RealGM

Let me start with a quote from another thread:

Tirion wrote:Firing Rambis is bad for the tanking.

I'd like to take the conversation in (I think) a different direction and raise some questions that are a little delicate. Please don't confuse me for a troll I'm interested in an honest yet civil discussion.

Is it possible that Rambis is a competent coach who knows exactly what he's doing...that he's been doing what his employers wanted him to do...and that what his employers wanted him to do is tank? It's not news that a low-ranked team may tank at the end of the season. I'm talking about something like tanking in the first half of the season, by design.

Not in every game, mind you. Perhaps there are just a handful of games or game situations in which decisionmaking by a coach or player is...influenced. The influence could go the other direction, too: I was at the K-Love 31-31 game. Was there anything suspicious about how different the second half was from the first? Why did the Knicks keep taking all those 3s when they had the lead?

Edited to add, 1/27 8am: Maybe the game is just being influenced to encourage close final scores--see my comment below.

(Disclaimer: I don't wear a tinfoil hat. And my username is just a tongue-in-cheek reference to a very obscure video game )

I've been asking questions like this of myself ever since I heard a guy named Brian Touhy on the radio. He has a book out called The Fix Is In. Some, perhaps most, of the theories are baseless, but some may have merit. There's certainly at least a little something going on: It's noncontroversial that superstars get favorable ref calls. I guess I'm wondering, to the extent we can know it, how much the NBA is like pro wrestling in terms of show business over fair competition.

I wouldn't go that far but I do think Rambis is a little better then some people think.

shangrila wrote:I wouldn't go that far but I do think Rambis is a little better then some people think.

We just arent a very talented team. Beasley and Love are above average, but everyone else is mediocre to bad. Its hard to win with a team like that

Piecake wrote:

shangrila wrote:I wouldn't go that far but I do think Rambis is a little better then some people think.

We just arent a very talented team. Beasley and Love are above average, but everyone else is mediocre to bad. Its hard to win with a team like that

When you're forced to choose between Darko and Luke Ridnour as your 3rd best player, you have a problem. We definitely don't have a lot of talent. We're young so there is the prospect of growth, but nothing is guaranteed.

It does seem a little bit weird how some of these games are playing out, but idk if we'd be trying to lose. The fan base has taken a beating the last few years, it'd be really risky to be pulling something like that. Just too iffy for me.

Fair enough, and I don't disagree. I still can't shake this uneasy feeling though (along the lines of the previous commenter's "a little bit weird"). Let me ask a different question: If the Timberwolves are so inferior, then why are there more than a few games where they alllllmost win, sometimes against some of the best teams?

Granted, I can think of at least one benign explanation: The good teams are trying to stay healthy in the regular season by putting in only the minimal effort needed to win. But why would an OKC or a SA let it get so close that the game goes to overtime?

I'm also thinking of Monday's game. How did the T-wolves end up losing by only 4 to a Rockets team that far outplayed them?

I can't decide whether it's paranoid to think there's something going on or naive to think there isn't. No one ever said being a Timberwolves fan was good for your mental health....

Piecake wrote:We just arent a very talented team.

I disagree. This team has plenty of talent, they're just playing way below their talent level and a lot of that is on the coaching staff.

AQuintus wrote:

Piecake wrote:We just arent a very talented team.

I disagree. This team has plenty of talent, they're just playing way below their talent level and a lot of that is on the coaching staff.

I agree with this.

I agree to not agree that I am disagreeing with this.

AQuintus wrote:

Piecake wrote:We just arent a very talented team.

I disagree. This team has plenty of talent, they're just playing way below their talent level and a lot of that is on the coaching staff.

How do you figure?

I'll give you Love and Beasley but there's not a lot outside of them. Ridnour is a backup, Darko is inconsistent, Brewer is...well, Brewer, Johnson, Webster and Flynn have disappointed, Pek is still adjusting and the rest of the bench isn't anything special. I mean, when Ridnour is statistically the 3rd best player on your team there's something wrong.

funkatron101 wrote:

AQuintus wrote:

Piecake wrote:We just arent a very talented team.

I disagree. This team has plenty of talent, they're just playing way below their talent level and a lot of that is on the coaching staff.

I agree with this.

There's one (Love), maybe two (Beasley) guys that can be counted on to outplay their matchup most nights. It's a more talented group than has been here the past couple years, and the coaching staff certainly deserves some of the blame for the record still being similar, but like somebody said earlier in the thread, the 3rd best player on the team is probably either Ridnour or Darko. Talent is still an issue.

just an fyi, the okc thunder had the exact same starting line up they have today in 08-09 and went 23-59 before going off for 50 wins the following year, yes their other pieces were pretty rubbish and role players have changed but those things are pretty easy(easier) to fix, patience is the key...we will be much better next year...talks of rambo going can start next year if we haven't improved pretty significantly(which i'm sure we will)...rambo is still learning too and has shown to be at least pretty good in terms of individual development.

fmi-agent wrote:Fair enough, and I don't disagree. I still can't shake this uneasy feeling though (along the lines of the previous commenter's "a little bit weird"). Let me ask a different question: If the Timberwolves are so inferior, then why are there more than a few games where they alllllmost win, sometimes against some of the best teams?

Granted, I can think of at least one benign explanation: The good teams are trying to stay healthy in the regular season by putting in only the minimal effort needed to win. But why would an OKC or a SA let it get so close that the game goes to overtime?

I'm also thinking of Monday's game. How did the T-wolves end up losing by only 4 to a Rockets team that far outplayed them?

I can't decide whether it's paranoid to think there's something going on or naive to think there isn't. No one ever said being a Timberwolves fan was good for your mental health....

This is much more simple than that, and has been stated over and over again. Perhaps because you have heard it so many times it has faded into the background or you expect it to no longer be true. However, the fact remains that the Timberwolves are the youngest team in the NBA. What's that? That fact alone can't account for what you are seeing on the court? I sympathise, I really do, but the fact is that this really does account for nearly all that you are seeing. Many of the Timberwolves' losses this season are because of ridiculous inconsistency (especially on the defensive end) and woefully high turnover rates. These are hallmarks of a young team. Defensive failures and turnovers are both byproducts of poor anticipation. The NBA is fast. REALLY fast. And the veteran players know what is most likely to happen, and can thus be there defensively or put the ball in the right spot offensively more accurately, more quickly and more reliably. It's a function of talent, experience and intelligence. The Timberwolves have some talent and a little intelligence anyway but have very little experience. Less than any other team in the league. The result is frequent breakdowns on either end of the court. Coaching? Coaching is the problem? You've got to be kidding me. We're starting a second string point guard, a hustle guy, a cast-off with confidence issues and two young future all-stars. Our next highest minutes guy is a rookie. This team is performing above their talent level and above expectations for their experience. Coaching and on-court leadership (a byproduct of Love and Beasley's buying in to Rambis' coaching) is why that is possible. Have patience all you sinners (mmm, sinning ), this team will be better next year and much better the year after that.

What everyone is saying makes sense, but I'm not sure that it speaks to the (admittedly vague) questions I'm asking.

I'm not asking about whether Rambis is a good or bad coach, or whether our players are inexperienced or overmatched. I'm asking, Is it normal for any last-place team to be juuuust good enough to get close to several upset wins, without actually getting them? (To eyeteeth's point, I guess I don't see how youth and inconsistency explain how we can almost knock off San Antonio instead of losing by 20 to them.) More generally I'm asking whether show business priorities, or other strategic priorities such as draft position, are unduly affecting the game.

Also, to kiwi_adam's point: I would love to see the Timberwolves make a dramatic turnaround like OKC did. If it happens, though, a part of me could very well be wondering whether it's happening entirely for the right reasons, without the help of owners or sponsors deciding that "Cinderella in Minnesota" would be good show business.

Good: Love, Beasley
ok at best: Darko
-----------------------------------------
below average starters: Luke, Brewer/Webster
potentially good: Wes, Flynn, Montengran Rapist
n/a: everybody else


We just don't have that many good players yet. Not getting significant production from any of our 2009 draft picks is hurting us. Plus Wes isn't producing the way one would hope a 23 yr old rookie picked #4 in the draft would produce.

I agree with ET and GI. Youth, youth, youth...

Rubio >~ Luke
Wes >~? (Brewer?)
Beas >~? (Webster?)
Love >~ Tolly
Darko >~ Pek

Next year should be much better, but I don't think they will really shine until 2012-13.

fmi-agent wrote:I'm not asking about whether Rambis is a good or bad coach, or whether our players are inexperienced or overmatched. I'm asking, Is it normal for any last-place team to be juuuust good enough to get close to several upset wins, without actually getting them? (To eyeteeth's point, I guess I don't see how youth and inconsistency explain how we can almost knock off San Antonio instead of losing by 20 to them.) More generally I'm asking whether show business priorities, or other strategic priorities such as draft position, are unduly affecting the game.

I would point you to Oklahoma then in the year before they got the Harden pick. They only won something like 20 games but were close several times.

Youth and experience plays a huge roll in what you're saying as well though. Right now, they just don't understand how to close out an NBA game, due to several things such as general inexperience, lack of time in the system or with teammates, etc.

Now, I don't think they'll do the same as Oklahoma and become a 50 win team next year but I definitely think they'll be a lot better when guys have had a full year both with each other and the system.

Thank you--you're speaking to my point. A couple of responses:

• One could ask the same questions of the 08-09 Thunder that I'm asking of the 10-11 Wolves.
  
• Agreed that Closing Out Games is a skill to be learned by young teams. It makes perfect sense when you look at, say, the season opener vs. SAC. Against SAS or OKC, though, I would think that a young team would be more likely to struggle with the skill of Not Being Blown Out.

On the other hand: It just occurred to me that close games happen in college ball, too, even when one team is heavily favored.

Perhaps I'm underrating the possibility that a weak team is capable of 30 minutes, or even 45 minutes, of competitive ball but not 48. So, yeah, it's likely I'm seeing things that are really just part of the game. As you were.

No, it's a good question. But I think if you look at the San Antonio games, for example, you'll find your answer.

In pretty much all of those games the difference between us was that when the clock was running down the Spurs knew exactly what they wanted to do and executed it to perfection. This team, on the other hand, had no idea and tried to force themselves to do other things that only resulted in turnovers. Maybe some of that is on the coaching staff, but really I think it's on the players. We don't have anyone that we can throw the playbook out and just give the ball to see us through yet, so when they do throw out the playbook it just leads to disaster.

They'll get it eventually, just probably not as fast as some people might hope.

While the team is young, it's not exactly the void of players with playoff experience that should know how to close out games. Beasley, Darko, and Luke have all been there and understand those pressures.