Two concepts today. The first is specific to the recent Wolves performance. The second is more general, but has Wolves involvement.
The 8-Man Rotation, continued
First, right back to Chris Finch’s eight-man rotation. It’s probably the most interesting quirk of an otherwise relatively normal start to the season. If you look at each NBA team’s Basketball-Reference page, they’ll have at least 10 players with game stats by now. Only Finch’s Wolves cut off after 9, and Joe Ingles’s (controversial!) 5.5 minutes per game barely extends it past 8.
One man’s innovation is another’s attempt to reinvent the the wheel. Finch is playing only 8 guys, despite having a healthy roster and despite it not being the NBA Finals or something.
In my last post, I explicitly accepted Finch’s reasoning for the tight rotation as good enough, and I stand by that. He has a lot of really good players who need to learn how to play together. It is more important for the three main bench guys (Donte DiVincenzo, Naz Reid, and Nickeil Alexander-Walker) to develop chemistry with each other and the blended lineups with starters than it is to lengthen the rotation and give opportunities to younger players who might be growing impatient. That all makes sense to me, at least whenever they are not on a back-to-back (so far, they have had none).
I’ll even add an additional comment in support of the 8 (and a half) man rotation. When I look at the post-game box score, and the minutes column, I struggle to find a single one of the eight who should have played fewer minutes. This is not a situation where he’s got guys logging 40+ minutes. Okay fine, Ant is averaging 39.3 which is 4 or 5 more than ideal, but – again – they haven’t had a back-to-back yet, and these games have been competitive. It’s sensible that Ant’s played a bit more than usual, so far. But aging Conley’s only at 23.8 minutes. NAW, who has been spectacular in his role, is only getting 21.8. DDV is working through some new-to-MN chemistry jitters, but has all the look of someone meriting 27.0 minutes. Maybe Rudy’s 35 is 2 or 3 too many? There just isn’t a lot there, other than the Ingles 5.5 minutes that mostly look bad/unwise, to nitpick. If Finch is truly blessed with 8 high-minutes-worth players, and there’s enough versatility between them to cover the whole game, then so be it. Play your best players!
Now, a counterpoint: I just wonder if there is opportunity cost in going with “8 starters” versus having 1 or 2 guys designated as spastic-energy dudes who check into the game with designs on wrecking some shit. This can mean ball pressure on defense, or the extra edge often required to battle for contested rebounds. There was a stretch versus Dallas on Tuesday, in the 2nd Half, when rebounds were noticeably hard to come by. I have to wonder if an adrenaline-infused Josh Minott or Luka Garza might have helped win more of those battles. I am not advocating for this necessarily (see above: support for Finch’s approach and its rationale) but if it seems as if this Wolves team lacks some of the “edge” (Thibs voice) that it had last year with the top-ranked defense, it is possible that foregoing some short-minute, wild-intensity bench stints is a reason why. The game slows down in the 4th Quarter, but there’s a perfectly good 2nd Quarter and a perfectly good 3rd Quarter to speed it up. As the team figures itself out, it faces some back-to-backs, and faces some injuries, I suspect we’ll see some shake-ups. With those shake-ups could come a bit more tenacity and a bit more success with it.
Pure Shooters, Pure Basketball
What is a “pure shooter?” That term is used a lot, but what does it actually mean? If it just meant “great shooter” or “accurate shooter” then we’d use those words. Purity is something different from success rate or objective greatness.
Former United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said of obscenity, “I know it when I see it.”
That might be the appropriate fallback definition for the far more PDW-appropriate question of “how to define a ‘pure shooter.’” Before I give up like Stewart, however, I’d offer a list of factors to consider when deciding whether someone qualifies.
- The Release – How does the ball leave the shooter’s hand? A pure shooter’s release consistently snaps the wrist and causes the ball to spin back across its grooves. The pure shooter’s release has this effect not sometimes, but ALL OF THE TIME. If the shot spins sideways or doesn’t spin it all, the shot is not pure.
- The Elbow – Is it in or is it out? Reggie Miller was a great shooter, but not necessarily a pure one. Ray Allen? That’s a pure shooter. (Eds note: Allen’s elbow wasn’t like Jimmy Chitwood-perpindicular to the floor or anything, and a little bit of side bend is acceptable and normal for a jumpshooter. Reggie, however, took it too far, even if he made it work.)
- The Results – Is the ball — you know — actually going in the hoop? What are the percentages? A pure shooter makes 40 percent from three, 50 percent from the field, 85 percent from the foul line.
- The APPROACH TO THE GAME – This is my favorite one, because it’s where I think my definition of a pure shooter might differ from some others’. The great Craig Kilborn, formerly of SportsCenter and late-night comedy, and now an emerging Timberwolves analyst on his “The Life Gorgeous” podcast, often says of Karl-Anthony Towns, that he’s a pure shooter, focusing only on the shot release. I disagree on applying the label to KAT, not because of his release, his elbow, or even the results. He’s obviously a great shooter with great form. But Karl has never embraced being a pure shooter. Yes, he’s shot and made several threes over the course of his career. But the definitional, identity question of whether or not he’s a pure shooter — to me, anyway — has to do with what he does not only the instant that he catches a pass, but the moment before he catches a pass. With Karl, and other non pure shooters, his mind is thinking about stuff other than immediately shooting the ball. His instincts are to size up the floor, or head fake, or just drive. Only after he’s taken that time to consider doing something else might Karl launch the trey. Contrast Karl with, say, Klay Thompson of our Tuesday Night matchup, and you see the difference. With Klay (or Lauri Markkanen, if you need a seven-footer for apples to apples) the ball is gone as soon as it hits his hand, because that’s what he is on the court to do: shoot the ball. (Eds note: Before moving on, kudos to Karl and Thibs for beating Jimmy Butler in Miami last night. In hope you all enjoyed that as much as I did. That Knicks team is going to be very good, despite some extremely-early struggles versus good teams.)
This notion of pure shooters is on my mind for two reasons.
First, I watched Klay Thompson’s shootaround on Tuesday at Target Center. That was happening on one end of the floor. On the other end was Jaden McDaniels’s shootaround. Those were two different viewing experiences. Klay shoots his 3s with the exact same form, with the exact same perfect release and rotation, and the exact same result (read: the ball goes through the net without touching the rim). Jaden, on the other hand, misses lots of his threes. They miss left, and right, and long, and short, and the ball isn’t really looking particularly “the same” from one release to the next. This is not to dump on Jaden, who obviously brings a different set of skills than Klay does. Jaden’s defense is the headliner quality, and he’s a pretty decent cutter, and very adept finisher from the mid-range, in traffic. He’s not a useless offensive player even when his shot is cold. But it would sure help if he got better at shooting.
Second, Anthony Edwards is drawing national attention for how damn many threes he’s jacking. We’ve talked about his refined form – the elbow has less bend, the release is crisper with the wrist – and his super-high volume from three in the preseason. That’s now continued in the regular season. Asked before the Mavs game about Ant replacing some mid-rangers with more threes, Finch smirked and asked back if he “replaced” the mid-rangers, or just added more threes. He’s shot 53 threes in 4 games, connecting on 41.5 percent of attempts. He’ll never be a “pure shooter” because he’s a 6’5″ dunking machine who draws Michael Jordan comparisons, but that’s sort of where the questions arise — do we as fans want this?
https://twitter.com/KevinOConnorNBA/status/1851636114030723127
As the number of three-point shots continues to rise across the league, and we see teams like the Celtics dominate with extreme three-volume, there is going to be more and more noise about necessary rule changes. From a “purist” perspective, the game is supposed to be about which team can most frequently put the ball in the hoop; not which team can most frequently put the ball in the hoop, from long range. Years ago when calling the big college games, Dick Vitale would refer to the three ball as “the great equalizer,” that effectively made it possible for undersized teams to compete with bigger ones. I think most everyone viewed it as a great evolution of the sport, to spread players out and reward skill a bit more and size a bit less. I think it’s equally obvious that the powers that be could not have envisioned a player like Edwards (or any player, for that matter) shooting over 50 threes in a four-game span, and doing it at a very high success rate.
The game has evolved over time, and will continue to do so. Years ago on this site, I devoted a post to rule changes that I thought would help the game. A combo of eliminating defensive three seconds (in other words, allow zone defense without restrictions) while narrowing the lane to college width. Those liberating reforms would help both sides of the ball, as defenses can play with more creativity and team strategy while potentially being able to deploy some bigger (slower) players whose skillsets might punish opponents who insist on going small, despite a narrower lane for offensive post ups and rebounds, on the other end. It would be purer to have fewer restrictions. Threes would still be a huge thing, but allowing more zone and allowing offensive players to post up closer to the hoop might change the incentive structure. Also, if halfcourt defense becomes harder to score against, there would be increased incentive to score in transition. That’s more fun for everybody.
No changes like this are going to happen soon, or probably ever – the vast majority of internet ideas pertain to the three-point line itself – moving it back, or eliminating the corner three, or even increasing the size of the entire floor. I don’t like those ideas myself. Make the game more about teamwork and less about knowing exactly where you’re allowed to stand, and when.
Wolves face Denver tomorrow night, in a later-than-usual Target Center tip-off due to the ESPN coverage. (8:30 Minnesota time). The Nuggets have been struggling, primarily due to horrific play out of their bench. Will Finch’s 3-man reserve unit be able to pounce on that? It’s a big game for both teams, even if it’s still early.
Until then.