Game #79, Home Game #40– San Antonio 110, Minnesota 91
1. Wittman is Without Defense
We are now 79 games into the season–40 of them coached by Dwane Casey, 39 by Randy Wittman. I suppose we could wait until after Sunday in Golden State to make an exact, 40-40 comparison of the two coaches, but with KG out and the team in full tank mode, these next few games aren’t really going to tell us anything about anybody. Everyone just wants it to be over.
Thanks to Wolves stat guru Paul Swanson, I have the breakdown on team performance under the two coaches, and what is interesting in many cases is the similarity of the numbers. Kevin Garnett, for example, averaged 22.1 points, 12.7 rebounds and 4.3 assists in 39:12 per game under Casey, and 22.8, 12.9, and 4.0 in 39:38 under Wittman. Per 48 minutes, KG numbers under the two coaches were exactly the same in steals and turnovers, .4 apart in assists, .1 away in rebounds, and .6 apart in points. That’s reliability. About the only thing that is revealing there is how quickly Wittman reneged on his pledge not to play guys extended minutes–he rode Garnett and Davis slightly more than did Casey.
But there is one stat that jumps off the page: Team Defense. Under Casey, the Wolves permitted just 96.7 points per game; under Wittman, that swells to an unsightly 101.4, a huge 4.6 point differential that swallowed the measly .4 bump in offense under Wittman (from 95.6 to 96 ppg). One reason for that is the Wolves played a more wide-open game under Wittman, attempting 95 more treys–more than two per game–than they did under Casey. Meanwhile, Wolves opponents shot 198 more three-pointers in 39 games coached by Wittman than they did in the 40 coached by Casey, and made a higher percentage (.353 to .346).
Well, maybe that was because the Wolves were packing the paint down low to discourage penetration and to box out for rebounds? Nope. Opponents shot a better two-point FG% versus Wittman’s Wolves (.495) than Casey’s (.483) and reversed the advantage the Wolves had on the boards under Casey. Rebounds per game declined just a titch under Wittman (from 48.8 to 48) but the opponents’ rebounding total went way up (from 46.8 under Casey to 50.5 under Wittman). Minnesota also registered 50 more blocks under Casey (more than one per game) than they did under Wittman.
Not all the “fundamentals” have been worse under Wittman–turnovers are down with Wittman on the sidelines–but I think it is fair to say that when your squad sacrifices that many more points while getting beaten more regularly both on the perimeter and in the paint, without getting a commensurate bump on the offensive end due to a higher tempo or something, than the team simply isn’t playing as well. That could mean less intelligently and/or less energetically–I would argue both. Remember, this is almost exactly the same personnel, except that Casey didn’t have the benefit of the then-injured Rashad McCants.
Sure, there are some mitigating factors: Mark Blount decided to mail in the rest of the season after the All Star break, and for the past month or so, the team certainly appears to be trying not to have its most synergistic combos on the floor in order to keep its draft pick. But Wittman controls Blount’s minutes, and hasn’t really cut them very much compared to Casey. As for the “tanking with vets,” well, Casey never really was embraced by this franchise–be it Taylor or McHale or KG–the way Wittman was, and is. And those are the folks who created the sorry mess that has provoked this tanking. McHale initially wanted to hire PJ from SA; Casey originally wanted to hang on to Roy, not Foye. Neither one got their way. One would hope, if nothing else, that McHale and Wittman are at least on the same page. Because the next housecleaning–sooner rather than later would be nice–should be very very thorough.
2. More Fun With Numbers
Another way to look at the Casey-Wittman figures is as a progression throughout the season. In other words, regardless of who was in charge, did the rooks develop during the course of the season? Did the vets tank? Did anybody flourish or wither?
The good news is that Randy Foye slowly but surely became a classically more effective point guard in the second half, and under Wittman. Under Casey, Foye’s totals per-48 minutes were 5.3 assists and 4.3 turnovers. Under Wittman they were 6.4 assists and 3.3 turnovers, a much better ratio (his point total declined negligibly under Wittman, from 21.4 to 20.4). Smith’s points went up a bit, from 18.5 to 19.4 under Wittman, but his rebounds per 48 declined from 13.5 to 12.2. In the other categories (assists, steals, turnovers per 48) he was marginally more effective under Casey than under Wittman, but that just may be because he tired a bit, or was better scouted or adjusted to, in the 3+ more minutes per game he got under Wittman.
One player who took a big hit in minutes was Hassell, who went from an average 32:03 under Casey to 26:25 under Wittman, which helps explain the more porous defense. Mike James experienced a more severe decline, from 29:06 under Casey to 21:38 under Wittman. Yet the lost time didn’t affect James that much during the time he did play–he averaged 19.1 points and 7.2 assists per 48 under Wittman and 19.2 points and 6.5 assists under Wittman. Hassell’s rebounds went down slightly under Wittman, but his scoring per 48 remained almost exactly the same (from 11.3 to 11.2).
3. The Tank Race
For those still interested in the gory details of Friday’s blowout, the Wolves got blasted late in the first quarter and it lasted through to halftime, turning a tie game with 3:44 to play in the first into a 16-point halftime deficit. Mike James looked mahvalous, nailing 10-14 FG and posting a superficially impressive 23 points in just 26:31, which would have given him at least 30 with a typical starter’s 32-38 minutes played. Of course he also would have been even worse than the -17 he registered on the popcornmachine.net calibrations, meaning the Wolves were just -2 in the 21:29 he sat down. Wittman knows this–that defense and ball movement (James had just 2 dimes) also count for something–but continues to go with the vets. Thus, the worse plus/minus according to the popcorn was Mark Blount at -19, followed closely by Ricky Davis at -18 and James at -17: See a pattern here? The hustle guys, the fundamental guys, like Mark Madsen (+7 in 18:26) and Rashad McCants (zero in 21:39) fared a little better.
There will be no Three-Pointer after the Golden State game Sunday. I’m still trying to decide whether to bother with any after Denver or Memphis, or simply to start previewing playoff series. I’m solciiting opinions on which you’d prefer.
On a final, positive note, Seattle and Portland play each other tonight, meaning that one or the other will match Minnesota’s 32-win total. Gentleman, start your coin flips.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply