What’s interesting about googling words to find definitions is that some words are charmingly relatable and straightforward.
For example, jump: to push oneself off a surface and into the air by using the muscles in one’s legs or feet.
Checks out. That’s how I’d jump! That’s how jumping works!
It’s a silly example, but that’s how I learn. So, when thinking about the Minnesota Timberwolves’ performance in Game 2, I began looking up words to describe the overall sense I felt from frustrated Wolves fans.
Negative, seemed to mirror a mood to represent the outcry on social media. Accusatory seemed to be too harsh a word. Frustrated, angry, and fatigued seemed too emotional.
Then I hit pay dirt.
Catastrophizing.
Think about it. For 35 years, Wolves fans have been hit with low moment after low moment. It causes almost a Stockholm syndrome effect. Here we go again. For the record, that seems to be a spot-on definition of my Wolves fandom.
Catastrophizing is a cognitive distortion in which individuals excessively worry about the worst possible outcomes of a situation.
The Wolves lost Game 2 to the Los Angeles Lakers 94-85. Many expect this series to go seven games, so the Timberwolves should naturally lose Game 2 in LA. However, in that loss, the Wolves still left breadcrumbs of why they are now near even odds in Vegas favorites to win the series.
Still, many people have that Here we go again feeling, when, in reality, the Wolves have a lot of positives to take from Game 2.
Starting with the offense. Everything that could go wrong for the Wolves did go wrong. They shot 0 for 4 on corner threes and 5 of 20 overall. They shot 8 of 20 in the paint, 2 of 7 from the midrange, and a disappointing 13 of 26 on layup attempts.
As a result, they shot 21 of 61 in half-court offensive sets. In the first quarter alone, the Wolves shot 5 of 18 compared to LA’s 11 of 20.
Breaking down missed shots could be considered oversimplifying a complex game. However, the Wolves got similar shots in Game 1. They had 13 field goal attempts the NBA deemed wide open, with no defender within 6 feet of the shooter. They shot 1 of 13 in those attempts, including 1 of 12 from three.
The Wolves also shot 7 of 19 on open shots, where the closest defender was 4 to 6 feet away. In a game where Minnesota’s offense looked out of sorts, if they had just made 5 of 12 on those wide-open threes, it could have changed the game’s trajectory, especially given that the Wolves shot 40.0% on wide-open threes during the season.
Therein lies the silver lining in LA’s Game 2 offensive performance. The Lakers again gave Anthony Edwards multiple looks, including a modified zone that Edwards admitted he had trouble breaking after the game.
“It seemed like every time I caught the ball, they went in a zone,” Edwards said. “It was kind of confusing at times.”
“It seemed like every time I caught the ball they went in a zone. It was kind of confusing at times.” — Anthony Edwards after last night’s loss to the Lakers.
He’s not wrong. And it’s not the first time.
Let’s break down how the Lakers disrupted Ant — and why this isn’t new.pic.twitter.com/JRf35BfhGA
— Michael Jagacki (@Mike_Jagacki) April 23, 2025
Despite his confusion, the Wolves still got high-efficiency shots that didn’t fall. That will happen for teams like Minnesota, which shoots a high volume of three-point shots.
That’s where the hope for Minnesota lies, and where the catastrophizing blinds many Wolves fans. The Lakers really don’t have many options to slow down Minnesota’s offense, and the Timberwolves are still getting the looks that should lead to success.
As with every series, the Wolves will make adjustments. Still, after stealing home-court advantage, they will come home with a chance to regain the lead in front of a packed Target Center.