says "you need to be strong on both sides of the ball" it resonates with me. Nevertheless, a review of these two metrics from last season suggests that the true key is to be really strong on one side or the other. And as Houston showed us last season, winning 55 games while finishing 26th in points allowed, you can be really bad on one side of the ball if you're really elite on the other.

I know it's not as simple as these two metrics might suggest. But it is interesting nonetheless.

While I agree with premise... PF and PA may not be the best metric. I remember the 1991 Denver Nuggets...

I think Off and Def Efficiency ratings might be better... and prove similar results.

Which makes me think about the 2014 Wolves. That team was a Top 10 Offensive AND Defensive team until about the last week of the season -- and still finished below .500.

I'm nearly positive that's never happened before/after.



[Note: They finished 9th on Offense... and 12th on Defense... but 17th in overall record.]

There are exceptions to every rule. And leave it to the Wolves to be the negative exception to what is otherwise generally a positive. :)