The Numbers Don’t Lie: Kuminga’s Playoff Breakthrough

As someone who’s built predictive models for NBA teams, I always look for patterns that contradict conventional wisdom. The narrative around Jonathan Kuminga’s second-round performance against Minnesota struck me as particularly flawed.

Defensive Matchup Breakdown

Let’s examine the cold, hard numbers from NBA’s tracking data:

• 24 points at 70% FG against Naz Reid
• 20 points at 52.9% FG against Karl-Anthony Towns
• 17 points at 72.7% FG against Rudy Gobert
• 71.4% shooting when matched with Jaden McDaniels

The outlier? A pedestrian 11 points at 38.5% against Anthony Edwards - the only perimeter defender who slowed him down.

Debunking the Myth

The analytics community loves creating neat narratives, but here’s what fascinates me: Kuminga wasn’t preying on mismatches against smaller guards as many claimed. In fact, his most efficient scoring came against Minnesota’s lengthiest defenders - including a Defensive Player of the Year in Gobert.

My theory? The Timberwolves were so focused on containing Curry and Thompson that they treated Kuminga as an acceptable loss. Their defensive gameplan essentially said: “If we have to give up something, let it be the young guy scoring on our bigs.”

What This Means Moving Forward

As both an analyst and basketball fan, this case study highlights why we need to:

1. Question surface-level narratives
2. Dig deeper into matchup-specific data
3. Recognize when teams make calculated sacrifices

Kuminga’s emergence isn’t just about his development - it’s about how opponents choose their defensive poison against Golden State’s system.