Identity crisis?

[minimus]

How can a coach not instill an identity over a 82 game season? That’s training camp stuff

Because Gobert-Towns-MCD-Edwards-Conley played 7 games together? Without training camp stuff

[Baseline81]

Because Gobert-Towns-MCD-Edwards-Conley played 7 games together? Without training camp stuff

Disagree.

An identity is not necessarily about the players, but rather how the coach envisions his team to play. Look at the Grizzlies, for example. Players came and went, yet they remained known for their grit and grind.

[minimus]

Because Gobert-Towns-MCD-Edwards-Conley played 7 games together? Without training camp stuff

Disagree.

An identity is not necessarily about the players, but rather how the coach envisions his team to play. Look at the Grizzlies, for example. Players came and went, yet they remained known for their grit and grind.

1) MEM have same GM-HC combo for last four years. For instance, Finch and Connelly are working together for one year.

2) MEM core players (Ja-JJJ-Tyus) have been playing together for four years. MEM have indeed built an identity, but not in one training camp

3) Ja missed 21 games, KAT missed 53 games

[Klomp]

Kenny Smith made an interesting point. He asked, “can you imagine Ant in an uptempo system?” But then went on to say that the wolves star (Ant) don’t fit the players around him.

Instead of being a dynamic star most nights due to not getting easier more efficient baskets, etc. trans can make him a volume shooter because most of his offense is coming out of the half court. This is due to the two big system and having to play at a slower pace to incorporate them.

He did say the organization has some soul searching to do and I agree. Especially since Finch continues to keep mentioning “identity” in post game interviews. How can a coach not instill an identity over a 82 game season? That’s training camp stuff. Of course the injuries throw chemistry off but you can clearly tell Ant wants to push but we just don’t have the players next to him who can.

This is why those smaller lineups with Naz worked and the wolves would go on big runs at times. The styles just fit better next to Ant. But I digress

Could you imagine Kobe in an uptempo system?
Could you imagine Tony Parker and Manu in an uptempo system?
Those teams clearly failed at developing the proper identity for their star players.

To me, this argument sees the same issue as "trade KAT because it's Ant's team." Just like how you need more than one star player to be a good team, you need to know how to play more than one style to be a good team. The uptempo doesn't work because of any one player or just because it's uptempo. It works because it's something that can catch the opponent off-guard. Just like how a zone defense loses its luster if it's the only thing you run. But for a possession here and there, it can be effective.

[minimus]

One thing that MIN never figured out in this playoff was high wall defense. DEN were ready for this and often any blitz defense on Jokic/Murray resulted in open shot for Gordon and other guys. One thing that contributed to this was MCD (and Anderson) injury that lead us to play a very small lineups with Nowell, Rivers and NAW. I also noticed that TP despite being an active defender, is not particularly good at positional defense. He often misses rotations, losses track of play. Anderson is a mixed bag in high wall. He does execute smart rotations, does show quick hands and long wingspan resulted in steals and blocks. But he also is not athletic enough to recover in x-out and execute closeout. In theory Anderson/MCD combination has the best from both worlds: Anderson IQ and experience + MCD athleticism and length. In theory Minott fits well as wing in high wall defense, because he has insane athleticism and shotblocking feel. But he has to develop reliable 3pt shot and add some weight. Also it makes me feel a lot better that Edwards continues to improve as weakside shotblock presence. In theory Wendell Moore can contribute here as well, I hope he overcomes "Culver's syndrome". A few notes from here:

1) I hope we completely go away from small lineups with multiple guys under 6'4". We need versatility in defense, we need a lot more in terms of rebounding from our backcourt.

2) I am torn here, but hear me out: we absolutely need TPs 3pt shooting, but his 7.5mil one year contract makes him a very possible candidate for trade. His defense is mediocre, he is not a good rebounder, and some of his turnovers are costly. Plus there is a hope that combination of Moore/NAW/Minott can fill the void at backup SF

3) we absolutely need to add 3pt shooting specialists. If we play one of Gobert/Anderson we need other four guys to space the floor. I believe that one reason why we struggled so badly at the beginning of the season was Towns/TP injuries and Nowell inability of hitting wide open shots. 3pt shooters are requirement for spread pick-n-rolls as well. And it is like connective tissue for Finch free flow offense. Just like Sabonis shines in DHOs we should run as much as possible DHO by using our twin towers size on perimeter.

[frankenwolf]

Here is a Wolvsian thing if I have ever read it:
"The Timberwolves

Spoiler:

Bucks

wasted a 12-point fourth-quarter lead in Game 4 and squandered a 16-point fourth-quarter advantage and an eight-point lead in the final 3:18 of the fourth in Game 5. Minnesota

Spoiler:

Milwaukee

also made just 28-of-45 free throws, including 10-for-23 from Ant

Spoiler:

Antetokounmpo

, in the series finale."

There is discussion of blowing up that team also. . .



(Quote from USA Today Bucks shocked by Heat in first round, published 4/27/23 https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/columnist/jeff-zillgitt/2023/04/26/bucks-lose-first-round-series-heat/11749703002/ )

[minimus]

One question. If Naz does not come back what is our contingency plan? I mean we kind of found our identity by bringing Naz of the bench and continue to attack the paint. So our bench unit core was Reid-TP-NAW. If Naz does not come back what can we use as main weapon from the bench? TP is very inconsistent as scorer, NAW as well. In theory we could use Towns more with bench unit which in theory should be enough in terms of talent to replace Naz production so our bench unit core would be Towns-Anderson-TP-NAW. We could use another defensive stopper at PG/SG or/and a big shooter (no more undersized guards such as Nowell, Forbes)

[Krapinsky]

One question. If Naz does not come back what is our contingency plan? I mean we kind of found our identity by bringing Naz of the bench and continue to attack the paint. So our bench unit core was Reid-TP-NAW. If Naz does not come back what can we use as main weapon from the bench? TP is very inconsistent as scorer, NAW as well. In theory we could use Towns more with bench unit which in theory should be enough in terms of talent to replace Naz production so our bench unit core would be Towns-Anderson-TP-NAW. We could use another defensive stopper at PG/SG or/and a big shooter (no more undersized guards such as Nowell, Forbes)

Naz will be very tough for us to replace. I don't think we have anyone on the roster capable of replacing his scoring-- certainly not the way he was playing before he got hurt. It will likely require us to roll the dice on a low cost free agent acquisition and we will have to hope for the best.

[minimus]

Naz will be very tough for us to replace. I don't think we have anyone on the roster capable of replacing his scoring-- certainly not the way he was playing before he got hurt. It will likely require us to roll the dice on a low cost free agent acquisition and we will have to hope for the best.

If I remember correctly we can use MLE if Naz leaves. The problem is timeline: Naz can comfortably wait for better offers as FA, meanwhile MIN might waste time by not making offers to other FA?

MLE candidates:

DDV - full MLE
Jevon Carter - 3-5 mil per year?
Yuta Watanabe - 3-5 mil per year?
Dennis Smith - ???

Then MIA trio:

Max Struss - ???
Gabe Vincent - ???
Caleb Martin - ???


RFAs:

Tre Jones
Theo Maledon
Paul Reed
Austin Reeves
Cam Johnson ???

[urinesane]

How can a coach not instill an identity over a 82 game season? That’s training camp stuff

Because Gobert-Towns-MCD-Edwards-Conley played 7 games together? Without training camp stuff

This. Plus, KAT AND Gobert weren't able to take part much in training camp. KAT had a bad illness and lost a ton of weight, and Rudy was banged up from playing in the summer for France.

I think if they ignore the rubes and stay the course mostly (as far as the core 8), this team will come into the season looking a lot more like team that dominated OKC in the play-in.

Patience is a virtue and it's needed more than ever with this team... also don't give me the "but we've been losing forever! I'm sick of being patient!" crap. This team has barely had time to build chemistry and what they need more than anything (especially fire sales of their top guys) is some consistency (which they've NEVER really had, even in the KG era).

Coming off a playoff season, which is so rare in franchise history, is not the time to blow things up. Especially since before these last two seasons, the 15 seasons before these last two the Wolves averaged 27 wins per season.

[TimberKat]

We made so many moves last year. I think we should follow the SAC model where we let things marinate for a while. We should add players like SAC with Huerter and Monk. They didn't breakup the core of Barnes, Fox, and DS.

Of course all bets are off if SAS come calling with #1 pick for Towns + JMac.

[urinesane]

We made so many moves last year. I think we should follow the SAC model where we let things marinate for a while. We should add players like SAC with Huerter and Monk. They didn't breakup the core of Barnes, Fox, and DS.

Of course all bets are off if SAS come calling with #1 pick for Towns + JMac.

Luckily that's what Connelly did in Denver and now it's paying dividends. He didn't break up the Jokic/Murray pairing when it didn't work well right away, and he didn't fire Malone after they missed the playoffs in his first 3 seasons (and had losing records in the first two). He didn't give up on Porter, and invested in him long term even with TWO back surgeries as a Nugget (one in college) that most teams would be too scared to work through.

For that patience they made the playoffs in 5 straight seasons (even with Murray's injury issues) and are now the favorite to win the championship.

I have more faith in the FO and head coach for the Wolves than I ever have (even after paying so much for Gobert).

Is it guaranteed to work? No.

I also think they are much less likely to shoot themselves in the foot like the franchise has over and over and over throughout their history.

[Klomp]

We made so many moves last year. I think we should follow the SAC model where we let things marinate for a while. We should add players like SAC with Huerter and Monk. They didn't breakup the core of Barnes, Fox, and DS.

Of course all bets are off if SAS come calling with #1 pick for Towns + JMac.

Luckily that's what Connelly did in Denver and now it's paying dividends. He didn't break up the Jokic/Murray pairing when it didn't work well right away, and he didn't fire Malone after they missed the playoffs in his first 3 seasons (and had losing records in the first two). He didn't give up on Porter, and invested in him long term even with TWO back surgeries as a Nugget (one in college) that most teams would be too scared to work through.

For that patience they made the playoffs in 5 straight seasons (even with Murray's injury issues) and are now the favorite to win the championship.

I have more faith in the FO and head coach for the Wolves than I ever have (even after paying so much for Gobert).

Is it guaranteed to work? No.

I also think they are much less likely to shoot themselves in the foot like the franchise has over and over and over throughout their history.

Is extra patience (or marinating) necessary for those of us in small markets?

[urinesane]

We made so many moves last year. I think we should follow the SAC model where we let things marinate for a while. We should add players like SAC with Huerter and Monk. They didn't breakup the core of Barnes, Fox, and DS.

Of course all bets are off if SAS come calling with #1 pick for Towns + JMac.

Luckily that's what Connelly did in Denver and now it's paying dividends. He didn't break up the Jokic/Murray pairing when it didn't work well right away, and he didn't fire Malone after they missed the playoffs in his first 3 seasons (and had losing records in the first two). He didn't give up on Porter, and invested in him long term even with TWO back surgeries as a Nugget (one in college) that most teams would be too scared to work through.

For that patience they made the playoffs in 5 straight seasons (even with Murray's injury issues) and are now the favorite to win the championship.

I have more faith in the FO and head coach for the Wolves than I ever have (even after paying so much for Gobert).

Is it guaranteed to work? No.

I also think they are much less likely to shoot themselves in the foot like the franchise has over and over and over throughout their history.

Is extra patience (or marinating) necessary for those of us in small markets?

I think so. Now, I am not saying that we should love mediocrity or anything, but you can't act like the big market teams and expect to succeed. LA, GSW, NYK, generate enough money to make up for their mistakes and are enticing to former stars at the end of their careers looking to win a championship/play on the big stage (on a team friendly contract).

I think the Wolves need to take chances like the Gobert move (where they are trying to go counter to the league trends to find an edge through style rather than through copying big market teams). The price for Gobert was too much, that's not an argument, it's a fact... but that doesn't mean getting Gobert was a bad move.

They need to look at the smaller market teams that have had sustained success and emulate those qualities, which is almost always:

1.) Find undervalued players in the draft.
2.) Find FA vets on good deals for their production.
3.) Create a winning culture and consistency in the organization.
4.) Develop youth and don't expect players to be ready to carry the team in their first few seasons.
5.) When you draft/develop star players, have vets/coaches around them that allow them to consistently win (and play in meaningful post season games), so that they are willing to stay longterm rather than look to greener pastures.

The big market teams don't have to do the above, because they generate so much money it doesn't set them back as much when they take a big swing on a super team. They can just blow it up and spend a bunch of money to restock the pantry with stars/vets based on the other things they offer (better sponsorship potential, legacy, big city living, etc).

This season was not what we wanted, but I like the logic and decision making. It feels like they understand the above and have a plan (but are willing to adapt based on the data they collect as they go).

Fans suddenly wanting the team to act like those big market teams are setting themselves up for disappointment (and the team for longterm failure/mediocrity).

[Klomp]

Luckily that's what Connelly did in Denver and now it's paying dividends. He didn't break up the Jokic/Murray pairing when it didn't work well right away, and he didn't fire Malone after they missed the playoffs in his first 3 seasons (and had losing records in the first two). He didn't give up on Porter, and invested in him long term even with TWO back surgeries as a Nugget (one in college) that most teams would be too scared to work through.

For that patience they made the playoffs in 5 straight seasons (even with Murray's injury issues) and are now the favorite to win the championship.

I have more faith in the FO and head coach for the Wolves than I ever have (even after paying so much for Gobert).

Is it guaranteed to work? No.

I also think they are much less likely to shoot themselves in the foot like the franchise has over and over and over throughout their history.

Is extra patience (or marinating) necessary for those of us in small markets?

I think so. Now, I am not saying that we should love mediocrity or anything, but you can't act like the big market teams and expect to succeed. LA, GSW, NYK, generate enough money to make up for their mistakes and are enticing to former stars at the end of their careers looking to win a championship/play on the big stage (on a team friendly contract).

I think the Wolves need to take chances like the Gobert move (where they are trying to go counter to the league trends to find an edge through style rather than through copying big market teams). The price for Gobert was too much, that's not an argument, it's a fact... but that doesn't mean getting Gobert was a bad move.

They need to look at the smaller market teams that have had sustained success and emulate those qualities, which is almost always:

1.) Find undervalued players in the draft.
2.) Find FA vets on good deals for their production.
3.) Create a winning culture and consistency in the organization.
4.) Develop youth and don't expect players to be ready to carry the team in their first few seasons.
5.) When you draft/develop star players, have players/coaches around them that allow them to consistently win (and play in meaningful post season games), so that they are willing to stay longterm rather than look to greener pastures.

The big market teams don't have to do the above, because they generate so much money it doesn't set them back as much when they take a big swing on a super team. They can just blow it up and spend a bunch of money to restock the pantry with stars/vets based on the other things they offer (better sponsorship potential, legacy, big city living, etc).

This season was not what we wanted, but I like the logic and decision making. It feels like they understand the above and have a plan (but are willing to adapt based on the data they collect as they go).

Fans suddenly wanting the team to act like those big market teams are setting themselves up for disappointment (and the team for longterm failure/mediocrity).

I was actually thinking about this when thinking about the narrative that used to be around here that "another team passed us up in the rebuild". Most of the time, I feel like those were bigger markets, or teams that made a big splash trade (Phoenix and Los Angeles being two examples from this past season).

And I know, some people look at the Rudy Gobert trade and say we did the opposite of the small market blueprint. But I believe this past season was all about instilling numbers 3, 4 and 5 here. We've done 1 for a few years with guys like McDaniels and Reid. We did 2 by bringing in Prince, Anderson, Rivers. Trading for Gobert and Conley were about establishing the culture and consistency going forward.

[urinesane]

I was actually thinking about this when thinking about the narrative that used to be around here that "another team passed us up in the rebuild". Most of the time, I feel like those were bigger markets, or teams that made a big splash trade (Phoenix and Los Angeles being two examples from this past season).

And I know, some people look at the Rudy Gobert trade and say we did the opposite of the small market blueprint. But I believe this past season was all about instilling numbers 3, 4 and 5 here. We've done 1 for a few years with guys like McDaniels and Reid. We did 2 by bringing in Prince, Anderson, Rivers. Trading for Gobert and Conley were about establishing the culture and consistency going forward.

The major difference as you stated is that they spent a lot to get a guy that would drastically raise the floor. The big market move is to go get a Super Star that they can sell to the fans (which usually means a much more heavily weighted offensive player) and hype up as a savior/carrying a team to relevancy. Gobert is not that kind of player and his style of play will not get him movie roles or sell a ton of jerseys... it does lead to consistent winning though.

The biggest factor is more about "Can this star be happy in a smaller market and want to stick around longterm?" which is something smaller market teams have to take into account. It's a lot tougher to keep a star that wants the glitz/glamour/national attention when you're a small market, so that removes a lot of potential on big swings.

You have to find guys that contribute, want to win, and don't care about the hype/attention from nation media/fans. Gobert was the right kind of swing for this team and the market size. He has already been proven very valuable simply by the fact that he anchored the defense enough for Ant, Jaden, and Naz to get to play in meaningful games. Unfortunately, Naz/Jaden missed out on the playoff experience, but they were playing playoff pressure type games for the last few months of the season.

Without Gobert, they get out of playoff contention before the all-star break and have a decision to make on tanking (and losing out on that valuable experience for the young guys we know can be stars).

It's extremely difficult for a team to start with assets/draft capital, get some talented players, and have them actually turn into a consistently winning franchise. You need stars, but you also need a lot more, and if you are constantly filling the roster with potential, that potential is very unlikely to develop into winners (that is until they go somewhere with a better culture, role, and roster built to win).

The problem with winning the lottery and getting a super star is that in basketball, you usually need a lot more than one top tier player to go anywhere. It's a fallacy that getting a future HoFer in the draft will automatically turn you into a contender. If you look at the guys that were superstars at the top of the draft, most of them can drag a team into the playoffs, but nearly all of them needed solid players around them (often multiple stars) to get beyond the first round treadmill.

[minimus]

I have one very important question: all awful losses this year against bad teams what was root cause? Some say that we were lacking motivation. But was not our big lineup completely destroyed by aggressive smallball lineups? Same thing happened in playoffs when DEN played Jeff Green and Aarond Gordon as backup bigs.

Some say that problem was Gobert and Towns bad physical shape, but I doubt both players can improve their bodies significantly to play high paced offense consistently.

[urinesane]

I have one very important question: all awful losses this year against bad teams what was root cause? Some say that we were lacking motivation. But was not our big lineup completely destroyed by aggressive smallball lineups? Same thing happened in playoffs when DEN played Jeff Green and Aarond Gordon as backup bigs.

Some say that problem was Gobert and Towns bad physical shape, but I doubt both players can improve their bodies significantly to play high paced offense consistently.

I think it was mainly mindset. When they were up against good teams, they knew they had to be focused and had a lower margin for error. When it came to bad teams, they didn't respect their opponents and just expected to "turn it on" (even when falling behind early) believing that the more talented team would win. They needed to understand, not just as information, but as knowledge that every NBA team has talent and if you give them the opportunity they will beat you.

I think not only as far as fit, but also demeanor that Conley was a huge upgrade over DLo. DLo was always "chill" with his "too cool for school" mentality and being one of the vets on the team, he needed to light a fire under people's asses (and not just try to shoot us back into the game). Gobert is a vet as well, but DLo has been around longer, so he commanded more respect.

The only other vets were role players. I think Ant realized later in the year that he needs to assert himself and hold others accountable, because there's only so much a coach can do to motivate. The players still have to go out there and do the damn thing.

Part of the issue with the transition defense I believe was that when the offense was stagnant, guys were just standing around watching someone shoot. When they had flow to the offense and people were moving, they not only got better shots, but were already in motion (and it's much easier to get back when you are already in motion rather than a stand still). It also provided more motivation on defense, because when the ball was moving, more people got opportunities to score. Even if you're mainly a defensive guy (like Rudy), being part of the offense and contributing on that end feeds the defensive end. Plus, if you get better shots, you'll generally make more of them, which will lessen the opportunities for transition offense from your opponent.

Also, I don't agree that they got destroyed by small ball lineups, partially because KAT played so few games with Gobert, but the GSW game in GS proved imo that the two big lineup can work. They just need to work together as a unit, rather than individual pieces (that game was beautiful), which I think more than anything comes with time and experience with each other.

[minimus]

Also, I don't agree that they got destroyed by small ball lineups, partially because KAT played so few games with Gobert, but the GSW game in GS proved imo that the two big lineup can work. They just need to work together as a unit, rather than individual pieces (that game was beautiful), which I think more than anything comes with time and experience with each other.

If I am not mistaken GSW wiped the floor with our two big lineup at the beginning of season (McDaniels did not play that game). They ran in transition like crazy and made us suffer with screens on perimeter. We lost rebounding battle as well... We were big at C, kind of big and slow at PF, but we were played "small" at other positions: Rivers, DLo, Nowell and Forbes got minutes. Maybe here we will continue turnaround from scoring-first undersized, low effort backcourt to more physical, more focused backcourt Edwards-Conley-NAW-Moore

[Klomp]

Also, I don't agree that they got destroyed by small ball lineups, partially because KAT played so few games with Gobert, but the GSW game in GS proved imo that the two big lineup can work. They just need to work together as a unit, rather than individual pieces (that game was beautiful), which I think more than anything comes with time and experience with each other.

If I am not mistaken GSW wiped the floor with our two big lineup at the beginning of season (McDaniels did not play that game). They ran in transition like crazy and made us suffer with screens on perimeter. We lost rebounding battle as well... We were big at C, kind of big and slow at PF, but we were played "small" at other positions: Rivers, DLo, Nowell and Forbes got minutes. Maybe here we will continue turnaround from scoring-first undersized, low effort backcourt to more physical, more focused backcourt Edwards-Conley-NAW-Moore

People took away way too much negative from the first quarter of the season imo. We thought Utah was going to be horrible (they weren't), OKC was horrible (they weren't), and while dropping 2 of 3 to the Spurs hurt, they weren't bad early either.