[KINGS] Comments that don't warrant their own thread (Redux)
- Thread starter Section 101
- Start date
I think you're right that gravity is how closely defenders stick to offensive players but I have it reversed based on what makes the most sense and how the Kings play. High off-ball gravity means our floor spacers are effectively holding defenders out on the perimeter. Low on-ball gravity should mean that our ballhandlers are either good at losing defenders one-on-one or defenders tend to play off them more. Both would probably be true for Sabonis (defenders dare him to shoot and stick closer to other players so he can't beat them with his passing ability) and for Fox (he's too fast and shifty to defend closely and other teams probably want him shooting long jumpers anyway).
Which quadrant is good or bad is probably subjective based on how you want to run your offense. Pretty much everything was clicking for us offensively so being up there in our own little island is probably a good thing. And it also highlights how unstoppable we would be if Domas and Fox improve as shooters.
Which quadrant is good or bad is probably subjective based on how you want to run your offense. Pretty much everything was clicking for us offensively so being up there in our own little island is probably a good thing. And it also highlights how unstoppable we would be if Domas and Fox improve as shooters.
This would make sense to me, but it is the absolute opposite of what the bball-index.com glossary says about their own stat:
Maybe they just suck at explaining their own stat, but "negative values are good" suggests that negative values mean a player is good at attracting defensive attention. Does "the higher the value" mean "the more positive the value", or does it mean "the larger absolute value"? I kind of have to take it as the latter, given "Negative values are good" but again, maybe they just suck at explaining their own stat.
Maybe they just suck at explaining their own stat, but "negative values are good" suggests that negative values mean a player is good at attracting defensive attention. Does "the higher the value" mean "the more positive the value", or does it mean "the larger absolute value"? I kind of have to take it as the latter, given "Negative values are good" but again, maybe they just suck at explaining their own stat.
I have sometimes wondered if the Kings' relatively poor defense at home is the result of playing in Golden 1 Center, which, by all accounts, is unusually loud. If the players cannot hear each other on the court, it could interfere with their defensive communication. I live on the East Coast, so have no first-hand experience of the games.
Yep, we apparently have been operating over the cap for a few years now, and only this year reverted to operating under the cap to use space for the Sabonis renegotiate-and-extend. For various reasons, teams don't renounce cap rights until it absolutely must be done, and since it previously didn't absolutely have to be done...
I almost see them over correcting during the year and looking to win more regular season games but I don't know if they scrape 50. They've been kind of coasting during the year and expecting to turn it on during the playoffs but they kind of got a rude awakening about that last season. Then they'll be nice and burned out for the playoffs! lol.
If the Kings make a jump up they'll be doing it early in the year. When you "run it back" you're basically giving yourself a pretty decent hand up early in the year to pounce on teams still figuring things out. The Kings might have a decent chance at the in season tourney too. They have a somewhat lightweight grouping and it's so early on that the chemistry of keeping most of the core rotation intact could pay off. In a best case the Kings come out and build some checks in the W column pre deadline as a buffer in case some of these super teams are legit.
I mean, 11 wins over where they had us last year is still a pretty decent jump.
But yeah, this is basically already baking in injury regression hitting us. So essentially, they're saying we won't see any jump in-house from the likes of Keegan/Davion etc and won't really benefit from a 2nd year of continuity. I don't think it's a truly egregious line, but we probably should be where they have the Grizz and Mavs at 45.5. So there's some value there imo. Granted, haven't checked schedules if we get super screwed by B-B, huge east coast trips, etc.
First glance, I like Under on Nugs, Warriors, Lakers, Suns. Obviously won't bet all of these, but just taking advantage of these higher win totals in a super uncertain is pretty strong
Nuggets just finished a deep playoff run, lost an extremely valuable piece to their rotation and weren't able to replace him. And the West is just flat out better; it's going to be harder for them to separate from the pack like they did last year.
Suns: Lots of star power, but no time to figure it out. Basically an entire new roster of 9th/10th man role players around Beal/Booker/KD. Can they all share the ball? Can KD and Beal stay healthy? Can they gel with Vogel off the rip? 52 is a big ask for all these questions to be answered and accounted for year 1. This would be the team i'd hate to play in the playoffs though. Easily could be like the 7 seed because of gelling/injury problems and just click at the end of the season and rampage through everyone.
Warriors; 1 year older and got significantly older with CP3. If he stays healthy, he'll be an upgrade on Poole, but that's a big big ask. And a bit underrated is how much shot creation Poole has been for them the last few years. That pretty much solely falls on Steph now.
Lakers: Improved depth for sure, but still reliant on AD and Bron healthy. Started to see a few signs of Bron falling a bit last season, does he actually start to regress this season? Can either guy play 60+ games? And again, just bet on the West being better and beating each other up.
Pacers over 35.5 wins: All their youth is a year older, added quality rotation piece in Bruce Brown, a top 10 pick in Jarace Walker, got Obi Toppin off the scrap heap. In the weaker Eastern conference and this is a bet that Hali can stay healthy for more than 56 games next year. If he plays 70? They crush this are in the mix for one of those lower east seeds.
Pretty funny though they have 6 West teams at either 45.5 or 43.5. Just throwing their hands up and saying "Hell, I have no idea which of these teams are actually good or not"
But yeah, this is basically already baking in injury regression hitting us. So essentially, they're saying we won't see any jump in-house from the likes of Keegan/Davion etc and won't really benefit from a 2nd year of continuity. I don't think it's a truly egregious line, but we probably should be where they have the Grizz and Mavs at 45.5. So there's some value there imo. Granted, haven't checked schedules if we get super screwed by B-B, huge east coast trips, etc.
First glance, I like Under on Nugs, Warriors, Lakers, Suns. Obviously won't bet all of these, but just taking advantage of these higher win totals in a super uncertain is pretty strong
Nuggets just finished a deep playoff run, lost an extremely valuable piece to their rotation and weren't able to replace him. And the West is just flat out better; it's going to be harder for them to separate from the pack like they did last year.
Suns: Lots of star power, but no time to figure it out. Basically an entire new roster of 9th/10th man role players around Beal/Booker/KD. Can they all share the ball? Can KD and Beal stay healthy? Can they gel with Vogel off the rip? 52 is a big ask for all these questions to be answered and accounted for year 1. This would be the team i'd hate to play in the playoffs though. Easily could be like the 7 seed because of gelling/injury problems and just click at the end of the season and rampage through everyone.
Warriors; 1 year older and got significantly older with CP3. If he stays healthy, he'll be an upgrade on Poole, but that's a big big ask. And a bit underrated is how much shot creation Poole has been for them the last few years. That pretty much solely falls on Steph now.
Lakers: Improved depth for sure, but still reliant on AD and Bron healthy. Started to see a few signs of Bron falling a bit last season, does he actually start to regress this season? Can either guy play 60+ games? And again, just bet on the West being better and beating each other up.
Pacers over 35.5 wins: All their youth is a year older, added quality rotation piece in Bruce Brown, a top 10 pick in Jarace Walker, got Obi Toppin off the scrap heap. In the weaker Eastern conference and this is a bet that Hali can stay healthy for more than 56 games next year. If he plays 70? They crush this are in the mix for one of those lower east seeds.
Pretty funny though they have 6 West teams at either 45.5 or 43.5. Just throwing their hands up and saying "Hell, I have no idea which of these teams are actually good or not"