Minnesota Sports Forum

Ok. I admit it...I wish OkC or the Pellies would have lost last night, and since they didn't, I actually would have preferred a Wolves' loss for the reasons laid out in the "failure thread". But I also remember the excitement of 2004, and it's fun to be back in the playoffs again. Just my luck that after waiting 14 years, I'll be out of town for Game 3...but I will be in my seats for Game 4 cheering for an upset. How much fun will that game be if Houston is only up 2-1 going in?

We all know these two teams well, and the matchup looks lopsided. Houston easily won all four games this season...3 by 18 points and the "close" one by only 9. While I recognize the brilliance of Harden and Paul, nobody can convince me that a team with Butler, Towns and Wiggins is any less talented. The difference between these two teams is very simple to understand...coaching. One coach understands the modern NBA and designs an offense around the 3-point shot and a defense around stopping the 3-point shot and layups, while the other thinks it is still 1970, and designs his offense around dribbling and the Iso 2-point shot and his defense around stopping the long 2. Just look at the 3-point imbalance in the four games the two teams played this season. Houston took more than 30 3's in all 4 games (led by an amazing 47 attempts in game 3!), while the Wolves never got out of the 20s. The Rockets averaged an incredible 16 1/2 more threes per game than the Wolves in the 4 games they played this season...and that is not a winning formula.

Some may say "this isn't Thibs' fault...he just doesn't have the shooters Houston has, so he has to play a more conservative offense.". But that's a false narrative. Anybody who goes to a game and watches the Wolves pre-game and halftime shoot around can see that we have several guys who seldom miss an open shot beyond the arc. And in fact, the two teams' 3-point percentages this season are almost identical! The difference between the two teams is not 3-poinit accuracy, it's volume...and that's all about coaching philosophy, not talent.

So now Thibs has an opportunity to prove his naysayers wrong. If he adjusts his antiquated offensive and defensive philosophies and actually designs a modern game plan, I will be the first to jump on his band wagon. But unfortunately, he has proven his stubbornness over and over again, so I expect we will see the same old tired offensive and defensive schemes. Allowing the other team to take 16 1/2 more threes than you take is essentially spotting the other team 16 1/2 points to start the game, and we aren't good enough to overcome that kind of deficit...nobody is.

To sum up...it's great to be back in the playoffs, but my expectations are low. The Wolves win one of the two home games, but are drastically outcoached and lose this series 4-1.

Good post, LST. I agree you, although I also think Thibs the PBO should have signed someone in the last 12 months with a 3-point shooting percentage of at least 37%. But otherwise, I agree that the main issue on our poor 3-point shooting is volume or lack thereof. We're middle of the pack in 3-point percentage but dead last in 3 pointers made. Obviously, that's by design and reflects Thibs' approach to the game as does our poor 3-point defense that we all saw plainly in that color-coated graphic posted in another thread.

I thought the following quote from Glen Taylor after last night's game was interesting and consistent with your post in this thread. Here's what Glen said when asked for his thoughts about last night's win:

"I think we had high expectations. We wanted to get into the playoffs," Taylor said. "I think they can play better. I hope when they go into the playoffs that we even improve our play."

When asked how he felt about the coaching job of Tom Thibodeau, Taylor kept it simple: "Thank goodness he got us into the playoffs," he said.

Glen saying, "I think they can play better" is revealing. It tells me he thinks this team has underachieved relative to its talent. Even more revealing was Glen's response to the question about Thibodeau. When asked to comment on Thib' coaching, Glen didn't praise him at all. He didn't say, he brought us toughness or that he showed why it's a great coach. It didn't say "that's why I hired him." No, Glen simply said "thank goodness he got us into the playoffs." I now have no doubt Glen would have fired him if we hadn't made the playoffs. But I don't see how he can fire Thibs now, although getting trounced in every game of a 4-game sweep might be enough given how I think Glen feels about Thibs. But there's no way Glen fires Thibs if we make a good showing against the Rockets -- i.e., win a couple games and make it close in at least a couple of the losses. What do you think?

Correct me if I'm wrong... but you're not a big Thibs fan?




[Note: 16.5 more per game isn't even that bad. It might be worse in the next 4 games. Overall... Houston averages 20 more three pointers than MN on the season. I get the criticism in the antiquated offense... but it's slightly disingenuous to use the league's outlier team to rip a specific thing. For example, Houston takes nearly 14 more three pointers than GSW... "Steve Kerr is just giving them 14 more! Popovich is giving them 18 more!"]

Interesting post, but the biggest difference in this series is not coaching, as you say. I have some serious disagreements with things Thibodeau -- both the PBO and HC -- has done during his time with the Wolves, but overall I still think he's a good coach despite how often he gets ripped here.

The biggest difference between these two teams besides three-point shooting is depth, in my opinion. I don't know how the numbers look, but the Rockets have Eric Gordon, P.J. Tucker, Gerald Green, Nene Hilario, Luc Mbah a Moute, and Joe Johnson capable of coming off the bench for them. Those are quality players to rely on. The Wolves don't have anything like that. We have Tyus Jones and sometimes Nemanja Bjelica. Sorry, I can't put Jamal Crawford or Derrick Rose anywhere near the reliable range, especially when one of them sometimes plays SF minutes. To me, that's our biggest disadvantage.

If it were a series where starters played against starters for 48 minutes, we'd potentially have the advantage. Believe it or not, the 2nd-best total plus/minus (+/-) for a starting five in the NBA this year was Minnesota's finest -- Jeff Teague, Jimmy Butler, Andrew Wiggins, Taj Gibson, and Karl-Anthony Towns. They were a +169 in 1,131 minutes. The only team above them was Philadelphia.

To conclude, our starters can hang with anybody. As much as we nitpick about this or that, Wiggins or Thibs, or even Teague, none of them have been our biggest problem this year. We have the worst bench in basketball and that has been a killer. It will almost certainly be the primary reason we don't make much, if any, noise in the post-season this year -- and potentially next year either if it goes unresolved.

I think it's gonna be a sweep. I don't think Thibs is innovative enough... and more importantly... I don't think the Wolves players are good enough to win this one.

But back to the three pointers angle... we might see just the opposite. The one advantage the Wolves do have is on the inside. I would hope the Wolves exploit it. Seriously. Towns should be shooting more than 14 times per game. Heck, he should be shooting more than 20x every game this series. And Taj should be taking a bunch of shots, too.

Houston has gone small a lot with PJ Tucker and Luc Mbao a Moute at the 4... or even 5? Mbao a Moute is out for the playoffs. And they switch virtually everything. Get the ball to the block for Gibson and Towns over and over and over again and hope they shoot around 60% to offset Houston's deep bombing attack.

Trying to match up as a three point shooting team with HOU when you don't have the horses/philosophy is a recipe for disaster. If anything, an inside-outside attack using the Wolves bigs should in theory get some open looks on the perimeter. Still probably isn't enough... but maybe they can still a game?

Volume 3-point shooting is actually a skill. Bjelly and KAT, two of our best 3-point shooters, aren't like Eric Gordon or James Harden - guys with really quick releases that can get their shot off with just the slightest crack of daylight. Our two starting wings both need quite a bit of space to take 3's, and when they are under duress, the results aren't very good.

So yes, Thibs needs to identify a third wing that can shoot the 3 with accuracy, but also do so in volume, with minimal time or space.

As for our defense, I'd do something really unconventional....Put Teague on Tucker or Ariza and KAT on the other. Is Houston really going to ask Tucker or Ariza to post up or iso against Teague or KAT? That's not who they want creating offense.....Then put Butler on Harden, Wiggins on Paul, and Gibson on Capella and absolutely switch everything between these three.

One angle that hasn't been mentioned for a while is just getting into the playoffs is a benefit financially. From reading some articles the last few hours the Wolves as an organization will probably pull in a million or 2 maybe more in profit from just having 2 playoff games. The players get some money and for guys like MGH, Jefferson and Brown it's some nice money. Getting a couple million in revenue this season is a nice bonus when Glen and his ownership group are going to be looking at possibly paying some Lux tax in the next year or 2.

As for Glen's comments...maybe there is something to be read into them. Maybe he was just in the same stupor as me and couldn't believe it was true even though He thought the outcome was likely.

Q12543 wrote:As for our defense, I'd do something really unconventional....Put Teague on Tucker or Ariza and KAT on the other. Is Houston really going to ask Tucker or Ariza to post up or iso against Teague or KAT? That's not who they want creating offense.....Then put Butler on Harden, Wiggins on Paul, and Gibson on Capella and absolutely switch everything between these three.

I'm all for it. In fact, I'm all for anything unconventional.

Going with the status quo wasn't competitive the first 4 games vs. Houston. The Rockets are unconventional... match that goofiness with some of your own.

They zig. The Wolves should zag. I think it's their only hope.

Q12543 wrote:Volume 3-point shooting is actually a skill. Bjelly and KAT, two of our best 3-point shooters, aren't like Eric Gordon or James Harden - guys with really quick releases that can get their shot off with just the slightest crack of daylight. Our two starting wings both need quite a bit of space to take 3's, and when they are under duress, the results aren't very good.

So yes, Thibs needs to identify a third wing that can shoot the 3 with accuracy, but also do so in volume, with minimal time or space.

I think it's a liitle of both...skill and coaching, Q. There's no question that guys like Harden and Gordon (or Thompson and Curry, for that matter) have unusually quick releases which allow them to get off shots that KAT and Belly can't. But there's also no question in my mind that Thibs' preferred offensive style and sideline demeanor are also factors. His preference for Iso ball does not lend itself to guys being open as often for 3-pointers. Plus (and you have to go to games to observe this), his obvious displeasure when a Wolf takes a 3-pointer he doesn't like is a deterrent the next time that player is open beyond the arc. I have noticed Thibs grimacing on the sidelines several times when he didn't like a shot selection, and I'm sure the player noticed it too. And several of us here have wondered why KAT, Tyus and especially Belly have been reluctant to let the 3-pointer fly on many occasions when they are wide open. KAT and Belly are never going to have quick releases, but I would argue a different offensive strategy and an encouraging rather than frowning coach would lead to more 3-point attempts.