FIRE MIKE BROWN
- Thread starter Vinny Basketballerino
- Start date
it really comes down to playing to the strength of the personnel you currently have in your core players and then using a plug and play method to see what player(s) fit long term with the core Monte decides he wants to try out for a couple more seasons. We know the Kings aren't bulky or lengthy and so using that speed is what needs to happen here, the conditioning will need to go up another notch possibly in order to utilize this strength for a long season. Let's see what he acquires in the draft and offseason.
What also makes it difficult to voice differing opinions on a forum such as this one is that it's basically a bunch of words that show up on the reader's screen (whether it be their desktop monitor, laptop monitor, tablet, or phone). So it makes it easy to misinterpret a comment to mean something that it clearly does not.
Which is also why I add a certain emoji to the end of some of my posts...
Which is also why I add a certain emoji to the end of some of my posts...
We're only 2 years removed from those 16 years of mediocrity -- both of which have occurred with Mike Brown as the head coach. Don't you think 2 years is a bit soon to start talking about stagnation?
Actually, what these comments remind me of is circa 2013... When Vivek came in as majority owner he talked a lot about applying his tech business expertise to the NBA. What he seemed to mean in the short-term was a culture of constant agitation, lots of voices in the room, no idea is too stupid to consider (including his own idea of keeping a player in the backcourt full-time for cherry-picking baskets), applying crowd sourcing to personnel decisions, etc. This philosophy led to a series of colossal blunders which the team has barely recovered from. My reaction to the "Fire Mike Brown" discussion is visceral gut level rejection on principal and I think this is why.
I can excuse a certain amount of fans belly aching about the coach's decision-making. That's just part of being a sports fan and I do it too at times. But the idea that we should fire a good coach in order to find a great one is already well-worn territory in Kings land and none of that territory is worth re-living. The Magoofs did it to Rick Adelman (who actually was a great coach, but I digress) and Vivek did it to Mike Malone. In neither case did the team immediately improve -- very much the opposite in fact.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but honest question, when you see a 9th seed finish this year and falling one game short in the play-in tournament as early signs of possible stagnation, did you first consider that 46 wins would have been enough to get us the 4 seed in the previous season? Or that Minnesota and OKC won 42 and 40 games respectively last season before jumping into the high 50s this season? Wouldn't you agree that two consecutive data points is not enough to establish a pattern? If the team comes back next year and wins 40-45 games again that might be a bit worrying but as we stand now I'm not sure that this season's rollercoaster ride of ups and downs can be taken as evidence of anything but a team still figuring itself out with a new core, new GM, and new head coach who have all been together for only 2 years.
While acknowledging the frustration of the many blown leads, bad losses to last place teams, and a late season slide in the standings there was also a lot to be encouraged about this past season: Fox leading the league in steals and improving his 3pt shot enough to jump into the top 10 in scoring, Sabonis leading the league in rebounding and triple-doubles, an undrafted Keon Ellis looking like a potential starter, Keegan Murray showing up among the league leaders in several defensive metrics, the team's overall rank in defensive rating improving from 25th to 14th. Nobody likes the way this season ended but if we look past the end result, a lot of the improvements we were asking for a year ago are there on the individual player level. It's mostly the supporting cast of (non-core) players which needs to be better next year.
Actually, what these comments remind me of is circa 2013... When Vivek came in as majority owner he talked a lot about applying his tech business expertise to the NBA. What he seemed to mean in the short-term was a culture of constant agitation, lots of voices in the room, no idea is too stupid to consider (including his own idea of keeping a player in the backcourt full-time for cherry-picking baskets), applying crowd sourcing to personnel decisions, etc. This philosophy led to a series of colossal blunders which the team has barely recovered from. My reaction to the "Fire Mike Brown" discussion is visceral gut level rejection on principal and I think this is why.
I can excuse a certain amount of fans belly aching about the coach's decision-making. That's just part of being a sports fan and I do it too at times. But the idea that we should fire a good coach in order to find a great one is already well-worn territory in Kings land and none of that territory is worth re-living. The Magoofs did it to Rick Adelman (who actually was a great coach, but I digress) and Vivek did it to Mike Malone. In neither case did the team immediately improve -- very much the opposite in fact.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but honest question, when you see a 9th seed finish this year and falling one game short in the play-in tournament as early signs of possible stagnation, did you first consider that 46 wins would have been enough to get us the 4 seed in the previous season? Or that Minnesota and OKC won 42 and 40 games respectively last season before jumping into the high 50s this season? Wouldn't you agree that two consecutive data points is not enough to establish a pattern? If the team comes back next year and wins 40-45 games again that might be a bit worrying but as we stand now I'm not sure that this season's rollercoaster ride of ups and downs can be taken as evidence of anything but a team still figuring itself out with a new core, new GM, and new head coach who have all been together for only 2 years.
While acknowledging the frustration of the many blown leads, bad losses to last place teams, and a late season slide in the standings there was also a lot to be encouraged about this past season: Fox leading the league in steals and improving his 3pt shot enough to jump into the top 10 in scoring, Sabonis leading the league in rebounding and triple-doubles, an undrafted Keon Ellis looking like a potential starter, Keegan Murray showing up among the league leaders in several defensive metrics, the team's overall rank in defensive rating improving from 25th to 14th. Nobody likes the way this season ended but if we look past the end result, a lot of the improvements we were asking for a year ago are there on the individual player level. It's mostly the supporting cast of (non-core) players which needs to be better next year.
The point of my OP was to express that the Kings have a core of very talented players that appear to be underachieving for some reason. Certainly, there are injuries and off-games, but the search for the reason(s) that goals were not met in the second year was the theme. Regardless of the similar record, an advancement to the second round of the playoffs was a reasonable expectation given a full second year of shared on-court experience. A COY and EOY personnel further justifies this viewpoint.
Monte "ran it back" has been advocated by some as a contributing source. Coach Brown's system, teaching techniques, and philosophy have also been questioned. The upcoming third year of the current organization will expose where weakness(es) lie IF expectations fall short again. I continue to hold the individual players blameless because they are bound to operate under the path set for them by the operating system.
Your post supports some of these points and points in the OP so I agree in general.
Monte "ran it back" has been advocated by some as a contributing source. Coach Brown's system, teaching techniques, and philosophy have also been questioned. The upcoming third year of the current organization will expose where weakness(es) lie IF expectations fall short again. I continue to hold the individual players blameless because they are bound to operate under the path set for them by the operating system.
Your post supports some of these points and points in the OP so I agree in general.
Let me boot up my abacus real quick. Ninety four and, one minute please, seventy. Pretty good considering the weaknesses with our front court reserves. We looked for upgrades with Noel, McGee, and Sasha; but they didn't work. We still need at least two more quality front court reserves that we can feel as good about entering the game as Kevin, Davion, and Ellis.
Did they underachieve though? Fox certainly didn't. Sabonis didn't. Both guys were just as good or better than a year ago when they were both on the All-NBA third team. Monk was better -- runner up for Sixth Man of the Year (an award he should have won). Keegan didn't shoot the ball as well but he was better in every other facet of the game. It goes without saying that Keon Ellis was better. Huerter is the only guy I would consider part of the core who had a down year and only because his 3pt shot wasn't falling for half the season -- probably a statistical anomaly.
It seems you're talking about team success instead but your standard of "reasonable expectation" being advancing to the second round of the playoffs is absurd. 4 teams advance to the second round of the playoffs in each conference. So if we aren't one of the 8 best teams in the league every year we should fire the coach? If that were the case than Mike Malone (Denver), Tom Thibodeau (New York), and Joe Mazzulla (Boston) would be the only NBA head coaches who still have a job right now. Those are the only 3 teams who made it out of the first round in both of the past two seasons.
It seems you're talking about team success instead but your standard of "reasonable expectation" being advancing to the second round of the playoffs is absurd. 4 teams advance to the second round of the playoffs in each conference. So if we aren't one of the 8 best teams in the league every year we should fire the coach? If that were the case than Mike Malone (Denver), Tom Thibodeau (New York), and Joe Mazzulla (Boston) would be the only NBA head coaches who still have a job right now. Those are the only 3 teams who made it out of the first round in both of the past two seasons.
Last edited:
You choose to measure Fox and Sabonis by All-Star game selection. They were not All-Stars this recent season (although snubbed). By that measure, they have underperformed. It is your measure, not mine. Keon was given a chance due to injury...perhaps he would never have emerged while a bench player. Monk was much the same but gained broader recognition of his value. Brown repeatedly mentioned Monk as a 6th man candidate in his first year as coach and Monk's first year as a Kings player. IMO Keegan is being underused and has far more to offer offensively. His college career displayed a multi-talented and multi-faceted set of skills. While the NBA is far from college competition, the seeds are there and need nurturing, just as his defensive skills were. But all that is nitpicking.
At any rate, my measure is the team as an entity. Except for a turn of back luck and untimely injuries, the Kings should have made a second round appearance in the first year of being reformulated. And yet you find it somehow "absurd" to expect making the second round in the second year of playing together while melding and refining their talents. That is simply low expectation defeatism. Or perhaps it is an attempt to excuse the title of this forum's thread.
At any rate, my measure is the team as an entity. Except for a turn of back luck and untimely injuries, the Kings should have made a second round appearance in the first year of being reformulated. And yet you find it somehow "absurd" to expect making the second round in the second year of playing together while melding and refining their talents. That is simply low expectation defeatism. Or perhaps it is an attempt to excuse the title of this forum's thread.
I said nothing about All-Star selections, not sure where you're reading that. I only bring up the All-NBA thing because in 2022-2023 by some measure Fox and Sabonis were among the top 15 players in the league and I think most would say both of their 2023-2024 seasons were better. Do you disagree?
Here's why I say it is absurd to expect your team to be in the final 4 every year. There are currently about 10 teams in the Western Conference who have the same expectation. Just sticking to the West since the East isn't relevant to the Kings making the Conference Semi-Finals, here's the 4 teams who advanced to the second round in each of the last 4 seasons and how many post-season wins they had the following season:
2024: Nuggets, Mavs, Thunder, TWolves
2023: Nuggets* (7 so far), Suns (0), Lakers (1), Warriors (0)
2022: Suns (6), Warriors* (6), Mavs (0), Grizzlies (2)
2021: Jazz (2), Clippers (0), Nuggets (1), Suns (7)
*These teams won Championships that year.
I underlined the teams who won at least 1 playoff series the following year. Of last year's winners, the Suns, Lakers, and Warriors managed just 1 post-season win between them in the 2024 playoffs. Of 2022's top teams, only the Mavs are still playing right now. It's probably also worth pointing out that the Kings did win one post-season game this year and it was against the 2022 champs. Of 2021's top teams, only the Nuggets are still alive in the playoffs right now.
Golden State had that incredible run and Lebron obviously in his prime is the exception to most rules but generally speaking, even for established teams post-season success is fleeting. I don't agree with making that the standard. I was going to go back further but I don't think anything that happened in the 2020 playoff bubble is relevant to this discussion and before that we're talking about vastly different lineups for the most part.
What I would suggest instead if you want a standard for team success would be (1) regular season wins and (2) team offensive and defensive rankings. Why? Because regular season record is a better snapshot of overall team performance than post-season wins where injuries, matchups, and flukey shooting results have an outsized impact and teams which are highly ranked in both offense and defense relative to the rest of the league tend to do well in the post-season.
In 2023-2024 the Kings won 46 games and were ranked 13th in offense and 14th in defense.
In 2022-2023 the Kings won 48 games and were ranked 1st in offense and 25th in defense.
That's the entirety of the Mike Brown era. Here's where we were before that...
2021-2022: 30 wins / ranked 25th in offense and 27th in defense
2020-2021: 31 wins / ranked 11th in offense and 30th in defense
2019-2020: 31 wins / ranked 18th in offense and 20th in defense
2018-2019: 39 wins / ranked 16th in offense and 20th in defense
2017-2018: 29 wins / ranked 29th in offense and 28th in defense
2016-2017: 32 wins / ranked 21st in offense and 25th in defense
2015-2016: 33 wins / ranked 15th in offense and 22nd in defense
2014-2015: 29 wins / ranked 14th in offense and 27th in defense
2013-2014: 28 wins / ranked 20th in offense and 23rd in defense
I'll stop there because this is the start of Vivek's ownership group but I can also tell you that the last time the Kings managed a top 15 finish in defensive rating was the 2005-2006 season under Rick Adelman with Mike Bibby, Peja Stojakovic, and Brad Miller still in the lineup. Now all legitimate gripes aside, I cannot fathom how anyone can look at this and think the best course of action right now is to fire Mike Brown. The drop from 48 wins to 46 wins is trivial. The Monk and Huerter injuries and a couple of blown 20pt leads account for that. Whoops.
But I really want to call attention to that second criterion because contending teams are typically ranked in the top 10 in both offense and defense. At 13th and 14th respectively in offensive and defensive rating this season Mike Brown's 2023-2024 Kings were not that far away from being a legit contender based on regular season performance. And if you expand your scope to include matchup success, the Kings also played well against the 4 teams who wound up being on top in the West this year. The drop in offensive rating may bother some people but Mike Brown made no secrets about sacrificing on offensive efficiency to focus on defense this year and I think that jump from 25th to 14th in defensive rating is evidence that his plan is working.
Here's why I say it is absurd to expect your team to be in the final 4 every year. There are currently about 10 teams in the Western Conference who have the same expectation. Just sticking to the West since the East isn't relevant to the Kings making the Conference Semi-Finals, here's the 4 teams who advanced to the second round in each of the last 4 seasons and how many post-season wins they had the following season:
2024: Nuggets, Mavs, Thunder, TWolves
2023: Nuggets* (7 so far), Suns (0), Lakers (1), Warriors (0)
2022: Suns (6), Warriors* (6), Mavs (0), Grizzlies (2)
2021: Jazz (2), Clippers (0), Nuggets (1), Suns (7)
*These teams won Championships that year.
I underlined the teams who won at least 1 playoff series the following year. Of last year's winners, the Suns, Lakers, and Warriors managed just 1 post-season win between them in the 2024 playoffs. Of 2022's top teams, only the Mavs are still playing right now. It's probably also worth pointing out that the Kings did win one post-season game this year and it was against the 2022 champs. Of 2021's top teams, only the Nuggets are still alive in the playoffs right now.
Golden State had that incredible run and Lebron obviously in his prime is the exception to most rules but generally speaking, even for established teams post-season success is fleeting. I don't agree with making that the standard. I was going to go back further but I don't think anything that happened in the 2020 playoff bubble is relevant to this discussion and before that we're talking about vastly different lineups for the most part.
What I would suggest instead if you want a standard for team success would be (1) regular season wins and (2) team offensive and defensive rankings. Why? Because regular season record is a better snapshot of overall team performance than post-season wins where injuries, matchups, and flukey shooting results have an outsized impact and teams which are highly ranked in both offense and defense relative to the rest of the league tend to do well in the post-season.
In 2023-2024 the Kings won 46 games and were ranked 13th in offense and 14th in defense.
In 2022-2023 the Kings won 48 games and were ranked 1st in offense and 25th in defense.
That's the entirety of the Mike Brown era. Here's where we were before that...
2021-2022: 30 wins / ranked 25th in offense and 27th in defense
2020-2021: 31 wins / ranked 11th in offense and 30th in defense
2019-2020: 31 wins / ranked 18th in offense and 20th in defense
2018-2019: 39 wins / ranked 16th in offense and 20th in defense
2017-2018: 29 wins / ranked 29th in offense and 28th in defense
2016-2017: 32 wins / ranked 21st in offense and 25th in defense
2015-2016: 33 wins / ranked 15th in offense and 22nd in defense
2014-2015: 29 wins / ranked 14th in offense and 27th in defense
2013-2014: 28 wins / ranked 20th in offense and 23rd in defense
I'll stop there because this is the start of Vivek's ownership group but I can also tell you that the last time the Kings managed a top 15 finish in defensive rating was the 2005-2006 season under Rick Adelman with Mike Bibby, Peja Stojakovic, and Brad Miller still in the lineup. Now all legitimate gripes aside, I cannot fathom how anyone can look at this and think the best course of action right now is to fire Mike Brown. The drop from 48 wins to 46 wins is trivial. The Monk and Huerter injuries and a couple of blown 20pt leads account for that. Whoops.
But I really want to call attention to that second criterion because contending teams are typically ranked in the top 10 in both offense and defense. At 13th and 14th respectively in offensive and defensive rating this season Mike Brown's 2023-2024 Kings were not that far away from being a legit contender based on regular season performance. And if you expand your scope to include matchup success, the Kings also played well against the 4 teams who wound up being on top in the West this year. The drop in offensive rating may bother some people but Mike Brown made no secrets about sacrificing on offensive efficiency to focus on defense this year and I think that jump from 25th to 14th in defensive rating is evidence that his plan is working.
Last edited:
Agree that All NBA was misconstrued as All Star selection.
We differ in how to evaluate a team and its coach's performance. Statistics are measures that can be manipulated to serve nearly any postulation, as you well know. Further, valid statistics are based on constants with controlled variables, and there are only thinly related constants and uncontrolled variables in what was presented in your post. As you have stated, different owners, coaches, players, and injuries are variables that skew statistics and diminish their meaning. Of course, there are individuals that worship statistical information and they have their place. Those that set odds for game wagering heavily rely on them.
The assumption that the Kings are expected to advance into the second playoff round "EVERY" year is a straw man argument that was never alleged. However, being in the first round and so close to advancing to the second round in year one generates a very logical expectation that, with more team experience, a second round appearance is reasonable in year two. Then to fail to make the playoff at all in year two generates disappointment. I would venture to state that many on this forum share the disappointment.
As you also mention, the year one and year two records are similar enough to be insignificantly different. And you advocate that this is one true measure of team's success. Thus, the Kings have maintained a status quo, or stagnation, as it were. Those calling for maintaining the coach for the purpose of team stability can expect the stagnation to continue (based on statistics
). If mediocrity is the goal, then that is the certain way to achieve it. Monte may make an attempt to alter this path.
As far as defense and offense ranking being a valid measure of team success, those statistics are also variable based on the performance of the league's other teams. A team could post the same exact rating data as a previous year and be ranked vastly differently. (Similarly, the Kings posted nearly the same win/loss record and the results were quite different due to other team's performance.)
In the case of the Kings defensive rating, it benefitted from Keegan's off season work with Fox rather than direct coaching contact, Keon's emergence was a forced move, due to injury, that gave light to the skills he possessed but were suppressed by sitting on the bench aside from brief appearances. These two amazing players contributed strongly to an improved defense. To characterize this improvement as a validation of "Brown's plan" is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, the "Mike Brown era" is so convoluted with change that there is no reasonable way to evaluate his performance without noting the different conditions and talent Brown was presented over the status in prior years. This coming third year will be the revelation if there are no dramatic modifications of the current situation. I sincerely hope the results in the coming season justify the confidence several on the forum have expressed.
Note: I appreciate the research, time, and effort you spent constructing your detailed post.
We differ in how to evaluate a team and its coach's performance. Statistics are measures that can be manipulated to serve nearly any postulation, as you well know. Further, valid statistics are based on constants with controlled variables, and there are only thinly related constants and uncontrolled variables in what was presented in your post. As you have stated, different owners, coaches, players, and injuries are variables that skew statistics and diminish their meaning. Of course, there are individuals that worship statistical information and they have their place. Those that set odds for game wagering heavily rely on them.
The assumption that the Kings are expected to advance into the second playoff round "EVERY" year is a straw man argument that was never alleged. However, being in the first round and so close to advancing to the second round in year one generates a very logical expectation that, with more team experience, a second round appearance is reasonable in year two. Then to fail to make the playoff at all in year two generates disappointment. I would venture to state that many on this forum share the disappointment.
As you also mention, the year one and year two records are similar enough to be insignificantly different. And you advocate that this is one true measure of team's success. Thus, the Kings have maintained a status quo, or stagnation, as it were. Those calling for maintaining the coach for the purpose of team stability can expect the stagnation to continue (based on statistics
). If mediocrity is the goal, then that is the certain way to achieve it. Monte may make an attempt to alter this path.As far as defense and offense ranking being a valid measure of team success, those statistics are also variable based on the performance of the league's other teams. A team could post the same exact rating data as a previous year and be ranked vastly differently. (Similarly, the Kings posted nearly the same win/loss record and the results were quite different due to other team's performance.)
In the case of the Kings defensive rating, it benefitted from Keegan's off season work with Fox rather than direct coaching contact, Keon's emergence was a forced move, due to injury, that gave light to the skills he possessed but were suppressed by sitting on the bench aside from brief appearances. These two amazing players contributed strongly to an improved defense. To characterize this improvement as a validation of "Brown's plan" is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, the "Mike Brown era" is so convoluted with change that there is no reasonable way to evaluate his performance without noting the different conditions and talent Brown was presented over the status in prior years. This coming third year will be the revelation if there are no dramatic modifications of the current situation. I sincerely hope the results in the coming season justify the confidence several on the forum have expressed.
Note: I appreciate the research, time, and effort you spent constructing your detailed post.
Agree that All NBA was misconstrued as All Star selection.
We differ in how to evaluate a team and its coach's performance. Statistics are measures that can be manipulated to serve nearly any postulation, as you well know. Further, valid statistics are based on constants with controlled variables, and there are only thinly related constants and uncontrolled variables in what was presented in your post. As you have stated, different owners, coaches, players, and injuries are variables that skew statistics and diminish their meaning. Of course, there are individuals that worship statistical information and they have their place. Those that set odds for game wagering heavily rely on them.
The assumption that the Kings are expected to advance into the second playoff round "EVERY" year is a straw man argument that was never alleged. However, being in the first round and so close to advancing to the second round in year one generates a very logical expectation that, with more team experience, a second round appearance is reasonable in year two. Then to fail to make the playoff at all in year two generates disappointment. I would venture to state that many on this forum share the disappointment.
As you also mention, the year one and year two records are similar enough to be insignificantly different. And you advocate that this is one true measure of team's success. Thus, the Kings have maintained a status quo, or stagnation, as it were. Those calling for maintaining the coach for the purpose of team stability can expect the stagnation to continue (based on statistics). If mediocrity is the goal, then that is the certain way to achieve it. Monte may make an attempt to alter this path.
As far as defense and offense ranking being a valid measure of team success, those statistics are also variable based on the performance of the league's other teams. A team could post the same exact rating data as a previous year and be ranked vastly differently. (Similarly, the Kings posted nearly the same win/loss record and the results were quite different due to other team's performance.)
In the case of the Kings defensive rating, it benefitted from Keegan's off season work with Fox rather than direct coaching contact, Keon's emergence was a forced move, due to injury, that gave light to the skills he possessed but were suppressed by sitting on the bench aside from brief appearances. These two amazing players contributed strongly to an improved defense. To characterize this improvement as a validation of "Brown's plan" is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, the "Mike Brown era" is so convoluted with change that there is no reasonable way to evaluate his performance without noting the different conditions and talent Brown was presented over the status in prior years. This coming third year will be the revelation if there are no dramatic modifications of the current situation. I sincerely hope the results in the coming season justify the confidence several on the forum have expressed.
Note: I appreciate the research, time, and effort you spent constructing your detailed post.
We differ in how to evaluate a team and its coach's performance. Statistics are measures that can be manipulated to serve nearly any postulation, as you well know. Further, valid statistics are based on constants with controlled variables, and there are only thinly related constants and uncontrolled variables in what was presented in your post. As you have stated, different owners, coaches, players, and injuries are variables that skew statistics and diminish their meaning. Of course, there are individuals that worship statistical information and they have their place. Those that set odds for game wagering heavily rely on them.
The assumption that the Kings are expected to advance into the second playoff round "EVERY" year is a straw man argument that was never alleged. However, being in the first round and so close to advancing to the second round in year one generates a very logical expectation that, with more team experience, a second round appearance is reasonable in year two. Then to fail to make the playoff at all in year two generates disappointment. I would venture to state that many on this forum share the disappointment.
As you also mention, the year one and year two records are similar enough to be insignificantly different. And you advocate that this is one true measure of team's success. Thus, the Kings have maintained a status quo, or stagnation, as it were. Those calling for maintaining the coach for the purpose of team stability can expect the stagnation to continue (based on statistics
). If mediocrity is the goal, then that is the certain way to achieve it. Monte may make an attempt to alter this path.As far as defense and offense ranking being a valid measure of team success, those statistics are also variable based on the performance of the league's other teams. A team could post the same exact rating data as a previous year and be ranked vastly differently. (Similarly, the Kings posted nearly the same win/loss record and the results were quite different due to other team's performance.)
In the case of the Kings defensive rating, it benefitted from Keegan's off season work with Fox rather than direct coaching contact, Keon's emergence was a forced move, due to injury, that gave light to the skills he possessed but were suppressed by sitting on the bench aside from brief appearances. These two amazing players contributed strongly to an improved defense. To characterize this improvement as a validation of "Brown's plan" is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, the "Mike Brown era" is so convoluted with change that there is no reasonable way to evaluate his performance without noting the different conditions and talent Brown was presented over the status in prior years. This coming third year will be the revelation if there are no dramatic modifications of the current situation. I sincerely hope the results in the coming season justify the confidence several on the forum have expressed.
Note: I appreciate the research, time, and effort you spent constructing your detailed post.
In your case, you seemingly give Brown zero credit for Keegan's defensive improvement or Keon's development, or his insertion into the starting lineup.
The flip side is attributing MOST of that development to the coach or staff. During the peak Spurs years I think Pop (who is absolutely a HOF coach, don't get me wrong) got probably more credit than he deserved.
And two things can be true. In this case I believe that this is both the most talented Kings roster in quite a long time and also that it isn't talented enough to truly compete in the west.
The West being stronger, the Kings having more injury issues, and Fox not being as insane in the clutch all caused a minor regression. It was disappointing and Brown isn't without blame (I found some of his rotations frustrating as pretty much all fans do with all coaches) but I'm not sure any of the main drivers of the Kings slipping back a bit can be laid at Brown's feet.
Agree that All NBA was misconstrued as All Star selection.
We differ in how to evaluate a team and its coach's performance. Statistics are measures that can be manipulated to serve nearly any postulation, as you well know. Further, valid statistics are based on constants with controlled variables, and there are only thinly related constants and uncontrolled variables in what was presented in your post. As you have stated, different owners, coaches, players, and injuries are variables that skew statistics and diminish their meaning. Of course, there are individuals that worship statistical information and they have their place. Those that set odds for game wagering heavily rely on them.
The assumption that the Kings are expected to advance into the second playoff round "EVERY" year is a straw man argument that was never alleged. However, being in the first round and so close to advancing to the second round in year one generates a very logical expectation that, with more team experience, a second round appearance is reasonable in year two. Then to fail to make the playoff at all in year two generates disappointment. I would venture to state that many on this forum share the disappointment.
As you also mention, the year one and year two records are similar enough to be insignificantly different. And you advocate that this is one true measure of team's success. Thus, the Kings have maintained a status quo, or stagnation, as it were. Those calling for maintaining the coach for the purpose of team stability can expect the stagnation to continue (based on statistics). If mediocrity is the goal, then that is the certain way to achieve it. Monte may make an attempt to alter this path.
As far as defense and offense ranking being a valid measure of team success, those statistics are also variable based on the performance of the league's other teams. A team could post the same exact rating data as a previous year and be ranked vastly differently. (Similarly, the Kings posted nearly the same win/loss record and the results were quite different due to other team's performance.)
In the case of the Kings defensive rating, it benefitted from Keegan's off season work with Fox rather than direct coaching contact, Keon's emergence was a forced move, due to injury, that gave light to the skills he possessed but were suppressed by sitting on the bench aside from brief appearances. These two amazing players contributed strongly to an improved defense. To characterize this improvement as a validation of "Brown's plan" is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, the "Mike Brown era" is so convoluted with change that there is no reasonable way to evaluate his performance without noting the different conditions and talent Brown was presented over the status in prior years. This coming third year will be the revelation if there are no dramatic modifications of the current situation. I sincerely hope the results in the coming season justify the confidence several on the forum have expressed.
Note: I appreciate the research, time, and effort you spent constructing your detailed post.
We differ in how to evaluate a team and its coach's performance. Statistics are measures that can be manipulated to serve nearly any postulation, as you well know. Further, valid statistics are based on constants with controlled variables, and there are only thinly related constants and uncontrolled variables in what was presented in your post. As you have stated, different owners, coaches, players, and injuries are variables that skew statistics and diminish their meaning. Of course, there are individuals that worship statistical information and they have their place. Those that set odds for game wagering heavily rely on them.
The assumption that the Kings are expected to advance into the second playoff round "EVERY" year is a straw man argument that was never alleged. However, being in the first round and so close to advancing to the second round in year one generates a very logical expectation that, with more team experience, a second round appearance is reasonable in year two. Then to fail to make the playoff at all in year two generates disappointment. I would venture to state that many on this forum share the disappointment.
As you also mention, the year one and year two records are similar enough to be insignificantly different. And you advocate that this is one true measure of team's success. Thus, the Kings have maintained a status quo, or stagnation, as it were. Those calling for maintaining the coach for the purpose of team stability can expect the stagnation to continue (based on statistics
). If mediocrity is the goal, then that is the certain way to achieve it. Monte may make an attempt to alter this path.As far as defense and offense ranking being a valid measure of team success, those statistics are also variable based on the performance of the league's other teams. A team could post the same exact rating data as a previous year and be ranked vastly differently. (Similarly, the Kings posted nearly the same win/loss record and the results were quite different due to other team's performance.)
In the case of the Kings defensive rating, it benefitted from Keegan's off season work with Fox rather than direct coaching contact, Keon's emergence was a forced move, due to injury, that gave light to the skills he possessed but were suppressed by sitting on the bench aside from brief appearances. These two amazing players contributed strongly to an improved defense. To characterize this improvement as a validation of "Brown's plan" is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, the "Mike Brown era" is so convoluted with change that there is no reasonable way to evaluate his performance without noting the different conditions and talent Brown was presented over the status in prior years. This coming third year will be the revelation if there are no dramatic modifications of the current situation. I sincerely hope the results in the coming season justify the confidence several on the forum have expressed.
Note: I appreciate the research, time, and effort you spent constructing your detailed post.
I also enjoy a good back and forth debate and appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic. I think we're largely on the same page as far as understanding each other's points of view but there's a couple points here I want to address where there seems to be a slight misunderstanding.I know you're not arguing that the Kings need to make the 2nd round of the playoffs every year but you are arguing that they should have made it this year. And I think those two arguments are close enough that you can't argue for one of them without arguing the other. So in this context I don't think my response is a straw man, what I'm aiming for is a reductio ad absurdum -- if it's reasonable for the Kings to expect progress from one year to the next than it's also reasonable for other NBA teams in our conference to expect the same. How does this play out?
The Nuggets, Suns, Lakers, and Warriors all made the Conference Semi's in 2023 and are all-in on their current rosters so anything less than that this season would be a disappointment. The Grizzlies, Kings, Clippers, and TWolves all lost in the first round last year and aside from the Grizzlies (with the Ja Morant suspension looming) these teams expected more in 2024. So we're up to 7 teams for 4 slots. OKC, Denver, and Minnesota all won more than 55 games in the regular season. If you win that many games, losing in the first round would be a big disappointment right? So now we're up to 9 teams for 4 slots. And let's throw in Dallas too. With Doncic and Kyrie, any year they don't get out of the first round is a disappointment. 60% of these teams are going to be disappointed regardless of the outcome and I don't think that number changes next year. Maybe the Warriors fall out of this category but the Grizzlies likely come back in.
On your next point I'll just reiterate what I said before that two years is not long enough to invoke the concept of stagnation. I understand that you were arguing that this could be an early sign of stagnation, not that it is already stagnation but to me this is tautological. If you're constructing a logic puzzle you need three data points before you have a pattern. At this point the only thing I would confidently say about Mike Brown coaching the Kings in relation to regular season record is that Mike Brown with these players appears to have a floor of around 44-48 wins. I can live with that coming off of nearly two decades of awful.
And lastly, I think you misread the way I used the offensive and defensive ratings. Those numbers are not the ratings themselves they are our ranking out of all 30 NBA teams. The performance of the Kings relative to other teams is what is being accounted for here. In fact, I think the offensive and defensive ratings on basketball-reference.com are practically useless on their own because there are so many team-dependent variables involved. The only thing I use those numbers for is comparing teams relative to each other and that's only because I've looked at those numbers in relation to a team's playoff success year to year and I think there is a significant degree of correlation: when a team finishes a full season ranked in the top 10 in both offense and defense they typically win at least one playoff series.
It's not perfect because schedules aren't balanced -- teams play more games against their own division and conference. If you want to go the extra step of incorporating strength of schedule, the Kings ranked #1 this season in SOS so that only helps my case. While the record went down (or stagnated) the relative rankings of both offense and defense improved so progress was made. It's worth emphasizing here that it needs to be a top 10 ranking in both so our #1 ranking in offense last season was almost entirely off-set (negatively) by the #25 ranking in defense.
Generally speaking, I'm not someone who thinks stats stand on their own as arguments -- a lot of nuance and interpretation is required to use them appropriately and at that point we're leaving the land of hard facts and entering the vague realm of subjective opinion. There is no right answer here, it' just a matter of where you draw the line for acceptable performance in an NBA head coach. Obviously the head coach doesn't make the roster but they are responsible for extracting the best performance possible from whatever players are in front of them. Has Mike Brown done that?
I had some concerns this year -- chief among them being the over-emphasis on 3pt shooting which had negative trickle down effects for both offense and defense. But that's only part of the head coach's role. More important, I think, than actual X's and O's is how a head coach establishes a tone and how they hold players accountable game-to-game and within the game. In my opinion Mike Brown manages to gracefully tread the line between being a player's coach and a disciplinarian. The guys obviously like playing for him but he doesn't hold back when he thinks criticism is warranted. And when you get down to it, no NBA head coach is perfect just like no player is perfect.
Bottom Line (tldr) -- The real question worth asking is whether there is another head coach who: (1) is available (2) wants to come to Sacramento (3) won't upset the team culture -- nobody wants another George Karl fiasco (4) will be able to work with these players and extract better performance from them. If there is no obvious candidate than I'll go with possible stagnation (balanced against obvious defensive progress) over complete uncertainty.
Last edited:
No worries! I also enjoy a good back and forth debate and appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic. I think we're largely on the same page as far as understanding each other's points of view but there's a couple points here I want to address where there seems to be a slight misunderstanding.
I know you're not arguing that the Kings need to make the 2nd round of the playoffs every year but you are arguing that they should have made it this year. And I think those two arguments are close enough that you can't argue for one of them without arguing the other. So in this context I don't think my response is a straw man, what I'm aiming for is a reductio ad absurdum -- if it's reasonable for the Kings to expect progress from one year to the next than it's also reasonable for other NBA teams in our conference to expect the same. How does this play out?
The Nuggets, Suns, Lakers, and Warriors all made the Conference Semi's in 2023 and are all-in on their current rosters so anything less than that this season would be a disappointment. The Grizzlies, Kings, Clippers, and TWolves all lost in the first round last year and aside from the Grizzlies (with the Ja Morant suspension looming) these teams expected more in 2024. So we're up to 7 teams for 4 slots. OKC, Denver, and Minnesota all won more than 55 games in the regular season. If you win that many games, losing in the first round would be a big disappointment right? So now we're up to 9 teams for 4 slots. And let's throw in Dallas too. With Doncic and Kyrie, any year they don't get out of the first round is a disappointment. 60% of these teams are going to be disappointed regardless of the outcome and I don't think that number changes next year.
On your next point I'll just reiterate what I said before that two years is not long enough to invoke the concept of stagnation. I understand that you were arguing that this could be an early sign of stagnation, not that it is already stagnation but to me this is tautological. If you're constructing a logic puzzle you need three data points before you have a pattern. At this point the only thing I would confidently say about Mike Brown coaching the Kings in relation to regular season record is that Mike Brown with these players appears to have a floor of around 44-48 wins. I can live with that coming off of nearly two decades of awful.
And lastly, I think you misread the way I used the offensive and defensive ratings. Those numbers are not the ratings themselves they are our ranking out of all 30 NBA teams. The performance of the Kings relative to other teams is what is being accounted for here. In fact, I think the offensive and defensive ratings on basketball-reference.com are practically useless on their own because there are so many team-dependent variables involved. The only thing I use those numbers for is comparing teams relative to each other and that's only because I've looked at those numbers in relation to a team's playoff success year to year and I think there is a significant degree of correlation: when a team finishes a full season ranked in the top 10 in both offense and defense they typically win at least one playoff series.
It's not perfect because schedules aren't balanced -- teams play more games against their own division and conference. If you want to go the extra step of incorporating strength of schedule, the Kings ranked #1 this season in SOS so that only helps my case. While the record went down (or stagnated) the relative rankings of both offense and defense improved so progress was made. It's worth emphasizing here that it needs to be a top 10 ranking in both so our #1 ranking in offense last season was almost entirely off-set (negatively) by the #25 ranking in defense.
Generally speaking, I'm not someone who thinks stats stand on their own as arguments -- a lot of nuance and interpretation is required to use them appropriately and at that point we're leaving the land of hard facts and entering the vague realm of subjective opinion. There is no right answer here, it' just a matter of where you draw the line for acceptable performance in an NBA head coach. Obviously the head coach doesn't make the roster but they are responsible for extracting the best performance possible from whatever players are in front of them. Has Mike Brown done that?
I had some concerns this year -- chief among them being the over-emphasis on 3pt shooting which had negative trickle down effects for both offense and defense. But that's only part of the head coach's role. More important, I think, than actual X's and O's is how a head coach establishes a tone and how they hold players accountable game-to-game and within the game. In my opinion Mike Brown manages to gracefully thread the line between being a player's coach and a disciplinarian. The guys obviously like playing for him but he doesn't hold back when he thinks criticism is warranted. And when you get down to it, no NBA head coach is perfect just like no player is perfect.
Bottom Line (tldr) -- The real question worth asking is whether there is another head coach who: (1) is available (2) wants to come to Sacramento (3) won't upset the team culture -- nobody wants another George Karl fiasco (4) will be able to work with these players and extract better performance from them. If there is no obvious candidate than I'll go with possible stagnation (balanced against obvious defensive progress) over complete uncertainty.
I also enjoy a good back and forth debate and appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic. I think we're largely on the same page as far as understanding each other's points of view but there's a couple points here I want to address where there seems to be a slight misunderstanding.I know you're not arguing that the Kings need to make the 2nd round of the playoffs every year but you are arguing that they should have made it this year. And I think those two arguments are close enough that you can't argue for one of them without arguing the other. So in this context I don't think my response is a straw man, what I'm aiming for is a reductio ad absurdum -- if it's reasonable for the Kings to expect progress from one year to the next than it's also reasonable for other NBA teams in our conference to expect the same. How does this play out?
The Nuggets, Suns, Lakers, and Warriors all made the Conference Semi's in 2023 and are all-in on their current rosters so anything less than that this season would be a disappointment. The Grizzlies, Kings, Clippers, and TWolves all lost in the first round last year and aside from the Grizzlies (with the Ja Morant suspension looming) these teams expected more in 2024. So we're up to 7 teams for 4 slots. OKC, Denver, and Minnesota all won more than 55 games in the regular season. If you win that many games, losing in the first round would be a big disappointment right? So now we're up to 9 teams for 4 slots. And let's throw in Dallas too. With Doncic and Kyrie, any year they don't get out of the first round is a disappointment. 60% of these teams are going to be disappointed regardless of the outcome and I don't think that number changes next year.
On your next point I'll just reiterate what I said before that two years is not long enough to invoke the concept of stagnation. I understand that you were arguing that this could be an early sign of stagnation, not that it is already stagnation but to me this is tautological. If you're constructing a logic puzzle you need three data points before you have a pattern. At this point the only thing I would confidently say about Mike Brown coaching the Kings in relation to regular season record is that Mike Brown with these players appears to have a floor of around 44-48 wins. I can live with that coming off of nearly two decades of awful.
And lastly, I think you misread the way I used the offensive and defensive ratings. Those numbers are not the ratings themselves they are our ranking out of all 30 NBA teams. The performance of the Kings relative to other teams is what is being accounted for here. In fact, I think the offensive and defensive ratings on basketball-reference.com are practically useless on their own because there are so many team-dependent variables involved. The only thing I use those numbers for is comparing teams relative to each other and that's only because I've looked at those numbers in relation to a team's playoff success year to year and I think there is a significant degree of correlation: when a team finishes a full season ranked in the top 10 in both offense and defense they typically win at least one playoff series.
It's not perfect because schedules aren't balanced -- teams play more games against their own division and conference. If you want to go the extra step of incorporating strength of schedule, the Kings ranked #1 this season in SOS so that only helps my case. While the record went down (or stagnated) the relative rankings of both offense and defense improved so progress was made. It's worth emphasizing here that it needs to be a top 10 ranking in both so our #1 ranking in offense last season was almost entirely off-set (negatively) by the #25 ranking in defense.
Generally speaking, I'm not someone who thinks stats stand on their own as arguments -- a lot of nuance and interpretation is required to use them appropriately and at that point we're leaving the land of hard facts and entering the vague realm of subjective opinion. There is no right answer here, it' just a matter of where you draw the line for acceptable performance in an NBA head coach. Obviously the head coach doesn't make the roster but they are responsible for extracting the best performance possible from whatever players are in front of them. Has Mike Brown done that?
I had some concerns this year -- chief among them being the over-emphasis on 3pt shooting which had negative trickle down effects for both offense and defense. But that's only part of the head coach's role. More important, I think, than actual X's and O's is how a head coach establishes a tone and how they hold players accountable game-to-game and within the game. In my opinion Mike Brown manages to gracefully thread the line between being a player's coach and a disciplinarian. The guys obviously like playing for him but he doesn't hold back when he thinks criticism is warranted. And when you get down to it, no NBA head coach is perfect just like no player is perfect.
Bottom Line (tldr) -- The real question worth asking is whether there is another head coach who: (1) is available (2) wants to come to Sacramento (3) won't upset the team culture -- nobody wants another George Karl fiasco (4) will be able to work with these players and extract better performance from them. If there is no obvious candidate than I'll go with possible stagnation (balanced against obvious defensive progress) over complete uncertainty.
One minor issue remains. A "reasonable expectation" and "should" are not synonyms in my opinion. "Should" is more of a demand word, as in "you should follow laws". Whereas "reasonable expectation" has a much softer connotation, as in "if you don't follow laws it is a reasonable expectation that you might be arrested".
Thus, given the Kings performance in year one of the current regime, it was reasonable to expect the possibility of further advancement in year two (especially with COY and EOY in house). It certainly was not an "unreasonable expectaion"...that leaves "reasonable" by default.
Contrarily, a rebuilding team or poor performing team do not have such an expectation at a "reasonable" level.
Fair enough. And your point about expectations being raised when you have the EoY and CoY winners in your organization is a good one. My only counter-argument here is that if there are 10 teams in our conference who all might reasonably expect the same level of performance for whatever reason -- how disappointed should we be when we fall short? As a Kings fan I'm also disappointed that we didn't even make the first round of the playoffs -- especially when that appeared very much within reach at the trade deadline. But within the context of the rest of the league, every team who did advance this year was a tough out.
And I also didn't think Monte made the roster adjustments that he needed to make last off-season relative to our competition so the seeds were sown for this result 8 months ago. I'm not going to start a fire Monte McNair thread or anything because I think it takes time to upgrade a roster and with the salary cap to consider and the trade and free agent markets being vastly different year to year, progress isn't ever going to be linear. I just hope he does a better job identifying opportunities to improve the roster this off-season.
And your point about expectations being raised when you have the EoY and CoY winners in your organization is a good one. My only counter-argument here is that if there are 10 teams in our conference who all might reasonably expect the same level of performance for whatever reason -- how disappointed should we be when we fall short? As a Kings fan I'm also disappointed that we didn't even make the first round of the playoffs -- especially when that appeared very much within reach at the trade deadline. But within the context of the rest of the league, every team who did advance this year was a tough out.And I also didn't think Monte made the roster adjustments that he needed to make last off-season relative to our competition so the seeds were sown for this result 8 months ago. I'm not going to start a fire Monte McNair thread or anything because I think it takes time to upgrade a roster and with the salary cap to consider and the trade and free agent markets being vastly different year to year, progress isn't ever going to be linear. I just hope he does a better job identifying opportunities to improve the roster this off-season.
