I got to thinking it would be good to measure our roster, factoring in realistic increases in production for key players with extra experience and that we are now in possession of an NBA bench, to try and identify an historical team for comparison. How does our team stack up against previous repeat-playoff teams?
The one comparison which seems most apt is the 2003-2004 Minnesota Timberwolves:
The rosters are structured similarly: a dominant, all-star, young PF in his prime. A notch below Garnett at that time in his career, glaringly in rebounding. But Garnett played almost 40 minutes a game that year (39.4). If LMA hits a few threes this year, the points might open up. He can hit that shot.
A scoring PG who can dish. Most of the numbers could be very similar except, in particular, for shooting percentage (Dame won't be that high).
A third scoring option who can dish. Batum's numbers overall are better than Sprewell's.
A platooning C position that doesn't rebound well defensively but does clog things up a bit.
A SG position where we have a clear advantage (Wes vs. Trenton Hassell who started 74 games for that team at SG, not Wally as I originally thought)
That's just the starters.
A three-specialist on the bench (Wally vs. Dorrell)
Solid SG and PG backups (Hoiberg and Hudson vs. Mo and CJ)
We have a true wildcard at PF, and Minnesota had no identifiable backup PF. If my memory serves, it was Masden. I'll take T-Rob everyday and twice on Sunday.
It's a close team, I think. A sure notch below, unless someone really emerges, but close. And this team was in the Western Conference Finals. A notch below, but a decent comparison.