Timberwolves Devour Nuggets, Force Game Seven
The Minnesota Timberwolves routed the Denver Nuggets 115-70 to force a game seven on Sunday in Denver. Anthony Edwards scored a game-high 27 points and posted a game-best plus/minus number that looks like a typographical error: +43. Jaden McDaniels scored 21 points, just the third 20 point game of his playoff career. Mike Conley returned to action after missing one game with a calf strain, and his calming influence was evident at both ends of the court to a far greater extent than his boxscore numbers (13 points, five assists) suggest. Karl-Anthony Towns scored just 10 points on 4-10 field goal shooting, but he made his presence felt with 13 rebounds and five assists. The allegedly "unplayable" Rudy Gobert had eight points, a game-high 14 rebounds, and the game's second best plus/minus number (+30). He did not block a shot, but his paint presence and activity helped the Timberwolves outscore the Nuggets in the paint 46-36 while holding the Nuggets to the worst field goal percentage (.302) and lowest scoring total in the franchise's playoff history. Naz Reid added 10 points and 11 rebounds in 22 minutes off of the bench as Minnesota won the rebounding battle, 62-43.
Nikola Jokic had a solid game while leading the Nuggets with 22 points and nine rebounds, but the Timberwolves can live with those numbers; their size and their timely double teams held Jokic below his usual production, but the Nuggets did not exploit their opportunities to play four on three: Nuggets not named Jokic shot 17-67 (.254) from the field, with Aaron Gordon scoring 12 points on 4-7 field goal shooting while the other Nuggets faded into oblivion. Jamal Murray had just 10 points on 4-18 field goal shooting.
This game is a resounding demonstration that momentum does not exist in an NBA playoff series. After Denver's convincing game five win--the Nuggets' third straight victory after losing the first two games at home--it seemed like the Timberwolves had no chance to extend the series; that is what I thought as well--not based on momentum, but based on my unwavering belief that the Nuggets are the better team. The Nuggets finished one game ahead of the Timberwolves during the regular season, and that slender margin determined that Denver will host game seven. History suggests that homecourt advantage in general--and homecourt advantage in game seven in particular--matters a lot. The Timberwolves are unlikely to get 36 points off of their bench in game seven, and the Nuggets are highly unlikely to shoot so horribly in the friendly confines of their home arena.
The Nuggets shot 7-36 (.194) from three point range, including 2-9 in the first quarter as the Timberwolves sprinted to a 31-14 lead. During the halftime show, ESPN's Bob Myers made two excellent points: 1) Denver missed wide open three pointers, and 2) when you are missing three pointers--even if they are open--you should stop shooting them, put your head down, and drive to the hoop. During the season, the Nuggets ranked 30th (last) in three point field goals attempted (31.2 per game) and 10th in three point field goal percentage, so it is out of character both for them to shoot that poorly from beyond the arc and for them to shoot so many treys. High volume three point shooting leads to high variance results; in Denver's game five win, the Nuggets shot 9-19 (.474) from three point range, and those kind of numbers are what one should expect to see in game seven, regardless of whether or not the Timberwolves keep double teaming Jokic: there is not a requirement that after a star player is trapped his teammates must keep jacking up three pointers.
The prevailing narrative after game five is that Minnesota's loss was Rudy Gobert's fault, that the four-time Defensive Player of the Year is "unplayable," and that Jokic humiliated Gobert. Inconvenient facts were conveniently ignored (this is a media specialty that extends well beyond NBA coverage): in game five, Gobert contributed 18 points on 7-7 field goal shooting plus a
game-high 11 rebounds with a -2 plus/minus number while every other Minnesota
starter was -12 or worse, but let's not talk about that. Instead, let's give a microphone to the guy who punched Jusuf Nurkic in the face and put Gobert in a headlock. What does Draymond Green think about Gobert's performance?
Green provided unintentional comedy during his Wednesday night guest appearance on TNT when he said that he guards Jokic better than anyone who is guarding Jokic during this series. Green also declared that it is unacceptable to let Jokic be both a big-time scorer and a big-time playmaker; you have to take something away, Green solemnly declared--as if he is the man to do that job. Perhaps Green does not know that boxscores from all of his games are available online; the last time the Green faced Jokic, Jokic had 32 points, 16 rebounds, and 16 assists as Denver beat Green's Golden State Warriors, 119-103. Jokic shot 13-24 from the field and had a +20 plus/minus number, while Green logged his customary triple single (seven points, five rebounds, four assists) along with a game-high six turnovers and a game-worst -23 plus/minus number. Yes, Jokic had as many rebounds as Green had points, rebounds, and assists combined! Some players say that journalists who have never played the game are not qualified to analyze the game--but, with all due respect to Green, his personal experience does not seem to qualify him to speak about how to effectively guard Jokic, and the obvious personal grudges that Green has against Gobert, Nurkic, and other players disqualify him as an objective commentator.
Green is going to ride his triple single career averages (8.7 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 5.6 apg) all the way to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame because he was lucky enough to play alongside Kevin Durant, Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, and Andre Iguodala. Is "lucky" a fair adjective? What would Green's career have looked like without those guys? Glad you asked: in the 2019-20 season, Iguodala and Durant were gone (Green played a role in chasing Durant away, but that is another story), Thompson missed the whole season due to injury, and Curry played in just five games due to injury. Green showed the world who he really is as a player, averaging 8.0 ppg on .389 field goal shooting along with 6.2 rpg and 6.2 apg for a 15-50 team. So, yes, "lucky" seems about right.
The real story of this series has nothing to do with the incessant narratives about momentum or Gobert being "unplayable" or Edwards being the next Michael Jordan. The real story of this series is that these two teams are mirror images of each other because their rosters were built by the same executive, Tim Connelly: both teams are big and physical, both teams defend well, and neither team relies on "pace and space." The Nuggets have Jokic and homecourt advantage, and those two factors are likely to be the difference in game seven.
Labels: Anthony Edwards, Denver Nuggets, Draymond Green, Jamal Murray, Karl-Anthony Towns, Minnesota Timberwolves, Nikola Jokic, Rudy Gobert
posted by David Friedman @ 12:39 AM
9 Comments:
Green seems to have an issue with Gobert being the most decorated defender of their generation. On top of that I see Gobert get slandered often when looking at the discourse on the internet, and while some of it is merited the reality in this specific series is he has been playing very good defense against one of the best offensive (and overall) players ever. There was one play in game 5 where Jokic seemingly channeled McHale/Hakeem/Kareem to score, Gobert played those about as well as he could and yet Jokic still scored. There was one 3 Jokic made where Gobert literally smothered him. Just not much anyone can do about it, it's like Battier vs Kobe in the 2009 WCSF; Battier defended Kobe about as well as you could but Kobe was just too good
Also, 70 points today really isn't that much different from 56 in the 90s when adjusting for rule and philosophical changes. I see that 98 Jazz final score being used as some proof of the competition back then being weak.... but a team that has had no issues dismantling a LeBron/AD squad scored 70. And on top of that both teams are structured similarly to how teams used to be structured, around size and defense. Very refreshing that it seems like most of the top teams now are built around size and tenacity (with the modern twist of a ton of 3s) instead of an extreme interpretation of pace and space. The small ball stuff from the 2010s only looked good when the big man talent was underwhelming and that has not been the case in the past 4 years
Hello David,
Unrelated to the topic at hand but I wanted to share these videos with you by the Wilt Chamberlain Archive, who has come out swinging against JJ Reddick. They have released two videos going over footage of Bob Cousy and Dolph Schayes, analyzing their games and the rules of the NBA in the 1950s and early 1960s. They are quite excellent and helped me understand their games and the early NBA better.
Bob Cousy:
https://youtu.be/20GAGSPRpdc?si=n3DFexGGRARnkWJn
Dolph Schayes:
https://youtu.be/7DnKQPpDlrY?si=dkqmV-0HvBH6LRjw
Keith:
Thank you for sharing.
These videos make many of the same points visually that I have made verbally regarding how much the game has changed. James Harden thrived at "flop and flail." He is not nearly as good at basketball. The playoffs more closely resemble old school basketball than the regular season does, and every year during the playoffs we get a good glimpse at what kind of production Harden would have had in previous eras under different rules and playing conditions; he is just not the same player when he is not allowed to flop and flail, not to mention carrying the ball, traveling, etc.
What J.J. Redick and Gilbert Arenas refer to as "skills" and "wizardry" is, in many cases, players being permitted to carry the ball, travel with the ball, and flail their bodies into defensive players.
Watching those videos highlights how much of an arrogant and delusional clown J.J. Redick is. Redick said, with a straight face, that he wants to go back in time and beat Dolph Schayes one on one so that he (Redick) can be listed on the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team. Let's count off just a few reasons why that is a ludicrous statement:
1) During most of Redick's career, he would have barely scratched the list of the top 100-150 players in the league in any given year. The notion that there is anything that he could do to even sniff the top 75 all-time is preposterous.
2) Schayes was at one time the all-time leading scorer in NBA history. He led a team to a championship. He was an ambidextrous 6-8, 220 power forward. Redick was a mediocre 6-4 guard who was too slow and too poor of a passer to be a point guard; how many players fitting Redick's scouting report description could beat an elite power forward one on one? This is not quite as bad as a high school player trying to beat retired NBA player Brian Scalabrine one on one--but it's close.
3) Schayes led the NBA in FT% three times and was an .849 career free throw shooter in an era of dimly lit arenas, no hightops, no modern medical care or weight training, etc. Redick, with all of the modern advantages available to him, was an .892 career free throw shooter who never led the league in that department. Not only would Schayes have beaten Redick one on one, Schayes would probably have beaten him in a pure shooting contest held under equal conditions.
Regardless of whatever you think, that's a huge problem with how contradictory the NBA is. They officiate the game one way all season long and then suddenly change that drastically when the playoffs start. That's obviously not a good thing and confuses players and coaches every year.
Sure, Redick is saying some ridiculous things but he has some points. When Schayes led his team to the title it was in 1955. He averaged 19, 13 on .359 FG %. These are pedestrian numbers and at the start of the sport He then had to win 1 best of 5 series and then 1 best of 7 series. This is much different than today. The regular season and playoffs are much longer today-many more chances for upsets, injuries, etc. Redick may have never led the league in FT 5, but he's #9 all-time. Schayes was an elite FT shooter during his era, but terrible from the field. And we've seen bad shooters from the field be able to be great FT shooters at times in history. Whether or not someone is a great FT shooter for not doesn't necessarily mean they're a great shooter overall.
Anonymous:
I made no value statement concerning whether or not the difference between the regular season and the playoffs is "a huge problem." I just observed that there is a difference, and that Harden's productivity declines during the playoffs.
Leading a team to a title is more impressive and more meaningful than being a role player, let alone being a role player for teams that never seriously contended for a title. It is impressive to average 19-13 in a much more physical era when the game was played at a slower pace. Regarding FG%, did you watch the video? The narrator explained why FG% was lower during that era.
During that era, there were fewer teams, so the league was less watered down. I understand the counterargument to that is that segregation excluded many Black players at that time, and that is a valid point, but I would still say that overall the league is more watered down today; there are many bad teams playing bad basketball.
Rick Barry once told me (and he has said this to others as well) that FT% is the only pure statistic, because every other statistic can be manipulated in some way (either by the player, the scorekeeper, or both). Schayes' FT% shows that he was an elite-level shooter. His FG% is a reflection of the way that the game was played at that time, because the rules (no three point line to create spacing, smaller lane, no block/charge line, etc.) and the officiating favored the defense.
Anyone who trashes his own sport's history without bothering to learn facts and context is a clown--at best--and there is no doubt that Redick is a clown. In one year, ABC/ESPN viewers went from Mark Jackson/Jeff Van Gundy to Doc Rivers to Redick. The first three are excellent, but Redick is best with the sound off, because all he does is trash the sport's history and spout "advanced basketball statistics" in a futile attempt to prove how "analytical" he is. He is not analytical in any meaningful sense of the word; he is narrow-minded, biased, and uninformed about anything that extends beyond his specific, narrow experience as an NBA role player.
Speaking of Redick,
Arguably, he epitomizes the type of three-point specialist that only had an NBA career because of the three-point line that was introduced in 1979. It's hard to imagine Redick or, say, Steve Kerr, making it anywhere near the NBA before the three-point line was really weaponized starting sometime in the 1990s or so.
When all shots were equal (two points), outside shooters could open up the floor. But they were no more valuable than that. Which is to say, they had to be good all-around players not just campers at the three-point line. Even the best outside shooters back in the day were only complimentary to the big men who dominated the paint.
Why shoot a 25-foot shot when it's not worth more than a layup? To open up the floor, maybe, but that's it.
I'm saying all this to say that somebody needs to tell Redick that he only even made it to the league because of a gimmick introduced 45 years ago. A gimmick that has since devolved the game into a three-point shooting contest that's more high variance and less strategy.
But to your point, David, the same man who built the Nuggets and Timberwolves understands that the fundamentals of basketball have not changed, despite the advent of the three-point shot. Hence the general consensus that whoever wins game seven of the Nuggets/Wolves series will likely win the championship.
A testament to the paint dominance of the old school trumping so-called "analytics".
Anonymous:
The "stat gurus" have won contracts to run teams and write books, but they have generated a lot more headlines than championships. The most renowned "stat gurus" in the front office ranks--Daryl Morey, Sam Hinkie, and Sam Presti--have combined to win the same number of NBA titles that I have won, with the major difference being that I have not been paid millions of dollars over a combined 30+ years without winning a title.
It is popular to assert that the Golden State Warriors' four championships represent a triumph of three point shooting and "pace and space" over more traditional basketball tactics, but consider the facts about those championship teams:
2015 Warriors: 1st in defensive field goal percentage, sixth in rebounding
2017 Warriors: 1st in defensive field goal percentage, seventh in rebounding
2018 Warriors: 3rd in defensive field goal percentage, 17th in rebounding (but fourth in playoff rebounding)
2022 Warriors: 2nd in defensive field goal percentage, seventh in rebounding
The Warriors had a strong paint presence during their four championship seasons.
To be clear to the Anonymous who brought up FG% from the 50s, in he there was no three point line and rules related to dribbling, palming, offensive fouls, and traveling were very strict. An opposing center could essentially camp out in the paint all game and the rules essentially meant no gather step, very little in the way of crossovers, or other techniques players commonly use to create space today. Thus many players shot primarily in the midrange, specifically the Long 2 area as we would recognize it today. Even today, most players only average about 40% in that area, so it is not surprising that a guy like Schayes and the league overall shot in the 38% range. Under those same rules and conditions, players today would probably shoot similarly. It is worth nothing the Wilt Chamberlain Archive narrator said he had Schayes as shooting in the high 30% from what would be three point range today, to get an idea of what type of player he would be like.
Post a Comment
<< Home