2025 NBA PLAYOFFS West First Round: #3 LA Lakers vs #6 Minnesota Timberwolves (MIN leads 1-0)

[cupcakesnake]

"I don't need to watch anything about the Wolves" ...

He also keeps saying it like the Lakers lack of scoring ability vs Wolves game 1 with Bron, Reaves and others like its a total fluke. Just missed open shots. Like defensive ability, the length/athleticism advantage or schemes aren't repeatable.


Lakers have scored less then 100 pts 9 times this season.


3 of them was vs Wolves.



JJ Reddick has his homework cut out for him to gameplan against that.

He doesn’t talk about defense at all. Zero.

He does, and we've heard him talk about some of his defensive principles before. We've also seen some inventive stuff from Redick, like in that famous game where the Lakers finally beat the Nuggets and scrambled Jokic for the first time ever.

Redick believes in being very aggressive in how he treats non-shooters. He thinks defenses have to consider shooting confidence, and know player tendencies in terms of who is and isn't willing to take 10 threes in a game. He believes it's worth the risk, even if it bites you sometimes, because it allows you to pack the paint or overload the ball.

I think it's a solid belief. We saw this with Towns at times. Despite being a fantastic shooter, he was pretty unwilling to jack open 3s all game, and couldn't help himself from passing up open 3s to drive into a crowd (and committ an offensive foul). We've seen it with OKC before, how J.Dub and Shai don't feel great open just jacking it.

When the Lakers briefly had the best defense in the league, I remember talking on here with a few people about the Lakers new defensive scheme and who it would work on in the playoffs. I highlighted the Wolves specifically as a team that didn't have a problem with the shooting confidence to be willing to bomb a team to death. We're kind of a dumb team in terms of shot selection, but a defense like this plays to our favor. We love Julius Randle jacking an open 3! We're fine with Jaden in the corners. Ant is going to pull no matter what. DDV, Naz, Conley, and NAW are all various levels of capable but all become deadly when open.

Our shooting is sort of... inelastic though. There might be a game or more this series where the Lakers leave us open and we miss everything. It will be frustrating but will happen. I wonder if the Lakers are willing to bet the whole series on raw shooting luck against a top 5 3-point shooting team? I'd like to see them throw something else at us, otherwise this might be a boring series of make or miss from 3.

[Shaka_Zulu]

Fantastic post cupcakesnake.


But I believe thinktank wasn't referring to JJ (Fantastic coach imo), but Bob8. Who focuses entirely on offensive woes or shot luck, and doesn't acknowledge the effect a defence can have on it, over whole series.

[cupcakesnake]

Although I agree that Lakers left too many open shots, I still believe it was an outliner.

Wolves have 27 open 3s, shooting them 70+ %, Lakers have 21 open 3s, shooting them 47%. Shooting 70% open 3s doesn't happen very often. And when it happens, it's an guaranteed win.

The Wolves can obviously shoot worse. I'm just saying: when your strategy is to give the other team open 3s, you have to live with the results as being part of your game plan. The Lakers packed the paint and got bombed to death. I've been saying this since before the series (including to you), that this is exactly the kind of thing the Lakers defense is vulnerable to. So yes, the Timberwolves could shoot worse on wide open shots, but pardon me if I roll my eyes a bit at the amount of Lakers fans on the internet trying to write this off as pure shooting luck. More than anyone else, the Lakers leave it up to the shooting luck gods whether they win or lose that day.

What's the 70% number by the way and where are you getting it from? I know a lot of people are reacting to Keith Smith tweeting about all the T-Wolves shot being open (27 wide open, 15 open), but I haven't seen that actual tracking data. I also usually find it surprising what tracking data at NBA.com usually classifies as open or wide open. Are you saying that on "wide open" shots, the Wolves hit 70%? Could you point me towards the data, I'm just curious in general and would like to know how to check on that in general. EDIT: nevermind, figured out how to do the math at NBA.com

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/shots-closest-defender-10

Number of wide open 3s made and % is really wild, no one even close to Wolves. Yes, Lakers have played with fire but nobody could have expected something like that. That's like playing against prime Steph and Klay.

Well we shot 19-27 (70%) on "wide open" 3s, but only 2-15 (13.3%) on our "open 3s". Could have gone even worse for you!

The Wolves won by 22. They would have still won even if they had shot worse than the Lakers on wide open 3s. There's no way to call the loss shooting luck.

The Lakers decided to give up wide open 3s to a top 5 3-point shooting team, and the Lakers fans are calling it lucky. It was poor strategy and the result shouldn't be this sensationalized.

[Bob8]

Fantastic post cupcakesnake.


But I believe thinktank wasn't referring to JJ (Fantastic coach imo), but Bob8. Who focuses entirely on offensive woes or shot luck, and doesn't acknowledge the effect a defence can have on it, over whole series.

I'm saying that Lakers won't win any games by scoring just 95 points, no matter how good D they play. They didn't win a single game in RS with scoring just 95 points. On the other hand they have scored 31x 117+.

That means their main goal should be scoring a lot more, better D would help of course, but you can't become fantastic defensive team overnight, especially if you don't have any rim protection. On the other hand, Luka, LeBron snd AR should be able to run a lot better offense than in game 1. If they can't no D will help them.

[Bob8]

The Wolves can obviously shoot worse. I'm just saying: when your strategy is to give the other team open 3s, you have to live with the results as being part of your game plan. The Lakers packed the paint and got bombed to death. I've been saying this since before the series (including to you), that this is exactly the kind of thing the Lakers defense is vulnerable to. So yes, the Timberwolves could shoot worse on wide open shots, but pardon me if I roll my eyes a bit at the amount of Lakers fans on the internet trying to write this off as pure shooting luck. More than anyone else, the Lakers leave it up to the shooting luck gods whether they win or lose that day.

What's the 70% number by the way and where are you getting it from? I know a lot of people are reacting to Keith Smith tweeting about all the T-Wolves shot being open (27 wide open, 15 open), but I haven't seen that actual tracking data. I also usually find it surprising what tracking data at NBA.com usually classifies as open or wide open. Are you saying that on "wide open" shots, the Wolves hit 70%? Could you point me towards the data, I'm just curious in general and would like to know how to check on that in general. EDIT: nevermind, figured out how to do the math at NBA.com

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/shots-closest-defender-10

Number of wide open 3s made and % is really wild, no one even close to Wolves. Yes, Lakers have played with fire but nobody could have expected something like that. That's like playing against prime Steph and Klay.

Well we shot 19-27 (70%) on "wide open" 3s, but only 2-15 (13.3%) on our "open 3s". Could have gone even worse for you!

The Wolves won by 22. They would have still won even if they had shot worse than the Lakers on wide open 3s. There's no way to call the loss shooting luck.

The Lakers decided to give up wide open 3s to a top 5 3-point shooting team, and the Lakers fans are calling it lucky. It was poor strategy and the result shouldn't be this sensationalized.

It depends how you look at those stats, Wolves have shot 40% wide open 3s in RS, the best team in Nba was Cleveland with 42%. 70% is number the most efficient centers in the league have for FG%.

[cupcakesnake]

Fantastic post cupcakesnake.


But I believe thinktank wasn't referring to JJ (Fantastic coach imo), but Bob8. Who focuses entirely on offensive woes or shot luck, and doesn't acknowledge the effect a defence can have on it, over whole series.

I'm saying that Lakers won't win any games by scoring just 95 points, no matter how good D they play. They didn't win a single game in RS with scoring just 95 points. On the other hand they have scored 31x 117+.

That means their main goal should be scoring a lot more, better D would help of course, but you can't become fantastic defensive team overnight, especially if you don't have any rim protection. On the other hand, Luka, LeBron snd AR should be able to run a lot better offense than in game 1.

Yeah. Bracing myself for an offensive explosion. The Wolves defense is good, but these Lakers have a ton of guns in their gun box.

They have to figure out something on defense though. While it's easy to picture the Lakers managing a 120 Ortg, even against a good Wolves defense, it wont matter enough if they let the Wolves continue to operate as a 120+Ortg.

The answer for the Lakers certainly lies on the offensive end, but they have to patch the bleeding just a little on the other end. Otherwise, like I've said, they'll just be rolling the shooting luck dice every night and praying.

[cupcakesnake]

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/shots-closest-defender-10

Number of wide open 3s made and % is really wild, no one even close to Wolves. Yes, Lakers have played with fire but nobody could have expected something like that. That's like playing against prime Steph and Klay.

Well we shot 19-27 (70%) on "wide open" 3s, but only 2-15 (13.3%) on our "open 3s". Could have gone even worse for you!

The Wolves won by 22. They would have still won even if they had shot worse than the Lakers on wide open 3s. There's no way to call the loss shooting luck.

The Lakers decided to give up wide open 3s to a top 5 3-point shooting team, and the Lakers fans are calling it lucky. It was poor strategy and the result shouldn't be this sensationalized.

It depends how you look at those stats, Wolves have shot 40% wide open 3s in RS, the best team in Nba was Cleveland with 42%. 70% is number the most efficient centers in the league have for FG%.

Absolutely no one has said the Wolves are going to shoot 70% on wide open 3s for the whole series. You're arguing against ghosts on this one. Comparing single game shooting percentages to entire season averages is nonsense.

The rest of your argument is reductive. Had both teams shots 40% on wide open 3s, (remember your Lakers shot 47%), the Wolves still would have won. If the Lakers allow less wide-open 3s, the Wolves will not take as many, and will take different shots in their place (unless you directly replace every wide open 3 with a contested 3, which we know is not how a game would actually play out. Some of those 3s becomes drives off close outs, some of them become made or missed contested 3s. etc.)

My point has always been: if the Lakers don't guard the 3-point line, they will be particularly vulnerable to getting hit with these kinds of nights. Or lesser versions of these nights that still result in losses. I don't really get what you're main point is. Are you really saying the Lakers would have won game 1 if not for hot shooting?

[Bob8]

Fantastic post cupcakesnake.


But I believe thinktank wasn't referring to JJ (Fantastic coach imo), but Bob8. Who focuses entirely on offensive woes or shot luck, and doesn't acknowledge the effect a defence can have on it, over whole series.

I'm saying that Lakers won't win any games by scoring just 95 points, no matter how good D they play. They didn't win a single game in RS with scoring just 95 points. On the other hand they have scored 31x 117+.

That means their main goal should be scoring a lot more, better D would help of course, but you can't become fantastic defensive team overnight, especially if you don't have any rim protection. On the other hand, Luka, LeBron snd AR should be able to run a lot better offense than in game 1.

Yeah. Bracing myself for an offensive explosion. The Wolves defense is good, but these Lakers have a ton of guns in their gun box.

They have to figure out something on defense though. While it's easy to picture the Lakers managing a 120 Ortg, even against a good Wolves defense, it wont matter enough if they let the Wolves continue to operate as a 120+Ortg.

The answer for the Lakers certainly lies on the offensive end, but they have to patch the bleeding just a little on the other end. Otherwise, like I've said, they'll just be rolling the shooting luck dice every night and praying.

I believe they will bring help D a lot less in game 2. Letting Luka defend 1/1. I'm not that afraid about Luka, who can solidly defend strong Wolves players. I'm very afraid about AR, he's just totally overmatched against everyone. I would bench him, if he doesn't have great offensive game.

About offensive side. LeBron is a key. He has looked very old or groin is bothering him. He should cut a lot more and attack in the middle. What I'm afraid of that JJ will took the ball out of Luka's hands to involve others more and LeBron and AR being unable to create offense. The best part of Luka/Kyrie combo was they could just let other dominate different Q, it seems that isn't working with LeBron and AR.

[Bob8]

Well we shot 19-27 (70%) on "wide open" 3s, but only 2-15 (13.3%) on our "open 3s". Could have gone even worse for you!

The Wolves won by 22. They would have still won even if they had shot worse than the Lakers on wide open 3s. There's no way to call the loss shooting luck.

The Lakers decided to give up wide open 3s to a top 5 3-point shooting team, and the Lakers fans are calling it lucky. It was poor strategy and the result shouldn't be this sensationalized.

It depends how you look at those stats, Wolves have shot 40% wide open 3s in RS, the best team in Nba was Cleveland with 42%. 70% is number the most efficient centers in the league have for FG%.

Absolutely no one has said the Wolves are going to shoot 70% on wide open 3s for the whole series. You're arguing against ghosts on this one. Comparing single game shooting percentages to entire season averages is nonsense.

The rest of your argument is reductive. Had both teams shots 40% on wide open 3s, (remember your Lakers shot 47%), the Wolves still would have won. If the Lakers allow less wide-open 3s, the Wolves will not take as many, and will take different shots in their place (unless you directly replace every wide open 3 with a contested 3, which we know is not how a game would actually play out. Some of those 3s becomes drives off close outs, some of them become made or missed contested 3s. etc.)

My point has always been: if the Lakers don't guard the 3-point line, they will be particularly vulnerable to getting hit with these kinds of nights. Or lesser versions of these nights that still result in losses. I don't really get what you're main point is. Are you really saying the Lakers would have won game 1 if not for hot shooting?

No they wouldn't. I have said many times, Lakers would have lost game 1 no matter how good D they have played and no matter how Wolves would have shot, because their offense was disastrous. Lakers can't win scoring just 95 points. What I'm saying, Lakers can't play much worse in offensive side and Wolves can't hit much better those wide open shots. Game 2 should be much closer, if it's not than Lakers are really in big problems. I don't believe we should make big conclusions after game 1, if we see another blowout win by Wolves, then I would be first to admit Lakers have minimal chances to win the series.

Btw. Luka's record in game 1 is 2:7.

[Ethomasp31]

That's exactly the point, Mavs were a good team losing their first game in series by 22 points against OKC. What do you think were reactions after game 1? OKC in 4. Mavs are not good enough to have any chances. Okc are going to be in the Finals. They are just superior team, too athletic for Mavs doing anything. Sounds familiar? Even on Mavs board, Luka is fat, not conditioned enough, can't play D...

And then game 2 happened and everything changed.
Just maybe we should stop making big conclusions after game 1 and see, if Wolves D is really that good and they can shoot wide open 3s with 70+ %.

It is insane how definite people get after 1 game even though we've all been watching NBA basketball all our lives and have seen a million momentum shifts. I have my doubts about the Lakers abiity to defend, but I have no doubts the Lakers can and will play better on offense. This team is capable of putting up a 130 Ortg on any given night. They'll come back in game 2 with a plan of how to exploit how we're not sending help at Luka.

Lakers fans need to stop with the 3-point shooting luck thing. Yes, the Wolves could go cold, but when you're surrendering open 3s like that, you have to accept the consequences. It's not crazy for a team to hit 50% of their 3s when you leave every single 3 open or wide open. It's not a viable defensive strategy, it's just praying your opponent misses. If we were hitting contested threes like that, I'd understand Lakers fans calling it lucky.

Although I agree that Lakers left too many open shots, I still believe it was an outliner.

Wolves have 27 open 3s, shooting them 70+ %, Lakers have 21 open 3s, shooting them 47%. Shooting 70% open 3s doesn't happen very often. And when it happens, it's an guaranteed win.

As someone who watches every Wolves game, they get hot streaks like that quite often. They have a bunch of really good three point shooters and they were left wide open...but for the season Ant, DDV and Conley all shot about 40% from 3, Naw was over 38% and Naz was just about 37.9%. Even Randle was over 40% his last 20 games of the season. Naz actually shot poorly the last 30 games of the season, but during the middle 20 games of the season he was shooting well over 50% from 3. Same with Conley.

JMD doesn't shoot as well as the others but he usually doesn't shoot as much. Ant shot about 40% on super high volume, and when DDV gets hot, watch out.

[Klomp]

After all of the talk leading up to the game, the worry around Minnesota was that there would be no one on the court for Mike Conley to cover. When in fact, the biggest issue coming out of the game was who Austin Reaves can cover. They were hunting him on so many actions, ball screens, pin downs, etc. all game long.

[Klomp]

Read on Twitter

[scrabbarista]

Finally finished my all-time rankings after the regular season. Looks like these Playoffs will have a big, big impact on three guys in their mid to late 20's:

79th Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (assumes '25 MVP)
75th Luka Doncic
73rd Jayson Tatum (assumes All-NBA, top 5 MVP)

Please note that I rank "NBA careers," not who was actually better at basketball. I consider who was better and factor it in, but the emphasis is on career accomplishments and production.

[scrabbarista]

Read on Twitter

71.4% TS% as a team for two months is better than nice. That's 143 points per 100, no? Such a game-bending shot for offenses and defenses, especially when a team is this hot.

[Klomp]

Read on Twitter

[JXL]

My change for Game 2 if I were the Lakers:

Make Randle a jump shooter.

Close out on all of those guys, and just make Randle take jumpshots. Rather have him take them and make <40% of those over Ant torching them and having Reid, Alexander-Walker, DiVincenzo and others look like Ray Allen.

[Klomp]

My Lakers adjustment for Game 2:
Don't trade away Anthony Davis and Max Christie, your team's best two defenders

[Ethomasp31]

After all of the talk leading up to the game, the worry around Minnesota was that there would be no one on the court for Mike Conley to cover. When in fact, the biggest issue coming out of the game was who Austin Reaves can cover. They were hunting him on so many actions, ball screens, pin downs, etc. all game long.

I know many Wolves fans have been saying that....but i remember late in the year when we played the Pistons. Beasley made 6 3-point shots in the first half off of the same action. Beasley was clowning us, Naz and DDV were ejected because of the fight and we were down 6 at half time. We came out with Conley on Beasley in the second half and he shut down the ball screen action the Pistons were using in the first half and it changed the game. Can we get put in bad positions from time to time, yeah of course but all teams do. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not going to be worried about Conley being hunted off the floor until it begins to happen.

[Klomp]

Who is Raz?

How can you expect to debate basketball well when you don’t even know the names of Wolves players?

Bob, Hayes got played off the floor and Gobert didn’t.

You’re welcome. Try to be at least a little objective.

Baby steps, Bob!

Yes, I made a mistake, it's Naz.

Hayes is total non factor in Lakers, he's on minimum contract. Gobert is 4x best defensive player, getting 44 mio. Expectations are not the same. 2 points and 6 rebounds in 24 minutes for 44 mio player is pretty bad.

I wonder what kind of a team would have Wolves had, if they didn't give that much for Gobert? Probably far the best in the West.

Just one of the mistakes you made. Let’s get you to realize some others.

Game 1:
Wolves win by exactly 22 points.
Gobert plays 24 minutes, exactly half the game.
Gobert is +14, 63% of the teams’ margin of victory.

And this is getting played off the floor to you?

How can you look yourself in the mirror in the morning with a straight face? You’re living in a dream-world!

In no way, shape, or form is that getting played off the court. None whatsoever.

Lakers lose by 22.
Hayes plays 8 minutes, 15% of the game.
Hayes is -11, exactly half the teams’ margin of loss.

THAT, is what getting played off the floor looks like.

Sounds like Lakers need a 44 million dollar center right about now!

This part of the discussion is just a laughably bad look for the Lakers fan base.

The Lakers made an adjustment to go from Hayes to their small-ball lineup, great. But did you not account for the fact that the opponent is allowed to counter with its own substitutions as well?

The brilliant thing about Minnesota's roster construction, is the roster is not filled with inflated egos of self-proclaimed kings and Slovenian mobsters. The Timberwolves don't take a smaller role in one game as an attack on their character, but instead as an adjustment needed to win the basketball game. Last I checked, that's what is most important in each playoff series: Who gets to 4 wins first.

It's not the first time Gobert has played just 24 minutes in a game and it won't be the last. The flaw in the Lakers strategy is that they probably thought that if it wasn't Gobert out there, it would be Garza. After all, that's essentially LA's roster conundrum with Len. But on the contrary, Minnesota also has its own small-ball lineup that has been humming along and is quite deadly in its own right, as the Lakers have now witnessed firsthand.

[Beethoven]

The Lakers adjustment for Game 2 (or the whole series for that matter) are not just two or three small things. They are systemic team culture issues; they are not putting in playoffs effort, not boxing out, not setting proper screens, Rui and other folks having low bb iq, etc.

Lakers are in huge trouble.