***(preseason game 4) Timberwolves V. Nets 6:30pm central 10/14/21

[KGdaBom]

Beasley definitely still getting his legs back into shape. Hard to shoot jumpers without legs.

I also think Ant is a little out of shape still, which is affecting his jumper. We forget that he seriously sprained his ankle at the Team USA camp. I wonder how much cardio he got in the offseason.

Beasley got us back into the game with hot shooting. He then missed his last 5. That was the game simple as that.

[FinnTheHuman]

Still chortling over a lot of the reactions. 1985 called and it wants its power forward back. This game - like the vast majority of games in the NBA - was decided by shooting and spacing. Other than when the Nets dragged out the LaMarcusaurus, they initiated offense outside the arc and buried threes at a terrific rate or penetrated because help had to stay out on the shooters. If KAT boxes out Claxton the first two possessions are empty chances for the Nets. Clearly adding a plodder to chase on the perimeter would have helped (green font not used, but implied). Let's not forget that Denver - despite starting one of the biggest frontcourts in the NBA - still jacked up 58 threes against the Wolves last week. I'm more concerned about Beasley's shot selection - figuring his legs (and stroke) will eventually return.

The reasoning for a traditional-sized PF is not mainly for defensive purposes against traditional-sized PFs, it is for rebounding. F. e. Simmons would be a PF with legit size to help us not get outrebounded every game, while still being able to defend all positions. Larry Nance could've been smth like that too, with less spectacular results on switches on the perimeter.

I didn't see anybody arguing for a bigger PF because of some 1 on 1 PF defense on this board, so you're not making a counter-point to anybody here really.

But you're right, a lot of teams succeed while having a very small PF and sacrificing rebounding because of that, but PFs on those teams do a lot of stuff that our projected small PF's don't, i. e. shoot 3s at like 38+%, attack the rim, create for themselves and others etc.

[DaMplsKid]

Didn't watch the game and just took a look at the box score. HOLLY SHI...... the Nets are stacked. No idea they had Millsap, Aldridge, and James Johnson. Even without Irving this team is soooo deep and built for the playoffs.

[gandlogo]

Still chortling over a lot of the reactions. 1985 called and it wants its power forward back. This game - like the vast majority of games in the NBA - was decided by shooting and spacing. Other than when the Nets dragged out the LaMarcusaurus, they initiated offense outside the arc and buried threes at a terrific rate or penetrated because help had to stay out on the shooters. If KAT boxes out Claxton the first two possessions are empty chances for the Nets. Clearly adding a plodder to chase on the perimeter would have helped (green font not used, but implied). Let's not forget that Denver - despite starting one of the biggest frontcourts in the NBA - still jacked up 58 threes against the Wolves last week. I'm more concerned about Beasley's shot selection - figuring his legs (and stroke) will eventually return.

The reasoning for a traditional-sized PF is not mainly for defensive purposes against traditional-sized PFs, it is for rebounding. F. e. Simmons would be a PF with legit size to help us not get outrebounded every game, while still being able to defend all positions. Larry Nance could've been smth like that too, with less spectacular results on switches on the perimeter.

I didn't see anybody arguing for a bigger PF because of some 1 on 1 PF defense on this board, so you're not making a counter-point to anybody here really.

But you're right, a lot of teams succeed while having a very small PF and sacrificing rebounding because of that, but PFs on those teams do a lot of stuff that our projected small PF's don't, i. e. shoot 3s at like 38+%, attack the rim, create for themselves and others etc.

I understand the perceived need for rebounding, which is why I cited the KAT/Claxton example. Those were specifically on Towns and not the result of not having enough size on the court. Finch has even said - and the results are starting to show up - that the team (notably the guards) needs to rebound better. However, there is a constant clamor about the Wolves rebounding woes being almost exclusively related to not having a relic of PF on the court. The biggest impact on rebounding is making shots and thus eliminating rebounds. The Wolves missed 10 more FGs than the Nets last night and lost the rebounding war by an unacceptable three total rebounds. Being that defensive rebounds are statistically more prevalent than offensive rebounds, until the Wolves shoot better they have already put themselves into a more likely rebounding disadvantage - and not because they don't have a rebounding PF (which would likely give up the advantages of not having one on the court).

[Neeva]

Didn't watch the game and just took a look at the box score. HOLLY SHI...... the Nets are stacked. No idea they had Millsap, Aldridge, and James Johnson. Even without Irving this team is soooo deep and built for the playoffs.

Those three seem washed .

[FinnTheHuman]

Still chortling over a lot of the reactions. 1985 called and it wants its power forward back. This game - like the vast majority of games in the NBA - was decided by shooting and spacing. Other than when the Nets dragged out the LaMarcusaurus, they initiated offense outside the arc and buried threes at a terrific rate or penetrated because help had to stay out on the shooters. If KAT boxes out Claxton the first two possessions are empty chances for the Nets. Clearly adding a plodder to chase on the perimeter would have helped (green font not used, but implied). Let's not forget that Denver - despite starting one of the biggest frontcourts in the NBA - still jacked up 58 threes against the Wolves last week. I'm more concerned about Beasley's shot selection - figuring his legs (and stroke) will eventually return.

The reasoning for a traditional-sized PF is not mainly for defensive purposes against traditional-sized PFs, it is for rebounding. F. e. Simmons would be a PF with legit size to help us not get outrebounded every game, while still being able to defend all positions. Larry Nance could've been smth like that too, with less spectacular results on switches on the perimeter.

I didn't see anybody arguing for a bigger PF because of some 1 on 1 PF defense on this board, so you're not making a counter-point to anybody here really.

But you're right, a lot of teams succeed while having a very small PF and sacrificing rebounding because of that, but PFs on those teams do a lot of stuff that our projected small PF's don't, i. e. shoot 3s at like 38+%, attack the rim, create for themselves and others etc.

I understand the perceived need for rebounding, which is why I cited the KAT/Claxton example. Those were specifically on Towns and not the result of not having enough size on the court. Finch has even said - and the results are starting to show up - that the team (notably the guards) needs to rebound better. However, there is a constant clamor about the Wolves rebounding woes being almost exclusively related to not having a relic of PF on the court. The biggest impact on rebounding is making shots and thus eliminating rebounds. The Wolves missed 10 more FGs than the Nets last night and lost the rebounding war by an unacceptable three total rebounds. Being that defensive rebounds are statistically more prevalent than offensive rebounds, until the Wolves shoot better they have already put themselves into a more likely rebounding disadvantage - and not because they don't have a rebounding PF (which would likely give up the advantages of not having one on the court).

You’re looking at a small sample size, rebounding is not judged based on 1 game. We lost the rebouding battle in 3/4 preseasons games, and we won 2 of those games where we lost in the rebounding battle. Not a big sample size either, but the eye test tells me that we’ll be a bad rebouding team this season, and lose some games we shouldn’t have lost because of rebounding. I certainly might be wrong.

[KGdaBom]

Didn't watch the game and just took a look at the box score. HOLLY SHI...... the Nets are stacked. No idea they had Millsap, Aldridge, and James Johnson. Even without Irving this team is soooo deep and built for the playoffs.

Those three seem washed .

They might be, but you always think everyone over 30 is washed.

[winforlose]

Rather than respond to any one post I will respond to the general topics.

1. As good as getting another big will be for rebounding, our entire team is too lazy when it comes to boxing out. I saw 3 separate examples where Ant just stood there and allowed a big to crash the glass and get an easy board or lay in. KAT wasn’t boxing out enough either, and if you go back and watch guys are either getting back or scrambling to where they think the ball will go (often incorrectly,) rather than boxing out and hoping to locate the ball after it returns to play. Finch said boxing out is a dying art, he is half right. The modern 3 has changed the way teams approach the box out, but other teams still do it, and we need to as well.

2. Size is NOT only important for rebounding. Small ball fails in part because it undermines the switching scheme we want to employ. For example, when JO is forced to guard the PF he needs help. If he doesn’t get that help, then the opposing PF will back him down and finish inside. If he does get the help, then an open perimeter jumper or an easy layup are likely to result with proper passing and spacing. It is true that some teams do go small at PF, but the best teams don’t. Every team enjoying success right now has sufficient size at the PF or elsewhere to compensate. Examples, Nets, 76ers, Lakers, Bucks.

[minimus]

Small ball fails in part because it undermines the switching scheme we want to employ

According to this we don't want to implement heavy switching system

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[winforlose]

Small ball fails in part because it undermines the switching scheme we want to employ

According to this we don't want to implement heavy switching system

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Good find. I agree, switching scheme has its problem and KAT does pick up a lot of fouls when it fails. Although, it was still in use during the preseason, at least to the degree that we were switching quite a bit, especially against the Nets.