Identity crisis?

[winforlose]

This feels like a similar critique people had of Donovan Mitchell on the Jazz. They eventually made him out to be the problem instead of his other teammates who were subpar.

He's playing his real role now and he's doing it well.

Expecting Ant to change his play style to match the deficiencies and poor schemes is a recipe to piss him off.

The main difference between Don from Jazz and Cavs is that in the Jazz, he was playing hero ball way too much despite having around him some goods shooters ( Bogda, Clarkson...)a good PG, Mike anda terrific defender, Rudy where in the Cavs, he is the leader and score when needed but keep his teammate involved all the time.

It's not a surprise if Don personal stats now are lower than what he get with the jazz but he is a much better player.... probably call it maturity. Don recently speak in an ITW about being a much mature person now. ANT is just too young to lead a contending team, too much responsibility on his shoulder. We have the perfect fit before for that KAT and TC f.... up by large.

He had like two good shooters. But sure w.e.

We weren't a perfect for last year either. We had a less **** offense, but we weren't amazing, we could just pull out wins. It was still a rickety patched together system. We just had a less old PG, and a star PF anchoring **** down.

Have you ever watched a remake of a movie or played an updated version of a game (board, card, video, ect…,?) If you had then you would understand that just because something has been done before doesn’t mean it cannot be improved upon. We have more offensive talent than you give us credit for. The key is to maximize it. Have you heard of sweet spot shooters? Those guys find their sweet spots and focus on hunting their shots from there. We don’t do that with our shooters. Have you heard of off ball screens, we don’t do that either. Have you heard of PNR, we have been doing much less of that. You complain our guys cannot shoot, yet they all have at decent levels for long stretches. Your point would be more valid with a Josh Okogie who never had success shooting, and even then, if you park him in the corner of course he is gonna do worse than if you give him the ball going down hill and let him attack. Your entire perspective on basketball hinges on jump shooting and seemingly without proper offensive structure or execution to unbalance the defense.

[Note30]

The main difference between Don from Jazz and Cavs is that in the Jazz, he was playing hero ball way too much despite having around him some goods shooters ( Bogda, Clarkson...)a good PG, Mike anda terrific defender, Rudy where in the Cavs, he is the leader and score when needed but keep his teammate involved all the time.

It's not a surprise if Don personal stats now are lower than what he get with the jazz but he is a much better player.... probably call it maturity. Don recently speak in an ITW about being a much mature person now. ANT is just too young to lead a contending team, too much responsibility on his shoulder. We have the perfect fit before for that KAT and TC f.... up by large.

He had like two good shooters. But sure w.e.

We weren't a perfect for last year either. We had a less **** offense, but we weren't amazing, we could just pull out wins. It was still a rickety patched together system. We just had a less old PG, and a star PF anchoring **** down.

Have you ever watched a remake of a movie or played an updated version of a game (board, card, video, ect…,?) If you had then you would understand that just because something has been done before doesn’t mean it cannot be improved upon. We have more offensive talent than you give us credit for. The key is to maximize it. Have you heard of sweet spot shooters? Those guys find their sweet spots and focus on hunting their shots from there. We don’t do that with our shooters. Have you heard of off ball screens, we don’t do that either. Have you heard of PNR, we have been doing much less of that. You complain our guys cannot shoot, yet they all have at decent levels for long stretches. Your point would be more valid with a Josh Okogie who never had success shooting, and even then, if you park him in the corner of course he is gonna do worse than if you give him the ball going down hill and let him attack. Your entire perspective on basketball hinges on jump shooting and seemingly without proper offensive structure or execution to unbalance the defense.

Dude. What?

Bro you're just yapping at this point.

We have no real shooting talent. "Sweet" spots are denied based on positioning. If you're guys are limited (aka 3 of our 5 guys) on the floor the one thing the defense can do is make sure you deny those players the shots they want. It's basketball 101.

You can't run even a basic motion offense successfully if most of your guys all have really limited spots they are successful from.

It's super easy to guard.

In order to counter that your run a variety of plays to get guys open or try to give them the ball to do it themselves. Unfortunately only 3 guys can effectively handle the ball and 2 of them are not facilitators.

Hence the tomfoolery you see out there now.

[winforlose]

He had like two good shooters. But sure w.e.

We weren't a perfect for last year either. We had a less **** offense, but we weren't amazing, we could just pull out wins. It was still a rickety patched together system. We just had a less old PG, and a star PF anchoring **** down.

Have you ever watched a remake of a movie or played an updated version of a game (board, card, video, ect…,?) If you had then you would understand that just because something has been done before doesn’t mean it cannot be improved upon. We have more offensive talent than you give us credit for. The key is to maximize it. Have you heard of sweet spot shooters? Those guys find their sweet spots and focus on hunting their shots from there. We don’t do that with our shooters. Have you heard of off ball screens, we don’t do that either. Have you heard of PNR, we have been doing much less of that. You complain our guys cannot shoot, yet they all have at decent levels for long stretches. Your point would be more valid with a Josh Okogie who never had success shooting, and even then, if you park him in the corner of course he is gonna do worse than if you give him the ball going down hill and let him attack. Your entire perspective on basketball hinges on jump shooting and seemingly without proper offensive structure or execution to unbalance the defense.

Dude. What?

Bro you're just yapping at this point.

We have no real shooting talent. "Sweet" spots are denied based on positioning. If you're guys are limited (aka 3 of our 5 guys) on the floor the one thing the defense can do is make sure you deny those players the shots they want. It's basketball 101.

You can't run even a basic motion offense successfully if most of your guys all have really limited spots they are successful from.

It's super easy to guard.

In order to counter that your run a variety of plays to get guys open or try to give them the ball to do it themselves. Unfortunately only 3 guys can effectively handle the ball and 2 of them are not facilitators.

Hence the tomfoolery you see out there now.

I didn’t say sweet spots are the answer, I used them as a for instance of one of the thing we don’t do. We don’t get the most out of guys. We don’t put them in positions to succeed. I agree we need a better starting PG and another PNR big for when Rudy is off the floor. But, I also disagree that the guys we do have just suck and cannot improve with a better offensive scheme.

[minimus]

Read on Twitter

MIN need to run more in transition.

[FrenchMinnyFan]

The debate here for me is kind of circle... as long as ANT fan does not admit, he is not good to drive the game, we can speak for hours. ANT have plenty if quality, elite shooters, energy, ability to attack the rim but letting him have the ball in hands way too long is a recipe for disaster.... as long as Finch does not fix that, we will be a 50% team win. This was the case last year and it's become more and more an issue not because of ANT regressing but because we add Randle who is even more terrible on this part of the game.

And if Mike is too old, just trade Randle for a starter PG, who is team oriented and assists oriented while scoring 15 PPG and start NAZ. We will be better on both side of the court.

[BlacJacMac]

Donte starting tonight.

Read on Twitter

[minimus]

MIN are top5 in 3pt accuracy, top7 in 3PA, bench players have similar stats in terms of 3pt shooting.

At the same time MIN are top20 in OReb (top17 in OReb%), top16 in DReb (top18 in DReb%)
However, if I look ONLY MIN starters stats, then MIN are top5 in OReb and top8 in DReb. If I look ONLY MIN bench stats, then MIN are WORST bench unit in OReb and top23 in DReb.

I have a few questions:

First, is getting a true backup C is the obvious quick win solution to improve this roster? Reid is a below average rebounder, Randle lacks effort and discipline. Second, how much responsibility have our perimeter players in getting rebounds? I mean I look our 3PA numbers and I can see MANY offensive rebounds being long, 50/50 rebounds. It means that a classic bigman can get only limited number of offensive rebounds? Same for defensive rebounds, when opponent shoot many threes, they might get many long rebounds. Although it is not a problem for our starters with a lot of size Gobert, McDaniels having size advantage and DDV being a high effort rebounder who fights for 50/50 balls. However, our bench unit tends to play small backcourt, especially now with NAW, Conley. So based on all these observation my take is following:

- MIN have enough shooting, but we can easily use a movement shooter. But in terms of accuracy and volume MIN are good
- combination of Reid lack of physicality and Randle lack of effort kills bench unit in terms of finishing (or adding) possession with rebounds
- combination of two small guards (NAW + Conley/Dilly) in backcourt might be another factor in bench unit bad rebounding

I feel like as backup bigman TC should get either high energy big like Mo Wager, or highly disciplined big who gives 100% effort. I feel like our bench unit does have enough talent, so backup bigman role might be filled with low profile, limited potential/talent, but high energy/effort player.

[minimus]

One thing that I have noticed about our rebounding problems is Randle's closeout technique. When Randle execute closeout he doesn't have wingspan to contest shooters on perimeter, so he jumps high, but avoid landing into shooter. What happens next is that Randle flies past his player which makes him be out of rebounding battle at all. It reminds me rebounding issues that TOR had when they played undersized lineups with FVV, Lowry, Trent and used to execute hard closeouts when they jumped high to contest shots. They tried to mitigate this issue by playing extremely aggressive perimeter defense based on high effort.

[Guest84]

What is the ideal archetype to put next to Ant as his 1B/2 running mate? Is it a PG, Wing, Big? What play style would create the most synergy with him and benefit the team?

[TheZachAttack]

What is the ideal archetype to put next to Ant as his 1B/2 running mate? Is it a PG, Wing, Big? What play style would create the most synergy with him and benefit the team?

Generally, what you see other teams do when they have a scorer who puts two on the ball is they get 3+D wings, a short roll/lob threat big, and find a second ball handler/creator who can punish defenses that leave them 1:1. Think about Dallas and Kyrie Irving and what they've done to give Luka answers to beat that type of coverage and what that looked like then when they faced the Wolves.

Luka and Harden of old when faced with this type of coverage would take possessions where they would do what Ant did and stand around the half court line because going 4 on 4 or 4 on 3 should be a huge advantage for the offense. Imagine if in that 4 on 4 scenario where Randle turned it over, instead it was Kyrie attacking 1 on 1 with all of that space. And go watch it back, I get what everyone is saying about Randle against JJ but he had the entire strong side of the floor and space to the weakside with JJ being the only person really even inside of the 3 point line basically.

So as far as 1a/1b I would say someone like Kyrie who will score 30+ if you allow him to attack 1:1 and can drive and kick. Second, I would say a big who can attack the short role, is a good passer, and has a good floater type of game (think Hartenstein). Then, last the more wings can space the floor the better (think Dallas when their wings are hitting versus not hitting shots).

Now think about how far the Wolves are away from this. Dante is pretty solid in this role, but he's not as elite as we need him to be as a ball handler. It's pretty disappointing that Randle isn't better at beating people 1:1. I would have thought from his double team numbers with the Knicks that he was better at this when attacking inside of the 3 point line. Gobert is arguably the worst short roll big in the league and McDaniels is arguably the worst wing in the corner in the league. This is why you see what you see.

This is why I actually think Rob is the "best" answer we have, but the coaching staff doesn't seem to trust him. If this is how teams are going to play Ant, then this is how you have to construct a roster to beat this and look good on offense consistently. I'm not sure as far as 1a/1b, but if the Wolves had

Monk
Dante
Ant
Naz
Hartenstein

They would be crushing this coverage.

[Klomp]

What is the ideal archetype to put next to Ant as his 1B/2 running mate? Is it a PG, Wing, Big? What play style would create the most synergy with him and benefit the team?

Generally, what you see other teams do when they have a scorer who puts two on the ball is they get 3+D wings, a short roll/lob threat big, and find a second ball handler/creator who can punish defenses that leave them 1:1. Think about Dallas and Kyrie Irving and what they've done to give Luka answers to beat that type of coverage and what that looked like then when they faced the Wolves.

Luka and Harden of old when faced with this type of coverage would take possessions where they would do what Ant did and stand around the half court line because going 4 on 4 or 4 on 3 should be a huge advantage for the offense. Imagine if in that 4 on 4 scenario where Randle turned it over, instead it was Kyrie attacking 1 on 1 with all of that space. And go watch it back, I get what everyone is saying about Randle against JJ but he had the entire strong side of the floor and space to the weakside with JJ being the only person really even inside of the 3 point line basically.

So as far as 1a/1b I would say someone like Kyrie who will score 30+ if you allow him to attack 1:1 and can drive and kick. Second, I would say a big who can attack the short role, is a good passer, and has a good floater type of game (think Hartenstein). Then, last the more wings can space the floor the better (think Dallas when their wings are hitting versus not hitting shots).

Now think about how far the Wolves are away from this. Dante is pretty solid in this role, but he's not as elite as we need him to be as a ball handler. It's pretty disappointing that Randle isn't better at beating people 1:1. I would have thought from his double team numbers with the Knicks that he was better at this when attacking inside of the 3 point line. Gobert is arguably the worst short roll big in the league and McDaniels is arguably the worst wing in the corner in the league. This is why you see what you see.

This is why I actually think Rob is the "best" answer we have, but the coaching staff doesn't seem to trust him. If this is how teams are going to play Ant, then this is how you have to construct a roster to beat this and look good on offense consistently. I'm not sure as far as 1a/1b, but if the Wolves had

Monk
Dante
Ant
Naz
Hartenstein

They would be crushing this coverage.

I agree that Dillingham is the ideal answer, and I think that's why they aggressively moved up to get him. But he's still 19. Remember Ant at 19? He was not near as good as he is today. So there has to be some sort of realistic understanding that it might take some time.

[TheZachAttack]

What is the ideal archetype to put next to Ant as his 1B/2 running mate? Is it a PG, Wing, Big? What play style would create the most synergy with him and benefit the team?

Generally, what you see other teams do when they have a scorer who puts two on the ball is they get 3+D wings, a short roll/lob threat big, and find a second ball handler/creator who can punish defenses that leave them 1:1. Think about Dallas and Kyrie Irving and what they've done to give Luka answers to beat that type of coverage and what that looked like then when they faced the Wolves.

Luka and Harden of old when faced with this type of coverage would take possessions where they would do what Ant did and stand around the half court line because going 4 on 4 or 4 on 3 should be a huge advantage for the offense. Imagine if in that 4 on 4 scenario where Randle turned it over, instead it was Kyrie attacking 1 on 1 with all of that space. And go watch it back, I get what everyone is saying about Randle against JJ but he had the entire strong side of the floor and space to the weakside with JJ being the only person really even inside of the 3 point line basically.

So as far as 1a/1b I would say someone like Kyrie who will score 30+ if you allow him to attack 1:1 and can drive and kick. Second, I would say a big who can attack the short role, is a good passer, and has a good floater type of game (think Hartenstein). Then, last the more wings can space the floor the better (think Dallas when their wings are hitting versus not hitting shots).

Now think about how far the Wolves are away from this. Dante is pretty solid in this role, but he's not as elite as we need him to be as a ball handler. It's pretty disappointing that Randle isn't better at beating people 1:1. I would have thought from his double team numbers with the Knicks that he was better at this when attacking inside of the 3 point line. Gobert is arguably the worst short roll big in the league and McDaniels is arguably the worst wing in the corner in the league. This is why you see what you see.

This is why I actually think Rob is the "best" answer we have, but the coaching staff doesn't seem to trust him. If this is how teams are going to play Ant, then this is how you have to construct a roster to beat this and look good on offense consistently. I'm not sure as far as 1a/1b, but if the Wolves had

Monk
Dante
Ant
Naz
Hartenstein

They would be crushing this coverage.

I agree that Dillingham is the ideal answer, and I think that's why they aggressively moved up to get him. But he's still 19. Remember Ant at 19? He was not near as good as he is today. So there has to be some sort of realistic understanding that it might take some time.

100% I'm just speaking towards how to solve the problem and what would be the best fit around Ant. My concern is that outside of Dillingham we don't have as many answers to the problems as we need to. In my mind, this is why a trade needs to happen and it needs to work backwards from how do we get short and long term answers to that problem. This team won't work unless we add answers to solve that problem, whether through internal growth or roster changes.

I am actually advocating for patience. I think the idea that we were a contender has misaligned how the team is focusing and what they are prioritizing. I think we need to have a strong defense, but saying that we are worried about say what losing McDaniels would do to the defense is the wrong way to go. Unless, we maximize the team around Ant and help him unlock his potential then we will not win a championship. If we take a step back in defense, but Ant is a fully optimized player... let's see what the team looks like then and make decisions about what else needs to be added or doesn't need to be added.

[minimus]

What is the ideal archetype to put next to Ant as his 1B/2 running mate? Is it a PG, Wing, Big? What play style would create the most synergy with him and benefit the team?

Unselfish, good shooter, solid defender and passer. Basically everything that Towns is in NYK as stretch five big, except for rim protection

[BlacJacMac]

What is the ideal archetype to put next to Ant as his 1B/2 running mate? Is it a PG, Wing, Big? What play style would create the most synergy with him and benefit the team?

Unselfish, good shooter, solid defender and passer. Basically everything that Towns is in NYK as stretch five big, except for rim protection

Pre-injury Lonzo Ball.

[Klomp]

What is the ideal archetype to put next to Ant as his 1B/2 running mate? Is it a PG, Wing, Big? What play style would create the most synergy with him and benefit the team?

Unselfish, good shooter, solid defender and passer. Basically everything that Towns is in NYK as stretch five big, except for rim protection

Pre-injury Lonzo Ball.

I would add Tyrese Haliburton if he was a better defender. But that's absolutely the prototype at guard. Heck, Pat Bev was even an example of this at guard.

[BlacJacMac]

Unselfish, good shooter, solid defender and passer. Basically everything that Towns is in NYK as stretch five big, except for rim protection

Pre-injury Lonzo Ball.

I would add Tyrese Haliburton if he was a better defender. But that's absolutely the prototype at guard. Heck, Pat Bev was even an example of this at guard.

The defensive part kept me from saying Hali.

[Klomp]

I would add that especially as long as Jaden is starting and is a POA defender, whatever guard is next to him doesn't have to be an exceptional defender. They just have to hold their own and not be a complete liability.

One other younger name I'd throw out there is Andrew Nembhard.

[Klomp]

Pre-injury Lonzo Ball.

I would add Tyrese Haliburton if he was a better defender. But that's absolutely the prototype at guard. Heck, Pat Bev was even an example of this at guard.

The defensive part kept me from saying Hali.

Cade might actually be one of the best names in this discussion, again if we're looking more at guards.

[shrink]

I try to keep reminding myself that Ant is only 23 and entered the NBA with very poor NBA-level skills. However, until he can actually learn to be a better playmaker, I think he has been at his best when a PG has been running the offense.

Does it worry anyone that the big longterm investment in Dillingham might be because Connelly and Finch think that Ant may never develop good playmaking skills?

[winforlose]

I try to keep reminding myself that Ant is only 23 and entered the NBA with very poor NBA-level skills. However, until he can actually learn to be a better playmaker, I think he has been at his best when a PG has been running the offense.

Does it worry anyone that the big longterm investment in Dillingham might be because Connelly and Finch think that Ant may never develop good playmaking skills?

You think Ant was better last season without Mike? You think we were better end of game with the ball in Ant’s hands? Even this season, you trust Ant to share the ball end of game. Or to run set plays and read defenses to know who will be open and when to get them the ball? What about the non Ant minutes? We drafted Dilly because we lacked the capital to get a free agent PG, and the Spurs were willing to maximize assets for Wemby’s prime to the detriment of the present. That only happens when you have a POBO/GM willing to lose now because they either have the job security or are too old to care about getting fired in the next few years. We gambled big on Dilly but everyone should have known he would need a year or 2 to develop. 19 year olds with his defensive history and size are not NBA ready.