← Team Metrics
Latest

Minnesota Timberwolves

2022-23
2016-172017-182018-192019-202020-212021-222022-232023-242024-252025-26
Latest available releaseEvidence released Aug 22, 2026, 8:30 PM UTCLive database

What were the Minnesota Timberwolves in 2022-23, and what needed front-office attention?

MIN 2022-23: the clearest roster problems were Passing connectivity. The strongest covered areas were Rim protection, Rim pressure, Interior finishing. The main rotation-player dependency cases were Rudy Gobert, Kyle Anderson, Jordan McLaughlin. Structural basketball need, injuries, replacement lineups, and financial constraints are reported separately.

CoverageSupported8 supported · 3 withheld
Cap positionOver the cap, below the tax line, on selected player charges
Next decision dateNo calendar release at this as-of time

What can be trusted

Supported strengths — production, who carries it, and what money is already committed.
Rim protection
100th percentile
Rudy Gobert carries 29.2%
Availability: Absences repeatedly created a problemMoney: Heavy or redundant salary already committed here
Full reading

MIN 2022-23 Rim protection: this was a team strength; production ranked at the 100.0 league percentile. Rudy Gobert supplied 29.2% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. Absences created a shortage in 7 of the final 10 covered games. The team already committed substantial or redundant cap resources here.

Rim pressure
87th percentile
Anthony Edwards carries 23.1%
Availability: Absences repeatedly created a problemMoney: Heavy or redundant salary already committed here
Full reading

MIN 2022-23 Rim pressure: this was a team strength; production ranked at the 87.0 league percentile. Anthony Edwards supplied 23.1% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. Absences created a shortage in 7 of the final 10 covered games. The team already committed substantial or redundant cap resources here.

Interior finishing
83rd percentile
Rudy Gobert carries 22.4%
Availability: Absences repeatedly created a problemMoney: Heavy or redundant salary already committed here
Full reading

MIN 2022-23 Interior finishing: this was a team strength; production ranked at the 82.6 league percentile. Rudy Gobert supplied 22.4% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. Absences created a shortage in 7 of the final 10 covered games. The team already committed substantial or redundant cap resources here.

What needs attention

The clearest roster problems the evidence supports.
Passing connectivity
22nd percentile
Kyle Anderson carries 34.3%
Availability: Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemMoney: Underfunded structural need
Full reading

MIN 2022-23 Passing connectivity: this was a real roster weakness; production ranked at the 21.7 league percentile. Kyle Anderson supplied 34.3% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. Absences made the problem worse in 10 of the final 10 covered games. The cap allocation to this structural need was comparatively low.

Every covered basketball function (11)
FunctionReadingLeague percentileLargest contributorRecent availabilitySalary commitment
CreationSupportedMiddle of the league26th percentileAnthony Edwards · 34.2%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Defensive event creationSupportedTeam strength78th percentileAnthony Edwards · 32.1%Absences repeatedly created a problemBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Interior finishingSupportedTeam strength83rd percentileRudy Gobert · 22.4%Absences repeatedly created a problemHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Passing connectivitySupportedStructural team problem22nd percentileKyle Anderson · 34.3%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemUnderfunded structural need
Point-of-attack defense proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldAnthony EdwardsRecent availability conclusion withheldBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
ReboundingSupportedMiddle of the league44th percentileRudy Gobert · 30.8%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Rim pressureSupportedTeam strength87th percentileAnthony Edwards · 23.1%Absences repeatedly created a problemHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Rim protectionSupportedTeam strength100th percentileRudy Gobert · 29.2%Absences repeatedly created a problemHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
ScreeningWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldRudy GobertRecent availability conclusion withheldBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Shooting and spacingSupportedMiddle of the league48th percentileAnthony Edwards · 26.4%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Switch coverage proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldAnthony EdwardsRecent availability conclusion withheldBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment

Who the team depends on

What disappears when a player is removed — and whether an observed replacement five exists.
Rudy Gobert
Single-skill dependence

MIN did not have strong functional backup for Rudy Gobert in rim protection; removing him cost about 29.2% of the team's production in that area. The next observed option was Jaden McDaniels.

rotation 55%loses 29.2% of rim protection
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Rudy Gobert

Kyle Anderson · D'Angelo Russell · Naz Reid · Anthony Edwards · Jaden McDaniels

shrunk net 1.579 over 175 possessions — small sample

on floor 4,311 possessions · off floor 3,584 possessions

Kyle Anderson
Lineup performance dependence

MIN lineups performed 4.4 points per 100 possessions better with Kyle Anderson than without him. The best supported alternative was [Rudy Gobert, D'Angelo Russell, Karl-Anthony Towns, Anthony Edwards, Jaden McDaniels] over 491 possessions.

rotation 50%loses 34.3% of passing connectivity
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Kyle Anderson

Rudy Gobert · D'Angelo Russell · Karl-Anthony Towns · Anthony Edwards · Jaden McDaniels

shrunk net 0.457 over 491 possessions

on floor 3,890 possessions · off floor 4,024 possessions

Jordan McLaughlin
Lineup performance dependence

MIN lineups performed 5.4 points per 100 possessions better with Jordan McLaughlin than without him. The best supported alternative was [Rudy Gobert, Kyle Anderson, D'Angelo Russell, Anthony Edwards, Jaden McDaniels] over 483 possessions.

rotation 17%loses 8.4% of passing connectivity
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Jordan McLaughlin

Rudy Gobert · Kyle Anderson · D'Angelo Russell · Anthony Edwards · Jaden McDaniels

shrunk net 7.226 over 483 possessions

on floor 1,323 possessions · off floor 6,591 possessions

Function loss, lineup performance, and replacement-lineup evidence remain separate; none is causal player value.

What injuries change

Recent absences and the basketball needs they created or worsened.
Creation

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Kyle Anderson

Passing connectivity

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Kyle Anderson

Rebounding

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Rudy Gobert

Shooting and spacing

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 9 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Kyle Anderson

Defensive event creation

Absences repeatedly created a problem

created in 7 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Kyle Anderson

Interior finishing

Absences repeatedly created a problem

created in 7 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Rudy Gobert

Rim pressure

Absences repeatedly created a problem

created in 7 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Rudy Gobert

Rim protection

Absences repeatedly created a problem

created in 7 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Rudy Gobert

Where money is tied up

Cap position and salary allocation — shown beside the basketball picture, never blended into it.
WithheldThe team was over the cap but below the tax on selected player charges; exception detail remains withheld.
Selected player charges
$145.8M
Share of cap
118%
Tax line
$4.47M under
First apron
$11.2M under
Second apron
No governed line that season

Most salary is mapped to interior finishing; the highest-need area is passing connectivity. Salary-to-function mapping covers 81% of charges.

Exact figures
Salary cap: $123,655,000Luxury tax line: $150,267,000First apron: $156,983,000Second apron: Selected player charges: $145,793,656Source-reported payroll: $145,793,656 (source-named payroll total; not relabeled as cash or cap)

Exact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence.

What the evidence cannot answer

Deliberate abstentions — where the database refuses a conclusion rather than guessing.
SupportedFull situation-room coverage available8 of 11 functions supported
  • Point-of-attack defense proxy: Basketball conclusion withheld
  • Screening: Basketball conclusion withheld
  • Switch coverage proxy: Basketball conclusion withheld

Exact transaction legality: Exact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence

Team-season situation report. Structural basketball quality, recent availability, player dependence, replacement lineups, and financial position remain separate. No acquisition recommendation, transaction grade, coaching grade, outcome claim, or causal value is inferred.