A general discussion on Isaiah Thomas

[Bricklayer]

9. Think of it another way. What good team would want IT? How would they use him? "But Mav, if he was on a good team, he wouldn't be so selfish and jack so much. He would be effective at setting his teammates up." Really? You think so?

Nate Robinson theory. Last year the Bulls used him heavily because they lost their star in Rose. Nate was a very poor man's substitute. Star comes back, out goes Nate. As it has been over his career. But Nate is clearly an NBA talent, and frankly IT has a little more natural PG ability. Teams will want him. but good ones will just control how and when he's used. If you are asking what good team would feature him? Well obviously none. But there are good teams all over the league who would find a place for a guy who can impact a game.

 

[Bricklayer]

Does anyone know what Thornton did before he came to the Kings, to actually earn the rights to this kind of salary? I didn't know anything about him before. I'm really curious

He had a big second half of his rookie year as well. Similar situation to the stretch sans Reke. They were injured, out of it, and he and Collison just starting running Smartesque run and chuck ball and put up big numbers. It was ironic when all that got them the next year was Collison was traded and Thornton was benched. The difference was the Hornets' star was back, and they wanted to go back to running an organized system.

 

[ESP47]

I really don't see the problem with how Thomas has been playing offensively. Normally the team has been down when he's come in this year and he's put the offense on his back and performed spectacularly. When Isaiah Thomas has gone all Isaiah Thomas on everyone, our team seems to always come back from whatever deficit they are down from.

Look at the game yesterday. Offense was great in the first quarter. 2nd quarter Isaiah takes a backseat to running the offense and they struggle. 3rd quarter the offense is again terrible and 4th quarter when Isaiah goes off, we all the sudden score 35. Obviously some of that had to do with defensive turnovers but a lot of it had to do with him getting into the lane and to the line.

The way I look at it is IT and McLemore scored a combined 41 points off the bench. All 5 Kings starters combined to score 55. The Hawks starters scored 85.

I've been critical of IT in the past but he's been anything but a blessing this year on the offensive side of the ball. Without him we get blown out 3 of the 4 games so far. If your bench is built to run, then run with them. That's what we used to do until the Kings got Bibby. We stopped running the starters as much but we ran with Jackson leading the group off the bench. If you take a look at Jackson vs. Thomas' stats, they're practically identical. So why is it Jackson is so beloved by Kings fans whereas Thomas is the scape goat? They're the same style of player. Jackson was just surrounded by better players.

 

[Siranthony]

I think the bigger problem is we don't have a third scoring option. If a team can take out Cousins, we have to rely on Thomas for most of the scoring. That just isn't going to cut it. Thomas should start or at leas get minutes. We need another scorer.

 

[Padrino]

I think the bigger problem is we don't have a third scoring option. If a team can take out Cousins, we have to rely on Thomas for most of the scoring. That just isn't going to cut it. Thomas should start or at leas get minutes. We need another scorer.

no, the problem is that the kings don't have a legitimate second scoring option. isaiah thomas comes off the bench, and it is simply the best role for him. he brings all kinds of scoring punch via substitution, but a true second option must exist in the starting lineup to relieve some of the pressure on the first scoring option. here's a theoretical lineup for next season that solves a lot of the hierarchy problems of this roster:

C demarcus cousins
PF jason thomspon
SF andrew wiggins or jabari parker
SG ben mclemore
PG greivis vasquez

6th: isaiah thomas

in theory, that 2014-2015 lineup works. vasquez acts as floor general, getting the ball to his teammates in their spots. cousins represents vasquez's first option in the offense, wiggins or parker represents the second option as dynamic scorer and potential superstar, mclemore effectively fills the role of third scoring option as a dead-eye perimeter shooter, jason thompson hustles around as a mop-up player, and isaiah thomas comes off the bench to provide his energizer bunny routine...

wiggins/parker may be outside of the kings' draft range, but it's still a realistic hope if the kings end up near the basement of the western conference once again (and there's a much better chance of that happening than many kings fans seem to have expected). that said, the above lineup is still no world-beater, defensively speaking. vasquez's weaknesses on that end are well-known, and cousins/thompson, while improving in their defensive effort, will never be defensive studs. i also have no idea what kind of defenders wiggins or parker would be at the nba level, and the vote is still out on mclemore's defensive potential, obviously...

but again, in theory, the above lineup works, at least to some degree. vasquez would become a bit of a vacancy after passing to one of his teammates, or in situations where cousins or wiggins/parker dominate the ball, but such a lineup is still rather talented, and it establishes a clear offensive hierarchy, given that mclemore plays off-ball and thompson isn't required to score...

 

[Sac.Kings]

no, the problem is that the kings don't have a legitimate second scoring option. isaiah thomas comes off the bench, and it is simply the best role for him. he brings all kinds of scoring punch via substitution, but a true second option must exist in the starting lineup to relieve some of the pressure on the first scoring option. here's a theoretical lineup for next season that solves a lot of the hierarchy problems of this roster:

C demarcus cousins
PF jason thomspon
SF andrew wiggins or jabari parker
SG ben mclemore
PG greivis vasquez

6th: isaiah thomas

in theory, that 2014-2015 lineup works. vasquez acts as floor general, getting the ball to his teammates in their spots. cousins represents vasquez's first option in the offense, wiggins or parker represents the second option as dynamic scorer and potential superstar, mclemore effectively fills the role of third scoring option as a dead-eye perimeter shooter, jason thompson hustles around as a mop-up player, and isaiah thomas comes off the bench to provide his energizer bunny routine...

wiggins/parker may be outside of the kings' draft range, but it's still a realistic hope if the kings end up near the basement of the western conference once again (and there's a much better chance of that happening than many kings fans seem to have expected). that said, the above lineup is still no world-beater, defensively speaking. vasquez's weaknesses on that end are well-known, and cousins/thompson, while improving in their defensive effort, will never be defensive studs. i also have no idea what kind of defenders wiggins or parker would be at the nba level, and the vote is still out on mclemore's defensive potential, obviously...

but again, in theory, the above lineup works, at least to some degree. vasquez would become a bit of a vacancy after passing to one of his teammates, or in situations where cousins or wiggins/parker dominate the ball, but such a lineup is still rather talented, and it establishes a clear offensive hierarchy, given that mclemore plays off-ball and thompson isn't required to score...

I enjoyed reading this post. My only suggestion is to trade for another PG, one that is a good passer and good defender. I know most everyone doesn't like Rondo, but he is good. He may have played with future hall of famers, but the man has skills. With that line-up, we wouldn't need shooting from the PG spot, IMO.

 

[Maverick]

Who was the last championship team to feature an IT-type off the bench as a PG scorer? I would argue JJ Barrea on the Mavs. Before that, I'm trying to think....was Vinnie Johnson on the Pistons a PG or SG?

One advantage IT has coming off the bench is that he is generally facing the subs. Another advantage he has is that the Kings are usually losing when he comes in and the natural tendency in the NBA is to let off the gas pedal when you are winning. Defense not as intense, shot selection not as good. IT wouldn't have the same advantage as a starter.

 

[Padrino]

I enjoyed reading this post. My only suggestion is to trade for another PG, one that is a good passer and good defender. I know most everyone doesn't like Rondo, but he is good. He may have played with future hall of famers, but the man has skills. With that line-up, we wouldn't need shooting from the PG spot, IMO.

rondo would actually fit quite nicely into a theoretical kings lineup that features cousins, mclemore, and wiggins/parker. the only problem is that the celtics will likely be looking for first round draft picks if they decide to move rondo. the kings can provide a few ending contracts in salmons, patterson, fredette, and/or vasquez, but they can't afford to relinquish their first-rounder. and this is all assuming a best-case scenario in which the kings would be able to follow-up a trade for rondo by snagging an impact player to fill their gaping wound at SF, thus balancing the starting lineup...

they may, indeed, lose enough games to luck into draft position for wiggins/parker, but they probably won't, and trading for a skilled veteran like rondo could set back any late-season "tanking" the kings might hope to accomplish. and even if the kings do manage to sneak into the top-5 in this draft, the new regime may have its sights set on smart/exum, or somebody else entirely, so trading for rondo might not make as much sense in such an event. there's so many variables up in the air that it's impossible to predict what might happen...

but history does show that new owners who inherit bad team tend to like to make a splash early. carl landry and luc richard mbah a moute hardly qualify. andre iguodala would have qualified. so would rajon rondo. regardless, a lot needs to happen in order to set this team back on the path to the playoffs, so i predict a busy trade deadline for the kings this year. what they come away with may or may not disappoint, but i suspect they'll try to make some improvement to the current starting lineup, abysmal as it is...

 

[Heuge]

I did not like IT role as a starter last season, but I love ITs role as a 6th man. He is in to generate offense. Sure he can, at times, have tunnel vision but his high energy, passion driven, unique speed is perfect for the role. I hope our staff avoids the urge to put that in the starting lineup. It fits better off the bench.

 

[Sac.Kings]

rondo would actually fit quite nicely into a theoretical kings lineup that features cousins, mclemore, and wiggins/parker. the only problem is that the celtics will likely be looking for first round draft picks if they decide to move rondo. the kings can provide a few ending contracts in salmons, patterson, fredette, and/or vasquez, but they can't afford to relinquish their first-rounder. and this is all assuming a best-case scenario in which the kings would be able to follow-up a trade for rondo by snagging an impact player to fill their gaping wound at SF, thus balancing the starting lineup...

they may, indeed, lose enough games to luck into draft position for wiggins/parker, but they probably won't, and trading for a skilled veteran like rondo could set back any late-season "tanking" the kings might hope to accomplish. and even if the kings do manage to sneak into the top-5 in this draft, the new regime may have its sights set on smart/exum, or somebody else entirely, so trading for rondo might not make as much sense in such an event. there's so many variables up in the air that it's impossible to predict what might happen...

but history does show that new owners who inherit bad team tend to like to make a splash early. carl landry and luc richard mbah a moute hardly qualify. andre iguodala would have qualified. so would rajon rondo. regardless, a lot needs to happen in order to set this team back on the path to the playoffs, so i predict a busy trade deadline for the kings this year. what they come away with may or may not disappoint, but i suspect they'll try to make some improvement to the current starting lineup, abysmal as it is...

The new regime seems to have a vision and what they do to achieve this division is the question. They can go about it in a hundred different scenarios, but I think it is pretty clear to anyone who is even remotely interested in watching a Kings game that the starting unit doesn't work. Vasquez is playing rather badly, Thornton has had a couple of good stretches, but largely ineffective and seemingly unwilling, while SF and PF have been as close to nonexistent as possible. I hope that they bring in a good defensive big man to pair with Cousins, and worry about the rest this offseason. IT has been playing great, but I think a large portion of it is because he comes in against the subs, which allows him to get going. We are in desperate need of help for 2/5 of our starting line-up, potentially 3 if GV continues to stink.

 

[Kingster]

Who was the last championship team to feature an IT-type off the bench as a PG scorer? I would argue JJ Barrea on the Mavs. Before that, I'm trying to think....was Vinnie Johnson on the Pistons a PG or SG?

One advantage IT has coming off the bench is that he is generally facing the subs. Another advantage he has is that the Kings are usually losing when he comes in and the natural tendency in the NBA is to let off the gas pedal when you are winning. Defense not as intense, shot selection not as good. IT wouldn't have the same advantage as a starter.

This doesn't match up with reality. IT is playing against starters at the end of games. Paul, Teague, Curry. What's the "advantage" in that?

 

[Spike]

We are in desperate need of help for 2/5 of our starting line-up, potentially 3 if GV continues to stink.

But these are things we knew of going into the season, right? I mean, probably not to the extent that we've seen, but Mbah A Moute was brought in for a 2nd rounder and has been injured, and Patterson, IMO, is about where I expect him to be. The fact that people are clamoring for Outlaw to start over Salmons (me being one of them), just goes to show how devoid of talent we are there. You're right about the 3rd, if GV doesn't show some sort of improvement in terms of scoring, and while his speed compares favorably to continental drift, he at least tries to get in the right position.

I'm guessing changes won't be made until the trade deadline, where winning teams will try to pick up some of our pieces for some bench depth as they roll into the playoffs. Until then, maybe the question becomes "how do you stay competitive with this group?" Maybe it's a bit of tinkering. Maybe it's an overhaul. Hell, maybe Jimmer gets minutes! I'm guessing a healthy Mbah A Moute and Landry help a little more towards competitiveness, but until then, there are definitely issues that need addressing.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Look IT is who IT is. An undersized, spark plug who can score the ball and pass on occasion. He will never be a great defender but he does stay in front of his man and harasses them. He really can not change his game much, but that is ok, what he brings is enough to make him a strong candidate for 6th man of the year. The problem is when, and how to use him. Don't hate the player, look to the rotations.

 

[Sac.Kings]

But these are things we knew of going into the season, right? I mean, probably not to the extent that we've seen, but Mbah A Moute was brought in for a 2nd rounder and has been injured, and Patterson, IMO, is about where I expect him to be. The fact that people are clamoring for Outlaw to start over Salmons (me being one of them), just goes to show how devoid of talent we are there. You're right about the 3rd, if GV doesn't show some sort of improvement in terms of scoring, and while his speed compares favorably to continental drift, he at least tries to get in the right position.

I'm guessing changes won't be made until the trade deadline, where winning teams will try to pick up some of our pieces for some bench depth as they roll into the playoffs. Until then, maybe the question becomes "how do you stay competitive with this group?" Maybe it's a bit of tinkering. Maybe it's an overhaul. Hell, maybe Jimmer gets minutes! I'm guessing a healthy Mbah A Moute and Landry help a little more towards competitiveness, but until then, there are definitely issues that need addressing.

The only benefit to all of this is potentially getting a top 5 pick in the draft. If we stay put like this, we are capable of reaching that goal. Maybe luck will swing our way for once in regards to the draft.

 

[hrdboild]

IT is exactly the type of scoring guard who can go off in the playoffs and win you a couple of games almost single-handily. If he stays on the bench all season he'll probably be a leading contender for sixth man of the year, which is exactly where he should be. That's really the best-case scenario for a player like him. Unfortunately we're not a playoff team yet so his talents are more or less wasted. And with his contract expiring at the end of the season, he's about to get paid the NBA going rate for a top sixth man which is probably somewhere around the mid-level. It'd be nice to somehow retain him as an asset in anticipation of making the playoffs at some point. But I don't think you really want him starting in the interim because that's not the type of role he's best at and forcing him into it like Smart did has negative repercussions for the rest of the lineup.

 

[Chubbs]

IT is exactly the type of scoring guard who can go off in the playoffs and win you a couple of games almost single-handily. If he stays on the bench all season he'll probably be a leading contender for sixth man of the year, which is exactly where he should be. That's really the best-case scenario for a player like him. Unfortunately we're not a playoff team yet so his talents are more or less wasted. And with his contract expiring at the end of the season, he's about to get paid the NBA going rate for a top sixth man which is probably somewhere around the mid-level. It'd be nice to somehow retain him as an asset in anticipation of making the playoffs at some point. But I don't think you really want him starting in the interim because that's not the type of role he's best at and forcing him into it like Smart did has negative repercussions for the rest of the lineup.

He'd be a fine 6th man. Unfortunately he's our second best player right now, and that's not going to take us anywhere.
He'll bounce around the league like Crawford and Nate Robinson. Guys that don't make others better get contracts, but unless they are surrounded with superior talent, wins won't be there. And what this team needs is someone who makes others better.

 

[ppine]

Discussions about offense that run on for pages. The Kings are still a scoring team averaging over 100 points per game even with the current funk. It is the defensive improvement that will turn things around.

People still pull out all the reasons why they think IT is not that good.

 

[Chubbs]

Discussions about offense that run on for pages. The Kings are still a scoring team averaging over 100 points per game even with the current funk. It is the defensive improvement that will turn things around.

People still pull out all the reasons why they think IT is not that good.

He's especially not good on defense most of the time. That's why this is relevant and I keep saying I don't care about his scoring. If we have to play him to score, the whole team suffers for it. I truly believe that. I'm curious if a statistical analysis bears this out. IT's best scoring games SEEM to end in losses more often than not. Of course it's also true the team loses more often than not, so there may be no correlation.

 

[The_Jamal]

He's especially not good on defense most of the time. That's why this is relevant and I keep saying I don't care about his scoring. If we have to play him to score, the whole team suffers for it. I truly believe that. I'm curious if a statistical analysis bears this out. IT's best scoring games SEEM to end in losses more often than not. Of course it's also true the team loses more often than not, so there may be no correlation.

balderdash.

There's no reason to find singular correlations like this, because, they completely ignore context of the true problems with the team. If you could look hard enough, you could probably find a system where we are 4-10 when Boogie grabs 12 rebounds or 6-0 when Travis Outlaw scores 10+ points or 1-6 when Boogie scores 25 points. There are soooo many other factors in why we won or lost a game, that those individual things just don't matter.

This is why I find opinions like this utterly stupid. We're losing because IT is scoring at a ridiculous rate? How in the world does that make sense? No one would be complaining if Cousins had IT's efficiency/scoring numbers right now. He's utterly deserving of the shots he takes because 1. The rest of our team can't hit squat and 2. He's producing (right now at least) at elite NBA levels. And it's not like he's taken away from Cousins either. They haven't been on the floor together very much, and when they have, IT has given him the ball

 

[Glenn]

This is why I find opinions like this utterly stupid. We're losing because IT is scoring at a ridiculous rate? How in the world does that make sense? No one would be complaining if Cousins had IT's efficiency/scoring numbers right now. He's utterly deserving of the shots he takes because 1. The rest of our team can't hit squat and 2. He's producing (right now at least) at elite NBA levels. And it's not like he's taken away from Cousins either. They haven't been on the floor together very much, and when they have, IT has given him the ball

Who said that?

 

[The_Jamal]

Who said that?

Chubbs, the post I quoted. Insinuated that when IT has big scoring games, we lose.

 

[Glenn]

Chubbs, the post I quoted. Insinuated that when IT has big scoring games, we lose.

No he didn't. here is what he said:

"I'm curious if a statistical analysis bears this out. IT's best scoring games SEEM to end in losses more often than not. Of course it's also true the team loses more often than not, so there may be no correlation."​

You can twist that to your need to have arguments about IT but I don't think that's fair. What about "there may be no correlation" confused you?

 

[Hadlowe]

I really, really like IT. I liked him at Washington. I like him on the Kings.

I do not like his lack of consistent effort on the defensive end. He works his butt off defensively when he is going up against all-star point guards, but he lets guys like Teague and Schroeder do whatever they like against him. That's a deeply ingrained part of his psyche and it's what keeps him from being my favorite player on the team. If he gave that same effort against every opponent, he could start on any team in the league. He is almost as good as Ty Lawson, but Ty is a much more consistent defender and a better floor general.

 

[The_Jamal]

No he didn't. here is what he said:

"I'm curious if a statistical analysis bears this out. IT's best scoring games SEEM to end in losses more often than not. Of course it's also true the team loses more often than not, so there may be no correlation."​

You can twist that to your need to have arguments about IT but I don't think that's fair. What about "there may be no correlation" confused you?

You also conveniently left out his previous sentence.

"That's why this is relevant and I keep saying I don't care about his scoring. If we have to play him to score, the whole team suffers for it. I truly believe that."

Again, I'm not interested in arguing semantics of a statement with you. For some reason, you like to harp on my interpretations of other people's opinions. What you call "twisting meanings" I call "my interpretation. After all, this is a forum to discuss opinions. I'm going to give my opinion on what he, you, and everyone else thinks.

 

[The_Jamal]

I really, really like IT. I liked him at Washington. I like him on the Kings.

I do not like his lack of consistent effort on the defensive end. He works his butt off defensively when he is going up against all-star point guards, but he lets guys like Teague and Schroeder do whatever they like against him. That's a deeply ingrained part of his psyche and it's what keeps him from being my favorite player on the team. If he gave that same effort against every opponent, he could start on any team in the league. He is almost as good as Ty Lawson, but Ty is a much more consistent defender and a better floor general.

This is perception and not what has actually happened this season. He's allowing opponents to shoot 37% against him this season. In contrast, GV and Thornton are allowing opponents to 51 and 50% respectively. The sample size is insanely small and almost not worth mentioning. IT has picked up his defensive play this year and it shows in the numbers and during the games.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

This is perception and not what has actually happened this season. He's allowing opponents to shoot 37% against him this season. In contrast, GV and Thornton are allowing opponents to 51 and 50% respectively. The sample size is insanely small and almost not worth mentioning. IT has picked up his defensive play this year and it shows in the numbers and during the games.

That's remarkably good for IT. Where do you find that stat?

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

I thought he played very good defense against Teague. Got the best steal of the season against him and was much much more effective than Vasquez was against him

 

[sdballer]

I said this in another thread but I challenge anyone to go back and watch IT's defense in the first 3 quarters of the Hawks game. He constantly allowed himself to be taken out of plays which caused unbalance with the rest of the team's defense. The pg he was guarding may not have hit at a high % but he was the instigator of many defensive collapses.

The 4th quarter was a different story as he picked up his intensity tremendously. But this is a common story with him. To suggest otherwise using the ENTIRE Atlanta game as an example is absurd.

 

[Chubbs]

balderdash.

There's no reason to find singular correlations like this, because, they completely ignore context of the true problems with the team. If you could look hard enough, you could probably find a system where we are 4-10 when Boogie grabs 12 rebounds or 6-0 when Travis Outlaw scores 10+ points or 1-6 when Boogie scores 25 points. There are soooo many other factors in why we won or lost a game, that those individual things just don't matter.

This is why I find opinions like this utterly stupid. We're losing because IT is scoring at a ridiculous rate? How in the world does that make sense? No one would be complaining if Cousins had IT's efficiency/scoring numbers right now. He's utterly deserving of the shots he takes because 1. The rest of our team can't hit squat and 2. He's producing (right now at least) at elite NBA levels. And it's not like he's taken away from Cousins either. They haven't been on the floor together very much, and when they have, IT has given him the ball

Yeah, that's not what I said at all. I was posing the question. I know when Kobe would take X amount of shots, the lakers would usually lose. There's a balance. And that's not at all comparing Kobe to IT, cause that's laughable. Only IT THINKS he's kobe.

And you know what, the answer is out there. I wasn't posing it as "opinion." You can call me stupid if you want, but you don't seem to know the answer either genius. I was asking, when IT scores 20+, or 25+, or takes 20+ shots, or whatever, do we win more or lose more? That's all. Is the team offense better or worse? We have 2 full seasons to look at. I'm too lazy to do it, but it's out there.

I absolutely did NOT say we are losing because IT is scoring a lot (however, we also are not winning). He's the only reason we were even close the last few games. I can admit that. I hate his game, and when he continues to ignore wide open Ben McLemore for dunks, I'll continue to scream at the TV. Because Ben is really the only reason we are here right now watching these games, and to see if Cousins can get it together and contribute every night. Cause if he doesn't, we get the IT show. That's not good basketball. I'm getting on board with Ben starting just so he can play with a guy that might pass to him as a first resort, not only when he can't get his. I think everyone with a bit of perspective realizes our best chance at winning is with Vazquez playing well. Otherwise, it's street ball just like the past few seasons. Which IT is very good at, and can be good in small doses.

I honestly think in 2 seasons, the only players left from this team may very well be mclemore and Cousins.

Bottom line, this is the least likable team in the league. I have friends who have been fans from day 1 that have said "I hate every player on this team." And guess what? ESPN ranked us DEAD LAST in players. That doesn't mean they are the worst players, just that they are completely unlikable. That's the reality. They pout, they whine, they pick fights with announcers, with each other, yell at the coaches, etc. etc. And that last place ranking is not just in the NBA, that's in ALL SPORTS. Don't be so shocked that I'm not in love with a tiny spark plug type who thinks he's michael jordan and pouts when he's not getting shots and doesn't play D on guys he doesn't consider worth his time or effort (which begs the question, in IT's mind, is he an all star? a superstar? why on earth doesn't he play D unless it's Chris Paul he's guarding? It makes no sense). And you can see on this board, we are critical of everyone. Frankly, this, with three exceptions, is the exact same terrible team as last season. No one is beyond criticism, nor should they be. We are not a winning team and haven't been in a long long time.

I completely agree IT has been possibly the only bright spot on this team (with Ben). I'm just saying, if that continues to be the case, we will NOT win games. And that's the goal isn't it? Not for IT to pad his numbers to score a big contract, you know, how MT did with us?

 

[Chubbs]

I said this in another thread but I challenge anyone to go back and watch IT's defense in the first 3 quarters of the Hawks game. He constantly allowed himself to be taken out of plays which caused unbalance with the rest of the team's defense. The pg he was guarding may not have hit at a high % but he was the instigator of many defensive collapses.

The 4th quarter was a different story as he picked up his intensity tremendously. But this is a common story with him. To suggest otherwise using the ENTIRE Atlanta game as an example is absurd.

And this is his problem. Unless he's scoring, he doesn't play D. Hit shots, then he picks it up. He needs to work on that.