2010 Pre-Season, Miscellaneous News

Temple of doom: Wolves fall to Pacers

Photo by Tucia

The Wolves’ 98-86 loss to the Pacers on Wednesday night was seen by almost nobody. Nonetheless, we know that the Wolves seemed to play solid defense but shot only 32% from the floor. Kurt Rambis wrote it off to “fatigue.” That’s gonna happen, I guess. All I know is I’m glad I didn’t have to see Kevin Love brick a dunk. Here’s some other stuff:

  • I’m surprised that this one was committed to video by anyone anywhere, but highlights do exist. They’re right here.
  • And a recap of the whole affair is here. After getting lit up for 30 points by Danny Granger, Michael Beasley gave us a taste of his defensive philosophy (via the Strib):

I love the challenge, I don’t like the matchup. I mean, a perfect world for me is to play all offense and no defense, but that’s every player. I love the head-to-head matchup. I’m a competitor, that’s what I do.

Really Mike? “Every player”?

Ultimately, this policy is a good thing for the time being, but not because players shouldn’t be able to question the officiating. It’s a good thing because it forces us (and yes, this includes the NBA and David Stern as well) to discuss the state of officiating. Even if the players have to be mum on the subject, the subject is still out there to be debated.  Just debate it in a calm and mature manner. Otherwise, you’ll probably be ejected.

I’d say I agree with Zach’s essential point that the policy is useful if it forces us to actually face up to the state of officiating, and the dark essential question: even if the NBA is really poorly officiated, is that simply because the pro game is just too fast and complex to actually officiate well? On the other hand, while there are quite a few NBA players who really seem to relish a really good toddler-esque tantrum, this policy does seem to smack of David Stern’s vaunted paternalism. This league seems to really like telling grown men how to dress, when and how to talk, just what variety of facial contortion is the appropriate kind.

Share this because Rubio would pass this along:
Tagged , , , , , ,

0 thoughts on “Temple of doom: Wolves fall to Pacers

  1. I would add one additional factoid about the Wolves’ shooting against the Pacers – it has all the hallmarks of being an extreme outlier. How extreme? During the regular season, at least, over the course of their entire existence, the Wolves have had only 38 games (out of a potential 1722) where they’ve shot .350 from the field or worse (they shot .319 against the Pacers). To be even more specific, there’s been only 10 games in team history where they’ve shot .320 or worse.

    So while I do agree that there are still takeaway things from this performance (I’m looking at you, Mr. Beasley), I think it’s highly unlikely we’ll see 11 guys shoot .333 or worse on the same night very much. One guy getting hot completely changes the complexion of this game.

  2. I like Zach’s writing but I have to disagree with the assertion that the new league policy is good for the time being. It’s stupid for the time being and any time thereafter. If refs honestly think a player deserves a T for his behavior than T him up. But this preemptive type of punishment supposes that some minor gesture or expression is going to lead to mass chaos and that expression has to be nipped in the bud. It’s sports, it happens hard and fast. Let the players and the fans actually enjoy it. It’s really not harmful to our safety or well-being. It’s just basketball.

Leave a Reply