Official PDA live radio thread

[HereWeBoogie]

welp.....


#SacramentoPissed ‏@HereWeBoogie Jan 4
@TheBobbyJackson have you ever seen a promising season thrown away like this before?

Bobby JacksonVerified account‏@TheBobbyJackson 4m
@HereWeBoogie not like this

 

[sdballer]

I just wanted to stop in and sincerely thank you all for your questions submitted and participation.

I'm very sorry that it may not have helped much.

I take all of this extremely personally, and I am also very frustrated. Almost despondent.

I appreciate Pete coming on and facing the firing squad. I hope this all turns around sooner rather than later.

No group of fans deserve success more than Sacramento Kings fans. I hope we get there sooner rather than later, because between us girls, I'm tired of it.

There is no question in my mind that this group wants very badly to win.

Unfortunately, just because I want to be a billionaire jet setter playboy does not make it so.

Again, thank you.

I haven't always gone easy on you but I hope you know how much fans appreciate the weight your voice can carry as well as your passion for this team.

 

[funkykingston]

I just wanted to stop in and sincerely thank you all for your questions submitted and participation.

I'm very sorry that it may not have helped much.

I take all of this extremely personally, and I am also very frustrated. Almost despondent.

I appreciate Pete coming on and facing the firing squad. I hope this all turns around sooner rather than later.

No group of fans deserve success more than Sacramento Kings fans. I hope we get there sooner rather than later, because between us girls, I'm tired of it.

There is no question in my mind that this group wants very badly to win.

Unfortunately, just because I want to be a billionaire jet setter playboy does not make it so.

Again, thank you.

Dave, I appreciate you putting this on, and for allowing me to directly ask a question of our GM. And I thank Pete for being willing to show up and answer questions.

I just wish it would have left me feeling more positive about the direction of this team and not less.

 

[upinsmoke]

I just wanted to stop in and sincerely thank you all for your questions submitted and participation.

I'm very sorry that it may not have helped much.

I take all of this extremely personally, and I am also very frustrated. Almost despondent.

I appreciate Pete coming on and facing the firing squad. I hope this all turns around sooner rather than later.

No group of fans deserve success more than Sacramento Kings fans. I hope we get there sooner rather than later, because between us girls, I'm tired of it.

There is no question in my mind that this group wants very badly to win.

Unfortunately, just because I want to be a billionaire jet setter playboy does not make it so.

Again, thank you.

You sir owe us no apologies. #### PDA though he thinks he thinks he so bright and ahead of the curve that he can tell us what WE want what WE want to see! We're battle tested and resilient we will overcome this incompetence from the current GM. I for one will be voting with my dollar if Vivek and Co want to see it they can work just as hard as i do for it. SOB"S

 

[funkykingston]

I'm probably too thin skinned to be posting my opinion, especially a minority opinion on such a heated topic, but here it is. After reading this post I'm leaning back toward my original stance of giving PDA a chance to implement his plan. He asked for time to turn this franchise around and I'm willing to give it to him. It is probably just as frustrating for PDA to not be able to divulge every detail of his plan as it is for us not knowing the plan. Also, I don't remember him saying that mistakes would not be made.

I have to give some credence to the Captain’s read of PDA's sincerity and confidence level during the post interview session. Although their perceptions of the interview and tolerance of the situation vary, the Captain and Funkykingston were there and neither one of them seem too inclined just yet to join the lynch mob that is forming here. Don't construe my view as blind faith, I just want to give this regime a fair chance. Even a homer like me has his limits, but for now I'm still willing to focus on the positive aspects of PDA's short tenure and give him more time to right the ship.

Go Kings.

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I can't speak for the Capt, but I'm plenty upset. More so after this morning. Which I suppose is good in a way. It means I still have passion for my team. But I can feel some apathy creeping in and that's what ends fandom.

And quite honestly I didn't need D'Alessandro to outline what his plan is. I just needed to feel there is one. And I left the studio feeling there really isn't beyond, "we want to push the pace and be a great team".

Well, the trade deadline should prove to be interesting. Or exasperating. We'll see.

 

[ParniValjak]

I just wanted to stop in and sincerely thank you all for your questions submitted and participation.

I'm very sorry that it may not have helped much.

I take all of this extremely personally, and I am also very frustrated. Almost despondent.

I appreciate Pete coming on and facing the firing squad. I hope this all turns around sooner rather than later.

No group of fans deserve success more than Sacramento Kings fans. I hope we get there sooner rather than later, because between us girls, I'm tired of it.

There is no question in my mind that this group wants very badly to win.

Unfortunately, just because I want to be a billionaire jet setter playboy does not make it so.

Again, thank you.

No! Thank you for giving us a chance! It is NOT your fault that we got more of the same gibberish which did not really answer any of our questions, nor this it soften any of the concerns. In a way, it alarmed some of us even more.

 

[hrdboild]

I don't think the proper strategy is to play "gotcha" anyway. What does it matter if the GM of the team gets his feelings hurt or not? I was hoping the conversation would have been less about Coach Malone and more about what Pete thinks should happen next. No clever strategist is going to reveal their strategy before the final move is in place anyway, but if you ask specific questions about specific players you can at least tell whether he has the basketball knowledge to actually do the job or not. We know Vivek hired PDA in the first place because he expressed a vision for the team that he found appealing. I'm curious to see what that vision is. Recall this is the same GM who made his first big offer to a free agent and then retracted it less than 24 hours later. He doesn't seem all that concerned about how things are typically done or how his decisions will be viewed from the outside. Firing a coach 24 games into a season probably didn't seem like a hasty decision to him. He's probably kicking himself he didn't do it sooner. He's either a cunning strategist or an imposter. I want to know which one it is. Best intentions are really irrelevant to me. Everyone here wants the team to win and yet we frequently disagree on how that is going to happen. Does Pete have the goods or not? I wish I felt more confident. I've been withholding judgement so far, but I did have confidence in Malone for various reasons so this puts me on guard. Time will tell.

 

[DesertFox]

I'm starting to not care. This team is not fun to watch. If you're gonna sacrifice a coach for style, at least make the team entertaining.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

That is all quite fascinating, indeed. For certain values of "fascinating." How has it translated to championships?

I can play it your way. In the entire history of the NBA's three-point shot, only two six teams have won a championship while leading the league in three-point attempts defense: the 1986 Celtics, the 1996 Bulls, the 1999 Spurs, the 2000 Lakers, the 2005 Spurs, the 2008 Celtics. The best defensive team only wins 17% of the time over that span. So how has defense translated to championships?

I mean, according to your original measure defense has translated only about three times better than three point shooting. But I'd hardly go out and suggest that playing defense isn't worthwhile because only N teams were the best at defense AND won it all. Better defense makes you better, right? I would certainly say so. Shooting more three pointers also correlates with you being better. Not as strongly as defense, but it's a very real effect. You can try to wish it away if you want, but the fact is that the percentage of three pointers is still rising. Teams are doing it because it works. I showed you the plot that demonstrates that it works. And smart teams are going to keep shooting threes.

10 teams out of 240 that finished Top 5 in three-point attempts got out of the second round, in fifteen years. I don't think we're going to be able to come to an agreement on any definition of "better" that provides for perennial first-round-and-out/second-round-and-out teams to be classified as such.

Your 240 denominator (the number of teams in the playoffs) is not the right number to use.

There have been 75 teams that finished in the top 5 in three point shooting in the past 15 years. I'll take your word that only ten made it past the second round. That's 10/75, or 13.3%. There are 30 teams in the NBA, and each year four of those make it past the second round. That's 4/30 or ... 13.3%! Teams that shoot the most threes have fared no better, and no worse, than all other teams.

If shooting more threes makes you slightly better, why hasn't it translated into better results by this measure? Maybe it's just a small sample size. Maybe it's bad luck. Maybe the teams that beat them also tended to be very high in three point attempts (say, 6-10) and there wasn't much difference. Most likely some of the teams that resort to a lot of threes do it because they AREN'T good at other, hard-to-change things that make a team better (like defense) and increasing their number of three point shots provides them an easier, if not-as-effective way to get better. Not best, but better. And what's wrong with better?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I can play it your way. In the entire history of the NBA's three-point shot, only two six teams have won a championship while leading the league in three-point attempts defense: the 1986 Celtics, the 1996 Bulls, the 1999 Spurs, the 2000 Lakers, the 2005 Spurs, the 2008 Celtics. The best defensive team only wins 17% of the time over that span. So how has defense translated to championships?

Which defensive metric are you looking at? PPG allowed? Opponent's FG%? Scoring margin? Points allowed per 100 possessions?

I mean, according to your original measure defense has translated only about three times better than three point shooting. But I'd hardly go out and suggest that playing defense isn't worthwhile because only N teams were the best at defense AND won it all. Better defense makes you better, right? I would certainly say so. Shooting more three pointers also correlates with you being better. Not as strongly as defense, but it's a very real effect.

Only three times as often? Sure, that's not significant at all...

You can try to wish it away if you want, but the fact is that the percentage of three pointers is still rising. Teams are doing it because it works. I showed you the plot that demonstrates that it works. And smart teams are going to keep shooting threes.

If you say so. Make sure you let me know when the next volume shooting team wins a ring.

Your 240 denominator (the number of teams in the playoffs) is not the right number to use.

There have been 75 teams that finished in the top 5 in three point shooting in the past 15 years. I'll take your word that only ten made it past the second round. That's 10/75, or 13.3%. There are 30 teams in the NBA, and each year four of those make it past the second round. That's 4/30 or ... 13.3%! Teams that shoot the most threes have fared no better, and no worse, than all other teams.

Wait, how is the number of teams in the playoffs not the right number to use? It's not like the numbers you cited actually refuted anything I said; it's just you saying that you prefer to look at it your way instead.

If shooting more threes makes you slightly better, why hasn't it translated into better results by this measure? Maybe it's just a small sample size. Maybe it's bad luck. Maybe the teams that beat them also tended to be very high in three point attempts (say, 6-10) and there wasn't much difference.

Or, maybe, it's because it sells tickets, but doesn't hang banners.

 

[Glenn]

Honestly, firing pete won't change a damn thing. Because the madness most likely came from Vivek.

I agree with you. Pete is the fall guy for doing what Vivek wants.

 

[funkykingston]

6. PDA did not answer enough questions with definitive information, some because he could not and others he would not considering item 5 above and yet others with info we didn't want to hear. I thought "Jerry" asked the best direct question of the hour.

I don't remember there being a Jerry, but I'm Jared. If it was my question you're referring to then I'm glad I asked a question that resonated with some people. I wish I would've gotten a straighter answer but then again several people in the studio audience didn't get to ask a question on air.

But what I didn't hear in that hour was why it made sense to fire Malone 24 games in, especially with no one in mind to takeover. Just seems like throwing in the towel on the season or somehow thinking that Malone was holding the team back from being better somehow. Based on the value PDA seemed to place on his own guys I think it really was the latter.

The only explanations given for the timing of the firing were seemingly (1) If Malone wasn't the guy there's no point in stringing him along and (2) the early success might have been a mirage and might not be sustainable.

(1) Makes no sense to me as even D'Alessandro had to admit Malone had a good relationship with the players and was getting them to buy into his concepts on defense. It's not stringing him along, it's letting him do the most he could and changing coaches during the offseason when it's not a hugely disruptive event and when you have a larger pool of candidates to choose from with more time to interview them.

(2) Makes even less sense. Maybe the 5-1 and 9-6 were a mirage. But how would you know if you don't let the man keep going?

 

[Bricklayer]

(2) Makes even less sense. Maybe the 5-1 and 9-6 were a mirage. But how would you know if you don't let the man keep going?

Data points.

 

[Livinthedream]

I just wanted to stop in and sincerely thank you all for your questions submitted and participation.

I'm very sorry that it may not have helped much.

I take all of this extremely personally, and I am also very frustrated. Almost despondent.

I appreciate Pete coming on and facing the firing squad. I hope this all turns around sooner rather than later.

No group of fans deserve success more than Sacramento Kings fans. I hope we get there sooner rather than later, because between us girls, I'm tired of it.

There is no question in my mind that this group wants very badly to win.

Unfortunately, just because I want to be a billionaire jet setter playboy does not make it so.

Again, thank you.

No, thank you CD. You're an unfiltered conduit from the fans to the team. That in itself is priceless. There is nothing more that you needed to do. Pete already knew how he was going to answer the questions that came up. We weren't going to catch him off-guard or make him slip up. The questions, in one form or another, had been floating out there for a couple weeks.

Pete needed to eliminate the narrative that the FO was in hiding. Fans needed to see how he would respond to their direct questions so we could confirm our opinions about him and the situation. We all got something out of it.

 

[Livinthedream]

I don't think the proper strategy is to play "gotcha" anyway. What does it matter if the GM of the team gets his feelings hurt or not? I was hoping the conversation would have been less about Coach Malone and more about what Pete thinks should happen next. No clever strategist is going to reveal their strategy before the final move is in place anyway, but if you ask specific questions about specific players you can at least tell whether he has the basketball knowledge to actually do the job or not. We know Vivek hired PDA in the first place because he expressed a vision for the team that he found appealing. I'm curious to see what that vision is. Recall this is the same GM who made his first big offer to a free agent and then retracted it less than 24 hours later. He doesn't seem all that concerned about how things are typically done or how his decisions will be viewed from the outside. Firing a coach 24 games into a season probably didn't seem like a hasty decision to him. He's probably kicking himself he didn't do it sooner. He's either a cunning strategist or an imposter. I want to know which one it is. Best intentions are really irrelevant to me. Everyone here wants the team to win and yet we frequently disagree on how that is going to happen. Does Pete have the goods or not? I wish I felt more confident. I've been withholding judgement so far, but I did have confidence in Malone for various reasons so this puts me on guard. Time will tell.

I'm leaning towards imposter. How can we be involved in every single trade talk and never pull anything off? I don't count the Gay trade because Toronto was essentially throwing him away. How can you not make a deal for Smith who Detroit would rather cut than work a deal with you?

I think listening to PDA talk and answer basketball questions showed me that he's got data points down and politicking down, but not basketball. Other GMs see right through it. Malone saw through it.

 

[k_dubb90]

I'm giving PDA one more season to see what this pace is all about. Playoffs is mandatory next year or I'm seriously done with this team

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Which defensive metric are you looking at? PPG allowed? Opponent's FG%? Scoring margin? Points allowed per 100 possessions?

Points allowed per 100 possessions, for what it's worth.

Only three times as often? Sure, that's not significant at all...

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. My point was that asking whether the team that is the single best team at (X) ended up winning the championship is not a good way to measure whether X has value. You wouldn't argue that defense is unimportant (nor would I), yet the single-best team at defense rarely wins the championship. Less than 20% of the time, apparently. There are better ways to measure the contribution of defense (or X).

Wait, how is the number of teams in the playoffs not the right number to use? It's not like the numbers you cited actually refuted anything I said; it's just you saying that you prefer to look at it your way instead.

240 is the wrong number to use because by choosing to look at teams that won two playoff series, you eliminated 180 of those 240 teams. You changed your denominator.

Let me say it this way: You stated that of 240 playoff teams, only 10 won two series AND were top-5 in three-point rate. Let's turn that around. There were 240 playoff teams, and only 50 won two series and were NOT top-5 in three-point rate. This is an exactly equivalent statement. Yet the sum of [teams that won two series and were top-5] and [teams that won two series and were not top-5] is only 60, not 240. 240 is the wrong denominator...in this case, 60 is the right one. Saying "10 of 240" improperly stacks the deck against those teams (it wrongly implies that 230 of 240 were not top-5) in the same way that saying "50 of 240" would be improperly stacking the deck against non-top-five teams (it wrongly implies that 190 of 240 WERE top-5).

 

[VF21]

I'm leaning towards imposter. How can we be involved in every single trade talk and never pull anything off? I don't count the Gay trade because Toronto was essentially throwing him away. How can you not make a deal for Smith who Detroit would rather cut than work a deal with you?

I think listening to PDA talk and answer basketball questions showed me that he's got data points down and politicking down, but not basketball. Other GMs see right through it. Malone saw through it.

Wait. You're saying it was bad we didn't get Josh Smith? Have you seen what he's done in Houston since he's been there? I think we dodged a howitzer shell on that one.

 

[upinsmoke]

I don't think that's what he was saying I think is PDA can't pull off any deals besides the Rudy trade which was a throwaway. He couldn't deal IT either.

 

[Livinthedream]

Wait. You're saying it was bad we didn't get Josh Smith? Have you seen what he's done in Houston since he's been there? I think we dodged a howitzer shell on that one.

No, it's not bad we didn't get him. I never wanted Smith. It's bad we seemingly tried so hard for so long and couldn't get him. If you covet a player that much and the team you're trying to get him from would rather cut him than keep him, how can you not pull it off? I know it's complicated when you're dealing with a contract as large as Smith's, but sheesh.

 

[Prince_XY]

The first words out of Pete's mouth - I **** you not - were: "Darren Collison, Derrick Williams, Omri Casspi, Ben McLemore, even Nik Stauskas" He then went on to say that Rudy needed to be more of a transition player to be effective, that he wasn't really a half court, physical player and that the nice thing about running is that you have a guy in DeMarcus Cousins that can get you a bucket any time. So you run out and try and get a hoop in transition and if you don't get a good look then you throw it into DeMarcus and let him work.

"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."

"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."

These should clear the air for those naive fans who thought the FO are that stupid to ignore Cousins' strength.

The most knowledgeable fan (in basketball and statistics) was right all along when he states that:

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 don't think you can be wrong when Cousins, the coach, the GM, and Capt. Factorial are in agreement. The plan will for sure result to improvement in the long term.

 

[VF21]

No, it's not bad we didn't get him. I never wanted Smith. It's bad we seemingly tried so hard for so long and couldn't get him. If you covet a player that much and the team you're trying to get him from would rather cut him than keep him, how can you not pull it off? I know it's complicated when you're dealing with a contract as large as Smith's, but sheesh.

I'm not sure we know for sure that we did try so hard for so long. And I don't understand the logic of saying even though none of US wanted him, it's a failure of PDA's that we didn't get him.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

I don't think that's what he was saying I think is PDA can't pull off any deals besides the Rudy trade which was a throwaway. He couldn't deal IT either.

he did deal IT, for a trade exception.

 

[Livinthedream]

I'm not sure we know for sure that we did try so hard for so long. And I don't understand the logic of saying even though none of US wanted him, it's a failure of PDA's that we didn't get him.

Because PDA wanted him and couldn't get it done.

It's been reported that we were trying to deal for Smith since the summer. Since this office is notoriously bad at keeping trade secrets, I'm going to believe the reports.

 

[VF21]

Because PDA wanted him and couldn't get it done.

It's been reported that we were trying to deal for Smith since the summer. Since this office is notoriously bad at keeping trade secrets, I'm going to believe the reports.

Then we'll just agree that we disagree.

 

[randymoss1881]

Man I'm tired of people saying malone wasn't PDA guy. Who gives a **** he was winning that idiot could have adjusted. In Toronto when Masai (however you spell it) took over Casey was the coach and wasn't his guy Toronto started out poorly. After the gay trade Toronto starts winning has Casey job ever been rumored to be in trouble no.

 

[macadocious]

PDA said he fired Malone because he was 2-18 without Cousins and that was Philadelphia territory and that those guys are trying to lose.

Our GM ladies and gentlemen...

 

[King Baller]

As I expected, lots of spin from D'Alessandro. But what concerned me much more was that what little substance I did hear was frightening.

1) Corbin is the coach until the end of the season.
2) PDA thinks that there is a lot more talent on this roster than there really is
3) He thinks the team should be taking a lot more threes
4) There was no plan in place after firing Malone - just that his style wasn't "the kind of team we want to be"
5) He thinks the team will play the same level of defense they did under Malone for Corbin
6) He chalks up DeMarcus being upset about Malone's firing to Boogie being "an emotional guy" and not much else
7) When asked about STH not renewing he raised his eyebrows and said, "Because we fired a coach? Come on."

Originally I was thinking this was a power play or some other behind the scenes machinations. But after this morning my thought is that the guy just doesn't get it.

Funky thanks for attending. I always enjoy your post and agree 100%. Pete D does not get it.

 

[origkds]

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I can't speak for the Capt, but I'm plenty upset. More so after this morning. Which I suppose is good in a way. It means I still have passion for my team. But I can feel some apathy creeping in and that's what ends fandom.

And quite honestly I didn't need D'Alessandro to outline what his plan is. I just needed to feel there is one. And I left the studio feeling there really isn't beyond, "we want to push the pace and be a great team".

Well, the trade deadline should prove to be interesting. Or exasperating. We'll see.

Fair enough, I guess I didn't grasp the depth of your frustration with PDA. I probably should not have made it sound like I think PDA has a precisely calculated plan because I believe he does not. I'm just saying that I'm willing to cut the guy some slack and give him a fair amount of time to bring a totally dysfunctional franchise back to respectability. Am I happy with Malone's firing? No, but I guess I'm not quite as offended as others on this forum about how or why it was done. If it turns out that he is truly inept I will help lead the charge to have him removed, but right now I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. BTW, thank you for taking the time to represent Kingsfans at the interview.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

welp.....


#SacramentoPissed ‏@HereWeBoogie Jan 4
@TheBobbyJackson have you ever seen a promising season thrown away like this before?

Bobby JacksonVerified account‏@TheBobbyJackson 4m
@HereWeBoogie not like this

Bruski and C Dave both screenshotted and tweeted that interaction i had with Jackson ^

Dave even used the same caption, Welp......

Strange. It's very clear there are about 3 people in the NBA universe that don't think the Kings management are morons right now. I'll let you decide who they are