|
|
Post by kingsxman on Nov 2, 2024 9:23:43 GMT -6
Lots of talk about Ant's 3pt volume. It's hard to take too many when you're hitting 43%. I suppose Ant can take 13 a game at that % if he wants. I just hope he learns to leverage it into other things. He still needs to get into the teeth of the defense/get to the rim. He still needs to drive and dish. Those things should be easier if teams have to guard him that closely outside the arc. If there is a ceiling for shooting too many 3's,,,Ants either there or right on the doorstep. Personally I think its too many. At the end of the game last night I think it was his 2nd to last possession he settled for a 3 and I about pulled what remaining hair I have out. Then on the last possession he decided to drive. I like the 3's but in a more manageable volume and a few more drives mixed in. But at 43%....hard to say no. Which I get also. But in general...I think the whole team is a little 3 happy. |
|
|
|
Post by kingsxman on Nov 2, 2024 9:26:04 GMT -6
NAW has been so good this year. I wish he and Jaden could swap bodies. NAW does the stuff we want Jaden to do like avoiding fouls while providing great D and actually taking/making 3s at a decent clip. I really hope we can keep him going forward, but he might be playing himself into a contract we can't afford. He's obviously not going to shoot 60+% from 3, but if he's really a 40% guy in combo with his D, he's so valuable. At what point do we have to think about trading away Jaden's contract to be able to keep NAW financially? Jaden will surely play better than he has to this point, but it doesn't look like he's poised to take that step we were hoping for.You just said what I was going to say. I think we do everything we can to try to keep them both...but I think there is a conversation to be had that maybe NAW is a poor mans Jaden and .....we be poor! That said...I think we can keep them both. Jaden had some flashes last night however that show the potential. I just wonder why thats all these are: flashes. |
|
|
|
Post by tmill720 on Nov 2, 2024 10:57:40 GMT -6
Lots of talk about Ant's 3pt volume. It's hard to take too many when you're hitting 43%. I suppose Ant can take 13 a game at that % if he wants. I just hope he learns to leverage it into other things. He still needs to get into the teeth of the defense/get to the rim. He still needs to drive and dish. Those things should be easier if teams have to guard him that closely outside the arc. If there is a ceiling for shooting too many 3's,,,Ants either there or right on the doorstep. Personally I think its too many. At the end of the game last night I think it was his 2nd to last possession he settled for a 3 and I about pulled what remaining hair I have out. Then on the last possession he decided to drive. I like the 3's but in a more manageable volume and a few more drives mixed in. But at 43%....hard to say no. Which I get also. But in general...I think the whole team is a little 3 happy. I think it's a situational thing. Throughout the course of a game, shooting a ton of 3s will even out to be a net positive for us, especially at that clip. In crunch time, when every possession matters, it would be really beneficial to look for a 50-60% chance at some points, rather than trying to maximize the value-add of points. A high 3-point volume shot selection will have a great average number of points, but would have a lower median number of points than a drive into the lane for a rim attack, lob to Rudy, free throws, kick out, etc. And at that stage of the game, 1 or 2 points might be all you need to secure a win.
|
|
|
|
Post by tmirvin on Nov 3, 2024 12:58:54 GMT -6
Lots of talk about Ant's 3pt volume. It's hard to take too many when you're hitting 43%. I suppose Ant can take 13 a game at that % if he wants. I just hope he learns to leverage it into other things. He still needs to get into the teeth of the defense/get to the rim. He still needs to drive and dish. Those things should be easier if teams have to guard him that closely outside the arc. If there is a ceiling for shooting too many 3's,,,Ants either there or right on the doorstep. Personally I think its too many. At the end of the game last night I think it was his 2nd to last possession he settled for a 3 and I about pulled what remaining hair I have out. Then on the last possession he decided to drive. I like the 3's but in a more manageable volume and a few more drives mixed in. But at 43%....hard to say no. Which I get also. But in general...I think the whole team is a little 3 happy. I don't mind the number of 3's in general, but I'm not a fan of all the deep 3's. DDV & Naz especially routinely launch from 5 feet behind the line. And why? Usually there's still plenty of shot clock left. Either take a dribble in or work for a better shot. |
|
|
|
Post by darko on Nov 4, 2024 7:09:47 GMT -6
Agree.
You know, this three point convo is circular. There are a number of teams that set out to emphasize more three’s due to Boston winning a chip, but many of those teams will not be contending. It reminds me a little of the first year of FOM when Wolves are psyched Graham and whoever are out there chucking.
Or the year or two pre-FOM when there was a debate about how many threes per game are the correct number. If Donte and Naz are shooting deep, in the clock threes that’s bad offense. Again it’s not just adding more three’s to a shot chart because if you average a 1000 versus a 1000 two’s it’s more. The type of three (and in my opinion shot) matters.
This is what’s so messed up with pace. Teams used to run situationally, and would slow the game down and get into a half court set if it wasn’t a transition opportunity. The reason Randle, Ant and whoever should take more shots in the midrange is because they are easier, especially not arriving somewhere until five in the morning.
Which is why I go back to right shot (open wherever someone is comfortable shooting) on top of last year when we could rebound is more likely to put the ball in play for an offensive board than the ready made transition clanked three’s.
The correct answer to how many three’s a team should shoot depends on how many good open three’s they are able to generate. The analytics revolution and rule change to make scoring easier sort of tricked everyone into thinking they have to play like GS, which again is great for GS. Those teams essentially have to beat you at the kind of game they’re most comfortable in oppose to physicality, defense and rebounding, and controlling the tempo versus the hyper chucking everyone’s in love with.
I assume like that first year of FOM, when many teams find out they are not the Celtics teams will evolve again but it’s so funny to keep relearning the same lessons every year.
|
|
|
|
Post by XRaySpecs on Nov 4, 2024 7:44:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by darko on Nov 4, 2024 10:06:39 GMT -6
Agree. You know, this three point convo is circular. There are a number of teams that set out to emphasize more three’s due to Boston winning a chip, but many of those teams will not be contending. It reminds me a little of the first year of FOM when Wolves are psyched Graham and whoever are out there chucking. Or the year or two pre-FOM when there was a debate about how many threes per game are the correct number. If Donte and Naz are shooting deep, in the clock threes that’s bad offense. Again it’s not just adding more three’s to a shot chart because if you average a 1000 versus a 1000 two’s it’s more. The type of three (and in my opinion shot) matters. This is what’s so messed up with pace. Teams used to run situationally, and would slow the game down and get into a half court set if it wasn’t a transition opportunity. The reason Randle, Ant and whoever should take more shots in the midrange is because they are easier, especially not arriving somewhere until five in the morning. Which is why I go back to right shot (open wherever someone is comfortable shooting) on top of last year when we could rebound is more likely to put the ball in play for an offensive board than the ready made transition clanked three’s. The correct answer to how many three’s a team should shoot depends on how many good open three’s they are able to generate. The analytics revolution and rule change to make scoring easier sort of tricked everyone into thinking they have to play like GS, which again is great for GS. Those teams essentially have to beat you at the kind of game they’re most comfortable in oppose to physicality, defense and rebounding, and controlling the tempo versus the hyper chucking everyone’s in love with. I assume like that first year of FOM, when many teams find out they are not the Celtics teams will evolve again but it’s so funny to keep relearning the same lessons every year. I seem to recall having the how many three convo's back in 2016-17 and based on personnel, and more importantly pace, and how the game was officiated, the value of set O I would say 25 was about right if they're good open looks, but that didn't mean we should try to generate a bunch of three's for Dieng, or make Double R take step back three's. I think sometimes math has a math problem. One of the sneaky things about the three point revolution is it required the game officiate differently, but also is dependent on your opponent also jacking three's quickly. I think it's part of why home court seems to matter less come playoff time, it's which team is generating open three's, and variance. Teams don't ever slow it down, try to control the boards, similar to how NFL would with a steady run game. To me all the stat chasing is in part a product of all the content creators needing to generate hours of fodder, so like reading a handful of stats is a way to make it sound like you know what you're talking about without understanding why something is happening. It's why with three man, or lineup combos they should have a box to expand on to see who those minutes came against. Tanking or not tanking, bench or not bench, I mean you really need to know exactly what that means, which is my main beef with basing basketball decisions on regular season numbers anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonecrusher on Nov 4, 2024 13:09:30 GMT -6
NAW has been so good this year. I wish he and Jaden could swap bodies. NAW does the stuff we want Jaden to do like avoiding fouls while providing great D and actually taking/making 3s at a decent clip. I really hope we can keep him going forward, but he might be playing himself into a contract we can't afford. He's obviously not going to shoot 60+% from 3, but if he's really a 40% guy in combo with his D, he's so valuable. At what point do we have to think about trading away Jaden's contract to be able to keep NAW financially? Jaden will surely play better than he has to this point, but it doesn't look like he's poised to take that step we were hoping for. At this point I'm leaning more towards NAW and moving Jaden. Jaden has some skills but he's so hesitant to shoot the three or drive and we need the extra scoring which he isn't providing. |
|
|
|
Post by Nick K on Nov 4, 2024 20:25:12 GMT -6
NAW has been so good this year. I wish he and Jaden could swap bodies. NAW does the stuff we want Jaden to do like avoiding fouls while providing great D and actually taking/making 3s at a decent clip. I really hope we can keep him going forward, but he might be playing himself into a contract we can't afford. He's obviously not going to shoot 60+% from 3, but if he's really a 40% guy in combo with his D, he's so valuable. At what point do we have to think about trading away Jaden's contract to be able to keep NAW financially? Jaden will surely play better than he has to this point, but it doesn't look like he's poised to take that step we were hoping for. At this point I'm leaning more towards NAW and moving Jaden. Jaden has some skills but he's so hesitant to shoot the three or drive and we need the extra scoring which he isn't providing. I understand your thinking but I just feel you have to be patient with McD. He has undeniable talent and when he's good, he's really good. He just lacks consistency. I think patience will be rewarded with him. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 5, 2024 9:07:29 GMT -6
At this point I'm leaning more towards NAW and moving Jaden. Jaden has some skills but he's so hesitant to shoot the three or drive and we need the extra scoring which he isn't providing. I understand your thinking but I just feel you have to be patient with McD. He has undeniable talent and when he's good, he's really good. He just lacks consistency. I think patience will be rewarded with him. It's year 5 though with Jaden and he's kinda shown the same thing year over year. When he's on, he's a solid starter on a contending team. When he's off, things go south, the temper flares, fouls happen, and shots don't fall. Essentially, when he's on, he's a huge positive and when he's not, he can really hurt the team. That's why he didn't get close to a max contract. His contract matches that. I do wonder if they will have internal conversations about what the future #2 looks like next to Ant. Is a guy like Randle the best fit? Or do they think a bigger ticket player makes more sense. For example, and hear me out here, IF the Wolves get under the 2nd apron by the end of the year and IF they underwhelm this season and IF Milwaukee underwhelms again, would they consider going all in and trading Randle and McDaniels for Giannis? HIGHLY unlikely, but those are the things I wonder about with McDaniels and their long term view of him. Is he truly a cornerstone piece or is he a means to getting a big ticket cornerstone? |
|
|
|
Post by Nick K on Nov 5, 2024 9:12:47 GMT -6
I understand your thinking but I just feel you have to be patient with McD. He has undeniable talent and when he's good, he's really good. He just lacks consistency. I think patience will be rewarded with him. It's year 5 though with Jaden and he's kinda shown the same thing year over year. When he's on, he's a solid starter on a contending team. When he's off, things go south, the temper flares, fouls happen, and shots don't fall. Essentially, when he's on, he's a huge positive and when he's not, he can really hurt the team. That's why he didn't get close to a max contract. His contract matches that. I do wonder if they will have internal conversations about what the future #2 looks like next to Ant. Is a guy like Randle the best fit? Or do they think a bigger ticket player makes more sense. For example, and hear me out here, IF the Wolves get under the 2nd apron by the end of the year and IF they underwhelm this season and IF Milwaukee underwhelms again, would they consider going all in and trading Randle and McDaniels for Giannis? HIGHLY unlikely, but those are the things I wonder about with McDaniels and their long term view of him. Is he truly a cornerstone piece or is he a means to getting a big ticket cornerstone? Yep on all points. It's concerning after 5 years he still hasn't learned so much. |
|
|
|
Post by kingsxman on Nov 5, 2024 12:39:21 GMT -6
I understand your thinking but I just feel you have to be patient with McD. He has undeniable talent and when he's good, he's really good. He just lacks consistency. I think patience will be rewarded with him. It's year 5 though with Jaden and he's kinda shown the same thing year over year. When he's on, he's a solid starter on a contending team. When he's off, things go south, the temper flares, fouls happen, and shots don't fall. Essentially, when he's on, he's a huge positive and when he's not, he can really hurt the team. That's why he didn't get close to a max contract. His contract matches that. I do wonder if they will have internal conversations about what the future #2 looks like next to Ant. Is a guy like Randle the best fit? Or do they think a bigger ticket player makes more sense. For example, and hear me out here, IF the Wolves get under the 2nd apron by the end of the year and IF they underwhelm this season and IF Milwaukee underwhelms again, would they consider going all in and trading Randle and McDaniels for Giannis? HIGHLY unlikely, but those are the things I wonder about with McDaniels and their long term view of him. Is he truly a cornerstone piece or is he a means to getting a big ticket cornerstone? The thing with Jaden is that his issues are kind of a "maturity" thing. And getting older is definitely something that is going to happen and "usually" leads to maturity. Given that...I'm not ready to give up on him quite yet. As for Giannis, i like the thinking but he's not who I'd target. He has completely destroyed the Bucks with his demands so despite the talent...not sure I want that influence. Also....Ant is #1. Why bring on someone who would want to be the #1? |
|
|
|
Post by Nick K on Nov 5, 2024 16:15:28 GMT -6
It's year 5 though with Jaden and he's kinda shown the same thing year over year. When he's on, he's a solid starter on a contending team. When he's off, things go south, the temper flares, fouls happen, and shots don't fall. Essentially, when he's on, he's a huge positive and when he's not, he can really hurt the team. That's why he didn't get close to a max contract. His contract matches that. I do wonder if they will have internal conversations about what the future #2 looks like next to Ant. Is a guy like Randle the best fit? Or do they think a bigger ticket player makes more sense. For example, and hear me out here, IF the Wolves get under the 2nd apron by the end of the year and IF they underwhelm this season and IF Milwaukee underwhelms again, would they consider going all in and trading Randle and McDaniels for Giannis? HIGHLY unlikely, but those are the things I wonder about with McDaniels and their long term view of him. Is he truly a cornerstone piece or is he a means to getting a big ticket cornerstone? The thing with Jaden is that his issues are kind of a "maturity" thing. And getting older is definitely something that is going to happen and "usually" leads to maturity. Given that...I'm not ready to give up on him quite yet. As for Giannis, i like the thinking but he's not who I'd target. He has completely destroyed the Bucks with his demands so despite the talent...not sure I want that influence. Also....Ant is #1. Why bring on someone who would want to be the #1? Give me Giannis for Randle and I'd be over the moon. One could dream. |
|
|
|
Post by levine on Nov 5, 2024 17:45:50 GMT -6
Lots of talk about Ant's 3pt volume. It's hard to take too many when you're hitting 43%. I suppose Ant can take 13 a game at that % if he wants. I just hope he learns to leverage it into other things. He still needs to get into the teeth of the defense/get to the rim. He still needs to drive and dish. Those things should be easier if teams have to guard him that closely outside the arc.
We've asked him, and he's repeatedly said, "because they're giving it to me".
In every game -- including tonight, the opponent has started by keeping the big back, prioritizing taking away the drive (and threat of Rudy on the roll -- an underrated factor). And if they drop, he's gonna shoot it.
Typically as the game goes on, they keep inching that big up and up, and Ant's offensive diet turns into more playmaking and attacking. I'm not saying Ant has found a perfect balance. What I'm saying is team's are starting back -- and if they do that, he's gonna shoot, and he's probably make 40% of em. |
|
|
|
Post by levine on Nov 7, 2024 11:54:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by levine on Nov 8, 2024 11:22:17 GMT -6
Rudy is 5th on the team in FT% at 77%.
He has both the 3rd most attempts (26) and makes (20).
|
|
|
|
Post by XRaySpecs on Nov 8, 2024 14:46:31 GMT -6
Naz is great, but the rebounding just isn't good enough. It's never improved and if he's going to play a lot of minutes, your team is likely to be bad at rebounding. He's basically at his career average rebounding rate in his 6th year. I think it's just what he is at this point. I'm afraid that his offensive numbers are going to drive up his price as the shooting is quite impressive. He's just not really close to being a complete player. |
|
|
|
Post by levine on Nov 8, 2024 15:07:04 GMT -6
Naz is great, but the rebounding just isn't good enough. It's never improved and if he's going to play a lot of minutes, your team is likely to be bad at rebounding. He's basically at his career average rebounding rate in his 6th year. I think it's just what he is at this point. I'm afraid that his offensive numbers are going to drive up his price as the shooting is quite impressive. He's just not really close to being a complete player. His Defensive Rebounding Rate is 24.4 - he's only ever had 1 year over 20. 24.4 is higher than KAT in any of his last 3 years with us and just 2.5% off KAT's career average. Its not elite, but its becoming much less of a liability. We've outrebounded 5 of our 8 opponents. |
|
|
|
Post by XRaySpecs on Nov 8, 2024 15:43:26 GMT -6
His Defensive Rebounding Rate is 24.4 - he's only ever had 1 year over 20. 24.4 is higher than KAT in any of his last 3 years with us and just 2.5% off KAT's career average. Its not elite, but its becoming much less of a liability. We've outrebounded 5 of our 8 opponents. I hadn't seen that. Hopefully it contiunes as we're still in the small sample size zone. I'd wonder what happens to that rate if you throw out the 13 reb game he had vs. Sacto? He's had games with 1, 2, 3 and 3 DREB as well. I do think he's making a dedicated effort on the glass. That has to continue. I had remembered that rebounding was a stat that typically didn't improve as much as say shooting. |
|
|
|
Post by levine on Nov 9, 2024 10:53:41 GMT -6
Ant talked in the locker room postgame about what he is seeing from opposing defenses that has caused his increase in 3-point attempts.
Ant also talked about the improvements he has made to his shot and what went into those improvements this summer during his time with USA Basketball.
|
|
|
|
Post by XRaySpecs on Nov 11, 2024 12:28:59 GMT -6
10 games is starting to be a decent sample. How long until Finch does something about Conley? He's actively bad right now and it's costing us wins. I'm fine with playing only 8 guys if they're truly "8 starters" which was a legit way to describe them before the season, but we currently don't have 8 starters. We have 7. Conely isn't even playing at rotation level frankly.
At minimum, Conley's minutes need further cutting and he shouldn't close games. If things don't improve, how long until his spot in the rotation should be questioned?
|
|
|
|
Post by XRaySpecs on Nov 11, 2024 12:46:21 GMT -6
With what Conley is giving now it's hard to argue that all of Mike's minutes should go to a combo of DDV, NAW, Minott. Maybe Dillingham, but it could really help just having more size and length out there with Josh. We could use the rebounding and defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 11, 2024 13:00:34 GMT -6
Posted in the other thread, but I think there needs to be real conversation had about starting DDV in place of Conley. He's OLD. He can't keep it up forever. Especially with the wrist injury, I'd like to rely on him as least as possible. Finch seems like a guy who's going to stick with guys he trusts too long though. It happened with Slo-Mo last year and I'm worried it may happen with Conley this year.
The Wolves best lineup is not the starters and I think one of those best lineups includes DDV. Last game was on Finch for getting rid of what was working, so he needs to now not make a habit of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stretcharmstrong on Nov 12, 2024 14:07:22 GMT -6
We still need to think about the bench rotation.
Why did Finch only use 3 bench players against Miami?
Ingles, as should be is out of the rotation.
But, why are the improved Garza and Minott sitting so much?
Why is the rookie getting no playing time at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by kingsxman on Nov 12, 2024 16:36:11 GMT -6
We still need to think about the bench rotation. Why did Finch only use 3 bench players against Miami? Ingles, as should be is out of the rotation. But, why are the improved Garza and Minott sitting so much?
Why is the rookie getting no playing time at all? Because they are not as good as the people that played ahead of them. Plain and simple. And the west is brutal. Losing one game or two games that you should win could be the difference at the end of the year between 4th seed and play in. Its going to be that tight in the west. I trust Finch with playing time for these guys. |
|
