| SEA | POS | Min | WP48 | PoP48 | WP | PTS | DRB | ORB | REB | AST | TO | BLK | STL | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08-09 MIA | PF | 2009 | .063 | -1.1 | 2.6 | 26.8 | 7.9 | 2.6 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 4.4 |
| 10-11 MIN | SF | 2365 | -.100 | -6.2 | -4.9 | 28.4 | 5.9 | 2.4 | 8.3 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 4.5 |
| 09-10 MIA | PF | 2328 | .080 | -0.6 | 3.9 | 23.8 | 7.7 | 2.5 | 10.3 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 4.6 |
| 11-12 MIN | SF | 1087 | -.014 | -3.5 | -0.3 | 23.9 | 7.4 | 1.7 | 9.1 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 3.7 |
| 12-13 PHO | SF | 1554 | -.113 | -6.6 | -3.6 | 23.4 | 7.1 | 1.6 | 8.7 | 3.4 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 3.3 |
| Career Avg | SF | 1868 | -.012 | 0.0 | -0.5 | 25.6 | 7.2 | 2.3 | 9.4 | 2.5 | 3.4 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 4.2 |
| Average SF | SF | 1737 | .099 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 20.3 | 5.7 | 1.9 | 7.6 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 3.8 |
| FG% | 2FG% | 3FG% | FT% | eFG% | TS% | FGA | 3FGA | PPS | FTA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beasley 08-09 | 47.2% | 47.8% | 40.7% | 77.2% | 49.0% | 52.8% | 22.9 | 1.9 | 1.17 | 5.8 |
| Beasley 10-11 | 45.0% | 46.3% | 36.6% | 75.3% | 47.4% | 51.0% | 25.3 | 3.3 | 1.12 | 5.9 |
| Beasley 09-10 | 45.0% | 46.9% | 27.5% | 80.0% | 46.3% | 50.5% | 21.4 | 2.1 | 1.11 | 4.9 |
| Beasley 11-12 | 44.5% | 46.2% | 37.6% | 64.2% | 48.3% | 50.2% | 21.9 | 4.5 | 1.09 | 4.2 |
| Beasley 12-13 | 40.5% | 42.6% | 31.2% | 74.6% | 43.4% | 46.2% | 23.7 | 4.4 | 0.99 | 3.9 |
| Beasley (career) | 44.7% | 46.2% | 34.5% | 75.7% | 46.9% | 50.4% | 23.1 | 3.0 | 1.11 | 5.1 |
| Average SF | 44.7% | 47.7% | 36.1% | 78.1% | 49.4% | 54.0% | 16.6 | 4.3 | 1.22 | 5.0 |
| Team | GP | MIN | WP | PTS | REB | AST | BLK | STL | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08-09 MIA | 81 | 2009 | 2.6 | 1123 | 439 | 83 | 37 | 41 | 121 | 184 |
| 10-11 MIN | 73 | 2365 | -4.9 | 1401 | 409 | 157 | 52 | 54 | 195 | 222 |
| 09-10 MIA | 78 | 2328 | 3.9 | 1156 | 498 | 100 | 49 | 80 | 131 | 221 |
| 11-12 MIN | 47 | 1087 | -.3 | 541 | 207 | 45 | 19 | 18 | 80 | 83 |
| 12-13 PHO | 75 | 1554 | -3.6 | 759 | 282 | 111 | 34 | 31 | 144 | 107 |
| Career | 354 | 1868 | -.5 | 4980 | 1835 | 496 | 191 | 224 | 671 | 817 |
Well, maybe. I'm continuing my series of NBA Previews, but focusing on teams that I think will surprise people. This one is actually a reader request:
The dust has (almost) settled on the 2012 offseason. I think it's time for us to look at the best and worst contracts of this season. It seems like every year, several teams are looking to unload "bad" contracts. We often forget that teams weren't just magically saddled with those bad contracts; somebody volunteered to pay them.
Ok, I'm really hard at work adding a ton of new features to the site and trying to improve the player comparison engine (which I really need to brand somehow). But in the meantime I'd like to join in the general ridiculous media frenzy of drawing insane conclusions from miniature sample sizes. Yes, I'm talking about that trend that's causing Celtic bloggers to examine lottery picks after starting 0-2, and has the Knicks media inquiring about players' ring sizes after their home opener win. So I'll look at the Timberwolves and draw some ridiculous conclusions.
The NBA Season is ready to start on Christmas Day, the last couple of preseason games are being played as I write this up, and it's time for me to cater to every serious NBA fans love of season previews! The 2011 Geektastic Preview is going to be way too large for one article, so I'm dividing it up into divisions (and even so, it's going to be long, so get a cup of coffee!). In this article I'm going to tackle my hometown team, the Minnesota Timberwolves.
Over on the Wages of Wins today, Andres Alvarez claims that the Orlando Magic had the worst management in the NBA last year. And I agree, the Magic were bad. But...
