The most emblematic player on the 2021-22 Minnesota Timberwolves is their pogo-sticking power forward Jarred Vanderbilt. When the Wolves have been successful thus far this season, it has almost always been triggered by the ability to ignite intensity with the abrupt frenzy of a dogfight, then seize purpose from the ensuing chaos. Veteran point guard Patrick Beverley is the fiery tone-setter and catalyst for this remarkable metamorphosis in what had traditionally been the franchise’s complacent, and disastrous, reliance on mediocre finesse. But Vanderbilt is the sustainer of Beverley’s flame, the lungs and the hamstrings of the operation.
Vando’s signature move is the leaping swoop out of nowhere to grab an offensive rebound and extend his team’s offensive possession after yet another errant shot. As of Wednesday morning, the Wolves were missing more field goal attempts per game, 53, than any team in the NBA. But thanks to Vando, they were also leading the league in offensive rebounds, grabbing nearly 25% more of them than they did a year ago.
Those swoops — soaring over and between bodies gathering themselves too late to contest for the carom — stick in the memory due to the ambush factor, and the fact that Vando and his teammates have learned that his momentum upon landing can carry him into a snap pass out to the perimeter for a jump shot in rhythm, a far better option than Vando trying to take himself back toward the basket and match his dubious shooting touch against the wrath of the recently ambushed.
Far more frequently, however, Vando isn’t soaring uncontested. The swoop may be the signature, but mid-air collisions are the prevailing medium through which much of his work is accomplished. Vando is listed at carrying 214 pounds on his 6-foot, 9-inch frame, meaning he is almost always going up for rebounds against larger, heavier foes at both ends of the court. And those are actually the drearier collisions.
This season, the Wolves have totally revamped their defensive scheme. Instead of almost always utilizing center Karl-Anthony Towns in drop coverage, where his near-sole objective is protecting the rim against shots near the hoop, coach Chris Finch frequently has KAT trying to affect the play at the leverage point of a pick-and-roll maneuver, which can eventually involve him being drawn out to the perimeter. If the opponent counters by sending the ball-handler or the roll man hard to the basket, it becomes the responsibility of the “low man” off to the side of the pick-and-roll to skedaddle over and contest the shot. Vando is often the low man; or, in the event the low man doesn’t respond to the situation, he is often the one who hustles hard to try and rescue the defense from an uncontested layup or dunk. This can result in the kind of collisions that put both players parallel to the court with appendages akimbo.
The Wolves’ two best and most aggressive on-ball defenders are PatBev and Josh Okogie. Both men, but PatBev especially, specialize in collapsing space, getting their upper torso against the opponent early in the action and thus elevating the chance of drawing an offensive foul. But most of their work is done outside the paint, where banging your opponent is more apt to draw a whistle. Vando spends much more of his on-ball defensive time in the trenches with the behemoths, where the early action is a head-to-toe joust and collapsing space will earn you a reverberating elbow-shoulder thwack.
In other words, be it rebounding, defending, or participating in the dogfight (however it occurs), Vando gets smacked in the face more than anyone on the team, and can be found prone on the court trying to regather his senses with increasing regularity.
Misplaced optimism
The ways Vando is emblematic of this season’s Wolves are not all positive. The fact that he is not only the team’s most frequently deployed power forward, but also the one who provides their most rugged resistance at that position is emblematic of the Wolves lack of size and depth in the frontcourt. And the fact that he presents little to no threat on offense more than six feet away from the basket is a concerning factor in why a team featuring a Big 3 of KAT, Anthony Edwards and D’Angelo Russell ranks no better than 24th in points scored per possession.
In the first minute of the second half in Sunday night’s much-needed win over Portland, Edwards brought three defenders to him on a drive to the hoop and then flicked it out to a wide-open Vando in the left corner. And for the second straight game, Vanderbilt sank a three-pointer from the corner.
This was a cause of much rejoicing within the Wolves organization and among its fan base, a giddiness that rose another notch when, down four halfway through the fourth quarter, Edwards again dished to Vando in the left corner. As Portland’s 290-pound goliath Jusef Nurkic lumbered out to contest the shot, Vando put the ball on the deck and sped past everybody for a dunk.
After the game, Wolves media noted the saliency of Vando’s two-game streak of treys in compelling Nurkic to come out and prevent another long-range bomb. Vando’s teammates joined in the fun, recounting how Vando has been honing his three-point shot since preseason and welcoming its unveiling.
This is ridiculous, on a par with the Josh Okogie song-and-dance his first two and a half seasons in the league. On the rare occasions when Okogie would locate the center of the hoop on two or three of his jumpers, he would correctly inform the media with a shy smile that his faith was replenished by teammates — especially but not limited to KAT — encouraging him to keep shooting. Now, a third of the way through his fourth season, Okogie’s career field goal percentage is 40.1, and 27.2 from three-point range. It is the reason he has fallen out of the Wolves rotation.
The boomlet of optimism for Vando’s deadeye is even less credible. The two three-pointers he has converted in the past two games were the second and third of a career that matches Okogie’s three-and-a-third seasons for longevity. Vando is now 3-for-19 from long range, which is 18.8%. This season he is now 2-for-9, which is 22.2%. For the rim-protecting Nurkic to vacate the paint in an already-doomed attempt to decently contest the shot was not something Vando earned. It was a horrible mistake.
An offense still too reliant on KAT
The overreaction by the Wolves and their fans was akin to a group trapped in a cave suddenly thinking they see a sliver of light. The hard truth is that Minnesota’s offense has devolved down to a Big 1 this season and his name is Towns. KAT is shooting a career-high 42.3% from beyond the three-point arc thus far this season. The next-most accurate shooter on the roster is KAT’s backup, Naz Reid, at 35.5%. No other Wolves player is currently above the league average of 34.8%, albeit not for lack of trying. The Littler 2 of DLo and Ant currently rank 6th and 9th in treys attempted per game, sporadically splashing them in at a rate of 33% and 33.8%, respectively.
But the offensive malaise is not just from long range. According to the website Cleaning the Glass, which strips meaningless garbage time from their calculations, the Wolves rank 28th among the 30 NBA teams in terms of points scored per play in their halfcourt offense.
Early in the season, teams discovered that if they defended KAT with a smaller but more mobile player, they could diminish his long range capabilities. If the Wolves countered by maneuvering KAT closer to the hoop, teams would respond by bringing their big man over for the double-team. They were able to do this because the big was almost always “guarding” Vando, which is to say leaving him alone if he didn’t venture near the paint. Bottom line, the luxury of not having to worry about Vando as a scoring threat away from the paint prevented the Wolves from spacing the defense and better enabled opponents in their effort to cut off the head of the snake, KAT, is the Wolves offense.
Slowly but surely making strides
In fairness to Vando, his hustle and grit claws back a fair bit of the offensive prowess his clanking siphons away from the team’s scoring prowess. Yes, the Wolves are terrible in points scored per play in their halfcourt sets, where offensive schemes and defensive counters can be implemented. But Vando’s offensive rebounding adds plays to the overall offensive possession — they add the most plays and score the most points off of putbacks, helping to raise their offensive efficiency per possession to 24th.
The other reason the team’s offensive efficiency is merely bad instead of rotten is because the Wolves scrapping style of play creates more opportunities for them to score in transition, without any halfcourt action. Again per Cleaning the Glass, they score the fourth-most points in transition off of the second-most steals in the league. Concurrently, the stats at nba.com reveal Vando to be the disrupter-in-chief, ranking 4th in the NBA in loose ball recoveries, 7th in deflections and 10th in steals per 36 minutes played.
The inflated ballyhoo over a couple of three-pointers obscures some of the strides Vando has slowly but surely been making to upgrade his offensive utility. In fact the game in Portland provided some sterling examples. In the final minute of the first half, KAT dribbled from the three-point arc to the top of the key, where he was met by a trio of Trailblazers. Vando cut from the slot at the perfect time and had an uncontested dunk off KAT’s feed. Then late in the third quarter, Vando and DLo worked a high pick-and-roll by the three-point arc, with DLo creating space by taking a wide arc on his drive to the hoop before delivering one of his patented pocket-bounce passes to a streaking Vando for another slam.
Finch’s offensive philosophy requires healthy doses of both ball movement and player movement off the ball. This would have been more of a liability for Vando earlier in the season, because he was stone-handed receiving passes and exclusively left-handed converting the passes he did catch into shots. Over time, the miscues off the feed have diminished and his ability use the right-handed side of the hoop has expanded, albeit not nearly enough.
Unfortunately, less can be done to remedy Vando’s lack of height and brawn. At both ends of the Wolves recent five-game losing streak, in defeats against Washington and Cleveland, they were overwhelmed by opponents attacking them in the paint. By the numbers, this isn’t a concern — the Wolves are tied for 8th in fewest paint points allowed per game. But the ease with which those two foes exposed Minnesota’s glaring lack of size and strength feels like a harbinger of woes to come.
The problem with a scrapping, disruptive style of defense is that the margin of error is thin. Attempts to foster chaos leave you vulnerable to overreaction by offenses using your momentum against you. This is especially true against potent offenses that possess both skilled big men and accurate long-range shooters.
A bargain, verging on a steal
In the big picture, if the Wolves are ever going to seriously compete in the postseason, they will need larger, sturdier skill players. This may reduce Vando’s prominence, but the Wolves would still be wise to nurture and try to retain the benefits he brings to the team.
For a long time now, the franchise has keyed its rebuilding efforts upon the promise of supposedly rising stars, from Al Jefferson to Kevin Love to Andrew Wiggins to KAT, Ant and DLo. That fixation has obscured an organizational failure nearly as damaging to long-term success as the stunted blossom of supposed prodigies — the chronic absence of quality role players.
Vando is becoming a feel-good exception to that dearth in development. Although he is still quite young — less than 18 months older than Jaden McDaniels — he’s knocked around in obscurity with injuries, a trade, and a glaring weakness or two, experiences that have tempered his resolve and accelerated his maturity. That the player who personifies most of the pros and cons of this improved contingent of Timberwolves just signed a 3-year, $13.8 million contract in September should make longtime fans of this team happy. It is already a bargain, and headed toward a steal.
Thank you for that insight. What I like about Vanderbilt’s ‘light weight’ is his agility. That enables him to get that nano-second advantage over the slower hulks going for the same rebound. Mentally and physically he has that little edge.
Yeah, 214 is not ideal for 6’9” even in college, but has he always played at that approximate weight, college, etc. ? If so, he has learned to adapt through his agility.
Hey Dennis–
Thanks for chiming in. Agree about the agility and the quickness; the problem is that, as so often happens, his virtues and vices are inextricably linked. For him to swoop and zoom means it is tough for him to plan and plant, and thus there are times when he can be overpowered and allowed to sweep himself aside. Also, there are simply occasions when bigs are too big and maximize that circumstance. The Cavs front line of Allen (6-11, 243), Mobley (7-0, 215) and Markkanen (7-0, 240) a case in point.
Whatever hater, watch out Steph, Vando is only 2,975 away! But actually the fact that he can catch the ball this year is a great improvement. I know he said he shot a lot of free throws over the summer, someone must have been passing the ball to him so he’d have to make tough catches during those reps.
I know that is meant as a joke, but 100 or more catches per day can’t hurt, eh?
Vando went through a stone-hands period this season but has now lifted himself back out of it. The first couple weeks of the season when he was coming off the bench his entire game was off. I remember asking Finch what was wrong, especially given his rationale for signing Vando at the September press conference–that he has a lot to do with winning in a number of different ways. The coach responded that it was early yet and he turned out to be right, even if the answer felt more like wishful thinking at the time.
Great writing wasted on poor team. Again to cosmetics on a porcine.
Appreciate the praise, and, if true, would respond that great writing is never wasted.
As for smeared pucker, as with everything, it is relative according to perspective. Wolves are 12-15, one of their better seasons at this stage thus far.
True Britt. There are 10 or 12 teams with worse records than the Wolves this year. Most past years the Wolves were down at the bottom with comparative records.
And eith there fortunes be stuck in mediocre purgatory. Not good enough for playoffs, too good to land a difference making high draft pick.
Sort of the place the vikings are at.
I will watch the Gophers
Good to see the comments section filling up, and with intelligent observations from intelligent fans. Things are building.
As to Vanderbilt, my man crush on him is also building, game by game.
If you hang your emotional hat on the big three, more often than not you end up screaming at the screen or court or whatever, shouting, “Why doesn’t x do y?!?” or “Why is he doing x?” That’s just the frustrating nature of watching the offensive side of basketball.
But you don’t have to ask that about Vanderbilt. You almost never have to ask why he is or isn’t doing something, because he is usually doing exactly what the team needs him to do.
Think of it this way: watching the game on TV is always a slightly distant experience. But what it does is allow you to see the floor in terms of spacing and unfolding action. And if you watch for what is developing, almost every time you see an opening develop for the opposing team — a clear lane, an uncontested rebound — or see a hole in the Twolves offensive flow or a space where the offensive rebound is likely to go, more likely than not Vando will suddenly emerge out of nowhere and fill that space, either making a play, keeping a play alive, or breaking up a play if it is the opponent who has the ball.
It’s the opposite of stray voltage; it is direct current, strategically applied. I, for one, cannot get enough of it. We too often look at the game in terms of hoping that the great players do what we know they can do. But, in the end, the team that wins is very often the team who has the quiet player who is not concerned with what he can do, but with doing what needs to be done.
For me, Vando is that guy. I hope we keep him around.
As usual, superb stuff Kent.
I’ve had a few regular commenters eventually start their own Wolves blogs and websites. If you’ve got the time it could be in your future, because you obviously love the game and use it to whet your intellectual appetite.
Greatest hit this time around was stray voltage vs direct current.
Thanks, Britt. I already make a bad living as a writer. No need to compound the pain. And I have such respect and appreciation for what you do in the vast wasteland of sycophantic sports writing that I am pleased just to be able to put my shoulder against the wheel in your behalf. Quite honestly, there are writers who can contextualize and writers who can analyze. Precious few can do both, and do them with both insight and integrity. You da man.
The comments here are becoming more reflective of the fan base around the club this season. We have eloquence, exuberance, hopefulness, and hopelessness all within a few inches of each other. With players from the off-season league transactions now available, what will the Wolves do? Do they stay the course and take the fans on a mercurial ride with alternate flashes of talent and fragility, hoping to secure at least a play-in nod at the end of the season? Will Gupta be allowed to scan rosters and at least make a small deal to rectify the lack of frontcourt size? For example, could they make a small-market-don’t-mess-with-the-cap move and deal for an underperforming big man who needs a change of scenery like Bagley from Sacramento? I would think they wouldn’t have to blow up the roster too much to acquire someone like that. Or do they swing a little more for the fences, looking for a Sabonis or Turner from Indiana? That would be more of a dramatic change since they would certainly have to give up cherished assets and threaten whatever chemistry they say they have right now. It’s true that the Wolves have played better this year, but how much upside is there? I haven’t given up my League Pass subscription just yet, and it’s true they are more fun to watch, but at least a tweak is needed, methinks.
Good to hear from you again Peter.
I think you set the context well. And while I agree with the overall assessment, I personally tend to shy away from the ESPN trade machine (invented by our current president of basketball operations, Sachin Gupta) and other fanciful scenarios; not necessarily because I don’t want something to happen, but because the few genuine peeks behind the public relations curtain of an NBA basketball operation that I’ve had the privilege to witness reveal layers of hidden agendae (from agents, brand sponsors, player entourages and family, front office jockeys, cynical media, and, ultimately, ownership). Multiply those individual machinations–over contract incentives, real and perceived circumstantial grievances, front office job insecurities, clickbait, and disinformation/misinformation campaigns–times 30 NBA organizations and the reasons deals do or don’t get done are so far beyond the ken of ordinary shmoes like you and me that I end up believing all the speculation is at best self-indulgent or at worst useful idiocy on behalf of people and agendas that aren’t totally clear to us.
So, yeah, I don’t mind saying the Wolves need X and I like player Y or Z, or believes players A and B might return good value for their current worth to the organization. But it all feels performative, like role playing scenarios at diversity seminars.
If you want to wade through that fat wad of caveats, I’m open to discussion. Might even write about it near the February trading deadline–the caveats alone would fill half the column.
Hi Britt,
You’re right, I wouldn’t know squat about what player they should get, those were just examples of players at differing levels/effort of acquisition, and that have been rumored to be available for the right price. Don’t get me started about Ben Simmons! I’m just wondering how content the front office is with the season start, and what they would let Gupta do this particular year. That’s as interesting to me as the product on the floor.
Role players do not make your team a 50 win, yearly playoff contender, your top players do that. Role players are only as good as the stars they play with. Look at Steve Kerr, current coach of Warriors, he could not play on a bad team, but with stars like Jordan and Duncan he flourished in his role. They are called role players for a reason, they need the stars to give them extra room they need to look good. Hell, back in the day Wally Szczerbiak made an All Star team because Terrell Brandon and especially KG created the space Wally needed to shine.
If your top players don’t create opportunities for role players on a nightly bases, you win 35 games and watch the playoffs from home. Relying on Vanderbilt or a scrambling defense (which I like) to push this team into a consistent playoff team is not the answer. As I’ve stated before, can and do KAT, Russell and Ant make their role players better? One thing is for certain in that equation, when the ball doesn’t move or those 3 are not moving, the answer is a glaring no.
It is not how good your top players are, it is how good they make your team…
Hey Joe, appreciate the pushback.
For a teamwork guy, you sure have a bifurcated way of looking at things. Instead of restricting your focus to how stars elevate role players, why not flip the perspective? Sure, role players don’t impact stars nearly as much as vice versa, but to diminish the real impact that they do have is pretty short-sighted.
Is Patrick Beverley a star? If not, then what in the world is he doing making such an impact on the culture of this team? In a lesser, but still significant fashion, Vando matters. Suddenly the relatively slow-footed (and large-footed, which affects his direction-changing ability on split-second decisions) KAT has a frontcourt partner who extends possessions for him and others, doesn’t rob the BIg 3 of touches and puts pace and sweat equity into the game. Are there marked flaws in his game? Yeah, well, I just wrote about them. But please, riddle me how a starting five of the Big 3 plus Vando and PatBev have an 8-2 record and the best net rating of any quintet in the NBA? You think plugging in McDaniels or Beasley would have the same effect and impact? If so, please pay closer attention.
They are called role players because they are at best complementary. It goes without saying that they don’t carry franchises by themselves–then they’d be stars, eh? But if KG had better role players–think Fred Hoiberg in 2003-04–he would have made more than one conference final and perhaps worked toward a ring. If Tim Duncan didn’t have not only demi-stars like Manu and Tony Parker, but ideal role players like Bruce Bowen, Boris Diaw, Patty Mills, etc, the Spurs dynasty is much diminished.
By all means, let’s acknowledge the primacy of stars in the NBA. But let’s not pretend that the elevated performances of the role players around them is all their doing. And let’s be thankful that Jarred Vanderbilt is around for two more seasons after this one being paid a relative pittance to help elevate this team.
Couldn’t disagree more. You are a role player because you are not good enough to attack defenses steady to draw another defender and let your “role” guys play 4 on 3 offense. Stars give the role guys the space and opportunity to attack open spaces, close outs and a scrambling defense because they draw another defender. I loved Freddy and his role was to get open for shots when KG, Spreewell or Sam created space for him. The reason Fred was a role player was his inability to attack off dribble for himself or teammates.
Again, you could exchange players 4-8 on most NBA teams and the current teams with the best records, would still have the best records. If exchanged players 1-3 in the same scenario, the top teams would change dramatically.
Thanks for the back and forth, I enjoy it……
“Role player” is a baggy suit. Many different types of players can wear it. It seems evident to me that the significant role players on the current Twolves roster are defense- or rebound-oriented. This is far different from having a role player who has a significant offensive function. I think this is why we are seeing Jaden McDaniels struggle and Jarred Vanderbilt thrive. Likewise, Jordan McLaughlin and Pat Bev. The issue is the right role player, not simply the idea of the role player.
What I see is Finch pushing all the right buttons these days. The next step is to figure out which role players matter most for this team, and then to shuffle the deck when trading and free agent time comes. Sure, you can question our Big Three, and I often do. But picking the right role players matters — a lot. Stay tuned. This is an interesting team in an interesting time.
Kent beat me to a lot of this.
I’ll just synopsize the sentiment by saying that the reason I love hoops is because I believe it to be the most dynamic team sport on the planet. There is no equivalent of a great goalie or starting pitcher essentially rendering every other participant on rink/field meaningless. Even superstars need constant support.
Under your formula, was Pippen a star or a role player? The Bucks won a championship last season–how many stars did they have, 1, 2 or 3? How many stars are currently on the Miami Heat, the Phoenix Suns, the Boston Celtics? Why are the Grizzlies currently 9-1 without Ja Morant?
Players have a wide array of skill sets. Aligning those skills for maximum team production is tricky–waaaay more complicated that divvying up your top 3 and throwing the rest in an undistinguished pool on 4-8. That’s provocatively naive.
Thanks for the comment. I too enjoy the discussion, which everyone is welcome to join.
Pippin took the big step from role player to 2nd best player on a championship team, huge step! Jordan and Phil Jackson’s system needed ball movement and player movement to succeed. Pippin was never a great shooter but excelled at defending, attacking rim to get others shots and high IQ basketball. He’s a top 75 player of all time, so definitely a star. Milwaukee is like the old Billups, Ben Wallace Pistons, won a championship without a great 1-3 top players. That happens occasionally but if you are talking 3-7 year runs where you are a top 2-3 team in the NBA, you need your stars to carry the load.
Look at the change of role players on Kobe/Shaq Lakers, Duncan/Manu/Parker Spurs, Magic/Kareem/Worthy Lakers, Jordan/Pippin Bulls, Bird/Mchale/Parrish Celtics, Curry/Thompson/KD Warriors.
There are definitely different levels of role players, A and B. A role players may make an All Star game or 2. B role players have 1-2 unique skills that usually are defense, shooting, passing, attacking rim, rebounding. Teams need those guys, no question but they are interchangeable.
This is so much fun: smart people exchanging opinions in a civil manner. Doesn’t this violate internet rules?
I’d like to get everyone’s take on someone like Dennis Rodman, who was clearly an incredibly great role player, and how he developed into a sought-after rebound machine. At what point do players realize it’s in their best interest to focus on a role, and how much does the coaching/organizational structure help develop them? Most NBA players were their team’s dominant player in high school and/or college.
Interesting question.
As so often happens, sport is just a more focused stand-in for life itself. Many if not most of us have large dreams for ourselves when younger, and the compromises to those dreams are variously voluntary and involuntary, appreciated and regretted, fulfilling or wistfully incomplete.
Narrowed down to sports, how much do you trust a coach or team executive in steering your career along? How variable and/or realistic did you imagine your ceiling as a professional–can you be either a specialist or a swiss army knife, depending upon how things unfold, or are your expectation impeding that flexibly==perhaps even appropriately so for your happiness?
I think the key here is to know yourself, what makes you tick, how you are satisfied and fulfilled, who you trust with the fundamentally honest questions you need to answer.
Then there is luck. Rodman was a fabulous specialist but also crazy-lucky to first get his notoriety coming off the bench with Salley for a deep, resourceful Pistons team, then being a character actor in Michael Jordan’s greatest show on hardwood. He could have developed the exact same skillset with less ballyhooed results.
Bottom line, there are a lot of factors within and beyond your control and even then it is a crapshoot.
Britt, agree on luck with role players being on the right team. Rodman was a disaster in San Antonio, even though his numbers were good. Just a bad fit for him. Rodman was elite in two areas rebounding and defense, he actually wasn’t above average in any other b-ball skill.
Getting back to our initial topic, I hope coach Fitch can get his “big 3” to lift the role players into a playoff team. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen enough of those signs so far. If the top players can’t improve the role players level on a nightly basis, average times ahead (30-40 wins per season).
Grateful to you, Britt, and all of your for a civil, intelligent space for conversing about this game we all love.
To the debate about the role of role players: I want to elevate the role of the coach and the intelligence of the players as key to making a very good team (a team with a couple of stars) into a great team. Because the fact is, 4-8 changes, even during a season. The reason those guys are 4-8, or at least 6-11, is they are more limited; they do some things well and not others. Figuring out the alchemy of who can play with who so that their strengths are maximized and their weaknesses minimized is where the coach and staff come in. I admire Finch’s ability to play through options, figure out what works, cultivate that, and pivot when necessary. The intelligence necessary to see the patterns in the game, from play to play or quarter to quarter or game to game, is critical in the NBA with the detailed scouting and analytics.
In your podcast with Dane Moore, Britt, you all talked about D-Lo and his leadership, especially on the second unit. I totally concur. D-Lo’s intelligence, his read of the game, is superb, and Finch has embraced that. (And I’ll bet Finch also challenged him by saying, “your teammates will only listen to you if you play harder and apply that intelligence to defense.”). Teams are constantly scouting, adjusting, re-adjusting–this isn’t a static search for the right talent, it’s a dynamic puzzle that requires persistent observation and willingness to challenge whatever wisdom you think you have.
Back to the role player debate, in this context: The Spurs’ role players weren’t interchangeable; they were adaptable and intelligent, with perhaps the greatest adaptive coach in NBA history at the helm. Finch and D-Lo (and PatBev) are the beginnings, I think, of changing the Wolves’ culture to be more like that: adjustable and responsive, both in-game and through the season.
Great stuff Robert. Would have replied sooner but crazy day.
Glad you appreciated the DLo comment. And yes, the Spurs were always able to adapt to the stars as much as vice versa, which I believe stems from culture and coaching which of course inevitably intersect.