The Official Chris Finch Thread

BlacJacMac · Post #61 » by **BlacJacMac** » Fri Feb 24, 2023 5:33 pm

The maturity we have with Kat

I love the guy, but mature isn't high on my list of ways to describe him.

Slim Tubby · Post #62 » by **Slim Tubby** » Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:31 pm

Baseline81 wrote:
Nick K wrote:Thank You. But why not be optimistic?

Because some of us are rational beings.

You can’t be optimistic and rational at the same time? I thought Nick did a good job of explaining his rational reasoning behind his optimism. Will he prove to be correct? I certainly hope so…we have the talent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

shrink · Post #63 » by **shrink** » Fri Feb 24, 2023 8:00 pm

Slim Tubby wrote:
Baseline81 wrote:
Nick K wrote:Thank You. But why not be optimistic?

Because some of us are rational beings.

You can’t be optimistic and rational at the same time? I thought Nick did a good job of explaining his rational reasoning behind his optimism. Will he prove to be correct? I certainly hope so…we have the talent.

Yeah, good response. Many people, especially on the internet, think rational means “correct,” and are quick to claim any opinion that isn’t the same as theirs is “irrational.” Rational is a logically consistent series of contentions that support your conclusion.

Maybe pessimists are always going to see optimists as irrational. Maybe optimists are always going to see pessimists as irrational. You could both come to completely different conclusions and both have legitimate rationales on how you reached them.

We all believe we are rational people, and it felt to me like unnecessary self-importance to say that one’s own prediction of the future is the rational one.

Post #64 » by **Klomp** » Fri Feb 24, 2023 8:04 pm

Baseline81 wrote:
Battletrigger wrote:And this is the definition of a very optimistic person

I would say Klomp-esque.

Nah, I'm not quite to that level...I'm going with 6th or 7th for us.

Baseline81 · Post #65 » by **Baseline81** » Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:13 pm

shrink wrote:Yeah, good response. Many people, especially on the internet, think rational means “correct,” and are quick to claim any opinion that isn’t the same as theirs is “irrational.” Rational is a logically consistent serious of contentions that support your conclusion.

Maybe pessimists are always going to see optimists as irrational. Maybe optimists are always going to see pessimists as irrational. You could both come to completely different conclusions and both have legitimate rationales on how you reached them.

We all believe we are rational people, and it felt to me like unnecessary self-importance to say that one’s own prediction of the future is the rational one.

Shall I go through my reasoning?

He points to the return of Towns. Can we all agree he and Gobert struggled earlier? What has changed since then? The injury has not allowed the two to work together. Instead, several are simply going off of what Towns said about learning as he's watched from the sidelines (something along those lines). As much as I want to believe KAT, he's said things in the past and not followed through -- arguing calls and playing too emotional being the two elephants in the room.

The poster also brings up how Finch has had to change schemes the past few years. He conveniently leaves out effort levels and how Minnesota can win a game just as easily as it can lose one. Both factors, at least to me, fall under the head coach. For a 4-through-6 seed, that doesn't happen. Losses to Detroit (both times), Charlotte, San Antonio (two times) and Houston are back breakers considering they all are amongst the worst teams in the league this season.

Regarding scheme, how many of us have complained about late fourth quarter offense?

Post #66 » by **Klomp** » Sat Feb 25, 2023 1:00 am

Baseline81 wrote:
shrink wrote:Yeah, good response. Many people, especially on the internet, think rational means “correct,” and are quick to claim any opinion that isn’t the same as theirs is “irrational.” Rational is a logically consistent serious of contentions that support your conclusion.

Maybe pessimists are always going to see optimists as irrational. Maybe optimists are always going to see pessimists as irrational. You could both come to completely different conclusions and both have legitimate rationales on how you reached them.

We all believe we are rational people, and it felt to me like unnecessary self-importance to say that one’s own prediction of the future is the rational one.

Shall I go through my reasoning?

He points to the return of Towns. Can we all agree he and Gobert struggled earlier? What has changed since then? The injury has not allowed the two to work together. Instead, several are simply going off of what Towns said about learning as he's watched from the sidelines (something along those lines). As much as I want to believe KAT, he's said things in the past and not followed through -- arguing calls and playing too emotional being the two elephants in the room.

The poster also brings up how Finch has had to change schemes the past few years. He conveniently leaves out effort levels and how Minnesota can win a game just as easily as it can lose one. Both factors, at least to me, fall under the head coach. For a 4-through-6 seed, that doesn't happen. Losses to Detroit (both times), Charlotte, San Antonio (two times) and Houston are back breakers considering they all are amongst the worst teams in the league this season.

Regarding scheme, how many of us have complained about late fourth quarter offense?

While I may not be as optimistic to the extent of that poster, I do understand why he feels the way he does.

The biggest reason is Ant. He has made the leap. This is his team. I think even KAT knows it. And Finch has talked about using Towns differently as a result.

All teams have bad games against bad teams in an 82-game season. The 73-win Warriors did, losing a handful of times to sub-.500 teams. I'm fairly certain the 72-win Bulls did too. It's a long season, and these players aren't robots.

younggunsmn · Post #67 » by **younggunsmn** » Sat Feb 25, 2023 2:22 am

Losing a game or even 2 or 3 to bad teams is one thing.
Bad teams are consistently eating our lunch this season.
Maybe we are one of those bad teams pretending we are not.

Slim Tubby · Post #68 » by **Slim Tubby** » Sat Feb 25, 2023 2:28 am

Baseline81 wrote:
shrink wrote:Yeah, good response. Many people, especially on the internet, think rational means “correct,” and are quick to claim any opinion that isn’t the same as theirs is “irrational.” Rational is a logically consistent serious of contentions that support your conclusion.

Maybe pessimists are always going to see optimists as irrational. Maybe optimists are always going to see pessimists as irrational. You could both come to completely different conclusions and both have legitimate rationales on how you reached them.

We all believe we are rational people, and it felt to me like unnecessary self-importance to say that one’s own prediction of the future is the rational one.

Shall I go through my reasoning?

He points to the return of Towns. Can we all agree he and Gobert struggled earlier? What has changed since then? The injury has not allowed the two to work together. Instead, several are simply going off of what Towns said about learning as he's watched from the sidelines (something along those lines). As much as I want to believe KAT, he's said things in the past and not followed through -- arguing calls and playing too emotional being the two elephants in the room.

The poster also brings up how Finch has had to change schemes the past few years. He conveniently leaves out effort levels and how Minnesota can win a game just as easily as it can lose one. Both factors, at least to me, fall under the head coach. For a 4-through-6 seed, that doesn't happen. Losses to Detroit (both times), Charlotte, San Antonio (two times) and Houston are back breakers considering they all are amongst the worst teams in the league this season.

Regarding scheme, how many of us have complained about late fourth quarter offense?

Absolutely fair response, Base!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bluethunder0005 · Post #69 » by **bluethunder0005** » Sat Feb 25, 2023 3:39 am

I don't necessarily place all of the blame on Finch, but constantly getting out rebounded is a recipe for disaster. I know that's a big effort ability but every game it feels like they get killed on the boards. Turnovers and getting beat on the boards are killers for a team and the Wolves suck at both.

wolves_89 · Post #70 » by **wolves_89** » Sat Feb 25, 2023 3:47 am

Going 5-8 against the bottom 5 teams in the NBA is something Finch is going to have to address. My guess is that if the Wolves get off to a slow start next season and are again losing to poor teams, Finch might be in real trouble.

Baseline81 · Post #71 » by **Baseline81** » Sat Feb 25, 2023 4:06 am

Klomp wrote:While I may not be as optimistic to the extent of that poster, I do understand why he feels the way he does.

The biggest reason is Ant. He has made the leap. This is his team. I think even KAT knows it. And Finch has talked about using Towns differently as a result.

All teams have bad games against bad teams in an 82-game season. The 73-win Warriors did, losing a handful of times to sub-.500 teams. I'm fairly certain the 72-win Bulls did too. It's a long season, and these players aren't robots.

And now that's twice to Charlotte.

And you keep pointing to the Warriors. Let's look at something a little more current. Denver, who will not touch Golden State's regular season record, has only lost to Detroit compared to Minnesota. Memphis has not lost to a single one of them. Sacto's only blemish is a loss to Charlotte. LAC none. So the top four seeds in the Western Conference have a combined two losses to the bottom four teams in the league.

Please tell me again how quality teams lose with such regularity as the Wolves have against significantly lesser competition.

TimberKat · Post #72 » by **TimberKat** » Sat Feb 25, 2023 5:27 am

Snyder is signing with Hawks, so, whatever coaching change will have to wait. I do feel we still have a very good chance of making the play-in. So, hopefully, we will win a game or two in the play-in.

TwolvesFanRome · Post #73 » by **TwolvesFanRome** » Sat Feb 25, 2023 8:18 am

With the bottom 5 teams our record is 5-8.

Horrible.

Guest84 · Post #74 » by **Guest84** » Thu Mar 2, 2023 3:45 am

Watch on YouTube

For anyone who wants to listen to the interview

shrink · Post #75 » by **shrink** » Fri Mar 3, 2023 5:54 am

This interview demonstrates one of the main reasons I don’t listen to Cowherd. He wants to hear himself talk. That may work on a radio show until you invite a guest.

In this example, he had Finch talk about the Wolves from the 8:40 to 10:30 bit. The rest of the time, cowherd is monopolizing the conversation, with, “I think this about LeBron,” And AD. And here’s why I think BOS will struggle if Jaylen Brown struggles. And Giannis. Btw, let’s talk about Draymond, who has a podcast I own. And even his one question about the Wolves was like he do any prep. Hey, you have Ant. And Gobert, and Towns. Aren’t they really different people?”

Horrible.

Post #76 » by **Domejandro** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 10:25 pm

Read on Twitter

This is despite a number of disappointing losses.

shangrila · Post #77 » by **shangrila** » Sun Mar 5, 2023 1:06 am

Domejandro wrote:

Read on Twitter

This is despite a number of disappointing losses.

Hush you, no facts allowed in here.

TimberKat · Post #78 » by **TimberKat** » Sun Mar 5, 2023 3:04 am

shangrila wrote:
Domejandro wrote:This is despite a number of disappointing losses.

Hush you, no facts allowed in here.

What is so statistically significant about since Jan 1st? Did the team had New Year dinner at DLo's house and hash out a new way to play? What about the Wolves' record compared with the league for: the last 20 games? since 12/20? Since 1/11? On Saturdays? Or the last 30? Maybe 10 games moving avg?

Feels like since Jan 1st is a feel good fact.

shangrila · Post #79 » by **shangrila** » Sun Mar 5, 2023 5:30 am

TimberKat wrote:
shangrila wrote:
Domejandro wrote:This is despite a number of disappointing losses.

Hush you, no facts allowed in here.

What is so statistically significant about since Jan 1st? Did the team had New Year dinner at DLo's house and hash out a new way to play? What about the Wolves' record compared with the league for: the last 20 games? since 12/20? Since 1/11? On Saturdays? Or the last 30? Maybe 10 games moving avg?

Feels like since Jan 1st is a feel good fact.

IIRC it was right after the Detroit game that everyone called the worst loss of all time.

Regardless it's a 2 month recent sample size to show that we're doing well and might be an insight into how we'll do moving forward now that the team is gelling.

Post #80 » by **Domejandro** » Sun Mar 5, 2023 5:56 am

TimberKat wrote:
shangrila wrote:
Domejandro wrote:This is despite a number of disappointing losses.

Hush you, no facts allowed in here.

What is so statistically significant about since Jan 1st? Did the team had New Year dinner at DLo's house and hash out a new way to play? What about the Wolves' record compared with the league for: the last 20 games? since 12/20? Since 1/11? On Saturdays? Or the last 30? Maybe 10 games moving avg?

Feels like since Jan 1st is a feel good fact.

...Couldn't you say that literally any cutoff is arbitrary? Out of all arbitrary cutoffs, I think citing the new year (being a 29 game sample size) is pretty fair.