ImageImageImage

The Jarrett Culver Thread

Moderators: Domejandro, Worm Guts, Calinks

Jedzz
RealGM
Posts: 12,322
And1: 2,506
Joined: Oct 05, 2018

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#481 » by Jedzz » Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:26 pm

If you want to spend the time to split that stat out into the two different roles he's in, I would be willing to listen to the point of that stat when focused down to only during the Point Culver time. Otherwise I'm not interested in it.

I've already admitted he seems to be less a hinderence and more useful when playing SG/wing alongside Point Wiggins and the rest of the starters. I see a need to stop trying to play him in different ways, two roles, at this time. Take him out before the other starters, don't extend his play 6 minutes into the next lineup to play a different role. We have other players for that role ready to lead the second group (Teague) and when Napier comes back we will have too many again. Let Culver have a rookie season of just focusing on playing SG/Wing, building his confidence, and next season they can see where his head for the game is at then.
minimus
RealGM
Posts: 11,423
And1: 3,678
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#482 » by minimus » Mon Dec 2, 2019 8:28 am



He needs to learn how to use board when he is shooting with some angle, fix FTs and add floater game.
User avatar
Killboard
Analyst
Posts: 3,374
And1: 943
Joined: Jul 16, 2010

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#483 » by Killboard » Mon Dec 2, 2019 1:39 pm

He had the best net rating in the team and I thought he deserved to close the game above Teague, specially for the anemic guard defense on Brooks and Melton down the stretch.
minimus
RealGM
Posts: 11,423
And1: 3,678
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#484 » by minimus » Mon Dec 2, 2019 1:55 pm

Read on Twitter
minimus
RealGM
Posts: 11,423
And1: 3,678
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#485 » by minimus » Mon Dec 2, 2019 4:13 pm

minimus wrote:
Read on Twitter


There is no reason why our team should not run in fast break every time Culver, Wiggins, KBD, KAT rebounds the ball. KAT-KBD-RoCo-Culver-Wiggins should run hard in fast break.
old school 34
Senior
Posts: 645
And1: 240
Joined: Jun 14, 2018
         

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#486 » by old school 34 » Mon Dec 2, 2019 10:02 pm

Jedzz wrote:If you want to spend the time to split that stat out into the two different roles he's in, I would be willing to listen to the point of that stat when focused down to only during the Point Culver time. Otherwise I'm not interested in it.

I've already admitted he seems to be less a hinderence and more useful when playing SG/wing alongside Point Wiggins and the rest of the starters. I see a need to stop trying to play him in different ways, two roles, at this time. Take him out before the other starters, don't extend his play 6 minutes into the next lineup to play a different role. We have other players for that role ready to lead the second group (Teague) and when Napier comes back we will have too many again. Let Culver have a rookie season of just focusing on playing SG/Wing, building his confidence, and next season they can see where his head for the game is at then.
I get your frustration to a point....I guess what talks me off the ledge is that @ some point I do think the organization wants a real sample size to know whether he can eventually make that leap and if so...how long will it take? So it's probably mutually aligned to find enough time throughout the games to build some of that sample size &/or see what kind of growth comes from that? Pop for the Spurs was the master of that finding those minutes primarily to develop guys while not costing the teams wins during their run. I think Saunders & Rosas are trying to figure that out...on what that balance is & unfortunately, we don't have all the established top end talent already in place that Pop had, thus the margin for error becomes that more obvious.

The situation you specifically talked about here...fortunately, didn't cost us a W. And between more talent, player development, & more coaching/management experience that gets better & less impactful in a negative way. But imo, still has to happen in some fashion on a regular basis--if we're going to be the type of organization that prides itself on player development that will be the only way a team like us will be able to have sustained success.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app
Jedzz
RealGM
Posts: 12,322
And1: 2,506
Joined: Oct 05, 2018

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#487 » by Jedzz » Tue Dec 3, 2019 2:19 am

old school 34 wrote:
Jedzz wrote:If you want to spend the time to split that stat out into the two different roles he's in, I would be willing to listen to the point of that stat when focused down to only during the Point Culver time. Otherwise I'm not interested in it.

I've already admitted he seems to be less a hinderence and more useful when playing SG/wing alongside Point Wiggins and the rest of the starters. I see a need to stop trying to play him in different ways, two roles, at this time. Take him out before the other starters, don't extend his play 6 minutes into the next lineup to play a different role. We have other players for that role ready to lead the second group (Teague) and when Napier comes back we will have too many again. Let Culver have a rookie season of just focusing on playing SG/Wing, building his confidence, and next season they can see where his head for the game is at then.
I get your frustration to a point....I guess what talks me off the ledge is that @ some point I do think the organization wants a real sample size to know whether he can eventually make that leap and if so...how long will it take? So it's probably mutually aligned to find enough time throughout the games to build some of that sample size &/or see what kind of growth comes from that? Pop for the Spurs was the master of that finding those minutes primarily to develop guys while not costing the teams wins during their run. I think Saunders & Rosas are trying to figure that out...on what that balance is & unfortunately, we don't have all the established top end talent already in place that Pop had, thus the margin for error becomes that more obvious.

The situation you specifically talked about here...fortunately, didn't cost us a W. And between more talent, player development, & more coaching/management experience that gets better & less impactful in a negative way. But imo, still has to happen in some fashion on a regular basis--if we're going to be the type of organization that prides itself on player development that will be the only way a team like us will be able to have sustained success.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app


Well put, until you point out it didn't cost us a win. That game it didn't, but some games they have lost. This can be one reason for some of them given the results. I agree with your description of what they are trying to do and that there is simply less margin for error. But I think they could choose a different point in a game sometimes to do it too, and decide some games it just isn't wise instead of treating it like a repeat process that always happens in between the change from starters to bench in the first. Maybe they should save it sometimes until later and start the third with it. Just to change things up.
minimus
RealGM
Posts: 11,423
And1: 3,678
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#488 » by minimus » Tue Dec 3, 2019 6:30 pm

Read on Twitter
minimus
RealGM
Posts: 11,423
And1: 3,678
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#489 » by minimus » Thu Dec 5, 2019 7:48 am

old school 34
Senior
Posts: 645
And1: 240
Joined: Jun 14, 2018
         

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#490 » by old school 34 » Thu Dec 5, 2019 8:33 pm

Jedzz wrote:
old school 34 wrote:
Jedzz wrote:If you want to spend the time to split that stat out into the two different roles he's in, I would be willing to listen to the point of that stat when focused down to only during the Point Culver time. Otherwise I'm not interested in it.

I've already admitted he seems to be less a hinderence and more useful when playing SG/wing alongside Point Wiggins and the rest of the starters. I see a need to stop trying to play him in different ways, two roles, at this time. Take him out before the other starters, don't extend his play 6 minutes into the next lineup to play a different role. We have other players for that role ready to lead the second group (Teague) and when Napier comes back we will have too many again. Let Culver have a rookie season of just focusing on playing SG/Wing, building his confidence, and next season they can see where his head for the game is at then.
I get your frustration to a point....I guess what talks me off the ledge is that @ some point I do think the organization wants a real sample size to know whether he can eventually make that leap and if so...how long will it take? So it's probably mutually aligned to find enough time throughout the games to build some of that sample size &/or see what kind of growth comes from that? Pop for the Spurs was the master of that finding those minutes primarily to develop guys while not costing the teams wins during their run. I think Saunders & Rosas are trying to figure that out...on what that balance is & unfortunately, we don't have all the established top end talent already in place that Pop had, thus the margin for error becomes that more obvious.

The situation you specifically talked about here...fortunately, didn't cost us a W. And between more talent, player development, & more coaching/management experience that gets better & less impactful in a negative way. But imo, still has to happen in some fashion on a regular basis--if we're going to be the type of organization that prides itself on player development that will be the only way a team like us will be able to have sustained success.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app


Well put, until you point out it didn't cost us a win. That game it didn't, but some games they have lost. This can be one reason for some of them given the results. I agree with your description of what they are trying to do and that there is simply less margin for error. But I think they could choose a different point in a game sometimes to do it too, and decide some games it just isn't wise instead of treating it like a repeat process that always happens in between the change from starters to bench in the first. Maybe they should save it sometimes until later and start the third with it. Just to change things up.
Agree that @ times it has probably cost us a "W"....and it fair to improve on how you find those windows or opportunities that minimize the end results. Just like we have a # of young players developing...we have a new coach & POBO developing as well....I've seen more good than bad...but can they get better & need to...absolutely.

That said, it still needs to happen & that's where sometimes I think some get tipped over on it. Culver's development opportunities shouldn't be eliminated...just can we pick our spots better...some times they get it and sometimes they miss ...hopefully it continues to improve or a trade happens that raises their talent level that gives that that greater margin for error?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app
old school 34
Senior
Posts: 645
And1: 240
Joined: Jun 14, 2018
         

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#491 » by old school 34 » Thu Dec 5, 2019 8:39 pm

minimus wrote:
Read on Twitter
Interesting stat....doesn't surprise me that Okogie/Graham are the worst...but I would've guessed Okogie/Culver being the best?

Be curious to see the minutes breakdown of each of those combinations of with KAT, Wiggs, both, or none....thinking that any significant variation of those 2 also being with them could significantly skew what you take out of that initial snapshot.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app
Crazy-Canuck
RealGM
Posts: 26,125
And1: 6,293
Joined: Nov 24, 2003

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#492 » by Crazy-Canuck » Fri Dec 6, 2019 12:33 am

old school 34 wrote:
minimus wrote:
Read on Twitter
Interesting stat....doesn't surprise me that Okogie/Graham are the worst...but I would've guessed Okogie/Culver being the best?

Be curious to see the minutes breakdown of each of those combinations of with KAT, Wiggs, both, or none....thinking that any significant variation of those 2 also being with them could significantly skew what you take out of that initial snapshot.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app


2 man

wiggs + Okogie 114.7 100.00 +14.7
wiggs + Culver 113.9 105.5 + 8.5
wiggs + layman 106.5 102.7 +3.9
wiggs + graham 105.8 109 -3.2

kat + okogie 106.3 105.5 + 0.8
kat + culver 112.3 106.4 +5.9
kat + layman 107.6 101.3 +6.2
kat + graham 107.2 111.4 -4.1

3 man

kat+wiggs+okogie 112.4 105.3 +7.2
kat+wiggs+ culver 117.5 102.9 +14.6
kat+wiggs+layman 101.5 95.7 +5.8
kat+wiggs+graham 107.9 107 +0.9

So, we basically need kat and wiggs to be out there with graham just for him to be neutral.
Jedzz
RealGM
Posts: 12,322
And1: 2,506
Joined: Oct 05, 2018

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#493 » by Jedzz » Fri Dec 6, 2019 1:42 am

Crazy-Canuck wrote:
old school 34 wrote:
minimus wrote:
Read on Twitter
Interesting stat....doesn't surprise me that Okogie/Graham are the worst...but I would've guessed Okogie/Culver being the best?

Be curious to see the minutes breakdown of each of those combinations of with KAT, Wiggs, both, or none....thinking that any significant variation of those 2 also being with them could significantly skew what you take out of that initial snapshot.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app


2 man

wiggs + Okogie 114.7 100.00 +14.7
wiggs + Culver 113.9 105.5 + 8.5
wiggs + layman 106.5 102.7 +3.9
wiggs + graham 105.8 109 -3.2

kat + okogie 106.3 105.5 + 0.8
kat + culver 112.3 106.4 +5.9
kat + layman 107.6 101.3 +6.2
kat + graham 107.2 111.4 -4.1

3 man

kat+wiggs+okogie 112.4 105.3 +7.2
kat+wiggs+ culver 117.5 102.9 +14.6
kat+wiggs+layman 101.5 95.7 +5.8
kat+wiggs+graham 107.9 107 +0.9

So, we basically need kat and wiggs to be out there with graham just for him to be neutral.



I'm trying to figure out that final 3 man listing for Kat+Wiggins+Culver. How is the defense listed at 102.9 when the break outs for Culver + Wiggins and Culver + Kat are both over 105. (105.5 and 106.4) Who are the 4th and 5th players during his magical moment of 102.9 defense? Is it Cov and who? Because the splits with others weren't great. But somehow it got to 102.9 because of someone not listed. Who's the other wing?


Otherwise, what these two and three man breakouts possibly does is hide our best group of 5 from us. Who plays best as a set of 5 is what I want to know. Then, who plays best as a bench set of 5, and what variations with the bench players work. Does the Kat Wiggins Okogie grouping that looks decent and the Wiggins Okogie pairing that looks decent work because Covington and Who else are with them? It has to matter. Because then we are showing Kat and Okogie's pairing numbers where it drops off hard. Well, how is that? It has to be who is on the court with them. But we can't see that here. So why bother to break it down to these 2 and 3 man views? Maybe it's just me. But how else do you explain the drop off for that example of Kat + Okogie? It isn't just Wiggins not being there. There is going to be two other Wings because this is Point Culver time. So who is it usually? Who are common so far as a 5 during the Point Culver sessions without Wiggins, but with Kat.
Crazy-Canuck
RealGM
Posts: 26,125
And1: 6,293
Joined: Nov 24, 2003

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#494 » by Crazy-Canuck » Fri Dec 6, 2019 1:58 am

Jedzz wrote:
Crazy-Canuck wrote:
old school 34 wrote:Interesting stat....doesn't surprise me that Okogie/Graham are the worst...but I would've guessed Okogie/Culver being the best?

Be curious to see the minutes breakdown of each of those combinations of with KAT, Wiggs, both, or none....thinking that any significant variation of those 2 also being with them could significantly skew what you take out of that initial snapshot.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app


2 man

wiggs + Okogie 114.7 100.00 +14.7
wiggs + Culver 113.9 105.5 + 8.5
wiggs + layman 106.5 102.7 +3.9
wiggs + graham 105.8 109 -3.2

kat + okogie 106.3 105.5 + 0.8
kat + culver 112.3 106.4 +5.9
kat + layman 107.6 101.3 +6.2
kat + graham 107.2 111.4 -4.1

3 man

kat+wiggs+okogie 112.4 105.3 +7.2
kat+wiggs+ culver 117.5 102.9 +14.6
kat+wiggs+layman 101.5 95.7 +5.8
kat+wiggs+graham 107.9 107 +0.9

So, we basically need kat and wiggs to be out there with graham just for him to be neutral.



I'm trying to figure out that final 3 man listing for Kat+Wiggins+Culver. How is the defense listed at 102.9 when the break outs for Culver + Wiggins and Culver + Kat are both over 105. (105.5 and 106.4) Who are the 4th and 5th players during his magical moment of 102.9 defense? Is it Cov and who? Because the splits with others weren't great. But somehow it got to 102.9 because of someone not listed. Who's the other wing?


Otherwise, what these two and three man breakouts possibly does is hide our best group of 5 from us. Who plays best as a set of 5 is what I want to know. Then, who plays best as a bench set of 5, and what variations with the bench players work. Does the Kat Wiggins Okogie grouping that looks decent and the Wiggins Okogie pairing that looks decent work because Covington and Who else are with them? It has to matter. Because then we are showing Kat and Okogie's pairing numbers where it drops off hard. Well, how is that? It has to be who is on the court with them. But we can't see that here. So why bother to break it down to these 2 and 3 man views? Maybe it's just me. But how else do you explain the drop off for that example of Kat + Okogie?


Our most played 5 man unit (75 minutes) is

Kat, cov, graham, culver, and wiggs 113.4 100.6 for a +12.8 net rtg

Same team but replace teague for culver:

In 71 minutes

106.6 118.2 -11.6 net rtg.

Our best 5 man unit (19 mins)

Kat, cov, okogie, culver, and wiggins 136.6 114 +22.6
Jedzz
RealGM
Posts: 12,322
And1: 2,506
Joined: Oct 05, 2018

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#495 » by Jedzz » Fri Dec 6, 2019 2:02 am

Crazy-Canuck wrote:
Our most played 5 man unit (75 minutes) is

Kat, cov, graham, culver, and wiggs 113.4 100.6 for a +12.8 net rtg

Same team but replace teague for culver:

In 71 minutes

106.6 118.2 -11.6 net rtg.

Our best 5 man unit (19 mins)

Kat, cov, okogie, culver, and wiggins 136.6 114 +22.6


Thank you, that seems much more helpful to me.
Crazy-Canuck
RealGM
Posts: 26,125
And1: 6,293
Joined: Nov 24, 2003

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#496 » by Crazy-Canuck » Fri Dec 6, 2019 2:42 am

Jedzz wrote:
Crazy-Canuck wrote:
Our most played 5 man unit (75 minutes) is

Kat, cov, graham, culver, and wiggs 113.4 100.6 for a +12.8 net rtg

Same team but replace teague for culver:

In 71 minutes

106.6 118.2 -11.6 net rtg.

Our best 5 man unit (19 mins)

Kat, cov, okogie, culver, and wiggins 136.6 114 +22.6


Thank you, that seems much more helpful to me.



Read on Twitter
Dewey
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,778
And1: 1,019
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#497 » by Dewey » Fri Dec 6, 2019 2:46 am

Teague and graham would fit best on a solid playoff team ... but I don't see a playoff team who would deal for either one unless the injury bug bites.

If he’s headed for a reduced role here, I’d like to see Teague used as strictly a shooter ... stop dribbling ... catch and shoot. He has a smooth looking stroke, but other wise seems to be breaking down. Idk.
Flip response to Love wanting out, "He has no reason to be upset, you're either a part of the problem or a part of the solution"
wesleyt95
Rookie
Posts: 1,158
And1: 277
Joined: Sep 23, 2018
 

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#498 » by wesleyt95 » Fri Dec 6, 2019 2:55 am

Okogie is basically a quicker Treveon Graham, I don't think this move will change results
Jedzz
RealGM
Posts: 12,322
And1: 2,506
Joined: Oct 05, 2018

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#499 » by Jedzz » Fri Dec 6, 2019 3:49 am

Crazy-Canuck wrote:
Jedzz wrote:
Crazy-Canuck wrote:
Our most played 5 man unit (75 minutes) is

Kat, cov, graham, culver, and wiggs 113.4 100.6 for a +12.8 net rtg

Same team but replace teague for culver:

In 71 minutes

106.6 118.2 -11.6 net rtg.

Our best 5 man unit (19 mins)

Kat, cov, okogie, culver, and wiggins 136.6 114 +22.6


Thank you, that seems much more helpful to me.



Read on Twitter


I'm good with Okogie coming up for that. The only problem with that, as shown, is that the team has been showing that they are actually having Culver run point and having Wiggins off ball. Last few games have shown that and it's not peak effective looking from Wiggins. That tweet seems to infer that Wiggins is on point, but they haven't been doing so lately like the team did when Teague first missed games this season.
Jedzz
RealGM
Posts: 12,322
And1: 2,506
Joined: Oct 05, 2018

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#500 » by Jedzz » Fri Dec 6, 2019 3:53 am

Dewey wrote:Teague and graham would fit best on a solid playoff team ... but I don't see a playoff team who would deal for either one unless the injury bug bites.

If he’s headed for a reduced role here, I’d like to see Teague used as strictly a shooter ... stop dribbling ... catch and shoot. He has a smooth looking stroke, but other wise seems to be breaking down. Idk.


He does have a good stroke, when he doesn't hesitate. Problem is that he almost always hesitates now and then refuses to shoot. The defender gets their after his hesitation, so now he's got to dribble around and find someone else to take it. It's almost like he's been trained not to shoot here, to feed the others, and it's completely up in his head now. How to get him to catch/shoot now? If he won't he either has to be the lone PG on the floor or not on the floor at all.

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves