[Game] Kings Vs Miami Heat, 2/26/2024, 7:00p PT/10:00p ET (NBATV)

[ockingsfan]

It's not that we didn't make a trade at the deadline, it's more we didn't add a player such as a Delon Wright. Most of these playoff teams made changes besides signing two guys that don't play.

The problem is none of these buy out candidate or free agent players want to sign with the Kings over “desirable destination” teams.

Just about the only way we get a free agent to sign is if they have a connection to coach Brown (JaVale) or to our star player (Monk). Otherwise, Monte will need to make trades to get any good player or give them a massive overpay.

 

[Srzly]

It feels like good teams have good bench units that can step up and play without being a noticeable drop off from the starters. I felt like our bench was more impactful last year. Outside of Monk, there hasn’t been consistent contribution from anyone this year.

Maybe we need to start going with different guys. Give Keon and Kessler minutes instead of Davion and Duarte.

 

[Shaqfuey]

The problem is none of these buy out candidate or free agent players want to sign with the Kings over “desirable destination” teams.

Just about the only way we get a free agent to sign is if they have a connection to coach Brown (JaVale) or to our star player (Monk). Otherwise, Monte will need to make trades to get any good player or give them a massive overpay.

The problem is the front office isn't doing that. They are looking to make splash moves (Beal, OG, Siakam) vs. getting solid pieces that would excel in Brown's system. It's very similar to the Giants strategy where they're always trying to get the big name star player and falling short. Meanwhile, the nice every day consistency gets scooped up by other teams. We're left with the lower tier, lower impact players.

 

[captain bill]

They’ve seen enough of these weak showings on the home floor. Especially against either awful teams, or teams that are missing most of their best players. Their energy and body language when these games start getting out of hand doesn’t help.

This is why I think this team aren’t darlings in Sacramento yet from a roster standpoint. Not like the Webber teams were immediately, even before they established themselves as winners. It would help if they performed better at home. But for the home crowd, the Kings barely win more at home than they lose. Their most inspiring basketball comes away from Sacramento.

I think Carmichael Dave made the point on his radio show that while all the Kings players and coaching staff are likeable, there is something that is blocking this TEAM from being super likeable to the point where they won’t get booed when they fall behind 20 to a team missing 3/5 of their starting lineup and let Kevin Love turn the clock back 6-7 years.

It’s pretty uncharacteristic for Sacramento to be so openly restless with the team. Even during the 16 years where the team was bad. I don’t recall the team being booed as often over that stretch as just this season alone. So there is something that is bothering the fans about this group and it’s likely tied to expectations not being met.

I vaguely wonder if there's a bit of a "new fan" syndrome since people who flock to a shiny new team tend to have less patience, but I'm well on the optimist side so maybe that's unfair.

The game last night was entertaining as hell even with a disappointing result. We looked good jumping out to a second quarter lead and the Keegan comeback at the end was electric even if it fell short. I just can't imagine booing that game after having flushed money down the toilet to see Jimmer stink up "power balance pavilion"

I also fully agree with Monk's assessment of booing fans and you have to wonder if players aren't inspired to get up at home when fans boo the crap out of them over the slightest provocation. I certainly wouldn't be.

 

[Kingster]

They’ve seen enough of these weak showings on the home floor. Especially against either awful teams, or teams that are missing most of their best players. Their energy and body language when these games start getting out of hand doesn’t help.

This is why I think this team aren’t darlings in Sacramento yet from a roster standpoint. Not like the Webber teams were immediately, even before they established themselves as winners. It would help if they performed better at home. But for the home crowd, the Kings barely win more at home than they lose. Their most inspiring basketball comes away from Sacramento.

I think Carmichael Dave made the point on his radio show that while all the Kings players and coaching staff are likeable, there is something that is blocking this TEAM from being super likeable to the point where they won’t get booed when they fall behind 20 to a team missing 3/5 of their starting lineup and let Kevin Love turn the clock back 6-7 years.

It’s pretty uncharacteristic for Sacramento to be so openly restless with the team. Even during the 16 years where the team was bad. I don’t recall the team being booed as often over that stretch as just this season alone. So there is something that is bothering the fans about this group and it’s likely tied to expectations not being met.

Sure. But what expectations exactly?

 

[ESP47]

They’ve seen enough of these weak showings on the home floor. Especially against either awful teams, or teams that are missing most of their best players. Their energy and body language when these games start getting out of hand doesn’t help.

This is why I think this team aren’t darlings in Sacramento yet from a roster standpoint. Not like the Webber teams were immediately, even before they established themselves as winners. It would help if they performed better at home. But for the home crowd, the Kings barely win more at home than they lose. Their most inspiring basketball comes away from Sacramento.

I think Carmichael Dave made the point on his radio show that while all the Kings players and coaching staff are likeable, there is something that is blocking this TEAM from being super likeable to the point where they won’t get booed when they fall behind 20 to a team missing 3/5 of their starting lineup and let Kevin Love turn the clock back 6-7 years.

It’s pretty uncharacteristic for Sacramento to be so openly restless with the team. Even during the 16 years where the team was bad. I don’t recall the team being booed as often over that stretch as just this season alone. So there is something that is bothering the fans about this group and it’s likely tied to expectations not being met.

I think it's because the crowd recognized that the Kings weren't putting in the effort on the defensive end. Midway through the 4th they started playing defense like they did against the Clippers and they closed a 15pt gap just like that. Too little too late and they lost the game because of it.

Anyone saying that it's because they were tired or because it was a back to back are just making excuses. These guys waited until they were late in the game to up the defensive intensity. I can see having that intensity early on and it dropping off later in the game due to being tired but they upped it when they should have been at their most exhausted. That just goes to show that they weren't putting in enough effort before that moment and I think the crowd recognized it.

 

[Kingz19]

Sure. But what expectations exactly?

Just going by the times they were booed by the fans this season.

Perhaps the expectation is that they beat 4 win teams on the home floor, for starters. Thats one time they were booed.

They don’t get down by 50 at home. One other time they were booed. The Boston game was another one in that ball park.


I didn’t notice as many boos last night. A general restlessness but nothing like the end of the Detroit game.

Fans don’t have lofty standards for this team just yet…but on the home floor they have often failed to meet fairly modest expectations of taking care of business. Fans know they’re better than this.

I really do think their home court mediocrity has hurt with the overall enthusiasm around the team which I thought would’ve been more fever pitch after 16 years even if most know they aren’t a contender yet.

Right now the star of the show is the beam rather than the characters on the team..and i think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they often don’t put on an exciting show for the fans and I think it bleeds into the crowd energy for games as well. I don’t think Sacramento is as invested as we have seen in the past. Obviously the playoffs last season for games 1 and 2 but there seems to be a general lack of energy from the crowd from the jump.

It’s not just them. A lot of teams nowadays don’t seem to have another gear at home but that’s pretty disappointing knowing the Kings have almost always been a relatively strong home team. Dominant at home in their good years and usually a completely different team in a positive way in their bad years.

I’ve gone on about it. Some don’t think it’s a big deal but I think it’s concerning that a team plays worse at home than on the road.

Especially when the Kings have a road record as good as the best teams in the league but the difference is how well the top teams and the middle of the pack teams play at home.

 

[The_Jamal]

https://twitter.com/statuses/1762569369115402356

 

[TheMobb]

https://twitter.com/statuses/1762569369115402356

There are probably multiple factors that come into play for this, but I honestly think the biggest is just shooting variance. When the Kings make their 3s at a high rate, they are a good to great team…

 

[macadocious]

There were almost no boos last night. A smattering happened after like the 4th turnover in a row in the 3rd and lackluster hustle to get back.

 

[Kingster]

https://twitter.com/statuses/1762569369115402356

My thought is that "tough" teams don't typically lose to bad teams. Soft teams do. For a long time now I've debated about whether this problem is nurture (more coaching over an extended period of time) or nature. I'm firmly in the nature column now. We just don't have enough players with toughness and a "motor." Give this team players with the nature of Doug Christie, Bobby Jackson, Jon Barry and Scott Pollard and we wouldn't be having this discussion .

 

[SacTownKid]

There were almost no boos last night. A smattering happened after like the 4th turnover in a row in the 3rd and lackluster hustle to get back.

The Kings came back. If they didn't the outcome wasn't any different but the perception for a live crowd certainly is.

 

[ockingsfan]

My thought is that "tough" teams don't typically lose to bad teams. Soft teams do. For a long time now I've debated about whether this problem is nurture (more coaching over an extended period of time) or nature. I'm firmly in the nature column now. We just don't have enough players with toughness and a "motor." Give this team players with the nature of Doug Christie, Bobby Jackson, Jon Barry and Scott Pollard and we wouldn't be having this discussion .

Agreed. Monk and Sabonis are the only guys I would call "tough" guys on this team.

If somehow we could just transplant Monk's "fire" into Keegan and the rest of this team, we would be near unstoppable

 

[The_Jamal]

My thought is that "tough" teams don't typically lose to bad teams. Soft teams do. For a long time now I've debated about whether this problem is nurture (more coaching over an extended period of time) or nature. I'm firmly in the nature column now. We just don't have enough players with toughness and a "motor." Give this team players with the nature of Doug Christie, Bobby Jackson, Jon Barry and Scott Pollard and we wouldn't be having this discussion .

I mean, is 15-5 bad vs under .500 teams? I'm not so sure.

Feels like we have a real bias because we have some standout losses. But, once again, zoom out, look at the macro and we're still at a .750 winning percentage and essentially sitting at .500 vs good teams. That seems good. It can be better, of course, but I think this shows a good snapshot that we're mostly taking care of business; it's the few frustrating games that we let slip away that this team still has to grow from and learn how to be effective in winning.

Also worth noting in this example, the Knicks have played 5 more games vs under .500 teams than we have. That's a TON.

 

[Caccia]

I mean, is 15-5 bad vs under .500 teams? I'm not so sure.

Also worth noting in this example, the Knicks have played 5 more games vs under .500 teams than we have. That's a TON.

Seven of the 15 teams in the East are under .500, including Detroit and Washington, with 17 wins between them. There are only five teams in the West under .500.

 

[The_Jamal]

Seven of the 15 teams in the East are under .500, including Detroit and Washington, with 17 wins between them. There are only five teams in the West under .500.

Yeah, there's an ENORMOUS edge being in the East this season. West records should be graded on curve, honestly.

 

[Tetsujin]

Heat culture taketh (the Heat beating the Kings despite missing half their roster and plummeting the Kings down the WC standings.
but Heat culture also giveth (the Heat developing Max Strus into a good enough player that he hits a Tyreke buzzer beater against the Mavs to help limit the damage of last night’s Heat loss)

https://twitter.com/statuses/1762663092713083267

https://twitter.com/statuses/1762666318199693366

 

[coolhandluke]

Max Strus got stupid hot at the end. Can we poach from the Heat FO and player development team?

 

[Kingster]

I mean, is 15-5 bad vs under .500 teams? I'm not so sure.

Feels like we have a real bias because we have some standout losses. But, once again, zoom out, look at the macro and we're still at a .750 winning percentage and essentially sitting at .500 vs good teams. That seems good. It can be better, of course, but I think this shows a good snapshot that we're mostly taking care of business; it's the few frustrating games that we let slip away that this team still has to grow from and learn how to be effective in winning.

Also worth noting in this example, the Knicks have played 5 more games vs under .500 teams than we have. That's a TON.

I never look primarily at wins and losses. More than anything I look at quality of play. Theoretically, the Kings could be a far better team than last year in terms of many qualitative measurements and have a markedly worse win-loss record, which could be attributable to injuries or other teams getting a lot better than last year. Or, it can work the other way around. You can have a win-loss record that is a facade, or maybe it's not a facade. Qualities I look for: Is the effort there, especially on defense making second and third efforts? Is the team playing unselfishly? Is it a one-on-one show or there is a concerted effort to get the best shot? Are players taking charges or making "business decisions"? Are guys diving for loose balls or just watching? Are players shying away from contact or mixing it up? Another key to determining quality: Is the team putting out the same effort against lesser teams than very good teams? The answer on the last question is an unadorned, NO, for this team. Will this "run-it-back" cast of characters "grow" out of this tendency? I highly doubt it. Some players have "motors," while others don't. Some need to win, while some want to win. Some have an inherent toughness, others don't. We need more players of the former character and lose players of the latter type. Just my opinion.

 

[kingdivac]

I never look primarily at wins and losses. More than anything I look at quality of play. Theoretically, the Kings could be a far better team than last year in terms of many qualitative measurements and have a markedly worse win-loss record, which could be attributable to injuries or other teams getting a lot better than last year. Or, it can work the other way around. You can have a win-loss record that is a facade, or maybe it's not a facade. Qualities I look for: Is the effort there, especially on defense making second and third efforts? Is the team playing unselfishly? Is it a one-on-one show or there is a concerted effort to get the best shot? Are players taking charges or making "business decisions"? Are guys diving for loose balls or just watching? Are players shying away from contact or mixing it up? Another key to determining quality: Is the team putting out the same effort against lesser teams than very good teams? The answer on the last question is an unadorned, NO, for this team. Will this "run-it-back" cast of characters "grow" out of this tendency? I highly doubt it. Some players have "motors," while others don't. Some need to win, while some want win. Some ha,,,,prove an inherent toughness, others don't. We need more players of the former character and lose players of the latter type. Just my opinion.

Wildly inconsistnet - come out vs Clippers and focus most the game and pull away.....meanwhile come back with a depleted Heat at home and back and forth but completely look lost for a 5 min 3Q stretch putting the game in serious jeopardy before the 4th quarter. Alotta wins and losses you can focus on Barnes and Huerter.....who themselves are up and down more than other players. When both have a poor game there's too much pressure on other players to pick up the slack. Huerter broke out of a slump somewhat midseason with better acivity on defense, but still having poor shooting games interlaced albeit less of them., and is not a good ball-on defender. Barnes will randomly have a very strong game, but its impossible to predict when....he'll then have these 22 min 5 or 7 pt outings less involved from beginning with few shots with and not be doing enough. I think the team does better offensively when there's a consicious effort to share the ball around which seems to breakdown when misses start piling up . There needs to be similar collective focus on defense that is inconsistent. Vs the Heat Fox played well late but 7 turnovers - that doesn't fly either credit to Heat. Meanwhile Monk's normally reliable FT shooting has gotten worse through the season down to 81% off the high 80's. Fox and Sabonis shoot around 70% on the season for FTs - that doesn't work either. Team Poor FT shooting realistically subtracts around 2 or 3 pts on average - something. Probably worth a few close game wins. Kings have not gone on as many longer win streaks this year, with a noticable amount more of blowout losses. Its been a big regression offensively vs a slight improvement on defense from last year. The competition has played better, and yes part of that is drive to win. It was a a good idea to stand-pat for this season, but the defensive improvement has not been enough to offset the lack of offense. Its hard to tell if one more year will translate to needed defense, but it might be worth the patience. Brown has tried some games bringing in more bench defenders with limited success. There's been times where core players do not help will enough on defense off of breakdowns, If you get beat on the outside shot so be it, but cannot allow parades to the basket. and its gotta be 5 to the defensive boards every possession - that certainly doesn't happen consistently enough and should be an easy fix - all players come back to the board for rebound and fin s body block out- and if you don't you get benched - cut and dry. Kings are in a precarious position = they may need 50 wins to make it above the play-in - team has looked like a 7th or 8th seed. A last note, Brown has relegated Vezenkov to the deep bench. unless there's some unknown injury not sure why; have not unlocked his full potential on offense I think at a tradeoff of poor mistakes on defense. Vezenkov is a good rebounder though who deserves more look-over right now especially with Lyles having some mediocre games. Think its worth trying to get him more minutes - like his play better than Duarte too.

 

[Caccia]

A last note, Brown has relegated Vezenkov to the deep bench. unless there's some unknown injury not sure why; have not unlocked his full potential on offense I think at a tradeoff of poor mistakes on defense. Vezenkov is a good rebounder though who deserves more look-over right now especially with Lyles having some mediocre games. Think its worth trying to get him more minutes - like his play better than Duarte too.

Vezenkov is out with an ankle injury and will be reevaluated after 4-6 weeks. He was wearing a boot immediately after and is in street clothes for the games.