RealGM

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

As I was reading thru this...my brain was kind of going where you were Jedzz as well....who's the others on there & as I was thinking that thru my gut was telling me something that Canuck you confirmed for me....gut says almost any comb that has Teague in it probably is going to be the only guy that might rival Graham in bad ratings & that magical 4th & 5th guys had to be Roco & Okogie.....I feel the whole reason Graham came out @ the beginning of the year as the starter instead of Okogie was just to create just a little internal pressure for Okogie to just buckle down & be just a little more under control & 'stay in your lane' on the offensive side. I know they want him to stay aggressive & keep shooting---but they have to want him to stay in more control & just a little less reckless. Which too his credit it does seem like he's getting better @ as the season has progressed....so it makes sense that they make this move now & reward him. After that move....see the starting line up really stabilizing unless a trade happens, Okogie goes back to being too mistake prone on offense (but also would need to coincide w/ a bench guy really showing something extra--maybe a Layman or KBD), or Wiggins suddenly stops being able to hold down the PG spot...Then it will be interesting to see how the bench 5 shakes out---which guy of the six falls out of the rotation: Teague/Napier/Graham/Layman/KBD/Dieng....lots of questions about each one & could make an argument for or against each pretty easy....but I think I almost lean personally for me that the guy that should be pulled out of those 6 is Teague....not that he's the least talented guy....just that his fit is so poor w/ what they're trying to do? Stating the obvious, but to turn Teague/Graham/Vonleh into a 5th starter that fits & move Okogie back w/ that bench unit---we'd be a lot closer than I thought we'd be to having pieces that fit where we're trying to go & you have those other 3 development guys still lurking that I'm in no rush to force into the line up but definitely feel all 3 have a great shot to be there eventually (Naz/Nowell/Martin---all can shoot).

Crazy-Canuck wrote:

Read on Twitter

It seems like our coaching staff is looking to add some defense in lineup. Graham, Okogie, Culver all seem to be able to contribute in defense as starters. I am looking forward to Layman comeback, coming trades and further young players development.

Moving teague and graham to the bench was ovious ... adds balance to reserves on Layman get back. I credit the staff for putting forth the effort to try various combinations and giving players opportunities.

Starters = Culver/Okogie/Wiggins/RoCo/KAT
Reserves = Teague/Layman/KDB
Deep Reserves = Napier/Dieng/Vonleh/Bell

No matter how we slice things, we have a few well-known challenges...
1. No legit NBA caliber PG. I'm fine rolling with Culver to see how he develops vs. doing a panic move.
2. Quality big guy to back towns. Dieng/Vonleh/Bell do not excel enough at any one thing to keep them on the floor.
3. Shooting reliability/consistency. We knew going in, and for now, I'm happy with the reduction of long 2's
4. Gamers. We have few players who can raise level of play in big game moments.
5. Cap space ... Teague could be a solid veteran and cap asset for a contender (at deadline), but he's strugging.

I like to see 5 and 10 game blocks of games, so I'm curious to see how things roll thru christmas. It's a long season, and if we can patch up a few issues, we can possibly hang around long enough to make a move or two by the deadline.

I've had a mad crush on Point Culver since we drafted him. Glad to see him growing and succeeding in the role.

john2jer wrote:I've had a mad crush on Point Culver since we drafted him. Glad to see him growing and succeeding in the role.

See this, I don't get.

I read this and I look at this game tonight so far in the third Q.

Culver: 3-10 FG, 0-5 3FG, 1-2 FT. 20 minutes, 1 board, 1 steal.

30% is improvement I guess. 0-5 on the ultimate 3pt system isn't great however. I haven't watched the majority of this game walking into it now, so with zero assists, does it mean the team finally didn't try Point Culver mode for once?

Working for Teague so far.

Jedzz wrote:

john2jer wrote:I've had a mad crush on Point Culver since we drafted him. Glad to see him growing and succeeding in the role.

See this, I don't get.

I read this and I look at this game tonight so far in the third Q.

Culver: 3-10 FG, 0-5 3FG, 1-2 FT. 20 minutes, 1 board, 1 steal.

30% is improvement I guess. 0-5 on the ultimate 3pt system isn't great however. I haven't watched the majority of this game walking into it now, so with zero assists, does it mean the team finally didn't try Point Culver mode for once?

Working for Teague so far.

Teague had a very good offensive game, likely the best of the season. The issue with him is defense. He sports the second worst defensive rating in the roster (112.5), and from all the mistakes made down the stretch against OKC Teague allowing that full court pass and layup with 1.3 seconds on the game clock was the worse IMO.

Killboard wrote:

Jedzz wrote:

john2jer wrote:I've had a mad crush on Point Culver since we drafted him. Glad to see him growing and succeeding in the role.

See this, I don't get.

I read this and I look at this game tonight so far in the third Q.

Culver: 3-10 FG, 0-5 3FG, 1-2 FT. 20 minutes, 1 board, 1 steal.

30% is improvement I guess. 0-5 on the ultimate 3pt system isn't great however. I haven't watched the majority of this game walking into it now, so with zero assists, does it mean the team finally didn't try Point Culver mode for once?

Working for Teague so far.

Teague had a very good offensive game, likely the best of the season. The issue with him is defense. He sports the second worst defensive rating in the roster (112.5), and from all the mistakes made down the stretch against OKC Teague allowing that full court pass and layup with 1.3 seconds on the game clock was the worse IMO.

You'll get no argument from me on that post. But I'll say it doesn't have anything to do with Culver's play or lack of play or people's fantasies about how he might have finished that game.

I can't blame the coach for seeing "great" Teague show up this game and deciding to let him play down the stretch to hopfully build on that further. Only to see "bad" Teague show up in the last few minutes of the game. The guy appears to be really light switch like. No question.

Culver is there for defense, at 6'5" he can switch a lot more then Teague.

We rock a starting line up with vastly improved defense, because the plan is for Culver-Okogie-Wiggins-Roco-Towns who can all switch. all play multiple positions with wingspans to cover that 6'3'-6'9" ish range.

It's just that he's not polished. He isnt great at creating his own shot yet let alone running the point, We're excelling due to great gameplan, Towns is bull good and Roco is a high quality player.

I like Culvers defense but he has a few things to work on

For this year, I'd like Culver to focus more on going/cutting to the basket and finishing ... on the other hand, Teague needs to stop dribbling and learn to settle in on spots where he can take the 3 without hesitating. Right now they are what they are, so simpler the better.

Jedzz wrote:

john2jer wrote:I've had a mad crush on Point Culver since we drafted him. Glad to see him growing and succeeding in the role.

See this, I don't get.

I read this and I look at this game tonight so far in the third Q.

Culver: 3-10 FG, 0-5 3FG, 1-2 FT. 20 minutes, 1 board, 1 steal.

30% is improvement I guess. 0-5 on the ultimate 3pt system isn't great however. I haven't watched the majority of this game walking into it now, so with zero assists, does it mean the team finally didn't try Point Culver mode for once?

Working for Teague so far.

1. It's important to watch games and not just boxscores. Lot can be seen that doesn't show up there. I'm more concerned with his confidence, aggressiveness, and making the right play.
2. It's also important to not have a knee jerk reaction from game to game. Big picture.

john2jer wrote:

Jedzz wrote:

john2jer wrote:I've had a mad crush on Point Culver since we drafted him. Glad to see him growing and succeeding in the role.

See this, I don't get.

I read this and I look at this game tonight so far in the third Q.

Culver: 3-10 FG, 0-5 3FG, 1-2 FT. 20 minutes, 1 board, 1 steal.

30% is improvement I guess. 0-5 on the ultimate 3pt system isn't great however. I haven't watched the majority of this game walking into it now, so with zero assists, does it mean the team finally didn't try Point Culver mode for once?

Working for Teague so far.

1. It's important to watch games and not just boxscores. Lot can be seen that doesn't show up there. I'm more concerned with his confidence, aggressiveness, and making the right play.
2. It's also important to not have a knee jerk reaction from game to game. Big picture.

Here we go. I'lll knee jerk when I want. Kneejerking isn't the case here. I'm likely the only person willing to tell you that I didn't watch the first two Qs of the game when posting his numbers. Do you see the question mark in that post? I was asking a question. Big picture is that if anyone was kneejerking it's you.

Culver can man up and start hitting more than 25% whenever he gets around to it. I've watched nearly all the games save for a few missed quarters. I know a little bit about how Culver is playing so far and I've been discussing most of his game outputs with people here all season. His shooting woes are my major beef, so boxscore cuts mustard for my hard case. But the assists evaporating is what pushed my post and question. Maybe you would like to speak to that subject?

Jedzz wrote:

john2jer wrote:

Jedzz wrote:
See this, I don't get.

I read this and I look at this game tonight so far in the third Q.

Culver: 3-10 FG, 0-5 3FG, 1-2 FT. 20 minutes, 1 board, 1 steal.

30% is improvement I guess. 0-5 on the ultimate 3pt system isn't great however. I haven't watched the majority of this game walking into it now, so with zero assists, does it mean the team finally didn't try Point Culver mode for once?

Working for Teague so far.

1. It's important to watch games and not just boxscores. Lot can be seen that doesn't show up there. I'm more concerned with his confidence, aggressiveness, and making the right play.
2. It's also important to not have a knee jerk reaction from game to game. Big picture.

Here we go. I'lll knee jerk when I want. Kneejerking isn't the case here. I'm likely the only person willing to tell you that I didn't watch the first two Qs of the game when posting his numbers. Do you see the question mark in that post? I was asking a question. Big picture is that if anyone was kneejerking it's you.

Culver can man up and start hitting more than 25% whenever he gets around to it. I've watched nearly all the games save for a few missed quarters. I know a little bit about how Culver is playing so far and I've been discussing most of his game outputs with people here all season. His shooting woes are my major beef, so boxscore cuts mustard for my hard case. But the assists evaporating is what pushed my post and question. Maybe you would like to speak to that subject?

If you want to focus on the boxscore, by all means, go for it. My focus is on the way he's playing. I'm not worried about outputs for the rookie, I'm worried about his confidence and aggressiveness. The boxscore will come.

3/10 doesn't tell you a whole lot. Were they open shots, contested, timid, confident, was there a better shot available, was it attacking the rim, a midrange, in transition, halfcourt, did he beat a defender, did he attack a single or a double gap, was it a catch and shoot...?

john2jer wrote:

Jedzz wrote:

john2jer wrote:
1. It's important to watch games and not just boxscores. Lot can be seen that doesn't show up there. I'm more concerned with his confidence, aggressiveness, and making the right play.
2. It's also important to not have a knee jerk reaction from game to game. Big picture.

Here we go. I'lll knee jerk when I want. Kneejerking isn't the case here. I'm likely the only person willing to tell you that I didn't watch the first two Qs of the game when posting his numbers. Do you see the question mark in that post? I was asking a question. Big picture is that if anyone was kneejerking it's you.

Culver can man up and start hitting more than 25% whenever he gets around to it. I've watched nearly all the games save for a few missed quarters. I know a little bit about how Culver is playing so far and I've been discussing most of his game outputs with people here all season. His shooting woes are my major beef, so boxscore cuts mustard for my hard case. But the assists evaporating is what pushed my post and question. Maybe you would like to speak to that subject?

If you want to focus on the boxscore, by all means, go for it. My focus is on the way he's playing. I'm not worried about outputs for the rookie, I'm worried about his confidence and aggressiveness. The boxscore will come.

3/10 doesn't tell you a whole lot. Were they open shots, contested, timid, confident, was there a better shot available, was it attacking the rim, a midrange, in transition, halfcourt, did he beat a defender, did he attack a single or a double gap, was it a catch and shoot...?

You are still avoiding the entire reason for the post and the reason for posting the boxscore midgame and asking the question. WHERE WERE THE ASSISTS THAT YOU EXPECT TO SEE FROM A POINT GUARD? In all caps maybe you can see it. You can give your little lesson about boxscore reading instead of watching games to someone that doesn't actually watch the games.

Last night yet another game goes by, little to no assists. Culver is now just driving the net to be able to add something positive to his minutes. This little fairy tale about Starting as PG is reduced to a farce as he starts but gets 15-20 minutes now and it has little to do with being a creator for others on the floor. As I've been saying all along, they were shoehorning him and it happened too quickly for him. It's not always going to be progression from simply applying minutes.

I'm actually happy to see him focused on driving the net now at more manageable minutes. He can build his confidence there and then slowly expand from that.

I don't subscribe to the fairy tale that a point guard has to equal high raw assist numbers. A point guard's job typically is to bring the ball up and initiate the offense, but even that's not required anymore. Beyond that it's going to be different for each team/system. A great example is Denver where their starting point guard doesn't even average 5/game, and I'm assuming everyone here would take Jamal Murray to be their starter in a heartbeat. Patrick Beverley at 3/game. Kemba at 5/game. Whoever Miami's starting PG is supposed to be.

If your angst is going to stem from someone on this team averaging a ton of assist, and they keep running the system they're running, it might be a rough time for you.

I'm not avoiding anything, I just don't have any interest in the box in which you feel comfortable in and demand the discussion stay. That's your issue not mine.

john2jer wrote:I don't subscribe to the fairy tale that a point guard has to equal high raw assist numbers. A point guard's job typically is to bring the ball up and initiate the offense, but even that's not required anymore. Beyond that it's going to be different for each team/system. A great example is Denver where their starting point guard doesn't even average 5/game, and I'm assuming everyone here would take Jamal Murray to be their starter in a heartbeat. Patrick Beverley at 3/game. Kemba at 5/game. Whoever Miami's starting PG is supposed to be.

If your angst is going to stem from someone on this team averaging a ton of assist, and they keep running the system they're running, it might be a rough time for you.

I'm not avoiding anything, I just don't have any interest in the box in which you feel comfortable in and demand the discussion stay. That's your issue not mine.

I completely agree. There are reasons why the point guard position and assist numbers are highly correlated--largely due to the traditional role of a PG within an offense. However, the role of a PG--especially in today's game--can vary widely depending on offensive scheme, structure, and the skillsets of players on a team.

I would argue that in a Wolves system (which in its ideal state) seems to want to revolve around ball-movement, drive and kick action, and cutting... there should not be a single player that is averaging a high number of assists. In the Wolves ideal state there are 3 or 4 guys (Wiggins/Culver/Towns and hopefully in the future others as well) that average 3-5 assists per game.

I think the most important thing from our primary ball-handler is really just to be able to be able to initiate offense in the halfcourt quickly and make the right plays to start the Wolves half-court action. The Wolves half-court action mainly revolves a big with a high-screen that either the initiator (Culver or another player) will use to get space to either drive to the rim and score, drive to the rim and kick to a shooter, or shoot over if the defender goes under. Or the primary initiator will pass to the big in the high-post and they will run hand-off or a fake-hand-off and cutting action for another wing.

The offense gets stagnant with the primary initiator offense who dribbles around in circles for 24 seconds trying to find someone type offense.

When I watch the Wolves and try and judge if a player is playing that "PG" role well it's are they able to make the right decisions and playwithin the flow to get that offense going. I think Culver does that extremely well for a rookie. The one area I want to see him continue to improve is to be more confident, aggressive, and decisive with penetrating and then also more consistent at finishing at the rim.

TheZachAttack wrote:

john2jer wrote:I don't subscribe to the fairy tale that a point guard has to equal high raw assist numbers. A point guard's job typically is to bring the ball up and initiate the offense, but even that's not required anymore. Beyond that it's going to be different for each team/system. A great example is Denver where their starting point guard doesn't even average 5/game, and I'm assuming everyone here would take Jamal Murray to be their starter in a heartbeat. Patrick Beverley at 3/game. Kemba at 5/game. Whoever Miami's starting PG is supposed to be.

If your angst is going to stem from someone on this team averaging a ton of assist, and they keep running the system they're running, it might be a rough time for you.

I'm not avoiding anything, I just don't have any interest in the box in which you feel comfortable in and demand the discussion stay. That's your issue not mine.

I completely agree. There are reasons why the point guard position and assist numbers are highly correlated--largely due to the traditional role of a PG within an offense. However, the role of a PG--especially in today's game--can vary widely depending on offensive scheme, structure, and the skillsets of players on a team.

I would argue that in a Wolves system (which in its ideal state) seems to want to revolve around ball-movement, drive and kick action, and cutting... there should not be a single player that is averaging a high number of assists. In the Wolves ideal state there are 3 or 4 guys (Wiggins/Culver/Towns and hopefully in the future others as well) that average 3-5 assists per game.

I think the most important thing from our primary ball-handler is really just to be able to be able to initiate offense in the halfcourt quickly and make the right plays to start the Wolves half-court action. The Wolves half-court action mainly revolves a big with a high-screen that either the initiator (Culver or another player) will use to get space to either drive to the rim and score, drive to the rim and kick to a shooter, or shoot over if the defender goes under. Or the primary initiator will pass to the big in the high-post and they will run hand-off or a fake-hand-off and cutting action for another wing.

The offense gets stagnant with the primary initiator offense who dribbles around in circles for 24 seconds trying to find someone type offense.

When I watch the Wolves and try and judge if a player is playing that "PG" role well it's are they able to make the right decisions and playwithin the flow to get that offense going. I think Culver does that extremely well for a rookie. The one area I want to see him continue to improve is to be more confident, aggressive, and decisive with penetrating and then also more consistent at finishing at the rim.

Spot on. Add in "make his FTs".

TheZachAttack wrote:

john2jer wrote:I don't subscribe to the fairy tale that a point guard has to equal high raw assist numbers. A point guard's job typically is to bring the ball up and initiate the offense, but even that's not required anymore. Beyond that it's going to be different for each team/system. A great example is Denver where their starting point guard doesn't even average 5/game, and I'm assuming everyone here would take Jamal Murray to be their starter in a heartbeat. Patrick Beverley at 3/game. Kemba at 5/game. Whoever Miami's starting PG is supposed to be.

If your angst is going to stem from someone on this team averaging a ton of assist, and they keep running the system they're running, it might be a rough time for you.

I'm not avoiding anything, I just don't have any interest in the box in which you feel comfortable in and demand the discussion stay. That's your issue not mine.

I completely agree. There are reasons why the point guard position and assist numbers are highly correlated--largely due to the traditional role of a PG within an offense. However, the role of a PG--especially in today's game--can vary widely depending on offensive scheme, structure, and the skillsets of players on a team.

I would argue that in a Wolves system (which in its ideal state) seems to want to revolve around ball-movement, drive and kick action, and cutting... there should not be a single player that is averaging a high number of assists. In the Wolves ideal state there are 3 or 4 guys (Wiggins/Culver/Towns and hopefully in the future others as well) that average 3-5 assists per game.

I think the most important thing from our primary ball-handler is really just to be able to be able to initiate offense in the halfcourt quickly and make the right plays to start the Wolves half-court action. The Wolves half-court action mainly revolves a big with a high-screen that either the initiator (Culver or another player) will use to get space to either drive to the rim and score, drive to the rim and kick to a shooter, or shoot over if the defender goes under. Or the primary initiator will pass to the big in the high-post and they will run hand-off or a fake-hand-off and cutting action for another wing.

The offense gets stagnant with the primary initiator offense who dribbles around in circles for 24 seconds trying to find someone type offense.

When I watch the Wolves and try and judge if a player is playing that "PG" role well it's are they able to make the right decisions and playwithin the flow to get that offense going. I think Culver does that extremely well for a rookie. The one area I want to see him continue to improve is to be more confident, aggressive, and decisive with penetrating and then also more consistent at finishing at the rim.

I'm not a huge stat person either, but there is a power in numbers when you have the appropiate sample size. Acquiring stats can be like dogs catching cars ... what now? I've never been a big Culver @ PG fan, and to keep his job simple, he merely needs to initiate offense, be assertive getting to the basket/and1, defend, and demonstrate a strong assist:turnover ratio. Our alternatives at PG are not exciting, and so for the being, we have plenty of other issues to improve on - especialy team defense.

john2jer wrote:
If you want to focus on the boxscore, by all means, go for it.

oh eat ****. You are a ghost to me now. Go grope Culvers leg by yourself. If you don't want to have honest discussions you don't exist to me.

TheZachAttack wrote:I completely agree. There are reasons why the point guard position and assist numbers are highly correlated--largely due to the traditional role of a PG within an offense. However, the role of a PG--especially in today's game--can vary widely depending on offensive scheme, structure, and the skillsets of players on a team.

I would argue that in a Wolves system (which in its ideal state) seems to want to revolve around ball-movement, drive and kick action, and cutting... there should not be a single player that is averaging a high number of assists. In the Wolves ideal state there are 3 or 4 guys (Wiggins/Culver/Towns and hopefully in the future others as well) that average 3-5 assists per game.

Sorry. I can't buy this rationalization stuff any longer.

If the guy can't shoot well (Culver), and he's the starting Point, than he better be creating and assisting at a high level.

If all he can do is drive the net well, then by all means stand apost at a wing position. I like players that can finish at the rim. Just don't call him our point guard if that's all he can do at this level.

This system calls for shooters. If you can't shoot at a high enough level, then you need to be feeding shooters to be called a Point anything.

You guys want 5 Culvers, 5 players lacking the confidence and focus to shoot well enough. 5 rookies getting free minutes, not creating for others very well. Go for it.