[Game] 21/82: Kings vs. Spurs 01 DEC 2024, 6pm PT/9pm ET
- Thread starter Mr. S£im Citrus
- Start date
- Status
I really think considering unloading Fox is a huge mistake that would have ramifications for years. The rest of the league knows how good he is despite the team not getting the respect from the refs. No player of quality would even consider coming here for years to come because of a move like that. It would be be Kangz 2.0. There is no reason to think that Fox would walk. He’s not that kind of guy. Look at Sabonis and Monk. They chose to stay for less money and then add in that the fact that DeRozan chose to sign with us.
Now, on the other hand, at this point, I’m willing to trade anyone else not named Fox on this team to bring in some length and athleticism that can actually play basketball and defend.
Right now we are losing games by a couple of points with an occasional blowout. I’m not willing to blow it all up because we are trying to fight through a rough patch like every team does. Our rough patch just has come in the beginning of the season. We have a new guy being integrated in to the system, two guys that were hurt and have struggled coming back from their injuries at some level and our first round pick which hasn’t played a game. It’s frustrating right now I know but I say, stay the course…for now
Now, on the other hand, at this point, I’m willing to trade anyone else not named Fox on this team to bring in some length and athleticism that can actually play basketball and defend.
Right now we are losing games by a couple of points with an occasional blowout. I’m not willing to blow it all up because we are trying to fight through a rough patch like every team does. Our rough patch just has come in the beginning of the season. We have a new guy being integrated in to the system, two guys that were hurt and have struggled coming back from their injuries at some level and our first round pick which hasn’t played a game. It’s frustrating right now I know but I say, stay the course…for now
if the Kings finish below .500 he will ask for a trade IMO. I don’t think he wants that AT ALL, but he has shown he will make the tough decisions like leaving his friends agency for Clutch. He is in his prime and wants to maximize his career. Domas isn’t going to fit every system so finding a trade partner that maximizes his value is tough. Trading Keegan means including draft capital and having no wing defense. Deebo has value but only to certain teams. If we have to make a tear down, and believe me I desperately don’t want that to happen, it probably has to be Fox. Plus his contract number is easier to match now than it will be on the next contract. My fingers are crossed we turn it around and this doesn’t happen
But the Kings built that lead in the first place by pounding the ball inside and forcing the Spurs to shoot outside jumpers. Until the officiating flipped in the final quarter and the Spurs were allowed to become the more aggressive team. I would be mad at the Kings for abandoning the style of play that built them their lead but I don't think they had any choice in the matter. They were put in the foul penalty with 9 minutes to go in the game.
And the point I was trying to make is that no defensive scheme in the NBA can stop everything. If you crash down you give up outside jumpers. If you play over and deny shooters their space then you're vulnerable on the inside. We're playing a 6'8" and 6'10" front line defense against a center who can nearly dunk the ball without jumping. Crashing down is a strategic choice. It's fair to argue that it's the wrong strategic choice -- as nearly everyone is...
And maybe before the game I would remind the players that the last time we played this team they shot 22 for 46 from three. Hey, let's not lose that way again guys. But when the Kings had a 14 pt lead after the first quarter (nearly a 17 point lead if not for the Spurs making a 40 foot heave at the buzzer) and a 7 pt lead at the half -- to me that's not the right time to criticize the strategy. For the whole season? Sure. We suck defending the three and we're a losing team so this defensive strategy is suspect. For this game? The scoreboard says it wasn't a problem in the first half. I can't speak to the second half because the officials took over the game in the 4th when the outcome was still up in the air.
I'm not wedded to any particular style of offense or defense. But I think when you look at a team whose best players are Fox, Sabonis, and DeRozan you're probably not expecting them to win with 3pt shooting. We still need some shooting to stay competitive but Keegan and Huerter are slumping, Monk has been injured, and Ellis is typically not a high volume shooter. Unfortunate for us, but that is what it is. In light of this, I think all the Kings can control is the next game. One game at a time, get a win any way you can. When the Kings lose by 2 pts after a string of unfortunate calls and no calls I'm not ready to say that they blew the game regardless of what the shooting percentages say. Because stats aren't the end all be all of the game. They are one measure of what took place but a whole lot of what allows a team to win a basketball game does not show up in a Box Score. To just look at that one number and say "the Kings blew it" to me is really missing the forest for the trees. Or the offense for the threes in this case, I guess.
And the point I was trying to make is that no defensive scheme in the NBA can stop everything. If you crash down you give up outside jumpers. If you play over and deny shooters their space then you're vulnerable on the inside. We're playing a 6'8" and 6'10" front line defense against a center who can nearly dunk the ball without jumping. Crashing down is a strategic choice. It's fair to argue that it's the wrong strategic choice -- as nearly everyone is...
And maybe before the game I would remind the players that the last time we played this team they shot 22 for 46 from three. Hey, let's not lose that way again guys. But when the Kings had a 14 pt lead after the first quarter (nearly a 17 point lead if not for the Spurs making a 40 foot heave at the buzzer) and a 7 pt lead at the half -- to me that's not the right time to criticize the strategy. For the whole season? Sure. We suck defending the three and we're a losing team so this defensive strategy is suspect. For this game? The scoreboard says it wasn't a problem in the first half. I can't speak to the second half because the officials took over the game in the 4th when the outcome was still up in the air.
I'm not wedded to any particular style of offense or defense. But I think when you look at a team whose best players are Fox, Sabonis, and DeRozan you're probably not expecting them to win with 3pt shooting. We still need some shooting to stay competitive but Keegan and Huerter are slumping, Monk has been injured, and Ellis is typically not a high volume shooter. Unfortunate for us, but that is what it is. In light of this, I think all the Kings can control is the next game. One game at a time, get a win any way you can. When the Kings lose by 2 pts after a string of unfortunate calls and no calls I'm not ready to say that they blew the game regardless of what the shooting percentages say. Because stats aren't the end all be all of the game. They are one measure of what took place but a whole lot of what allows a team to win a basketball game does not show up in a Box Score. To just look at that one number and say "the Kings blew it" to me is really missing the forest for the trees. Or the offense for the threes in this case, I guess.
I was at tonight’s game.
It’s the three ball again. It’s one thing that the Kings don’t make a lot of threes themselves. But to be pretty much the worst in defending it tells me this season will continue to be disappointing unless there is some big changes.
But I don’t know how much meaningful improvement we can realistically expect in the defensive side of the things. We’re at a place now where teams set season highs seemingly every other game.
We can expect the Kings to shoot the three a little better themselves but I’m expecting at the least a -20 from behind the arch every night at this point.
But this team has definitely stagnated and it’s depressing watching these teams like San Antonio and Houston pass us up when 2 years ago we were hopeful the Kings were on the trajectory to being real contenders by now. But just an unbalanced roster and front office that may be out of ideas.
It’s the three ball again. It’s one thing that the Kings don’t make a lot of threes themselves. But to be pretty much the worst in defending it tells me this season will continue to be disappointing unless there is some big changes.
But I don’t know how much meaningful improvement we can realistically expect in the defensive side of the things. We’re at a place now where teams set season highs seemingly every other game.
We can expect the Kings to shoot the three a little better themselves but I’m expecting at the least a -20 from behind the arch every night at this point.
But this team has definitely stagnated and it’s depressing watching these teams like San Antonio and Houston pass us up when 2 years ago we were hopeful the Kings were on the trajectory to being real contenders by now. But just an unbalanced roster and front office that may be out of ideas.
It very well could be. They put a guy in charge of the defense who came on the sidelines as Fox' trainer. Most good teams have very experienced former head coaches in charge of the defense, like the Clippers with Van Gundy.
Seemed like an odd assignment at the beginning of the season and really does now
Seemed like an odd assignment at the beginning of the season and really does now
First half: Kings had 5 3PM , Spurs had 13 3PM. Spurs were +8 in 3PM but the Kings won the half by 7 points.
Second half: Kings had 7 3PM, Spurs had 10 3PM. Spurs were +3 in 3PM and the Spurs won the half by 9 points.
To look at the final box score and say that this 3PM gap of +11 in favor of the Spurs tells the full story of the game is just laziness to me. Clearly based on the above data there's more going on here than just an inability on the part of the Kings to shoot threes or defend the 3pt line. As much as it sucks watching a team eat into the Kings lead by making shot after shot outside the 3pt arc, I don't see how anyone can look at the results of these two halves of basketball and conclude that the Kings lost because of 3pt shooting.
If you actually care about why the Kings lost this game, the question to ask and answer is what did the Kings do better in the first half against the Spurs (a half which they won by 7 pts) than they did in the second half (which they lost by 9 pts)?
Defend the 3? Nope. The Spurs shot 13 for 26 in the first half and 10 for 20 in the second half.
Shoot the three? Nope. The Kings shot 5 for 15 in the first half and 7 for 17 in the second half.
So let's stop focusing only on three's and instead look at offensive and defensive efficiency...
OFFENSE:
In the first quarter the Kings had 25 offensive possessions and they scored in 19 of them. (76% efficiency)
In the second quarter the Kings had 27 offensive possessions and they scored in 12 of them. (44% efficiency)
The Kings combined total for the first half was 52 total offensive possessions and they scored points in 31 of them. (59.6% efficiency)
In the third quarter the Kings had 25 offensive possessions and they scored in 14 of them. (56% efficiency)
In the fourth quarter the Kings had 23 offensive possessions and they scored in 13 of them. (56.5% efficiency)
The Kings combined total for the second half was 48 offensive possessions and they scored points in 27 of them. (56.3% efficiency)
DEFENSE:
In the first quarter the Spurs had 27 offensive possessions and they scored in 11 of them. (40.7% efficiency)
In the second quarter the Spurs had 26 offensive possessions and they scored in 11 of them. (42.3% efficiency)
The Spurs combined total for the first half was 53 total offensive possessions and they scored points in 22 of them. (41.5% efficiency)
In the third quarter the Spurs had 25 offensive possessions and they scored in 14 of them. (56% efficiency)
In the fourth quarter the Spurs had 24 offensive possessions and they scored in 16 of them. (66.6% efficiency)
The Spurs combined total for the second half was 49 total offensive possessions and they scored points in 30 of them. (61.2% efficiency)
A couple notes here...
I'm counting trips down the floor as offensive possessions, not shot attempts. If a team gets an offensive rebound and another shot attempt on the same trip down the floor they increase their odds of scoring on that trip but I'm still counting that all as one offensive possession.
In that fourth quarter -- easily the Spurs best quarter on offense -- 5 of those successful possessions came from a 5 minute stretch from 11:10 remaining to 6:11 remaining when the Spurs made 5 trips to the free throw line. This is the stretch which determined the outcome of the game in my opinion. Up to that point in the game the Spurs had been averaging around 46% efficiency on their offensive possessions. If you remove those 5 successful trips their fourth quarter efficiency drops to 45.8%.
I think this data correlates a lot more with the end result than the 3PM data does. The Kings were more efficient at scoring the basketball in the first half and they won the half by 7 points. The Spurs were more efficient at scoring the basketball in the second half -- particularly in the fourth quarter -- and they won the half by 9 points. This is what I've been trying to argue for all season -- valuing possessions and putting any number of points on the board when you have the ball is more important than making sure you get more 3pt shots to fall than your opponent.
Second half: Kings had 7 3PM, Spurs had 10 3PM. Spurs were +3 in 3PM and the Spurs won the half by 9 points.
To look at the final box score and say that this 3PM gap of +11 in favor of the Spurs tells the full story of the game is just laziness to me. Clearly based on the above data there's more going on here than just an inability on the part of the Kings to shoot threes or defend the 3pt line. As much as it sucks watching a team eat into the Kings lead by making shot after shot outside the 3pt arc, I don't see how anyone can look at the results of these two halves of basketball and conclude that the Kings lost because of 3pt shooting.
If you actually care about why the Kings lost this game, the question to ask and answer is what did the Kings do better in the first half against the Spurs (a half which they won by 7 pts) than they did in the second half (which they lost by 9 pts)?
Defend the 3? Nope. The Spurs shot 13 for 26 in the first half and 10 for 20 in the second half.
Shoot the three? Nope. The Kings shot 5 for 15 in the first half and 7 for 17 in the second half.
So let's stop focusing only on three's and instead look at offensive and defensive efficiency...
OFFENSE:
In the first quarter the Kings had 25 offensive possessions and they scored in 19 of them. (76% efficiency)
In the second quarter the Kings had 27 offensive possessions and they scored in 12 of them. (44% efficiency)
The Kings combined total for the first half was 52 total offensive possessions and they scored points in 31 of them. (59.6% efficiency)
In the third quarter the Kings had 25 offensive possessions and they scored in 14 of them. (56% efficiency)
In the fourth quarter the Kings had 23 offensive possessions and they scored in 13 of them. (56.5% efficiency)
The Kings combined total for the second half was 48 offensive possessions and they scored points in 27 of them. (56.3% efficiency)
DEFENSE:
In the first quarter the Spurs had 27 offensive possessions and they scored in 11 of them. (40.7% efficiency)
In the second quarter the Spurs had 26 offensive possessions and they scored in 11 of them. (42.3% efficiency)
The Spurs combined total for the first half was 53 total offensive possessions and they scored points in 22 of them. (41.5% efficiency)
In the third quarter the Spurs had 25 offensive possessions and they scored in 14 of them. (56% efficiency)
In the fourth quarter the Spurs had 24 offensive possessions and they scored in 16 of them. (66.6% efficiency)
The Spurs combined total for the second half was 49 total offensive possessions and they scored points in 30 of them. (61.2% efficiency)
A couple notes here...
I'm counting trips down the floor as offensive possessions, not shot attempts. If a team gets an offensive rebound and another shot attempt on the same trip down the floor they increase their odds of scoring on that trip but I'm still counting that all as one offensive possession.
In that fourth quarter -- easily the Spurs best quarter on offense -- 5 of those successful possessions came from a 5 minute stretch from 11:10 remaining to 6:11 remaining when the Spurs made 5 trips to the free throw line. This is the stretch which determined the outcome of the game in my opinion. Up to that point in the game the Spurs had been averaging around 46% efficiency on their offensive possessions. If you remove those 5 successful trips their fourth quarter efficiency drops to 45.8%.
I think this data correlates a lot more with the end result than the 3PM data does. The Kings were more efficient at scoring the basketball in the first half and they won the half by 7 points. The Spurs were more efficient at scoring the basketball in the second half -- particularly in the fourth quarter -- and they won the half by 9 points. This is what I've been trying to argue for all season -- valuing possessions and putting any number of points on the board when you have the ball is more important than making sure you get more 3pt shots to fall than your opponent.
Interesting analysis. I would imagine that the poor refereeing commented on by several posters, including myself, had a hand in that 61.2% efficiency in the fourth quarter. On the other hand, NBA games for as long as I can remember tend to ramp up in intensity in the fourth, and San Antonio did that successfully.
Edit: I just watched Malik Monk's postgame comments. He blamed the loss in part to defensive miscommunication, which led to wide-open threes for the other team. That is definitely something that can be corrected. He and Fox can both be very vocal and that may help going forward.
Edit: I just watched Malik Monk's postgame comments. He blamed the loss in part to defensive miscommunication, which led to wide-open threes for the other team. That is definitely something that can be corrected. He and Fox can both be very vocal and that may help going forward.
Last edited:
The Kings can still turn this around with this build but I think they should have followed the Nuggets blueprint in terms of building and as talented as he is I don't think they needed Demar. They needed an Aaron Gordon (Issac Jones showed some of that). It's a shame Jerami Grant was so expensive contract wise.
Other than the loss, it would have been an exciting game to be at and the crowd seemed really engaged. Totally agree with everything you said though, this is beyond frustrating to constantly be giving other teams career nights. Tonight was a new Spurs record…
https://www.lovenba.com/1492462/
https://www.lovenba.com/1492462/
I will not speak with numbers but with what I have seen in yesterday's match and in general in the majority of the matches this season.
About last night... Kings had that early lead that they kept till the 3rd quarter due to that amazing 1st quarter performance (42 points I think they most we scored in a quarter this season, saw a tweet I think) BUT the fact that we allowed so many open 3s with multiple players lazy to close out in different situations, kept the Spurs close and since they never stopped having this 50% with so many 3s eventually won the match because the Kings couldn't go on with what they did in Q1 in offense.
In general during the season most of the teams shot well from behind the line against us and they either took an early lead that made the Kings fall back from early on and chase the score or helped our opponents turned things around because we are the team that has the most blackouts (failing to make a shot for 5+ minutes) by far in the league. Also since we mostly shoot bricks from downtown, it's a common habit to answer a 3 of the team we play against with one of our own, and it doesn't end up well.
Hitting our three is something that cannot be "fixed" at least not so easily and is not so easy to be "taught" especially in the middle of the season, but fixing the defense to guard the 3s and not allowing so many open or wide open ones (we were 2nd worst in the league behind Atlanta some days ago) is something that should have been done much sooner but still no improvement. If we find a way to play the whole match like yesterday's Q1 or the last 6' at Minnesota we could beat anybody BUT we cannot do that.
Also, this "rotation" changes the whole time, new faces, going from 7-8 players to 11-12, quick subs after 3', yesterday there was a point that 3 players or 4 players were subbed at the same time, we didn't even do those things in the preseason that supposingly we were trying things, but instead we went with "free flow" in all matches, lost all of them but "don't worry it's just friendlies".
The team needs to be "electrocuted" (dunno the term in English) so this "shock" will wake them up cause things go from bad to worse... no idea what that can be, but changing just a starter in the lineup isn't the solution. I agree with Monk starting, it was obvious that with him on the floor from early on we had our best start of the season but MB needs to adjust the rotation moving forward and not "trying many things to see if they work with many subs".
About the refs I doubt things will change, even Katey called it "a travesty" that foul on Domas at the end that wasn't called, someone asked "doesn't NBA care about the fans" well sorry but they care about the big markets and the faces that they use as part of their marketing. Wemby for instance got some superstar calls that he wouldn't get last season when the Spurs weren't competitive.
On the bright side so not to sound too pessimistic like I mentioned Monk starting is a good sign, Isaac Jones can really help us and bringing Crowder might do as well. McDermott that everybody agreed was a good addition is either used wrong (reminds me a bit of Sasha last season) or can't help the team no matter what.
About last night... Kings had that early lead that they kept till the 3rd quarter due to that amazing 1st quarter performance (42 points I think they most we scored in a quarter this season, saw a tweet I think) BUT the fact that we allowed so many open 3s with multiple players lazy to close out in different situations, kept the Spurs close and since they never stopped having this 50% with so many 3s eventually won the match because the Kings couldn't go on with what they did in Q1 in offense.
In general during the season most of the teams shot well from behind the line against us and they either took an early lead that made the Kings fall back from early on and chase the score or helped our opponents turned things around because we are the team that has the most blackouts (failing to make a shot for 5+ minutes) by far in the league. Also since we mostly shoot bricks from downtown, it's a common habit to answer a 3 of the team we play against with one of our own, and it doesn't end up well.
Hitting our three is something that cannot be "fixed" at least not so easily and is not so easy to be "taught" especially in the middle of the season, but fixing the defense to guard the 3s and not allowing so many open or wide open ones (we were 2nd worst in the league behind Atlanta some days ago) is something that should have been done much sooner but still no improvement. If we find a way to play the whole match like yesterday's Q1 or the last 6' at Minnesota we could beat anybody BUT we cannot do that.
Also, this "rotation" changes the whole time, new faces, going from 7-8 players to 11-12, quick subs after 3', yesterday there was a point that 3 players or 4 players were subbed at the same time, we didn't even do those things in the preseason that supposingly we were trying things, but instead we went with "free flow" in all matches, lost all of them but "don't worry it's just friendlies".
The team needs to be "electrocuted" (dunno the term in English) so this "shock" will wake them up cause things go from bad to worse... no idea what that can be, but changing just a starter in the lineup isn't the solution. I agree with Monk starting, it was obvious that with him on the floor from early on we had our best start of the season but MB needs to adjust the rotation moving forward and not "trying many things to see if they work with many subs".
About the refs I doubt things will change, even Katey called it "a travesty" that foul on Domas at the end that wasn't called, someone asked "doesn't NBA care about the fans" well sorry but they care about the big markets and the faces that they use as part of their marketing. Wemby for instance got some superstar calls that he wouldn't get last season when the Spurs weren't competitive.
On the bright side so not to sound too pessimistic like I mentioned Monk starting is a good sign, Isaac Jones can really help us and bringing Crowder might do as well. McDermott that everybody agreed was a good addition is either used wrong (reminds me a bit of Sasha last season) or can't help the team no matter what.
- Status