After all the sifting, sorting and calculating are finished, sports tends to be very bottom-line oriented.
Did you win or did you lose?
For the Timberwolves this season, that question has had an interesting answer based on the presence or absence of one player: Zach LaVine.
With LaVine on the floor this season, the Wolves are 16-31. When LaVine has missed games — one early in the year, two more along the way and then the past 16 with a torn ACL that will keep him out for the rest of the season — Minnesota was 12-7 entering Wednesday's game in Boston.
It has created somewhat of a strange question: Why do the Timberwolves appear to be a better team without LaVine, one of their best scorers and a heralded member of the "Big Three" along with Karl-Anthony Towns and Andrew Wiggins?
As is often the case, the strange question doesn't have a perfect answer.
• A popular notion is that for as many strides as LaVine has made on offense — he was averaging close to 19 points per game when he was injured, and he has had binges with massive totals — his defense is still far below par. LaVine himself is aware of this, having joked in January that he would play his best defense as a birthday present for head coach Tom Thibodeau. Because of his poor defense, LaVine's net rating (minus-3.5) is the worst on the team. When a player with such a poor net rating is playing 37 minutes (more than three quarters) of every game, the results might not be pretty.
But as a very good piece in The Ringer suggests, LaVine alone is not responsible for the Wolves' defensive woes. The Wolves are even better on defense when Towns or Wiggins comes off the floor than they have been without LaVine on the floor.