Does NBA 3.0 Include DMC?

[swisshh]

Cousins thinks he can run, but we've all watched him for years and he doesn't have the stamina for it.

You have to realize that bigs have to run the longest stretch. They go basket to basket. Guards and wings go free throw line to free throw line. The bigs are running the real suicides.

That is unless the big man is only running to the high post on offense, which then takes Cousins away from his most deadly position on offense.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Does NBA 3.0 Include DMC?

Of course.

I remember Cousins said "he can run" referring to the fast pace offense and I believe him. I remember he once said he was not worried about getting less touch on the ball, because he knows he will always get a lot of touch on the ball inside the paint no matter what.

What the hell did you expect an elite athlete to say, "No, I can't do that"?

I'm sure that he can run: the more intelligent question to ask him would have been whether he believes that running is the most effective use of his talents? ****, Marc Gasol can run, but any coach or general manager who tries to put him into a running offense should be fired immediately, and the same goes for DeMarcus Cousins.

 

[kingsboi]

Lots of people mentioned that if DeMarcus is gone they will follow him but let's hope it doesn't come to that...I might be on the same boat but knowing deep down even if something that catastrophic were to happen to this team I don't think I can ever eliminate them from life regardless of how much it hurts to watch them torture fans.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I'm sure that he can run: the more intelligent question to ask him would have been whether he believes that running is the most effective use of his talents?

Cousins can run from time to time, but he'll never be a feature in a pure run-and-gun offense. I think that's pretty clear. The question is whether we want to run a pure run-and-gun offense (think Paul Westhead). I kind of doubt that's what we're talking about. On the other hand, an offense that tries to get the leakout, pushes hard and looks for a great (not good, great) shot in the first eight seconds, and if it doesn't find it pulls out for a half-court set is still going to be able to use Cousins' skills 80+% of the time.

If the philosophy is: "We're going to look for easy points quick, and if we don't find them we'll slow it down and run the offense through Cousins", then that seems like sort of the best of both worlds to me.

 

[Prince_XY]

Cousins can run from time to time, but he'll never be a feature in a pure run-and-gun offense. I think that's pretty clear. The question is whether we want to run a pure run-and-gun offense (think Paul Westhead). I kind of doubt that's what we're talking about. On the other hand, an offense that tries to get the leakout, pushes hard and looks for a great (not good, great) shot in the first eight seconds, and if it doesn't find it pulls out for a half-court set is still going to be able to use Cousins' skills 80+% of the time.

I agree.

I am so glad the most intelligent in basketball and statistics in this forum finally cared to explain the obvious and without emotional bias for all of us casual fans.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Cousins can run from time to time, but he'll never be a feature in a pure run-and-gun offense. I think that's pretty clear. The question is whether we want to run a pure run-and-gun offense (think Paul Westhead). I kind of doubt that's what we're talking about. On the other hand, an offense that tries to get the leakout, pushes hard and looks for a great (not good, great) shot in the first eight seconds, and if it doesn't find it pulls out for a half-court set is still going to be able to use Cousins' skills 80+% of the time.

If the philosophy is: "We're going to look for easy points quick, and if we don't find them we'll slow it down and run the offense through Cousins", then that seems like sort of the best of both worlds to me.

I'm smelling a lot of 'if' coming off of that post. I have no idea why I should give management the benefit of the doubt that that's actually how they want to run it. I've heard them say they want to run, I haven't heard anything about opportunistic running, which is what, say, the Spurs do, and what you're describing.

 

[Prince_XY]

I'm smelling a lot of 'if' coming off of that post. I have no idea why I should give management the benefit of the doubt that that's actually how they want to run it. I've heard them say they want to run, I haven't heard anything about opportunistic running, which is what, say, the Spurs do, and what you're describing.

How about this coming from the mouths of the present coach and Cousins himself:

http://www.nba.com/2014/news/features/scott_howard_cooper/12/20/kings-feature-scott-howard-cooper/

Take note: This is not Vivek or PDA parroting themselves.

"I can run," Cousins said after pushing through early fatigue to play a commendable 33 minutes on Thursday, including the entire fourth quarter. "I'm able to run. We'll just be a faster team. I think it'll help. I think I rebound at a good enough rate where we can get some guys out running on the floor. Hopefully we can just get easier baskets running."

That's obviously the goal. Getting there, though, will be continuously asking one of the best rebounders in the game to work the defensive boards, sprint the other way to catch up to the ball and remain one of the best scorers in the game and one of the best passing big men.

The halfcourt is where Cousins' talent is maximized.

"It is," interim coach Tyrone Corbin conceded. "You look at him on the low post against most teams in this league, he's effective and that's where he does the bulk of his work at. We still will have to continue to use him in that area, also try and expand the game or speed the game a little bit to utilize the other guys in the open court."

There is simply a challenge to basing an offense on transition when the best player is a center.

"There is," Corbin said. "You want to take advantage of all the assets you have on your team, but for the way this team is built, DeMarcus is a huge asset for us and we have to make sure we utilize his talents and are not wasting his minutes on the floor. There will be opportunities as we try and balance things out of when to go fast, when to slow it down to control the tempo and try to go inside. He can run at times. He can be effective there. We can get him down the floor quickly, take advantage of his mismatches on the post early. There'll be some challenges to see which pace is better for us as we go forward."

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I'm smelling a lot of 'if' coming off of that post. I have no idea why I should give management the benefit of the doubt that that's actually how they want to run it. I've heard them say they want to run, I haven't heard anything about opportunistic running, which is what, say, the Spurs do, and what you're describing.

I liked Prince_XY's reply better.

And sure, yes, I'm reading into it a bit. But I think that the front office has said little enough that all sides of the argument have to read into it to some extent. They never said what I said, but they never said they wanted to hire Paul Westhead and make sure to shoot before the 16-second mark on the shot clock, either.

This front office has made a pretty significant investment into and thrown some pretty significant support behind Cousins. The idea that suddenly they want to throw Cousins' strengths away after all of that is more or less incongruous to me. So I'm interpreting it from this point of view: that we've got a front office that has signed Cousins to a big extension and repeatedly touts him as an All-Star caliber player, and that we've got a front office that expressed a desire to run some more. How do those two fit together? Well, as I see it, about as I said above. If the Kings can somehow manage to get another five good fast break opportunities a game (which is optimistically about as much as I could expect), that's not going to nullify Cousins' advantages in the other 90% of the game.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

How about this coming from the mouths of the present coach and Cousins himself:

http://www.nba.com/2014/news/features/scott_howard_cooper/12/20/kings-feature-scott-howard-cooper/

Take note: This is not Vivek or PDA parroting themselves.

"I can run," Cousins said after pushing through early fatigue to play a commendable 33 minutes on Thursday, including the entire fourth quarter. "I'm able to run. We'll just be a faster team. I think it'll help. I think I rebound at a good enough rate where we can get some guys out running on the floor. Hopefully we can just get easier baskets running."

Blah, blah, blah. Go ahead and keep slurping it up. I'm going to ask you again: what the hell else did you expect him to say, that he couldn't run? He's an elite athlete; even if he can't run, he's going to say he can. Just like you're never going to hear James Harden admit that he doesn't play defense, or Russell Westbrook admit that he doesn't pass in the fourth quarter.

And, quiet as it's kept, let's not pretend that Cousins is the only player who isn't built to run on this team. On the contrary, other than Collison and McLemore, we don't really have anyone on this team who is built to run.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Bogut, Gortat, Nene, Duncan all run at times. Linke the Cpt. Said, it's all about finding a balance between running and half court play. And to think the FO want's to establish some kind of run and gun - 4vs5 playstyle to me is a serious overreaction to some Vivek comments, that weren't intended to be taken too seriously.
Do we really believe an owner spends millions of dollars just to play around with a franchise and to establish the playstyle he tried with a highschool Team?
Vivek deserves criticism but this is way over the edge.
FO saw, that our offense was bad in terms of ball movement and putting pressure on the defense by getting into the offense early. They didn't believe, that you can build a contender by focusing on defense only.
This point is up to a debate, but you don't have to act like this FO is just a bunch of nerdy fools, that don't know anything about Basketball.

 

[KingMilz]

Bogut, Gortat, Nene, Duncan all run at times. Linke the Cpt. Said, it's all about finding a balance between running and half court play. And to think the FO want's to establish some kind of run and gun - 4vs5 playstyle to me is a serious overreaction to some Vivek comments, that weren't intended to be taken too seriously.
Do we really believe an owner spends millions of dollars just to play around with a franchise and to establish the playstyle he tried with a highschool Team?
Vivek deserves criticism but this is way over the edge.
FO saw, that our offense was bad in terms of ball movement and putting pressure on the defense by getting into the offense early. They didn't believe, that you can build a contender by focusing on defense only.
This point is up to a debate, but you don't have to act like this FO is just a bunch of nerdy fools, that don't know anything about Basketball.

Aside from Gortat none of those guys really run at all, off course all big men run at times but aside from Gortat none of those guys are built for it, even in Denver Nene rarely use to run. On top of that none of those guys (at this point in there careers) are number #1 options asked to career a whole offense while being the anchor on defense.

If the FO wants to establish 4 on 5 they are going about it the right away since Cousins is eventually not going to make it past half court by the time the other team scorers,which has been occurring a lot in these past 3 games which never/rarely occurred in the first 15 or so he was healthy (and since he's playing well over 30mins I assume he's healthy in the last 3).

The big men in the NBA that run a lot tend to be the less skilled big men like the Zeller brothers/Plumlee's/Faried or just simply the athletic freaks like the Clips big men and Davis. I would understand if we wanted to play more uptempo in the half court in terms of moving the ball quicker but up and down the floor is just a shockingly dumb strategy. If we were building around Anthony Davis/Blake Griffin I would understand but we are dealing with a specific type of player who naturally just cannot play high energy basketball for long periods.

 

[KingMilz]

I also believe that playing in the half court has helped Ben's development a lot, we all know he can literally jump from anywhere on a break to put down a thunderbolt, but playing strictly in the half court has allowed him to develop that Monta Ellis like windmill drive and forced him to become a basketball player more so than just a great athlete, it's helped sure up some of his weaknesses while maintaining his strengths (which he will always have until his athletic decline) in the fast break game every now and than.

Us pushing the ball up and down the floor is not going to help ball movement imo which is what we really need to work on from a offensive point of view and by pushing the ball we are going to expose what already was a fragile offense which by some miracle was masked up a huge part of the season. We should be working on our half court offense which in the long run will only help Cousins and Rudy (who if we want to contend in a few years will start losing quiet a bit of his athletic ability).

 

[KingsFanGER]

I think our definition of running is really different. Do you really think PDA is dumb enough to try to turn DMC into Griffin?
They very obviously talk about a more fluid offense and about running, if there is a possibility. DMC can do this, like every other big man can. No GM, Owner orCoach will want a player build like Boogie to sprint up and down the court non stop, jacking up shots after shots.
Under Malone our offense was relying on DDMC way too much. We demanded him to handle double or even triple teams all the time. This results in a bunch of turnovers and forced shots. Lets say against a swarming defense Boogie has 4 To and was forced into 4 Bad shots against multiple defenders. Thats basically 8 posessions the other Team can score on. Turnovers most likely result in fastbreaks and those are difficult to defend. Lets say we do a good job defending - most likely this are still 8+ Points wie give to the opposing Team, cause we force the Ball into DMC and demand him to handle anything the defense throws at him.
The recent game against the Lakers we saw our D really pressuring Kobe. He couldn't handle it and we took advantage. While DMC is a heck of a talent, one can argue if we rely on him too much and fall apart, once a team really pressures him a lot.
It may still be possible to win, if we play stellar defense, but our FO didn't believe it was the right approach to move forward. I tend to disagree with them, but i unterstand the reasoning behind this decision.
The only real Problem was the timing and the way they communicated.

 

[Pacboy]

I think our definition of running is really different. Do you really think PDA is dumb enough to try to turn DMC into Griffin?
They very obviously talk about a more fluid offense and about running, if there is a possibility. DMC can do this, like every other big man can. No GM, Owner orCoach will want a player build like Boogie to sprint up and down the court non stop, jacking up shots after shots.
Under Malone our offense was relying on DDMC way too much. We demanded him to handle double or even triple teams all the time. This results in a bunch of turnovers and forced shots. Lets say against a swarming defense Boogie has 4 To and was forced into 4 Bad shots against multiple defenders. Thats basically 8 posessions the other Team can score on. Turnovers most likely result in fastbreaks and those are difficult to defend. Lets say we do a good job defending - most likely this are still 8+ Points wie give to the opposing Team, cause we force the Ball into DMC and demand him to handle anything the defense throws at him.
The recent game against the Lakers we saw our D really pressuring Kobe. He couldn't handle it and we took advantage. While DMC is a heck of a talent, one can argue if we rely on him too much and fall apart, once a team really pressures him a lot.
It may still be possible to win, if we play stellar defense, but our FO didn't believe it was the right approach to move forward. I tend to disagree with them, but i unterstand the reasoning behind this decision.
The only real Problem was the timing and the way they communicated.

Judging on his comments on the radio as well as recent front office decisions?? Yes

 

[John Galt]

I think our definition of running is really different. Do you really think PDA is dumb enough to try to turn DMC into Griffin?
They very obviously talk about a more fluid offense and about running, if there is a possibility. DMC can do this, like every other big man can. No GM, Owner orCoach will want a player build like Boogie to sprint up and down the court non stop, jacking up shots after shots.
Under Malone our offense was relying on DDMC way too much. We demanded him to handle double or even triple teams all the time. This results in a bunch of turnovers and forced shots. Lets say against a swarming defense Boogie has 4 To and was forced into 4 Bad shots against multiple defenders. Thats basically 8 posessions the other Team can score on. Turnovers most likely result in fastbreaks and those are difficult to defend. Lets say we do a good job defending - most likely this are still 8+ Points wie give to the opposing Team, cause we force the Ball into DMC and demand him to handle anything the defense throws at him.
The recent game against the Lakers we saw our D really pressuring Kobe. He couldn't handle it and we took advantage. While DMC is a heck of a talent, one can argue if we rely on him too much and fall apart, once a team really pressures him a lot.
It may still be possible to win, if we play stellar defense, but our FO didn't believe it was the right approach to move forward. I tend to disagree with them, but i unterstand the reasoning behind this decision.
The only real Problem was the timing and the way they communicated.

yep

 

[KingsFanGER]

Well OK. In this case PDA must seem to be the worst GM on this planet for you guys. This would be ridiculous.

 

[rainmaker]

Well OK. In this case PDA must seem to be the worst GM on this planet for you guys. This would be ridiculous.

Well, if he fails to recognize the HOF talent which is Cuz and fails to recognize that talent in a small market which could go multiple decades before seeing talent like this again, and generally fails to understand and utilize Cuz to his strengths as a player and build around him in a fashion which is suited to his strengths, yes, he might be the worst GM on the planet for us as you probably couldn't do any worse.

There's a real and obvious threat here that our FO, led by PDA does not understand what Cuz brings to the table and how best to utilize it. We've seen guys from D12 in Orlando to Love in Minn leave small markets because their GM's could not build around them correctly. Might be currently seeing it with Dragic in Pho who might bolt. Cuz would be a greater loss than any of them. Better player, bigger loss. Just as NY/SA/LAL and others will circle around Marc Gasol this summer, there'd be no shortage of suitors and options for Cuz, with franchises who've proven they do know how to build around a dominant big.

We already had a style and coach which fit Cuz and we were improving. We've now switched gears and put all our eggs in the up and down, up-tempo basket. If that doesn't work over the next two years, then we're looking at Cuz with one year left on his contract and considering other options after screwing up his first 7 years. And it might take getting into the playoffs and losing for PDA/Vivek to figure out this style doesn't win when it matters, and that doesn't really help the cause.

 

[206Fan]

You guys claim that the FO doesn't do enough to surround Cousins? Seriously? We have literally been involved in almost every trade rumored.. we are trying to surround Cousins with better talent.. we are trying to go the extra mile, but it takes 2 teams to tango.

I'm sorry that Rondo didn't want to come here. I'm sorry that Iggy didn't want to come here. I'm sorry that Josh Smith didn't want to come here.

It's not like the FO isn't trying.. they are. What can they do with very limited assets?

The Kings new FO inherited a mess of a team.. it doesn't help that players don't want to come to Sacramento and other teams don't want to trade with us.

 

[Glenn]

Well, if he fails to recognize the HOF talent which is Cuz and fails to recognize that talent in a small market which could go multiple decades before seeing talent like this again, and generally fails to understand and utilize Cuz to his strengths as a player and build around him in a fashion which is suited to his strengths, yes, he might be the worst GM on the planet for us as you probably couldn't do any worse.

There's a real and obvious threat here that our FO, led by PDA does not understand what Cuz brings to the table and how best to utilize it. We've seen guys from D12 in Orlando to Love in Minn leave small markets because their GM's could not build around them correctly. Might be currently seeing it with Dragic in Pho who might bolt. Cuz would be a greater loss than any of them. Better player, bigger loss. Just as NY/SA/LAL and others will circle around Marc Gasol this summer, there'd be no shortage of suitors and options for Cuz, with franchises who've proven they do know how to build around a dominant big.

We already had a style and coach which fit Cuz and we were improving. We've now switched gears and put all our eggs in the up and down, up-tempo basket. If that doesn't work over the next two years, then we're looking at Cuz with one year left on his contract and considering other options after screwing up his first 7 years. And it might take getting into the playoffs and losing for PDA/Vivek to figure out this style doesn't win when it matters, and that doesn't really help the cause.

I have tried to be optimistic because I can't imaging a FO or GM being so stupid as you outline in the first paragraph. It is difficult to fathom.

 

[ParniValjak]

Anything that does not include DMC should be kicked to the curb and anyone pushing that line should be exterminated from the franchise for good!

 

[Glenn]

You guys claim that the FO doesn't do enough to surround Cousins? Seriously?.

Nobody has ever said this. Find one.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I think our definition of running is really different...

I'm using the definition that makes the most sense, every team runs some of the time, if you want to be pedantic about it. No team walks the ball up all the time; not even Jeff Van Gundy's Knicks did that. When you talk about a team that 'runs', you're talking about a team that runs to take pull up shots, like the Warriors do, a team that runs off of made baskets, like D'Antoni's Suns did.

The idea that suddenly they want to throw Cousins' strengths away after all of that is more or less incongruous to me.

You know something, Capt.? You yourself made the case for exactly why I don't have any faith in this plan:

On the other hand, an offense that tries to get the leakout, pushes hard and looks for a great (not good, great) shot in the first eight seconds, and if it doesn't find it pulls out for a half-court set is still going to be able to use Cousins' skills 80+% of the time.

An offense in which your best player is Plan B is not a good offense.

 

[swisshh]

I think a good reference might be Pau Gasol with Mike D'Antoni in LA.

Gasol was a very capable ball handler, passer and outlet guy for a big man.

However, D'Antoni's style of play often took Gasol out of the offense, and when he was in the offense, it didn't involve the low post where he was very good. Gasol's numbers went down and he became a scapegoat for LA. Pau was often hurt, and it's hard to tell if that's age, pace or both, but there was a lot of talk of him simply being unhappy with the system there.

During this off-season, he bolts for Chicago and is putting up good numbers again in a slower paced offense.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

An offense in which your best player is Plan B is not a good offense.

I disagree. I think that statement would be closer to the truth if phrased like this: "An offense in which your best shot is not Plan A is not a good offense."

Cousins is our best player, and I don't think anybody is disputing that. On the offensive end, he's our best player because of his size, skill, and versatility in the half-court set. As it stands right now, our offense is good for about 1.07 points per possession, much of this being in the half court set (but of course, we do get the occasional fast-break from time to time). Let's call this offense, with the occasional fast break thrown in "Cousins is Plan A", while acknowledging that we really mean a half-court set run through Cousins.

Now, let's imagine a different offense. In this offense, instead of walking the ball up the court and defaulting to "Cousins is Plan A" the majority of the time, the team makes a concerted effort to push for a fast break whenever possible. In the event that they do get a very good shot opportunity in transition, they take it (that's Plan A), otherwise they revert to the half-court set run through Cousins (that's now Plan B). Now let's imagine that a mere five percent of the time the team does get a "very good shot opportunity" in transition, and we'll define a very good shot opportunity as one with at least a 70% probability of going in, on average. The league-wide FG% within three feet of the rim is about .633, but this includes post attempts and other contested shots so I don't think that .700 is a ridiculous number to achieve at the rim, and recall I'm granting that only on 5% of possessions do they actually get a good enough shot opportunity at the rim to actually select Plan A. Still, Plan A is worth 1.4 points per possession (assuming we never get fouled).

(1.4 * .05) [expected points from Plan A] + (1.07 * .95) [expected points from Plan B] = 1.087 points per possession, or on the order of two points per game better offense than the "Cousins is Plan A) offense.

The numbers are relatively arbitrary, but they're just intended to illustrate the greater point: Your best shot should be Plan A, and a layup in transition is a better shot than a half-court set even if Cousins is manning the half-court set. So the better offense should probe, see if it can get a layup in transition, and if not then revert to the half-court set.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

Grizzlies best players are 2 big men that play similar to DeMarcus Cousins style. Do they want to outrun you or do they slow the game down and beat you up....................


Seems to work for them

 

[randymoss1881]

Grizzlies best players are 2 big men that play similar to DeMarcus Cousins style. Do they want to outrun you or do they slow the game down and beat you up....................


Seems to work for them

They tried running and they have 3 all stars and it didn't work.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Grizzlies best players are 2 big men that play similar to DeMarcus Cousins style. Do they want to outrun you or do they slowghe game down and beat you up....................


Seems to work for them

The Grizzlies decided to slim down Gasol and to make Conley the Nr.2 option on offense. Years ago they played very similar to us under Malone. Throw the Ball inside to Zbo and get out of the way.
Now their offenes involves heavy screen and rolls between Conley and Gasol, penetration from Conley, which leads to kickouts to their much improved shooters and to a Leser extent still those beautiful high-low passes between Gasol and Zbo.
There is a reason the Grizzlies might be a true contender this year. They improved on the offensive end and are more versatile. Their old fashioned post play style was exposed by the Spurs, so they moved on.
You might call me optimistic, but I focus on the possibility, that our FO watchedthe Grizzlies as a blueprint and saw, that having only one oOption to run the offense will not take you very far in the Playoffs. You have to be able to adjust to the opposing defensive gameplan. You have to be more versatile, than simply throwing it to your best player and let him do his thing.
In the games with DMC out we saw, that Rudy with a live dribble on the 3 point line, was more or less Malone's only option outside of playing off DMC. And it wasn't a very efficient offense.
I said it multiple times - i disagree with the FO, cause i think, that this year would have been used best to really set up and elite defense. In the coming offseason I would have tried to establish a versatile offense.
The FO decided differentely. Therefore I can criticize the way they handled this mess, but i can't criticize their vision, or they way I und erstand their vision.
I personally believe, that in todays NBA you have to be able to move the ball, you have to pressure defenses early to catch them off guard and with matchups in your favor and you have to be able to get easy baskets for your stars and roleplayers by running a disciplined, well thought offense, that gets everyone involved to a certain level.
If our FO is able to achieve this i'm fine. If they screw up, i end up disappointed.
But after all I personally didn't believe, that the playstyle we saw under Malone would have led us to the Finals.

 

[Chupacabra]

In the long run the answer is no. Basketball is about the players. After the players it's about how to best utilize them. NBA 3.0 prioritizes these in reverse. Now its about how do the players utilize the system.

 

[fansinceday1]

The Grizzlies decided to slim down Gasol and to make Conley the Nr.2 option on offense. Years ago they played very similar to us under Malone. Throw the Ball inside to Zbo and get out of the way.
Now their offenes involves heavy screen and rolls between Conley and Gasol, penetration from Conley, which leads to kickouts to their much improved shooters and to a Leser extent still those beautiful high-low passes between Gasol and Zbo.
There is a reason the Grizzlies might be a true contender this year. They improved on the offensive end and are more versatile. Their old fashioned post play style was exposed by the Spurs, so they moved on.
You might call me optimistic, but I focus on the possibility, that our FO watchedthe Grizzlies as a blueprint and saw, that having only one oOption to run the offense will not take you very far in the Playoffs. You have to be able to adjust to the opposing defensive gameplan. You have to be more versatile, than simply throwing it to your best player and let him do his thing.
In the games with DMC out we saw, that Rudy with a live dribble on the 3 point line, was more or less Malone's only option outside of playing off DMC. And it wasn't a very efficient offense.
I said it multiple times - i disagree with the FO, cause i think, that this year would have been used best to really set up and elite defense. In the coming offseason I would have tried to establish a versatile offense.
The FO decided differentely. Therefore I can criticize the way they handled this mess, but i can't criticize their vision, or they way I und erstand their vision.
I personally believe, that in todays NBA you have to be able to move the ball, you have to pressure defenses early to catch them off guard and with matchups in your favor and you have to be able to get easy baskets for your stars and roleplayers by running a disciplined, well thought offense, that gets everyone involved to a certain level.
If our FO is able to achieve this i'm fine. If they screw up, i end up disappointed.
But after all I personally didn't believe, that the playstyle we saw under Malone would have led us to the Finals.

Neither did I. But i liked the direction we were going in. Now, not so much.

 

[Bricklayer]

I disagree. I think that statement would be closer to the truth if phrased like this: "An offense in which your best shot is not Plan A is not a good offense."

Cousins is our best player, and I don't think anybody is disputing that. On the offensive end, he's our best player because of his size, skill, and versatility in the half-court set. As it stands right now, our offense is good for about 1.07 points per possession, much of this being in the half court set (but of course, we do get the occasional fast-break from time to time). Let's call this offense, with the occasional fast break thrown in "Cousins is Plan A", while acknowledging that we really mean a half-court set run through Cousins.

Now, let's imagine a different offense. In this offense, instead of walking the ball up the court and defaulting to "Cousins is Plan A" the majority of the time, the team makes a concerted effort to push for a fast break whenever possible. In the event that they do get a very good shot opportunity in transition, they take it (that's Plan A), otherwise they revert to the half-court set run through Cousins (that's now Plan B). Now let's imagine that a mere five percent of the time the team does get a "very good shot opportunity" in transition, and we'll define a very good shot opportunity as one with at least a 70% probability of going in, on average. The league-wide FG% within three feet of the rim is about .633, but this includes post attempts and other contested shots so I don't think that .700 is a ridiculous number to achieve at the rim, and recall I'm granting that only on 5% of possessions do they actually get a good enough shot opportunity at the rim to actually select Plan A. Still, Plan A is worth 1.4 points per possession (assuming we never get fouled).

(1.4 * .05) [expected points from Plan A] + (1.07 * .95) [expected points from Plan B] = 1.087 points per possession, or on the order of two points per game better offense than the "Cousins is Plan A) offense.

The numbers are relatively arbitrary, but they're just intended to illustrate the greater point: Your best shot should be Plan A, and a layup in transition is a better shot than a half-court set even if Cousins is manning the half-court set. So the better offense should probe, see if it can get a layup in transition, and if not then revert to the half-court set.

This is generally unexceptionable EXCEPT that offense and defense work together. What slam-ball buys you is the ability to defend and rebound. In order to act like, or at least commit to a running game you start having all sorts of compromises -- guys leak out, weakening your defense and boarding. You might play with smaller softer players built to run, not play seriously. You want to run like the old 80s Celtics ran, with huge interior oriented teams but opportunistically breaking when its there? Well of course. And something BTW that we kinda did. We were NOT a slow paced team. I just keep saying, because, well, it was true. A post dominant team that was dead middle in the league in pace? Well that's because we were breaking out quite a bit.

But that's not 3.0. That's not what's being discussed when the owner wants to hire a Nellieballer, the Gerbil wants to hire a 1000win run n gun coach, when Derrick Williams, and Rudy Gay and Omri Casspi are around to play "PF" for you, because you see, Gerbil watched our NT and squeaked "neat! that'll work in the NBA." You don't fire a good young coach leading a bit of a revival because you're hoping to get a few more breakouts each game. You fire a good young coach leading a bit of a revival when your ideology is ****ing stupid requires a significant change in playing style. We were leading the league in rebounding and had the best defensive starting 5 in the league when Cousins was available. Odds of that continuing now that the children have taken over? Zilch.